Show off your Leica I/II/III/LTM Camera

[Deardorff38]

Originally Posted by davidnewtonguitars

I have avoided the black-painted Leica. My nature demands that I smooth down the remaining paint and brush on new enamel. I know it would take the value down, but I must do it.
So I won't buy one.

but David, would you re-finish a vintage '30s Martin guitar?

[Erik van Straten]

Black cameras are nice, they do not attract much attention. A chrome camera can be seen from miles away.

Erik.

[davidnewtonguitars]

I happily obey all the vintage rules with guitars that I repair. Since I only own the best guitars (guitars that I build myself) I will never be tempted with a truly valuable vintage guitar.
Cameras are my hobby.

Originally Posted by Deardorff38

but David, would you re-finish a vintage '30s Martin guitar?

[d.dulin]

I’ve heard several people say they think of the worn paint as less of an aged beauty and more of an eye sore. I personally love the look of well worn black paint, although my iid has nearly all of its paint

[Erik van Straten]

I've said it before: black Leica II cameras (and their painted surface) are often in a very good condition compared to black Leica I and Leica III cameras. But why?


Erik.

[Dralowid]

Because they were treasured by their owners. IIIs would appeal more to the photographer who wanted everything and used them more. 250s were hammered for most of their lives and show it.

I don't know, it is all conjecture.

The other camera that is quite often in almost perfect condition is the IIf.

[Erik van Straten]

I always thought that the III was a professional camera. But the I? Why are these so much used? It is very hard to get some results with a I.


Erik.

[Deardorff38]

IMG_6772 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/]

[Deardorff38]

Originally Posted by davidnewtonguitars

Since I only own the best guitars (guitars that I build myself) I will never be tempted with a truly valuable vintage guitar.

Nice to know you appreciate your own work.

There are some other great builders to the west of you in Texas too...& I sure like the stuff made in the '30s in Nazareth

[davidnewtonguitars]

I think of the 1930's as the peak construction of many things, cameras, motorcycles, bicycles, guitars, anything mechanical really.

Originally Posted by Deardorff38

There are some other great builders to the west of you in Texas too...& I sure like the stuff made in the '30s in Nazareth

[shimokita]

IIIf, Canon 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, & 135mm f/3.5

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Dralowid

Erik, I know, I thought David was employing some Monty Pythonese cynicsm/humour!

I think FHKOO is the single frame holder for the earlier cameras and FCKOO is the one for the later ltms.

Back to hoods, all said and done little can improve on FISON!

Hi,

Been away and missed the excitement; I was thinking of the FHKOO and FOOKH. Ordering and expecting one and getting the other would baffle a lot of people and who would understand why a FHKOO would be needed anyway?

But if early film conformity wasn't so poor would Barnack have made the first Leica and then go on and use it as a camera in its own right? I know the stories but everything to me points to it being designed for clip testing. At the time there were several cameras with (a) a small size and (b) good lenses. The VPK with a Tessar for example and then there was the smaller Houghton "Ensignette" that Barnack could have fitted with a better lens* if he had wanted too. And can you believe a new boy working for Leitz in those days would have been able to design and built the camera for his own use and using the factory's facilities?

Regards, David


* Several were fitted to later models of the Ensignette.

[Erik van Straten]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

And can you believe a new boy working for Leitz in those days would have been able to design and built the camera for his own use and using the factory's facilities?

Barnack was in 1913 34 years old, not exactly a boy.

Erik.

[Dralowid]

Makes me start to think...what other cameras were fitted with the 5cm Elmar 3.5?...apart from the Weltini?

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Dralowid

Makes me start to think...what other cameras were fitted with the 5cm Elmar 3.5?...apart from the Weltini?

I wonder what lens was used for the prototype; I guess it would have been off the shelf as that would make life easier. And Barnack worked for Zeiss beforehand (from memory) and so you can wonder a lot...

Regards, David

[Jerevan]

Originally Posted by Dralowid

Makes me start to think...what other cameras were fitted with the 5cm Elmar 3.5?...apart from the Weltini?

Nagel Pupille comes to mind. Always liked its looks and I have on and off been thinking of getting one, but the availability (and price of) 127 film puts me off buying one at several hundred euros.

[Erik van Straten]

Before discovering the Leica Cartier-Bresson got 1930 in Ivory Coast (a French colony not unlike the one that is described in Journey to the Edge of the Night by Céline) a French camera with a German Tessar, the Krauss Eka. This was a 35mm camera, but used unperforated film that was backed with paper, like rollfilm. He used this camera quite a lot, but the results were disappointing because the camera leaked light. Finally he bought in Paris a new Leica from Tiranty, the French Leitz importer. The rest is history.


Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

I wonder what lens was used for the prototype

It is well known that the four element Elmar is a copy of the Zeiss Tessar, the only difference being the diaphragm that is in the Elmar between the elements one and two and in the tessar between the elements three and four.

The origin of the five element Anastigmat (Elmax) is unknown, invented by Berek?

Erik.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten

It is well known that the four element Elmar is a copy of the Zeiss Tessar, the only difference being the diaphragm that is in the Elmar between the elements 1 and two and in the tessar between the elements three and four.

The origin of the five element Anastigmat (Elmax) is unknown, invented by Berek?

Erik.

Thanks I know of the 75mm Tessar but didn't know of a 50mm one.

Regards, David

[Dralowid]

A few years ago I was in the habit of bidding for Leicas on Ebay that were either incorrectly described or poorly photographed. This could go either way(!). I bid on and won what I thought was a I with what looked like an Elmar. The camera turned out to be what I expected but the lens was not. It was a Leitz Anastigmat converted to standard coupled ltm mount.

I used it for a couple of films and to my eye the results seemed very similar to an early Elmar. Later, realising its value, I packed it off to Westlicht.

No regrets but I do sometimes wonder where it came from...

[David Hughes]

Hi,

They came with a fixed Anastigmat for a while in the mid 20's but I've never seen one. I guess the conversion to LTM was standard later on.

Regards, David

[Dralowid]

Yes, the first 100 or 150 or so had them.

[David Hughes]

[Erik van Straten]

A single film holder. I wonder how many of these were even used once.

Nice to have one!

Erik.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten

A single film holder. I wonder how many of these were even used once.

Nice to have one!

Erik.

That's the wonder of ebay that lets us all be snappers up of unconsidered trifles... 'though Autolycus would have a fit if he knew what I paid for it in terms of the money of his day.

Regards, David


PS Talking of trifles reminds me that I've looked for words like MAFON in Leica's codes but got nowhere.

And the other Leica link is that Autolycus claimed to be the son of Hermes.

[splitimageview]

A new grip for Barnacks

[Gordon Coale]

This was my Grandfathers Leica IIIc he bought it in 1949 when he went to Japan during the Occupation. It was instrumental in my founding gordy's camera straps but that is another story. He gave it to me in the early 1970s. In recent years I replaced the shutter and beam splitter. I thought that a Leica M3 might be a better camera, certainly a more modern camera. I bought one 6 years ago. It's a beautiful camera but I am going back to my IIIc for three reasons. First, it is easier to focus. The IIIc has a separate rangefinder window that magnifies 150%. Second, using a brightline auxiliary viewfinder gives a much larger and brighter image that any M series camera. It makes a big difference with older eyes. Third, it is smaller. It fits in my vest pocket. So I will be selling my M3 and my IIIg and keeping my IIIc as well as my IIIa and 1935 Leica Standard. I really like the smaller cameras. But then that was why Oskar Barnack invented them.

[splitimageview]

Ditto! I prefer the smaller barnacks to any M, for all the same reasons.

[d.dulin]

not a picture of my leica ii and elmar but rather pictures taken with them.
000315110015 by Drew Dulin, on Flickr
000315110011 by Drew Dulin, on Flickr
000315110010 by Drew Dulin, on Flickr
000315110009 by Drew Dulin, on Flickr
000315110006 by Drew Dulin, on Flickr

[d.dulin]

side note: my penny washer/shim worked perfectly, film is now aligned and above the sprokets.

[maddoc]

This Nikkor 35mm lens is high on my wish list! Interesting grip also!

Originally Posted by splitimageview

A new grip for Barnacks