Early M3 upgrades

[sksaito]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious. How did early Leica M3 owners upgrade their cameras? Was there a Leica service where the glass film plate was replaced, frame preview levers placed, etc. like how M9 owners could pay for a M9-P upgrade service? I've been coming across 7XX,XXXserial number cameras with what appears like upgrades but I don't know when and who did it.

[jaques]

I have an early m3 with several upgrades: single stroke and self timer. It still has the glass plate... from what I understand Leica offered these upgrades- and the user could choose what they wanted. I assume there was a fee for each upgrade.

[M9reno]

This is about an M2, but I imagine fully applicable to M3's.

 

I bought a beautiful, minty M2 and sent it to Malcolm Taylor for CLA. He had one look at it, and immediately realised (that obviously but hitherto unnoticed by me) the serial number was in slightly different style from normal "Leica style". The dead give-away was the ones, which are engraved without their usual European top angle; i.e. mine are just short, straight lines.

 

All of which went to show that the M2 had been restored (not upgraded - e.g. it still lacks a self-timer) by a third party. Malcolm said this was normal, and nothing to worry about. Leica would send finished top plates, only lacking serial numbers, to licensed operators around the world. So my M2 received a new top and bottom plate somewhere that was not Wetzlar.

 

BTW, the black "L" seal on the front had been removed and replaced with wax without a mark.

 

All of which is just to say: these operations were complex several decades ago, probably a bit more so than today.

[doubice]

Many M body upgrades were done by Leica importers themselves, not necessarily by Leitz Wetzlar. Double to single stroke on an M3 is a typical example of an upgrade that was often done by independents.

 

I had the M4P frame lines (28-35-50-90-135) installed into an M5 I was using many years ago. The modification was done by the late Rheinhold Müller, who used to be the service manager with Walter A. Carveth and later Wild Leitz Canada - Canadian Leica importers at the time. Rheinhold became independent when Wild Leitz closed, ended up with many spare parts and was capable of adapting just about anything to anything.

 

I have an Elmarit ASPH 21mm f:2.8, which Rheinhold managed to adapt with an optical attachment from an M3-type 35mm ‘goggled’ lens. The result is that the lens activates a 28mm frame, the attachment reduces it to the 21mm lens’ angle of view and there is no need for an external finder. Rangefinder focusing, except at infinity is no longer accurate but, with a 21mm’s depth of field that is not such a big problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

[Guest]

Many M body upgrades were done by Leica importers themselves, not necessarily by Leitz Wetzlar. Double to single stroke on an M3 is a typical example of an upgrade that was often done by independents.

 

I had the M4P frame lines (28-35-50-90-135) installed into an M5 I was using many years ago. The modification was done by the late Rheinhold Müller, who used to be the service manager with Walter A. Carveth and later Wild Leitz Canada - Canadian Leica importers at the time. Rheinhold became independent when Wild Leitz closed, ended up with many spare parts and was capable of adapting just about anything to anything.

 

I have an Elmarit ASPH 21mm f:2.8, which Rheinhold managed to adapt with an optical attachment from an M3-type 35mm ‘goggled’ lens. The result is that the lens activates a 28mm frame, the attachment reduces it to the 21mm lens’ angle of view and there is no need for an external finder. Rangefinder focusing, except at infinity is no longer accurate but, with a 21mm’s depth of field that is not such a big problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

 

@Jan,

 

would you be so kind to present a picture of your goggled Elmarit ASPH 2.8 - 21mm?

On Abrahamson's website a Super-Angulon 3.4 - 21mm goggled by Müller was shown several years ago.

 

Thank you very much!

[doubice]

@Jan,

 

would you be so kind to present a picture of your goggled Elmarit ASPH 2.8 - 21mm?

On Abrahamson's website a Super-Angulon 3.4 - 21mm goggled by Müller was shown several years ago.

 

Thank you very much!

 

Slightly off the original subject of this post but, happy to oblige. Rear mount photo included as well - note the 6-bit coding (not done by Rheinhold)...

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

[someonenameddavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those goggles look like they came off the early 35/3.5 Summaron

 

David

[doubice]

Those goggles look like they came off the early 35/3.5 Summaron

 

David

 

Actually, no... The early f:3.5 Summaron goggles were of a different design, as they were easily removable. The later Summaron / Summicron / Summilux were the same design as the ones on the modified 21mm Elmarit. 'My' goggles were machined from the newer version.

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

[luigi bertolotti]

Fine a lot, Jan !! Ok, not "orignal" but looks very well done, and probably unique or next to... How is the framing precision in respect of a std. Leitz 21mm VF ? Have you made some test about ? Of course you have gained the parallax adjustment of the internal frame... but in theory the 0,7x enlargement of the FOV (50x0,7 = 35) would bring to a 28x0,7=19,8 FOV (could be fine also on the Elmarit 24 asph... 35x0,7=24,5)

 

Another curiosity... does it fit inside of one of the leather bags for goggled lenses ? They are so fine... The 21 asph is "long" but also the DR Sunnicron was... and there was a bag for it...

[doubice]

Luigi,

 

Framing precision is OK - the accessory finders are not all that accurate anyway. If I were using the lens on a film camera and shooting precision-framed slides, I may be a little concerned but, with an M8 it is not such a big issue. A few years ago, I had a Canon 19mm RF lens and used the 21mm finder with it, while at other times I used the Super Angulon 21mm with the Canon 19mm finder.....

 

Your math is correct: 28x0.7=19.6 so, closer to 20mm, which again is pretty close to 21mm . I use a 1.15x eyepiece magnifier on the M8 anyway so, it is pretty difficult to see the edges of the finder anyway.

 

I don't have the leather case for goggled lenses anymore, as sold it a couple of months ago in the process of reducing the amount unused goodies. Going by memory - I don't believe the lens would fit. It is fairly long, as well as wide; the DR Summicron takes up lot less space.

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

[luigi bertolotti]

I made a trial with the case of my Summicron DR... and its goggles removed...: it fits WITH a little forcing of the top when you close (matter of millimeters... you cannot mount cap or filter on... but maybe your goggle unit is just a bit larger,,, even it allows the closing by strict measure.

[jc_braconi]

I made a trial with the case of my Summicron DR... and its goggles removed...: it fits WITH a little forcing of the top when you close (matter of millimeters... you cannot mount cap or filter on... but maybe your goggle unit is just a bit larger,,, even it allows the closing by strict measure.

There are 2 model of leather cases with different shapes:

one for the Summicron 50DR and one for Summaron 35/3.5

Cannot illustrate them now as again far from my items.

[luigi bertolotti]

There are 2 model of leather cases with different shapes:

one for the Summicron 50DR and one for Summaron 35/3.5

Cannot illustrate them now as again far from my items.

 

True : the one for Summaron is a little lower (the lens is indeed more compact than the Summicron DR) and surely couldn't accomodate the 21 asph...