A Leica family

The (my) Best Leica

Leica rather missed the boat when digital came along so of course I’m talking about the best film Leica. And no, its not another “the M3 is the best camera ever made” review. But to begin, a bit of background.

My first ‘camera’ was a 4×5 I made with my father’s help, and a loaned lens from my uncle who worked at Taylor Hobson in Leicester, UK. The wooden box camera used glass plate negatives – remember those? Focusing was hit and miss, manually sliding the fat projector lens in and out until infinity seemed as good as it could get – then stopping down with a cardboard cut-out sleeve over the lens. I was a teenager and was making the camera for a single purpose – to photograph a comet which was easily visible stretching across the sky. I maintained an interest in astronomical photography and recently was using specialist cooled sensor digital B&W cameras and RGB filters to photograph the stars and deep sky objects. The cameras were mounted on telescopes from 10cm to 43cm diameter at high altitude in New Mexico, USA, and Siding Springs, Australia.

I have used most formats between 35mm film and digital to ultra large format (12×20) cameras from most of the main manufacturers at various times. I remember when I first went to university, and without much money, I would look in the window of camera shops and was lusting over early Leicas (screw mount) but my father said “old fashioned, out of date” and put me off, but a lingering lust remained. When I was regularly using a (modern) 4×5 camera a friend suggested I look at the Leica M6, saying “most large format photographers seem to use Leica Ms as their 35mm tool”. And then when I had tried the M6 I was hooked. For over 15 years I regularly used M6s and took my best friend’s wedding photos in Greece, after which he bought the M6 and 35mm Summicron that I had used.

After the (several) M6s I tried the M2, a new MP which became my workhorse for a decade, and then, somewhat reluctantly, the M3. “I’m a 35mm lens guy, 50’s are just too ordinary” I thought. But, looking at my images, I realised I generally tended to be further away than a better image from a tighter crop would give. So after a while I became a ‘50mm lens guy’. Even in large format I tend to get as close to 50mm equivalent as I can.

Then a few years ago I was comparing side-by-side the M3 and 50 cron against the iiig and Summitar, with a roll of FP4+ in each. One photo was of a sunny field, I focussed and took the shot with the iiig, then I raised the M3 to my eye. “Oh! The sun’s gone in”. But no! Lowering the M3 I could see the light hadn’t changed. The iiig viewfinder is at least twice as bright as the M3’s – related to the incorporation of the rangefinder in the viewfinder screen of the M3.

As the years went by my ability to focus close and far dropped for some reason and I found the M3’s rangefinder was not sharp except with one particular pair of old spectacles. The iiig has a focus slider around the rewind knob which allows me to focus the rangefinder image using anything from my close focus reading glasses to my distant vision glasses or no glasses. The iiif is the same as the iiig apart from the smaller viewfinder which, after using iiifs and some earlier screw Leicas, I found it harder to orient horizontals or verticals accurately. Nevertheless I have come to completely understand Oskar Barnack’s motivation for making the Leica camera in the first place. About 15 years ago I took my 8×10 to Venice. I carried the camera, my wife carried the lenses and film holders, and the mother-in-law carried the (very heavy) tripod – she’s still complaining about it. I don’t carry anything larger than 35mm nowadays except over short distances from the car to the scene.

Recently I have taken several trips to Tokyo and Nagasaki – I like walking and I wanted to take something small, compact, light and unobtrusive. So I decided to take the iiig. The question was which lens – 50mm Elmar f3.5 (coated version) or the Summitar f2? Both lenses are clean and clear, the Summitar optically virtually mint, while the Elmar has very minor scratches. On one trip I took one, and changed the lens for the next trip in order to make comparisons. I took night shots in the street using colour film. The Elmar is super compact, almost disappearing into the body, the Summitar even though collapsible still protrudes a lot. To my surprise I much preferred the Elmar images. Perhaps I was more relaxed with that lens so concentrating on the image more. The Elmar rendered colours and composition as I felt them to be, remarkable for an early 1950s lens on modern colour film. The images were less clinical and had a natural feeling to them. Lack of wide aperture was not a problem since I needed at least modest depth of field.

So what is my answer looking at the iiig and earlier screw bodies, the M3 or the other Ms (best for 35mm lens)? The MP and re-released M6 have advantages over earlier Ms not just because of the meter but because they are new. But the iiig has a brighter viewfinder than the Ms with the ability to adjust rangefinder focus, and a bigger viewfinder than earlier screw Leicas, far more compact and lighter than M cameras, and with the Elmar a lens that renders images sympathetically rather than clinically. So for me, and you may have perfectly good reasons for preferring something different, the iiig and the Elmar lens is the best Leica… … or is it my A7Riii?

In the image at the top: Right, M3 wearing Zeiss Sonnar; left, MP wearing a 50 cron; centre, iiif wearing a Summitar; back left, iiig wearing a 50 Elmar 3.5 and dressed for dinner.

Contribute to 35mmc for an Ad-free Experience

There are two ways to experience 35mmc without the adverts:

Paid Subscription - £2.99 per month and you'll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).
Subscribe here.

Content contributor - become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.
Sign up here.

About The Author

12 thoughts on “The (my) Best Leica”

  1. An interesting article. I tend to favour medium format, but I have several (too many my wife says) 35 mm cameras, including a Leica lllc and an M4. I use them both, and find that the lllc with the retractable 3.5 Elmar gives the a lovely sense of a “historical” photo, especially with b&w film. The M4 with the f2 Summicron lens or a 35mm Voiglander lens gives a much more “modern” image in my opinion. Hence I tend to use the lllc for any b&w “atmospheric” shots and the M4 for colour. If I had to choose just one it would – reluctantly – be the M4, but I hope I never have to make that choice!

    1. Thanks for the comments David. MF of course gives far better image quality but my love of the Elmar and 35mm is related to the lack of ‘technical quality’. So yes, I use MF and LF too, but as we all know ‘the right tool for the job’.

  2. When I got into photography i had the benefit of 20/20 vision – sadly this is no longer the case. Over the years I have become slightly short sighted and need a +1 correction to see distance clearly.

    My EOS dslr and later screw leica bodies have in built adjustment (as does the Zorki 4k!) so I have no worries with these.

    I have a large collection of old Nikons, which I was struggling to focus accurately, and I decided to try a standard dioptre correction lens. What a revelation – my ability to focus these cameras has been totally transformed, and I just swap the correction lens over to whichever body I’m using.

    From what you say in your article, this might be the Issue you’re having with your ‘M’ bodies – with a corrected viewfinder you might just fall in love with them again

    1. Tom, yes you’re right, a correction lens would fix the problem. But, having been through several iterations of glasses over the years then with hindsight it would have been expensive. The other reason for preferring the iiig is size and the Elmar lens (without the need for an adapter).

  3. I agree about the IIIg vs the M cameras, with one exception.

    Over the last 60+ years I have used a variety of Leicas, including a couple of IIIc’s, a number of IIIf’s, a IIIg, two M2’s and an M6. All three times I tried to get on with an M Leica I found that the ergonomics just didn’t work for me. Probably because of my facial physiognomy, i.e., the shape of my nose and brow, and the fact that I am left eyed I found that I could hold a IIIc or IIIf almost two shutter stops steadier than I could hold an M2 or M6, and the IIIg at least one stop steadier.

    My M2’s and the M6 are long gone. My daily users for 35mm are a IIIf and a IIIg. For lenses other than 50mm or 85mm/90mm I use the IIIf because the external viewfinders I use are just that little bit closer to the objective lens than with the IIIg. For 85mm or 90mm lenses I use the IIIg. For 50mm I use either the IIIf with an SBOOI viewfinder or the IIIg, depending on what other lens I have in the bag. If you are not familiar with the SBOOI the view through it is even bigger and brighter than the IIIg, which is saying a lot.

    1. Doug, thanks for the informative reply. Until recently I have only used 50mm on these cameras because of the need for an external viewfinder, but recently I have found a 90mm actually suits the way I see things more often than the 50. I have an excellent external 90mm viewfinder so once my 90 Elmar is fixed I’ll give it a go!

  4. Back in the late 1960s I owned 2 M4 Leicas. On a back-packIng trip I dropped one into 4 feet of water. I quickly retrieved it and let it dry out in the sun. Worked perfectly for the remainder of the 30 days. I sent in to Leica on my return from the trip. Unfortunately I sold these gems in fit of stupidity.

  5. How could the IIIg viewfinder be better than an M6’s or an M10’s ?! except for the included diopter adjustment that is cruelly missing in all Ms (although a rather Leica-priced diopter adjustment lens can be bought).
    Reasons why I value M viewfinders over IIIg’s:
    1-Ms: viewfinder includes rangefinder (instead of the tedious procedure of looking through a secondary viewfinder for focusing aid, a rather dim/unpleasant one to use).
    2-Rangefinder far more precise on Ms (wider base), clearer.
    3-Ms: viewfinder is bigger and in fact (as a result) effectively more convenient and brighter than on the IIIg (to whose flaws age must be added including insufficient and defective coating of lenses and yellowing due to age)
    As a result, even in terms of viewfinder I would in no way exchange my M6 for a IIIg, not mentioning the choice and quality of lenses that go with it (with our adapters).
    ??? Frankly, I do not quite understand the reason for such a post.
    PS: to echo the references given in the post, I have used all kinds of Leicas from Leica II to M10 monochrome. I have also used all formats of film from half-frame 35 mm to 8″x10″, via numerous medium format film formats from 645 to 617. Digital from 1999 to now, formats from phone camera to 100 Mp medium format.

    1. Bruno, you’re welcome to choose whatever camera you like! I used M’s for well over 30 years so I know and appreciate the benefits. They are not the best for my purposes now.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top