giordano Posted January 22, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's always said that the reason all M cameras load film from the bottom is that this provides a more rigid structure and more precise location of the film plane. If that is the case, why is a conventional hinged back good enough for all Leica SLRs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Hi giordano, Take a look here Bottom-loading vs door-loading (Leica vs Leicaflex). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted January 22, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 22, 2010 It's always said that the reason all M cameras load film from the bottom is that this provides a more rigid structure and more precise location of the film plane. If that is the case, why is a conventional hinged back good enough for all Leica SLRs? May be because on the M you have a flat top so you can load with the camera upside down, you cannot do that on the SLR due to the prism on the top.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted January 22, 2010 May be because on the M you have a flat top so you can load with the camera upside down,you cannot do that on the SLR due to the prism on the top.... I don't think it can be that: there have been many SLRs where the entire back comes off for loading, including the two where precision fitting was given the highest priority - Alpa and Contarex. And it doesn't address the basic point, whether the often-cited reason for bottom-loading is true, or merely a justification for retaining the system out of conservatism since its purely pragmatic origin with materials that happened to be available for the Ur-Leicas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 22, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 22, 2010 Hmmm... this is a far more interesting question than whether or not CMOS or CCD is the way of the future... If you think about it, there have really only been two iterations of the Leica rangefinder concept - the LTMs and the Ms. The LTMs all followed the Ur-Leica in basic design up to the IIIg. The M was a radical departure in so many ways from that original concept, but kept with the solid body when hinged backs had been around for many years - why? I subscribe to the conservatism theory. I can imagine the thinking going along the lines of the Leica faithful having enough to contend with, with the radical M3 already. Throughout Leica's history it has gone for evolution not revolution, turning design decisions into unique selling points or in other words, quirks into "advantages" Of course, there is also a pragmatic thought that Leica had no experience or expertise in hinged backs before the Leicaflex - they stuck to what they themselves felt comfortable with, and maybe even only had the tooling to cope with - things were still tight in the 1950's, don't forget - the war was less than a decade past. Just some speculation, interesting topic though. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 22, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 22, 2010 Hinged backs on all the SLRs I have ever owned, or used, all had spring loaded plates to keep the film flat against the shutter throat and in the correct plane. Further, I haven't noticed any "floppiness" in any of these SLR bodies. I therefore side with the "conservative" camp on this one. I see no reason why Leica couldn't have made a hinged back for the M camera during the 60s, when money wasn't tight (say with the M4, but definitely with the M5?), but clearly felt that there was no benefit. There is also the conservatism of their customers to take into consideration too - hence the removable baseplate on the M8 and M9, which is just an affectation to give a nod back to 1953 and beyond. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted January 22, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 22, 2010 I don't think it can be that: there have been many SLRs where the entire back comes off for loading, including the two where precision fitting was given the highest priority - Alpa and Contarex. In fact, the removable back has an important advantage. Before the Leica R system, I had a Contarex Super system with several lenses. The one big advantage of the Contarex, that cannot be found in any 35mm film camera today, was the removable magazine back. I used to have 4 magazine back, for different films, film speeds, film types, etc. All with one camera body and switchable mid-film without loosing a single frame. Now, I have to carry 2 or 3 different bodies: more weight, more bulk. The R8/R9 do have the removable back, allowing for the DMR. But it is hardly a field switch! Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 22, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is also the conservatism of their customers to take into consideration too - hence the removable baseplate on the M8 and M9, which is just an affectation to give a nod back to 1953 and beyond. The M users always wear shirts with at least one pocket to save the bottom base during the operation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 22, 2010 The M users always wear shirts with at least one pocket to save the bottom base during the operation The alternative is to wear trousers! I never found the removable base a problem, in fact with the camera on a strap I found it easier and faster to load a roll of film with an M than with a camera having a hinged back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 22, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 22, 2010 Funny chatting for Friday's evening... ... well... maybe they thought that to have the film-receiving reel completely removable was more useful to insert the film "queue" into... and is easier to pick it from its lower end... this makes it natural to have the camera in vertical - upside down... and, for pure conservatorism, decided to keep that standard film loading position even when the hinged back was introduced with M3... after all, the Leicas' top has been always rather flat=easy to put the body vertically... if you are "encouraged" (with a completely open back) to load the film with the camera posed on the front, well, the front isn't flat neither with a collapsed lens... and if the lens is without cap one even risks the precious front element... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.