Leica O series QA?

[pizzahut88]

I think it looks cool.
Perhaps it's not practical at all.

But I simply don't know a thing about it.
Anyboby has one?
Anyone shooting with it?

I am also looking for a copy of the manual for this O-series.

What are the specs?
It has no meter right?

Cheers, Manfred

[spysmart]

I think it looks cool.
Perhaps it's not practical at all ... It has no meter right?


It's like no other camera - every other 35mm camera in existence started here.

Things that you have probably never knew you had to think about need to be taken care of:

To load film, make sure you have your swiss army knife - you need to cut a longer tail than is standard on cassettes.

The shutter is not self capping - so you have to replace the lens cap before winding on.
Half way though winding on is the only opportunity to change the slot width, which defines the shutter speed. It's calibrated in mm.
The first model ( mine ) has a cross hair and needle viewfinder, which you use at arms length like a digital compact. I don't use this, but use the superb SBOOI OVF instead ( see avatar )
The later model has a OVF, but cost will be $$$.
The aperture and scale focus are conventional.
There is no filter thread ( as the aperture lever is right next to the front element)

Exposure is by the sunny = 1/ISO at f/12 method.

All that said, it easy to use with practice, the lens is outstandingly sharp and boken is superb.

I scanned in the manual into pdf a while back, I can post a link if you like later ( once I get back from work )

[pizzahut88]

I scanned in the manual into pdf a while back, I can post a link if you like later ( once I get back from work )

Ooo . . . lovely, I am trying to find out more about this camera.

[spysmart]

Okay, I've posted the manual here: Leica_OSeriesManual.pdf (http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/Leica_OSeriesManual.pdf)

[merlin]

pizzahut88 - I’ve been using the prototype-2 for a year and a half. Only difference from the proto-1 is the compact, permanently-fixed optical viewfinder that enables full head-to-camera support.

The viewfinder’s half-life-size tube image seems a negative but scene framing is reasonably bright, surprisingly accurate and very, very quick to the eye/brain.

Like spysmart says, operating the O requires RELIGIOUS FORETHOUGHT. Once set, it works like greased lighting for just ONE shot ... forget to recap and that shot and the next frame are fried during full advance or half-advance shutter reset. Hey, no big deal, O users quickly learn to not advance – the exact opposite of one's normal rangefinder instinct.

Speaking of nutty, O apertures and speeds are also vintage. I had to work up an exposure/dof reference card to become comfortable using, say 5mm/f12 for iso100 sunny16, the old-time equivalent to 125th/f16.

The camera is tiny, perfectly-balanced with a killer lens and a superb mechanical feel, but the best thing is that you must think before you leap – employ the mindset of a large format user without all the baggage. I love the routine and take the little beastie everywhere in it's little leather case.

[Dralowid]

Can I suggest a Leica I or Standard?

I've had a I for years but only started using it last year after a CLA. It's a great little camera with a wonderful feel and simple to use. External condition is pretty grim so there are no worries about beating it up.

Much cheaper than an O too!

Michael

[pizzahut88]

Okay, I've posted the manual here: Leica_OSeriesManual.pdf (http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/Leica_OSeriesManual.pdf)
Thanks for the upload.

I have the read the whole thing . . . gas attack!!!
So there are two variations right?


Merlin has the later type, with the finder?
I suppose I would like to use the finder version.

It's really basic.
Zone focusing . . . no meter . . . . this is the final frontier
the beginning and the end of the all things about photography.

[pizzahut88]

pizzahut88 - I’ve been using the prototype-2 for a year and a half. Only difference from the proto-1 is the compact, permanently-fixed optical viewfinder that enables full head-to-camera support.

The viewfinder’s half-life-size tube image seems a negative but scene framing is reasonably bright, surprisingly accurate and very, very quick to the eye/brain.

Like spysmart says, operating the O requires RELIGIOUS FORETHOUGHT. Once set, it works like greased lighting for just ONE shot ... forget to recap and that shot and the next frame are fried during full advance or half-advance shutter reset. Hey, no big deal, O users quickly learn to not advance – the exact opposite of one's normal rangefinder instinct.

Speaking of nutty, O apertures and speeds are also vintage. I had to work up an exposure/dof reference card to become comfortable using, say 5mm/f12 for iso100 sunny16, the old-time equivalent to 125th/f16.

The camera is tiny, perfectly-balanced with a killer lens and a superb mechanical feel, but the best thing is that you must think before you leap – employ the mindset of a large format user without all the baggage. I love the routine and take the little beastie everywhere in it's little leather case.

Hi Merlin,

Thanks for your tip.
Is there room enough to tack on one of those Voigltander VC Meter?
I am terrible with guessing exposure.
My Rollei 35 suffers from my poor skills, its meter being dead.

And last thing to confirm, there is no rangefinder right?
So guess focusing is it?

[Roger Hicks]

It's like no other camera - every other 35mm camera in existence started here.

Not really. Here are some (no all) of the earlier 35mm still cameras:

Tourist Multiple, 1912/13
Simplex, 1913
Homeos, 1914
Minigraph, 1915
Sico, 1922
Debrie Sept, 1922
Phototank, 1922
Esco, 1923
Le Furet, 1923
Eka (1924)
Cent Vues (1924)
Photorette (1924)
Unette (1924)
Amourette (1924)

The Leica appeared, of course, in April 1925.

Some, it is true, used imperforate film; but the Eka was made by Krauss, which I believe to be the same firm that made (makes?) microscopes -- an interesting parallel with Leitz.

To return to the question, after trying to use a Nullserie replica (a friend has one), I decided that life wasn't long enough: I'd rather just take pictures...

Cheers,

Roger

[Luddite Frank]

I'm sure I'm jumping in over my head, but didn't Barnack create his UR Leica in 1913 ?

( Or have I been guiled by Leitz propaganda ?)

Thanks,

Luddite Frank

(PS: I was REALLY tempted by one of the Null replicas that Ritz had for sale, but decided that it was too "fiddly" ( and expensive) for a shooter, so I got two later cameras: a D ( II ) and a III-f... in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to using a Null is the lack of a self-capping shutter; that and the proprietary shutter speed code... )

[merlin]

Not really. Here are some (no all) of the earlier 35mm still cameras: ... The Leica appeared, of course, in April 1925 ... Some, it is true, used imperforate film; but the Eka was made by Krauss, which I believe to be the same firm that made (makes?) microscopes -- an interesting parallel with Leitz.

To return to the question, after trying to use a Nullserie replica (a friend has one), I decided that life wasn't long enough: I'd rather just take pictures...

Roger - First, Hello.

OK, maybe Eka>Krauss still makes or doesn't make microscopes but aren't you, perhaps, maybe, splitting an oak tree as to which camera started the 35 Revolution? The original 1914-ish Barnack camera was 99% of the gene pool for the Leica Null, which evolved into all the little Leica LTM and less-little M models. Meantime, what did any of those other (albeit-very-interesting) fringe camera-makers ever amount too in the 35mm world?

As far as using the O, you must try harder – it's mechanical ponderousness lowers the blood pressure, forces one to slow down and relax and hopefully live a longer life, not a shorter life. Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it (until I die).

Bruce

[sepiareverb]

Looking forward to the 0 Erik! I think the iiif will be going on the block here shortly once this baby arrives. The connection to large format is a good one- I've felt this about working with the iiif, there is a layer of disconnect I feel from the subject due to the mechanics. We'll see how it compares.

[merlin]

Hi Merlin,

Thanks for your tip.
Is there room enough to tack on one of those Voigltander VC Meter?
I am terrible with guessing exposure.
My Rollei 35 suffers from my poor skills, its meter being dead.

And last thing to confirm, there is no rangefinder right?
So guess focusing is it?

The accessory shoe is obsessively true to the original, therefore you can't attach anything to it that was made after August 17, 1925 ... the torture never ends!

Read the current-running meter-no-meter thread ... in spite of what some say, thoughtful guessing works surprisingly well!

Yes, there is no rangefinder. I made up a really-helpful business-card-sized chart that is much simpler than the one in the manual - and it's needed in critical DOF situations as there can't be such indiicators on a microscopic collapsible lens. 7m@f12 (11'-∞º) is the set for ∞, and guesstimating close distances is not the ogre you'd think once you train yourself ... and know there will be occasional failures.

All said and done, the O is simply a trip you take or don't. Good luck in your quest. PM me anytime.

[sepiareverb]

...warm...

Warm? what's that? It is February here ya know:D

[Roger Hicks]

Roger - First, Hello.

OK, maybe Eka>Krauss still makes or doesn't make microscopes but aren't you, perhaps, maybe, splitting an oak tree as to which camera started the 35 Revolution? The original 1914-ish Barnack camera was 99% of the gene pool for the Leica Null, which evolved into all the little Leica LTM and less-little M models. Meantime, what did any of those other (albeit-very-interesting) fringe camera-makers ever amount too in the 35mm world?

As far as using the O, you must try harder – it's mechanical ponderousness lowers the blood pressure, forces one to slow down and relax and hopefully live a longer life, not a shorter life. Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it (until I die).

Bruce
Dear Bruce (with a nod to Frank too),

Entirely fair, but the earliest British patent for a 35mm camera of which I am aware was in 1908, and we may fairly assume that most of the earlier cameras existed in prototype form, before they were patended (which was 1912 for the Tourist Multiple, for example). And one feature of the Nullserie which was significantly more primitive than many of its forebears was the viewfinder.

The information I gave in the earlier post was taken from my own A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Focal Press, 1984, and many more cameras have come to light in the quarter-century since I wrote it; take a look at

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

which includes a 1905 Andersen; as far as I am aware, never patented.

Yes, obviously all 35mm cameras owe a great deal to the Leica. All I was trying to suggest is that it is very easy to overstate this, and that (in my belief) many people do overstate it. SLR design owes a vast amount to Exakta; exposure automation, to Kodak; lens design, to many manufacturers other than Leitz/Leica; and the Steinheil Casca (1949) incorporated many features that would later appear in the M3.

As for slowing down, that's the last thing I want to do with a 35mm camera, which I see as a quick way of grabbing an image. If I want to slow down, I'll go to a larger format -- all the way up to my 12x15 inch Gandolfi, if I want maximum delay between seeing a shot and taking it -- but this is very much a personal way of looking at things, as is yours; neither is necessarily more valid.

Cheers,

Roger

[Keith]

I like the look of the 'O' and it inspired me to go out and buy a 1930 Leica 1a because when I read about having to cover the lens to wind on I thought "no thanks." I can deal with the scale focussing, strange aperture scale and odd shutter speeds of my 1a but having to remember to cap the lens before advancing the film as well would be too much! :p

[spysmart]

I want to dispel the myth that the O-series is slow to use.
It's really no slower than using a Rollei 35 and not far behind a M6 with collapsable 50mm for stowed to single shot i.e. in pocket, extend lens, set aperture, focus and fire; cap, wind .... Capping the lens becomes so instinctive that it soon requires no thought.
The main inconvenience is setting the shutter speed to fit in with ambient lighting conditions. As I always wind on, that occasionally means wasting a frame to change shutter speed.

The accessory shoe works just fine with accessories made after 1925 - the trick is to use a small tab of leather under the OVF as a wedge. My SBOOI is very firmly held in place.

It's a great little travel camera, but does come with the feeling that you are a passenger in a Zeppelin airship.

[Dralowid]

I agree with Keith. The shutter capping bit is a step too far for me, hence my suggestion of the I.

They also happen to be original...

Michael

[Roger Hicks]

I agree with Keith. The shutter capping bit is a step too far for me, hence my suggestion of the I.

They also happen to be original...

Michael
Seconded. I had a fixed-lens Standard from the late 20s for a while.

Even so, I still prefer an MP. I've owned Standard, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIIf (RD and BD) and IIIg, and M2, M3, M4-P, MP and M8, and played with I, IIId replica, 250FF, 250GG, M1, M5, M6, M6ttl, M7 (taking pics with about half of the latter), and for me, a Leica is a machine for taking pics, not an antique for wrestling with. I can see the appeal of old Leicas, and still have the first Leica I ever bought, my IIIa; but there's a big gap, as far as I am concerned, between the romantic dream and taking pictures. That gap has been widening steadily for decades.

I would not wish for an instant to discourage anyone from actually using old Leicas; I had a lot of fun doing it. All I'm saying is that the dream and the reality don't necessarily match for everyone, so think hard before spending large sums on a dream.

Cheers,

R.

[Luddite Frank]

Personally, for an early, practical Barnack, I would happily "compromise" with an A ( I'm hooked by the "hockey-stick" infinity lock ! )...

I'm in Roger's camp when it comes to using ponderous, "fiddly" cameras: I'll switch formats and haul-out my 1890's "Rochester View" 8x10, long-focus Premo 5x7, Pony Premo 4x5, or even my 1960's battleship-grey Calument 4x5 monorail...

By comparison to those dinosaurs, my 1930's Zeiss "Donata" 9x12cm plate-camera, with Plaubel RADA 120 roll-film back is a "compact", speedy hand-camera !

Happy shooting !

LudditeFrank

[Dralowid]

'I would not wish for an instant to discourage anyone from actually using old Leicas; I had a lot of fun doing it. All I'm saying is that the dream and the reality don't necessarily match for everyone, so think hard before spending large sums on a dream.'

Agreed, much as I appreciate the older cameras, and am the keeper of some, it is the M6 that always comes with me. And yes, if I could afford it, I'd trade in the M6 for an M8 but I'm not going to part with those old black battered beauties unless I have to!

Michael

[merlin]

Dear Bruce (with a nod to Frank too) ... Yes, obviously all 35mm cameras owe a great deal to the Leica. All I was trying to suggest is that it is very easy to overstate this, and that (in my belief) many people do overstate it. SLR design owes a vast amount to Exakta; exposure automation, to Kodak; lens design, to many manufacturers other than Leitz/Leica; and the Steinheil Casca (1949) incorporated many features that would later appear in the M3.

As for slowing down, that's the last thing I want to do with a 35mm camera, which I see as a quick way of grabbing an image. If I want to slow down, I'll go to a larger format -- all the way up to my 12x15 inch Gandolfi, if I want maximum delay between seeing a shot and taking it -- but this is very much a personal way of looking at things, as is yours; neither is necessarily more valid.

Roger, I rest both our cases on overstatement, and thanks for the fascinating webpage of really-cool and really-weird, state-of-the-art early 20th Century stuff.

And Frank, I heartily agree with you and Roger that the delightfully-slow large format process is the essence of slow. I worked with just one 8x10 and loved it dearly but at this stage of my clock, the O is lighter and I no longer need to decide which lens to use.

[rjporter]

I handled an O series today for the first time at a shop, and i loved it, it had an awesome feel to it, it was the older finder so holding it away from my head was a little weird (very digital) but definitely on the "list". I ended up walking out however with a IIIf with a 5cm summitar, my very first real leica! hooray! i have finally graduated from my bessa R (the first one, lots and lots of plastic) and fed cameras.

[Dunk]

An ex demo "O" Replica arrived today. Build quality is exemplorary; operation is very idiosyncratic and the ergonomics border on masochism ... but I love the camera and look forward to putting a few films through it. One reason for buying is to try the recomputed Anastigmat lens. Another reason is that the price was right ie Leica camera plus lens for less than the price of an equivalent quality Leica lens.

So how to use it?

Not by looking through the folding cross hair viewfinder because holding the camera so far away from the eye is too uncomfortable.

Will be using an optical viewfinder in the accessory shoe ... the SBOOI /12015 50mm finder fits OK.

And because I have a fallible memory the shutter blinds' gap widths need an easy method of conversion to actual shutter speeds.

Problem solved by writing the 5 gap widths and their corresponding speeds onto a small piece of thin card - cut small enough to slide/fit under the folded viewfinder window.

Unfortunately the lens needs capping every time the blinds' gap is altered and also throughout the subsequent remaining wind-on to fully cock the shutter. But the lens cap on a string is just too slow, distracting and fiddly. Also, I prefer to use a lens hood (the adjustable FIKUS hood fits nicely and is also quite deep) and trying to insert the cap through the hood makes capping more cumbersome.

No problem ... forget the lens cap on a string ... just use the palm of the hand cupped over the hood ... it is a lot quicker and the "feel" of my palm against the hood tells me it is light tight.

And the lens' aperture tab is easily accessible through the hood

This is not the way the camera is meant to be used but if it gets results then why not?
:):)

There is another reason why I want to use it ... images will be compared to those obtained with these cameras ...

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0379.jpg

... which hopefully will be the subject of another thread

Cheers

dunk

[sepiareverb]

Just getting ready to load up the O again myself. Thanks for the bump.

[Dunk]

This is part of a Leica "O" photo essay I prepared for the photographic section of another non-camera forum:

This is the Leica "O" Replica camera:
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0392.jpg

It is just as Oskar Barnack originally designed it hence the unfamiliar controls and querky method of operation. Unlike the 1925 Leica I, the model "O" does not have a self-capping focal plane shutter. The lens cap on a cord was designed to be placed over the lens every time the shutter is wound on to avoid fogging the film. Shutter cocking/film winding is straightforward for any preset shutter speed. But changing the actual shutter speed complicates matters because the shutter slit width between the first and second shutter curtains can only be altered when the shutter is partially wound and when the first of the two shutter blinds is completely in front of the film plane window. The slit width cannot be altered when the shutter is fully cocked or immediately after it is fired. The actual slit widths, as distinct from shutter speeds, are shown on the shutter speed "setting knob" . The widths correspond to the speeds as follows:
2mm = 1/500 sec
5mm = 1/200 sec
10mm = 1/100 sec
20mm = 1/50 sec
50mm = 1/20 sec

Here is a close-up of the the shutter setting knob and wind-on with the shutter cocked and ready to fire at 1/50 sec.
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0411.jpg
The pin indicator in the setting knob shows 20mm

And here is the setting knob after the shutter has fired ... pin still in the 20mm slit width position
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0412.jpg

Suppose the shutter speed for the next exposure requires changing to 1/500 second ie 2mm blind slit width. The shutter now needs partially winding on ... but throughout this procedure the lens cap must be placed over the lens. This avoids fogging the film through the uncapped shutter blind slit as the blinds are wound back off the take-up drum. Note the red dot on the setting knob. When the wind-on is turned, the setting knob also turns. Thus by partially turning the wind-on, the red dot can be aligned with the indicator line on the LHS. Only in this position is the first shutter blind completely in front of the film plane. And only in this position can the outer knurled sheath surrounding the setting knob be pushed down and turned, to slip the indicator pin into alterrnative slit width positions.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0413.jpg
Here the wind-on has been being partially turned to align the red dot


http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0414.jpg
And here the setting knob sheath has been pushed down (with the red dot still aligned) and turned to slip the indicator pin into the 2mm position i.e 1/500 sec.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0415-1.jpg
And here the wind-on knob has been fully turned to cock the shutter with the new 2mm slit width.

It is a rather long winded :wink: procedure and also risks fogging the film if the lens is not capped.

Furthermore, the slit widths and corresponding speeds require memorizing or writing down.

But these complications are not the only idiosyncrasies because the cross hair viewfinder cannot be used close to the eye ... it can only be used at a viewing distance of 25-30cm in order that the cross hairs can be aligned with the sight-hole. This does not permit steady viewing or steady shutter operation. The camera would be more stable if held conventionally against the face. This can be achieved by using a conventional accessory viewfinder as shown below. Here the Leitz SBOOI 12015 has been used. The photograph also shows a lens hood being used about which more later.
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0393.jpg
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0402.jpg
The cross hair finder can now be folded against the top plate and used to hold a thin piece of card on which are written the corresponding shutter speeds for each slit width ... obviating the need to memorize which speeds correspond with the respective slit widths.

However, the lens still needs capping each time the shutter is wound on and then uncapping again before making the exposure. But, the capping procedure can be speeded up if a lens hood is used thus permitting capping with the palm of the hand instead of the cap on the cord. This sounds a bit risky but the hood fits "light-tight" around the lens and the palm can be totally "cupped" over the front thus capping the lens.

Whilst not in the true Barnack Leica "O" tradition these modifications do permit faster operation ... and also enable the use of the superb recomputed Anastigmat lens ... and at reasonable cost judging by the current used "O" prices.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0403.jpg

I will add some photographs taken with the camera soon.

Watch this space.

Cheers

dunk

[CameraQuest]

I like the Leica O replicas, but I was and still am very disappointed they mount a coated lens. If I ever get one, the first thing I will have done is the installation of a vintage 1930's uncoated Elmar. Of course an Elmax or Anastigmat would be preferred ....

Stephen

[Erik van Straten]

There is another reason why I want to use it ... images will be compared to those obtained with these cameras ...

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa318/kirkwoodpix/DSCF0379.jpg

... which hopefully will be the subject of another thread

Cheers

dunk

I hope you realise that the shown Leica I Anastigmat is a fake, although of very refined manufacture...

Please compare with shown genuine Leica I Anastigmat.

Erik.

[Dunk]

I hope you realise that the shown Leica I Anastigmat is a fake, although of very refined manufacture...

Please compare with shown genuine Leica I Anastigmat.

Erik.

Erik, thank you for your opinion. I have sent you a private message stating my reasons for being satisfied that the camera is genuine ie quoted you six other experts who have examined the camera and who are of the opinion it is genuine ... and mentioned another expert who will examining the camera when it is serviced ... and also quoted my experience as a collector and why I think it is genuine. I have also mentioned documentation in my possession providing provenance.

When you categorically state "Leica I Anastigmat is a fake ... " without knowing its actual history, you are in my opinion being a little hasty and somewhat dogmatic. I hope you might revise your opinion after reading my private message.

Regards

dunk

[Leica0Series]

I would humbly recommend you check out my article on this camera in the July issue of LFI ... glad to see this thread! I thought I was the only one using it.

[Dunk]

I would humbly recommend you check out my article on this camera in the July issue of LFI ... glad to see this thread! I thought I was the only one using it.


Thank you ... I will try and obtain a back copy ... I do buy it sometimes but only when I visit London where it is readily available in several shops ...

EDIT: Just checked back issues contents ... the Leica "O" article is in the 6/2008 edition not 7/2008

Cheers

dunk

[350D_user]

It looks a fascinating camera. One question... there's two 'dots'/holes between the 2mm and 5mm marks. I know one will be for setting the 2mm shutter speed, but what's the other one for?

I did try to download the pdf file from the link supplied in this thread, but that now goes nowere. :(

Someone mentioned using a Standard instead. I'll disagree... the Standard isn't worth it. Use a... I dunno... 1f or something similar. Anything... but just keep the prices of the Standards low. ;)

[P. Lynn Miller]

I would humbly recommend you check out my article on this camera in the July issue of LFI ... glad to see this thread! I thought I was the only one using it.

I have... and I have reread the article probably a half-dozen times. You have almost convinced that I cannot live without a Leica O! Great article and if I ever uncover a bargain Leica LTM, I will being thanking you as I reach for my wallet.

Thanks,

[Dunk]

It looks a fascinating camera. One question... there's two 'dots'/holes between the 2mm and 5mm marks. I know one will be for setting the 2mm shutter speed, but what's the other one for?

I did try to download the pdf file from the link supplied in this thread, but that now goes nowere. :(

Someone mentioned using a Standard instead. I'll disagree... the Standard isn't worth it. Use a... I dunno... 1f or something similar. Anything... but just keep the prices of the Standards low. ;)

One pin-hole is for the 2mm, the next one is for the 5mm, the pin-hole between the 5 and the 10 is the 10mm, the remaining pin-holes are for the 20mm and 50mm. There are five pin-holes ... and five slit widths.

Cheers

dunk

[Erik van Straten]

Erik, thank you for your opinion. I have sent you a private message stating my reasons for being satisfied that the camera is genuine ie quoted you six other experts who have examined the camera and who are of the opinion it is genuine ... and mentioned another expert who will examining the camera when it is serviced ... and also quoted my experience as a collector and why I think it is genuine. I have also mentioned documentation in my possession providing provenance.

When you categorically state "Leica I Anastigmat is a fake ... " without knowing its actual history, you are in my opinion being a little hasty and somewhat dogmatic. I hope you might revise your opinion after reading my private message.

Regards

dunk

Dunk, thank you for your comprehensive messages. Your arguments are strong. I was hasty and dogmatic indeed. But I am still a bit doubtful. Did you notice the space between the focusing lever of the lens and the "hockeystick" spring on the front of the camera? I never saw that on any other Leica I.

Regards,

Erik.

[Dunk]

Dunk, thank you for your comprehensive messages. Your arguments are strong. I was hasty and dogmatic indeed. But I am still a bit doubtful. Did you notice the space between the focusing lever of the lens and the "hockeystick" spring on the front of the camera? I never saw that on any other Leica I.

Regards,

Erik.

Yes Erik there is a small space ... but this is one of the first 175 Leica 1 Anastigmat cameras made (between S/N 126 and S/N 300) ... and mine is thus one of the first 54 made. The 'space' is due to wear ... resulting in some "play" in the mount both when the lens is collapsed and when it is extended. The lens can be twisted vey slightly to take up the play and then the space disappears i.e. the focusing lever then makes contact with the hockey stick. I have another early Leica 1 with a worn focusing mount and it also has slight play resulting in a small space between the focusing lever and the hockey stick . But this is all fair wear and tear in my opinion. A bit of "slack Alice" in something over 80 years old is to be expected as no camera of this age are going to be as "tight" mechanically as it was over 80 years ago. I hope the play might be remedied when it is serviced provided it can be done without compromising the camera's integrity. On a more positive note, the Anastigmat lens has the three fine lines along the length of the barrel which line up with the three marks on the focusing mount to permit lens collapse. And the wind-on is the correct 'ratchet' type used up to c. S/N 626.

Cheers

dunk

[Erik van Straten]

Yes Dunk, but three fine lines are very easy to engrave. Only the construction of the rear glass group can give decisive answer. This is however hard to see. The way how the serial number on top of the camera is done is also a hard proof. Can you make a closeup of that part for us? We all love a Leica I Anastigmat!

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

Here are numbers from no. 107 and no. 201.

Erik.

[Dunk]

Here are numbers from no. 107 and no. 201.

Erik.

Thank you Erik. Please see my private message.

Regards

dunk

[Simon Larbalestier]

I like the look of the 'O' and it inspired me to go out and buy a 1930 Leica 1a because when I read about having to cover the lens to wind on I thought "no thanks." I can deal with the scale focussing, strange aperture scale and odd shutter speeds of my 1a but having to remember to cap the lens before advancing the film as well would be too much! :p

I'd agree with Keith here, I bought the first replica model Series O, introduced a few years back, found a hood and set of filters. Whilst it make me think more and slow me down, the impractical operational issues eventually made me sell it and buy an M4. It did however, brass very quickly. Which was nice.

[Dunk]

Yes Dunk, but three fine lines are very easy to engrave. Only the construction of the rear glass group can give decisive answer. This is however hard to see. The way how the serial number on top of the camera is done is also a hard proof. Can you make a closeup of that part for us? We all love a Leica I Anastigmat!

Erik.


I will have some photos of the S/N to post tomorrow ... contrary to previous opinion the S/N is in relief ie "raised" and not engraved ... I think the photos will prove that the Leica Anastigmat is ... a Leica Anastigmat
:D:D:D

Cheers

dunk

[Erik van Straten]

Hello Dunk,

Here's the serial number of no 404.

Cheers,

Erik.