Leica 0

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

James,

 

I second your thoughts. I inherited a Leica If and a IIIf from my father and had them both CLAed last year. The If with the original auxiliary 50mm brightline finder and an Elmar 3.5/50 is about as much Barnack style as I am willing to go. Used that combo early this year during a skiing trip to the Dolomites (as it is so compact, it easily slides into one of the inner pockets of my ski jacket), and the slides came out just beautiful. And that auxiliary finder is soo good (life size!)...

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[mlrx]

I'm not sure of availability, though I'd be surprised if you could not find an "O" series camera in the secondary market.

 

Among currently active members, Bill Hollinger (billh) and Bill Clermont (cardinal) have this camera and occasionally post pictures from it.

 

A former member (at least he hasn't posted in a long time) is Nicolas Kozic. Here's a link to a series of photos he made with the camera from the old forum:

 

Nicolas Pics

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

 

Thank you to remember of me. I will come back with a leica 0-serie pictures. Probably in 2008. I love this camera (my first leica). Actually I work on leica M8 (excellent digital picture rendering). My dream would be a leica 0-serie with a digital CDD

 

Nicolas Kozic (France)

[sepiareverb]

I've recently gotten one of the 2000 O Serie cameras, and absolutely love it. There are quirks no doubt, and a pretty steep learning curve coming from M's, but this is one of the most enjoyable cameras I've ever used. Lens is spectacular from what I've seen thus far, no big prints yet, but negs have all the snap and sparkle one could want. Been shooting Adox Ortho 25 through it and running in Rodinal, for the complete old-tyme experience.

 

If you think you want one of these I'd say go for it. I had a iiif, but it paled in comparison to the O.

[lonersam]

I've recently gotten one of the 2000 O Serie cameras, and absolutely love it. There are quirks no doubt, and a pretty steep learning curve coming from M's, but this is one of the most enjoyable cameras I've ever used. Lens is spectacular from what I've seen thus far, no big prints yet, but negs have all the snap and sparkle one could want. Been shooting Adox Ortho 25 through it and running in Rodinal, for the complete old-tyme experience.

 

If you think you want one of these I'd say go for it. I had a iiif, but it paled in comparison to the O.

 

I really want to buy an O but then I have a dilemma - I have an If offer to me. I simply love the black paint of the O but then it is just much expensive to the If I was offered, which is about US$530.

 

Anyone, suggestions perhaps? To me for the IF, I know I have to buy a Voigtlander 50mm viewfinder and or a 28/35 to go along with it, that would up my expenses on it.

 

So, thoughts perhaps? Thanks!

[lars_bergquist]

Look, I'm not sure there isn't a misunderstanding around here. "A 0 Leica" is a very ambiguous term.

 

It can of course refer to a '0-series' ('Null-Serie') i.e. pre-production, camera. If genuine, it is extremely rare because only a couple of dozen were made in 1924, and most of these are lost, presumably scrapped. Those existing, in various museums or private collections, are accounted for and I have never heard of one being put up for sale. There are working replicas, once made by Leica and sold commercially. They have lenses made to the original five-element 'Leitz Anastigmat' design, but recomputed with modern glass, and coated. So you bought the privilege of going through the motions of using a 0 series camera, but you were definitely not taking pictures with one! Let alone with the film of those days ...

 

But '0 Leica' has another, different meaning too. In 1930, Leitz started to manufacture Leica cameras with interchangeable lenses. But at first, the flange-to-film register of the camera was not completely standardised, and the actual focal lengths of the lenses were not either. Lenses were selectively assembled to bodies. So even interchangeable lenses, when introduced, had to be selectively matched to a specific body. You bought a 'bespoke' kit of camera body with two or three lenses (5cm Elmar, 5cm Hektor, 13.5cm Elmar or 3.5cm Elmar) each marked with the last three digits of the camera serial number.

 

A little later, the register was standardised to 28.8mm, and manufacturing was tightened up so that all lenses would fit all bodies—from 'now' on. To distinguish these new bodies and lenses, a 0 (zero) was stamped at 12 o'clock on the body lens flange, and also on the lenses—usually on the back of the focusing lever. That was a great step. To read the literature, you might think that this was just a matter of Oskar Barnack or Ernst Leitz II issuing an edict. But it entailed a complete revolution of manufacturing procedures. Until then, no camera manufacturer had done this.

 

These '0' Leicas, or 'standardised' bodies and lenses, have some rarity value. This goes in spades for a matched body-lenses kit, maybe even in a contemporary fitted leather case. But the practice continued even during 1932, or most of it, as the Leica I or 'A' was followed by the Leica II. So there are Leica II cameras (i.e. with rangefinder) engraved '0', and you can of course find even later models which carry the 0 because they were once factory-upgraded from a 'standardised' Leica I.

 

So in order to avoid misunderstandings, which can be expensive in this field, we do usually take care to specify '0-series' on one hand, and 'standardised' on the other.

 

The old man from the Age of Handmade Cameras

[tatlin]

I bought the first replica "O"-camera, when it went on sale in 2003. I shoot with slide film. It was my first Leica. Study the manual for evaluating exposures very carefully. You can over-think the camera. I generally set the f/stop & shutter speed from the table guideline in the manual, & leave it alone, depending on the light conditions. I bought a metric tape measure to judge the difference between 1.5, 3 & 5 meters. I do try & get the distance I'm shooting for accurately, rather than rely on f/stop. You adjust the "focus" on the barrel of the lens. I use it when I want to take a roll of pictures in one extended session. You'll be very pleased with your results & have more keepers that way. Re-capping the small leather covering on the lens, between exposures, is a cultivated habit. It takes a more deliberate approach to picture taking. You really have to want to abide by all the fiddling necessary to operate the camera. It truly is a snap to operate with practice. Its completely non-electric, which I find curiously satisfying.

Once the slides are in the carousel, I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between the "O" & M7 pictures.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[ ... ]

Once the slides are in the carousel, I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between the "O" & M7 pictures.

No wonder. In both cases, you are putting a modern lens in front of a modern film. The fact that you have to put on the lens cap while you are re-cocking the shutter should not influence the image quality per se.

 

Now get a good Leica I ('A') instead, with a true 1920's lens, and use it. THAT should be interesting (though not new—there are people around that do this all the time).

 

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

[tatlin]

I agree about the modern lens with film. My point was the O-camera involves considerable guesstimation, without a viewfinder to focus & metering feedback like my M7. Still the pictures sparkle. I've read that slide film is less forgiving & the O-camera works like a charm. Recapping the lens stopper, it operates more like a cork, is necessary, or else you'll expose the next shot to light, which ruins the picture. It harkens back to an earlier way of composing a picture, I suppose. It suits my fancy more than anything else, I grant you. I bought into that allure at $1000, at the time, & entered the Leica world retroactively. I grew up using a Canonet III & Minox 35.