Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: IIIa vs IIIc
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:38:59 -0500

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!