which léica ??

[jean-marc B.]

I tried last days a Léica 3 in order to compare to my zorki 1. I did that for my website, and now I would like to buy a Léica.
Which one would you advice to me? I'm not a rich man ( that's why I take pictures with Soviet Cameras ). How much for a camera with an Elmar ??

[darkkavenger]

Salut Jean-Marc,

you should check our classifieds here, there are often interesting cameras up on sale at nice prices.

Bonne soirée (et Allez les Bleus!)
Max

[payasam]

Jean-Marc, that accented "e" leads to a most unusual way of pronouncing the name of one of the world's best known cameras.

[jean-marc B.]

Payasam, you are wright. In France we love accent too much "désolé" ( = sorry ) . I made a picture in my website of a fake leica, you can see on his top Léicca ( with two c !!).
I think it's a really fake )

[je2a3]

How about a brassy Leica II that needs work? You can practice CLA on a Fed/Zorki 1 and then fix it up or find a III or IIIa in the $200-300 range at the auction site. Nice website you have there, unfortunately I don't understand French.

Good luck!

Joseph

[kmack]

User condition IIIF black dials can be had cheaply, look for one with bad shutter curtains, sticky slow speeds that you can buy cheap then send it to Oleg for an inexpensive CLA.

[cykosin]

Depends on what you want. the main noticeable difference in leica ii and leica iii is the slow speed dial. The iiia provides shutter speeds of 1/1000, iiic is a casted body, slightly bigger than the iiia. iiid is with the delay timer. iiiF is with the flash sync (red dial generally costs more) but sync speeds are about 1/25s. and the Leica iiiG is the ultimate big brother of all the others. But still costs less than a Reid!!

[David Murphy]

My advice is not to buy a fixer, but to either buy one that someone else has really overhauled or one that does not need fixing. You will save money and get a better camera. The problem is that "parts" Leicas still command pretty high prices.

If you need to have one rebuilt, most major cities in the world (and some smaller ones) have competent repair men and there's no need to send it off to some strange place. Repairing a screw mount Leica is hardly rocket science, but I would not do it myself as someone here suggested -- it's still a pretty big deal.

If you shop carefully on eBay you can find a III series body for $180-230 USD and Summitar for $125-$175 USD or so, but you need to be patient. I just bought a Leica III for $140 USD in supposedly working condition, but we will see (that's about the rock bottom eBay price for a Leica working or not). I think the Summitar is great value, and while the Elmar should be cheaper I find that collectors drive the price of clean ones up too high. The Summitar has a better optical design than the Elmar too (that's not an opinion, it's so stated by Leica itself). Lenses can be cleaned up pretty well by a technician for about $50 USD, but I'd still try to find one without haze or fungus.

In my view most of the Canon Screw mount cameras are as good or better than Leica's and lower priced (but not cheap). They are clones, but not cheap clones -- they are built to high standards. Of the screw mount cameras I have owned, the Canon's seem to have survived through time in better shape more often than Leicas. Perhaps because they were used less, I am not sure.

I am sure some may take issue here with all these observations, but that's been my personal experience.

[payasam]

My experience differs from yours, David. While the Canons were well made, they weren't made quite as well as the Leicas. My VT Deluxe kept developing this problem or that, and the same happened with a friend's L. The Leitz statement that the Summitar is a better optical design is, I would say, closer to opinion than to fact. No optical design is better in all circumstances, since "better" can have many meanings. More important, optical design alone does not make a lens. I have a Summitar which I love; but for certain uses I would probably prefer an Elmar. Smaller, lighter, much less flare without a hood because of fewer elements.

[ZorkiKat]

Originally Posted by payasam

My experience differs from yours, David. While the Canons were well made, they weren't made quite as well as the Leicas. My VT Deluxe kept developing this problem or that, and the same happened with a friend's L. .

Perhaps you should compare the Canon equivalents of the IIIc to see David's point? I've got a Canon IIb and a Canon IVSB. Both built like compact tanks- just like a classic Leica IIIc. The Canon IIb has a handling and operating feel similar to that of the III, save for the angled corners.

[rolleistef]

coucou Jean-marc,
I followed the price evolution for leica IIIf, and it's quite stunning what speculators can achieve.
In december 2004, you could get a nice camera with a summar for 250€/300%, then it rose up to 650 for body only in September, and then plunged back down today's rate.
According to ebay sales, you can now get a nice user IIIf (R or BD) for a petite 150/250€ (200-325$), and around 4-500€ with a lens.
don't go to shops such as La maison du Leica or anywhere on Blvd Beaumarchais cause they're so expensive.
have fun