working Ur-Leica?

[zwieback]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Update:

To my big surprise, the camera already showed up today. Getting it out of the box, a few starting pics, and not even 30min later it was in pieces right infront of me. Not included in the time was to get the tensioning knob off, which was so tight that it bent my lens tool and that it needed heating it up to get the top screw off. Also in other respects the particular example I received is a disaster. It does not have the pulley at the top of the advance roller, the advance roller has got not teeth to grab the perforation of the film and the film support was that much warped, that it must have been fitted using a hammer. I removed all the screws that fix it and it was still so firmly pressed into the housing that I spent some time to find additional screw, which there were non, until I finally pulled it out with some force. The curtain is useless, the tensioning roller far too small diameter to work properly and the ratchet feels stiff and very rough when turning the nob, making an unplesant loud klick noise. The film pressure plate is pireced by two scews that would slit the film if you would manage to get any film into it.

On the positive side, the aluminium housing and the probably CNC machined parts are nice. A good surprise was also to find that some gears have open ball bearings, cute.

I think that maybe 50% of the parts will find its way into the trash bin or will be used elsewhere as scap material. I will have to make them myselfe. Luckily I already invisaged this situation and ordered materials beforehand.

Even tough it sound pretty dark, I love it and look forwad to get it to life. I am quite short in time but keep you posted how things progress. I could not find any number inside or outside the camera, not on the bottom plate, or below the top, no where.

Next step is to make a list of parts that need to be change, create drawings of everything, fix the changes that I would like to do mechanically to the camera and to make the parts needed.

Edited March 16, 2021 by zwieback

[zwieback]

funny detail, the right curtain roller seems to be made from solid brass. Just for the fun of it I put it on a scale: 26 gramms!! Totally useless for a working camera. Before this thing starts to move, the sun is down. Really had a laugh.

[George Furst]

1 hour ago, zwieback said:

Update:

To my big surprise, the camera already showed up today. Getting it out of the box, a few starting pics, and not even 30min later it was in pieces right infront of me. Not included in the time was to get the tensioning knob off, which was so tight that it bent my lens tool and that it needed heating it up to get the top screw off. Also in other respects the particular example I received is a disaster. It does not have the pulley at the top of the advance roller, the advance roller has got not teeth to grab the perforation of the film and the film support was that much warped, that it must have been fitted using a hammer. I removed all the screws that fix it and it was still so firmly pressed into the housing that I spent some time to find additional screw, which there were non, until I finally pulled it out with some force. The curtain is useless, the tensioning roller far too small diameter to work properly and the ratchet feels stiff and very rough when turning the nob, making an unplesant loud klick noise. The film pressure plate is pireced by two scews that would slit the film if you would manage to get any film into it.

On the positive side, the aluminium housing and the probably CNC machined parts are nice. A good surprise was also to find that some gears have open ball bearings, cute.

I think that maybe 50% of the parts will find its way into the trash bin or will be used elsewhere as scap material. I will have to make them myselfe. Luckily I already invisaged this situation and ordered materials beforehand.

Even tough it sound pretty dark, I love it and look forwad to get it to life. I am quite short in time but keep you posted how things progress. I could not find any number inside or outside the camera, not on the bottom plate, or below the top, no where.

Next step is to make a list of parts that need to be change, create drawings of everything, fix the changes that I would like to do mechanically to the camera and to make the parts needed.

Now you can understand why Mr Kim refuses to quote a price for the conversion to a working UR.Camera. The quality of the UR Dummies made by the Leitz apprentices varied so much in the early 70s when they were made. CNC, this body being made in the 1970s means it would have been early in the use of this technology. I always wondered how the UR Body was made. Also please send some photographs of your UR parts. As they say “A picture is worth.......”. Thanks for sharing all the details of you “Prize”!

[wlaidlaw]

I think Zweiback and my UR might have been made by escapees from British Leyland, after they failed to make Austin Allegros  They should never have been sold to the public in this state. If you compare them with the beautifully made O/Null series, it shows what with a bit more effort, could have been done, even though I disagree with Leica's decision to put a non-self-capping shutter blinds in the null replica. 

Wilson

[zwieback]

It almost looks like Leica initially planned releasing a fully working Ur-camera. Production started already but then it was decided to only do a dummy. This would explain, that quite a few of the parts are made with good precision and quality and overall it is a working mechnism. Once this decision was made, not a lot of effort was spent on finally assembeling the cameras and I think this is where the "volunteers" come into play. The had to bend the brackets and film holder and to assemble the camera. In the end, when all the fully finished parts were used, they continued even using the partially finished parts probably ending up in the last models brought to the market (of which probably I won one). They did not need to worry about the quality of the internal anymore, because it was not advertised as being a working camera.

Regarding the 0-series cameras, I don't own one (yet) because at first, I would proably more invest in a proper, old camera instead, and because second I already find it too close to the Mod I cameras but only having the dissadvantages. Anyway, the "dissadvantages" are what justifies the camera in my eyes and I do not like it very much to come up with coated lenses either. This holds true to the newly released Tambar lens also. Why would you want a lens like this and give up on its characteristic by using modern glass and coatings? I love the original lens and think that its optical qualities are far, far underrated. Yes, it is not made to be a sharp lens but already stopped down to 4 it is good and the tonality is up to the very best lenses I have used.

[zwieback]

did not have much time but wanted to add some pics:

Camera as it arrived

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!

 

 

[zwieback]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the film support - junk

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!

[zwieback]

all the bits on the floor

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!

[pgk]

2 hours ago, zwieback said:

Why would you want a lens like this and give up on its characteristic by using modern glass and coatings?

I am sure that if Leitz had been aware of and able to coat lenses back then, they would have. I've actually been toying with the idea of coating an old lens to see how much better it might perform .... .Flare was a big problem back then, and minimal air/glass surfaces were utilised as much as possible to minimise it. Flare is the real characteristic that is changed by coatings and reducing it means better shadow detail and increasing the performance by increasing the dynamic range which can be recorded. Personally I see no problem in doing so.

[wlaidlaw]

The fact that the Leica 1A had a self capping shutter, I think shows that the people who provided feedback on the original null series pre-production run of cameras, said they did not like this feature and that for the full production cameras, a self capping shutter was a requirement. If this was the case in 1924/25, why would it have been any different in 1999, when the replicas were made. I would use my null a whole lot more if it had a self capping shutter but as it is, I much prefer to use my 1C standard, Model II or Model III. I don't use my null enough to have built up a muscle memory of remove cap, take photo, replace cap wind on. Out of every roll of film I have taken with the null, there are always unexposed images, taken with cap on or light leaked ones where I have wound on without replacing the cap. 

Wilson

[zwieback]

pgk, simple answer from my side: If you want best performance, why buy an "old" lens or even the remake of such a lens. At least I buy old lenses for exactly what they are.

Anyway, I find your approch, experimenting with coatings, still very interesting and this is coming from the thought the sits deep in my brain, which is that less glass is better. At times were manufacurers seem to try to excell each other by adding more and more lens elements I find myself that I like the simple 3-6/7 elementers most, regardlesss of brands almost. It will not be good for everything but those simple lenses can truly impress and more people should try.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, zwieback said:

pgk, simple answer from my side: If you want best performance, why buy an "old" lens or even the remake of such a lens.

Well, its interesting to find out just how good the old designs actually were. Some old lenses have weathered (oxidised) and a 'natural' coating has formed, but for many it is inherent veiling flare which lets them down. So applying modern techniques allows us to see just how well designed old lenses were. I could go on about this but will simply say that there is a suggestion that the Cooke Triplet was designed as a result of (Grubb telescope) doublets being pushed to their limits, and one of its desirable characteristics was relatively low flare. Its taken us a long time to get to the optics we have today with aspheric elements and numerous surfaces with Muti-coating, but the designers in the past were no slouches given the materials they had to work with.

[zwieback]

not sure if you read or understood what I have written, maybe it was not clear but I do not see an improvement with most of the lenses sold today compared to what was already done in the past. Glass is bad for image quality. We are lucky that Leica still makes M-lenses that follow the strategy of using only 6/7 elemtements mostly and make the most of it. It shows in the results and that's the reason I use them and the old lenses too. MTF charts are not everything and I do not want edge to edge sharpness. Once you start you pay for "sharp" lenses, when you progress, you pay even much more to have more of the frame not being "sharp" or in focus.

[pgk]

'Sharpness' isn't everything, but veling flare reduces detail as it lower's contrast. The 'mountain' or 'berg' elmar is a good example; use it with as effective a hood as possible and it is a very capable lens, but fail to use a hood and it loses contrast quite dramatically. Flare has aleways been an enemy of lens design. Anything that reduces it is worth using.

[wlaidlaw]

My father had his Summar coated in the Netherlands in around 1948, probably by Oude Delft. He had tried it, pre-coating for his first colour film (maybe Agfachrome), which was then just becoming available in the UK and was not too pleased with the results but after coating, he said it was a lot better. It may also have been helped by Oude Delft rebuilding the lens. 

Wilson

Edited March 17, 2021 by wlaidlaw

[zwieback]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb wlaidlaw:

The fact that the Leica 1A had a self capping shutter, I think shows that the people who provided feedback on the original null series pre-production run of cameras, said they did not like this feature and that for the full production cameras, a self capping shutter was a requirement. If this was the case in 1924/25, why would it have been any different in 1999, when the replicas were made.

I have to say that I completly miss the point. Why would I buy a 0 series REPLICA if the 1A with its self capping shutter is so much better. Yes, development went on and after the 1A ther was the II and the M6 amd the SL2. So would in conclusion the a digital 0 series camera be "the best" with auto focus, because that was also found to be superior in the 70th?

I like to use the things for what they are And would ONLY buy the 0 series camera because of this. If I wouldn't like it I the the 1A, easy.

Same goes for lenses. I very much like the old ones and if I don't wnat flare I go for a modern lens, simple. When I use the old lens I use it because of its flaws, to lower contrast, to introduce flare by intention, to have color casts, to have a soft trnasition between in focus and out of focus areas....

These old, imperfect lenses give you a lot more possibilities to influence the image you take, an artistic impression. Modern designs are made to (only) reproduce what's infront of them until the smallest detail.

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by zwieback

[jerzy]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb zwieback:

all the bits on the floor

have you seen this? There was a separate thread about Oberländer replicas

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!

Ur-Leica Oberlaender.pdf Edited March 17, 2021 by jerzy

[jerzy]

Vidom nr 14 contains functional description of Ur. One of the statements there is: 

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!

English translation would be:" manually adjusted film counter up to 50 pictures".  Interpretation could be twicefold: either manuall reset or manually set after each exposure. I tend to believe the second is correct

[zwieback]

nice detail on the Oberländer: Used a thin steel wire to stabilize the curtain. Though of doing exactly the same. Already have got 0.5mm and 0.3mm spring steel wires on my desk.

About the "manual" actuation of the camera I also heard from other sources. Maybe it is just a guess because non seem to be working. Sure it is no problem to make it funktional like in any other analog camera but to make it work like in the Ur-Leica, if it ever worked, is not publicly known it seems.

Servus 🙂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ambro51]

From  van Hasbroeck :   

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!

In actual usage, unless you are really well trained it’s tough to strip out Exact Lengths of film from a bulk roll in tie dark to know exactly how many images you have room for.   Trying to remember to advance that little wheel one tic mark each time you shoot is like promising yourself to start each walk on your right foot.  You forget.    •••. Best method is to shoot until you can hear the supply spool shaking up and down.      Your problem in useage is never knowing your film is actually indeed advancing.  Nothing aside from SOUND will indicate this. When Vilhelm Pacht invented the 35 mm camera he used a wire which was positioned over the upper sprocket path with a slight pressure. One end was soldered to the metal of the pressure plate.  As film advanced, it audibly makes “clicks”,  A superior setup to Barnacks “faith system”. •••••••my suggestion for finding out what the counter was is to ask Malcom Taylor. ••••••• Edited March 18, 2021 by Ambro51