working Ur-Leica?

[Ambro51]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Zeiss f 3.5 5 cm Kino Tessar lens would swap from the Kino Camera to the tube.  So, you would use the same lens on either camera.   When I got the 1911 made kino Tessar (serial number 164xxx), I was Very surprised that it threaded exactly into the inner barrel of the UR Replica.  I was even more surprised to find it was in Perfect Focal registry on the UR when the inner barrel was pushed back to the shoulder of the outer barrel!  This was the First lens Barnack tried using on the UR, but went to the 42mm Summar since the Zeiss lens “just barely” vignettes the far corners of the image.  Remember too, Barnack initially planned a 24x38 format, but shortened one side to settle on 24x36.    What I learned from this is that the UR can have interchangeable lenses. Here too we see the early shadow of Zeiss!

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!

Edited March 14, 2021 by Ambro51

[Ambro51]

One thing to add is the 8mm slit width is purely the creation of Mr. Kim.  Oskar used a full frame width slit, which of course would change relative exposure times.  So, the original camera very certainly had shutter speeds more in the 1/30 to 1/60 range.  A main issue within the UR is lack of space.  To wind this much tape and material around the spools is Very Difficult.  My success with my conversion on #9 in the end relied on turning down the spool diameters.  It was pure trial and error, plus at least 500 takeaparts and fiddling.  I made the shutter curtain and tapes from typewriter ribbon, made lightproof with thin applications of liquid electrical tape.  But, in the end, it worked!  Here’s #9 fitted with the Zeiss lens (and lens hood).  Since I went that far from original, I added a finder off an E ,

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!

Edited March 14, 2021 by Ambro51

[Advertisement]

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

[zwieback]

now I can harly wait till my dummy arrives and I get a feel for the camera and its size. I already get the strong feeling that it will very likely not be the only dummy finding its way to my home.. The one thing I clearly learned about Leicas is that it can be addictive, which equals expensive unfortunately.

To have some material to repair and to modify things I also purchsed small screws and taps, nuts and some sheet brass in thicknesses I ran out.

I am surprised to see that the lese is fitted from the front. WIhtout knowing the camera I would ahve expected it to me mounted from the rear because of the integrated lens cap.

Strap fits real nicely to the camera by the way!

[zwieback]

regarding the shutter curtains, I have got some rubberized silk specially designated for camera repairs, so maybe it saves me from experiencing clearance issues but I am sure I can also overcome those if required.

[Ambro51]

The critical thing, and the big variable, is IF the film runs at the correct height relating to the film opening.  There are two types of build, as I see it,  #80 cause Mr. Kim grief as he had already constructed jigs to do the work, based on one style.   The difference is clearly visible when you open the camera.  If you see a pulley on top of the wind on shaft, your job is fairly easy.  That means a twist 1” x 1/8” rubber “band” will work.  You may see a twisted (or not) wire spring band similar to those used by movie projectors.  Easy to ruin,  trying to get it in out.  The band Must twist to a figure 8.  But, if the pulley IS there it means that camera will run film at the proper height.  If not, then you will need to fabricate a new back plate to raise the film opening.    The other glitch is there is a pin on the wind shaft that controls how far it can wind before being in position to release.  That distance I found was insufficient to get the slit tucked back on either end of its travel.  To remedy this, I removed the pin.  It then pulls the curtain back more, and let’s it “tuck” the other end after it travels.  I wind until it wants to stop, then press the shutter.  The length of the curtain position controls the distance.  This works, but increases frame spacing a few perfs.  .....after 500 attempts, I figured a few more perf spacing was a good trade off to make sure the curtain travels far enough.   ••••. I could go on and on, but read ALL the posts on the thread.  A Lot is covered there.    Let us know the serial number so we can record it.   It’s stamped inside under the top, and on the baseplate.  I once owned 13/22. (the parts were mixed at some point). that is currently with Mr. Kim for another customer•••• The lens on the Replica is purely for show.  Don’t think for a second it will work.   Go to ebay and find the 42mm Leitz Mikro Summar , expect to pay 2-300$ for it, that IS the correct lens.  Most are coated.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Ambro51

[zwieback]

could you disclose some more detail about the "shutter". You lift it manually to open and let it fall by gravity to make an exposure?

It does not look like there is a release or similar. DimensionI guess are taken from the pictures in combination with the measured dimension listed by the author.

[zwieback]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

forgot: I ordered a sensibly priced 50mm Milar lense for the start (about 170$), with the vendor assuring that it the glass is in very good condition. Even says no fog, dust ... well, we will see. What would be a good price for a camera?

Will post the serial number of the camera once it arrived.

[George Furst]

14 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

One thing to add is the 8mm slit width is purely the creation of Mr. Kim.  Oskar used a full frame width slit, which of course would change relative exposure times.  So, the original camera very certainly had shutter speeds more in the 1/30 to 1/60 range.  A main issue within the UR is lack of space.  To wind this much tape and material around the spools is Very Difficult.  My success with my conversion on #9 in the end relied on turning down the spool diameters.  It was pure trial and error, plus at least 500 takeaparts and fiddling.  I made the shutter curtain and tapes from typewriter ribbon, made lightproof with thin applications of liquid electrical tape.  But, in the end, it worked!  Here’s #9 fitted with the Zeiss lens (and lens hood).  Since I went that far from original, I added a finder off an E ,

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!

I am back on this thread. The 8 mm slit width was not Mr Kim’s idea.it was my idea and I explained the reasoning for it in an earlier thread. Film speeds back when Mr Barnack was designing his revolutionary UR were around ASO 5, now they are ASO 400. That means that film speeds are 100 times faster now. The original slit was 38 mm. I also looked at the O series camera of Leitz issued to celebrate the millennium and realized that 8 mm was a good compromise between the 5mm and 10 mm slits on the O series camera that I have.  Also if you study the camera and the tight fit of the clutter curtain, the slit must be very narrow (Mr Kim and I still do not know how Barnack fit that wide slit shutter into the UR as space is exceedingly tight). Now we did not know the Speed of the original UR shutter. We also were not sure what the speed of the shutter in our UR Replica would be until we started running film through the camera. It turns out the shutter speed is around 200 and 400th of a second depending on the tensioning of the shutter spring using the dial on the top of the camera. Do understand there were many variables that we did not know. Being a physical chemist,I understand that when you have that many variables, you have little control over the final result. We were never able to see the original and evidently it does not work. Even when I visited Leitz, Wetzler, during the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Leica Historical Society gathering in 2018, I was not allowed to see it! Like it’s is in a vault in the basement and even I, who spent so much time bringing the UR Dummies back to life, could not see it. I was disappointed but then we also had a busy meeting and there were other fish to cook.  Also since it did not work I was really interested in the film counter and I turned this final challenge to Mr Kim and he solved it. So in summary there were reason for the 8 mm slit and I was the one who made the decision to go with it and am pleased to say in nine sight, it was the right decision based on science and guess and the final photographs that to this day knock me over!

[George Furst]

On 6/25/2020 at 6:54 AM, Ambro51 said:

When you see him next, ask if he’d be willing to take my Leica Null Series 1st Model Replica, and converting it correctly to closer to the 2nd model.  In that, I want the correct later  finder, self capping “A” style shutter and the coated Anastigmat removed and optically replaced with an uncoated Elmar.   Of course, recreating the Exact Null will involve shortening camera on the bottom by 1/8”.    Leitz added this -1/8” to allow modern cassettes, I want it gone.  I deal with it....••••Leitz made a second model but got all these points wrong.  I think Mr. Kim may be interested in the project.  I’m in No hurry, this is just an “idea float”.••••••geez that Null would look good all brassed. 😉

I would love to do that but my friend Peter does not answer my requests for him to call Mr Kim and I do not know enough Korean language to ask him. I am having a hard enough time trying to find out why Mark's conversion is taking well over a year to finish. This all is very frustrating!

[zwieback]

Making it all the way to Wetzlar and not being allowed to see the camera is very dissapointing and I don't understand why Leica treats their "fans" like this.

Regarding the slot width, totally independent from this thread, I would also have gone for 8mm simply because this is what is used in all the Barnack Leicas for 1/250th of a second, which I consider a good choice taking film sensitivity and lens into account. I will checkk and adjust the shutter speed with a Seikonic lightmeter. It allows to record the flash duration and intensity and even plots you a graph over time if shutter speeds are not too long - it is obviously made for flash and not shutter adjustments.

Regarding the curtain, in a regular Barnack Leica the film advance roller and the roller for the shutter curtain(s) are connect by a gera ration of 25/30. With a roller diameter of 16.5mm it is enough to pull 45mm of curtain during the advancing, so 45mm-36mm=9mm could be used for slot+coverage on a regular Barnack Leica.

Looking at the drawing of the Ur Leica and estimating a few dimensions the situation would be the following:

The gear ration between advance roller and roller for the shutter curtain is about 2.25 (curtain roller faster) but the roller diameter I would estimate at only 9mm compared to the much larger 16.5 on a regular Barnack. If we compare the relation between gear ration used combined with roller diameter which is 25/30 x 16.5 = 13.75 for a regular Barnack and the 2.25 x 9 = 20.25: Now we put those numbers in relation to estimate the amount of curtain that could be pulled by the Ur Leica according to the drawing 20.25/13.75 x45mm = 66mm which means the 66mm - 36mm=30mm could be used for the slot+safety. This still apears to be shour of the 40mm quoted to have been used by Barnack for the Ur-Leica but there are two more aspects that have not been mentined yet.

The first being that a simplification was applied assuming that the roller diamter increases the same between a small diameter and a large diameter roller pulling the same length of curtain. This is not true as on a smaller roller you will have more overlaps and thus a larger increase of diameter. This in return will add length to the amount that can be pulled in.

The second assumption is that, like in a regular Barnack, for the shutter release about 30-45° of advance roller rotation is wasted, which is not really the case for the Ur but I would need to see the camera or its dummy to figuer out.

In conclusion, at least in respect to the shutter curtain it should be possible to have well enough pull for lower speeds and longer exposure - if, and only if the dummies are made according to the drawing. This is an obviouse conclusion because Barnacks Ur-Leica did work.

The clearance to surrounding camera elements might indeed be critical but will depend a lot on the materials used for the curtains. If you would use a non perode correct black Mylar film we are taking of 1/100mm thickness. The rubberized silk of the later Leicas is anout 1/4mm. To wind 80mm=36 frame+40 slot+4 safety onto a 9mm roller it needs about 2.5 revolutions and also overlaps, which would add aproximately 1.5mm to the diameter of the roller for the rubberized silk shutter material, increasing it to about 11-12mm diameter (again, this is for a large 40mm slot!).

This is all absolutly theory only and a real life example will show the trouble to face and a lot of this was already reported in the earlier threads.

Regarding the frame counter, it does not look like it will be disclosed to how it works. I will stick with my theory, which even if it was not the way it was done, leads to a working frame counter.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, George Furst said:

..... (Mr Kim and I still do not know how Barnack fit that wide slit shutter into the UR as space is exceedingly tight). Now we did not know the Speed of the original UR shutter. We also were not sure what the speed of the shutter in our UR Replica would be until we started running film through the camera. ..... We were never able to see the original and evidently it does not work.

Prototypes can be unreliable, and even first iterations may not be as good as hoped. It may be that the shutter was problematic and not very reliable. Reliable recreations may need to be modified from the original designs.

FWIW the Calypsophot camera apparently had a very unreliable shutter unit (I had one - the shutter was 'iffy') and it was not until Nikon took on its design and sorted the shutter out and renamed the camera as the Nikonos that it became more reliable. FWIW I believe the Calypsophot to have been designed around the concept of a screw thread Leica.

[Ambro51]

NO.  The Milar is WRONG!    I tried that and it throws a horrible image and it is too long a focal length to use!!    Here’s what the Milar gives you!   Cancel that order and get the 42 Summar 

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!

Edited March 15, 2021 by Ambro51

[zwieback]

too late and I was aware about it, will give it a try though and look for a mikro summar 42 in the meantime...

I am not going for "image quality" with this camera anyway even though I know it can bee good.

Edited March 15, 2021 by zwieback

[Ambro51]

Ok.   Well.  Good luck to you in the future.  

[Ambro51]

Hi George Wonderful to hear from you again!  I had feared the worst and it’s really Great you’re back!   At this point I leave you “in charge” of advice here....since mine has not been taken.  

[zwieback]

the milar is only to already have got something to fit to the camera and test it, no more.

Your advice is well received and apprecheated.

[George Furst]

1 hour ago, Ambro51 said:

NO.  The Milar is WRONG!    I tried that and it throws a horrible image and it is too long a focal length to use!!    Here’s what the Milar gives you!   Cancel that order and get the 42 Summar 

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!

The Milar Lens is an inferior design. The 42mm Micro Summar is a six element plainer design and much superior. Many have stated that the original lens on the UR was a milar lens. Mr Barnack knew better and used the Leitz microscope lens, the Summar, a truly legendary design of around 1896 and continues to to this day to be just that, the best of the non aspherical lenses at that focal length!

[George Furst]

1 hour ago, Ambro51 said:

Hi George Wonderful to hear from you again!  I had feared the worst and it’s really Great you’re back!   At this point I leave you “in charge” of advice here....since mine has not been taken.  

Ambro, that fact that yours is not taken does not mean it is not good advice. Usually you are spot on and you have tinkered with Mr Kim’s design more than most and deserve to be listened to. As for selling one, I think the auction house in Vienna, Austria would be the best venu. Did you not ask that question? I have two URs and am tempted to send one of mine on to Mark as the ocean may have risen over my head before Mr Kim finishes his! 

[willeica]

5 hours ago, George Furst said:

The Milar Lens is an inferior design. The 42mm Micro Summar is a six element plainer design and much superior. Many have stated that the original lens on the UR was a milar lens. Mr Barnack knew better and used the Leitz microscope lens, the Summar, a truly legendary design of around 1896 and continues to to this day to be just that, the best of the non aspherical lenses at that focal length!

George, I recently acquired a 42mm Mikro Summar dating from the 1910-15 period and I have used it on an M10 with a Visoflex and Leitz Bellows. In this state it will do close ups with a very narrow depth of field and glorious Thambar-like bokeh. I will start a thread on this tomorrow when I have a photo of the set up that I used.

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Pyrogallol]

There’s one for sale here, looks nice. I don’t have the camera to put it on.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leitz-rare-lens-for-micro-photography-42mm-F-4-5-Mikro-Summar-exc-C-1920-30/313402567143?hash=item48f83fa9e7:g:UdoAAOSwHCFgGBLO