NuclearElk Posted May 18, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) To begin with I would like to say that this camera is a trophy of World War II and totally original from the moment when my family started use it. So, I have some questions to "Leica specialists" on this forum: 1) Why is the number "№8012", as I know, from Leica IA? 2) As I heard the body of the camera is simillar to II(D), but has lugs for strap from Leica III? 3) Due to my analysis it has Elmar 50mm f/3.5 lens without any marks of Serial Number or stuff like that. So it means that it was made in 1930 or earlier. 4) ??? 5) HELP! And some photo: PHOTO_0252 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0251 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0250 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0249 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0248 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0247 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0256 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0255 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0254 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! PHOTO_0253 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Hi NuclearElk, Take a look here Leica II (D) or nice Leica's mix?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted May 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted May 18, 2011 It was common for older Leica bodies to be returned to the factory and upgraded to a later specification - my guess is that's what you have here. A 1928 model upgraded at some point in the 30's. Looks like llla spec. I'm sure some of our more knowledgable members will correct me if I'm wrong! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted May 18, 2011 Share #3 Posted May 18, 2011 On the surface it's a Leica II (no slow speeds, shortest exposure 1/500, no focusing lever on the rangefinder eyepiece). As James said, the factory offered an upgrade service for many years. A question for the real experts: in upgrading a 1928 Leica I to give it a standardised mount and strap lugs, would they have modified the original shell or would they have used a 1932-style shell? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 18, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 18, 2011 My II is a 1930 Standard that was factory upgraded in 1934. It still has the original body, and is sans strap lugs. It does have one oddity - a white bakelite(?) disc, about 1/2" diameter, set neatly into the vulcanite on the back just where your right thumb sits. Nobody has ever managed to come up with an explanation and I have never seen similar. Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideB Posted May 18, 2011 Share #5 Posted May 18, 2011 I suspect the white disc once bore the name of the retailer who sold the camera but because it was rubbed by countless thumbs the name/logo has long since worn away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted May 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted May 18, 2011 For forensic use. Captures the thumbprint of the last person who used the camera. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted May 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I suspect the white disc once bore the name of the retailer who sold the camera but because it was rubbed by countless thumbs the name/logo has long since worn away. I thought that at first, but it is in an odd, asymmetric place. I'll take a photo and post it and you'll see what I mean. Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 18, 2011 Share #8 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) To begin with I would like to say that this camera is a trophy of World War II and totally original from the moment when my family started use it. So, I have some questions to "Leica specialists" on this forum: 1) Why is the number "№8012", as I know, from Leica IA? 2) As I heard the body of the camera is simillar to II(D), but has lugs for strap from Leica III? 3) Due to my analysis it has Elmar 50mm f/3.5 lens without any marks of Serial Number or stuff like that. So it means that it was made in 1930 or earlier. 4) ??? 5) HELP! The Elmar has something strange... most (or all ?) of the unnumbered, afaik, are marked 50mm, not 5cm... and the engravings of the f stops have some odd detail (the shape of the datum line of f 18)... it could be a strongly revisioned item... or even a russian copy... could you post some enlarged picture of its details ? (front, distance and DOF scale, back, a front view with partially closed diaphragm) Edited May 18, 2011 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 18, 2011 Share #9 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) ... in upgrading a 1928 Leica I to give it a standardised mount and strap lugs, would they have modified the original shell or would they have used a 1932-style shell? Perhaps you can look for some indicators, whether it was the old shell with a II (D) top cover or a new one: The most important sign for a new shell might be it's heigth: it was "enlarged" by 0.3mm from No. 114051 in August 1933. My III(F) is earlier and I measure (base plate removed but top plate in place) 54.6mm against the later II (D) with 54.9mm. Though I am not sure whether these measurements are really exact, as I dont know if paint and the position of the top plate are perhaps more important than the tiny difference in the shell's heigth. The locking pin to fix the base plate was smaller (3mm) for earlier cameras (unfortunately I am not sure whether I see a small pin on the first photo of your camera). As this was only changed during the production time of the II, you still might have the small pin, even f it was a new shell. In January 1935 (from No. 154200) the lugs became thicker (from 2.8 to 3.2mm). The original lugs of my earlier III have 2.8mm. So if yours were 3.2mm, you could be sure that the changement was done later than Jan 1935. If you also have the larger locking pin for the base plate, I'd say they changed the shell. If you have the small pin, I am almost sure that they used the original shell. Those conversions are a chapter in Leica's history which are still not very well known (did anybody find just a word about them in Mr. Puts' new book?). It was only recently when the forum member Elkinon explained that in conversions after WWII the cameras were practically built completely new for those conversions. Before most people thought that there were only slight changements on the originals. So it would be interesting what you might find out about your II alias I. P.S.: Sorry giordano, I thought you had opened the thread and you were referring to the camera shown in the original posting. Edited May 18, 2011 by UliWer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted May 19, 2011 Share #10 Posted May 19, 2011 P.S.: Sorry giordano, I thought you had opened the thread and you were referring to the camera shown in the original posting. I was referring to that camera. It's just that I suspect it would have been difficult to fit the lugs (not present on a 1928 original, AFAIK) without damaging the vulcanite. Hence my question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 19, 2011 Share #11 Posted May 19, 2011 I think the addition of the lugs was a rather common "upgrade" for the II and earlier cameras - though I have never held one in my hands. Here we have a complete conversion which might have many more changes, so that it was more economic to built a new camera. This was the case after WWII. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDM Posted May 20, 2011 Share #12 Posted May 20, 2011 The upgrade in chrome is very rare ! There are many cameras in black, but very less in chrome... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.