Re: [Leica] IIIf question

["Mark Hammons" <astair@ix.netcom.com>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: A.H.SCHMIDT <horsts@actek.com.au>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] IIIf question


>The Leica IIf is not an older camera then the IIIf. The  differences are:
>
>The IIf has no slow speeds and the accessory shoe mounting has only 2 screws to hold
>a piece of spring metal. The IIIf has four screws .
>
>The IIf has both , red and black dial versions. The top speed on all black dial
>versions is 1/500 sec. The red dial versions had also 1/500 sec, but from serial No
>676564 they had a top speed of 1/1000  sec.
>
>The IIf never has a self timer mechanism. The total IIf production was only  31,091
>units.
>The black dial version was the least numerous, with only 8400 build.
>
>The  total production figures for the IIIf are 185,100 units.
>
>Both models are extremely good models, together with the IIIc  post war model.
>The Post war IIIc, together with a summitar lens is, in my opinion, the best value
>for money, if you don't need to use flash. It has the shark skin covering, which
>gives a very good grip. Most IIIc 's need a shutter and wind knob lubricate. With
>this done, the perform forever. You can even put them in to your pocket, with the
>Summitar or Elmar collapsed.
>
>Horst
>



A very good summary.  Only thing is that not all postwar IIIC's had sharkskin
covering.  Early postwar ones had regular vulcanite.  Then the switch was made
to sharkskin.  Then, before production ended very late model ones had vulcanite
again.  Some Postwar IIIc's had a problem with the chrome where the chrome
would pit very easily -- watch out for this if you buy one.


Mark Hammons