RE: [Leica] Leica IIIa and Summar 50 f2 vs Leica IIIc and Elmar 50 f3.5

[Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>]

Tony,
Ted's post covers most points and most people's views, in theory the IIIc 
should be better as it's a later camera. The improvements which were made 
to warrant this were mainly to do with improving the strength of the body, 
whereby the lens mount was integrated with the top plate keeping the 
rangefinder, theoretically, in greater alignment than previously. With the 
IIIb and all others before that, the lens mount was integral to the body, 
not the top plate. That's the theory but I've heard of no camera with a 
problem that was inherent to the earlier design.
Both types will have the rangefinder go out of 'whack' every once in a 
while (decade or so).
Re: the lenses, again all common consensus is with the legendary Elmar 
being the better performer. I have a friend in Scotland who produces the 
most amazing work with a Summar though. I'm sure most people wouldn't 
believe it. He won't shoot into the sun and his technique is perfect, he 
also ensured he chose an example without too many scratches, if at all, and 
will always use a lens hood. The resolving power is as good as the Elmar at 
lower apertures, merely the contrast is lower.

So as Ted said, the choice is yours but you wouldn't regret the IIIa and 
Summar, merely grow to love it!

Jem

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Tony Salce [SMTP:NadinaTony@bigpond.com]

Hi, I'm relatively new to this list. I wanted to know what people's views 
were of the above two combinations and which would be the preferable 
purchase. I shoot mainly family photos and street photography. Your 
comments would be appreciated.
Leica IIIa and Summar 50 f2  vs  Leica IIIc and Elmar 50 f3.5