LTM image quality

[Peter58]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi people,

 

I shoot using M5 and Leica M lenses from the Summilux 50mm f/1.4, Elmar 90mm f/4 and Elmar 135mm f/4 and the IQ is very good. I also own a LTM Summitar 50mm f/2 lens a Summaron 35mm f/3.5 and I was thinking the IQ is also very good.

 

I am short on funds so when I ventured into the world of Barnack cameras I purchased two very inexpensive FSU or Russian made Barnack LTM cameras. A Zorki 1c and a FED 1g. I also got the Russain ELmar 50mm f/3.5 collapsible lenses a Zorki and a FED. The FED is a pre-war version with the old style f/18 aperture.

 

Recently I calibrated my Zorki's horizontal focus. But when I look at images taken before that. I am not all that happy with the IQ. Especially since one of my LTM lenses is a new Voightlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/3.5 lens.

 

I am going to just use the M5 and my Leica lenses for a while and try to prove to myself that it's better equipment. It is possible I just went through a time perriod where my own photographic skills abanoned me.

 

Do you people have any experience with these older FSU cameras and lenses. I do not want to blame them alone as I am sure, but at least some of my bad shots were done with the LTM Summitar and Summaron. But I do not remember if they were on the Barnack's or the M5.

 

Are the M lenses really noticable better in IQ than LTM? This may be hard to tell because if you are like me by the time you get the prints back you have forgotten which camera and which lens was used. I have (4) 50mm's so that's the hardest focal length to figure out which lens, other than the Summilux which is just a fantastic lens. The Summitar 50mm f/2 has those unusual multiple aperture blades that still do not form a perfectly round aperture, so I feel I can look at the bokeh and the background in general and see if that lens was used. The other (2) are the FSU Elmar 50mm f/3.5 collapsible lenses that look a little like "old time photography" so I can usually tell if one of these lenses were used.

 

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 in LTM I have always thought to be as good as an M series lens. I can tell when I use it also because of the 35mm field of view. I guess this is the lens that I am really asking about if it's IQ is as good as an M series lens.

 

I'm not too happy with my Voightlander 28mm f/3.5 Color-Skopar lens. I was happy with it but the latest images are somewhat of a let down.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

Hmm only a Leica can be a Barnack camera, the others are simply LTM cameras.

 

The Leica LTM lenses are generally very good - much now depends on their physical quality (haze, scratches etc). The 5cm Elmar is a lens which stands up particularly well to anything else IMHO. I have a really nice Summar, a lens famous for being 'soft' but its perfectly sharp right up to the edges. Again the 'soft' ones are those damaged by cleaning marks or just hazy/dusty examples.

 

Likewise I have good experience of the VC lenses. Russian lenses are famous for their variable quality - you might have a peach or a lemon. I wouldn't put too much hope in them but if you have one which works then great.

 

The most recent M lenses will be noticeably different to the earlier lenses, more contrasty and sharper definately but not always 'better'.

 

Reading between the lines I suspect you may have a problem with your Zorki rangefinder. I would suggest using your M5 and shooting with each lens side by side to make a fair comparison.

[Peter58]

Hello James,

You know in other forums whenever I mention the Zorki 1c and FED 1g Russian made cameras I have always described them as "Barnack Copies". So please forgive this one time misrepresentation of the facts, it was an error. But your comment has got me thinking now. In my honest opinion, everyone who owns a FSU copy of a Barnack camera knows it's not a Leica and is only a Russian copy.

I would say the phrase Barnack camera firstly describes a real Leica early rangefinder camera using the Leica Thread Mount, secondly it can be used to describe a type of camera. I'm sure you know the Russians made off with the tools and die's made in Germany that the Germans used to manufacture the Leica Barnack Rangefinder cameras and brought them to Russia and started production of their own Barnack cameras. In the beginning they faithfully reproduced and copied the Barnack camera and only later did thay make changes. So originaly the Russian's were using the actual same tools and same design, only instead of German people the Russian people made the camera. So who are you and I to say the FSU cameras are not Barnack type cameras? I would say they are not Leica Barnack cameras, but rather Russian Barnack copy cameras. The phrase you use "LTM" is really not close to describing them other than the lens mount. You must know that these early FSU cameras are actually the same cameras as the Leica Barnack originals. With the difference is that they were made in Russia and not made in Germany.

 

If I can make a humorus story here. If Oskar Barnack was shown one of these Russian made cameras, do you think he would say "Hey, that's an LTM camera"? I think he would say "Hey that's a Russian made copy of my camera". So that is just another thought as to why I think they are Russian Barnack copy cameras and not LTM cameras.

 

Sorry, but sometime even nice people like you who mean well, when they point out an insignificant part of my post, do kind of get me thinking about what it is they said and are tyring to imply. Hence this long off-topic reply.

 

Anyway, I have already adjusted the horizonal rangefinder of both the Zorki 1c and the FED 1g cameras as they were ever so little out of focus at infinity. I'm sure this effected the focus throughout the entire focal range of each camera. I adjusted the FED a while back and adjusted the Zorki just the other day.

 

Also I have decided to shoot the M5 using Leitz/Leica lenses only for a while so as to be sure I know what I'm doing. Then I will go back to my original plan of shooting with the M5 and the FSU Barnack camera copies and Elmar Lenses again-side by side with the M5. A FSU Elmar on the Zorki 1g and the Voightlander Colar-Skopar on the FED.

 

I appreciate your reply and please do not be offended by my long -off topic reply.

Also please do not think that we should continue to argue about Barnack cameras, as that is not my intent.

 

Also

Hmm only a Leica can be a Barnack camera, the others are simply LTM cameras.

 

The Leica LTM lenses are generally very good - much now depends on their physical quality (haze, scratches etc). The 5cm Elmar is a lens which stands up particularly well to anything else IMHO. I have a really nice Summar, a lens famous for being 'soft' but its perfectly sharp right up to the edges. Again the 'soft' ones are those damaged by cleaning marks or just hazy/dusty examples.

 

Likewise I have good experience of the VC lenses. Russian lenses are famous for their variable quality - you might have a peach or a lemon. I wouldn't put too much hope in them but if you have one which works then great.

 

The most recent M lenses will be noticeably different to the earlier lenses, more contrasty and sharper definately but not always 'better'.

 

Reading between the lines I suspect you may have a problem with your Zorki rangefinder. I would suggest using your M5 and shooting with each lens side by side to make a fair comparison.

[Nando]

Best of luck with with the Zorki and Fed cameras Peter. I myself have a Zorki 1c. It looks and feels great but unfortunately I've had tremendous problems with the shutter on my camera.

 

I have an Industar-22 50f3.5 and Jupiter-12 35f2.8 that came with the camera. I like both lenses. The Industar-22 is especially good. I plan on getting rid of the body someday but I'll be keeping the lenses.

[Michael Hiles]

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 in LTM I have always thought to be as good as an M series lens. I can tell when I use it also because of the 35mm field of view. I guess this is the lens that I am really asking about if it's IQ is as good as an M series lens.

 

I believe that the Summaron 3.5 was the same regardless of the mount - M or LTM. Very nice lens. It has been improved on, but it still produces very fine images on my M2 that I will show anyone without apologies or excuses.

 

Can't comment on anything else.

[marke]

I have an Industar-22 50f3.5 and Jupiter-12 35f2.8 that came with the camera. I like both lenses. The Industar-22 is especially good. I plan on getting rid of the body someday but I'll be keeping the lenses.

 

I have a Zorki 1e that came with a Industar-22 50/f3.5, and I'm very happy with the IQ. I have heard that the quality of the Russian lenses varied quite a bit, but I've also heard from others that they sometimes even exceed the quality of the equivalent lens by Leitz. I have never used a genuine Elmar 50/f3.5, so I can't say how it would compare to my Industar-22. I just know that it can stand on it's own with many other lenses of that era. And it seems to be be difficult to even find a clean 50/f3.5 Elmar these days, where as the equivalent Industars are all over the place.

 

Closed down...

 

 

And open wide...

 

[Ludwig Gretch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Jupiter 8 f2 - 50mm, if clean and well adjusted, can be a good lens.

Dave.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Peter58]

There are sites that show how to adjust your shutter. Remove base plate and look at the bottom of the film shutter box. Adjust the screw nearest the rear side of the box for the inside shutter. The screw adjusts the spring tension.

The screw nearest the front of the camera adjusts the front curtain.

Find a site that shows how and give iy a try.

Or just get it CLA'D.

Or get another camera for $69 from FEDCA.com

 

Good Luck

 

Best of luck with with the Zorki and Fed cameras Peter. I myself have a Zorki 1c. It looks and feels great but unfortunately I've had tremendous problems with the shutter on my camera.

 

I have an Industar-22 50f3.5 and Jupiter-12 35f2.8 that came with the camera. I like both lenses. The Industar-22 is especially good. I plan on getting rid of the body someday but I'll be keeping the lenses.

[Peter58]

Mike I checked and you are right. Previously the lens was a good performer. So I'm beginning to thing it is Waldgreens 1 hr photo lab that is doing a really poor job with my prints. Out of 9 rolls I did not like most of the prints. Last year they were all good using the same gear.

 

I believe that the Summaron 3.5 was the same regardless of the mount - M or LTM. Very nice lens. It has been improved on, but it still produces very fine images on my M2 that I will show anyone without apologies or excuses.

 

Can't comment on anything else.

[Peter58]

I agree the FSU gear is just fine. Early cameras have the same spec's as Leica much of the time.

I have a Zorki 1e that came with a Industar-22 50/f3.5, and I'm very happy with the IQ. I have heard that the quality of the Russian lenses varied quite a bit, but I've also heard from others that they sometimes even exceed the quality of the equivalent lens by Leitz. I have never used a genuine Elmar 50/f3.5, so I can't say how it would compare to my Industar-22. I just know that it can stand on it's own with many other lenses of that era. And it seems to be be difficult to even find a clean 50/f3.5 Elmar these days, where as the equivalent Industars are all over the place.

 

Closed down...

 

 

And open wide...

 

[Robert J]

Hello James,

You know in other forums whenever I mention the Zorki 1c and FED 1g Russian made cameras I have always described them as "Barnack Copies". So please forgive this one time misrepresentation of the facts, it was an error. But your comment has got me thinking now. In my honest opinion, everyone who owns a FSU copy of a Barnack camera knows it's not a Leica and is only a Russian copy.

I would say the phrase Barnack camera firstly describes a real Leica early rangefinder camera using the Leica Thread Mount, secondly it can be used to describe a type of camera. I'm sure you know the Russians made off with the tools and die's made in Germany that the Germans used to manufacture the Leica Barnack Rangefinder cameras and brought them to Russia and started production of their own Barnack cameras. In the beginning they faithfully reproduced and copied the Barnack camera and only later did thay make changes. So originaly the Russian's were using the actual same tools and same design, only instead of German people the Russian people made the camera. So who are you and I to say the FSU cameras are not Barnack type cameras? I would say they are not Leica Barnack cameras, but rather Russian Barnack copy cameras. The phrase you use "LTM" is really not close to describing them other than the lens mount. You must know that these early FSU cameras are actually the same cameras as the Leica Barnack originals. With the difference is that they were made in Russia and not made in Germany.

 

If I can make a humorus story here. If Oskar Barnack was shown one of these Russian made cameras, do you think he would say "Hey, that's an LTM camera"? I think he would say "Hey that's a Russian made copy of my camera". So that is just another thought as to why I think they are Russian Barnack copy cameras and not LTM cameras.

 

Sorry, but sometime even nice people like you who mean well, when they point out an insignificant part of my post, do kind of get me thinking about what it is they said and are tyring to imply. Hence this long off-topic reply.

 

Anyway, I have already adjusted the horizonal rangefinder of both the Zorki 1c and the FED 1g cameras as they were ever so little out of focus at infinity. I'm sure this effected the focus throughout the entire focal range of each camera. I adjusted the FED a while back and adjusted the Zorki just the other day.

 

Also I have decided to shoot the M5 using Leitz/Leica lenses only for a while so as to be sure I know what I'm doing. Then I will go back to my original plan of shooting with the M5 and the FSU Barnack camera copies and Elmar Lenses again-side by side with the M5. A FSU Elmar on the Zorki 1g and the Voightlander Colar-Skopar on the FED.

 

I appreciate your reply and please do not be offended by my long -off topic reply.

Also please do not think that we should continue to argue about Barnack cameras, as that is not my intent.

 

Also

The story tha t the Russians carried off the tools and dies for the leica cameras after WWII,carried them back to russia and commenced producing leica copies is not true.Wetzlar was in the western half of Germany and was never occupied by Russian troops.A similar incident did happen,but it involved the Russians making off with the tools and dies for the Contax camera when they occupied Dresden.They were moved to Kiev in Ukraine where they were used to make Contax copies under the Kiev name until the 1980's.The first Russian copies of the leica date from the 1930's,several years before the war started.

[earleygallery]

The story tha t the Russians carried off the tools and dies for the leica cameras after WWII,carried them back to russia and commenced producing leica copies is not true.Wetzlar was in the western half of Germany and was never occupied by Russian troops.A similar incident did happen,but it involved the Russians making off with the tools and dies for the Contax camera when they occupied Dresden.They were moved to Kiev in Ukraine where they were used to make Contax copies under the Kiev name until the 1980's.The first Russian copies of the leica date from the 1930's,several years before the war started.

 

Thanks for the clarification - I must admit I was pretty certain that the Russian 'Leica's' were copies, not made from captured tooling. This would explain why the Russian cameras have some clear differences in their design.

 

I have a later Zorki, a Zorki 4 I think it is, with Jupiter 8 lens. Both work very well indeed, the lens is very good, although I've not used either for years. I paid £13 for body & lens at a camera fair.

[bill]

I meant to chip in on this thread a couple of days ago, but I got distracted

 

I have a Leica II which I use regularly. I picked up a Fed - I don't know the model but it is functionally identical to my II - a couple of months ago. I have run a couple of rolls of film through it since then, both with the Industar lens it came with and my "Earley Elmar" - the one I bought from James a year or so ago. The results are indistinguishable from those of my II, as you would expect, but the "user experience" is very different. I could tell the two apart blindfold, wearing ear muffs and mittens. The Fed is much rougher in it's feel - both the tactility of the controls and their functioning. Wind on and rewind feels like I'm milling wheat. The II, by comparison, is silky-smooth. I freely admit that the CLA carried out on the II by CRR of Luton will have some bearing on this, but I used it before and after and never was it as agricultural as the Fed.

 

I'll keep the Fed - it's fun to have a change occasionally - but it's the II for me.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Peter58]

I just did a lot of reading about this yesterday 6/14/2009 and yes you are correct. I was misinformed, I think by Cameraquest.

 

The story tha t the Russians carried off the tools and dies for the leica cameras after WWII,carried them back to russia and commenced producing leica copies is not true.Wetzlar was in the western half of Germany and was never occupied by Russian troops.A similar incident did happen,but it involved the Russians making off with the tools and dies for the Contax camera when they occupied Dresden.They were moved to Kiev in Ukraine where they were used to make Contax copies under the Kiev name until the 1980's.The first Russian copies of the leica date from the 1930's,several years before the war started.

[Peter58]

Your Zorki 4 is a FSU redesign with changes in body style and improvements as well.The Zorki 1 series is a Leica II Barnack Camera that was reversed enginered (copied) by the Soviets.

 

Thanks for the clarification - I must admit I was pretty certain that the Russian 'Leica's' were copies, not made from captured tooling. This would explain why the Russian cameras have some clear differences in their design.

 

I have a later Zorki, a Zorki 4 I think it is, with Jupiter 8 lens. Both work very well indeed, the lens is very good, although I've not used either for years. I paid £13 for body & lens at a camera fair.

[brianv]

I've adjusted a lot (50 or more) J-3's and J-8's to work with LTM cameras. The FSU LTM cameras are built to the Contax focal length standard. The Contax "normal" lens is ~52.4mm, slightly longer than what the Leica RF is calibrated for. Typically, adding 0.1mm of shim will do the trick. However, FSU lenses were supposed to be shimmed for us on individual cameras. That adds a lot to the variable performance on FSU lenses. Once shimmed, most FSU lenses are good performers.

 

1953 J-3 wide-open at F1.5, on a Leica standard camera. This lens required that the helical be repositioned in the lens mount, and then shimmed for use. Funny thing- screw taps were already in the helical at the "new position". It had been moved for someone else's camera.