IIIb instruction manual?

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Manuals for the IIIa, IIIc, IIIf and IIIg are easy to find as PDFs, reprints or even the originals, but I haven't come across a manual for the IIIb. Does anyone have one? Was there a specific manual, or perhaps one that covered the IIIa and IIIb together, since production overlapped?

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

Manuals for the IIIa, IIIc, IIIf and IIIg are easy to find as PDFs, reprints or even the originals, but I haven't come across a manual for the IIIb. Does anyone have one? Was there a specific manual, or perhaps one that covered the IIIa and IIIb together, since production overlapped?

I have most Leica manuals, but I don't have this one. I have checked on the LHSA website where we have almost every manual for members, but this one is not there. Neither is it on the site of Mike Butkus, nor in the British Hove reprint series. I have the IIIa instructions and they are on LHSA, Butkus and in the Hove reprint series. The only differences are the the 'joined together' rangefinder and viewfinder windows and the diopter adjustment being under the rewind knob rather than around the rangefinder window.

I will ask the people who did the LHSA directory if they have seen the IIIb manual. I don't recall seeing one, but my bet would have been on a short insert into the IIIa manual. I have other examples where Leica adopted this approach.

William 

[FPangrazi]

For the Leica IIIb, the leitz did not produce a specific instruction manual. Instead, a four-page leaflet was created which described the three main innovations that distinguished it from the IIIa model. The manual was translated into various languages including German, English, French and Italian. Leitz New York made a different one in which it is curious that for the American market the Model IIIb was called Leica G-1938, let's remember that the Leica IIIa was called Leica G.

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!

[Anbaric]

Thank you both. A supplementary leaflet makes sense. Leitz must have been fully aware that the IIIb would only be a transitional model, since there are apparently IIIc prototypes that pre-date even the release of the IIIa, so perhaps it's understandable that they wouldn't want to go to the trouble of redoing the manual with the next model just around the corner. It would be nice to have the full English version of this leaflet made available somewhere, if possible. I've found another promotional leaflet/catalogue ('Handle the Leica') from Leitz NY dated October 1938 (though printed in Germany, so perhaps this is also a translation of a German original). Here they call it the IIIb, rather than the confusing G-1938.

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlLeitzmisc.htm

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00469/00469.pdf

The IIIa is no longer listed, but is still used for most of the illustrations. The IIIb is only shown in these two:

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!

[willeica]

6 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Here they call it the IIIb, rather than the confusing G-1938.

In that time IIIb would have been confusing as that series had just started. Prior to that they had Models A, B, C, D, E and F. The G was also called the IIIa, which is where the confusion started and the IIIb was just a later version of the IIIa. Things settled down with the IIIc etc. In 2014 when I attended the opening of the new factory in Wetzlar I met a man who had been using Leicas since 1954 (for 60 years) and he told me that he still did not know the difference between a Model F and a IIIf!

Thanks to F Pangrazi and yourself for posting these documents which explain the 'missing' IIIb manual. 

William

[Anbaric]

46 minutes ago, willeica said:

In that time IIIb would have been confusing as that series had just started. Prior to that they had Models A, B, C, D, E and F. The G was also called the IIIa, which is where the confusion started and the IIIb was just a later version of the IIIa. Things settled down with the IIIc etc. In 2014 when I attended the opening of the new factory in Wetzlar I met a man who had been using Leicas since 1954 (for 60 years) and he told me that he still did not know the difference between a Model F and a IIIf!

Thanks to F Pangrazi and yourself for posting these documents which explain the 'missing' IIIb manual. 

William

Why not 'H' I wonder? I get the impression the A-G naming system was used mostly in the US (the 30s Morgan & Lester manuals mention that the I/II/III/IIIa names were used 'Outside of the United States', and in the UK RPS Journal the II was first introduced as the 'Model 2' in 1932, and the III by its current name the following year). Leitz presumably decided to standardise the branding, and 'G-1938' became a (now largely forgotten) transitional name for a transitional camera. But sometimes it seems arbitrary which cameras get their own names, and which are regarded as sub-models. The IIId hardly seems to warrant a separate model name for that self-timer (especially given the production numbers!), when the various versions of the IIIf all come under one umbrella, etc.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Why not 'H' I wonder? I get the impression the A-G naming system was used mostly in the US (the 30s Morgan & Lester manuals mention that the I/II/III/IIIa names were used 'Outside of the United States', and in the UK RPS Journal the II was first introduced as the 'Model 2' in 1932, and the III by its current name the following year). Leitz presumably decided to standardise the branding, and 'G-1938' became a (now largely forgotten) transitional name for a transitional camera. But sometimes it seems arbitrary which cameras get their own names, and which are regarded as sub-models. The IIId hardly seems to warrant a separate model name for that self-timer (especially given the production numbers!), when the various versions of the IIIf all come under one umbrella, etc.

Looking for logic in Leica nomenclature is a thankless task. Indeed looking for logic in anything that the company did in the early days is impossible as the people concerned are now gone to their eternal reward. Even in recent years we have had the M9, followed by the M (or M240) followed by the M10 with several variants of each , sometimes with letters and numbers attached.

Going back to the 1930s, I will have to review the literature and contemporary material which I have, e.g. catalogues, to see what names the company, dealers and owners/users used at that time. The A to G designations were used by the company, but III may have become popular with users and this could have given rise to the IIIa designation. The only logic that is obvious was I or Standard for no rangefinder, II for rangefinder but no slow shutter speeds and III for rangefinder plus slow shutter speeds. The IIId is, of course, the IIIc with a self timer. Then the IIIc changed after the war but there was no designation change. 'Stepper' was used later by collectors to indicate wartime versions. After the war we had the f models, but we also had Black Dial and Red Dial, which seem to have been added by users or collectors. There is no separate designation for the IIf Red Dial with 1/500th and 1/1000th top speeds. I'll stop here as I think that I have demonstrated that looking for logic in this is a waste of time.

I will, however, look back through my literature to see if I can find anything that enlightens us as regards the a, b and G situation. For what its worth , I love when Leica decisions seem to have been arbitrary. That is what makes collecting Leica/Leitz items so interesting. 

William 

Edited November 16, 2021 by willeica

[Anbaric]

6 hours ago, willeica said:

 Even in recent years we have had the M9, followed by the M (or M240) followed by the M10 with several variants of each , sometimes with letters and numbers attached.

Sometimes I think they're just trying to sabotage Google - reusing the CL name inevitably makes the 70s film camera harder to search for, but selling a film MP and a digital M-P at the same time really deserves some sort of prize!

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

Sometimes I think they're just trying to sabotage Google - reusing the CL name inevitably makes the 70s film camera harder to search for, but selling a film MP and a digital M-P at the same time really deserves some sort of prize!

These tests are just to make sure that real Leica people still exist. What might get me grabbing my coat and heading for the exit would be if they produced a digital Model A or M3. There is a limit to how much sacrilege that we can take!

William