|
Post by genazzano on Nov 5, 2014 2:52:35 GMT -5
I have several IIIf's. However, my Nicca 3s is equipped with a Nikkor f/1.4 and is wonderful. I don't have a Leotax but the Nicca seems to be every bit as good as the Leicas.
David
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Nov 5, 2014 15:52:11 GMT -5
No idea of IIIG\M3 or Leica copy prices, but I will keep advising on an M3 rather than a IIIG for practical use, let the Leica collectors park the IIIGs in a glass cupboard. It is stylish and reliabe, but not as usable as the M3. Both versions seem able to take some rain and being dropped without ill effects.
The M-LS adapter makes all m-39 optics usable on the M3, while the viewfinder allows you to keep both eyes open so that you see the entire surroundings with a clear frameline projected onto it. Yes, you can put a Voigtländer "Kontur" VF on any camera and get almost the same effect, but then you cannot focus at the same time.
Threading film is always a bit fiddly in Leicas until you get the hang of it (and the film tongue must be cut properly), but the rear flap of the M-series does make it much easier.
p.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Nov 6, 2014 3:42:57 GMT -5
Are you really going to "finish" your collection? I tried that several times only to find another that I driven to acquire. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
David
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 6, 2014 5:16:21 GMT -5
I have several IIIf's. However, my Nicca 3s is equipped with a Nikkor f/1.4 and is wonderful. I don't have a Leotax but the Nicca seems to be every bit as good as the Leicas. David The better clones vary very little, the Japanese's versions were good, only the optics varied more than the consistent Leica lenses. Some of the shortcomings are seemingly minor, like the screws and threading. On Leica they were custom made in house till the mid 1950's. They are tight tolerance screws. The Japanese used standard metric produced for general use, and are a slacker fit in threaded holes and nuts. Overall the same grip, but if the parts have to be in an exact position, then the tighter fit wins on accuracy. The grades of steel rods used in post war Japan were lower than the precision ground stock rods used by Leica. This affects the shutter running a bit, the bearings are not bad on Japanese, just not the tight reamed bearings on a Leica, or the ball race used on Reid. The same applies to the focusing screw, dead tight on Leica, until greased, but slacker and reliant on grease in cloned lenses. However it makes servicing a Leica troublesome if replacement parts are needed, they may not fit! These sort of points are only in respect of wear and tear, and do not affect pictures. One of the reasons that Reid appear good is that many examples have barely been used, lots are ex government stock and mothballed in storage for most of their life till sold off. My own is one of these, it is basically brand new, and I have a second body still in it's ministry wrapping and box, never used with film....fortunately bought from a camera shop who had staff who had never heard of Reid.....and purchased whilst the manager who did know, was at lunch. I heard about the explosion when he found out later! Pays to be able to indentify cameras at a glance and keep a straight face as you part with £50, mind you that was in the 1970's, but even then a Reid body went for £400/600. The Reid was the reason I found out a friend in model engineering circles was the Official who had organised the war time requisitioning of camera that led to the Reid being made. I took it to a club meeting on the day I bought it, and he commented on it even before it was unwrapped! His only regret was that the Government never ordered lenses for them, the post war ones had the TTH, but he had wanted a full TTH range to be done during the war, but the Ministry discovered that they could buy all the Leica material thoughout the war by one means or another. Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Nov 6, 2014 6:38:38 GMT -5
Having spent much of my career designing novel digital imaging technologies, I suppose I have an ingrained skepticism when it comes to expert opinions. I have used my Leicas for a number of years as I have my Nicca 3s withthe f/1.4 Nikkor lens. I have found the Nicca to be superb. Here is what I wrote about the Nicca several years ago:
Originally Kogaku Seiki Co. produced Leica clones from 1942 through 1947. The early models were obviously copies of the German Leica and come from the very close German collaboration of which the Pre-WWI and WWII Japanese camera industry took full advantage. For a very brief period in 1948 they were known as the Nippon Camera Works but the name was changed again to Nicca Camera Works. In late 1951, the name of the company changed once again, this time to Nicca Camera Company, Ltd. In 1958 they were absorbed into Yashica although the Nicca model designation persisted for a short time thereafter.
The Nicca 3-S was introduced in 1954 and is the first model incorporating then newly standardized geometric shutter speed progression. It was basically a Nicca 4 (introduced the previous year) but with a maximum shutter speed of 1/500 sec. The example shown here is No. 61561 and is equipped with an optional seven element coated Nikkor-SC f/1.4 5cm lens of similar production date. The standard lens for this model had been the five element f/3.5 Nikkor-QC. According to some sources, the 3-S was the most popular model Nicca camera, approximately 10,000 having been produced.
Accessories include the original lens hood, UV filter and a Tower universal viewfinder.
This is my favorite camera to carry around to shoot on various trips. It is reliable and the f/1.4 Nikkor-S lens is sharp, contrasty and generally a pleasure to use. It has viewfinder diopter adjustment, slow speeds and flash synch terminals. It's only limitations are the 1/500 maximum shutter speed and the persistent Leica-style bottom film loading.
David
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Nov 6, 2014 9:16:13 GMT -5
No idea of IIIG\M3 or Leica copy prices, but I will keep advising on an M3 rather than a IIIG for practical use, let the Leica collectors park the IIIGs in a glass cupboard. It is stylish and reliabe, but not as usable as the M3. Both versions seem able to take some rain and being dropped without ill effects. The M-LS adapter makes all m-39 optics usable on the M3, while the viewfinder allows you to keep both eyes open so that you see the entire surroundings with a clear frameline projected onto it. Yes, you can put a Voigtländer "Kontur" VF on any camera and get almost the same effect, but then you cannot focus at the same time. Threading film is always a bit fiddly in Leicas until you get the hang of it (and the film tongue must be cut properly), but the rear flap of the M-series does make it much easier. p. You know what, I agree with you entirely with what you said in the above post. But I simply do not like the looks of the M3. I think it is ugly. I am attracted to the lllg or lllf because I like its looks. I of course have many ugly cameras in my collection and use them. It amuses me when people comment. Remember I use my collection, I'm used to bottom loading, a real pain in the ass as it is, and squinty viewfinders. So I'll be at home with a lllg or lllf which has a more squinty viewfinder. Of course I may find an Alpa 5 and change my mind. DAVID Yes it is my intention to finish collecting cameras for the near future. My decision is actually not to purchase any more and sell off everything in my 'collection' that doesn't belong in my classsic 1953-1958 collection. My thanks to you all for your replies, Stephen you have given me so much information, Pauolofseth, thanks for your concern and advice on the M3 it is appreciated, and you never know, I may well change my mind. I have about 5 weeks to make up my mind. Anyone here with a spare Leica? Perhaps we can come to a deal.
|
|
Dave
Lifetime Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Dave on Nov 6, 2014 20:16:11 GMT -5
Let me second Wayne's statement -- During the Korean War, news photographers discovered the Nikon S2. The Nikon, in many ways is a blend of a Leica (cloth lateral shutter) and a Contax (Bayonet mount), but with a much better viewfinder/rangefinder than either (in my opinion). Beyond that, the 1.4 and the 2.0 Nikkors were and are superb. Incidentally, in the screw mount bodies, consider the Nicca, also sold by Sears as the Tower, particularly the 5L model. It is not easy to find, but it has the size of the screw mount body, takes the Leica screw mount lens (Nikon made lenses for it, but all Leica screw mount lenses will work) with the advantage of the much easier "back door" loading on the M series of Leicas, and a lever advance. Read Steve Gandy's Cameraquest article on these. Dave
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 7, 2014 9:18:25 GMT -5
I think part of the problem assessing Leica clones is that none were sold new in the UK...the post war market was a complete ban on imports at first, then huge import taxes, and very high luxury level purchase tax, and what was called retail price maintenance, which banned all discounting unless a limited sales promotion to reduce stock. This applied in one form or another till about 1960, the date most of the clones from Japan were discontinued. Leica also got back some of it's patents, which made making the clones too expensive for small margins when on sale in the US.
All we see in the UK are imported after the restrictions or recently, or occasional sales from tourists in London, and I do mean London, out of London shops did not like buying in tourists cameras as it was left liable for the unpaid taxes. A late as the 1970's, Nicca and Leotax, and US badged variants were unknown here, only the Nikon occasionally turned up.
All around in the 70's were old and worn, so did not get the respect they had in the States. Even the Russian cameras were affected by this, my early collecting of two pre war Fed's meant they were awful in condition, really bad throughout, but recent purchases of Russian items well looked after show a far better standard.
For many years in the late 50's to about 1980 shops sold on old cameras in pretty dire condition, and when an item was rare it was often not highly valued, just rare. I did get a Leotax body at that time, but it was, and is, in a bit of a state from wear. It was cheap because the photographic trade over here treated it as a Japanese curiosity, even describing them as toys made for tourists after the war. I never heard Jap clones compared to Leica by customers, they were just not considered serious cameras.
|
|
|
Post by yashica1943 on Jul 23, 2015 3:06:47 GMT -5
Yesterday I watched a 2008 recording of 'Flog it' the BBC auction programme where people bring in their unwanted items for valuation before sale. A lady brought in her deceased brother's immaculate Leica 111 (not sure exactly which one) and 50mm lens, plus what appeared to be a 90mm Elmar and possibly a Leitz exposure meter bought by him new in 1951 with the original invoice. I don't know that much about Leicas except that I would like a nice rangefinder from the 50's.
Together they sold at auction for £200. Which surprised me. I wish that I had been there!
I watched again on iplayer. The serial number shows it was a 111c and the exposure meter may have been a later Weston. still a cheap lot though.......
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jul 24, 2015 14:36:57 GMT -5
A long time ago I swapped my IIIg for a Nikon SP, but in time gave that one up as well. Practicalities, not aesthetics decides. Looking back and adopting a purely aesthetic perspective, the Werra I wins.
p.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jul 25, 2015 13:57:38 GMT -5
I have a 111F now and very happy with it. I would like a Nikon SP, but its too much like the Contax. I cannot get on with the Contax and sold a perfectly good one because I never liked it.
Practicalities are important but there's something nice about using old cameras.
My favourite old camera of all to use is the Agimatic but if you run out of film and can't cock the shutter then you can't rewind the film - so I don't use it.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jul 25, 2015 15:49:42 GMT -5
Congratulations, Phil. I am so glad you came aboard. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 20, 2015 21:32:37 GMT -5
Have you considered the 1957 Asahi Pentax - as reviewd in Cameraquest? Ad from January 1958 Modern Photography that has the review in it. I took a picture of mine and inserted it in the ad . . . ;-) It is quite a looker and except for lack of metering - with a clear bright near lifesize unobstructed viewfinder, it is a very good everyday shooter. Please excuse my intrusion as I just realized this is a rangefinder forum.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Aug 21, 2015 15:57:36 GMT -5
I like the slow speed dial on the front a-la- Leica
|
|
|
Post by lesdmess on Aug 21, 2015 22:07:15 GMT -5
Just to make amends for my faux pas, here are my others of that period - but maybe not my Luftwaffe Leica . . . The Baldamatic I is pretty cool since it is fully functional and the selenium meter is still dead on accurate.
|
|