Article re Leica Cameras of the 1930s

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Spurred on by the recent acquisition of a 1936 Leica III by a friend, I have put together this article illustrating the major developments in Leica cameras during the 1930s; a decade of rapid progress in the development of the Leica camera. I have used some items from my modest collection to do the illustration, covering such developments as interchangeable and standardised lenses, the introduction of built in and coupled rangefinders and the development of a true system camera with items such as close up equipment. I have covered the major developments, but I found, of course, that I did not have some of the items I would like to have covered. This should stimulate my future collecting, as well as providing an incentive to expand and develop the article further. I have also included some photographs taken by the cameras to show that they are not just 'shelf queens'.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2016/1/17/leica-cameras-in-the-1930s-a-decade-of-progress

 

I would welcome any queries or comments.

 

William

 

 

[lleo]

Really nice, Will. Is it your site? I've put it in my bookmars however.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Valau]

Great article William, very nice camera's too,

David

[willeica]

Really nice, Will. Is it your site? I've put it in my bookmars however.

 

Thanks IIeo and Valau. The website belongs to my friend and fellow member of the UK Leica Society, Michael Evans.

 

William 

[Bateleur]

Inspiring article William and fitting tribute a great camera. And great photographs too!

 

Regards

Charles

Edited January 25, 2016 by Bateleur

[zeitz]

I really enjoyed the article, William.  One problem remains in that you can't buy vintage 35mm film.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks zeitz. I know that film can often have a long life, but 80 years would be stretching things a bit!  These cameras will, of course, take any 35mm film produced today. They were adapted in the 1930s to take the, then new, one time use 35mm film cassettes. See the relevant page from Jim Lager's excellent Accessories Guide in my other recent post about the FILCA film cassette.

 

William

[zeitz]

I was really referring to the look of the image. Today's films are too sharp, too saturated and too fine grain. I like vintage car racing. I have lots of vintage equipment. But with today's film you can't readily achieve the vintage look. I have done some work in Photoshop to spoil the new film look. Might as well have used modern equipment to begin with.

[spydrxx]

Thank you. A well written, straightforward, and well illustrated, concise history. Very nicely done.

[willeica]

Thanks zeitz for your clarification. I see what you mean, as, occasionally, I use software to get an 'old' look with both negatives and digital images. I am only familiar with the main film stocks available out there such as Kodak, Ilford and Fuji and most of them give a 'modern look' to start off with. There may well be other ones out there that give a more 'vintage' look. At a recent meeting of my local camera club, one of the more experienced members gave a show of his infra red photos (many with a sepia tint) taken over the years with both film and digital. I was one of the few in the audience who preferred the film shots to the digital ones. I am saying this to indicate that tastes do change over time. 

 

Another way to get a 'vintage look' is to use the older lenses. The Summar is one that springs to mind in this connection, particularly if you shoot fairly wide open to provide that unique 'swirling bokeh'. No modern lens can give a look of that kind.

 

just a few thoughts.

 

William

Edited January 25, 2016 by willeica

[Ambro51]

It's too bad we no longer have Kodachrome. It's too bad proper slide projection is used less and less often. I have a screen roughly 4'x6. Luckily I started my personal Leicadventure about 1975 so my stock of "Vintage" slides is extensive and personal. •••••. It really should be understood how much Kodachrome meant to the popularity of the Leica. While expensive (with processing., in 1938, a roll of 18 exposure Kodachrome, in our dollars..entailed about $40)....the sheer Newness of easily done color images was "All That". I would guess now in 2016 the majority of "working" SM Leicas are shooting B&W.

[zeitz]

Great article and nice discussion related to really great cameras.  I really wish Kodak would resume Kodachrome production.  The next vintage auto race I go to is in April.  I plan to use a IIIf, Astro Berlin Identoskop and coated Astro Berlin 500mm f5.0 lens.

[Ambro51]

You should explore Leica Stereo :-)

[Orient XI]

I really wish Kodak would resume Kodachrome production.

The main problem is not the production of Kodachrome film but the very specialized development process. To my mind the major advantage of Kodachrome film is the absence of colour coupler residues in the emulsion after processing. Kodachrome is processed layer by layer with the colour coupler added to the colour developer itself. First, the film is developed with a standard black and white developer to yield a negative image. After washing the film is exposed to light and a separate colour developer is used for each layer. Thus four different developers are used in the process, the C41 process for colour negative film uses a single colour developer whose oxidation products react with separate "immobilized" colour couplers in each layer to form coloured dyes (magenta, cyan and yellow). The unused colour couplers cannot be washed from the emulsion layers and greatly impair the permanence of the colour image. Other reversal film manufacturers (e.g. Agfa), and Kodak Ektachrome films use a black and white first developer and an immobilized colour coupler in each layer to form colour images upon treatment with a second, colour developer. This simpler processing regime can even be undertaken at home.

Kodachrome really requires manufacturer's processing. US anti-trust legislation did photographers no favours when it compelled Kodak to publish the chemical formulae and processing instructions for independent processors to use; their processing was invariably inferior to Kodak's own.

[semi-ambivalent]

I was really referring to the look of the image. Today's films are too sharp, too saturated and too fine grain. I like vintage car racing. I have lots of vintage equipment. But with today's film you can't readily achieve the vintage look. I have done some work in Photoshop to spoil the new film look. Might as well have used modern equipment to begin with.

A low contrast film like Double-X (Eastman 5222) might give you what you want, or a "modern" film developed in D-96 or perhaps a formula out of Anchell & Troop's "The Film Developing Cookbook" might do it as well. You could even try over-exposing and under-developing to pull back contrast. Film is pretty malleable but you have to poke around a bit.

 

Good luck,

s-a