Flexameter

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd never seen one of these before:

 

LEICA Barnack Berek Blog: ONE OF THE RAREST LEICA ACCESSORIES - FLEXAMETER

 

Pete

[spydrxx]

I'd never even heard of one before. Thanks for sharing that bit of history.

[Advertisement]

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

[zeitz]

There were several of these devices, including Meyer Megoflex, DeMornay-Budd, Kuhn Flexameter, Nagel Pupil, and Septonflex. Leitz never made such a device. They kind of make a Leica into a twin lens reflex.

[luigi bertolotti]

Was an interesting device... of course, a bit critical in usage : there is, probably,a parallax error which can be significant at narrow distances, and isn't clear if the device has an adjustement for this ; interesting that it came from Wetzlar "non-Leitz" : as the author writes, the Kuhn family was related to Leitz by marriage.... I remember to have read that Knut Ernst Khun-Leitz (a son of Else Leitz) was the last member of the family to sit on the Board of Leitz Co. when Wild Heerbrugg took the control.

Edited November 17, 2014 by luigi bertolotti

[nf3996]

I thought I would add these photos here, rather than start a new thread about this odd accessory with a Leitz family connection. I’ve just acquired this Kühn Flexameter and here it is atop a contemporary Leica IIIb. In use, the image in the Flexameter is focused on a rather dark ground glass screen – the view is actually clearer through the camera’s own viewfinder, and focusing is easier with the camera’s own rangefinder. Maybe mine needs some cleaning, but I can’t find a way to remove the glass screen to get to the innards.

I suspect that Flexameters were of more use on the I series of Leicas (rather than the II or III series), except that they don’t fit – the I series shutter speed dial and viewfinder would make mounting a Flexameter impossible without adding some height to the accessory shoe first.

Alan

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!

[nitroplait]

2 hours ago, nf3996 said:

 Maybe mine needs some cleaning, but I can’t find a way to remove the glass screen to get to the innards.

Alan

Nice object.

Just a guess. Screws are often hidden under the leatherette covering.

Don't expect too much from a cleaning, those focusing screens are normally just matted glass and they will never be bright. However the mirror may suffer from age deterioration, and those old surface coated mirrors don't clean well - there is a high risk that the mirror coating comes off with even the lightest touch.

Should you need a new mirror, then Hugo Studio in the US will cut one to measure at a very reasonable price. I just replaced the mirror in my 1938 Rolleicord - that made a bit of a difference. Brighter plastic fresnel screens with focusing aids can also be found on the internet, but while increasing usability it would also decrease the collectors value, and I frankly don't imagine that device would see much use other than looking cool in the display cabinet.

[Ambro51]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always thought it strange, given its ability to accurately focus, and have this scale readable, making it a Rangefinder..it won’t work on a non rangefinder Leica.  Maybe it’s best use is as a waist level finder for candid shots.   Very Silly looking riding on top the camera for sure. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Ambro51

[pippy]

Strange to see it listed, in the first (ancient) post, as..."ONE OF THE RAREST LEICA ACCESSORIES"...yet Peter Loy's site had not one but two listed for sale just last week. Perhaps I've missed a Golden Opportunity - or two! Odd - and, at the same time, oddly interesting - piece of kit.

Philip.

Edited December 7, 2021 by pippy

[Ambro51]

....they’re not rare.

[nitroplait]

8 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

....they’re not rare.

I think you are right. I have seen them pop up here and there through the years.
But I honestly wonder why they aren't rare, as it is hard to see the obvious practical benefit of the device. Perhaps the photographers of the time saw something I don't? 

Maybe they have survived because the owners quickly realised their uselessness and put it in the drawer?