100 years Null-Serie

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

This means that the record of the meeting (the words put in the mouth of the several participants) is a creative narrative based on post-war common wisdom.
And we have already discussed several situations where common wisdom is contradicted by reliable pre-war sources.

After the June 1924 decision to go ahead there have been additional test cameras, even up to March 1925.
So what was the purpose of the continued flow of test cameras after June 1924?

Very likely:

• the need to let as many employees as possible acquire assembly skills (assembly would remain a serious bottleneck throughout 1925)
• the need to have some employees acquire disassembly skills for future repair work
• the opportunity to sent additional test cameras to promising photographers like Curt Emmermann

It is very interesting to observe that a test camera was still being sent to Curt Emmermann in early February 1925.
And even on 4 March 1925 editor Willy Frerk received a test camera for the purpose of a review. 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, Roland, you are not going to do away with the story about Ernst Leitz's lunch being on the table at 12.30 pm, thus prompting the decision to proceed , are you? Is nothing sacred anymore 😇? When I was there in June I even inspected the 'serial numbers' on the Leitz family silver.

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!

Joking apart, The testing on the Elmar went on for many years. Here are figures sent to Barnack by Zuhlcke, who worked in the optical department, in 1931 showing test measurements at the true focal lengths of various 50mm Elmar samples. Ulf Richter is the person you need to talk to about this as this in his book. Hopefully, he will join us. Bill Rosauer says that he knows where everything is in the archive, including more notes like these. I have invited him and, hopefully, he will attend. 

I know this is outside your timescale, but Barnack kept testing everything right up to his death. So far as he was concerned the Elmar could always be perfected 'a bit more'.

William 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by willeica

[Advertisement]

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

[derleicaman]

I don't know if those interested receive the publication of Leica Historica, Vidom. In the latest issue, there is an article by Dirk Mann, Georg's son. It is about the development of the Leitz film cassette. Dirk makes the claim that is was one of the key reasons for the success of the Leica. I am putting together a Dropbox with the screen shots of the article with the translations superimposed on the German text. Might be an article to run in Viewfinder.

I know Georg from meeting him several times in Germany. I have also carried on a lot of correspondence with Dirk. I will see if he is interested in joining us as well. He should be in town as I believe Historica is having a meeting on the Saturday of our annual meeting week.

There is also the cover article about what Leitz was doing during the War with camera production by another author I don't know. I will do the Google tranlations on this as well.

Edited July 31, 2023 by derleicaman

[Roland Zwiers]

9 minutes ago, willeica said:

Ah, Roland, you are not going to do away with the story about Ernst Leitz's lunch being on the table at 12.30 pm, thus prompting the decision to proceed , are you? Is nothing sacred anymore 😇? When I was there in June I even inspected the 'serial numbers' on the Leitz family silver.

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!

Joking apart, The testing on the Elmar went on for many years. Here are figures sent to Barnack by Zuhlcke, who worked in the optical department, in 1931 showing test measurements at the true focal lengths of various 50mm Elmar samples. Ulf Richter is the person you need to talk to about this as this in his book. Hopefully, he will join us. Bill Rosauer says that he knows where everything is in the archive, including more notes like these. I have invited him and, hopefully, he will attend. 

I know this is outside your timescale, but Barnack kept testing everything right up to his death. So far as he was concerned the Elmar could always be perfected 'a bit more'.

William 

 

 

 

 

 

Is nothing sacred anymore?

William,

Thank you so much for this reply!
Your use of 'sacred' is very revealing.
It shows that the research of Leica history cannot solely follow scientific rules.
Common knowledge has become more or less 'sacred'.
This implies that Leica history has acquired aspects of a religion.

Note that in his writings on his technological progress with Leica photography, Dr Paul Wolff already used religious terms like 'gospel', 'messiah' and 'disciples'.    

As a researcher I have found that I must approach common Leica knowledge very carefully.
Rollei, Contax and Exakta seem to be more neutral subjects.
In one of my earliest articles on Exakta (Karl Nüchterlein in 1932; the Eureka moment for the Kine-Exakta) I challenged a common knowlegde of Exakta history.
[This article also refers to the 1932 Agfa-Leica-cassette, the Leica II, the very fast Agfa Superpan film for Leica photography, the fast 1,9/73 Hektor lens, and the announcement of a new Agfa 35mm colour film.]   
I was not excommunicated by the high priests of Exakta literature 🙂

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

20 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

I don't know if those interested receive the publication of Leica Historica, Vidom. In the latest issue, there is an article by Dirk Mann, Georg's son. It is about the development of the Leitz film cassette. Dirk makes the claim that is was one of the key reasons for the success of the Leica. I am putting together a Dropbox with the screen shots of the article with the translations superimposed on the German text. Might be an article to run in Viewfinder.

I know Georg from meeting him several times in Germany. I have also carried on a lot of correspondence with Dirk. I will see if he is interested in joining us as well. He should be in town as I believe Historica is having a meeting on the Saturday of our annual meeting week.

There is also the cover article about what Leitz was doing during the War with camera production by another author I don't know. I will do the Google tranlations on this as well.

there is an article by Dirk Mann, Georg's son. It is about the development of the Leitz film cassette.

Bill,

I would be interested in that article!
Oskar Barnack (1931) states that after 1918 one of the urgent things to do was to develop a film cassette.
So this must have been the cassette for the Handmuster/ Kisselbach camera of 1920.
A very similar cassette must have been used for the Null-Serie of 1923.

Roland

 

 

 

[willeica]

20 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

I don't know if those interested receive the publication of Leica Historica, Vidom. In the latest issue, there is an article by Dirk Mann, Georg's son. It is about the development of the Leitz film cassette. Dirk makes the claim that is was one of the key reasons for the success of the Leica. I am putting together a Dropbox with the screen shots of the article with the translations superimposed on the German text. Might be an article to run in Viewfinder.

I know Georg from meeting him several times in Germany. I have also carried on a lot of correspondence with Dirk. I will see if he is interested in joining us as well. He should be in town as I believe Historica is having a meeting on the Saturday of our annual meeting week.

There is also the cover article about what Leitz was doing during the War with camera production by another author I don't know. I will do the Google tranlations on this as well.

Would love to see that article re the cassettes, Bill. I will contact Historica via Lars about how many of their members may be around. Tim is going to be under real pressure with the numbers LSI is bringing to Wetzlar this year, close to 200. Almost like an LSI takeover of Wetzlar! 

9 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Is nothing sacred anymore?

William,

Thank you so much for this reply!
Your use of 'sacred' is very revealing.
It shows that the research of Leica history cannot solely follow scientific rules.
Common knowledge has become more or less 'sacred'.
This implies that Leica history has acquired aspects of a religion.

Note that in his writings on his technological progress with Leica photography, Dr Paul Wolff already used religious terms like 'gospel', 'messiah' and 'disciples'.    

As a researcher I have found that I must approach common Leica knowledge very carefully.
Rollei, Contax and Exakta seem to be more neutral subjects.
In one of my earliest articles on Exakta (Karl Nüchterlein in 1932; the Eureka moment for the Kine-Exakta) I challenged a common knowlegde of Exakta history.
[This article also refers to the 1932 Agfa-Leica-cassette, the Leica II, the very fast Agfa Superpan film for Leica photography, the fast 1,9/73 Hektor lens, and the announcement of a new Agfa 35mm colour film.]   
I was not excommunicated by the high priests of Exakta literature 🙂

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

I was only joking, of course, but wasn't Willy Frerk, who you quote a lot, a priest?

William 

 

[derleicaman]

41 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Is nothing sacred anymore?

William,

Thank you so much for this reply!
Your use of 'sacred' is very revealing.
It shows that the research of Leica history cannot solely follow scientific rules.
Common knowledge has become more or less 'sacred'.
This implies that Leica history has acquired aspects of a religion.

Note that in his writings on his technological progress with Leica photography, Dr Paul Wolff already used religious terms like 'gospel', 'messiah' and 'disciples'.    

As a researcher I have found that I must approach common Leica knowledge very carefully.
Rollei, Contax and Exakta seem to be more neutral subjects.
In one of my earliest articles on Exakta (Karl Nüchterlein in 1932; the Eureka moment for the Kine-Exakta) I challenged a common knowlegde of Exakta history.
[This article also refers to the 1932 Agfa-Leica-cassette, the Leica II, the very fast Agfa Superpan film for Leica photography, the fast 1,9/73 Hektor lens, and the announcement of a new Agfa 35mm colour film.]   
I was not excommunicated by the high priests of Exakta literature 🙂

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

Yes, Roland, in many ways our love of Leica, its history and people is close to religous study or more blasphemously, a religion. My wife would probably agree with this statement. My involvement with Leica goes back to my childhood. My father had several Leicas, met Dr. Wolff in person in Germany after the war, and we had our own darkroom. I still have the lens that my dad acquired from Dr. Wolff when he was living in Braunfels after the war as his house had been bombed out  in Frankfurt. BTW, Henri Dumur arranged the lodging in Braunfels for Dr. Wolff. My first real job at age 14 was at a camera store, that was also a Leica dealer. I became a Leica salesman at 16. So my love affair with Leica pre-dates my wife and our children, and they all accept it!

Edited July 31, 2023 by derleicaman

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was only joking, of course,

but wasn't Willy Frerk, who you quote a lot, a priest?

 

William,

Your reply has two parts.

Willy Frerk is a fascinating figure in German photographic history.
His work spans tho world wars and part of the post-war period.
But I only know him from his writings in his own photo magazines, in his books, as a columnist for British photo magazines, and as a translator of German literature in English.
Despite all these accomplishments it is very hard to even find a portrait picture of him.
And I know very little of his private life.

Still a Leica andcdote shows that he was not a priest.
In the Summer of 1925, so shortly after his March 1925 review, he took his Leica on a holiday in Italy.
The Leica was in a small separate bag.
All other camera equipment was in a very large suitcase.

During one train journey his wife got ill.
So he looked around for a doctor.
After a while he noticed that his Leica camera bag had been stolen.
All this is reported in the magazine Photofreund of 1925.

Unfortunately, not all Leica researchers are so openminded as Ed, Alan, Bill, Oscar, Ulf and you.
Before I met Ed and you I had some very disappointing encounters with Leica historians that did not like questions about common knowledge.
They insisted that I simply had to accept their authority on these matters.
And this use of authority is more related to religion than to science.

Roland
   

 

 

 

.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

17 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

Yes, Roland, in many ways our love of Leica, its history and people is close to religous study or more blasphemously, a religion. My wife would probably agree with this statement. My involvement with Leica goes back to my childhood. My father had several Leicas, met Dr. Wolff in person in Germany after the war, and we had our own darkroom. I still have the lens that my dad acquired from Dr. Wolff when he was living in Braunfels after the war as his house had been bombed out  in Frankfurt. BTW, Henri Dumur arranged the lodging in Braunfels for Dr. Wolff. My first real job at age 14 was at a camera store, that was also a Leica dealer. I became a Leica salesman at 16. So my love affair with Leica pre-dates my wife and our children, and they all accept it!

Bill,

My wife would agree that my passion for photographic research has gone much too far already 🙂
And one can say that in my research I am looking for 'the truth', which is not a scientific concept either.
Fortunately, I can live with a pragmatic approach that is recommended by McKinsey:

The working hypothesis

After 100 years it is not possible anymore to be absolutely certain about events in the past.
But it is still possible to look for pieces of the puzzle.
The more pieces one can find, the better.
The challenge is to combine these pieces in a plausible way.
In this way I can formulate a hypothetical course of events that is not invalidated a priori by reliable primary/ empirical sources.
This hypothetical course of events may still not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But for me it comes close enough.

The advantage of this approach is that I don't lose face (or faith) when new information points in another direction.
All new pieces of evidence are welcome.
When new information leads to a better, more plausible storyline, I am very happy to reformulate the working hypothesis.

In the course of this thread especially Alan and Fabrizio provided new information on Curt Emmermann and Prof Klute.
This could have overturned the working hypothesis that I formulated at the start of this posting.
But that was not the case.

On the other hand, in order to arrive at my working hypothesis, I had to challenge several common wisdoms:

• Max Berek his first 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920 must have been unsuitable.
  Ottmar Michaely found that the lens on the Handmuster of 1920 is of 5-element design.
• Oskar Barnack did not orient himself on the Perutz Fliegerfilm.
  The Perutz Fliegerfilm was not available for Leica photography before March 1925.
  This Perutz-Leica legend is based on post-war misunderstandings.
• Dr Paul Wolff used a Leica well before 1926.
  Pre-war sources even suggest that he used a test series Leica in 1923 and/or 1924.
  The legend that he won his first Leica in 1926 was created by Dr Paul Wolff himself!
  This legend must have misled post-war researchers.

Challenging these common wisdoms is not easy when other researchers accept them as articles of faith.
But what choice do I have?

Roland

 

  
 

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I was only joking, of course,

but wasn't Willy Frerk, who you quote a lot, a priest?

 

William,

Your reply has two parts.

Willy Frerk is a fascinating figure in German photographic history.
His work spans tho world wars and part of the post-war period.
But I only know him from his writings in his own photo magazines, in his books, as a columnist for British photo magazines, and as a translator of German literature in English.
Despite all these accomplishments it is very hard to even find a portrait picture of him.
And I know very little of his private life.

Still a Leica andcdote shows that he was not a priest.
In the Summer of 1925, so shortly after his March 1925 review, he took his Leica on a holiday in Italy.
The Leica was in a small separate bag.
All other camera equipment was in a very large suitcase.

During one train journey his wife got ill.
So he looked around for a doctor.
After a while he noticed that his Leica camera bag had been stolen.
All this is reported in the magazine Photofreund of 1925.

Unfortunately, not all Leica researchers are so openminded as Ed, Alan, Bill, Oscar, Ulf and you.
Before I met Ed and you I had some very disappointing encounters with Leica historians that did not like questions about common knowledge.
They insisted that I simply had to accept their authority on these matters.
And this use of authority is more related to religion than to science.

Roland
   

 

 

 

.

 

 

Why is he called Fr. Willy Frerk? Is this another German title we don't know about?

I would never impose 'authority' on anyone. I just engage in robust debate, which is common in my country. I am a 'free thinker' just as you are. You will find Jim Lager refreshing. For all of his great knowledge he is always open to receiving new information and new ideas. I have introduced him to quite a number of things which he had not seen or heard before. He is also a 'gentleman' in the truest sense of that word. 

William 

[gbpost]

Could Fr. stand for the name Friedrich, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Friedrich_Willy_Frerk?

[Roland Zwiers]

Could Fr. stand for the name Friedrich,

That is indeed very likely.

In German literature Willy Frerk signs his name with Fr. Willy Frerk.
In an English work of 1939 he uses F.W. Frerk.

 

Roland 

[Roland Zwiers]

Null Serie delay

After 1918 Oskar Barnack designed an improved prototype, which is known as the Handmuster camera of 1920.
This camera is also known as the Kisselbach camera.
It stood model for the Null Serie of 1923.

Barnack (1931) makes clear that one of the requirements for this new prototype was an excellent lens.
The task to design this lens was entrusted to Max Berek.
The result was the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920.

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!

For this 4-element lens Leitz obtained a patent in 1920 (Patent 343086).
According to Ernst Leitz (1933) and Max Berek (1948) only a few lenses were produced for internal use.
Although Leitz, Berek and Barnack do not say so, it is very likely that this 1920 Anastigmat did not fulfil the requirements.
Research by Ottmar Michaely shows that the existing pre-Null-Serie cameras are fitted with 5-element Anastigmats!
This implies that the original 4-element Anastigmats have been replaced when the first 5-element Anastigmats became available.

Why was this 4-element Anastigmat unsuitable?
A plausible explanation is that Max Berek had to circumvent the Tessar patent.
This patent was declared valid again in 1920, see the advertisement on the front page of Photographische Rundschau.
So as a precaution Max Berek may have used different types of optical glass for the front and rear lens elements.
But these elements may have discoloured over time on exposure to oxygen.

Using the proven Tessar specifications would have been much safer.
But Ernst Leitz II may have decided against paying royalties. 

The unsuitability of the original 4-element Leitz Anastigmat must have caused a long delay.
Had this lens proved adequate, then the Null Serie could have been introduced in 1920 already!

Another consideration is that 1920-1921 were not yet years of geo-political tensions with France over reparation payments.
These tensions would lead to the French occupation of the Rhineland and the hyper inflation of 1922-1923.
In this environment it was very hard to indroduce a new, innovative but also expensive camera on the market.

So it seems that the unsuitability of the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920 caused a very long delay.
Max Berek had to start work on another lens (the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat). 
This lens was ready at the end on 1922.
And then this lens still had to be tested on the Null Serie of 1923.
And then one bottleneck was the lack of quality of German 35mm cine negative film in the period of hyperinflation.
[An observation by Prof Klute; Dr Paul Wolff had a similar complaint.]
But the contemporary film producers Agfa, Goerz and Lignose must have struggled to maintain quality standards in an evironment of occupation,
the break-down of supply chains, and hyper inflation. 

This long and unforeseen delay may well be one of the reasons that in later life Ludwig Leitz recollects the Leica as 'our problem child' (Sorgenkind). 

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

---

[i] Ottmar Michaely/ xxx, research Handmuster has 5 element Anastigmat. PM

.

 

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Null Serie delay

After 1918 Oskar Barnack designed an improved prototype, which is known as the Handmuster camera of 1920.
This camera is also known as the Kisselbach camera.
It stood model for the Null Serie of 1923.

Barnack (1931) makes clear that one of the requirements for this new prototype was an excellent lens.
The task to design this lens was entrusted to Max Berek.
The result was the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920.

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!

For this 4-element lens Leitz obtained a patent in 1920 (Patent 343086).
According to Ernst Leitz (1933) and Max Berek (1948) only a few lenses were produced for internal use.
Although Leitz, Berek and Barnack do not say so, it is very likely that this 1920 Anastigmat did not fulfil the requirements.
Research by Ottmar Michaely shows that the existing pre-Null-Serie cameras are fitted with 5-element Anastigmats!
This implies that the original 4-element Anastigmats have been replaced when the first 5-element Anastigmats became available.

Why was this 4-element Anastigmat unsuitable?
A plausible explanation is that Max Berek had to circumvent the Tessar patent.
This patent was declared valid again in 1920, see the advertisement on the front page of Photographische Rundschau.
So as a precaution Max Berek may have used different types of optical glass for the front and rear lens elements.
But these elements may have discoloured over time on exposure to oxygen.

Using the proven Tessar specifications would have been much safer.
But Ernst Leitz II may have decided against paying royalties. 

The unsuitability of the original 4-element Leitz Anastigmat must have caused a long delay.
Had this lens proved adequate, then the Null Serie could have been introduced in 1920 already!

Another consideration is that 1920-1921 were not yet years of geo-political tensions with France over reparation payments.
These tensions would lead to the French occupation of the Rhineland and the hyper inflation of 1922-1923.
In this environment it was very hard to indroduce a new, innovative but also expensive camera on the market.

So it seems that the unsuitability of the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920 caused a very long delay.
Max Berek had to start work on another lens (the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat). 
This lens was ready at the end on 1922.
And then this lens still had to be tested on the Null Serie of 1923.
And then one bottleneck was the lack of quality of German 35mm cine negative film in the period of hyperinflation.
[An observation by Prof Klute; Dr Paul Wolff had a similar complaint.]
But the contemporary film producers Agfa, Goerz and Lignose must have struggled to maintain quality standards in an evironment of occupation,
the break-down of supply chains, and hyper inflation. 

This long and unforeseen delay may well be one of the reasons that in later life Ludwig Leitz recollects the Leica as 'our problem child' (Sorgenkind). 

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

---

[i] Ottmar Michaely/ xxx, research Handmuster has 5 element Anastigmat. PM

.

 

Here is a blueprint for the 5 element Anastigmat. It is dated 22.9.23 and signed off by Barnack at the bottom right. I must presume that this was in anticipation of line production.

This was from a folder of blueprints which was sold at auction at the same time as No 105. I had an opportunity to go through it on the day before the auction. This was by far the most interesting item in the folder. We should ask Tim Pullmann whether he has other dated blueprints like this one.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

This is a fascinating blueprint indeed!
It even has 'Barnack' in his own handwriting in the lower right corner.
The blueprint shows a 5-element design with the name 'Leitz Anastigmat' and the date 23 [?] September 1923.

The name 'Elmax' is not yet applied.
According to Leica literature the name change 'Leitz Anastigmat' to 'Elmax' took place in December 1924.

23 September 1923 is clearly in Null-Serie territory.
According to Ottmar Michaely all Null-Serie cameras that he was able to inspect, have 5-element lenses.
So the blueprint must have been made while the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat was already in production.

I am curious after the meaning of 4201; does this stand for the 'Kleinfilmkamera' under consideration?
It is followed by Bl. 163 = Blatt = page/ drawing
and by Teil: 152 = part 152

In a next posting I would like to show you another design drawing of the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

This design drawing comes courtesy Oscar Fricke.

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!

In the upper left corner [A] one can read ‘System 1921’.
There is an accompanying drawing of the five lens elements and a technical specification of the eight curves involved.
At [B] there is a remark in an old handwriting style that the design specifications (‘das ausgeführte System’) have been changed for the first and the last glass elements.
At [C] one can observe that by 7 October 1922 the specifications of glass element 5 (so the rear element) had been altered again.

It is interesting to observe that the changes concern the first and the last lens elements.
These outside elements would be the most vulnerable to atmospheric influences.
Max Berek had to make corrections when confronted with discolouring and/or deteriorating glass.
This is also a clue for what may have gone wrong with the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920 in the first place!

Leitz (1933) states that the Elmax was produced from 1923 onwards up to the spring of 1925 (“…bis zum Frühjahr 1925”).
This information matches very well with the last design changes of 7 October 1922.
One can hardly blame Ernst Leitz and Max Berek for waiting a few additional months before taking the lens in production.

All in all, I assume that this design drawing preceded the production of the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.
Your fascinating blueprint must have been made while the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat was already in production.

In order to avoid confusion:
There is a third more modern handwriting style in pencil with the date 10.7.47.
This suggests that these drawings have been commented upon in 1947.
This would also explain the pencilled in ‘Elmax’ name on these 1921 and 1922 designs.
According to Prof. Von Einem (2004) the ‘Elmax’ name was introduced at the end of 1924.
This is confirmed by Ulf Richter, who dates the introduction of the Elmax name a few months before the March 1925 Leipzig fair.

Roland

 

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

This is a fascinating blueprint indeed!
It even has 'Barnack' in his own handwriting in the lower right corner.
The blueprint shows a 5-element design with the name 'Leitz Anastigmat' and the date 23 [?] September 1923.

The name 'Elmax' is not yet applied.
According to Leica literature the name change 'Leitz Anastigmat' to 'Elmax' took place in December 1924.

23 September 1923 is clearly in Null-Serie territory.
According to Ottmar Michaely all Null-Serie cameras that he was able to inspect, have 5-element lenses.
So the blueprint must have been made while the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat was already in production.

I am curious after the meaning of 4201; does this stand for the 'Kleinfilmkamera' under consideration?
It is followed by Bl. 163 = Blatt = page/ drawing
and by Teil: 152 = part 152

In a next posting I would like to show you another design drawing of the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

This was produced before the decision to proceed with the Leica was taken, but my guess is that this was a blueprint that anticipated series production. As for the numbers you can probably guess what they were from this one which shows the film counter. I suspect that 4201 is the project, 163 is the page and 152 is the part. This may help and the numbers here are 127 and 117, respectively. The date here seems to be 31.12.23.

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!

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

This design drawing comes courtesy Oscar Fricke.

In the upper left corner [A] one can read ‘System 1921’.
There is an accompanying drawing of the five lens elements and a technical specification of the eight curves involved.
At [B] there is a remark in an old handwriting style that the design specifications (‘das ausgeführte System’) have been changed for the first and the last glass elements.
At [C] one can observe that by 7 October 1922 the specifications of glass element 5 (so the rear element) had been altered again.

It is interesting to observe that the changes concern the first and the last lens elements.
These outside elements would be the most vulnerable to atmospheric influences.
Max Berek had to make corrections when confronted with discolouring and/or deteriorating glass.
This is also a clue for what may have gone wrong with the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat of 1920 in the first place!

Leitz (1933) states that the Elmax was produced from 1923 onwards up to the spring of 1925 (“…bis zum Frühjahr 1925”).
This information matches very well with the last design changes of 7 October 1922.
One can hardly blame Ernst Leitz and Max Berek for waiting a few additional months before taking the lens in production.

All in all, I assume that this design drawing preceded the production of the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.
Your fascinating blueprint must have been made while the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat was already in production.

In order to avoid confusion:
There is a third more modern handwriting style in pencil with the date 10.7.47.
This suggests that these drawings have been commented upon in 1947.
This would also explain the pencilled in ‘Elmax’ name on these 1921 and 1922 designs.
According to Prof. Von Einem (2004) the ‘Elmax’ name was introduced at the end of 1924.
This is confirmed by Ulf Richter, who dates the introduction of the Elmax name a few months before the March 1925 Leipzig fair.

Roland

 

 

This is described by Richter (as translated by Oscar Fricke's father, Rolf) as the system data sheet for the 1921 Elmax lens. This looks like a document which was used a lot over the years with additions at various times. This is clearly for a 5 element lens and, based on what we can see, it seems to be similar to the design in the blueprint. Richter also says, however, that the 7.10.22 note indicates a change in computation related to glass types. None of this is surprising given the innovative design and Barnack's penchant for continuous testing. Cameras produced/issued in 1924 and 1925 had the Anastigmat name on the lens and of that there is no doubt. This then became the Elmax and this work in progress sheet would seem to confirm this. One question worth asking Ottmar, if he turns up, is whether any early Elmar which he has examined actually had 5 elements, say up to 1927. The recently published Leica Pocket Book 9th Edition refers to this. It also states that the 5 elements in the Anastigmat were really 4 elements. I don't know whether these statements fall into your 'hoary myths' category, but they may go back to the late Dennis Laney. The more Leica books you read the more confusing it all gets. One of the innovative aspects of the Leitz lenses of the 1920s is that they were almost (probably) the first camera lenses with helicoids since the 1850s. I presume that you have seen my PCCGB Zoom talk on YouTube about this topic.

William 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by willeica

[Roland Zwiers]

 One question worth asking Ottmar, if he turns up, is whether any early Elmar which he has examined actually had 5 elements, say up to 1927. 

William,

Leica literature suggests it is the other way round.
The Elmax name must still have been in use after the design change from 5 to 4 lens elements.
So there must have been Elmax lenses with only 4 lens elements.
Ottmar Michaely has indeed identified one such 4-element Elmax on Leica Nr. 1162 (see: Prof. Von Einem (2004)).
Similar lenses may be present on Leicas produced between June and 7 October 1925. 

The confusing thing is that there have both been name and design changes in a relatively short period of time.
My table, based on discussions with several Leica historians, makes this clear.

A design change did not automatically lead to a name change: the name 'Leitz Anastigmat' remained intially the same when the lens design changed from 4 to 5 elements.
Likewise, the name 'Elmax' was initially maintained when the design changed again from 5 to 4 lens elements.

This course of events implies that there has not been a 5-element Elmar.
But there has been a 4-element Elmax.

The reason for changeing the name from Elmax to Elmar has to do with an Ernemann tradename dispute.
That is the subject for another posting.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

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]

2 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Leica literature suggests it is the other way round.

So the newly published (2023) Leica Pocket Guide 9th Edition is wrong, but that story has been doing the rounds for years. I am glad that I have never been tempted to take the Elmars apart on my early I Model A examples 😅. What about the statement in the Pocket Guide that the Anastigmat was a 4 element lens in 3 groups? I think this may be because of confusion caused by the original 4 element Anastigmat lens. However, the blueprint and the data sheet clearly show a 5 element lens for the Anastigmat and later the Elmax. Your next big target might be to find out at what serial number the Elmax went to 4 elements. Anything to do with glass type, Goerz v Schott , or something like that ?

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

This whole discussion started with the question: is the Leitz Anastigmat a 4- element or a 5-element design?

One opinion said 4-element: just look at the 1920 drawings and the 1920 patent application.
These are reliable primary sources!

Another group (including Ottmar Michaely) observed: the lenses that are found on the known Null-Serie and pre-Null-serie cameras all have 5-element Leitz Anastigmats!
This is reliable empirical evidence.

So what to do?
I re-examined the primary sources on the 1920 Leitz Anastigmat.
So Oskar Barnack (1931), Leitz (1933) and Max Berek (1948).
This required close reading again!

Oskar Barnack (1931) says that for the Handmuster of 1920 he needed an excellent lens.
And that Max Berek would design such an excellent lens.
He does not say that the 1920 Anastigmat was an excellent lens!

Leitz (1933) says that of the 1920 Anastigmat only a few specimens were made 'for internal use'.
So for a long time Í assumed: 'internal use' = Null-Serie use.
But that was my own assumption.
Leitz (1933) does not say so.

Max Berek (1948) says that from the 1920 Anastigmat are derived: the Elmax and the Elmar.
Again, he does not say that the 1920 Anastigmat was an excellent lens.

So then it occured to me: maybe only two specimens of the 1920 Leitz have been made.
One for the Handmuster of 1920, one for the sister model (Gebrauchsmuster) that may have been sent to the patent office.
That is for internal use indeed!
But after a short while the glass started to discoulour.
Opting for unproven optical glass (possibly so as to avoid the Tessar patent) had resulted in disaster.

So Max Berek would start out immediately on a 5-element alternative.
Wy 5-elements, why not copy the Tessar design with the proven optical glass?
In my hypothesis Ernst Leitz II did not want to pay royalties.

So when the frst specimens of the new 5-element design came available, they replaced the 4-element Anastigmats on the Handmuster and Gebrauchsmuster cameras of 1920.
The 1920 Anastigmats ended up in the dustbin.
That is internal use as as well 🙂

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

So the newly published (2023) Leica Pocket Guide 9th Edition is wrong, but that story has been doing the rounds for years. 

William,
Sorry, the last posting was also adressed to you,

Yes, according to my current working hypothesis that story is wrong.
But please note that this is my second working hypothesis on this subject.
It shows that when new evidence comes in, one has to include that in the story line.
And so the story line (the current working hypothesis) may have to be adapted.

This is a good example of how to make progress without having to lose face or faith.
The discussion started with the question: is the Leitz Anastigmat a 4- element or a 5-element design?

Now I had just discovered a new primary source, Leitz (1933).
It is an article in the magazine Die Leica, edited by Curt Emmermann.
Ed Schwartzreich and me are planning to write an article about this.

Now Leitz (1933) states that the 4-element 1920 Leitz Anastigmat had been 'for internal use'.
Leica literature states that the 1920 Anastigmat was designed for the Handmuster camera of 1920.
Leica literature states that the 1920 Anastigmat was an excellent lens.
So in this story line I assumed (working hypothesis 1) that the 1920 4-element Anastigmat must have been used on the Null-Serie of 1923 as well.
After all, the Null-Serie amounted to a small batch of cameras for internal use (not for sale).

Then came one new piece of empirical information.

Ottmar Michaely objected that all Null-Serie and pre-Null-Serie cameras that he had been able to inspect, all carried a 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.
In my opinion such empirical evidence overrules pre-war primary sources, as one must always keep in mind that pre-war sources may have a bias.
[We have seen this as well with Oskar Barnack (1931) (Why I created the Leica) and Dr Paul Wolff (1937) (I won my first Leica in 1926).]

So I had to look out for a new working hypothesis that includes the new empirical information.
In this way I don't lose face (it would be worse if I chose to ignore the new information!).
I don't lose faith (the new information can only bring me closer to 'the truth').
I don't say that the new working hypothesis is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It is just the best working hypothesis that I can formulate with the available information.

Still, The 1923 Leica Pocket Guide 9th Edition may be based on information that I have overlooked.
After all, my passion is to dig in pre-war sources.
If a new piece of information comes along, I am very willing to adapt my working hypothesis again.

Roland