Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:59 AM 3/12/2000 -0500, Doug Cooper wrote: >I do like the smaller body, it's true. Is the difference in construction >something I'll notice in the field? (Certainly the IIIa seems >bullet-proof; the body walls are noticeably thicker than my Canon's.) > >And how about the price? Is $375 excessive for a very clean IIIa? I take >it I wouldn't have to pay any more for a IIIc in this condition. There were many advantages to the die-cast construction of the later LTM's. One of the most obvious is that there is less body flex. This is not an issue if all you are going to use are dinky little bottles like wide-angle lenses but if your taste runs to hefty telephoto rigs with a Visoflex, then the IIIa's body flexing might be a problem. The price is high. Leica made 91,887 chrome IIIa's, and there are still a lot of them out there. I see IIIa bodies on occasion under $300, as I do with IIIc's. And I recently paid $400 for a IIIf BD in really clean condition. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!