Thinking about Leica 0

[jacksparrow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I've had the MP for a few months now and I'm enjoying it like no other camera before. I've been thinking about the Leica 0 as an alternative small and lightweight camera; of course it doesn't have exposure meter, do you find difficult to guess the exposure?, is it a steep learning curve? also, does it accept regular 35mm roll films, or would I to adapt the current ones in some way? do you find it fun to use or too complicated? (I see too many buttons on top of that little camera!).

One more thing, what are the main differences with leicas II & III that go for a third of the price of a Leica 0

Thanks for reading and for explaining the basics to a newbie... what would be a good book to get into Leica history and all these sort of things? Do I have the "Leica bug"??

 

thanks

[richam]

The O is more of a collector's item than a practical camera. I got one a few years ago, ran two rolls of film through it, and left it on my collector's shelf. Specific answers to your questions, and some other pros and cons:

 

Exposure is not much more difficult than any other meter-less camera. Sunny 16 rule plus experience or an external meter will suffice. Shutter speed is calibrated according to the width of the curtain gap, so you have to figure the reciprocal to set it according to time based shutter speed. Not too difficult, generally. You do have to wind about half way to change the gap/speed.

 

Focus distance is set by a simple meter-calibrated lever.

 

Standard 35mm film can be used, but the leader has to be re-trimmed according to a template provided with the camera. (This is not very difficult.)

 

You have to put the lens cap on to wind the film. This takes some getting used to, and it's easy to slip up.

 

The O has a modern coated lens that performs nicely.

 

The O has an external "peephole plus square" finder that means you hold the camera at eye level, but at arms length to compose. This can actually be an advantage for candid shots.

 

As you note, the O is very compact, and can easily fit in a pocket.

 

The Leica II and III models are screw mount, and I'm not familiar enough with them to render a judgment. I generally back up my MP with another of my M's, and I got a CM zoom for the small, lightweight role. If you really want a small, lightweight alternative to your MP, I'd recommend you check out the Minilux or CM on the used market. I understand they are no longer produced. Too bad, especially for the CM, which is about as good as miniature/mechanical 35mm film cameras ever got.

 

I'll let others recommend books and diagnose your "Leica bug."

[Guest malland]

Thinking about the Leica 0 is probably a lot better than using it. It's 1920's technology, which is fine for a view camera but not for a 35mm one.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

[brianv]

As you already have an MP, you might consider a Leica M3 as a back-up camera. The M3 offers a 0.91x viewfinder magnification and framelines for 50, 90, and 135. If you shoot Fast 50s or short telephoto's, the finder offers an advantage.

 

And every Leica Enthusiast should own an M3. It's the beginning of the M Line.

 

I also have a Leica IIIf, and it is a pleasure to use. BUT- the separate VF and RF viewing, ie focus with one and then switch eyes to the 50mm viewfinder or accessory viewfinder make it slow to use. The M3 will take the same lenses as the MP. The IIIf uses 39mm thread mount only.

 

And visit this thread for a Link to some vintage 1930's Leica Manual's available for FREE download!

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/30704-leica-manual.html

 

Internet Archive Search: leica manual

[mym6is12]

I've been using the 'O' for a few years, it's actually one of my favorite cameras. Mine is now well brassed and certainly not one for a collector.

 

The small size and weight gives it an edge over M series cameras, when I want to travel light.

 

With use it's idiosyncrasies, such as capping before winding and changing shutter speed half-way through winding, soon become second nature.

 

The lens sharpness and massive dynamic range from Fuji NPH ( pro400 ) are still far superior to my Ricoh GX100, plus the 'O' is quicker to operate.

 

The viewfinder on the first release was however fairly useless. I now use the SBOOI which must be the brightest, clearest 50mm OVF ever made.

 

Yes - it takes standard film cassettes, but you need to cut a longer leader strip.

The advantage over the s/h I, II and III cameras, is really the modern lens. If the 'O' replica lens was available in LTM, then one of the older cameras would have been my first choice, but as Leica have not seen fit to sell the lens alone. I have no regrets over the purchase of the Null replica.

[jacksparrow]

Oh, well, I'll keep thinking about it... looks like the camera's VERY particular and you either love it or think it's useless, seems to be a question of taste and photographic style... oh.. don't know....

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't do it, total waste of money, a ridiculous proposition.

[earleygallery]

Buy a lllc or lllf and a nice 5cm Elmar 3.5 - you'll find yourself using it a lot more than you'd imagine.

[ddp]

I say do what makes you happy! Might be a nice experience to use something that slows us down and moves one further away from the nutty pace of society.

 

As for Leica historical stuff....James Lager's first book "Leica: An Illustrated History in 3 Volumes; Volume 1: CAMERAS" is a great place to start. The other 2 books in the series cover lenses & accesories. The books are pricey, but well put together and offer a nice perspective on the brand.

[robert_parker]

There are some nice O series photographs - I think mainly of trains - posted on the forum - if you search, it's possible that you might be able to find them

[square_one]

Jack, I'll throw in my two cents:

 

I've been using the O prototype2 for a year now. The optical tube finder is VERY fast and accurate - and steady, as the camera is held to the eye and not off the head as required with the extra-step-flip-up-sighter prototype1.

 

The O is no 'street' 35 with shutter speed settable only at half-wind WITH THE CAP ON. For instance, if you have the shutter preset at, say 200, and you need 100, you'll need to expose (throw away) the frame, be sure the lense cap is on and half-wind, reset the shutter pin in the correct hole, finish the wind, and only then remove the cap.

 

I found the simple tube viewfinder w/o all the rangefinder crap hugely liberating, accurate and quick,once I got depth of field @ aperture down pat - which is a piece of cake once you convert all the metrics and old-time f-stops back to the real world in your head.

 

I must mention the smallest aperture is f12 (equals f11) and limits flexibility. I use iso400, kiss-off brightness values 15 and 16, work happily with 14b/v and under. Verifying f-stop and focus preset is a snap but the tiny lettering was somewhat challenging at first. Remembering to extend and lock the tiny lens has made me the fool more than once. Recapping the lens after each shot is 100% critical with this mid-1920 camera - forget and you WILL screw-up the frame you just took along with the next one if you start advancing the film.

 

I love it, but I'm weird. Are you??

 

PS - This supremely pocketable little thing is a fine, tough little Leica that should be used and used and used, not bought for a display case!!

[Michael-IIIf]

of course it doesn't have exposure meter, do you find difficult to guess the exposure?,

 

As a IIIf user I can reassure you that guessing exposure is a piece-of-cake with the error latitude provided by modern film stocks. Use the Sunny 16 rule as a starting point and modify as required. You will be amazed at how quickly you learn to guess correctly. Or rather, how much room for error there is in film - even slide film.

 

Over the last year I've set myself the task of NOT using a meter with my IIIf and every single frame from all of these rolls has been printable.

 

When you get into the swing of it you will find it faster than any modern Point & Shoot or DSLR because as you step from light to shade you will find yourself automatically moving the aperture ring two stops. Thus prepared if a photograph presents itself your O will grab it quicker than any chip full of electrons can think.

 

It makes you think about the light - which, as a photographer, can't be a bad thing.

 

Michael

[earleygallery]

Agree with Michael's comments - I was out with the M2 the other day, I'd left my (very simple non battery) meter at home. I usually guess or maybe take a reference reading and then adjust accordingly for changing conditions.

 

The light was tricky however, and I happened to be near a camera shop so popped in. They had a nice s/h Minolta meter which I bought. On checking my the new meter a few times that day, my own judgement was typically within a stop either way!

 

The new meter will be very useful for indoor/lower light shooting though.

[robert_parker]

I'd agree with James and Michael - it's almost as if achieving an adequate exposure outdoors is a matter of confidence, whereas obtaining pin sharp focus and Depth of Field is a matter of skill...

[square_one]

Yeah, meterless is fun with neg film, and easy. For some reason in my case I have strayed from Sunny 16 and 'see' brightness (exposure) values instead, occasionally referring to a business-sized card with O serie f-stops and speeds charted to b/v's for the ISO I'm using, usually 400 b&w, sometimes 100 color.

 

So with the O and iso 400, hazy sun / soft shadow scenes are 14bv = f12(11) @ 200th(250th), and on down to average-ish interiors at f3.5(2.8) @ 20th(30th). Note how the 'old' settings nicely balance with current settings ... how smaller aperture is compensated by slower speed. Works fine once you retrain your brain!!

[Guest malland]

To me it just seems silly not to use a lightmeter — just unncesessarily retro: smacks to much of "real men don't use lightmeters." On the other hand I think visually guessing exposures (and checking against a lightmeter) is a good and useful exrecise.

 

Come to think of it my objection to the Leica 0, and, for some, the refusal to use lightmeters, stems from the feeling that these positons reflect a greater interest in the camera than in the image; and, for me, photography is about the image.

 

—Mitch/Los Angeles

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[square_one]

...So with the O and iso 400, hazy sun / soft shadow scenes are 14bv = f12(11) @ 200th(250th), and on down...

 

Oops, mistyped, that should be @ 500th.

 

Far as "going meterless" Mitch, to each his own. For years and years I toted a heavy 8x10 and a spot meter and the zone system and all that stuff. Then I just wanted to travel light and simple, accept a little risk. The change I've made doesn't make me feel more "manly", I don't covet the camera (too much), I just enjoy the challenge of attacking my images my way, for me and nobody else.

 

Certainly a "pro" or "serious amateur" can't take such risk – has no need for an O – and I don't think them less manly for using lots of stuff they have no interest in to come up with images that are often better, often worse than mine.

 

Isn't it just about where you've been, where you're going, different strokes?

 

PS - Cool, straight, well-timed slideshow.

[earleygallery]

Sorry, I don't see why going meterless has anything to do with being 'macho' about your photography or a sign of being interested more in the process than the image - quite the opposite surely?

 

I think its more to do with using a meterless camera, and becoming used to conciously thinking about light readings/levels - after a while it sticks and you just know instinctively what will work. Maybe a good analogy is an experienced chef - who probably hardly ever needs to use scales or refer to a recipe.

[Michael-IIIf]

To me it just seems silly not to use a lightmeter — just unncesessarily retro: smacks to much of "real men don't use lightmeters."

 

I don't agree. Once you get into the swing of it you'd be surprised at how easy it is. I would go further: I would contend that it is EASIER than using meter. Look at the scientifically complicated calculator on your Weston, it almost looks like it was designed for the initiated only, the people in-the-know.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[richam]

Meter: tool or crutch? If you use it as an extension of your brain, -- a data input that helps you make decisions about how you want the elements and tones appear in your photo, you'll get some great images. If you depend on it to do your exposure thinking for you, you're in for some disappointment. If you've fallen into the crutch trap, an outing or two without a meter may be the tonic you need to rejuvenate your gray matter.