PDA

View Full Version : Leica Standard or Leica I


raid
11-12-2018, 16:03
I have a black Leica camera that may be a Standard or a Leica I. It has serial number 160933. It is a small camera. What exactly are the differences between Leica I, II, III and the Standard?
Shutter speeds go from "Z" 25-1 30 40 60 100 200 500.
Which camera do I have here?
I found this online: 160701 161150 Leica I 1935 camera
https://photos.smugmug.com/2018-Varieties/i-tn4nJRN/0/f59a91a0/X3/IMG_0669-X3.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/2018-Varieties/i-hFXKm62/1/2aa669b6/X3/IMG_0667-X3.jpg

Ko.Fe.
11-12-2018, 16:35
Awesome camera!

Standard has screwed in VF?

raid
11-12-2018, 16:39
Someone may have removed the fixed 5cm viewfinder in my camera and replaced it with an accessory shoe. The camera looks much better than in the quick snapshots shown here. It could be a modified Standard. Stephen's list of SN's lists my camera as a Leica I but Stephen states that some Leica I listings on his list could be Standard Leica cameras.

Pioneer
11-12-2018, 17:46
I am certainly no expert but it seems they are all Leica 1(s). The original Leica 1 was a Model C. The Leica 1 that was commonly called the Standard came out as the Model E in the same year that the Leica II, also known as a Model D, was introduced. I believe that the name "Standard" designates that the lens flange distance was standardized (which was identified with the little '0' on the cameras flange.)



Based on your Serial Number, and the general chronology, yours should be a Model E Leica 1, also known as a Standard. However, you do not appear to have the little viewfinder on top no can I see the little number '0' on your camera's lens flange.


Very interesting.

B-9
11-12-2018, 18:24
Looks like a 1

Likely modified with the extra shoe.

The mount could have been replaced hence the lack of “o”

Very interesting and cool camera!

Maybe extra intriguing to someone shooting wide angle. VF and bubble level! Sounds like something your into Raid.

Nice find!

raid
11-12-2018, 18:52
Thanks for the input.
I have been using this camera with a Rokkor 2.1cm and the Canon 19mm. The middle accessory shoe is used with the VF. There is no need for a RF here. The DoF is huge with such wide angle lenses. The shutter is smooth like butter. How can a camera be working so smoothly if it was made in the 1930's?!

raid
11-12-2018, 19:16
I am certainly no expert but it seems they are all Leica 1(s). The original Leica 1 was a Model C. The Leica 1 that was commonly called the Standard came out as the Model E in the same year that the Leica II, also known as a Model D, was introduced. I believe that the name "Standard" designates that the lens flange distance was standardized (which was identified with the little '0' on the cameras flange.)



Based on your Serial Number, and the general chronology, yours should be a Model E Leica 1, also known as a Standard. However, you do not appear to have the little viewfinder on top no can I see the little number '0' on your camera's lens flange.


Very interesting.
My camera seems to have received a chrome replacement lens flange, so that is why we cannot see the "0".
The 5cm viewfinder was replaced with an extra accessory shoe (for some reason).

Rob-F
11-12-2018, 19:50
My serial number listing shows it is both a I and a standard, listed as "I standard." The model I would have the "hockey stick" infinity stop on the front panel. Yours doesn't, suggesting it is a transitional piece between the I and the standard. I agree with Pioneer the Standard has the standardized mount with the "O" engraved at the top. The absence of the "O" on yours might just mean they hadn't yet thought of engraving the "O" during the transitional period. Does it focus correctly at infinity with one or more of your thread-mount lenses?

Edit: Rogliatti lists it as a"I Standard." Hove Pocket guide 7th edition, simply as a I.

Sumarongi
11-13-2018, 03:25
Dear Raid,

there's a lot of confusion simply because US Americans and the rest of the world have developed different terminologies regarding the Thread Mount Leicas!

I guess this article here may shed some light on it:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leica_Standard

:)

Erik van Straten
11-13-2018, 04:40
Raid, it is a 1 Standard from 1935, not a 1. I did not know that "1 Standard" Leicas exists, but here is the proof. Rob-F is right.

I knew that there was a Leica "1" and a Leica "Standard", but not that there was a Leica "1 Standard". 450 pcs made.

Congratulations!

Erik.


https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4850/44946907015_4434314c5b.jpg

raid
11-13-2018, 05:16
Thank you all! This is very interesting.
It focuses correctly with several lenses, including a 5cm 3.5 Elmar with guess focus.
Having a "I Standard" is a cool thing to uncover here. I was not sure if it was a Standard or a I.

raid
11-13-2018, 05:18
Dear Raid,

there's a lot of confusion simply because US Americans and the rest of the world have developed different terminologies regarding the Thread Mount Leicas!

I guess this article here may shed some light on it:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leica_Standard

:)

Thank you for the link on the Leica Standard. I will go over the material there.

raid
11-13-2018, 05:21
Raid, it is a 1 Standard from 1935, not a 1. I did not know that "1 Standard" Leicas exists, but here is the proof. Rob-F is right.

I knew that there was a Leica "1" and a Leica "Standard", but not that there was a Leica "1 Standard". 450 pcs made.

Congratulations!

Erik.




Thank you, Erik. So there exist only 450 I Standard cameras? This is "rare" or "uncommon", I guess. It seems to me now that this model was a transition model in 1935. It is amazing that such old cameras can function so smoothly.

raid
11-13-2018, 05:23
My serial number listing shows it is both a I and a standard, listed as "I standard." The model I would have the "hockey stick" infinity stop on the front panel. Yours doesn't, suggesting it is a transitional piece between the I and the standard. I agree with Pioneer the Standard has the standardized mount with the "O" engraved at the top. The absence of the "O" on yours might just mean they hadn't yet thought of engraving the "O" during the transitional period. Does it focus correctly at infinity with one or more of your thread-mount lenses?

Edit: Rogliatti lists it as a"I Standard." Hove Pocket guide 7th edition, simply as a I.

Thank you Rob.
Yes, the Hockey Stick is not there! There is no "O" either.

mcfingon
11-13-2018, 05:24
It’s almost like they deliberately made variations on the theme to keep us amused 83 years into the future, Raid. Very forward-thinking company, Leica.
John Mc

Erik van Straten
11-13-2018, 06:02
It seems to me now that this model was a transition model in 1935.


I hope I will sleep tonight because I will be tormented by the question "WHY". Why did they make such a thing? Were all 450 cameras with two accessory shoes? Is it made from left-over parts because of the change to chrome models? Is it intended for use with a PLOOT (mirror house) or on a microscope.


Erik.

Dralowid
11-13-2018, 06:23
I can't quite see but is the vulcanite correct for the year?

My quick way of telling what is what is what is the size of the rewind knob (but don't rely on it). Big = 1 Small = Standard.

I too have never noticed that there was a '1 Standard'.

raid
11-13-2018, 06:49
I hope I will sleep tonight because I will be tormented by the question "WHY". Why did they make such a thing? Were all 450 cameras with two accessory shoes? Is it made from left-over parts because of the change to chrome models? Is it intended for use with a PLOOT (mirror house)?


Erik.

Don't worry about it all, Erik. I asked myself the same questions this morning! Who knows what "they" were thinking, and who are "they" anyways? There was no WWII then, so metals should have been available.

raid
11-13-2018, 06:50
I can't quite see but is the vulcanite correct for the year?

My quick way of telling what is what is what is the size of the rewind knob (but don't rely on it). Big = 1 Small = Standard.

I too have never noticed that there was a '1 Standard'.

I have had this camera since (maybe) 15 years now. The past owner was/is a RFF member. Maybe he can dsicuss it here.
He told me that this camera is "rare" but I don't recall why he emant it as being a rare camera. It could have been the fact of the camera being black, but it seems that many Standard cameras were in black.

As for the rewind knob, does my camera sport a big knob or a small knob?

Erik van Straten
11-13-2018, 07:18
Raid, you have a small rewind knob, you can pull it up for easier rewind. The original Leica 1 had a much thicker rewind knob that could not be pulled up.


From now on I will take a close look at all the Leica Standard to see if they have a number that fits in this batch.



Erik.

raid
11-13-2018, 08:01
Yes, you are right, Erik. The rewind knob can be pulled up. Such old cameras are a lot of fun to investigate.

David Hughes
11-13-2018, 08:08
To me the early ones were simply the Leica...

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Oddments/i-LzDCDv7/0/f718f063/X2/Leida%20Advert%20%281929%29%203-X2.jpg

The advert is from a 1929 magazine.

I have seen ones with the twin accessory clips (as they were called) but domestic duties stop me searching for it. Sorry about that...
Regards, David

PS And the usual film for them was Perutz; not many people know that...

raid
11-13-2018, 09:32
Thank you, David. If you one day have the time to look for the information on Standard camera with twin accessory clips, please do.

raid
11-13-2018, 10:00
https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Photos-of-Summitar-with/i-TpRmdT8/0/756a8234/XL/P1060037-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Photos-of-Summitar-with/i-zvMzCgb/0/a533ec3c/XL/P1060036-XL.jpg

David Hughes
11-13-2018, 10:42
Thank you, David. If you one day have the time to look for the information on Standard camera with twin accessory clips, please do.


Hi,

The model Ic came with two accessory clips, also called an OEGIO. It was made from 1949 to 1952 but had the blank cover instead of the slow speed dial. So we are none the wiser. (Two were also a feature on the If and Ig.)

OTOH, the Ur Leica also had two clips and that suggests it was something the factory and dealers knew about it and could offer it when needed. Or you could be amazingly lucky.

I don't know your opinion, or anybody else's, but I have often thought that there were dozens if not hundreds of non-standard Leicas made and non-standard bits and pieces for them. Over the years you see all sorts of weird things turn up...

I'm sorry I can't help more.

Regards, David

Sumarongi
11-13-2018, 10:47
I think I can see two little bumps in front of the second shoe —— I guess these are the remnants of the original finder's fastening?

raid
11-13-2018, 10:52
Hi,

The model Ic came with two accessory clips, also called an OEGIO. It was made from 1949 to 1952 but had the blank cover instead of the slow speed dial. So we are none the wiser. (Two were also a feature on the If and Ig.)

OTOH, the Ur Leica also had two clips and that suggests it was something the factory and dealers knew about it and could offer it when needed. Or you could be amazingly lucky.

I don't know your opinion, or anybody else's, but I have often thought that there were dozens if not hundreds of non-standard Leicas made and non-standard bits and pieces for them. Over the years you see all sorts of weird things turn up...

I'm sorry I can't help more.

Regards, David

Hi David,
In what sense did you mean that I may have been lucky here? Is my camera "maybe" a "rare model"?

You are most likely correct about having many non-standard Leica cameras around.

raid
11-13-2018, 10:54
I think I can see two little bumps in front of the second shoe —— I guess these are the remnants of the original finder's fastening?

I see them too. So maybe someone removed the 5cm VF and placed there a second accessory shoe. Why? When? By whom?

AlwaysOnAuto
11-13-2018, 11:01
I've always looked at old Leica's in the same manner as old Porsche's. They're rebuildable since they are hand made to a certain extent. The big difference is that with a Porsche you can get a CoA and know how it came from the factory. A Leica, well, they could be modified over the years too but unfortunately I don't think you can get a CoA to know exactly how it came from the factory.That's a pretty cool little camera you have there, Raid. Thanks for posting better pictures of it.

raid
11-13-2018, 11:10
Thanks. I have not used the camera for a while, but I am eager to load it with some film and go for it again. The history may remain a secret, which is fine.

Erik van Straten
11-13-2018, 11:59
I see them too. So maybe someone removed the 5cm VF and placed there a second accessory shoe. Why? When? By whom?

I guess this was done to use the camera with a wide angle lens, 35mm or 28mm. One of the clips was used for the viewfinder and the other for the rangefinder. The rangefinder was mounted vertically. With the 50mm finder still in place and the rangefinder in the accessoryshoe the camera could only be used with a 50mm lens.

Also a VIDOM (universal finder) could be used in one clip and the rangefinder in the other.

With two clips the camera is much more universal than with one clip and a fixed 50mm finder. It is WW1 technology but will work fine.

Erik.

David Hughes
11-13-2018, 12:01
Another area worth exploring might be presentation cameras but presented to people retiring from the factory. I've seen FED versions and, but nothing to do with this thread, presentation handguns with a full set of tools as a retirement present.

OTOH (1), if there are two bumps then it sounds like a post sale modification.

OTOH (2), an unknown, or forgotten, Leica prototype did turn up as in Hans-Günter Kisselbach's ebook:-

https://lhsa.org/2018/04/book-review-barnacks-first-leica-by-hans-gunter-kisselbach/#myaccount

I just wish a solid, printed version was available.

Regards, David

raid
11-13-2018, 12:25
I guess this was done to use the camera with a wide angle lens, 35mm or 28mm. One of the clips was used for the viewfinder and the other for the rangefinder. The rangefinder was mounted vertically. With the 50mm finder still in place and the rangefinder in the accessoryshoe the camera could only be used with a 50mm lens.

Also a VIDOM (universal finder) could be used in one clip and the rangefinder in the other.

With two clips the camera is much more universal than with one clip and a fixed 50mm finder. It is WW1 technology but will work fine.

Erik.

I find having 2 accessory finders to be very useful for use with wide angle lenses. Using a RF is also possible. Someone told me at some time that this modification may have made my Standard less original.

Erik van Straten
11-13-2018, 12:40
OTOH (2), an unknown, or forgotten, Leica prototype did turn up as in Hans-Günter Kisselbach's ebook:-

https://lhsa.org/2018/04/book-review-barnacks-first-leica-by-hans-gunter-kisselbach/#myaccount

I just wish a solid, printed version was available.

Regards, David


There is, I have it, it is called "Barnacks Erste Leica" and is written by Hans-Günter Kisselbach in 2008. It is in German. Makes a wonderful read. Many wonderful pictures. Maybe it is still available in Germany. Just try.

ISBN 978-3-89506-282-7

Erik.

raid
11-13-2018, 12:51
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5620163.Hans_G_nter_Kisselbach

Barnacks Erste Leica.: Das Zweite Leben Einer Vergessenen Historischen Kamera
by Hans-Günter Kisselbach

lxmike
11-13-2018, 13:07
A nice very capable camera

raid
11-13-2018, 13:11
I have a IIIf and a Tower35. They are also very nice cameras to use.

David Hughes
11-13-2018, 14:13
Hi David,
In what sense did you mean that I may have been lucky here? Is my camera "maybe" a "rare model"?

You are most likely correct about having many non-standard Leica cameras around.

I wish I knew; the more I learn about Leicas the less I know.

BTW, the shutter button on your one makes it very early but, as has been mentioned, where's the hockey stick infinity lock? I hate to say it but I feel it ought to be stripped down in the search for other clues...

Regards, David

raid
11-13-2018, 14:21
No way, David! This camera will stay "clothed" and stay unstripped! It is not a valuable colelctible item.

Sumarongi
11-13-2018, 14:25
BTW, the shutter button on your one makes it very early but, as has been mentioned, where's the hockey stick infinity lock? I hate to say it but I feel it ought to be stripped down in the search for other clues...

Dear David,
if the serial # 160933 is correct (and not some Russian or American Leica-faker's joke), then it's made in 1935 — no hockey stick; see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leica_Standard
In how far do you find the shutter release button strange (or particularly old) looking, David?

mcfingon
11-13-2018, 16:57
Looking along the top deck of your camera Raid, it looks like the rewind knob and shutter speed dial are later, chrome-plated items than the nickel-plated film advance knob. My 1933 III has nickel fittings on all those items. The paint and leatherette seem exactly the same as my camera. Your shutter button protrudes higher above the finger rest than mine, but has the same bell-push profile.
John Mc

raid
11-13-2018, 17:31
Hi John,
How can you tell apart Nickel from Chrome parts in the camera? They all look like Nickel to my eyes!

Rob-F
11-13-2018, 18:16
To my eye, the nickel parts on my Leica II have a warm yellowy patina, like silver can take on. Chrome always looks colder to me, like stainless steel.

David Hughes
11-14-2018, 01:47
Dear David,
if the serial # 160933 is correct (and not some Russian or American Leica-faker's joke), then it's made in 1935 — no hockey stick; see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leica_Standard
In how far do you find the shutter release button strange (or particularly old) looking, David?

I hate to say/type it but I'm not so sure now but I'm using a different computer and a different monitor and in different room lighting. Alas, that's the problem with forums; I need the things in my hands to play with - I mean fully research - and so on. It was the proportions of the shutter button that I was worrying about.

Regards, David

David Hughes
11-14-2018, 01:55
No way, David! This camera will stay "clothed" and stay unstripped! It is not a valuable colelctible item.

Quite right too but often a strip reveals things like the camera's serial number, dates and so on, in pencil scribbled on it by a technician (and I suspect pawnbrokers). I've seen several devices (not cameras in particular) with the last three digits of the serial number stamped on the major parts (and some minor) to wonder about it; it usually means the parts have been matched during assembly. You could ask if it ever needs some work done on it. Luckily I use firms that are happy to let the technician talk to me and have learnt a lot...

Regards, David

raid
11-14-2018, 05:15
Quite right too but often a strip reveals things like the camera's serial number, dates and so on, in pencil scribbled on it by a technician (and I suspect pawnbrokers). I've seen several devices (not cameras in particular) with the last three digits of the serial number stamped on the major parts (and some minor) to wonder about it; it usually means the parts have been matched during assembly. You could ask if it ever needs some work done on it. Luckily I use firms that are happy to let the technician talk to me and have learnt a lot...

Regards, David

I agree that having such a check during a future CLA or repair job is a good thing to do, David. With old cameras I always feel that just the fact that the camera is that old makes the camera interesting to me even when it is not a rare model or unique item in the end.

raid
11-14-2018, 05:16
To my eye, the nickel parts on my Leica II have a warm yellowy patina, like silver can take on. Chrome always looks colder to me, like stainless steel.

Both knobs on top of my camera appear to be made in Nickel. Other (smaller) parts seem to be in Chrome.

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 05:20
even when it is not a rare model or unique item in the end.

It is a rare item, the way the serial number is printed in the top plate is unimaginable.

Erik.

mcfingon
11-14-2018, 05:25
Here's my 1933 III Raid. I was going on the nickel parts having a more gold tone than the chrome parts which look more silver to me. It may be the lighting or the signs of usage are different on your camera but I believe the rewind knob and the shutter speed dial appear more silver. I think I read somewhere that 1935 was a transitional year when Leica stopped nickel-coating and moved over to chrome-plating only.
John Mc
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/51008/U51008I1492780135.SEQ.0.jpg

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 05:26
Both knobs on top of my camera appear to be made in Nickel. Other (smaller) parts seem to be in Chrome.
In my eyes only the speed knob and the lens mount are in chrome, you can replace them easily if you can find those parts in nickel. They can be genuine however. In 1935 also chrome Leicas were made. mcfingon says the same.

Erik.

raid
11-14-2018, 07:07
It is a rare item, the way the serial number is printed in the top plate is unimaginable.

Erik.

Hello Erik. Please clarify to me why the engraving looks to you as making this camera rare. Thanks.

raid
11-14-2018, 07:08
Here's my 1933 III Raid. I was going on the nickel parts having a more gold tone than the chrome parts which look more silver to me. It may be the lighting or the signs of usage are different on your camera but I believe the rewind knob and the shutter speed dial appear more silver. I think I read somewhere that 1935 was a transitional year when Leica stopped nickel-coating and moved over to chrome-plating only.
John Mc


Hi John. You could be right, of course. Thanks.

raid
11-14-2018, 07:09
In my eyes only the speed knob and the lens mount are in chrome, you can replace them easily if you can find those parts in nickel. They can be genuine however. In 1935 also chrome Leicas were made. mcfingon says the same.

Erik.

I see the same thing as you do, Erik. The lens mount and the speed knob seem to be in shiny chrome finish.

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 07:52
Hello Erik. Please clarify to me why the engraving looks to you as making this camera rare. Thanks.

This type of engraving is called Woods metal (there are also other names for it), it is a very expensive type of engraving in the metal that is filled with a hot, liquid metal, a mixture of lead and silver. This liquid metal solidifies as it cools and then forms the engraved numbers, letters and signs in a positive (convex) relief. This process has not been used for a long time and it is now impossible to imitate. The black pre-war Leicas have such engravings, not the chrome ones. This type of engraving can no longer be copied nowadays. So when your prewar black Leica has such engravings it can't be a fake.

Erik.

raid
11-14-2018, 07:59
I will check out my camera after I return home from work today. Thanks for the explanation, Erik. Mine has the serial number engraved, and it is black.

raid
11-14-2018, 08:28
This camera on BeeBay seems to come from a similar lot of cameras as mine (?). My camera is in a much better cosmetic condition, though. these pics are not of my camera.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/17kAAOSwJdBbHYuO/s-l1600.jpg

This one looks better:

https://www.cameratique.com/ebay/opticxchange/leica%20standard%20nickel%201.jpg

davidnewtonguitars
11-14-2018, 08:44
You can see what I did to mine for a while, put the finder back on to sell it though.



http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/storage/camera/Nikkor%203.5%20f2.5.jpg

raid
11-14-2018, 08:57
Hi David. So you removed the 50mm finder from your camera. Based on what Eril has said about the engraving, your chrome Standard should not have such metal engraving.

"The black pre-war Leicas have such engravings, not the chrome ones."

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 10:16
This is a nice example of the Woods metal engraving. All black Hektor 73mm f/1.9.


Erik.


https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5647/23844070762_0ff40d6ef0_b.jpg

raid
11-14-2018, 11:02
Are the aperture values engraved as you have explained?
This is a fine looking Hektor, Erik!

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 11:33
Thanks, yes it is a great piece, very good for portraits. All the engravings on this lens are Woods metal.

Erik.

raid
11-14-2018, 11:45
What was special about the black cameras and lenses that made Leica use this special engraving method?

davidnewtonguitars
11-14-2018, 12:05
Right, just black paint in the engraving.

Based on what Erik has said about the engraving, your chrome Standard should not have such metal engraving. "The black pre-war Leicas have such engravings, not the chrome ones."

Sumarongi
11-14-2018, 12:17
BTW: Wood's metal —— the original recipe —— is quite toxic, hence it's recommended to *not* lick your camera or lens clean ;)

raid
11-14-2018, 12:19
BTW: Wood's metal —— the original recipe —— is quite toxic, hence it's recommended to *not* lick your camera or lens clean ;)

Oh No! Now you tell me not to have been licking my black camera all the past years! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:eek::eek:

"toxic because it contains lead and cadmium, and therefore contact with the bare skin is thought to be harmful[citation needed], especially in the molten state. Vapour from cadmium-containing alloys is also known to pose a danger to humans. Cadmium poisoning carries the risk of cancer, anosmia (loss of sense of smell), and damage to the liver, kidneys, nerves, bones, and respiratory system. Field's metal is a non-toxic alternative.

The dust may form flammable mixtures with air."

"It is a eutectic alloy of 50% bismuth, 26.7% lead, 13.3% tin, and 10% cadmium by weight."

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 12:24
What was special about the black cameras and lenses that made Leica use this special engraving method?


I think esthetics, when new, those engravings must have been sparkling in the black paint. A wonderful effect. There would have been no effect on chrome or on nickel.

Erik.

raid
11-14-2018, 12:55
I may have an old (black) Leica Elmar 9cm 4.0. It may then have some fancy engravings!

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 13:02
I may have an old (black) Leica Elmar 9cm 4.0. It may then have some fancy engravings!

Maybe, but often there are ordinary engravings in black on nickel (or chrome) rings on those lenses.

Erik.

rodt16s
11-14-2018, 13:36
This type of engraving is called Woods metal (there are also other names for it), it is a very expensive type of engraving in the metal that is filled with a hot, liquid metal, a mixture of lead and silver. This liquid metal solidifies as it cools and then forms the engraved numbers, letters and signs in a positive (convex) relief. This process has not been used for a long time and it is now impossible to imitate. The black pre-war Leicas have such engravings, not the chrome ones. This type of engraving can no longer be copied nowadays. So when your prewar black Leica has such engravings it can't be a fake.

Erik.

Erik,

I always thought Woods metal was a very low melting point solder - an Alloy of Bi/Pb/Sn/Cd
This would make it easier to melt and fill in the engraving at <100 degC also being a eutectic it will go from liquid to solid at a specific temp and have no pasty region. Not sure what flux would be used
If Pb/Ag depending on the alloy % the melting pt would be significantly higher.

Erik van Straten
11-14-2018, 13:57
Erik,

I always thought Woods metal was a very low melting point solder - an Alloy of Bi/Pb/Sn/Cd
This would make it easier to melt and fill in the engraving at <100 degC also being a eutectic it will go from liquid to solid at a specific temp and have no pasty region. Not sure what flux would be used
If Pb/Ag depending on the alloy % the melting pt would be significantly higher.

I really don't know technically anything about this.

In the Leica LTM-thread here on RFf there is a whole discussion on Woods metal from several years ago; some very interesting technical details come up for discussion there.

Erik.

raid
11-14-2018, 14:42
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8grH8f2/0/X2/i-8grH8f2-X2.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nDbd2Qb/0/X2/i-nDbd2Qb-X2.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-SgXxDs9/0/X2/i-SgXxDs9-X2.jpg

Dralowid
11-14-2018, 15:02
Surely that second shoe is a later addition? The screws for the viewfinder are still in position.

(apologies if someone else has already pointed this out)

Re Woods metal, look for the old thread, bismuth (or bismut) is mentioned.

raid
11-14-2018, 15:05
The removal of the 5cm finder and the addition of the second accessory shoe could have been done by anyone or by the factory for someone.

raid
11-14-2018, 16:16
My regular set for the Standard: Canon 19/3.5. The lens is an awesome lens overall. There is no need to focus each time.
I set the aperture at 8.0 most of the time anyways.

https://photos.smugmug.com/2018-Varieties/i-dt7Sj9T/0/a02da5ef/X3/00IMG_0675-X3.jpg

mcfingon
11-14-2018, 17:57
I think this pic of my III with my 1951 IIIf shows the 3D effect of the Wood's metal engraving that Erik was talking about on the earlier Leica, and the more silver less creamy look of the chrome plating compared to the nickel.
John Mc
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/51008/U51008I1542246806.SEQ.0.jpg

raid
11-14-2018, 18:01
Both cameras are beautiful, John. From which year is your III?

mcfingon
11-14-2018, 20:45
1933, Raid. First year of that model I believe.

Dralowid
11-15-2018, 00:20
If you are very brave...

I understand that if you heat the 'woods metal' from behind you can get it to melt while staying in the engraving. When it dries it will be as it was when new.

I can imagine this working, the melting point is low and presumably lower than that of the paint around it.

If I could find a 'cheap' Leitz accessory to have a go on I would try but have yet to come up with anything. Ideas?

Just don't try it and then blame me for the resulting disaster!

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 01:39
If you are very brave...

I understand that if you heat the 'woods metal' from behind you can get it to melt while staying in the engraving. When it dries it will be as it was when new.

I can imagine this working, the melting point is low and presumably lower than that of the paint around it.

If I could find a 'cheap' Leitz accessory to have a go on I would try but have yet to come up with anything. Ideas?

Just don't try it and then blame me for the resulting disaster!

Just don't do it. The silvery metal will melt and disappears.

There are no cheap accessories with Woods metal as far as I know.

Erik.

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 01:44
I think this pic of my III with my 1951 IIIf shows the 3D effect of the Wood's metal engraving that Erik was talking about on the earlier Leica, and the more silver less creamy look of the chrome plating compared to the nickel.
John Mc
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/51008/U51008I1542246806.SEQ.0.jpg

Black and nickel III's are incredible users. Much underrated. They have a much better rangefinder than the II's and are nice to carry around with a thin leather strap attached to their strap lugs.

Erik.

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 01:53
Minus 10 degrees C.

Leica III black-and-nickel, Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY, split-grade print on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1961/45406610682_b1e1fcb7b6_c.jpg

Dralowid
11-15-2018, 02:43
Just don't do it. The silvery metal will melt and disappears.


Erik.

Have you tried? Peter at CRR had some success with the process.

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 03:40
Have you tried? Peter at CRR had some success with the process.

Yes, I ruind a top plate of a II. I heated it a bit after I retouched damaged paint.

Peter at CRR is the only person in the world - maybe with Ottmar Michaely - who can do such a thing with success.

Erik.

Dralowid
11-15-2018, 03:57
Ah, bad luck! I cannot think of anything else with woods metal filled engraving, I guess it was just too expensive to use on anything except cameras.

I guess an experienced old time jeweller might be what we need.

mcfingon
11-15-2018, 04:01
Black and nickel III's are incredible users. Much underrated. They have a much better rangefinder than the II's and are nice to carry around with a thin leather strap attached to their strap lugs.

Erik.
I agree Erik, in that I use the III more than the IIIf, which is theoretically easier to use, having a closer VF and RF windows. There is something about the III, other than its appearance, that makes it really nice in actual use. The rangefinder is very sharp as you say, adjustable for my long-sightedness and the viewfinder is extra bright too, not having to go through a prism. I think it's a little steadier for me to hold too as the VF is further to the right and I rest more of the back of the camera on my face, finishing up with the bottom left corner on my upper lip. I'm in danger of licking the darn thing like Raid was joking about...
John Mc

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 04:17
O yes, the III's have much more endurance than the IIIc's and IIIf's. Their inner construction is indestructable, completely different from the IIIc and IIIf. It is as if you compare a Landrover with a Citroën 2CV.

You can disassemble a IIIc or IIIf in a few minutes. With a III you are busy a lot longer.

Erik.

raid
11-15-2018, 04:18
I would not heat up my camera! It is too risky.

raid
11-15-2018, 04:58
Minus 10 degrees C.

Leica III black-and-nickel, Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY, split-grade print on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1961/45406610682_b1e1fcb7b6_c.jpg

The poor Heron was in the cold! Great image, though.

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 05:24
Thanks, Raid!


Many shutters do not work right in the cold, but the Leica shutter ...



Erik.

johannielscom
11-15-2018, 07:31
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8grH8f2/0/X2/i-8grH8f2-X2.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nDbd2Qb/0/X2/i-nDbd2Qb-X2.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-SgXxDs9/0/X2/i-SgXxDs9-X2.jpg

That must have been a factory conversion to those two accessory shoes, Raid.


The second shoe is a Leitz model as well but it slightly differs from the original one in design. Yet, both the screws and the shoe itself are the correct-gloss Leitz paint. And, the screws are covered in the paint.
Also, the shutter speed dial and the bell shaped housing underneath look a lot newer than the rest of the top plate (the shutter dial has no edge wear, like the film advance and rewind).
Finally, the lens mount is a lot newer.


The resulting camera is identical to a Leica Ic, which was designed for scientific use, connecting it to microscopes etc.

It is impossible to have all this done by anyone else than the factory, I'd say. That would likely mean that someone like mr. Lager can get to the factory records on the conversion.

raid
11-15-2018, 08:20
This is good to know. Johan. Thanks! You made good observations here.
Then most likely, someone got Leica to do the modifications then. The shutter fires off even smoother than in my M3 or M6. At least, it feels this way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ref: http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/leica-ic-codeoegio/

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7~UAAOSw5Xpb42YL/s-l1600.jpg

The Leica IC (not to be confused with the Leica I Model C) was a scientific Leica manufactured between 1949 and 1952. The Leica IC is based on the Leica IIIC, except that as a scientific camera it does not have a viewfinder or a coupled rangefinder and it does not offer slow speeds. Scientific cameras were used for photomicrographic and photo reproduction purposes, often in a combination with a microscope. Hence a viewfinder was not required, instead scientific Leicas have two accesory shoes enabling to attach an external rangefinder (Leica Code: FOKOS) and viewfinder (e.g. Leica code: SBOOI for 50mm frames). When using the external viewfinder and rangefinder it is possible to use the Leica IC just like a normal non-scientific Leica. The Leica IC was eventually replaced in 1952 by the Leica IF.

The Leic IC was the first scientific Leica replacing the Leica Standard

Leica Code: OEGIO

Weight: 379 g

Baseplate length: 13.7 cm

Total Production: 12 000

Shutter range: 1/30; 1/40; 1/60; 1/100; 1/200; 1/500 and B

Previous Leica Model: Leica Standard

Following Leica Model: Leica IF

Erik van Straten
11-15-2018, 10:16
It is impossible to have all this done by anyone else than the factory, I'd say. That would likely mean that someone like mr. Lager can get to the factory records on the conversion.

The question is: is this a conversion or have all the 450 1 Standard cameras two accessory-shoes.

We will know the answer if we can locate another 1 Standard camera from this batch.

Erik.

raid
11-15-2018, 10:46
Good call, Erik. Is it difficult to find another 1 Standard from this batch of 450 cameras?

JB-Dancer
11-15-2018, 11:27
There are 2 batches of 1 Standard cameras making 650 in total.
camera serial no's 142501 - 142700 in 1934 (200 cameras)
camera serial no's 160701 - 161150 in 1935 (450 cameras)

raid
11-15-2018, 11:29
Where would we best look for one next?
Where is there a list with SN in which "I Standard" is listed?

raid
11-16-2018, 08:24
I will contact the Leica expert on the history of Leica cameras next. I will ask him if my Standard Leica was modified by some individual outside the factory or whether he is aware of Leica having modified some Standard Leica cameras. Oliver Kaltner, the past Leica CEO, he kindly gave me the name and contact information of the historian.

JB-Dancer
11-16-2018, 08:38
Hello Raid,
The book "LEICA-THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS" (Second Edition) by G.Rogliatti, published by Hove Camera Foto Books, pages 129 to 141 contain the list of Leica camera serial numbers that list the two batches of Leica 1 Standard cameras.

raid
11-16-2018, 08:42
Thanks! This is good to know that such a variation actually exists in the books. Maybe, there are are 750 examples of such a camera.

David Hughes
11-16-2018, 09:01
Where would we best look for one next?
Where is there a list with SN in which "I Standard" is listed?


Also, Denis Laney's "Leica Pocket Book" by Hove Foto books and "Leica Accessory Guide" as before.

These are two small, slim pocket books and jammed solid with facts and figures and photo's. Easily available and dirt cheap in Britain but your side of the pond?

And I thought every true Leica user had them...

Regards, David

raid
11-16-2018, 09:03
:D:bang:

I must be a fake Leica user, David!
Thanks for the information on the books. I will search for a copy.

Mackinaw
11-16-2018, 09:27
Raid, have you thought about contacting Jim Lager? I see he has his own sub-forum here in RFF. Maybe he can help answer your questions.

Jim B.

JB-Dancer
11-16-2018, 09:31
Raid- this book is available from WWW.ABEBOOKS.COM

Leica the First Fifty Years: Rogliatti, G.
Stock Image
Leica the First Fifty Years
Rogliatti, G.

Published by Hove Camera Foto Books (1977)

ISBN 10: 0852425945 ISBN 13: 9780852425947

Used Hardcover
Quantity Available: 1

From: Vera Enterprises LLC /VeraBook (Clarksburg, NJ, U.S.A.)

Seller Rating: 3-star rating

US$ 17.50
Convert currency
Shipping: US$ 9.00
Within U.S.A.
Destination, rates & speeds
About this Item: Hove Camera Foto Books, 1977. Hard Cover. Condition: Near Fine. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good +. Second Edition. Near fine in VG+ dj with wear to dj spine ends. Text is clean and tight. Seller Inventory # 045113

More information about this seller | Contact this seller

Erik van Straten
11-16-2018, 10:37
There are 2 batches of 1 Standard cameras making 650 in total.
camera serial no's 142501 - 142700 in 1934 (200 cameras)
camera serial no's 160701 - 161150 in 1935 (450 cameras)


Yes, you are right, apperently I've been to lazy to check if there were other batches.

I only have the "red" books by Lager, not his more sophisticated later ones. In the "red" books "1 Standard" Leicas are not mentioned.

In Laney's 2nd edition of his Collectors Guide the 142501 - 142700 batch is mentioned as "1 Standard", but the 160701 - 161150 batch is mentoned only as "1".

In Rogliatti both batches are mentioned as "1 Standard".

Erik

David Hughes
11-16-2018, 12:42
:D:bang:

I must be a fake Leica user, David!
Thanks for the information on the books. I will search for a copy.


Nice one. ;-)


FWIW, I consult the accessory one over and over again, a mine of info.


Regards, David

raid
11-16-2018, 14:09
Yes, you are right, apperently I've been to lazy to check if there were other batches.

I only have the "red" books by Lager, not his more sophisticated later ones. In the "red" books "1 Standard" Leicas are not mentioned.

In Laney's 2nd edition of his Collectors Guide the 142501 - 142700 batch is mentioned as "1 Standard", but the 160701 - 161150 batch is mentoned only as "1".

In Rogliatti both batches are mentioned as "1 Standard".

Erik

I have contacted Nicolas Uhl at Leica about this issue. Hopefully, he can give a good reply.

JB-Dancer
11-17-2018, 02:55
In the book "Leica. A History illustrating every Model and Accessory" by Paul Henry van Hasbroeck in his write-up on Standard Leica cameras on page 73 he mentions the fact that during the early years of the Second World War, Leitz of New York, converted Leica Standards into X-ray cameras for the Westinghouse Corporation.These X-ray cameras differ from the Leitz Wetzlar cameras in that they are of the full 24x36 mm format, not the 24x24 format of the Leitz Wetzlar models.One of these New York conversions is shown on page 74 photo 42d.The camera shows that the finder has been removed.
Is it possible that Raid's camera was sent back to Leitz of New York to have it converted for X-ray use at this time.

Erik van Straten
11-17-2018, 05:38
Unfortunately Van Hasbroeck does not mention the "1 Standard" model. It seems that this model is mentioned only in the year and number overviews and never in any text.



Erik.

raid
11-17-2018, 06:19
Is Van Hasbroek still alive and could he be reached for advise?

Sumarongi
11-17-2018, 06:22
There are 2 batches of 1 Standard cameras making 650 in total.
camera serial no's 142501 - 142700 in 1934 (200 cameras)
camera serial no's 160701 - 161150 in 1935 (450 cameras)

Unfortunately Van Hasbroeck does not mention the "1 Standard" model. It seems that this model is mentioned only in the year and number overviews and never in any text.

Puts in his pocket book has:

[camera serial no's] 142501 [–] 142700 [model designation] I Standard [year] 1934 [items] 200
[camera serial no's] 160701 [–] 161150 [model designation] I [sic!] [year] 1935 [items] 450

Hope this mistake in Mr Puts's booklet may give you some solace, Erik :)

raid
11-17-2018, 06:35
So my post on my camera being "Standard" or "1" was sort of a correct title.
The possibility of it being a Leitz modified camera for microscope use sounds a possibility. Thanks to JB-Dancer for this idea! Everyone involved in this thread has contributed very interesting material. Thanks.
The name "I Standard" was not on my radar, but Rob said it. "Yours doesn't, suggesting it is a transitional piece between the I and the standard"

Erik van Straten
11-17-2018, 06:49
Hope this mistake in Mr Puts's booklet may give you some solace, Erik :)


Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.


Erik.

Sumarongi
11-17-2018, 06:57
Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.

Dear Erik,
I did *not* know that, but I can imagine :D

raid
11-17-2018, 07:40
Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.


Erik.

Your are very informed on Leica issues, Erik.
Do you correspond with Puts?

Erik van Straten
11-17-2018, 07:50
Your are very informed on Leica issues, Erik.
Do you correspond with Puts?

No, but he is Dutch, like me, I've met him a couple of times. He is not a nice guy at all. I will not say more about this, because it is a personal matter.


Erik.

raid
11-17-2018, 11:00
I won't even ask, Erik.

David Hughes
11-18-2018, 01:45
Snip ... The possibility of it being a Leitz modified camera for microscope use sounds a possibility. Thanks to JB-Dancer for this idea! Everyone involved in this thread has contributed very interesting material. Thanks.


I have done a bit of work with microscopes and so on and can't see why an extra accessory clip would be needed. All you need do (ignoring exposure) is align the axis of the microscope with the camera's optical axis. Usually done with a tube screwing into the camera body in place of the lens and then fitting the other end of the tube on to the microscope. Viewfinders and so on don't come into it. Neither do range-finders nor anything else I can think of.

I'd put up a photo of my microscope adapter for you (alone and in use) but finding it and so on would disrupt thing domestically here...

I think the most obvious use for a double clip would be a better view finder and a vertical RF like the early ones (FODIS) that came with the first Leicas.

Regards, David

Erik van Straten
11-18-2018, 05:45
I have done a bit of work with microscopes and so on and can't see why an extra accessory clip would be needed. All you need do (ignoring exposure) is align the axis of the microscope with the camera's optical axis. Usually done with a tube screwing into the camera body in place of the lens and then fitting the other end of the tube on to the microscope. Viewfinders and so on don't come into it. Neither do range-finders nor anything else I can think of.

I'd put up a photo of my microscope adapter for you (alone and in use) but finding it and so on would disrupt thing domestically here...

I think the most obvious use for a double clip would be a better view finder and a vertical RF like the early ones (FODIS) that came with the first Leicas.

Regards, David

I fully agree with David here. Cartier-Bresson, the most famous user of the Leica 1, said that he could see "nothing" through the standard finder of the 1, he always had a Vidom in the accessoryshoe.

Cartier-Bresson was right, the finder was completely unreliable because the viewing angle was much too large, so important parts of the image could be left out of the image unintentionally.

Erik.

Rob-F
11-18-2018, 05:54
Yes, I think the extra shoe was for the accessory rangefinder. I didn't know there was a FODIS. There was a FOKOS, as I recall. I've seen pictures of the model I with FOKOS attached.

raid
11-18-2018, 06:12
:) I certainly find the second accessory as being useful for a RF. I have a RF that is not a Leica made one, and I used to use it with 5cm lens on the Standard. The center shoe is used for the finder. I have to agree with Cartier-Bresson here! :cool:

Erik van Straten
11-18-2018, 06:17
I didn't know there was a FODIS.

The first model of the vertical rangefinder was called "FODIS".

Erik.

Sumarongi
11-18-2018, 06:45
Another variant: the FOFER.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/thumb/a/a4/IC-34F.jpg/458px-IC-34F.jpg
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/thumb/2/28/IC-34B.jpg/450px-IC-34B.jpg

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/FOFER

Erik van Straten
11-18-2018, 07:22
Yes, the FOFER had more precision because of the bigger wheel.

Leica 1 Elmar, focusing with a FOFER (hand held), SBOOI, 400-2TMY, printed on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1755/41013210450_f2ffa18e4f_c.jpg

David Hughes
11-18-2018, 10:30
https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Second/i-VWzHTCN/0/219940b7/XL/1926%20Leica-XL.jpg

I think this one is a FODIS.

Regards, David

raid
11-18-2018, 10:55
What are suggested prices for either Rf set?

raid
11-18-2018, 10:59
Who thought up these two names! FODIS and FOFER!?

Erik van Straten
11-18-2018, 11:27
Who thought up these two names! FODIS and FOFER!?

All Leica stuff, all items that were manufactured, had a codename consisted of five letters that was used inside the company. This had to do with a communication system not unlike a telegraph. "LEICA" is one of those names. There are hundreds of them, like FOFER, FODIS and ELMAR.

I love Davids set, but I can't read the serial number of his early Leica 1, 2471?

Erik.

Sumarongi
11-18-2018, 12:05
What are suggested prices for either Rf set?

Depends, where you buy it ;)

E.g.: http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/leica/leica-accessories/rangefinders.html

— I'm a very satisfied customer, but their prices are sometimes a little above my budget — well, I have a quiver full of children to feed! :)

David Hughes
11-18-2018, 12:20
Hi,

The code words were for the telegram and Telex service; most of the world use morse code, before and just after the war,and letters were easier to send & read than figures. And there were more combinations and so more logic to the system.

As for the serial number it's just 4 digits, 2471. I reckon that's 1926, perhaps.

BTW, what's most interesting to me in the photo is the red lettering on the cassette tub. The 20's leaflet was a gift from a dealer I helped out with something...

Regards, David

David Hughes
11-18-2018, 12:26
Depends, where you buy it ;)

E.g.: http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/leica/leica-accessories/rangefinders.html

— I'm a very satisfied customer, but their prices are sometimes a little above my budget — well, I have a quiver full of children to feed! :)

Hi,

Just remembered and looked it up after reading the shop's prices. FODIS is the RF and case; RF alone is FODUA, or vice versa. Love their prices...

Regards, David

raid
11-18-2018, 13:03
All Leica stuff, all items that were manufactured, had a codename consisted of five letters that was used inside the company. This had to do with a communication system not unlike a telegraph. "LEICA" is one of those names. There are hundreds of them, like FOFER, FODIS and ELMAR.

I love Davids set, but I can't read the serial number of his early Leica 1, 2471?

Erik.

This explanation makes sense, Erik. Thanks.

raid
11-18-2018, 13:04
Hi,

The code words were for the telegram and Telex service; most of the world use morse code, before and just after the war,and letters were easier to send & read than figures. And there were more combinations and so more logic to the system.

As for the serial number it's just 4 digits, 2471. I reckon that's 1926, perhaps.

BTW, what's most interesting to me in the photo is the red lettering on the cassette tub. The 20's leaflet was a gift from a dealer I helped out with something...

Regards, David
Thanks, David!
This old Leica looks great indeed.

Rob-F
11-19-2018, 15:50
This has got to be one of our most interesting threads! It has made me get out my books by Rogliatti and Jim Lager to study. I'm pleasantly obsessing about whether to get a Leica I, model C, or the much later model Ic, or a Standard. I might like to get a Leica made the year I was born--1940. That would have to be either a Standard, or a II (but I already have a II), or a IIIb, or a IIIc (but I already have two of those). So maybe a Standard.

I could use it with my CV 25mm or 21mm. My CV 25mm is not rangefinder coupled, and the standard has no rangefinder. So they were made for each other.

Leica History! This is really fun!

raid
11-19-2018, 15:57
Realizing that film rules and that film cameras are so beautiful and so inexpensive and lasting, this should be a great time to celebrate film again.
Rob, get a Standard. They are so cool.

I am waiting for the Leica historian to get back with me on my camera. He wrote me back today that he will start researching it.

Rob-F
11-19-2018, 16:46
Something I like about the Ic is that it has two finder shoes. You could put, say, a 21mm finder in one, and maybe a 28mm finder in the other, and be able to switch lenses without changing the finders. If they will both fit at the same time. Am I over-thinking this?

raid
11-19-2018, 17:10
I like having two accessory shoes on my Standard. I know that someone modified it. I can place a meter in one shoe and a finder in the second shoe.

Erik van Straten
11-19-2018, 17:25
You can put an uncoated Hektor 50mm lens on it. You will get something like this:


https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4891/45050842035_14f5d24f1f_z.jpg

raid
11-19-2018, 17:26
But you would need to first find a Hektor!

ebay: $1999 only
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/BNwAAOSwfz9bVK85/s-l1600.jpg

Erik van Straten
11-19-2018, 17:54
Yes, but this is a Leica 1 with a fixed Hektor, if it is a real one (I doubt that).

An interchangable Hektor is less pricey.

I have one, the picture above is with a Leica II and a Hektor 50mm f/2.5 (not for sale).

Erik.

raid
11-19-2018, 18:12
I don't know much about the Hektor, but I have seen nice looking images by it. Your Hektor images, for example.

ebay: Hektor for less than $1000 (not much less)

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/GKcAAOSw8cFb8JaI/s-l1600.jpg

Erik van Straten
11-19-2018, 21:24
Hektors are nice lenses, giving a much more "old" type of photo than an Elmar or a Summar.

Leica II, Hektor 50mm f/2.5, Tmax400, print on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4815/44148994740_b195077322_c.jpg

raid
11-20-2018, 05:43
How would you place a vintage Zeiss Sonnar 5cm 1.5 or 2.0 in comparison with a Hektor, Elmar, or Summar, Erik? I have a 5cm/2 Sonnar in an Elmar barrel with ltm.

Erik van Straten
11-20-2018, 06:41
Raid, I do not have a Sonnar, but I have a Jupiter 8 and several RF-Nikkors 50mm f/1.4, Sonnar copies. The Jupiter is very sharp, but has distortion. The Nikkors have weak corners, but no distortion.

The Leica Hektor, Summar and Elmar lenses have no distortion. The Elmar and Hektor are not as sharp as the Summar, but the Summar is a difficult lens because the front lens scratches easily. The Summitar has distortion.

The best other LTM 50mm lenses in my opinion are the Summicron collapsible in the 13XXXXX series (the earlier series have front lenses that scratch easily), the Summicron Rigid 50mm in LTM (hard to find), the Elmar 50mm f/2.8 LTM and the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5.

I do not know the other 50mm LTM lenses.

Erik.

raid
11-20-2018, 08:31
Raid, I do not have a Sonnar, but I have a Jupiter 8 and several RF-Nikkors 50mm f/1.4, Sonnar copies. The Jupiter is very sharp, but has distortion. The Nikkors have weak corners, but no distortion.

The Leica Hektor, Summar and Elmar lenses have no distortion. The Elmar and Hektor are not as sharp as the Summar, but the Summar is a difficult lens because the front lens scratches easily. The Summitar has distortion.

The best other LTM 50mm lenses in my opinion are the Summicron collapsible in the 13XXXXX series (the earlier series have front lenses that scratch easily), the Summicron Rigid 50mm in LTM (hard to find), the Elmar 50mm f/2.8 LTM and the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5.

I do not know the other 50mm LTM lenses.

Erik.

It is interestingthat the more "modern" lens, such as Summarit has distortion while past lenses do not. In which ways do ltm rigid Summicrons differ from M rigid Summicrons?
I like using my ltm Elmar 50/2.8. It is a sharp lens.

Erik van Straten
11-20-2018, 10:18
I don't know about the Summarit, never used it, but I have a prewar uncoated Summitar with 10 f/stop blades (post war is coated and 6 f/stop blades) and it has a quite alarming barrel distortion. (about distortion: above all disturbing on a computer screen, maybe less so on an oldfashioned print)

The Elmar 50mm f/2.8 is a great lens, but I do not have one. Can't have them all. I only have the Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8. Also very good, extremely sharp, but not as handy as the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5.

Erik.

raid
11-20-2018, 11:08
Yes, you are right; I meant to write Summitar and not Summarit.
Some people who own Elmar-M 50/2.8 say that it is a better lens than the older ltm version.

Erik van Straten
11-20-2018, 12:40
The Elmar 50mm f/2.8 is an older lens, but it is the same as with the Summicrons: I prefer the rigid over the v4 -wich is much sharper- because it fits my style of photography better. I want to give my pictures an old fashioned look. So I prefer the old Elmar 50mm f/2.8 over the new one. Maybe, someday, I'll get one.


Erik.

robert blu
11-20-2018, 15:07
Beautiful camera Raid, congrats! And so much knowledge everyone! I'm impressed!
robert

raid
11-20-2018, 15:37
Beautiful camera Raid, congrats! And so much knowledge everyone! I'm impressed!
robert

Hello Robert. We are connected through these old Leica cameras and lenses. They are beautiful and they are fascinating. Only they can withstand the push to go 100% digital.

Erik van Straten
11-20-2018, 16:15
Another Hektor shot:

Leica II, Hektor 50mm f/2.5, Tmax400, print on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4831/31038800837_4fc3fde0c5_c.jpg

raid
11-20-2018, 18:39
Very nice, Erik. I like the Hektor look.

raid
11-21-2018, 07:34
The mystery of my camera with two accessory shoes has been explained to me by Nicolas Uhl, Managing Director of Leica Camera, Frankfurt. THank you! [and to Oliver Kaltner who kindly connected me with Mr. Uhl).

Mr. Uhl checked the Leica records, and he informed me that my camera did not initially leave the factory with two accessory shoes. He also affirmed that Leica did the modification later on for some customer.

robert blu
11-21-2018, 07:39
Hello Robert. We are connected through these old Leica cameras and lenses. They are beautiful and they are fascinating. Only they can withstand the push to go 100% digital.

I understand the passion, yes but I don't know if I'm ready for these kind of camera...maybe I should first try an old lens (with adapter) on the M7 or why not on the M10...

robert
PS: interesting thread anyway

Sumarongi
11-21-2018, 07:41
The mystery of my camera with two accessory shoes has been explained to me by Nicolas Uhl, Managing Director of Leica Camera, Frankfurt. THank you! [and to Oliver Kaltner who kindly connected me with Mr. Uhl).

Mr. Uhl checked the Leica records, and he informed me that my camera did not initially leave the factory with two accessory shoes. He also affirmed that Leica did the modification later on for some customer.

Very good. Now we have the explanation why it's looking so flawless that we even were discussing whether it's an unknown prototype. :)

raid
11-21-2018, 07:45
The Leica modification makes my camera slightly unusual, I think. I wonder who that customer was who asked Leica to modify the camera. Maybe it was someone famous! :D :cool:

raid
11-21-2018, 07:50
I understand the passion, yes but I don't know if I'm ready for these kind of camera...maybe I should first try an old lens (with adapter) on the M7 or why not on the M10...

robert
PS: interesting thread anyway

Such cameras are not expensive, Robert. They give me a sense of the history behind Leica cameras. It is fascinating to me that "someone" used my camera in the 1930's. You only need a regular ltm-M adapter for your M7 and M10 to use an old ltm lens, such as the Elmar 5cm 3.5.

David Hughes
11-21-2018, 11:56
An excellent source is the book "My Leica and I" edited by Kurt Karfeld. It was published in 1937 and consist of a series of short articles about Leica cameras and a lot of first class photographs by mostly amateur users and a few professional ones.

It's not all technical, one article is by someone talking about buying her husband one for his brithday or Christmas and then being drawn into getting another for herself and the effect it had on other photographers, in the 1930's. You'll recognise some of the names but they weren't all famous then. And the photo's are excellent.

Regards, David

raid
11-21-2018, 12:18
Thank you, David. This sounds very interesting. It can shed some light on how life was in the 20's and 30's.

It was recommended to me to get the 3 volumes of Leica. An illustrated History, by James Lager. His books are not cheap.

David Hughes
11-21-2018, 13:55
Thank you, David. This sounds very interesting. It can shed some light on how life was in the 20's and 30's.

It was recommended to me to get the 3 volumes of Leica. An illustrated History, by James Lager. His books are not cheap.


Yes, um, I've often wondered what it would be like to be that serious. I see the things (cameras) as interesting tools from a bygone age. And, of course, they are nice to handle and hold and so on. The photo's are a bonus at times!


Regards, David


PS Did you find any of the little Hove Foto pocket books about the Leicas by Dennis Laney?

raid
11-21-2018, 13:59
I will start looking for reasonably priced good books on Leica cameras, David.
The book by Laney costs $31 used.

https://www.amazon.com/Leica-Camera-Lens-Pocket-Book/dp/0906447267

It can purchased for a lower price from UK:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22588235190&searchurl=tn%3Dleica%2Bpocket%2Bbook%26sortby%3D20 %26an%3Ddennis%2Blaney&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title7

johannielscom
11-21-2018, 14:36
The mystery of my camera with two accessory shoes has been explained to me by Nicolas Uhl, Managing Director of Leica Camera, Frankfurt. THank you! [and to Oliver Kaltner who kindly connected me with Mr. Uhl).

Mr. Uhl checked the Leica records, and he informed me that my camera did not initially leave the factory with two accessory shoes. He also affirmed that Leica did the modification later on for some customer.

That is good to read, Raid.
I'm quite pleased, this matches my prediction exactly:)

raid
11-21-2018, 14:40
Hi Johan.

Next, Mr. Uhl will try to look up which Leica dealership received my (modified) camera for some client. It is not a "special" camera, unless the owner was someone special or the camera was used for something special. At least I know that Leica did the modification and not some unknown individual.

JB-Dancer
12-01-2018, 07:58
The mystery of my camera with two accessory shoes has been explained to me by Nicolas Uhl, Managing Director of Leica Camera, Frankfurt. THank you! [and to Oliver Kaltner who kindly connected me with Mr. Uhl).

Mr. Uhl checked the Leica records, and he informed me that my camera did not initially leave the factory with two accessory shoes. He also affirmed that Leica did the modification later on for some customer.

Hello Raid,
My Leica 1A "mushroom release" in Black & nickel (Serial no.8249) made in 1928 was converted by Leica to a Post-War Leica 1c (Black & Chrome) in about 1949/51 and has two accessory shoes.
I think this conversion from a Leica 1A (1928) to a Post-War 1c is a "unique - 'one off ' conversion" and was perhaps by special order. I have never seen this conversion listed by Leitz and I have been looking at converted cameras since the mid-1950's when I was in my mid-teens.
The changes to your Leica 1 Standard could have been done in the 1950's also or even earlier.

See:- https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91238&page=14

raid
12-01-2018, 08:42
Mr. Uhl did not view such Leica executed changes as making such Leica cameras special.
He told me that such a designation as being "special" depends on who used the camera and for what purpose. If our cameras were custom changed by Leica, they are "less ordinary", I guess. Some photographers preferred a camera with two accessory shoes for your camera and for mine. Maybe it is "special" after all!

JB-Dancer
12-01-2018, 10:01
Hello Raid,
In my case the conversion to Post-War 1c (Black & chrome) was to Post-War Leica 1c specification, that being - the camera had two accessory shoes and no fixed viewfinder.

raid
12-01-2018, 10:45
I see. In my case, the Standard comes usually with a fixed 5cm finder, as you know.