LTM dreaming - questions...

[Ken Ford]

One of the many inexpensive RFs I've been fooling around with these last few years is a Zorki-1. I always wanted a "real" Barnack camera, but could never justify the cost vs. benefit. The Zork let me play with the LTM concept with almost no cost.

A few years back when I first heard Tom A was tooling up for the Barnack Winder, I got this wild idea for a zone focus street shooting rig to complement my Bessa-T:

Leica Ic or If
Barnack Winder
C-V 25/4 with brightline

An offline email discussion with a friend today got me thinking about this again. Prices for Ic and If bodies are all over the place - what's realistic? How pricey are overhauls for I-series bodies? (I'd think they would be cheaper due to no RF/VF to fiddle with.) Am I nuts?

[FrankS]

I was thinking of using my Leica IIIa as a base for my CV25lens, but found that the finder blocks my sight of the shutter speed dial enough so I can't see the speed. The Leica CL camera works well with this lens however.

The Barnack cameras that you mention may unfortunately be more expensive due to rarity and collectors.

[Kim Coxon]

The last one I saw was with a dealer in Bath and it was one of the more expensive Barnacks he had. It was a 1G with a 50/2.8 and was £850 ($1500) A IIIF was about £450 for the body.

Kim

[Ronald M]

Yes you end up counting notches to set the speeds.

But a Barnack just sort of fits your hand like nothing else. I have numerous M and R machines, but the 111f is a constant companion.

They are quirky though, like need all the finders and having to screw the lens on and off. Sit down or do it over some grass.

Tha 25 CV is very nice too.

[Ken Ford]

I don't think I'd consider a Ig - too rare, too tall. The Ic and If have flatter top plates. I've seen a couple in the $400 range, which may be doable at some point.

The way I figure it a V-C 25 on the new M6 is overkill since it's not coupled. Why not have some fun with a little jewel instead?

[FrankS]

This is moving away from your original thought, but how about the CV25 on a Leica M1 (classy) or hey, even the Bessa L! (high value)

[FPjohn]

Hello:

You are being correct in looking for the technical LTM models. However, a IIIb or c are common as a user and might be had for as little as $200-300 + CLA. My IIIb and a 25mm Skopar seem made for each other-best of luck.

yours
Frank

[Ken Ford]

FrankS - a major part of the allure is Tom's Barnack Winder. An M1 would be sweet, but much larger; an L *would* work, but in that case why not just keep my T and Triggerwinder?

FPjohn - unfortunately, the Barnack Winder won't work on a prewar body. It needs to be a postwar c, f or g. Glad to hear you like your 25 - everything I've read about them is positive!

[photodog]

If the budget is tight, how about a Canon VT for about $200?

[einolu]

I got lucky and found a IIIa for $120 on the *bay. Described as EX condition, but I will see when I get it...

I too started with the zorki and am now moving to the real thing.

[pdx138]

Originally Posted by ferider

Also, consider a Barnack + CV 28/3.5 + Minifinder.

I found this a great combo. A little less wide but may be OK ?

Roland.

This is the route I went and it works great. I love the 28mm focal length. I have the 25/4 on an L, and the difference between the two is focal lengths is more than I expected, but I'm using the 28 on the iiig more now. With the minifinder, it is a great little pocketable package.

I'm also considering a trigger winder for it, but the TA winder is substantially bigger than the leicavit, so I am holding out for the leicavit.

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by ferider

Also, consider a Barnack + CV 28/3.5 + Minifinder.

I found this a great combo. A little less wide but may be OK ?

Roland.

Interesting idea, Roland. That would be a lot more pocketable.

I just looked at Gandy's VF page, and either the Minifinder or the High Point would be a good choice. It sounds like the High Point may be a little quicker to use.

I'm a little concerned about the zone-focusability of the C-V 28 vs. the 25. I always liked the idea of the click-stopped focus on the 25.

I wonder if C-V will ever adapt the Minifinder or High Point package for a 25mm FOV?

[pdx138]

The 28 has plenty depth of field for zone focusing stopped down a little, but psychologically I feel compelled to use the rangefinder just becuse it is coupled. Funny...

I love the click stops on the 25 (that was the main reason to buy it for me), but the depth of field is so huge that they are almost not necessary. Hyperfocal covers it most of the time.

[tajart]

i too am a fan of the 28/3.5 on ltm bodies. i've recently aquired the cv 21/4 and am looking forward to seeing how it feels/looks.

[jkelly]

I acquired my IIIa on a famous auction site for $129, and it is perfect in every way. I've run about a dozen rolls of film through it so far in many situations and have had no problems. The key is you just have to be patient, unless money is no object. It took me about a month to find a good example at a price I was willing to pay. A little luck doesn't hurt either, but there are so many user II,III, IIIa, and IIIc models for sale that luck is on your side if you are careful.

Now, let's not get into how much I've spent on lenses, finders, strap, lens covers, etc......

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by jkelly

A little luck doesn't hurt either, but there are so many user II,III, IIIa, and IIIc models for sale that luck is on your side if you are careful.

I wish I could say the same about Ic and If models! The ones I'm seeing around aren't exactly cheap.

[Ronald M]

Call me on extension 5164. You can try my 111f and any lens you want.

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by Ronald M

Call me on extension 5164. You can try my 111f and any lens you want.

Ronald, is this in the correct thread?

[je2a3]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

One of the many inexpensive RFs I've been fooling around with these last few years is a Zorki-1. I always wanted a "real" Barnack camera, but could never justify the cost vs. benefit. The Zork let me play with the LTM concept with almost no cost.

Since you already have experience using the Zorki 1, consider a Leica II more refined plus the roller RF sensor does not limit your choice of LTM lenses. Cheaper than an uncoupled Barnack and hardly bigger with the option of RF focusing. In the long run there's less to go wrong w/o the slow speed which you don't seem to require.

Joseph

[Gordon Coale]

A friend of mine recently bought a mint Zorki 1. The exterior was beautiful. It came with new shutter curtains and the thing was as quiet and smooth as my IIIc. Maybe even a little quieter. A Zorki I with new curtains and a CLA is nothing to be embarassed about. Sweet little things. Oleg will make your Zorki like new and will work on any Barnack Leicas, too. The CLA on my IIIc with new shutter curtains was $60. It varies from camera to camera. The Zorki CLA usually runs under $40. Well worth it!

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by je2a3

Since you already have experience using the Zorki 1, consider a Leica II more refined plus the roller RF sensor does not limit your choice of LTM lenses. Cheaper than an uncoupled Barnack and hardly bigger with the option of RF focusing. In the long run there's less to go wrong w/o the slow speed which you don't seem to require.

Joseph

Ah, but there's the appeal of the "I" series cameras to me - IMO they *are* considerably smaller and sleeker than the "II" and "III" bodies! I really don't care for the squinty VF nor RF of the Barnacks for this style of shooting - I see a "I" as a way of getting a great body with a great brightline finder and a lens that can be reliably zone focused into my pocket for everyday carry and use.

Yes, I wouldn't mind a IIIc or IIIf, but to me they are best matched with a collapsible 50. This project has a different and more limited goal.

[Ken Ford]

Gordon, thanks for the tip. I should send my little beast off for a CLA, especially at those prices!

I've been very tempted to enamel my Zorki black...

[je2a3]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

Ah, but there's the appeal of the "I" series cameras to me - IMO they *are* considerably smaller and sleeker than the "II" and "III" bodies! I really don't care for the squinty VF nor RF of the Barnacks for this style of shooting - I see a "I" as a way of getting a great body with a great brightline finder and a lens that can be reliably zone focused into my pocket for everyday carry and use.
Yes, I wouldn't mind a IIIc or IIIf, but to me they are best matched with a collapsible 50. This project has a different and more limited goal.

I see your point. Good luck and when you get that Barnack, enjoy!

Joseph

[Ronald M]

Yes, correct thread

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by Ronald M

Yes, correct thread

OK, then I'm confused. Was that directed to me, and do I have the number that goes with your extension?