Finally someone demonstrating finger-zip winding. You can do it up at your eye, too, of course. As if there weren’t enough great reasons to shoot barnacks.
I spent time pondering just this choice 13 years ago. I chose a 1951 IIIf with a 1951 50mm ƒ/2 Summitar collapsing lens. I have never regretted my decision.
About 15 years ago, I bought a IIIG, to me the most beautiful of the Barnack's cameras, with a 1.5 Summarit. Two years later, I changed it by an M3 with a collapsible Summicron. One year later, I regretted it because the M3, although being more modern than the IIIG, it didn't give the same pleasure to hold and shoot with. About 5 years later with the high demanding prices for the M3, I sold it and bought a Canon 7s, which gives me better shooting feeling and usability than the M3, a Leotax F, like a IIIf but the size of a IIIg, an excellent camera that filled the lack I felt for the Barnack look, and a bunch of japanese and russian L39 lenses. And I'm very happy. So yes, you are right, the Barnack Leicas are a real pleasure to use, if we know how to, thetmy are easy to use and, they give something indefinable that the M series just can't. Liked a lot your video
It's very personal and somewhat subjective but that is part of using a camera. As for me I would not exchange any of these cameras for my M6 (I have owned and used both the ones mentioned above). Again subjective and personal (although there are also a few implemented technical features that I do enjoy on the M6 (range-finder, viewfinder, rewind crank, light meter).).
I'm in cross-over territory. I bought a IIIg. Although technically a Barnack Leica, it was released after the M2 and includes some of the innovations of the M2.
I recently bought my 1st ever Leica and it’s a IIIf black dial paired up with a Summitar 50mm f/2 and I used a roll of Kentmere 400 for testing. I wish I could share my images here, but I’m satisfied with my decision I made of purchasing the camera. Maybe one day I’ll get into the M system
I tend to think a camera has a jen ne sais quois (I probably mispelled that). You have two cameras that are both good quality, nothing wrong with either of them. But one of them just seems to have that special something, that it factor. I guess just because of the purer essence of the design and the camera, I just liked the Barnacks better.
nice, I didn't know the whole finger winding really was a thing, I just recently thought about why nobody is doing that. The M is better for people wearing glasses because of the bigger viewfinder I think, that beeing said I just bought a barnack-style Canon IV SB2 and am able to use that one with glasses as well.
Hello Fil ! Very intresting video ! Thx alot for all the Barnack Tips you gave away ! I especially appreciate "the counting to 20 holes" before cutting the film + the finger-zip winding ! Practice on my IIIg is on my agenda. I immediately subscribed to your channel ! You have lovely pictures on your website. Greatings from Antwerp, Take Care, Roger.
I was lucky to find a IIIf a couple years ago and I love it. I’ve never tried an M series so I can’t compare that, but the small size of the Barnack is really nice.
Yes and the viewfinder (base and clarity), the easiness of using it, changing lenses, loading film, unloading and rewinding it, are really nice too. And by the way I have a IIIg too (for the sake of it, because I had an opportunity, but I do not use it) and have compared M and Barnack cameras.
Correct me, if I am wrong: I think, because of the magnification the rangefinder in the III is more accurate. Plus you can adjust it to your eye-sight, so you can use it without glasses. For me, thats a big PLUS. Thanx for the nice video... Regards, Stephan
Yes one advantage that the III series has over the M series (to this day) is the dioptric adjustment of the viewfinder. It is probably a matter of space and complexity (with the multiple potential frames) that prevented Leica from implementing it to the M series and it has been a cause of great personal frustration ! ;o)
For those who love Barnacks just put a new Voigtlander skopar lens on them and you are shooting state of the art lenses. Also the whole gamut of Canon LTM lenses can widen your horizon.
I’m shooting digital with an SL and an M11, but I’ve had great fun experimenting with the old collapsible lenses, very low contrast, but a surprising amount of detail, even at 24 MP, so the lenses while old and characterful, will still out resolve film if that matters. At some point I may reverse back into a film body and I have to admit that I’d still probably go for an M3 or an M-P, however I completely get the concept of just using a Barnack with a collapsible lens. As for changing lenses, I don’t switch lenses that much. In reality I think Leica would do incredibly well if they stuck a 50mm lens on a Q body.
Hmmm, those old collapsible 50 mm lenses are compact but the mentioned resolving qualities only apply to the center. Once fully opened, the corners of the obtained images are quite soft. They show a lot of flare and color rendition is far from being optimal so they are better suitable for BW film (as mentioned in the video). "Character" has become the new "flawed"... it is impressive and amusing how vocabulary evolves ;o) Going back to the Q/Q2 the question that has been often raised is why they did not use a 35 mm lens (one of the most used of all Leica lenses, just looking at the number of versions is a good indication), the answer might lie in SONY's R1 35 mm lens. I do not think nowadays a Q3 with a 50 mm would draw as wide an audience as the Q2 with its 28mm droppable to pseudo 35 and 50, or a Q3 with a 35 mm. We'll see... although I think Leica found its perfect silver bullet with the Q2.
Leica should design a new film Leica rangefinder that fits more closely with the Barnack. If Olympus could do it with the XA why not Leica? are they afraid that would take the market away from the MA and MP?
Before closing a Barnack Leica you really should be sure the sprockets have engaged the film holes, you can see the bottom sprocket teeth. And if hand cutting the leader be very sure not to cut through a sprocket hole to leave a sharp edge capable of shutter curtain damage.
Beautiful comparison, very entertaining, thanks! Love the LTMs and the look old lenses give. But I believe it was rather Kodak with their Retinas who brought 35mm film to the masses 😅.
No, Leica/Leitz released the Leica I in the mid 1920s, and Kodak/Nagel's Retinas era only began in the mid-1930s. (beliefs and facts are sometimes different ;o).
@@BrunoChalifour The Leica I was sold at around 70.000 pieces until about 1932 (Hasbroek), which is a high number. But it was a very expensive camera. The Retina I alone (!) was sold from 1934-1939 in a quantity of 266.000 pieces (Helmut Nagel).
@@sentimental7167 Still Oskar Barnack was the one who invented the first camera using 35 mm ciné film in 1914 (UR) which was then marketed in 1924-25 and others followed. So let us say that Leica brought 35 mm film cameras to photography if it is just the interpretation of "to the masses" that you think is ambiguous ;o)
I lucked up. I got a IIIa with Summar that had barely been used. A man got it from his aunt, who bought it new. She used it a few times and put it in a drawer. I don't think he had ever used it.
Nice video. The beauty of shooting Leica is never about speed, plenty of options if that is the prerogative. A slow immersive experience is what draws me. The Barnacks are just a wonderful thing to hold. As a note, my IIIg has 90mm frame lines (I just don’t have a 90mm lens!)
Believe me if you use a Leica for professional reasons and street photography the ease of Leica M is a plus. They cannot do everything, neither M nor Barnacks, but when speed is involved, and it can be, an M is superior to a Barnack; it is just a more efficient tool.
The small viewfinder of the III series is the dealbreaker for me. Even on the IIIG it's really too small for effective composition. This may not bother some people, but I like to compose my shots, not just aim the camera.
Valid point about the smaller viewfinder, and the fact that if you shoot from the hip it wouldn't matter. But I'm with you on getting a good view before you release the shutter.
You can use LTM lenses on a M body so I am not sure the lenses comparison is truly relevant. I think the only pro of the III is the pocketability. For the rest, the M stands up easily IMHO. The viewfinder on the Barnacks is too much of a pain for me; I would pick an M everyday if budget is no concern.
For sure. The M is king, but I wanted people to know that you can have fun with a Barnack too. There was a L39 camera by Canon that was a copy of the Barnack, but with a combined rangefinder-viewfinder like the M. I need to try one of those...
@@FilNenna Leica did not bring 35mm photography to the 'masses.' Leica cameras were & still are very expensive. The 'masses' couldn't in the past afford Leica cameras & the 'masses' cannot afford them today. That's like saying Rolls-Royce brought automobiles to the 'masses.'
@@autodidact537 You should do a price comparison of Leicas between the 1930s and the 1970s and see that the differences between camera and lens prices were not that great, far from it. What is true now (the price of a new M camera also makes it a luxury item, bought as such by some) was not true then so what is said in the video is right, all the more when in 1925 there was no competitor.
Nice thorough coverage of the two types of Leica cameras (Barnack and M) with a slight gentle bias though ;o) 39 mm Barnack lenses do not just have "character", they have optical flaws (huge flare for instance and very soft corners) that were later corrected and made Leica's reputation as a unique lens manufacturer: not only in terms of lens coating (which you rightfully mention) but also resolution and details not just in the corners but at wide apertures. Now the M series was, as you point out, a technological revolution: better film advance, better film loading (and unloading), better rangefinder (its base length, clarity, ease of use, better viewfinder (clarity and interchangeable frames which still make Leica's reputation), better rewinding system with the later film models, no separate knob for slow shutter speeds, and vastly improved lenses... in other word a more versatile system designed with higher precision, control, and technology that has established Leica's reputation and allows today's new customers to move smoothly into digital photography if tempted (the current digital Ms have just replaced film with a sensor, they function in the same way (rangefinder) and use the same lenses (M-mount). PS: zone focusing is also possible with Leica Ms, and, the problem for people who come to Leica for the first time is that there are tons of copies (both cameras and lenses) of a lesser built but stamped Leica Barnack products. Not the case with Ms. I have used Ms for 4 decades I also own 2 Barnack cameras, as curiosities and historical paperweights ( ;o) as I did not find using them very practical. Now with the current price of film (that will not decrease) I'd rather get a good negative (to which I can always give "character" in the darkroom or scanning it) than a poor one whose flaws I cannot fix. So yes the Barnack cameras are smaller and lighter... they are far less sophisticated, fast, versatile and precise photographic tools than the M series. The Barnack models constitute a niche camera more suited to queen hobbyist that professional photographers or the amateurs for whom the quality of the negative and the print matter. They do have "character" but that does not mean quality and versatile results. They can be fun burning film with, they remain fun for whom enjoys that type of fun, nothing more... and nothing less.
That is as much of a lens critique as it is a camera critique. Voigtlander made a number of 39mm screw mount lenses that incorporated modern glass and coating, including a collapsible lens. Using them with a "Barnack" largely eliminates any lens quality issues. I have the 50mm 1.5 in 39mm mount and it is an outstanding lens.
@@franktatom1837 Yes there are a few exceptions, meaning Voitglander has been making new (but not that recent in design) 39 mm lenses with modern coating, they definitely do not match their M-mount racehorses (as far as I know no Lanthar/Apochromatic lens, any aspherical ones? ;o). I use the whole surface of my negatives for information and exhibit prints 14"x21", most 39 mm-screw lenses show problems in the corners at wide apertures, problems that have been very successfully resolved in the recent M-mount lenses, Voigtlander included (I have an M-mount 50 mm Lanthar f. 2)..
@@franktatom1837 Read me please: "Now the M series was, as you point out, a technological revolution: better film advance, better film loading (and unloading), better rangefinder (its base length, clarity, ease of use, better viewfinder (clarity and interchangeable frames which still make Leica's reputation), better rewinding system with the later film models, no separate knob for slow shutter speeds, and vastly improved lenses... in other word a more versatile system designed with higher precision, control, and technology that has established Leica's reputation and allows today's new customers to move smoothly into digital photography if tempted (the current digital Ms have just replaced film with a sensor, they function in the same way (rangefinder) and use the same lenses (M-mount)." [not to mention included TTL light metering with M6s and M7s...]
I always wanted a Leica M2 or M3. Despite the cost of lenses i probably would be happy with just a 50mm. But i just dont feel i deserve one. I could scratch the itch with an older camera and think O would love owning and using it. But i shoot Nikon and have lots of Nikon glass. I would be too scared and precious about an m3. Mf FE anis battered and old, works and i can use it without worrying to much about its value or it taking a hit. Also its more modern and easier to use. Saying that im off to ebbay to look a Barnacs 😮😅
Nowadays you can get excellent very affordable Voigtlander or even TTartisan M-lenses at a portion of the cost of Leica lenses.[the deal is even sweeter if you get used ones].
Over some time, I have managed to collect ten various leicas including the M3. If I had to just keep one, which would be a terrible decision, it probably would be the IIIg. Or would it?!!!
Understandable nostalgia. But you neglect the enormous improvements in ease of operation and quality of the viewfinders. Older screw mount lenses, difficult to change, are very prone to flare.
@@fassie79 Devroombaghus does not denounce any problem but rather explains a rather obvious difference. If one needs to change lenses (and some do, sometimes several times during a session), changing a M lens on an M camera with their bayonet mount is far easier and faster than on a Barnack one. The superiority of the bayonet mount over the screw mount is such that all camera manufacturers adopted it. Do you know something they do not? ;o)
It's because the film gets loaded from the bottom and needs to connect to the sprockets when it gets wound on. Without a cut leader, it would be hindered by the sprockets as the film is pushed upwards.
@@FilNenna That's what Canon folks did, eh? Nevertheless, I wouldn't call composing with them "fun", because of the smallish window. And I wear glasses.
No they cannot! Starting with a limited viewfinder, a slow advance and rewind system, a cumbersome loading procedure... and lenses with more flaws (flare, resolution, color rendition) not "character". [this term has been recently coined by and for people who rediscovered Barnack cameras (and older film cameras) to, in my opinion, justify the poor quality of their results. As I used to say I can always make a photograph taken with a Hasselblad look like one taken with a Holga (cheap medium format film plastic camera) by adding visual parasites and decreasing resolution, the opposite is simply impossible. Let us be realistic here.
@@BrunoChalifour show me the difference in a photo taken with a film Leica M and a Leica III. Is a M a more modern camera? For sure, but it does not do anything different than what a III does. It may be more convenient, but if you know what you are doing the final result is the same.
Queen Elizabeth didn’t just hold a Leica … she was in fact a life long and very keen photographer.. and by all accounts very good…. She used a Leica not because she could afford one but because she appreciated what it was ..
Finally someone demonstrating finger-zip winding. You can do it up at your eye, too, of course. As if there weren’t enough great reasons to shoot barnacks.
I spent time pondering just this choice 13 years ago. I chose a 1951 IIIf with a 1951 50mm ƒ/2 Summitar collapsing lens. I have never regretted my decision.
Good for you. I made my decision for an M over 35 years ago and I have not regretted my decision either.
About 15 years ago, I bought a IIIG, to me the most beautiful of the Barnack's cameras, with a 1.5 Summarit. Two years later, I changed it by an M3 with a collapsible Summicron. One year later, I regretted it because the M3, although being more modern than the IIIG, it didn't give the same pleasure to hold and shoot with. About 5 years later with the high demanding prices for the M3, I sold it and bought a Canon 7s, which gives me better shooting feeling and usability than the M3, a Leotax F, like a IIIf but the size of a IIIg, an excellent camera that filled the lack I felt for the Barnack look, and a bunch of japanese and russian L39 lenses. And I'm very happy. So yes, you are right, the Barnack Leicas are a real pleasure to use, if we know how to, thetmy are easy to use and, they give something indefinable that the M series just can't. Liked a lot your video
It's very personal and somewhat subjective but that is part of using a camera. As for me I would not exchange any of these cameras for my M6 (I have owned and used both the ones mentioned above). Again subjective and personal (although there are also a few implemented technical features that I do enjoy on the M6 (range-finder, viewfinder, rewind crank, light meter).).
I'm in cross-over territory. I bought a IIIg. Although technically a Barnack Leica, it was released after the M2 and includes some of the innovations of the M2.
I recently bought my 1st ever Leica and it’s a IIIf black dial paired up with a Summitar 50mm f/2 and I used a roll of Kentmere 400 for testing. I wish I could share my images here, but I’m satisfied with my decision I made of purchasing the camera.
Maybe one day I’ll get into the M system
I tend to think a camera has a jen ne sais quois (I probably mispelled that). You have two cameras that are both good quality, nothing wrong with either of them. But one of them just seems to have that special something, that it factor. I guess just because of the purer essence of the design and the camera, I just liked the Barnacks better.
I have four Barack cameras and one M camera. That pretty much sums it up.
nice, I didn't know the whole finger winding really was a thing, I just recently thought about why nobody is doing that.
The M is better for people wearing glasses because of the bigger viewfinder I think, that beeing said I just bought a barnack-style Canon IV SB2 and am able to use that one with glasses as well.
Hello Fil ! Very intresting video ! Thx alot for all the Barnack Tips you gave away ! I especially appreciate "the counting to 20 holes" before cutting the film + the finger-zip winding ! Practice on my IIIg is on my agenda. I immediately subscribed to your channel ! You have lovely pictures on your website. Greatings from Antwerp, Take Care, Roger.
Glad you found the video useful! These Barnaks are lots of fun.
I was lucky to find a IIIf a couple years ago and I love it. I’ve never tried an M series so I can’t compare that, but the small size of the Barnack is really nice.
Yes and the viewfinder (base and clarity), the easiness of using it, changing lenses, loading film, unloading and rewinding it, are really nice too. And by the way I have a IIIg too (for the sake of it, because I had an opportunity, but I do not use it) and have compared M and Barnack cameras.
Correct me, if I am wrong: I think, because of the magnification the rangefinder in the III is more accurate. Plus you can adjust it to your eye-sight, so you can use it without glasses. For me, thats a big PLUS.
Thanx for the nice video...
Regards, Stephan
Yes one advantage that the III series has over the M series (to this day) is the dioptric adjustment of the viewfinder. It is probably a matter of space and complexity (with the multiple potential frames) that prevented Leica from implementing it to the M series and it has been a cause of great personal frustration ! ;o)
For those who love Barnacks just put a new Voigtlander skopar lens on them and you are shooting state of the art lenses. Also the whole gamut of Canon LTM lenses can widen your horizon.
I’m shooting digital with an SL and an M11, but I’ve had great fun experimenting with the old collapsible lenses, very low contrast, but a surprising amount of detail, even at 24 MP, so the lenses while old and characterful, will still out resolve film if that matters. At some point I may reverse back into a film body and I have to admit that I’d still probably go for an M3 or an M-P, however I completely get the concept of just using a Barnack with a collapsible lens. As for changing lenses, I don’t switch lenses that much. In reality I think Leica would do incredibly well if they stuck a 50mm lens on a Q body.
Hmmm, those old collapsible 50 mm lenses are compact but the mentioned resolving qualities only apply to the center. Once fully opened, the corners of the obtained images are quite soft. They show a lot of flare and color rendition is far from being optimal so they are better suitable for BW film (as mentioned in the video). "Character" has become the new "flawed"... it is impressive and amusing how vocabulary evolves ;o)
Going back to the Q/Q2 the question that has been often raised is why they did not use a 35 mm lens (one of the most used of all Leica lenses, just looking at the number of versions is a good indication), the answer might lie in SONY's R1 35 mm lens. I do not think nowadays a Q3 with a 50 mm would draw as wide an audience as the Q2 with its 28mm droppable to pseudo 35 and 50, or a Q3 with a 35 mm. We'll see... although I think Leica found its perfect silver bullet with the Q2.
Leica should design a new film Leica rangefinder that fits more closely with the Barnack. If Olympus could do it with the XA why not Leica? are they afraid that would take the market away from the MA and MP?
Thank you for the excellent comparison of Barnack Leica versus M Leica. I own an M6 and a IIIc. I prefer the Barnack Leica.
M2 for me. I've never tried a Barnack Leica but the M2 seems to suit the way I shoot. I just wish I had more opportunity to use it.
Before closing a Barnack Leica you really should be sure the sprockets have engaged the film holes, you can see the bottom sprocket teeth. And if hand cutting the leader be very sure not to cut through a sprocket hole to leave a sharp edge capable of shutter curtain damage.
That's great advice - those curtains can be fragile!
Beautiful comparison, very entertaining, thanks! Love the LTMs and the look old lenses give. But I believe it was rather Kodak with their Retinas who brought 35mm film to the masses 😅.
No, Leica/Leitz released the Leica I in the mid 1920s, and Kodak/Nagel's Retinas era only began in the mid-1930s. (beliefs and facts are sometimes different ;o).
@@BrunoChalifour The Leica I was sold at around 70.000 pieces until about 1932 (Hasbroek), which is a high number. But it was a very expensive camera. The Retina I alone (!) was sold from 1934-1939 in a quantity of 266.000 pieces (Helmut Nagel).
@@sentimental7167 Still Oskar Barnack was the one who invented the first camera using 35 mm ciné film in 1914 (UR) which was then marketed in 1924-25 and others followed. So let us say that Leica brought 35 mm film cameras to photography if it is just the interpretation of "to the masses" that you think is ambiguous ;o)
@@BrunoChalifour no doubt that Oscar Barnack has done pioneering work.
I lucked up. I got a IIIa with Summar that had barely been used. A man got it from his aunt, who bought it new. She used it a few times and put it in a drawer. I don't think he had ever used it.
Nice video. The beauty of shooting Leica is never about speed, plenty of options if that is the prerogative. A slow immersive experience is what draws me. The Barnacks are just a wonderful thing to hold. As a note, my IIIg has 90mm frame lines (I just don’t have a 90mm lens!)
Believe me if you use a Leica for professional reasons and street photography the ease of Leica M is a plus. They cannot do everything, neither M nor Barnacks, but when speed is involved, and it can be, an M is superior to a Barnack; it is just a more efficient tool.
The small viewfinder of the III series is the dealbreaker for me. Even on the IIIG it's really too small for effective composition. This may not bother some people, but I like to compose my shots, not just aim the camera.
Valid point about the smaller viewfinder, and the fact that if you shoot from the hip it wouldn't matter. But I'm with you on getting a good view before you release the shutter.
You can use LTM lenses on a M body so I am not sure the lenses comparison is truly relevant. I think the only pro of the III is the pocketability. For the rest, the M stands up easily IMHO. The viewfinder on the Barnacks is too much of a pain for me; I would pick an M everyday if budget is no concern.
For sure. The M is king, but I wanted people to know that you can have fun with a Barnack too.
There was a L39 camera by Canon that was a copy of the Barnack, but with a combined rangefinder-viewfinder like the M. I need to try one of those...
@@FilNenna Leica did not bring 35mm photography to the 'masses.' Leica cameras were & still are very expensive. The 'masses' couldn't in the past afford Leica cameras & the 'masses' cannot afford them today. That's like saying Rolls-Royce brought automobiles to the 'masses.'
@@autodidact537 You should do a price comparison of Leicas between the 1930s and the 1970s and see that the differences between camera and lens prices were not that great, far from it. What is true now (the price of a new M camera also makes it a luxury item, bought as such by some) was not true then so what is said in the video is right, all the more when in 1925 there was no competitor.
Nice thorough coverage of the two types of Leica cameras (Barnack and M) with a slight gentle bias though ;o) 39 mm Barnack lenses do not just have "character", they have optical flaws (huge flare for instance and very soft corners) that were later corrected and made Leica's reputation as a unique lens manufacturer: not only in terms of lens coating (which you rightfully mention) but also resolution and details not just in the corners but at wide apertures.
Now the M series was, as you point out, a technological revolution: better film advance, better film loading (and unloading), better rangefinder (its base length, clarity, ease of use, better viewfinder (clarity and interchangeable frames which still make Leica's reputation), better rewinding system with the later film models, no separate knob for slow shutter speeds, and vastly improved lenses... in other word a more versatile system designed with higher precision, control, and technology that has established Leica's reputation and allows today's new customers to move smoothly into digital photography if tempted (the current digital Ms have just replaced film with a sensor, they function in the same way (rangefinder) and use the same lenses (M-mount). PS: zone focusing is also possible with Leica Ms, and, the problem for people who come to Leica for the first time is that there are tons of copies (both cameras and lenses) of a lesser built but stamped Leica Barnack products. Not the case with Ms.
I have used Ms for 4 decades I also own 2 Barnack cameras, as curiosities and historical paperweights ( ;o) as I did not find using them very practical. Now with the current price of film (that will not decrease) I'd rather get a good negative (to which I can always give "character" in the darkroom or scanning it) than a poor one whose flaws I cannot fix. So yes the Barnack cameras are smaller and lighter... they are far less sophisticated, fast, versatile and precise photographic tools than the M series. The Barnack models constitute a niche camera more suited to queen hobbyist that professional photographers or the amateurs for whom the quality of the negative and the print matter. They do have "character" but that does not mean quality and versatile results. They can be fun burning film with, they remain fun for whom enjoys that type of fun, nothing more... and nothing less.
I appreciate the insightful comments!
That is as much of a lens critique as it is a camera critique. Voigtlander made a number of 39mm screw mount lenses that incorporated modern glass and coating, including a collapsible lens. Using them with a "Barnack" largely eliminates any lens quality issues. I have the 50mm 1.5 in 39mm mount and it is an outstanding lens.
@@franktatom1837 Yes there are a few exceptions, meaning Voitglander has been making new (but not that recent in design) 39 mm lenses with modern coating, they definitely do not match their M-mount racehorses (as far as I know no Lanthar/Apochromatic lens, any aspherical ones? ;o). I use the whole surface of my negatives for information and exhibit prints 14"x21", most 39 mm-screw lenses show problems in the corners at wide apertures, problems that have been very successfully resolved in the recent M-mount lenses, Voigtlander included (I have an M-mount 50 mm Lanthar f. 2)..
@@BrunoChalifour The Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 LTM is aspherical. I have used it on my Sony A7ii with nice results.
@@franktatom1837 Read me please: "Now the M series was, as you point out, a technological revolution: better film advance, better film loading (and unloading), better rangefinder (its base length, clarity, ease of use, better viewfinder (clarity and interchangeable frames which still make Leica's reputation), better rewinding system with the later film models, no separate knob for slow shutter speeds, and vastly improved lenses... in other word a more versatile system designed with higher precision, control, and technology that has established Leica's reputation and allows today's new customers to move smoothly into digital photography if tempted (the current digital Ms have just replaced film with a sensor, they function in the same way (rangefinder) and use the same lenses (M-mount)." [not to mention included TTL light metering with M6s and M7s...]
I always wanted a Leica M2 or M3. Despite the cost of lenses i probably would be happy with just a 50mm. But i just dont feel i deserve one. I could scratch the itch with an older camera and think O would love owning and using it. But i shoot Nikon and have lots of Nikon glass. I would be too scared and precious about an m3. Mf FE anis battered and old, works and i can use it without worrying to much about its value or it taking a hit. Also its more modern and easier to use.
Saying that im off to ebbay to look a Barnacs 😮😅
Nowadays you can get excellent very affordable Voigtlander or even TTartisan M-lenses at a portion of the cost of Leica lenses.[the deal is even sweeter if you get used ones].
Man, I want a US Vietnam Leica M3 so bad...
Really nice review thanks.
I'm glad it was helpful!
Over some time, I have managed to collect ten various leicas including the M3. If I had to just keep one, which would be a terrible decision, it probably would be the IIIg. Or would it?!!!
Ha! Not an easy decision! People who’ve never shot a barnak probably wouldn’t appreciate how tough that choice is!
The only answer is to keep them all!
I'm afraid you need both of you love shooting with rangefinders
You're exactly right.
Understandable nostalgia. But you neglect the enormous improvements in ease of operation and quality of the viewfinders.
Older screw mount lenses, difficult to change, are very prone to flare.
That's not true. I've been using Summitars and Elmars L39 without any problems. The trick is to use a lenshood.
@@fassie79 Devroombaghus does not denounce any problem but rather explains a rather obvious difference. If one needs to change lenses (and some do, sometimes several times during a session), changing a M lens on an M camera with their bayonet mount is far easier and faster than on a Barnack one. The superiority of the bayonet mount over the screw mount is such that all camera manufacturers adopted it. Do you know something they do not? ;o)
...i cant make up my mind...i Love both....😭
I still don’t really understand the need for cutting the leader
It's because the film gets loaded from the bottom and needs to connect to the sprockets when it gets wound on. Without a cut leader, it would be hindered by the sprockets as the film is pushed upwards.
@@FilNenna interesting, thanks for the explanation!
Can't afford any Red Dot camera, my Rangefinder is a Canon 7 with Russian lenses
ruZzian
Barnack Leica's can do everything an "M" can. Barnacks are cheaper and smaller and the lenses show more character.
Agreed - if the rangefinder and viewfinder were combined, it would be a no-brainer.
@@FilNenna That's what Canon folks did, eh? Nevertheless, I wouldn't call composing with them "fun", because of the smallish window. And I wear glasses.
No they cannot! Starting with a limited viewfinder, a slow advance and rewind system, a cumbersome loading procedure... and lenses with more flaws (flare, resolution, color rendition) not "character". [this term has been recently coined by and for people who rediscovered Barnack cameras (and older film cameras) to, in my opinion, justify the poor quality of their results. As I used to say I can always make a photograph taken with a Hasselblad look like one taken with a Holga (cheap medium format film plastic camera) by adding visual parasites and decreasing resolution, the opposite is simply impossible. Let us be realistic here.
@@FilNenna But it is not...
@@BrunoChalifour show me the difference in a photo taken with a film Leica M and a Leica III. Is a M a more modern camera? For sure, but it does not do anything different than what a III does. It may be more convenient, but if you know what you are doing the final result is the same.
Queen Elizabeth didn’t just hold a Leica … she was in fact a life long and very keen photographer.. and by all accounts very good….
She used a Leica not because she could afford one but because she appreciated what it was ..
I think they were given to her by Leitz.
@@northstar1950 maybe … maybe not …fact is she was keen to use them .. they didn’t just sit in a cupboard as so many Leicas now do …