I have just bought a Leica IIIa for fun. It complements my DS M3 (with period Summicron), which I was contemplating selling but which absolutely refuses to accept this possibility. I shall keep both. It is fascinating to compare the two cameras, and once I have some more results, I shall scan them and post them. So far:

Both cameras are very well made. M3's finder is much bigger and easier to focus in low light, however the rangefinders on both are exceptionally clear I am told.

I find the IIIa very compact and light. Loading is slower, and working out the exposure with the old setings takes some getting used to, but it is not impossible. It comes with a nice leather case and the oft-criticised collapsible Summar. In fact, this lens is held in such poor regard it was thrown in free with the camera for a very good price. Results on Elite Chrome Extra Colour show surprisingly good resolution in a shot of cane furniture at a garden show. Definitely softer wide open, though this may be good for scenics and portraits. This is not my favourite film however. Shows red skin tones (true with film shot on my Minilux too). Did not notice flare, but have bought a Ficus hood.

In short, the M3 is still a joy to use, but both are fun. Comparisons from those of you who have used both are welcome.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), October 31, 2001

Answers

David,

I have five SM-Leica’s and love ‘em eternally. I prefer ‘em to my two M3’s and one M4P. It’s case of taste.

Enjoy your IIIa

Victor

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), November 01, 2001.

i have a IIIa too. the m3 struck me as excessively heavy - it feels heavier even than the contax II, which leica fans had condemned as oversize and overweight back in the ltm days. beautiful camera though...

:)=

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), November 01, 2001.