LEICA IIIb

[L39UK]

I have owned and used over the years both Pre-war and Post-war Leica Screw cameras.
Of all these cameras my preference lies with the Pre-war models and particularly the Leica IIIb which combined all the best features of the earlier models together with a full range of speeds,a combined eyepiece for rangefinder and viewfinder,the improved position of the rangefinder focussing correction lever and the improved accessory shoe with the 4 screw fixing and 2 small pressure rails.
In my opinion its a users "gem" with its precision build and compact body.
I know of one Leica expert, restorer and devotee who would not use any Post-war models (IIIc onwards) because of his opinion that the shutter break fitted to these later models was unreliable.
I would be interested in what other users of Pre-war "Barnacks" and particularly users of the Leica IIIb think about their cameras and do they share or disagree with my findings and opinion.
Regards,
William

[kully]

I prefer my '39 IIIa to the IIIf that I had, but only because the IIIf was in lovely condition and the IIIa is mashed up and I don't mind sticking it my back pocket or knocking it about.

I couldn't feel the size difference, I could only tell when they were laid out with the baseplates touching.

If I had no pathetic emotional attachment with the IIIa (my first) I would go for a IIIf any time (but without the timer, it spoils the hold), it has a better grippable speed selector and quieter/smoother shutter.

[xayraa33]

I like the III and IIIa also.
the combined rf/vf of the IIIb is a moot point if one always uses a SBOOI finder with the 50mm lens.
The IIIc/IIIf are a more rugged Leica with a stronger cast frame and improved in the shuttering.
The III, IIIa IIIb seem to be more forgiving if they are not seviced regularly, but a recently well CLA'd IIIc/IIIf has a certain elegant smoothness and a precision feel that is more noticable and enjoyable.

[FPjohn]

I regard my IIIb as elegant compared to the Ms. They seem to be under regarded relative to other Barnack Leicas perhaps because of their "transitional" status.

yours
FPJ

[Luddite Frank]

I have one III-f , three III's (two black 1933, one chrome 1934), and a II (black, 1932).

My chrome III is my user, mostly because it is in the best working-order of all of them; the III-f needs new curtains & CLA, the others need CLA.

Aesthetically, I prefer the early black/nickel Leicae, but I wouldn't take one with me to go caving or rock-climbing....

My only "complaint" with the early RF's are the widely-separated VR/ RF windows...


My "ugly" ( peeling chrome) III has done yeoman service for the five months I've owned it, and I have put about four dozen rolls of film through it in that time - most of my shooting has been in sub-freezing weather.

Actually, I have one other "complaint": sometimes I have trouble extricating the take-up spool, with my fat "sausage fingers"...

I think I generally prefer the Pre-War Barnacks...

Luddite Frank

(My uber-collector buddy keeps trying to get me interested in Leica M cameras... they just don't "do it for me"... )

[dlove5]

If I could only keep one Barnack, I would definitely keep my IIIa. Yeah probably because I am also pathetically attached to it. It was my first and it was my grandfather's and then my cousin's before me.

Trying to compare it objectively?
I do like the smaller size sometimes than the IIIg or M2. I don't know that I notice much difference with the IIIf. It makes a very tiny pocketable package with a 35 Elmar mounted.

Loading film in my IIIa is much easier than with my IIIf or IIIg. It just slides in. I never have to cut the film or do any of the other tricks.

Pulling the spool out isn't always quite so easy. I need to try using the spring loaded spool from the IIIf sometime.

[xayraa33]

If I could only keep one Barnack, I would definitely keep my IIIa. Yeah probably because I am also pathetically attached to it. It was my first and it was my grandfather's and then my cousin's before me.

Trying to compare it objectively?
I do like the smaller size sometimes than the IIIg or M2. I don't know that I notice much difference with the IIIf. It makes a very tiny pocketable package with a 35 Elmar mounted.

Loading film in my IIIa is much easier than with my IIIf or IIIg. It just slides in. I never have to cut the film or do any of the other tricks.

Pulling the spool out isn't always quite so easy. I need to try using the spring loaded spool from the IIIf sometime.

for pulling out the spool, just tie an alligator clip to the camera's neck strap.
the tied clip is real handy for pulling out the take up spool amongst other things. ;)

[LeicaTom]

Anything built after 1946 is just a collectors item
(cept my M6)
I cut my Leica teeth on a matching set 1939 IIIa with a Summitar
(I wish I`d never sold that camera)

Never had a IIIb long enough to enjoy them....
(they were "hot" in the collectors circut back in the 1980`s and 90`s and I always turned a nice profit on them)
they are a realitively "uncommon" camera and when you find them are really worn out like most of the Summars that went on them.......

Pre May 1946 IIIC cameras with the stepped rewind platform are still my favorites, with the post 1943 K Shutter among the best of all screw mount Leica`s ever made
(sadly they are very rare and not everyone can enjoy working with them)

The post June 1945 "Half Race" bearing IIIC was/is the best postwar screw mount Leica made in my opinion - robust and super build quality the majority of all of them went to the US Army which in turn really used them hard - finding a decent example is very hard while these are also fairly uncommon cameras as well - they were built almost a full year at Wetzlar from June 1945 to May of 1946, made until wartime camera parts were exhusted with about 4,000 cameras produced

The best bet yet is the IIIa - still out there to be had for a reasonable price still, tried and tested, even though they were`nt "coldproofed" mine was still working fine outside at minus -29 degress while I photograhed my girlfriend in Poland

Tom

[Limpovitj]

Actually, I have one other "complaint": sometimes I have trouble extricating the take-up spool, with my fat "sausage fingers"...

While they perhaps didn't know it themselves, Leitz supplied everything needed. It seems there's an old trick for everything with screwmount Leicas -- use the connecting lug on the baseplate to pull the spool out. Works like a charm! Try it out and see how you like it.

I once spent several minutes at a (extremly hot) concert trying to get a hold of the spool with sweaty fingers. I wish I knew this little trick back then!

(Usual disclaimer apply: at your own risk!)

[xayraa33]

While they perhaps didn't know it themselves, Leitz supplied everything needed. It seems there's an old trick for everything with screwmount Leicas -- use the connecting lug on the baseplate to pull the spool out. Works like a charm! Try it out and see how you like it.

I once spent several minutes at a (extremly hot) concert trying to get a hold of the spool with sweaty fingers. I wish I knew this little trick back then!

(Usual disclaimer apply: at your own risk!)

I used this method years ago first but ended up with a bent lug in no time and the bottom baseplate cover would not close securely .
the alligator clip method works best to pull out the spool and also the film cassette with its smooth plastic spool end.

[VictorM.]

Bottom loader Canons have a spool with a spring-loaded extension.

[BillP]

IIIc and IID here. I love them both, but the IID has a special place in my affections. To me it is the ultimate back to basics, "acoustic" Leica. I even find the more widely spaced view and rangefinder eyepieces to be easier to use than the closer eyepieces on the IIIc. Mine's a 1930 model that was factory upgraded in 1934. I'd love to know what it has "seen" in it's long life.

Regards

Bill

[xayraa33]

IIIc and IID here. I love them both, but the IID has a special place in my affections. To me it is the ultimate back to basics, "acoustic" Leica. I even find the more widely spaced view and rangefinder eyepieces to be easier to use than the closer eyepieces on the IIIc. Mine's a 1930 model that was factory upgraded in 1934. I'd love to know what it has "seen" in it's long life.

Regards

Bill

Yes, there is something very appealing about a well built stripped to the bare essentials Barnack Leica .
the Leica II has to be the epitome of this.
A jewell like pocketable machine with only an integral rangefinder added to make life easier, nothing more.

[BillP]

Yes, there is something very appealing about a well built stripped to the bare essentials Barnack Leica .
the Leica II has to be the epitome of this.
A jewell like pocketable machine with only an integral rangefinder added to make life easier, nothing more.

Exactly. Exactly.

Regards,

Bill

[L39UK]

IIIc and IID here. I love them both, but the IID has a special place in my affections. To me it is the ultimate back to basics, "acoustic" Leica. I even find the more widely spaced view and rangefinder eyepieces to be easier to use than the closer eyepieces on the IIIc. Mine's a 1930 model that was factory upgraded in 1934. I'd love to know what it has "seen" in it's long life.

Regards

Bill

Bill,
I also have a 1929 (1A) that has been factory upgraded in the 1930's to a 111a and later in the early 1950's factory upgraded to a "11 Synch" (White Dial) top speed 1/1000.
I also would love to know what it has seen in its long life.(See my avatar).Its now a lovely black 11 Synch camera.

[LeicaTom]

Bill,
I also have a 1929 (1A) that has been factory upgraded in the 1930's to a 111a and later in the early 1950's factory upgraded to a 11F/a (White Dial) top speed 1/1000.
I also would love to know what it has seen in its long life.(See my avatar).Its now a lovely black 11F/a.

Hmmm an * asterisk "double issued" serial number conversion - that`s pretty interesting

Tom

[L39UK]

From information received today from TELEWATT (Many thanks)

Leica Conversion/ Updates that were available in 1950's

..out of my list it should be a "II syn"...includes the 1/1000 sec automatically.

So my camera is a Leica II synch (White Dial)

William

[peterm1]

I have no experience of the 111b but I do own a little 111a which I think is an absolute gem. Somehow these prewar Barnack cameras are prettier than the post war equivalents. Like the 1a of L39UK mine (which is however an actual 111a) was evidently factory converted in the 1950s as it is fitted with the 111f specification flash sync - complete with the new shutter speed dial and a sync adjustment dial (which allows you to set the delay for when the flash ignites) surrounding the shutter speed dial plus the Elmar 50 it came with is coated even though it has a pre war serial number.

The so called huge disadvantage of having two eye pieces widely separated does not phase me either as I am in the habit of using a separate accessory viewfinder anyway.

These are extremely nice cameras and I often marvel when I hold it in my hand, that this thing was made in 1936 (based on its serial number) and wonder at what it has seen and where it has been.