100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Edward Schwartzreich said:

There are probably many reasons why a particular newly-developed lens might not have been used.  Besides the Zeiss Tessar patent and discoloring of the external glass surfaces, the glass for the front may have been just too soft and prone to scratches, or one of the glass types may have been discontinued by its maker, or simply that the grinding and polishing of one of the elements in the 4-element Anastigmat may have presented problems.   The 1933 Leitz publication says, IIRC, that Leica saw no need to patent that anastigmat, possibly just because it was only to be used internally until something else was developed.  

 

IMO the 1920 4-element Anastigmat is a stepping stone, but also a red herring in trying to understand early Leica history.  Ottmar has already proven for me at least that that lens is now vaporware.  I would be very surprised if an example of it ever turns up.

 

Ed 

The 1933 Leitz publication says, IIRC, that Leica saw no need to patent that anastigmat, possibly just because it was only to be used internally until something else was developed.  

Ed,

You know this subject almost better than I do, but I remember the 1933 Leitz publication differently.
This technical drawing of the 1920 Leitz Anastigmat was part of the 1920 patent application (DRP 343086). 

Indeed, this 1920 patent application by Leitz is a difficult subject.
It relates to the question to what extent it may have overlapped with the Tessar design of 1902, which would normally have expired after 15 years, so in 1917.

I infer there was little overlap.
Leitz (1933) says so as well.
Otherwise Max Berek would have been wiser to use the optical glass as specified in the Tessar patent.
 

Now both during and after the war the German government was extending patent rights so as to compensate the authors for the lost war years.
It is very difficult to find out whether or not the Tessar patent had expired at the time of the Leitz patent application for the 4-element Anastigmat.
We do know that in December 1920 the Tessar patent was revived again.
But that may not have invalidated the 1920 Leitz patent that had been approved in the meantime.

Bad luck for Leitz that this patented 1920 4-element Anastigmat proved unsuitable for the 1920 handmuster camera.
Ottmar Michaely found out that this camera carries a 5-element Anastigmat. 

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]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Barnack developed something very important here and that was focus via a helicoid on a camera, something that had not really existed since the very early days as a bellows had become almost universal. This was one of his biggest breakthroughs.

William,

The idea of focussing via a helocoid on a hand camera was already embodied in the revolutionary Anschütz focal plane camera of the late 1880s.
In 1913-1914 the challenge for Oskar Barnack was to realise the same idea in a miniature camera with a miniature lens. 
And of course, to use perforated 35mm film instead of glass based dry plates.

The ad below is from 1906. 

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!

Thanks Roland. That is exactly one more than Jim Lager or any of the experts at PCCGB could find for me. I hope that you saw my YouTube Zoom on this to which I received no indication of any helicoid camera lenses between my example from 1857 and the Barnack and Berek design for what became the Leica camera. The reason why cameras with helicoids were so scarce during that period was because of the ubiquitous bellows. Barnack really was exploring a new direction with the Leica helicoid and, of course, today most camera lenses rely on a helicoid of some kind to achieve focus.

I'm intrigued with the Goerz Anschutz top speed of 1/1000th on its focal plane shutter. I recently came across this Thornton Pickard focal plane shutter with a top speed of 1/1000th from the 1890s. Leica did not have 1/1000th until the introduction of the IIIa in 1935. 

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

As you can see the Ur-Leica closely followed the concept pf the Goerz Anschutz (AnGo) press camera.
Earlier versions of the AnGo even had a rigid body.

On the other hand, Oskar Barnack also borrowed ideas from the first miniature revolution after 1898.
Photo magazines in 1912 show that by then there had been a flood of 'liliput' cameras on the market with at that time the Vestpocket Kodak as the latest arrival.
By then important groundwork had already been done by the British Vestpocket Ensignette.
The idea 'small negtive, big enlargement' was already demonstrated by dedicated enlargers for the VP Ensignette and the VP Kodak.

This British editorial is from 1913.

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!

 

Unfortunately, Leica literature much over-emphasises the role of Oskar Barnack.
This is likely due to the legend that he created himself in 1931.
In another posting there is a video that states that before the Ur-Leica the rest of the world was still using heavy plate cameras.
This completely overlooks the developments that took place after 1898 (roll film) and after 1905 (advanced miniature cameras with 4,5x6cm plates).

The crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack was that he made a new and innovative combination of already existing ideas.
And he made especially good use of the design of the Vestpocket Kodak!
But in 1931, when Curt Emmermann invited him for a contribution in Die Leica, Oskar Barnack only related the anecdote of his heavy plate camera of 1905.
That was true, but not the whole truth.

Roland

 

[Roland Zwiers]

I'm intrigued with the Goerz Anschutz top speed of 1/1000th on its focal plane shutter. I recently came across this Thornton Pickard focal plane shutter with a top speed of 1/1000th from the 1890s. Leica did not have 1/1000th until the introduction of the IIIa in 1935. 

William,

The focal plane shutter with 1/1000 of a sec. was developed by Ottomar Anschutz in the 1880s.
For a while he kept it for himself so as to be the first photographer to make unique action pictures of storks.

But he later patented the design and sold licences all over the world.
So I assume that Thornton Pickard took a licence as well.

Roland

[Roland Zwiers]

9 hours ago, Edward Schwartzreich said:

There are probably many reasons why a particular newly-developed lens might not have been used.  Besides the Zeiss Tessar patent and discoloring of the external glass surfaces, the glass for the front may have been just too soft and prone to scratches, or one of the glass types may have been discontinued by its maker, or simply that the grinding and polishing of one of the elements in the 4-element Anastigmat may have presented problems.   The 1933 Leitz publication says, (my translation) "When in 1921 the possible production of this camera received increased interest in our factory, the first test specimens were equipped with a 1:3.5 lens which was protected by the Ernst Leitz company via patent 343086 from 1920. Since this lens was only for the first Leica cameras used internally within the factory it was not given a different name".

Either this statement, more than 10 years after the fact, is not entirely correct; or if it is, then all those early test specimens had their lens replaced, early on.

IMO the 1920 4-element Anastigmat is a stepping stone, but also a red herring in trying to understand early Leica history.  Ottmar has already proven for me at least that that lens is now vaporware.  I would be very surprised if an example of it ever turns up.

 

Ed 

"When in 1921 the possible production of this camera received increased interest in our factory, the first test specimens were equipped with a 1:3.5 lens which was protected by the Ernst Leitz company via patent 343086 from 1920. Since this lens was only for the first Leica cameras used internally within the factory it was not given a different name".

Ed,

This quote is exactly the  reason for my original assumption (working hypothesis 1) that the Null-Serie was equipped with the 4-element Leitz Anastigmat!
In our discussions of 2022 I kept defending this hypothesis, as everything seemed to fit.

The first Leica cameras and used internally within the factory (so not for sale), it all seemed to point to Null-Serie use.

But then Ottmar Michaely dropped an empirical bombshell:
All the Null-Serie and pre-Null-Serie cameras that he had been able to inspect, have a 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.
Including the Handmuster of 1920.

Now the Handmuster of 1920 was the camera for which the 1920 4-element Anastigmat was intended!
So if this camera does not have the 4-element Anastigmat anymore, then it must have been removed.
And if the Handmuster now carries the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat, then one can infer that the 4-element lens had to be replaced for being/ having become unsuitable.

So that was the basis for switching to working hypothesis 2.
In hypothesis 2 the phrase in Leitz (1933): used internally within the factory
must be regarded as window dressing.
After all, pre-war primary sources may have a bias as well.
I mentioned Oskar Barnack (1931) and Dr Paul Wolff (1937) before.
Leitz (1933) simply did not want to stress that the first attempt at a Leitz Anastigmat had been a failure.

Roland

  

 

 

 

 

 

[wizard]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

In (UK) English "discoloured" implies coloured (confusing though it is!) - or perhaps "acquiring a colour after being previously uncoloured".

Thanks so much, that explains it to me. I had previously understood "discoloured" to mean "without any color", and hence was confused as to why this would be undesirable.

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I did not fully realise the confusion myself.
It also has to do with the prefix 'dis-", which often implies something unwanted or less desirable.

e.g. compare:
functional - disfunctional

So optical glass should as a rule be fully transparant, with no colour.
As soon as colour appears, one would speak of discolouring,  since this is not a desirable outcome.

Roland

 

 

[willeica]

2 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I'm intrigued with the Goerz Anschutz top speed of 1/1000th on its focal plane shutter. I recently came across this Thornton Pickard focal plane shutter with a top speed of 1/1000th from the 1890s. Leica did not have 1/1000th until the introduction of the IIIa in 1935. 

William,

The focal plane shutter with 1/1000 of a sec. was developed by Ottomar Anschutz in the 1880s.
For a while he kept it for himself so as to be the first photographer to make unique action pictures of storks.

But he later patented the design and sold licences all over the world.
So I assume that Thornton Pickard took a licence as well.

Roland

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents. Roland, I am sure you would really enjoy reading this catalogue which is more like a user manual than anything else.

Thornton-Pickard 1898 LQ.pdf

 

8 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Yes, I did not fully realise the confusion myself.
It also has to do with the prefix 'dis-", which often implies something unwanted or less desirable.

e.g. compare:
functional - disfunctional

So optical glass should as a rule be fully transparant, with no colour.
As soon as colour appears, one would speak of discolouring,  since this is not a desirable outcome.

Roland

 

 

I have an aluminium camera lens, with diaphragm, from c 1895 which has completely orange coated elements. I have shown this to many experts and most agreed that it was probably for a special application e.g. taking photos of cloud formation for meteorological purposes. The maker was also involved in the 'carte du ciel' project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_du_Ciel, but while this might have proved too slow for star formations, perhaps it might also have been used for taking pictures of the sun. It is a unique item in my collection, interestingly made by the same firm which made my helicoid lens from 1857. 

 

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

As you can see the Ur-Leica closely followed the concept pf the Goerz Anschutz (AnGo) press camera.
Earlier versions of the AnGo even had a rigid body.

On the other hand, Oskar Barnack also borrowed ideas from the first miniature revolution after 1898.
Photo magazines in 1912 show that by then there had been a flood of 'liliput' cameras on the market with at that time the Vestpocket Kodak as the latest arrival.
By then important groundwork had already been done by the British Vestpocket Ensignette.
The idea 'small negtive, big enlargement' was already demonstrated by dedicated enlargers for the VP Ensignette and the VP Kodak.

This British editorial is from 1913.

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!

 

Unfortunately, Leica literature much over-emphasises the role of Oskar Barnack.
This is likely due to the legend that he created himself in 1931.
In another posting there is a video that states that before the Ur-Leica the rest of the world was still using heavy plate cameras.
This completely overlooks the developments that took place after 1898 (roll film) and after 1905 (advanced miniature cameras with 4,5x6cm plates).

The crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack was that he made a new and innovative combination of already existing ideas.
And he made especially good use of the design of the Vestpocket Kodak!
But in 1931, when Curt Emmermann invited him for a contribution in Die Leica, Oskar Barnack only related the anecdote of his heavy plate camera of 1905.
That was true, but not the whole truth.

Roland

 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 , but, in reality, they are quite different cameras, particularly as regards the bellows in the former and the use of a helicoid in the latter - there are others such as the focal plane self cocking/self capping shutter in the Leica. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/08/16/2017-8-15-in-the-pocket-photography-from-world-war-one/

I have seen your material on the Ensignette.

If you have ever handled a 'bare' Mikro Summar you would know that there would have been quite a bit of work in creating a focus mount for it. Barnack achieved many things and he was never satisfied that he had achieved perfection.

William 

[LocalHero1953]

I made the beginner's blunder of asking Malcolm Taylor to clean up the yellow rangefinder of my just-acquired ii Model D when I sent it for overhaul. He patiently explained that this was as intended (it still looked a lot cleaner/clearer after he returned it).

[Roland Zwiers]

6 hours ago, willeica said:

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents. Roland, I am sure you would really enjoy reading this catalogue which is more like a user manual than anything else.

Thornton-Pickard 1898 LQ.pdf 6.49 MB · 4 downloads

 

I have an aluminium camera lens, with diaphragm, from c 1895 which has completely orange coated elements. I have shown this to many experts and most agreed that it was probably for a special application e.g. taking photos of cloud formation for meteorological purposes. The maker was also involved in the 'carte du ciel' project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_du_Ciel, but while this might have proved too slow for star formations, perhaps it might also have been used for taking pictures of the sun. It is a unique item in my collection, interestingly made by the same firm which made my helicoid lens from 1857. 

 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 , but, in reality, they are quite different cameras, particularly as regards the bellows in the former and the use of a helicoid in the latter - there are others such as the focal plane self cocking/self capping shutter in the Leica. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/08/16/2017-8-15-in-the-pocket-photography-from-world-war-one/

I have seen your material on the Ensignette.

If you have ever handled a 'bare' Mikro Summar you would know that there would have been quite a bit of work in creating a focus mount for it. Barnack achieved many things and he was never satisfied that he had achieved perfection.

William 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 ,
but, in reality, they are quite different cameras

William,

Nobody would dispute that the (Ur-)Leica and the VP Kodak are very different cameras.
But that is not the point.

The crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack was that during 1912-1914 he made a new and innovative combination of already existing ideas.
And he made especially good use of the design of the Vestpocket Kodak!

Just compare the film loading system of the 1912 VP Kodak with that of Oskar Barnack's exposure tester M875.
The same solution would be adopted on the Ur-Leica, the Null-Serie and the Leica I.

For the Ur-Leica Oskar Barnack combined features of several cameras:

• The helicoid lens focussing of the Goerz Anschutz camera.
• The film loading system of the VP Kodak
• The negative dimensions (24x38mm instead of 24x36mm) of the VP Kodak (so as to better enlarge on 9x14cm paper)
• A miniature focal plane shutter had already been adopted in other miniature cameras
• The coupling between film transport and shutter was already patented before 1914:
  that was even the reason that the Leitz patent application of 1914 was refuesed!
• The idea of using perforated 35mm film for photography was not new either

The famous Austrian economist Schumpeter taught us that innovation often comes in the form of a new combination of existing ideas. 
The (Ur-)Leica is a good example.

[Off-topic: Another famous Schumpeter concept is that innovation often leads to creative destruction.
Here the Leica also played its part, as it contributed to the near elimination of the British camera industry before 1939.
See my article: The British market in 1937 - The German miniature invasion] 

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!

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, willeica said:

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents. Roland, I am sure you would really enjoy reading this catalogue which is more like a user manual than anything else.

Thornton-Pickard 1898 LQ.pdf 6.49 MB · 4 downloads

 

I have an aluminium camera lens, with diaphragm, from c 1895 which has completely orange coated elements. I have shown this to many experts and most agreed that it was probably for a special application e.g. taking photos of cloud formation for meteorological purposes. The maker was also involved in the 'carte du ciel' project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_du_Ciel, but while this might have proved too slow for star formations, perhaps it might also have been used for taking pictures of the sun. It is a unique item in my collection, interestingly made by the same firm which made my helicoid lens from 1857. 

 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 , but, in reality, they are quite different cameras, particularly as regards the bellows in the former and the use of a helicoid in the latter - there are others such as the focal plane self cocking/self capping shutter in the Leica. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/08/16/2017-8-15-in-the-pocket-photography-from-world-war-one/

I have seen your material on the Ensignette.

If you have ever handled a 'bare' Mikro Summar you would know that there would have been quite a bit of work in creating a focus mount for it. Barnack achieved many things and he was never satisfied that he had achieved perfection.

William 

7 hours ago, willeica said:

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents. Roland, I am sure you would really enjoy reading this catalogue which is more like a user manual than anything else.

Thornton-Pickard 1898 LQ.pdf 6.49 MB · 4 downloads

 

I have an aluminium camera lens, with diaphragm, from c 1895 which has completely orange coated elements. I have shown this to many experts and most agreed that it was probably for a special application e.g. taking photos of cloud formation for meteorological purposes. The maker was also involved in the 'carte du ciel' project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_du_Ciel, but while this might have proved too slow for star formations, perhaps it might also have been used for taking pictures of the sun. It is a unique item in my collection, interestingly made by the same firm which made my helicoid lens from 1857. 

 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 , but, in reality, they are quite different cameras, particularly as regards the bellows in the former and the use of a helicoid in the latter - there are others such as the focal plane self cocking/self capping shutter in the Leica. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/08/16/2017-8-15-in-the-pocket-photography-from-world-war-one/

I have seen your material on the Ensignette.

If you have ever handled a 'bare' Mikro Summar you would know that there would have been quite a bit of work in creating a focus mount for it. Barnack achieved many things and he was never satisfied that he had achieved perfection.

William 

 

[derleicaman]

Roland, looking at the images comparing M875 to the VP Kodak, brought to mind this question.

What are your thoughts on the way to make an exposure with M875? Ray Morgenweck who made the replica of M875 from the article by Georg Mann in Vidom believes that exposure was made with a guillotine or "drop shutter", with the camera mounted in a vertical position on the side of the motion picture camera Barnack was hired to work on by Leitz. Ray has proven that this is entirely possible by numerous images he has made with his replica. Ulf Richter on the other hand is adament that this would not work. He believes that a Compur lens/shutter combination was used on M875 instead. Having played with M875 in the Archive last year, based on the actual camera, one can see his point. I talked to Ray about this, and I think the problem with M875 as it exits today, the drop shutter idea does not work. Again, I think this is a problem with the current poor state that M875 is in.

Anyone else care to chime in? I think this is one of the things we can address when we are there in October.

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 ,
but, in reality, they are quite different cameras

William,

Nobody would dispute that the (Ur-)Leica and the VP Kodak are very different cameras.
But that is not the point.

The crucial contribution of Oskar Barnack was that during 1912-1914 he made a new and innovative combination of already existing ideas.
And he made especially good use of the design of the Vestpocket Kodak!

Just compare the film loading system of the 1912 VP Kodak with that of Oskar Barnack's exposure tester M875.
The same solution would be adopted on the Ur-Leica, the Null-Serie and the Leica I.

For the Ur-Leica Oskar Barnack combined features of several cameras:

• The helicoid lens focussing of the Goerz Anschutz camera.
• The film loading system of the VP Kodak
• The negative dimensions (24x38mm instead of 24x36mm) of the VP Kodak (so as to better enlarge on 9x14cm paper)
• A miniature focal plane shutter had already been adopted in other miniature cameras
• The coupling between film transport and shutter was already patented before 1914:
  that was even the reason that the Leitz patent application of 1914 was refuesed!
• The idea of using perforated 35mm film for photography was not new either

The famous Austrian economist Schumpeter taught us that innovation often comes in the form of a new combination of existing ideas. 
The (Ur-)Leica is a good example.

[Off-topic: Another famous Schumpeter concept is that innovation often leads to creative destruction.
Here the Leica also played its part, as it contributed to the near elimination of the British camera industry before 1939.
See my article: The British market in 1937 - The German miniature invasion] 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't had Schumpeter quoted at me since my basic degree 50 years ago or my masters degree 40 years ago👨‍🎓. I agree there is rarely any such thing as absolute innovation, but there was a lot of innovation and innovative combination in the Leica I series. The film spools on the VPK go back to the 1880s . I have examined an example of a roll film Kodak with spools from 1890 recently. The main thing in common is the tubular steel body. To use, the cameras are, however, very different and I should know as I have used several examples of both cameras.

As for M875, I'll reserve my opinion until I see it in October. I did not really look closely at George Furst's (or Ray's) copy when I photographed it in 2018. 

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

Bill,

In my manuscript I have dedicated a whole chapter to the relationship between the M875 and the Ur-Leica.
Ulf Richter commented on this chapter and disagrees with my analysis.

• According to Ulf Richter M875 cannot be a pre-Ur-Leica camera.
• Oskar Barnack says nothing about M875 in his work notes.
• The shutter of M875 cannot have worked accurately enough for an exposure time of about 1/40 sec.   

I have to disagree with Ulf.

• In my opinion Ulf Richter does no justice to the many clues provided by Dr Paul Wolff, who interviewed Oskar Barnack several times on the exposure tester function.
• An exposure tester has a different function than a camera.
  M875 was not a camera and so not a pre-Ur-leica camera either.
• There was no obligation for Oskar Barnack to be complete in his worknotes.
  E,g. he says nothing about the 1912 Vestpocket Kodak either, even though he has obviously copied several of its features.
• It is entirely possible that Oskar Barnack first experimented with a gravitational shutter.
  The observation that this shutter would ultimately disappoint, is besides the point.
  That may indeed be a reason for follow-up experiments, like a separate external shutter in front of the Kino-Tessar lens.
• In my analysis the focal plane shutter of the Ur-Leica may have been designed so as to give an accurate shutterspeed of 1/40 sec.
  With a Compound shutter in front of the lens, Oskar Barnack would have had to select a shutter speed in between 1/25 and 1/50 sec.
  That would not have been very accurate either.>
• So the Ur-Leica may have been dual use from the start; because of the accurate shutter speed of 1/40 sec it was very suitable as an exposure tester for the movie camera.
  But if you spend so much effort on an accurate shutter, why not create a camera as well?
  One thing leads to another.
  
  Roland 

[Roland Zwiers]

32 minutes ago, willeica said:

I haven't had Schumpeter quoted at me since my basic degree 50 years ago or my masters degree 40 years ago👨‍🎓. I agree there is rarely any such thing as absolute innovation, but there was a lot of innovation and innovative combination in the Leica I series. The film spools on the VPK go back to the 1880s . I have examined an example of a roll film Kodak with spools from 1890 recently. The main thing in common is the tubular steel body. To use, the cameras are, however, very different and I should know as I have used several examples of both cameras.

As for M875, I'll reserve my opinion until I see it in October. I did not really look closely at George Furst's (or Ray's) copy when I photographed it in 2018. 

William 

The film spools on the VPK go back to the 1880s . I have examined an example of a roll film Kodak with spools from 1890 recently. The main thing in common is the tubular steel body.

William,

You keep proving my points.
Leica literature completely overlooks the miniature revolution since the 1890s.
Why don't you simply agree with this observation?
And if you don't agree, what Leica literature have I missed?

This first miniature revolution has one pillar in the Kodak roll films, which, as you say, obviously made use of spools.
The other pillar was the miniaturisation of hand cameras in general, both for roll film (the 1909 VP Ensignette, the 1912 VP Kodak)
and for 4x6,5cm plates (the 1906 Gaumont Blocknote, VP Texax and so on).

The features that Oskar Barnack copied from the VP Kodak are:

• As you say, the streamlined tubular body, that fits nicely in ones hand.
  Leica would even copy a VP Kodak advertisement with this feature!
• The film loading system
• The proportions of the negative (24x38mm), so that it would print on 9x14cm paper (like the VP Kodak and the VP Ensignette).
   

Now Oskar Barnack copied features from other cameras as well.

• There were other miniature cameras with focal plane shutters (the Zeiss Minimum Palmos)
• there was an earlier miniature camera with film transport that was coupled to the shutter
  [that was the reason that the 1914 patent application was refused!]
• the helicoid focussing mechanism of the Goerz Anschutz camera
• the idea to use 35mm film for photography

 

So in my analysis Oskar Barnack was very innovative in creating something new by combining features from other cameras.
Very much in the line of Schumpeter.
This does not reduce the role of Oskar Barnack.
It just puts it in perspective.
After all, the Leica was not created in a vacuum.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

[Anbaric]

I don't think we can assume that every feature of the Leica that resembles one found in some other camera was necessarily copied from it, though no doubt many ideas were borrowed. Once you set out to make a small camera that uses a long strip of film, there are only a certain number of ways you can do things. Even Kodak fought (and lost) a legal battle with a company that held the patents of another early celluloid roll film inventor, though they may well have come up with essentially the same ideas independently. And it's hard to imagine a sensible way of managing rolls of film that doesn't use spools. The design of the reloadable Leitz cassettes was quite innovative, and the Leitz-Agfa cassettes that followed have all the essential features of modern 35mm cassettes, including the shape and the velvet light trap and the availability of a disposable version, two years before the Kodak Retina. Who was copying who at this point? The 24x36mm format is an obvious doubling of the standard motion picture frame and had been used in other early 35mm cameras contemporary with the Ur-Leica, coincidentally or not.

[Roland Zwiers]

I don't think we can assume that every feature of the Leica that resembles one found in some other camera was necessarily copied from it, though no doubt many ideas were borrowed.

I agree, but my observation starts the other way round.

Leica literature more or less assumes that by 1912 the rest of the world was still working with heavy plate cameras.
Then came Oskar Barnack, who created an Ur-Leica just like that.  
This 'Liliput' project was his own private project.
His motivation was to create something more handy than his heavy plate camera of 1905.
And so on.

My observation is that Oskar Barnack did not create the Ur-Leica in a vacuum.
The first miniature revolution started in the 1890s.
In 1912 in a review of the VP Kodak, one photo magazine speaks of the umpteenth Liliput camera on the market.

So Oskar Barnack was not creative as an Einzelgänger who created an advanced miniature camera out of nothing.
He found himself in the middle of a miniature revolution and made a new combination of already existing ideas.

Roland

[pgk]

On 8/2/2023 at 8:32 PM, Roland Zwiers said:

Barnack developed something very important here and that was focus via a helicoid on a camera, something that had not really existed since the very early days as a bellows had become almost universal. This was one of his biggest breakthroughs.

William,

The idea of focussing via a helocoid on a hand camera was already embodied in the revolutionary Anschütz focal plane camera of the late 1880s.
In 1913-1914 the challenge for Oskar Barnack was to realise the same idea in a miniature camera with a miniature lens. 
And of course, to use perforated 35mm film instead of glass based dry plates.

The ad below is from 1906. 

Roland

Thomas Grubb described a helicoid focus system for 3" x 3" format stereo lenses to be used on what were then 'miniature' cameras in 1858; in the Journal of the Photographic Society (later the RPS) Vol 4 p130 dated 21-07-1858. He intended this to enable focus to be achieved with one lens and this setting then accurately transferred to a second lens via an engraved scale on it. Producing such helicoids was almost certainly expensive and would have required considerable engineering design and machining skill which, for the relatively low number of lenses sold, was probably not economic. Few such lenses have survived as few were made and most of the surviving stereo lenses by Thomas Grubb do not use a focusing helicoid, suggesting that they were too expensive to market successfully.

I would suggest that if Barnack used helicoid focussing it was for the same reason as Grubb; it gave precise and repeatable focus on short focal length lenses which covered relatively small formats. Barnack had most likely appreciated that this system had the advantages he sought for a truly miniature camera and he applied it appropriately.

As Grubb openly described his idea in the photographic press, effectively putting it into the public domain, it would have been known to anyone interested and as no patent was taken out, could be freely used. I do not know whether other helicoid focusing lenses were produced by other manufacturers after Grubb but it would not surprise me, especially for stereo or other technical purposes where cost was not of absolute importance. Such equipment undoubtedly would have been costly, would not have been mainstream and so, of the few examples which might have been made, fewer are likely to have survived. That precise engineering is costly is surely bourne out by the price of early Leicas.

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:

I don't think we can assume that every feature of the Leica that resembles one found in some other camera was necessarily copied from it, though no doubt many ideas were borrowed. Once you set out to make a small camera that uses a long strip of film, there are only a certain number of ways you can do things. Even Kodak fought (and lost) a legal battle with a company that held the patents of another early celluloid roll film inventor, though they may well have come up with essentially the same ideas independently. And it's hard to imagine a sensible way of managing rolls of film that doesn't use spools. The design of the reloadable Leitz cassettes was quite innovative, and the Leitz-Agfa cassettes that followed have all the essential features of modern 35mm cassettes, including the shape and the velvet light trap and the availability of a disposable version, two years before the Kodak Retina. Who was copying who at this point? The 24x36mm format is an obvious doubling of the standard motion picture frame and had been used in other early 35mm cameras contemporary with the Ur-Leica, coincidentally or not.

And the box shape of cameras went back to the time Daguerre and Fox Talbot. Bellows were almost ubiquitous from 1860 to 1940, but Leitz and others broke away in the 1920s and others followed. Spools were an obvious way of gathering material in long strips and were used long before the VPK. I am currently cataloguing a camera collection that goes back to 1854 and all of the above are obvious as I work my way through it. I recently catalogued a long box shaped Kodak from 1890/91 which used spools for roll film. 

I regard the similarities in negative dimensions for the VPK and the Leica as being coincidental. Barnack was attempting to adapt to a medium which already existed, 35mm cine film. 

To use the term ‘copied’ in respect of Barnack is a huge overstatement. What he used were commonplace in the industry at the time eg. spools and the tubular shape of closed folder cameras. I have taken photos with both the VPK and the I Model A and they are quite different cameras to use. I would like to ask Roland whether he has done the same.

William
 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

23 hours ago, willeica said:

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents. Roland, I am sure you would really enjoy reading this catalogue which is more like a user manual than anything else.

Thornton-Pickard 1898 LQ.pdf 6.49 MB · 4 downloads

 

I have an aluminium camera lens, with diaphragm, from c 1895 which has completely orange coated elements. I have shown this to many experts and most agreed that it was probably for a special application e.g. taking photos of cloud formation for meteorological purposes. The maker was also involved in the 'carte du ciel' project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_du_Ciel, but while this might have proved too slow for star formations, perhaps it might also have been used for taking pictures of the sun. It is a unique item in my collection, interestingly made by the same firm which made my helicoid lens from 1857. 

 

I commented (see photo in article) on the visual similarity between the VPK (when closed) and the Leica in my article here from 2017 , but, in reality, they are quite different cameras, particularly as regards the bellows in the former and the use of a helicoid in the latter - there are others such as the focal plane self cocking/self capping shutter in the Leica. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/08/16/2017-8-15-in-the-pocket-photography-from-world-war-one/

I have seen your material on the Ensignette.

If you have ever handled a 'bare' Mikro Summar you would know that there would have been quite a bit of work in creating a focus mount for it. Barnack achieved many things and he was never satisfied that he had achieved perfection.

William 

Here is the Thornton Pickard catalogue for 1898 which claims that the focal plane shutter was 'Patent' as it also does for all other shutter designs in the publication. Make of this what you wish, but in Britain this would have usually meant that the patent belonged to the advertiser. I have not checked whether Thornton Pickard had British patents.

William,

Because of the importance of the Anschutz focal plane shutter, also as an example for early Leica photography, I checked the British Journal Photographic Almanac of 1898.
The Thornton Pickard focal plane shutter with speeds up to 1/1000 of a sec is already included.
The shutter is very similar to the Anschutz shutter and mounted at the back of the camera.
Ordinary Thornton Pickard shutters were mounted in front of the lens. 

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!

Thornton Pickard indeed makes a patent claim.
But this is not wrong, only slightly misleading.
After all, the shutter is protected by a patent on the British market and when Thornton Pickard paid a lot of money for an exclusive licence, 
then it would like to inform its competitors (and clients) of this exclusive patent protection.

The testimonials in the 1898 BJA show that one client already bought this shutter in 1893.
This is only a few years after Ottomar Anschütz must have obtained his British patent. 

Roland

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, willeica said:

To use the term ‘copied’ in respect of Barnack is a huge overstatement. What he used were commonplace in the industry at the time

Generally speaking I would say that it is the utilisation and coalescence of existing mechanisms that makes a new design work. Get all these right and the design may well be outstanding. But new designs rarely rely on absolutely new ideas, especially when they are (relatively) complex.