rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Wow....nice info and really amazing shots...one day I hope to be an addict.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

It's only a matter of time...

Cheers,

R.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I had no idea that the viewfinder was so large and clear and allowed you more than the tunnel-vision of a DSLR...its' such a different animal.

I hate the useless auto crap that clogs up my camera...

Mark my words....one day I'm going to get one... :)

Minceymomof9

I actually did visit your site. And there are some amazing shots on there. To be perfectly honest, I LOVE the best of things. And at some point I will probably own one. It will eat at me until I will have no choice. Lol. I will have to "research" it thoroughly AND be at a place where my knowledge of photography warrants the privilege of that kind of equipment.

R Kraatz Loc: Delaware

The camera I learned on in highschool was my dad's Leica 3g rangefinder with a 35, 50, 90 & 135mm screw mount lenses. It was solid, tough, small & took great pics. Leica was the first 35mm camera made.
My dad, Hans, picked it up in Germany during WWII where he was production mgr. for the Stars & Stripes. I have pics & negs he shot of Hitler's bunker, German/Swiss country scenes & pics of my mom a 19 yr old German country girl who worked for him. I also have a pic of him & a French museum curator looking over an original Gutenberg Bible they recovered from a castle hiding it from the Germans.
Still have my old Leica & thank my dad for introducing me to photography!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Wanna hear something totally disgusting?
My boss at my old university job bought three Leica M4 kits-
M4 camera,35, 50 & 90mm lenses and case, at state surplus. They were sold by the pound. Probably about $100 each kit, if I remember correctly. I loved using them for PJ work, especially at meetings. Something about the Leica made me think more about what I was shooting. That live view without a ground glass getting in the way made me feel closer to the subject. The camera instilled a bit confidence... and pressure. "Could I live up to the reputation?"

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

I've been through tons of equipment over the years and my Leica is the only camera I regret selling.

If you could use one for a day you'd understand.

Well constructed and glass that's second to none.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You can get some nice Leicas for under $1,000. They get great reviews.

Or you can buy Panasonic's with Leica lenses for $200 that get equally great reviews.

Minceymomof9

That sounds good, but if it's not the M9, and a fairly almost brand new one in pristine condition, I would not be satisfied. I hate this about myself, but I have delt with this issue for almost 42 years. Lol

swamiji

Well the M8 goes for just over $2000. You can wait until the M10 comes out and buy a used M9. There are always used "Mint" condition Leica gear to be had.

It seems that Leica gear is a very good investment. None of my Leica Glass has dropped in value, and much of it has increased, some of it a lot. You can't say that about Canikon...

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I have a Leica 111c (1940's) still in working order. and lenses 28mm; 35mm:50mm:73mm: 90mm: and 135mm. The comparative high price must be still down to QUALITY. One has only to handle a Leica, to appreciate the build quality and clarity of their lenses. Might be slow to use, in comparison to todays auto everything digital cameras, but still a pleasure to listen to the whisper quiet of the shutter and film transport.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Fair enough, but there are many Leica addicts who will tell you that the M9 isn't a 'real' Leica at all: only film Leicas are 'real'. They'll then start telling you that you need a single-stroke M3 made between July and October 1959, or something equally obsessive. Others will tell you that only screw-mount Leicas are 'real', and that M-mount are second rate. There are some right loonies among Leica collectors.

As well as the M9 I have an M8, MP, M4-P and M2, but when you consider that I started using Leicas in 1969, it's only a bit more than one Leica per decade. Actually, three of them (M9, M8, MP) date from this century, but the other two were bought in (I think) 1975 and 1980.

As for pristine condition, there are plenty who buy black paint Leicas just so they can wear them in: they see a certain cachet in a Leica that is clearly hard used. Some, it is said, deliberately 'distress' their Leicas with mild abrasives, such as toothpaste, to get the '1950s war correspondent look'.

And thanks for the kind words about the site.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Lovely story, and I envy you the camera, but there's one small inaccuracy, though you can hardly be blamed for it as Leica's ad agency themselves once claimed that Leica came first.

In fact, there were quite a lot of 35mm cameras before the Leica, including the Tourist Multiple (USA, 1913), Homeos (France, 1914), Minigraph (Germany, 1915), Talbot's Invisible Belt Camera (1915), 00 Cartridge Premo Kodak (USA 1916, non-perforated film), Autocinephot (1918/19), Sico (1922, Switzerland, imperforate again), Sept and Phototank (1922, France), Esco (1923, Germany), Le Furet (1923, France I think), then in 1924 the Krauss Eka (France), Cent Vues (France), Photorette (Austria), Unette (Germany) and, one month before the Leica, Amourette (Austria). This is from my A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Focal Press, 1984.

Without doubt, though, the Leica was the first successful 35mm camera to be made in large numbers.

EDIT: I've just realized that you said 'IIIg', and it can't be, because the IIIg didn't enter production until a decade after WW2. The IIIc was the latest camera at that time. Are the rangefinder and viewfinder eyepieces side by side in a single oval (IIIb or IIIc) or 1/2 inch apart (III, IIIa)?

The top speed of the III is 1/500 (1/1000 for all the others) and the difference between a IIIb and a IIIc is that the latter has a die-cast chassis, and instead of the lens mount being almost entirely surrounded by vulcanite, the upper half (from the mid point) is metal and in one piece with the top plate.

Of course, if it is a IIIc with a delayed action (IIIc DA, also known as IIId), it's incredibly rare and worth a fortune.

Cheers,

R.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Absolutely, I owned the rangefinder M2 and M3 back in the film days (in the 1960's) and they were one sweet piece of engineering. Today the digital M9 is around $7,000 for the body (same great engineering) and the lens are Zeiss. I believe the DSLR is the one you were referring to which would be the S2 for $38,000 with 37.5 million pixels and is quite heavy more like a studio camera. To the OP just do some research on Leica German engineering (some parts are now manufactured elsewhere but to Leica specifications) and you will understand why this camera is so expensive.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

No, the lenses are still Leica. You can buy M-fit Zeiss lenses as well (I have a 50/1.5 and my wife has an 18/4) and also Voigtländer (we have 15/4, 21/4, 35/2.5, 50/2.5 and 90/3.5). Most are made by Cosina in Japan, and are a good deal cheaper than Leica lenses, but a few are made in Germany and are comparable in price with Leica lenses.

In the M9, the sensor is American, and the shutter is Japanese. The top plates and some other bits are made in Leica's own factory in Portugal and assembled in Solms in Germany.

Cheers,

R.