derleicaman Posted September 4 Share #921 Posted September 4 Advertisement (gone after registration) 12 hours ago, alan mcfall said: 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! Alan, this is very interesting. Just looking at this device, it appears to be made out of wood, which Barnack's camera was not, it was metal. This is from Leitz, New York. Is there a date associated with this device? I don't see one here. Noted from the description that the shutter is controlled by a rotating slit shutter, and was presumably hand cranked, but I am not seeing a hand crank on the right side where it would be expected. I also see wires on the device, so perhaps it was electrically powered. In the period around 1912, when Barnack was hired by Leitz to work on the Cine camera under the recommendation of Mechau, his camera was hand cranked as were all of the Cine cameras at that time. Mechau was at Leitz working on a Cine projector. Leitz saw this as an emerging market for them, as cinemas were becoming a "big thing" in this time period. Leitz would later drop out of this market in the 20's after the First World War. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4 Posted September 4 Hi derleicaman, Take a look here 100 years Null-Serie. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
derleicaman Posted September 4 Share #922 Posted September 4 I am also seeing a drive belt from an electric motor mounted under the shelf driving a wheel on the bottom of the cine camera pictured. We also do not know if this camera was using 16mm or 35mm film. We might be able to date this from the address of E. Leitz New York on the brochure as they were in many different locations in the early 20th century. When Barnack was working on his Cine camera in 1912, were no batteries or hard wired Cine cameras for use in the field. They were all hand cranked and subject to over or under cranking by the cinematographer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Zwiers Posted September 4 Author Share #923 Posted September 4 Alan, Thank you so much for this source. I have found similar examples in 1900s and 1910s literature. It seems that Ernemann had a working set-up combining a cine camera with a Leitz microscope. This may well have encouraged Leitz to catch up. Roland 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Zwiers Posted September 4 Author Share #924 Posted September 4 William: "There is no obvious connection between him [= Dr Jentsch] and a photometer. " William, I do not understand your statement. If Oskar Barnack's worknotes (Werkstattbuch) mention explicitely: "Photometer f. Dr Jentsch Eigenconstruktion"= exposure meter for Dr Jentsch, my own construction how can you deny this obvious connection between Oskar Barnack, Dr Jentsch and a Photometer? See the handwritten note below. 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! Roland Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Roland ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5858936'>More sharing options...
Carlos cruz Posted September 4 Share #925 Posted September 4 1 hour ago, derleicaman said: I am also seeing a drive belt from an electric motor mounted under the shelf driving a wheel on the bottom of the cine camera pictured. We also do not know if this camera was using 16mm or 35mm film. We might be able to date this from the address of E. Leitz New York on the brochure as they were in many different locations in the early 20th century. When Barnack was working on his Cine camera in 1912, were no batteries or hard wired Cine cameras for use in the field. They were all hand cranked and subject to over or under cranking by the cinematographer. You’d be amazed by some constructions, hand cranking was seen as problematic since very beginning of moving pictures, apart from spring powered devices there was construction very popular during ww1 called aeroscope propelled by compressed air, a simple bicycle pump was enough to “charge” camera. the bigger problem was setting frames per second standard, anything between 10 fps to 30 (usually 16-18) was accepted for shooting, the bigger fight was with projectionists (or cinema owners) they favoured faster screening times as it allowed them to have more screenings each day. (Film shot at 16 fps looked natural when projected with same speed, movement starts to look funny when projector is running faster. Eventually Europe settled with 24 fps and US adopted 30 fps as there was big division between 50 and 60 Hz electric systems. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpotmaticSP Posted September 4 Share #926 Posted September 4 (edited) It would be nice to find Dr. Jentsch's own workbook / diary to see what he was exactly doing with that photometer. 😉 Edited September 4 by SpotmaticSP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Zwiers Posted September 4 Author Share #927 Posted September 4 Advertisement (gone after registration) 37 minutes ago, SpotmaticSP said: It would be nice to find Dr. Jentsch's own workbook / diary to see what he was exactly doing with that photometer. 😉 I fully agree! UliWer was so kind as to send us a wikipedia on Dr Jentsch. This will be a crucial source! Roland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted September 4 Share #928 Posted September 4 I found some articles written by Jentzsch, that may or may not be helpful. Here they can be found: Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik (28.1914) Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik (28.1914) Lex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Zwiers Posted September 5 Author Share #929 Posted September 5 Lex, Thank you so much! I will be away for a few days so I can only explore your sources when I am home again. To be continued. Roland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted September 7 Share #930 Posted September 7 Leitz apparently produced later a Photometer LEIFO (4725) of which one exists in amuseum collection in Germany, it seems to date from 1939. It is mentioned in an academic essay by K. Dietrich in Mitteilungen der Leitz -Werke Nr. 63 from 1941, in the context of chemistry, which may connect it to Jentzsch, who by 1939 was no longer with Leitz. This is the Photometer in the museum in Göttingen: Wissenschaftliche Sammlungen der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen So perhaps the mention of a photometer by Barnack doesn't really have much to do with his work on the 35mm camera; Jentzsch was working on microscopes. Lex 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted September 7 Share #931 Posted September 7 On 9/4/2025 at 6:49 PM, Roland Zwiers said: I do not understand your statement. If Oskar Barnack's worknotes (Werkstattbuch) mention explicitely: "Photometer f. Dr Jentsch Eigenconstruktion"= exposure meter for Dr Jentsch, my own construction how can you deny this obvious connection between Oskar Barnack, Dr Jentsch and a Photometer? See the handwritten note below. Roland, you can add 'notwithstanding this piece'. I was referring to his job title and his field of work. Unless, of course, they were planning to produce a photometer for microscope photography? William Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 8 Share #932 Posted September 8 (edited) On 9/4/2025 at 4:54 AM, alan mcfall said: 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! Interesting, but actually the apparatus consists of two 'independent' pieces of equipment ([Leitz] camera and microscope) together with a stand assembly which in essence is an engineering construction rather than anything else. Was this built by Leitz in Germany or New York? Either way it isn't really inherently innovative because it is simply built to carry the camera, microscope and lighting in a specific configuration. I would have thought that this would have been a concept perhaps from someone who saw it as a potentially saleable 'scientific' product, but which was then designed and built to the conceptular specification by the engineering side of Leitz's business. That said, exposure would have been difficult to assess and a device for testing exposure and (variable) film stock might well have been very useful indeed (I come from a scientific photography background and it was still tricky in the 1980s to be as accurate as often needed using some specialised equipment, such as high speed cameras, even then). So in much earlier days it would have been very helpful indeed, if not essential, to test exposure if at all possible before running 60m of expensive film. The only oddity is that if a small 'exposure checking' camera had been found very useful then why were they not put into production, or was another system found viable and used? Edited September 8 by pgk 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApoVision Posted September 8 Share #933 Posted September 8 On 9/4/2025 at 7:49 PM, Roland Zwiers said: William: "There is no obvious connection between him [= Dr Jentsch] and a photometer. " William, I do not understand your statement. If Oskar Barnack's worknotes (Werkstattbuch) mention explicitely: "Photometer f. Dr Jentsch Eigenconstruktion"= exposure meter for Dr Jentsch, my own construction how can you deny this obvious connection between Oskar Barnack, Dr Jentsch and a Photometer? See the handwritten note below. 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! Roland i believe that photometer does not refer to an exposure meter, but to a spectrometer -this would have fallen into Jentzsch‘s field of work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan mcfall Posted September 9 Share #934 Posted September 9 (edited) The New York Moving Picture brochure is dated May 1923 and is Pamphlet No. 1037. 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! A 1924 price list is included. Total cost of the apparatus, not including microscope, approached $800, not a small sum in 1920's. Much is made in the text, that the device is relatively new (perhaps earlier versions existed), and notes that the motor/belt drive is more smooth than the crank drive As noted by Paul, there are many questions. Was it made by Wetzlar or New York, or maybe the camera in Germany and the stand in New York? The New York office ( 5 or 6 locations over the years) seemed to generate quite a few products on their own, whether these were approved or assisted by Wetzlar is often not clear. I have a Lie Detector (in eaarlier posts) made by Leitz New York and of course the RIFLE and M motor drives are interesting, the sliding copying attachment and New York flash are more examples. Van Hasbroeck has a lengthy list of New York "produced" accessories on page 271. I am not aware of any other sales offices arround the world, involved with so many self-initiated Leitz items. Also, confusing to me is the, Headquarters to other country sales offices, arrangement regarding printed material. I know that Wetzlar made frequent use of publishing houses in Frankfort. But, the translation of languages and the numbering of materials (such as this No. 1037), must have at least required the approval of Wetzlar. When New York wanted a new code word, such as VIOAD or VACUB, did they request it? One would assume that Leitz would be strict with regard to their name and products. As to the moving picture camera, I have found another apparatus using what appears to be the identical camera in the Franz Bergmann Berlin catalog. At over 500 pages, this hard cover book contains what appears to be all Leitz scientific products, but no mention the the 35mm Leica. A stamp inside the cover states that the listed prices are pre-war and no longer valid and a 1930 price list is inserted at the end. See next photo: The hand crank is shown, and a 45 degree partial silvered mirror is discussed for focusing. Exposure, again as noted above, would not be easy, especially with carbon arc lighting. So, it would seem that the camera was not a New York exclusive. Edited September 9 by alan mcfall add photo 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! A 1924 price list is included. Total cost of the apparatus, not including microscope, approached $800, not a small sum in 1920's. Much is made in the text, that the device is relatively new (perhaps earlier versions existed), and notes that the motor/belt drive is more smooth than the crank drive As noted by Paul, there are many questions. Was it made by Wetzlar or New York, or maybe the camera in Germany and the stand in New York? The New York office ( 5 or 6 locations over the years) seemed to generate quite a few products on their own, whether these were approved or assisted by Wetzlar is often not clear. I have a Lie Detector (in eaarlier posts) made by Leitz New York and of course the RIFLE and M motor drives are interesting, the sliding copying attachment and New York flash are more examples. Van Hasbroeck has a lengthy list of New York "produced" accessories on page 271. I am not aware of any other sales offices arround the world, involved with so many self-initiated Leitz items. Also, confusing to me is the, Headquarters to other country sales offices, arrangement regarding printed material. I know that Wetzlar made frequent use of publishing houses in Frankfort. But, the translation of languages and the numbering of materials (such as this No. 1037), must have at least required the approval of Wetzlar. When New York wanted a new code word, such as VIOAD or VACUB, did they request it? One would assume that Leitz would be strict with regard to their name and products. As to the moving picture camera, I have found another apparatus using what appears to be the identical camera in the Franz Bergmann Berlin catalog. At over 500 pages, this hard cover book contains what appears to be all Leitz scientific products, but no mention the the 35mm Leica. A stamp inside the cover states that the listed prices are pre-war and no longer valid and a 1930 price list is inserted at the end. See next photo: The hand crank is shown, and a 45 degree partial silvered mirror is discussed for focusing. Exposure, again as noted above, would not be easy, especially with carbon arc lighting. So, it would seem that the camera was not a New York exclusive. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5860877'>More sharing options...
Ambro51 Posted October 12 Share #935 Posted October 12 (edited) This discussion of the M875 device has been very interesting. Having actually having built two of these, I can assure readers that it IS indeed a “camera”. The camera is mounted vertically, the 25mm image size encompasses the 18x24mm Cine frame size and the Kino Tessar lens fits perfectly. The shutter is “flicked” upwards, hits the top and drops down. The speed of this action is always the same. I feel the purpose of the M875 was to test new batches of film to determine lens opening AND more importantly the development time required. The film itself varied more than the particular conditions of the moviemaking that was intended, which was usually “a nice day”. ••••• In regards to the UR, having a Mr. Kim conversion as well as having converted replica #9 to “working” myself I discovered that the Zeiss Kino Tessar cell is exactly the size and thread of the lens face plate and swinging lens cover. When this and the 42mm Summar are removed, the Kino Tessar screws right in! With the inner barrel then pushed in, the focal register of the 50mm Tessar is Exactly correct! Now, this inner barrel extends 14mm, so, when it is extended fully the 64mm Tessar will be in focal register when screwed on. This makes the UR capable of using Three lenses, and appears to be so designed. •••• Exposures with the 50mm Zeiss Kino Tessar do Not reach to the extreme corners of the 36mm negative, which had already been shortened twice already, Barnack found this out, and the 42mm was his only alternative. There is discussion regarding the need for a lens hood with the Summar, I think the lens face plate, which sits about 7mm in front of the optic, fills this need. 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! Edited October 12 by Ambro51 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5875024'>More sharing options...
Ambro51 Posted October 12 Share #936 Posted October 12 (edited) Lens face plate 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! Edited October 12 by Ambro51 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5875027'>More sharing options...
willeica Posted October 12 Share #937 Posted October 12 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Ambro51 said: This discussion of the M875 device has been very interesting. Having actually having built two of these, I can assure readers that it IS indeed a “camera”. The camera is mounted vertically, the 25mm image size encompasses the 18x24mm Cine frame size and the Kino Tessar lens fits perfectly. The shutter is “flicked” upwards, hits the top and drops down. The speed of this action is always the same. I feel the purpose of the M875 was to test new batches of film to determine lens opening AND more importantly the development time required. The film itself varied more than the particular conditions of the moviemaking that was intended, which was usually “a nice day”. ••••• In regards to the UR, having a Mr. Kim conversion as well as having converted replica #9 to “working” myself I discovered that the Zeiss Kino Tessar cell is exactly the size and thread of the lens face plate and swinging lens cover. When this and the 42mm Summar are removed, the Kino Tessar screws right in! With the inner barrel then pushed in, the focal register of the 50mm Tessar is Exactly correct! Now, this inner barrel extends 14mm, so, when it is extended fully the 64mm Tessar will be in focal register when screwed on. This makes the UR capable of using Three lenses, and appears to be so designed. •••• Exposures with the 50mm Zeiss Kino Tessar do Not reach to the extreme corners of the 36mm negative, which had already been shortened twice already, Barnack found this out, and the 42mm was his only alternative. There is discussion regarding the need for a lens hood with the Summar, I think the lens face plate, which sits about 7mm in front of the optic, fills this need. 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! Nice stuff. I think that we need not debate at length as to whether this was a camera or film tester as both are effectively the same thing. I presume that you agree that when the lens was removed this could also function as a viewer of negatives or positives as in the case of the all metal Kemper Kombi from the early 1890s. Can you speculate as to the date at which the original M875 was constructed? What you seem to be implying is that this predates the Ur-Leica, which may be correct. What I would really like to see is the actual focus mount on the Ur-Leica. I have a 42mm Mikro Summar from that period (1910-15), but I have only been able to use it for limited close up work on a fixed focus basis. I have recently been able to examine all of the images created by Ernst Leitz with the Ur-Leica in the US in 1914 and they are far from what we might describe today as 'Leica quality', despite the fact that many of them are very charming and interesting. When looking at them I have to keep reminding myself that they were done with a lens designed for use with a microscope and also the possibility that Ernst Leitz probably had a learning curve as regards handling the focussing. Another issue would have been the development of the 35mm stock, something which the M875 may have been built to overcome in some respects. William Edited October 12 by willeica 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambro51 Posted Monday at 12:40 AM Share #938 Posted Monday at 12:40 AM I recall reading that Barnacks instruction to Leitz was to not bother focusing, just let depth of field take care of it. Following that advice, one would end up with some good, some not so good, images. The Cine camera and the M875 device are without a doubt related. I don’t know the 1911 Zeiss price tag on that special lens, but unless Barnack obtained one (two?) direct from Zeiss I doubt he could afford them (it?) out of pocket. ••••• I can tell you putting in the recessed tripod screw was not easy. He done that clearly for the purpose of vertical mounting. Note the UR has an awkward protruding screw attachment which prevents Any tripod mounting. It dosent even sit flat. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambro51 Posted Monday at 09:58 PM Share #939 Posted Monday at 09:58 PM (edited) Here’s the UR inner barrel which the lens cell for the 42mm Summar threads into. There is a shoulder machined about 1/2 mm deep and 2mm long. The threaded end opening is about 22mm. The lens barrel inner diameter is 27mm. This is the lens plate/Kino Tessar lens thread attachment 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! The outer barrel has a step machined in about 8 mm long to restrict how far the inner barrel can extend Edited Monday at 10:08 PM by Ambro51 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The outer barrel has a step machined in about 8 mm long to restrict how far the inner barrel can extend ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5875566'>More sharing options...
Ambro51 Posted Monday at 10:06 PM Share #940 Posted Monday at 10:06 PM (edited) outer barrel 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! Edited Monday at 10:07 PM by Ambro51 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/378437-100-years-null-serie/?do=findComment&comment=5875570'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now