Leica M-A problem

[Paul Robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone,  the replacement new M-A arrived on Thursday and I managed to put a test film through it yesterday (Saturday) and developed it straightaway.

Good news is that the spacings are all regular. All appear to be the same sized spacings and all correspond with the sprocket holes

However, the spacing on the negative are distinctly more narrower than that found on my M7 negatives which have a clear and distinct gap. So this is still a worry as in previous posts by noctilux it was noted that the spacings spacings should be the same as seen when comparing an M-A to an MP.

Can anyone with an M-A and M7 let me know if the spacings on the negative are the same or different with these two cameras using the same lens. 

With thanks,

Paul

[wattsy]

There was somebody over on RFF who reported very variable spacing with an M-A. 

I've just looked at a sleeve of negs from one of my M-A bodies and the spacing between frames is consistent but possibly a little narrow (3mm or so I'd guess). I do use a 28mm almost exclusively so that might be factor in my case. As long as they don't overlap (which they don't) I don't have a problem with it. Narrow spacing might be why I can routinely get 38 negs from a roll of film.😀

Edited March 3, 2019 by wattsy

[Paul Robinson]

On 3/3/2019 at 12:08 PM, wattsy said:

There was somebody over on RFF who reported very variable spacing with an M-A. 

I've just looked at a sleeve of negs from one of my M-A bodies and the spacing between frames is consistent but possibly a little narrow (3mm or so I'd guess). I do use a 28mm almost exclusively so that might be factor in my case. As long as they don't overlap (which they don't) I don't have a problem with it. Narrow spacing might be why I can routinely get 38 negs from a roll of film.😀

Thanks Wattsy,

It is good to know that other M-A users have found with their negatives that the spacings between the frames are narrow but consistent.

It would be interesting to know why they are so different compared to the M7 which have larger spacings and similar to my XPan 2.

Regards,

Paul 

[Paul Robinson]

Hello Everyone,

The replacement M-A arrived from Red Dot who cannot be praised enough for their prompt attention and service. 

I have put through two test films. The first test film produced negatives that in the most part showed consistent narrow spacings, however, on closer inspection there was still some noticeable spacing difference in part of the negative. This raised my concern, so I put through a second test film which produced negatives with narrow spacing which showed variation  in spacings that were not consistent in size.  I developed these films with other films taken on my M7 (all incidentally Kodak Tri-X).  As expected, the M7 negatives all had wider spacings, but more importantly the spacing were all consistent and of the same width.  

It would appear that the M-A have smaller frame spacings compared to the M7, which I can live with. The worry again is the inconsistent noticable difference in size of the spacings between the frames of negatives produced on the M-A. Is this inconsistent variation in size between frame spacing the norm with negatives produced with the M-A or do I have another 'defective' new camera. 

I will put through a another test film tomorrow to see what the results from the negatives when developed.

In the meantime, can anyone on the forum who regularly use M-As be willing to provide a digital copy of 'contact prints' showing the spacings between the negatives so I can compare them to my negatives.  Would Wattsy be willing to help?  Would very much appreciate any assistance.  

Regards,

Paul

Edited March 10, 2019 by Paul Robinson
clarify information

[aesop]

    ...sorry to wade in this late, but I just saw this thread and remembered a similar "distance between frames" discussion that took place almost a decade ago. Hope this helps. Thanks.

 

 

 

[harmen]

It might be a bit hard to see, but hopefully it gives you an indication of the kind of spacing I'm getting on an M-A.

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!

[Paul Robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/12/2019 at 6:38 AM, aesop said:

    ...sorry to wade in this late, but I just saw this thread and remembered a similar "distance between frames" discussion that took place almost a decade ago. Hope this helps. Thanks.

 

 

 

Aesop, I have read this old post, thank you. And the problem of irregular frame spacing with my M-A seems to be due to the film advancement. What causes this I do not know. 

I have put another test film through and await the results. 

I question what I am finding as it just defies logic that I have two dud cameras.

Regards, 

Paul

[Paul Robinson]

On 3/12/2019 at 7:25 AM, harmen said:

It might be a bit hard to see, but hopefully it gives you an indication of the kind of spacing I'm getting on an M-A.

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!

Hi Harmen, looking at your negs they all appear to have the same even spacings between the frames. Which is just what I am looking for. 

With the two M-As I have tested both appear to have the same problem of inconsistent irregular spacings!

I have put another test film through this evening and await the results! Just want my negatives to turn out like yours. 

Thanks for sending me the posting showing your negs. Much appreciated,

Regards,

Paul

[TomB_tx]

Through the decades I’ve had a number of cameras where the frame spacing would vary slightly through the roll, but as they never overlapped I’ve never considered it a problem. I’m quite sure some of these were Leica.

[gbealnz]

Without conducting anything remotely resembling a scientific observation, most of my 35mm spacing throughout my years have been similar. Hard to be more accurate about this without actually measuring them.

The spacing changed however last year when I received a new to me used M3 DS. It had been freshly serviced by a well respected gentleman in the US, and I felt the spacing was "closer than the norm". I wrote and asked but was told it wasn't out of the ordinary.

I accepted this, and just use it, and the only real downside is when I go to cut the negs into strips, sometimes I get close to the frame. No biggie, just worrying some times.

I'd say just use your MA(s), be happy.

Gary

[Paul Robinson]

Thanks for the positive posts. With the spacings being already narrow, it is worrying when they they are even narrower, as said, it makes it more difficult when cutting the negs into strips.

I will see how it goes. But yes I want to enjoy my M-A.

Regards,

Paul

 

[harmen]

Hi Paul,

As I was changing film, I had another look at how it advances.  

Most importantly, you want to see that the sprockets that advance the film return to the exact same position after every advance:

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 also noticed that with every advance the three prongs onto which the film winds will return to just past the previous position.  In the photo below, there was always one prong in the upper left position where my new film is pointing, but a slight counter clockwise change became clear after some 20 or 30 'shots'.

You would be able to see if this is the case with your camera, even without film in it.  All the best!

 

[Paul Robinson]

On 3/15/2019 at 6:56 AM, harmen said:

Hi Paul,

As I was changing film, I had another look at how it advances.  

Most importantly, you want to see that the sprockets that advance the film return to the exact same position after every advance:

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 also noticed that with every advance the three prongs onto which the film winds will return to just past the previous position.  In the photo below, there was always one prong in the upper left position where my new film is pointing, but a slight counter clockwise change became clear after some 20 or 30 'shots'.

You would be able to see if this is the case with your camera, even without film in it.  All the best!

 

Hi Harmen,

Thank you again for your added detail on your M-A.  I had already checked on my replacement M-A that the film sprocket was advancing the same on each frame and it always comes back to the same position as seen in your first image. 

I also checked the film spool when winding on to advance the film and they appear to come back to the same position. However, they are not positioned the same way as your M-A. On my camera the prongs are positioned at 12 ‘o’ clock, 4 ‘o’clock and 8 ‘o’clock!

Not sure if there is any significance in that as long as they come back to the same position every time.

 

Regards, Paul 

[a.noctilux]

32 minutes ago, Paul Robinson said:

Hi Harmen,

Thank you again for your added detail on your M-A.  I had already checked on my replacement M-A that the film sprocket was advancing the same on each frame and it always comes back to the same position as seen in your first image. 

I also checked the film spool when winding on to advance the film and they appear to come back to the same position. However, they are not positioned the same way as your M-A. On my camera the prongs are positioned at 12 ‘o’ clock, 4 ‘o’clock and 8 ‘o’clock!

Not sure if there is any significance in that as long as they come back to the same position every time.

 

Regards, Paul 

 

Hello,

Nothing wrong with what you call "film spool" ( second image ) that can take every possible position = try to turn it, you will see that it turns around with ease.

Not the same as "film sprocket" (first image) which must stop always at same position (on mine at the middle) and this can not be turned ( even not a bit moving it) with one's digit.

[Paul Robinson]

Hello everyone?

The current situation with my replacement M-A which is showing the same problems as the original camera bought new from Red Dot Cameras. Where there is a significant and inconsistent difference found in the spacings between the frames as seen on the negatives. While I can see that the spacings on the M-As are all narrower compared to my M7, which I readily accept. Unlike the M7 which show consistently equal spacings between the frames. The M-As exhibit inconsistent spacings where you will have a significantly different spacing from one frame gap to another. 

Red Dot who have been very good in dealing with my complaint, have now asked me to send on to Leica HQ in Germany some negative strips which I produced by running a number of test films through, in order to see the problem for themeselves at first-hand. So I am about to mail to Leica Customer Services in Wetzlar three strips from three separate test films,  all exhibiting the same problem.

Hopefully, they will see the problem directly and replace the camera a second-time. In the event Leica are unable to resolve the issue of inconsistent spacings, then I may have to look for another camera as in the MP. When I was initially looking for a new M-A I contacted a number of Leica dealers in the UK and a couple tried to persuade me to go for an MP based on their experience in having no quality issues with the MP,  but remarked that they have had to send a number of M-As back to Leica. Though I still want the M-A because it is a purely mechanical camera that replicates the early M2,M3 and M4. Others have suggested I just live with the problem and just enjoy the M-A. I can see where they are coming from and I can almost accept their point. But I feel that I should not be getting this problem in a new Leica camera. A camera with such an unprecedented name for quality and precision of build, should not have inherent problems due to manufacturing problem and/or quality control.

I have literally bought into the Leica brand because of its name and reputation as a camera built to the highest standards that stand the test of time. I still want an M-A that can live up to the standard Leica have set themselves and I am sure Leica do too.

So I am hopeful for a satisfactory outcome from Leica. 

Paul

Edited March 16, 2019 by Paul Robinson

[Paul Robinson]

3 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

 

Hello,

Nothing wrong with what you call "film spool" ( second image ) that can take every possible position = try to turn it, you will see that it turns around with ease.

Not the same as "film sprocket" (first image) which must stop always at same position (on mine at the middle) and this can not be turned ( even not a bit moving it) with one's digit.

Thanks a.noctilux, 

the film sprocket (as image 1 from Harmen) has a little movement it is positioned centrally and cannot be turned  to the ‘next’ position.

Paul

[semi-ambivalent]

49 minutes ago, Paul Robinson said:

Hi Harmen,

Thank you again for your added detail on your M-A.  I had already checked on my replacement M-A that the film sprocket was advancing the same on each frame and it always comes back to the same position as seen in your first image. 

I also checked the film spool when winding on to advance the film and they appear to come back to the same position. However, they are not positioned the same way as your M-A. On my camera the prongs are positioned at 12 ‘o’ clock, 4 ‘o’clock and 8 ‘o’clock!

Not sure if there is any significance in that as long as they come back to the same position every time.

 

Regards, Paul 

As a thought experiment, the sprocket would always need to rotate X amount since it must pull the film eight perforations worth for every frame. This might be exactly one full rotation if the diameter of the sprocket is sized to do so but it is not necessary. It just needs to advance the film the same amount each time. The sprocket could be connected to a further interior gear or cam that does the actual "measuring" of the film's linear advance. The take-up spool does not need to do that. In fact it cannot since the effective diameter of the take-up spool changes as one wraps more film around it. Since each additional rotation of the spool has a different, increasing, circumference I don't see how it could be used to "measure" film advance with any consistency. One of them is clutched? In my Nikon Fs I would insert the tongue into the spool and advance the spool with my thumb to ensure it was secure and then draw the cassette across the gate to its nest on the left, with the rewind crank. That the take-up spool was clutched was easy to feel when doing this. Leica's shutter might not be so different since I believe Nikon copied Leica for the shutter in the S. I think my M-A has variable spacings. It certainly has narrower spacings than my M3. I don't care since it's not going into transparency mounts at the Kodak K-14 lab. Good luck figuring this out!

Edit: With the post commit I see A. Noctilux beat me to this. And he's right too; I just tested this on my M-A. The spool turns easily, both directions.

Edited March 16, 2019 by semi-ambivalent

[TomB_tx]

As noted, the takeup spool must always be “clutched” and allowed to slip in a 35 mm camera. It is the sprocket that must pull the film through, and the spool just applies enough pull to keep the film wound on it.

Notice the sprocket teeth are tapered to allow easy entry into the film holes. This could vary the position of the film slightly if the film varies in height as it passes over the sprocket. As the sprocket moves the film along the teeth effectively rise up through the holes and then back down. Perhaps the surface finish on the teeth are a bit rougher on the M-A than older cameras so the film catches a bit and rides higher at times. If the takeup spool slips too easily and doesn’t keep enough tension, it could also allow this. The guides on the camera back near the pressure plate are before the sprocket, so only the spool tension keeps the film down as it leaves the sprocket (in the reverse bend).

I think there’s more room for variation than you might expect for a simple mechanism.

[Paul Robinson]

29 minutes ago, semi-ambivalent said:

As a thought experiment, the sprocket would always need to rotate X amount since it must pull the film eight perforations worth for every frame. This might be exactly one full rotation if the diameter of the sprocket is sized to do so but it is not necessary. It just needs to advance the film the same amount each time. The sprocket could be connected to a further interior gear or cam that does the actual "measuring" of the film's linear advance. The take-up spool does not need to do that. In fact it cannot since the effective diameter of the take-up spool changes as one wraps more film around it. Since each additional rotation of the spool has a different, increasing, circumference I don't see how it could be used to "measure" film advance with any consistency. One of them is clutched? In my Nikon Fs I would insert the tongue into the spool and advance the spool with my thumb to ensure it was secure and then draw the cassette across the gate to its nest on the left, with the rewind crank. That the take-up spool was clutched was easy to feel when doing this. Leica's shutter might not be so different since I believe Nikon copied Leica for the shutter in the S. I think my M-A has variable spacings. It certainly has narrower spacings than my M3. I don't care since it's not going into transparency mounts at the Kodak K-14 lab. Good luck figuring this out!

Edit: With the post commit I see A. Noctilux beat me to this. And he's right too; I just tested this on my M-A. The spool turns easily, both directions.

Thanks, semi-ambivalent,

interesting to hear your M-A has variable spacings between the frames. 

As you commented not to much a problem for you, unless you wanted to do transparency work. With my M-A when it comes to the narrowest of the spacings it is difficult to cut between the frames without cutting into them because of how closely they are spaced together. And of course the worry is also if the problem persists and progressively worsens over time? As I have read in some instance it can lead to frames overlapping.

Paul 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul Robinson]

16 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

As noted, the takeup spool must always be “clutched” and allowed to slip in a 35 mm camera. It is the sprocket that must pull the film through, and the spool just applies enough pull to keep the film wound on it.

Notice the sprocket teeth are tapered to allow easy entry into the film holes. This could vary the position of the film slightly if the film varies in height as it passes over the sprocket. As the sprocket moves the film along the teeth effectively rise up through the holes and then back down. Perhaps the surface finish on the teeth are a bit rougher on the M-A than older cameras so the film catches a bit and rides higher at times. If the takeup spool slips too easily and doesn’t keep enough tension, it could also allow this. The guides on the camera back near the pressure plate are before the sprocket, so only the spool tension keeps the film down as it leaves the sprocket (in the reverse bend).

I think there’s more room for variation than you might expect for a simple mechanism.

Thanks TomB_tx,

After reading your posting I had another look at the sprocket teeth on my M-A and they feel smooth too touch without any noticeable irregularities on the surface. It will be interesting to compare them with my M7 when I finish a roll of film. 

I would have expected some variation in an older camera where the sprockets may become worn over time. But in a new camera I would have thought there would be consistency even with a simple operating mechanism, like I get with my M7. 

But I appreciate your comments as I have little or no knowledge other than the basics on the inner workings of a camera.

Paul