The Leica H: A Little Leica Camera That Never Got Made

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only three were made, only two survive today. 

I wonder if we could prevail upon Leica to resurrect this little gem in 24x36mm format??

 

The Leica H: A Little Leica Camera That Never Got Made

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/09/08/the-leica-h-a-little-leica-camera-that-never-got-made/

[Advertisement]

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

[jerzy]

article from Lars Netopil about H. And  another one, Leica 16, great article from Dirk Mann showing all details and story around

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]

As much as I would love this camera to have existed, Leica probably made the right decision to scrap the idea.

I don't know the consumers main reasons for making half-frame cameras popular at the time, but I imagine it may have been one or more of 3 reasons:

1) economy (savings on film usage - probably not a main concern for the average Leica customer, but perhaps relevant for an institutional user?)

2) portability (size of camera)

3) A need to shoot more frames before reloading the camera.

One can argue that 1)  and 3) could be (and was) fulfilled easily by just modifying gearing and film-gate of existing cameras - which apparently didn't turn out to be in great demand at the time.
When looking at the exposed film chamber of the depicted model H, it does not seem to be particularly small. In fact, I suspect my Leica II with Elmar 50/3.5 would be smaller.

But fun to see the ideas that was considered at the time.

 

[UliWer]

A funny detail is the little lever on the bottom of the "H". I am not sure whether it's function is to release the bottom cover but it looks almost exactly like the lever to release the battery of the M11....

I agree with nitroplait that the market for a half frame camera was rather limited. The "Robot" with half frame was on the market for a long time but it's users were mainly photostudios for making passport portraits or institutions for traffic surveillance and similar purposes. 

Leica had already built a half frame "Leica 72" as a modified IIIa but only some hundreds were made. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by UliWer

[Ambro51]

That’s a design only a Mother could love. Yuk 

[spydrxx]

Having owned and extensively used a half frame 35mm camera for a couple of years, an Olympus F in the 1960s, it seemed diminutive compared to the Leica M models of the time AND it was a SLR. It produced sharp images, better than some of my Leica owning friends. But its versatility wore off. Leica's viewfinders were wonderous by comparison, and it seemed to take forever to use up 72 exposures on a roll of film. I eventually sold it and bought an M4 when they were introduced.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

1 possible reason for the development of the Leica "H" might be because: The Leica "H" was developed at a time period where advances in film emulsions & lens designs allowed the production of higher quality images on a smaller format when using higher quality smaller lenses. These images, when enlarged: Rivaled the quality of the larger format images produced with larger lenses not that long before.

And for those people who did not need 72 exposures on a 36 exposure roll, or 40 on a then common 20 exposure roll: There was also 24 exposures on a 12 exposure roll.

Best Regards,

Michael

[pippy]

4 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

...There was also 24 exposures on a 12 exposure roll...

Yes, but not yet commercially available when the camera in question was in development, Michael!

I must say that, visually, I find it rather appealing. In an odd way (which I don't quite understand myself) it reminds me of the Magnificently Bonkers Jaeger-LeCoultre 'Compass' camera;

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/jaeger-lecoultre-compass-camera

Philip.

[Michael Geschlecht]

10 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes, but not yet commercially available when the camera in question was in development, Michael!

I must say that, visually, I find it rather appealing. In an odd way (which I don't quite understand myself) it reminds me of the Magnificently Bonkers Jaeger-LeCoultre 'Compass' camera;

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/jaeger-lecoultre-compass-camera

Philip.

Hello Philip,

It might be that12 exposure rolls were made as a result of the popularity of 1/2 frame cameras. 12 exposure rolls are in the "Film Length" section of the film cartridge sensor code which was made public in 1983.

Best Regards,

Michael

[d30gaijin]

Didn't it get made, sort of?  The Leica CL comes to mind.  Maybe not a half frame because nobody wanted a half frame camera.  Leica did make a half frame camera that now commands stupid prices.  Olympus Pen was a solution to a question no one asked.

[Ambro51]

Half frame and Kodachrome didn’t go hand in hand.  ....that’s a Big Factor.  

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Ambro51 said:

Half frame and Kodachrome didn’t go hand in hand.  ....that’s a Big Factor.  

I seem to remember that, at one time, Kodak did offer a Kodachrome process and mounting service for half-frame cameras. Not sure of the time-line nor whether, as is likely, it was twice the price (or more) of the 36 exp. service. If it did cost twice as much to have a roll of half-frame processed & mounted then I could understand why it might not have been very commonly-used by the public.

Perhaps someone here has more information about this aspect?

Philip.

Edited January 23, 2022 by pippy

[sandro]

12 hours ago, d30gaijin said:

Didn't it get made, sort of?  The Leica CL comes to mind.  Maybe not a half frame because nobody wanted a half frame camera.  Leica did make a half frame camera that now commands stupid prices.  Olympus Pen was a solution to a question no one asked.

Still, several half frame camera's enjoyed popularity, most of all the Olympus Pen. Leitz never got to it but apparently experimented with half-frame, not only with the fascinating H. 

Lex

[Ambro51]

The “portrait” mode of image orientation went against people’s ‘second nature’ holding a camera.  Mercury was moderately successful, though the original Mercury used special cassettes. I don’t think Mercury “favored” half frame, but rather needed it because of the limited coverage of the rotary shutter.  Possibly, a 6 perf 24x24 square format would have been a better choice than half frame.    QRS, and the Ellison Kamra (1925) used a 24x32 fromat (with charming rounded film gate corners).

[Michael Geschlecht]

13 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

Half frame and Kodachrome didn’t go hand in hand.  ....that’s a Big Factor.  

Hello Ambro51,

I have a large number of 18/24 Kodachrome slides nicely mounted in cardboard frames by Kodak at no extra charge. Appropriately numbered & dated also. Properly processed & mounted by noting "1/2 frame" on the envelope.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

7 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

The “portrait” mode of image orientation went against people’s ‘second nature’ holding a camera.  Mercury was moderately successful, though the original Mercury used special cassettes. I don’t think Mercury “favored” half frame, but rather needed it because of the limited coverage of the rotary shutter.  Possibly, a 6 perf 24x24 square format would have been a better choice than half frame.    QRS, and the Ellison Kamra (1925) used a 24x32 fromat (with charming rounded film gate corners).

Hello Ambro51,

"Portrait" or "Landscape" has never been an issue with me since people see a circular image when they look out at the World thru their eyes. Closest to round would be 24 X 24. There are plenty of "portraits" to be found when viewing thru a "landscape" frame. Just as there are plenty of landscapes to be found when looking thru a "portrait" frame.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

12 hours ago, pippy said:

I seem to remember that, at one time, Kodak did offer a Kodachrome process and mounting service for half-frame cameras. Not sure of the time-line nor whether, as is likely, it was twice the price (or more) of the 36 exp. service. If it did cost twice as much to have a roll of half-frame processed & mounted then I could understand why it might not have been very commonly-used by the public.

Perhaps someone here has more information about this aspect?

Philip.

Hello Philip,

I took a lot of 1/2 frame photos, mostly on Kodachrome, in the 1970's.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Ambro51]

Yes....it was done....so was 16 mm slides, 127 superslides, 828 slides, but normal 35mm was 97% of slides.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pippy]

19 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

...QRS, and the Ellison Kamra (1925) used a 24x32 fromat (with charming rounded film gate corners)...

Speaking of 24x32 - and of Kodachrome at the same time - here's something I first came across several years ago on the Wiki site which I always thought to be interesting;

"The original Nikon 1, as introduced in 1948, had no flash synchronisation, but was otherwise a fully-fledged up-to-date rangefinder camera. The factory chose the 24 × 32 mm frame size pioneered by the Minolta 35 launched a year earlier by Chiyoda Kogaku, known as the Nippon format, which yielded more frames per length of film, and matched more closely the common paper sizes. However, the camera never caught on, because the US administration in Tokyo did not permit export to the US due to the non standard format, incompatible with the Kodak slide mounts..."

Philip.

[Pyrogallol]

I have just loaded a film in my Nikon S, which is 24x34. The next size up from the original Nikon 1, before they eventually move to 24x36.

The shorter frame doesnot give more pictures on a roll as the spacing between the frames is wider. There was an earlier discussion about this here 

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!