LTM users, its time to stand up and be counted!

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even the coach of a winning team must be ready to make changes when new challenges appear. Else, he will cease to be the coach of a winning team.

 

Oscar Barnack knew that, because he was a very practical man, a man from the shop floor. He was the very antithesis of the white-coated gentlemen who artfully designed Zeiss cameras while solemnly addressing each other as Herr Doktor or Herr Ingenieur. But Albert and others were adepts of the Leica Cult. For them, Truth had been revealed once and for all.

 

The fact is that the development of the M3 started already in the late 1940's, as soon as some order had been restored after the war. The fact that it proceeded so slowly shows that this was a sideshow, kept on the back burner. After the introduction of the M3, the success was immense – and again, Leica became the prisoner of its own success. Let us hope that they will not fall victim to the success of the M9.

 

The sceptical old man

 

I agree with you that all considerations which still stuck to the old screw mount system proved to be unfounded. Though I still think that those who were sceptical before the M3 success became obvious had their reasons as well.

 

The fact that the M3 was supplied in large numbers immediately after it was presented shows that it wasn't just looked upon as a sideshow. Leitz had to build a completely new production line while the old line was still running at full speed. You can't double your production capacities just like this with something you keep on the back burner. You may say that it was a mistake not to stop the screw mount production immediately. Yes, 56 years later we are entitled to so much prudence..

 

There was another fact which stood against an earlier marketing of the M series. Other than today Leitz was not strong in lenses. The classical set of 50 and 90mm Elmars and 135mm Hektors were outdated. They were still experimenting with the glass design of the Summicron. They were very weak with wide angles and even incompetent for anything below 35mm. Besides the exotic Summarex they had no realistic ideas for anything wider than f/:2. They had to invest a lot of money and skills to achieve the level they needed to promote a new first class camera system. They made mistakes splitting up their forces to the Canadian and Wetzlar teams. They only made some progress on all these fields years after the M series was launched. If you look at it from this point of view you might even call the presentation of the M3 premature. It wasn't, as the camera became the locomotive to drag the slow lens department ahead, but to say now that some ideological misguided folks from the camera production were just dummies is too simple.

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

Frankly, I think that the Leitz executives were taken by surprise by the response to the M3. I never intended to say that the outside response was lukewarm, but that a strong faction at Leitz persisted in worshiping the LTM camera line.

 

The IIIf was phased out in 1957 (1133 cameras produced that year). Here are the production figures for the IIIg (combined Wetzlar and Midland) and ditto for the M3 and the M2 together:

 

1957.....21 079––35 500

 

1958.......9 752––25 400 (the M2 was launched this year)

 

1959.......8 094––30 687

 

1960.......2 645––29 450

 

1961............13––23 451

 

The market killed the IIIg and proved that the doubts about the M line were unfounded. And as I pointed out, Albert retired in 1960.

 

But I agree with you about the lenses. Really good optics did not appear until 1956 (rigid Summicron) and then in 1958–59.

 

The old man who finished school in 1956

Edited December 7, 2011 by lars_bergquist

[wlaidlaw]

Lars,

 

Do you know the relative prices of the IIIG and M3 bodies in 1957? I have been told some relative prices for 1955 - They are Rolleiflex 2.8E Planar $490, IIIF with 50/2 Summicron $735 and Contax IIA-CD with 50/1.5 Sonnar $1250. This made the Contax a very expensive purchase indeed. No wonder they only made around 3000 IIA-CD's. The Rolleiflex in comparison looks cheap and it is not surprising the extent to which the press adopted it.

 

Wilson

[iphoenix]

Wilson, hope you'll forgive me responding. In Australian "Popular Photography" November 1957 price list, prices were, in Australian Pounds (AP): M3 + Elmar3.5/50: AP158/14/-.; IIIG + same: AP110/2/6; M3 + Summarit 1.5/50: AP219/4/6; IIIG + same: AP178/17/6. The Contax IIa in the 1956 price list shows a price of AP125/18/- with Sonnar 1.5/5cm. Rgds, David

Edited December 8, 2011 by iphoenix
Extra detail

[iphoenix]

Also, 1957 Rolleiflex 2.8 E Planar: AP116/18/-. At around that time, I believe the English Pound equalled 25/- Australian. Rgds, David

Edited December 8, 2011 by iphoenix
extra info.

[wlaidlaw]

David,

 

Thank you for that information. I wonder if Contax/Leica pricing was very different in Australia to the US. The IIIG + Summarit and Rolleiflex pricing are roughly the equivalents of the dollar prices I quoted, albeit in my case for a IIIF and Summicron but the Contax is wildly different. At the price you quoted, I would have thought the Contax would have been being sold at a substantial loss. These cameras are incredibly complex when you open them up and I would guess have near double the number of parts inside to an LTM Leica.

 

The source of my info was an article some years ago on the Contax Newsletter. The Contax IIA and IIIA were by far the most expensive and the comparison in that article was that the Contax and Sonnar cost the same as a mid range Chevrolet, whereas the Leica was the same as a lower range Ford and the Rolleiflex, a Harley Davidson.

 

Wilson

[iphoenix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Wilson, Just not sure what the Contax IIaCD model was. I don't seem to have any reference to it in my books/magazines. it may have been something special. Anyway, a bit more info: Contax IIIa with Sonnar 1.5/5cm: AP136/10/-. Oh for a time machine!! Rgds, David

Edited December 8, 2011 by iphoenix
Deleting repeated info

[wlaidlaw]

David,

 

The CD is an acronym for Colour Dial. This is to do with flash synchronisation, with the different colours being the shutter speeds for different flash devices: M bulbs, F bulbs and electronic flash. Here is a pic of mine, taken with an M9, Opton Sonnar 50 and SF-58D to meet forum regs.

 

The main problem with Contaxes is the lack of good repairers, given the fiendishly complicated internals. There is Howard at Collectible Cameras in Phoenix, AZ but now he is semi retired and only does customer cameras (he did my last CLA). There is another person in the USA but I will not deal with him. I don't appreciate, as a customer, receiving rude, bad tempered messages and being dictated to. There are one or two other repairers out there, mainly in Eastern Europe but at least some of them use Kiev parts, which are far more readily obtainable and a quarter the price or less. In general this is bad news, as the sizing is often not quite right and materials poor.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[iphoenix]

David,

 

Thank you for that information. I wonder if Contax/Leica pricing was very different in Australia to the US. The IIIG + Summarit and Rolleiflex pricing are roughly the equivalents of the dollar prices I quoted, albeit in my case for a IIIF and Summicron but the Contax is wildly different.

Wilson, At that time "retail price maintenance" was in force in Australia, meaning that the manufacturers/importers could set retail prices and insist the retailers stuck to them. I believe the U.S. retailers could set their own prices. So that could be part of the reason for the differences. A bit more info., though it's from a 1959 U.S. magazine ad; Contax IIA + F2/50 Sonnar: US$192.95; Contax IIIA body: US$115.95; Contax IIIA + F1.5/50 Sonnar: US$222.50. There are similar prices from other advertisers. One even has the recommended retail prices which are around 1/3rd higher. Rgds, David

[wlaidlaw]

David,

 

Converting those prices to dollars at the Bretton Woods exchange rates, which applied before currency trading went wild (£1 = USD 2.8), that would mean that in the US, you could pick up a Contax IIIA with 1.5 Sonnar for the equivalent of £79.

 

Now in the same 1959, I got my first decent camera. My father part exchanged the Kodak Retinette I had, for a second hand Reid and Sigrist III English licensed Leica copy with a Taylor Hobson 2" f2 lens. I think the asking price from Reids of Haslemere was £90 but my father was allowed £20 in part exchange for the Retinette.

 

It does seem unfair that in the US you could pick up a new Contax for less than the price of a secondhand R&S, even though the R&S was supposed to be even better made than the contemporary Leica. They were aircraft instrument makers and were given a free Leica licence as part of war reparations. It sounds as if that article in the Contax magazine may have been trying to "puff" Contax values. Here is a copy of the R&S advert for 1957.

 

I wish I still had the Reid. One holiday from school I came home to find my father had been persuaded by his "friend" at Reids, to exchange the Reid for a very weird Mamiya Sekor SLR press camera, with dual shutters in the body and lens for flash sync up to 1/1000 - grrrrrrrr!

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[iphoenix]

Now in the same 1959, I got my first decent camera. My father part exchanged the Kodak Retinette I had, for a second hand Reid and Sigrist III English licensed Leica copy with a Taylor Hobson 2" f2 lens. I think the asking price from Reids of Haslemere was £90 but my father was allowed £20 in part exchange for the Retinette.

Wilson, you were certainly a lucky young man to have a father so generous. At that stage I thought my Brownie Flash II was the ultimate in technology and quality (maybe that explains why I had been given it, rather than something more exotic ). Also, I'm inclined to agree with your comment about the motivation of the Contax magazine. Those American prices I gave you were actually toward the upper end of all the dealers' prices advertised. Something I noticed though, was that there were hardly any dealers advertising to sell Leicas; even secondhand. Any ideas as to why that may be? Rgds, David

[wlaidlaw]

I think buying the Reid was self-preservation, as I kept going off with one or other of his Leicas. I had also worked the whole summer holidays in the engineering shop of one of his factories (this was before the days of health and safety). It was my idea but my father did not think I would stick at it, getting up at 5.30 everyday and cycling 3 miles to the plant to do maintenance, before the main workforce arrived at 8.30. He said halfway through, if I went to the end of the holidays, he would buy me a nice camera.

 

It all worked out to my advantage, when in 1962, my father sold the company to retire and the old works engineer also retired, I was the only person who could do the annual overhaul and could quote what I liked to the new owners, knowing I was going to get the job.

 

My father was a strong believer in the work ethic. In 1967 he gave me an M4 body for my 21st present but I worked all through the summer holiday as a welder at the Dounreay Nuclear power station to buy a secondhand Summilux. I now glow in the dark!

 

Maybe the dealers did not need to advertise the Leicas, as they were flying off the shelves all by themselves.

 

Wilson

[iphoenix]

In 1967 he gave me an M4 body for my 21st present but I worked all through the summer holiday as a welder at the Dounreay Nuclear power station to buy a secondhand Summilux. I now glow in the dark!

 

Maybe the dealers did not need to advertise the Leicas, as they were flying off the shelves all by themselves.

 

Wilson

My 21st was in 1968. For that I was given a Kodak Instamatic 104 and a trip to New Zealand for a 2 week bus tour. I used Kodachrome 64 and still have (and enjoy) the slides. Surprising how sharp and well exposed they were. Many tender memories of first experiences . I think I'm still glowing from the thermally heated streams. Around 5 years earlier I encountered my first Leica, though at that time I didn't realise how important it was. My mate (over the back fence) was given a box full of stuff to play with/destroy or whatever. I was given my choice of anything I wanted. I chose radio valves, crystals and radio coils. What a pity I didn't choose a black camera with a tiny viewfinder and a funny looking bit of metal on the side of the lens. It did though make me aware of the words Leitz and Anastigmat. That memory is probably why Leicas are now breeding in my house. Regards, David

[Cheekyguille]

My two screwmounts, the IIIF with the Summar was recently CLA'd, rangefinder patch changed, curtains changed and the lens cleaned. The Standard needs some service love but will have to wait a lil bit

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[cary]

Here is my IIIF black dial with compartment case. The IIIF came from Dag, the case and film containers from Keeble and Shuchat, and almost everything else from that auction site. When I first got the case I had enough equipment to fill eleven slots and that included the five film containers. I met a lot of very nice and kind people who helped me outfit the case. Actual photo was scanned in, taken with a Leica M3, 90mm Elmar, and Broncolor Impact strobes.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jc_braconi]

Almost the same in here :

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jc_braconi]

I added the name for the few missing items hoping it will help you completing this beautiful case :

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wlaidlaw]

Tip for those wanting to use the CEYOO flash. Many modern A412 22.5V batteries are fractionally too fat to fit in the CEYOO. I tried two different sorts, Chinese made and both were around 16mm deep against the size standard which says they should only be 14mm. They were also slightly wider than the 25mm standard at 26mm. Luckily they fit OK in my Rolleiflashes, so they were not wasted. I have found an alternative 22.5V battery called a BLR122, which is the correct 50m high and 25mm wide but only 12.5mm deep. This fits perfectly in the CEYOO and is also alkaline rather than zinc/ammonia so more leakproof. Just watch because some less fussy sellers are saying that their A412 is also a BLR122, which they are not.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

The source of my info was an article some years ago on the Contax Newsletter. The Contax IIA and IIIA were by far the most expensive and the comparison in that article was that the Contax and Sonnar cost the same as a mid range Chevrolet, whereas the Leica was the same as a lower range Ford and the Rolleiflex, a Harley Davidson.

 

Wilson

 

This is very interesting historical information.

[Guest]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/architektur/301612d1329843496-neue-buecherei-stuttgart-ix-iiia-syn-elmar-3-5-50

 

 

IIIa syn, Elmar 3.5-50mm uncoated