iiif tripod screw size

[carl170]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Afternoon All!

 

Fairly simple question I guess, but I bought 2 brackets that can hold a camera and mount a flash onto. Neither of the screw threads fit my IIIf, but work fine on other cameras eg Minolta.

 

Is ther screw thread actually different on the Leica, or is it something else? Perhaps a stripped thread?

 

Thanks (as usual!, for any info).

 

Regards

 

Carl

[TomB_tx]

When the IIIf was made the US used a 1/4" thread, but Europe used a 3/8" tripod thread. Leica made base plates in both versions. I have both types on IIIf bodies.

There are 3/8 to 1/4 reducers to adapt a Europe version to US size.

Edited December 16, 2015 by TomB_tx

[pico]

Trivia: The 1/4"x20 and 3/8"x16 were originally Whitworth (British) standards adopted by USA in their coarse thread standard. European camera tripod threads were nominally Whitworth in their time, but close enough to work today.

 

More interesting is the Leica lens screw mount which is also Whitworth.

 

See what worthless information comes from working with British autos and motorcycles from the old days? We used to cuss the mix-ups such as bolt heads made to Whitworth dimensions while threads were Metric! In 1973 when the USA was tilting towards Metric, Triumph produced their 3-cylinder Trident engine with American Standard fasteners! It was maddening, but still a fun time. (I had a very rare Rickman/Trident, one of three, which still races every year at Daytona.)

Edited December 16, 2015 by pico

[pgk]

If you have a larger (3/8" Whitworth) tripod threaded hole in the camera you can easily adapt it with an insert sleeve. Any good camera shop should be able to supply these but a web search will unearth some easy to buy ones. Try "camera tripod thread adapter" in your search engine and you will find many available from the usual sources.

[spydrxx]

Most hardware stores carry them as well (at least in the US). I think my last ones cost under $1.

[lleo]

These barbarian inches measurements...   I've bought the adapter on amazon, I think. As said above, just look on the net and you'll find all sort of types, better and worse made.

[RogerK]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a IIIf #697178 marked Ernst Leitz Wetzlar but when I bought a carrying- case for it I found the camera's tripod hole was 1/4" and the case's screw 3/8"! I assume I'll just have to find another case and sell the one I have on eBay? Why does a German IIIf have a 1/4" tripod hole? 

Edited June 22, 2023 by RogerK
word missing

[nitroplait]

9 minutes ago, RogerK said:

I have a IIIf #697178 marked Ernst Leitz Wetzlar but when I bought a carrying- case for it I found the camera's tripod hole was 1/4" and the case's screw 3/8"! I assume I'll just have to find another case and sell the one I have on eBay? Why does a German IIIf have a 1/4" tripod hole? 

Different standards. See above and move along.

[pedaes]

32 minutes ago, RogerK said:

I assume I'll just have to find another case and sell the one I have on eBay? 

Welcome to the Forum. Correct. It will be more inconvenience than cost at the end of the exercise.

[Anbaric]

5 hours ago, RogerK said:

 I assume I'll just have to find another case and sell the one I have on eBay?

...or consider this a good excuse to buy another camera to fit the case!

[TomB_tx]

Some years back I bought. Used IIIf baseplate from DAG Camera parts just for this situation…

[Roland Zwiers]

In Dutch terminology we talk about English tread (1/4") and German thread (3/8").

Dutch importers seem to have favoured the German thread up to the 1950s.

After that we seem to have switched to the Engtlish thread.

Maybe because of the increasing import of Japanese cameras that seem to have favoured the English thread from the start.

This is based on first impressions and requires further research!

 

The English thread was obviously used on British and American cameras, the German thread on continental ones.

Export models of German cameras to British and American markets adopted the English thread.

With Exakta the nameplate would even change to Exacta.

   

I never realised that both threads were of British 'Whitworth' origin.

Why would German camera manufacturers have a adopted a British non-metric standard? 

Why didn't French camera producers provide an alternative metric standard?

 

Roland

 

[Anbaric]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I never realised that both threads were of British 'Whitworth' origin.

Why would German camera manufacturers have a adopted a British non-metric standard? 

Why didn't French camera producers provide an alternative metric standard?

Easier to stick with an existing standard for compatibility rather than come up with your own for the sake of it, I suppose. There are various non-metric standards that are used universally for historical reasons, dating back either to UK/British Empire standards, or later to US standards. I think the LTM mount, despite having a metric 39mm diameter, also uses a Whitworth thread, which was the standard in microscopy (and Leitz, of course, was a microscope manufacturer). The 1/4 inch jack plug still used to connect high-end headphones and electronic musical instruments was originally a 19th century telephone exchange connector.

[Roland Zwiers]

I agree that once a standard is established it gets adopted.

A fascinating exampe concerns the rail gauges that were used in British coal mines! 

Or even the 24x36mm full frame of digital cameras.

 

But what producer was the first to set these tripod standards?

And why were there two Whitworth standards?

And why would one of these standards be adopted in Britain and the USA, whereas Germany adopted the other?

I have never really thought about these issues! 

 

Roland

[Pyrogallol]

As with all the detailed investigation of Oscar Barnack’s work, perhaps someone would like to investigate the thinking of Mr Whitworth  and the Victorian camera/microscope makers?

[Roland Zwiers]

You are absoutely right.

I started my Barnack research with similar questions 🙂

 

[250swb]

11 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

   

I never realised that both threads were of British 'Whitworth' origin.

Why would German camera manufacturers have a adopted a British non-metric standard? 

 

 

Because the Whitworth thread is both smoother in operation and also tighter than a metric thread. It was a 'no-brainer' for use in scientific instruments and therefore by default cameras.

[Roland Zwiers]

This is interesting.

What makes the Whitworth tread smoother in operation and tighter?
It must be an empirically derived combination of diameter and number of turns per unit of lenght.

The Whitworth diameters are 1/4"and 3/8".
This could have been 6 and 10mm in metric terms.
The number of turns per unit of lenght could have had a metric equivalent as well.

The logical explanation is indeed that Whitworth was the first to set a standard.
Probably already in the 19th century.
In the 19th century Britain had many industrial innovations that set worldwide norms.
So for foreign competitors it was logical to first copy these British innovations and standards.
And then to improve on them (Swiss watches, German cameras).

What I can still not explain is why Germany adopted the 3/8"x16 standard,
whereas Britain and America chose 1/4"x20.
What decision making was involved to arrive at this outcome?

In view of the heavy 19th century stand cameras 3/8"x16 would have been a more logical choice.
American press photographers stuck with large and heavy press cameras for a long time, but these used the 1/4"x20 tread.
On the other hand the German miniature cameras of the 1920s and 1930s used the 3/8"x16 standard.
Here the 1/4"x20 tread would have been more logical.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anbaric]

Wikipedia suggests that the Royal Photographic Society in the UK originally recommended several standard threads, and a quick search of their journal archive finds that this is indeed the case.

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!

It may just be another historical accident that from this choice of several threads, 3/8" became the dominant continental European standard for camera tripod mounts, while 1/4" was most commonly used in the UK and elsewhere. Apparently the current ISO standard is no longer based on Whitworth, but on the similar (and also not metric) UTC standard that originated in the US. The thread angles and profiles differ slightly, but they are close enough to be compatible for most purposes for the 1/4" and 3/8" thread sizes (though you probably want to stick to one standard if you are an aircraft engineer or something!).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Thank you so much! This explains a lot.

So the Royal Society took the initiative to standardise on four Whitworth standards for camera screws:
3/16, 4/16, 5/16 and 6/16 of an inch in external diameter.

My camera collection is heavily biased to post 1918 cameras.
But I have a Folding Kodak NO 3A that may have been produced before 1910.
The last mentioned patent is "Apr. 29 1902 other patents pending".
This camera already has the 1/4" tripod screw.

I have one Goerz VP Tenax that must have been made in 1916.
[The model itself was introduced in 1909]
It has a tripod screw that is much smaller in diameter than 1/4".
I could not find an explanation for this atypical screw size before.
With this new information It could well be 3/16", but how to measure?

On an ICA 6x6 folding Icarette from 1912 I already find the 3/8" tripod screw. 

Several pre-1914 miniature cameras like the Kodak Browney, the Ensign Ensignette, and the VP Kodak had no tripod screw yet.
But they had a facility so as to stand on a table for time exposures.

I will come back on pre-1914 miniature cameras in a separate posting.

Roland