Leica IIIfimage by The Leica IIIf was 's (later Leica) first camera body for screw mount lenses with built-in. It succeeded the Leica IIId, which was a rare variant of the. Built-in synch means that, unlike its predecessors, the IIIf didn't need an optional rework for flash photography. But flash synchronization still needed an extra adjustment, a contact number between 0 and 20, which depended on the type of flash bulbs used. That was necessary since different types of bulbs needed different flash firing delay times for exact synchronization.The camera has a coupled rangefinder and a viewfinder designed for use with a 50mm lens. The camera has an M39 lens mount and cold shoe flash mount.The camera appeared on the market in 1950.
![]()
The Leica IIIf cameras are known as either Black Dial or Red Dial depending on the color of the engraved numbers on the syncronization dial. The original IIIf had black numbers. In 1952 or 1953, an upgrade to the shutter and flash sync system was carried out and the numbers were changed to red to indicate the new version.
On the Red Dial version, the camera included better, more reliable shutter and had an improved flash sync speed of 1/50 of a second vs 1/30 of a second on the Black Dial versions. It was further upgraded with the addition of a in 1954. Serial number range: BD 525,001 - 611,000. RD 615,001 - 685,000.
![]()
RD-ST 685,001 - 825,000. A total of 5,367 cameras were assembled in Ontario, Canada.Stanley Kubrick took a famous self portrait in a mirror using this camera while working as a staff photographer for LOOK Magazine. The photo is now part of the LOOK Magazine Photograph Collection residing in the US Library of Congress. Contents.Specifications1953 IIIf Red Dial with CEYOO flashgunimage by. Badging:. Manufacturer:.
Lens mount:. ISO: 25 - 3200. Shutter: cloth focal plane shutter. Shutter Speeds: 1/1000 to 1 sec, Bulb.
Flash sync: 1/30 (Black Dial) or 1/50 (Red Dial). Focusing: Rangefinder. Meter: none. Battery: none. Weight: 430 g (15.2 oz)PhotosStanley Kubrick with Leica IIIfimage by Leica IIIfimage by Leica IIIfimage by Leica IIIf with accessoriesimage by Leica IIIfimage by Leica IIIf, topimage by Leica IIIf with 3.5cm ElmarVIOOH finder and high-top caseimage by Notes. P-H van Hasbroeck, The Leica, (Sotheby 1983; ISBN 0-85667-171-1) Page 99.LinksIn English:.
at Mike Butkus'. at Ken Lyndrup's. at Rick Oleson's site., at., also at Pentax Manuals. (Red Dial, Self-Timer) by Luis TriguezIn French:. at. at by Sylvain HalgandIn German:.
Could just be dirty, I haven't tried to clean it. The shutter seems sticky. It's missing part of the leather cover on the front of the camera. It says Leica D.R.P. Ernst Leitz Wetzlar on the top, and serial number 397234. The lens is a Leitz Elmar 5cm 1:3,5 serial 599490 (very small numbers on the black ring surrounding the front of the lens). Luftwaffe Leica IIIc Case Luft Leicas are hard to find, the original Luftwaffe cases seem to be even rarer. No two Leica lenses or cameras have the same serial number. If Leica ever almost duplicated a number, the second item had a star added after its otherwise.
atbodies(at)(de) (ja) (uk) (ussr) lenses(de) (ja) (fr) (uk) (it) (nl)(us).
::AuthorMessageDavejtJoined: 06 Dec 2008Posts: 37Location: CanadaPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:11 am Post subject: Leica IIICDavejt wrote: I happened to be at the camera store today, to get a couple of prints developed, when I happened to walk over to the used counter to see what was available. I noticed quite a few Nikon F's, a Leica M3, a Sony A900, and many, many other assorted items. In the vintage section, hidden away, was this, a re-painted black wartime Leica IIIC, and attached to it, a pretty decent, 1936, uncoated Summar.I didn't even notice it at first, until the woman behind the counter just winked and said, ' look at this '. A trip to the bank, and 20 minutes later, I bought it. Probably shouldn't have as I haven't finished school yet, and not yet working, but I am sure there is something I could sell to make up for it.DaveNessterJoined: 24 Apr 2008Posts: 5885Location: NJ, USA. Expire: 2014-02-20Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:17 am Post subject:Nesster wrote: At least your priorities are straight. That's a real beauty-JussiDavejtJoined: 06 Dec 2008Posts: 37Location: CanadaPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:33 am Post subject:Davejt wrote: For the last year I have walked into that store and had the power to just keep on walking, to not get pulled in by all the amazing things they had.
![]()
Every classic Minolta AF lens, constant strings of Nikons, including 105 and 135 Defocus control lenses, medium format cameras of all shapes and sizes, even the time they had a 4X5 view camera for sale for cheap. Everytime I said to myself, they are common enough that I will see them again.How often do you see one of these? IIIC's are common enough on ebay that you can find them there, but black?Sure feels nice to be buying something after being good and in control for so long.DaveAttilaJoined: 24 Feb 2007Posts: 58182Location: Austria,Hungary.
Expire: 2016-11-18Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:10 am Post subject:Attila wrote: Congrats! To have an old working Leica that is a great feeling absolutely! I look forward your samples in Galleries.-Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8cooltouchJoined: 15 Jan 2009Posts: 8632Location: Houston, TexasPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:14 am Post subject:cooltouch wrote: Very nice!
The IIIc is a sweet, classic camera. What's up with that serial number, though?MichaelMy Gear List:My Gallery:My Flickr Page:My Music:My Blog:DavejtJoined: 06 Dec 2008Posts: 37Location: CanadaPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:55 am Post subject:Davejt wrote: There are specific cameras made during the war with a K in the serial number, or stamped on a shutter curtain. I don't know if this is one of them.On another forum, a gent who is pretty close to being 'the' expert on those cameras recommends keeping the serial numbers of those cameras hidden, so that forgers won't know the correct serial number to copy. I posted on a thread he runs to see if he thinks it might be one of those cameras, so just in case, and as he wished, I blurred out the number. I just used the same picture as I posted there.
Sorry for the confusion.DavecooltouchJoined: 15 Jan 2009Posts: 8632Location: Houston, TexasPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject:cooltouch wrote: Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.I dunno anything about the Summar.
I'm hosting you'll post pics soon, cuz I'm curious about it. Years ago, I owned a collapsible Elmar 50/3.5, and that was one of the sharpest - if not the sharpest - 50mm lenses I've ever owned. I wonder how the Summar compares to the Elmar.MichaelMy Gear List:My Gallery:My Flickr Page:My Music:My Blog:DavejtJoined: 06 Dec 2008Posts: 37Location: CanadaPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject:Davejt wrote: This particular lens has all the usual signs these older lenses usually come with, like cleaning marks, a touch of haze and of course, it is uncoated. As I only picked it up yesterday, and am still busy with school, I am not sure when I will have a chance to shoot and develop some film.Many reviews I have read state they are soft wide open, flare easily, but sharpen up quite well stopped down.I am not sure who this gent on flickr is, but I found his Summar images had a definite look to them, especially the colour shots.Another one on flickr from Chris Weeks in California of Mr. Nicholson: shows what it looks like at 5.6and lastlyI think the images they took all speak better to any description I could ever give, or to any images I could take with the particular lens I have. I assume the lens each person has would be in better condition then the one I have currently.What I did for these three shots, was hold the lens in front of my E1, to use it as a close up lens, sort of, nothing special, very quick grab shots however. The first is wide open.
The second again wide open, the third is stopped down half way. Not sure how much help they would be, but they are quick for now.I have always heard that the Elmar, both the 2.8 and 3.5 are sharper lenses, that even when uncoated, the 3.5 is the sharper lens.If you like, I can email you the jpegs of those three images, they come straight from the camera with nothing done in PS. I briefly used a much better Summar in the past, I will look this weekend to see if I can locate the negatives and scan a couple for you.DaveDisplay posts from previous.
![]() Comments are closed.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |