100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film Palmos of 1900

William,

Another early milestone (apart from the Anschutz camera of the 1890s) was the Film Palmos of 1900.
Ulf Richter and me had a discussion on this camera recently.
This innovative camera was announced in 1900 already.

• The camera was largely made of aluminium
• It carried a Zeiss-Unar lens, focussing was done by a helicoid, distance settings were engraved 
• It was designed for 6x9cm roll film
• It had a built-in focal plane shutter 
• It had a coupling between filmtransport and the focal plane shutter (this may be the reason that the 1914 Leitz patent application was refused)

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 following picture (courtesy Ulf Richter) shows at a glance how innovative this camera already was.

It also shows that in 1905 there was no technological reason for Oskar Barnack to carry a heavy 13x18cm plate camera up hill.
In 1905 there were already many advanced miniature cameras on the market.

Roland

 

[beoon]

Roland,

Here is a much earlier photograph of Leitz sales representative Karl Koch holding an early camera and replicating the Kodak VP advert.

I have never seen this photograph used in any official Leica literature however.

Regards

Alan

 

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 August 5, 2023 by beoon

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

The use of a hand in order to show the dimensions of a miniature camera is very old.
In the BJA of 1898 are several examples.
It also demonstrates that the first miniature revolution, with pocketable miniature cameras, already took off in the 1890s.

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!

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

Here is another example from 1898.
It shows that this first miniature revolution was not solely a Kodak affair.
And, moreover, that at this stage miniature cameras could still make use of either miniature glass plates or miniature celluloid films.

Interestingly, in 1898 the British still measured in whole, plate, half plate, quarter plate and so on.
[That would continue until well in the 20th century.]
The whole plate size probably corresponds to the silvered copper plates used by Daguerre in the 1830s!
So this new miniature plate size was advertised as a quarter 1/4 plate! 

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 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I am happy that you now also agree that Oskar Barnack did not create the Ur-Leica in a vacuum.

I never said anything about creating in a vacuum. You should remember my article from 2017 which showed the comparative size and shape of the VPK and the Leica when the former was folded. I also did the same comparison of size and shape with an iPhone, also comparing the autographic feature of the VPK with our ability to put titles on images in the digital world of today.  If he was to be any good at his job, Barnack had to be aware of what else was on the market. He was trying to create a 'miniature' camera and there were several examples already on the market of which the VPK was probably the best known. However what Barnack created was quite different to what was already on the market. The tubular shape when folded had already become a feature that rivalled the box shape. It is an obvious shape for an item that has a strip of material going from one spool to another. However, the Leica had many features not already found in other cameras on the market and I can easily say as a user of both (folder with bellows and leaf shutter and Leica with helicoid and focal plane shutter) the user experience of both is quite different. The Leica I Model A also had a means of winding and shutter cocking which the VPK and other early miniature cameras did not have, thus eliminating the possibility of double exposure. When I used a Compur B recently I had to discipline myself to winding immediately after each exposure, something that is not necessary on a Model A. 

Your table is useful, but we have to be careful about avoiding post hoc rationalisation in looking back over 100 years. What is needed is some contemporary evidence of what Barnack was thinking and doing which might address the issues which you have raised. Hopefully, we might find that in Wetzlar, but I suspect that most of what is to be known is already in the public domain.

William 

[willeica]

27 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Alan,

Here is another example from 1898.
It shows that this first miniature revolution was not solely a Kodak affair.
And, moreover, that at this stage miniature cameras could still make use of either miniature glass plates or miniature celluloid films.

Interestingly, in 1898 the British still measured in whole, plate, half plate, quarter plate and so on.
[That would continue until well in the 20th century.]
The whole plate size probably corresponds to the silvered copper plates used by Daguerre in the 1830s!
So this new miniature plate size was advertised as a quarter 1/4 plate! 

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!

If you want to see 'true miniaturisation' just have a look at the all metal 1891/92 Kemper Kombi. I have an example of one these, but the film is long since extinct.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/The_Kombi

As for your other points about British naming practices, I am giving a talk in a preserved 19th Century Darkroom on 15th August and I will later give a more technical version of the talk in October for one of David Gardner's PCCGB research Zooms. I hope that you will be able to join in, Roland, as it should be great fun. The owner of the darkroom , who operated there from the 1880s to the 1920s, was Anglo-Irish and in his photographer's notebooks, which we have, he noted which plate size he used, mostly as full or half. We also have a cupboard where the boxes of glass dry plates still survive. Some of those have their sizes in inches rather than as plate sizes. The boxes also have other indications such as H&D (Hurter and Driffield) speed ratings. The photographer liked to experiment with his existing equipment rather than acquire the latest and greatest e.g. we think he may have been using 'solar camera' to make prints on an easel. 

The advertisement for my talk is here. You don't have to travel to this as I will be doing it again for PCCGB.

https://strokestownpark.ie/event/william-fagan-talk-and-tour/

William 

 

 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, willeica said:

Thanks Paul for adding a few more to the list, particularly the Shew Eclipse which (drum roll) had a Goerz lens!  However, the use of the helicoid by Barnack was innovative, particularly in such a small camera. He wasn't choosing any well trodden path. 

Certainly innovative as his use was different to previous uses in that previously helicoids were mostly used in addition to a bellows for correctly positioning a lens relative to the film (Grubb excepted as his would probably have allowed accurate helicoil focus on a sliding box camera!). Barnack had come up with the idea of using just the helicoil, although as an aside, the idea of a collapsible lens perhaps harks back to a 'normal folding/collapsing feature of the larger cameras of his time (and one which still persists to this day in the 90/4M). Using only the helicoil gave him a great advantage in terms of sturdiness and longevity and also, idc, allowed for the rangefinder coupling - I wonder just at which point in terms of time and design that he realised a rangefinder coupling might be a future possibility if helicoil focus was utilised?

[willeica]

17 minutes ago, pgk said:

, allowed for the rangefinder coupling - I wonder just at which point in terms of time and design that he realised a rangefinder coupling might be a future possibility if helicoil focus was utilised?

I'm not sure what he had in mind, but this is how Kodak did it in 1916. Roland may know the author. 

https://vintage-photo.nl/no-3a-autographic-kodak-special-review/

360 view

 

Leitz also supplied separate rangefinders to medium/large format market. I also have two N marked Leitz FOFERS specially made for the Nagel Pupille (127 format), one in feet and one in meters. 

William

 

[Roland Zwiers]

I never said anything about creating in a vacuum.(...)
However, the Leica had many features not already found in other cameras on the market (...)

William,

In combination we are making progress 🙂
I do not remember that you said or wrote or presented something about the first miniature revolution (that started in the 1890s)
in relation to the considerations that Oskar Barnack may have had in 1912 to embark on his Liliput project.
I am not aware of Leica literature on this subject either.
 

What made the Ur-Leica unique was a new combination of features that were already around in 1912.
It is besides the point that this new combination of features was not on the market in 1912-1914.
Just because the combination was new!

Unfortunately the intended market introduction in 1915 failed because of the First World War.
And as you say, after 1914 it required a lot of further improvement before the Leica I was ready  for market introduction.

Roland

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Your table is useful, but we have to be careful about avoiding post hoc rationalisation in looking back over 100 years. 

William, 

It is the other way round.
The table is presented from the point of view of 1912.
For this I have studied photo literature from this period.
Both in Dutch, German and English.

For this project I have visited libraries in Holland, Belgium and Germany.
And on-line libraries in Austria, Australia and the USA.
In addition I am still collecting photo magazines from this period.

Unfortunately, a lot of Leica literature is indeed based on post hoc rationalisations.
Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of 'common knowledge' in post-war literature that is never questioned.
In the course of this thread we have already seen many examples of this.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

[Pyrogallol]

2 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Alan,

Here is another example from 1898.
It shows that this first miniature revolution was not solely a Kodak affair.
And, moreover, that at this stage miniature cameras could still make use of either miniature glass plates or miniature celluloid films.

Interestingly, in 1898 the British still measured in whole, plate, half plate, quarter plate and so on.
[That would continue until well in the 20th century.]
The whole plate size probably corresponds to the silvered copper plates used by Daguerre in the 1830s!
So this new miniature plate size was advertised as a quarter 1/4 plate! 

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!

Film is still available in many traditional imperial sizes ( click on options)

https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/product/ilford-fp4-125-ulf-special/

[Roland Zwiers]

Indeed, Ilford also still produces 127-film on request!
So we can still take pictures with classics such as the VP Kodak, the VP Exakta and the baby Rollei!
Not to mention the many 3x4 cameras that also depend on this format.

Roland

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, beoon said:

Here is a much earlier photograph of Leitz sales representative Karl Koch holding an early camera and replicating the Kodak VP advert.

I have never seen this photograph used in any official Leica literature however.

Günther von Zydowitz, former Head of Press and Public Relations at Leica, has used this photograph in an interesting article about the Leipzig Messe.

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Indeed, Ilford also still produces 127-film on request!
So we can still take pictures with classics such as the VP Kodak, the VP Exakta and the baby Rollei!
Not to mention the many 3x4 cameras that also depend on this format.

I used hand rolled 127 from Japan in the VPK ( pictures are in my article) and I also have some rolls of similarly hand rolled 828. Somebody gave me a roll of 116 Verichrome last week with a 'best before' date in 1952!

 On Thursday I gave away some out of date 3x4 and 4x5 film sheets in boxes to a friend who has a darkroom and a photography school. I also gave her a deluxe changing bag.  Those items came to me with a camera from the 1880s which had a much later Goerz Anastigmat lens with a leaf shutter and a rare Ross Combined lens with an Acme shutter. David Gardner is very jealous of the second (Ross) item because it is rare and British, although I am glad to report that David, who is normally a British camera only collector, recently bought his first Leica, a Leica I Model A. I'm not sure which of us (Roland or myself) can claim credit for his 'conversion'. 

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

The table is presented from the point of view of 1912.
For this I have studied photo literature from this period.
Both in Dutch, German and English.

For this project I have visited libraries in Holland, Belgium and Germany.
And on-line libraries in Austria, Australia and the USA.
In addition I am still collecting photo magazines from this period.

 

That is good to hear. However, we must still be careful about the conclusions which we draw from such information. For the talk I am giving on 15th August, I am stress testing everything. We have the plates and prints from the 1890s and the photographer's notes and even the enlarging easel that was used back then, but I am asking the local archivist to measure everything , so that we can be sure that these are the same images for the purpose of determining how they were made up to 130 years ago. Ultimately, we may have to second guess or give a 'best estimate' on the basis of probabilities. It is the same with the material in the Leica Archive. What is always good is if you can find two contemporary  records which cross confirm each other. For example, while film for Leicas was originally on 35mm celluloid only, daylight loading paper-backed 35mm film for the Leica became available in the 1930s and Leica manuals of that time gave instructions how to use this,. One must look at the continuum of development of the Leica that continued up to the time of Barnack's death. One interesting point that Paul makes is that Barnack may have foreseen some of the developments which came later. It is often very difficult to confirm this, but Wilhelm Albert's book is full of prototype cameras that were made many years before they came on the market and some never made it out of the factory.  It is the same with the negative size issue.

William 

[Anbaric]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Unfortunately, a lot of Leica literature is indeed based on post hoc rationalisations.
Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of 'common knowledge' in post-war literature that is never questioned.
In the course of this thread we have already seen many examples of this.

Equally, I don't think we should be too hasty to add new factoids without direct evidence. Saying that, for example, one advert is copying another is a strong claim. It may be true. Or it may be that there are only so many ways to get across the idea that you a selling a small camera that fits in your hand.

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!

[LocalHero1953]

57 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

Equally, I don't think we should be too hasty to add new factoids without direct evidence. Saying that, for example, one advert is copying another is a strong claim. It may be true. Or it may be that there are only so many ways to get across the idea that you a selling a small camera that fits in your hand.

Some of these comparisons, verbal or visual, just become part of the professional woodwork - like measurements of volume as 'Olympic sized swimming pools', or 'London buses'. It's not copying, it's just part of the collective inheritance. By contrast, when the (digital) SL was launched, some of the review literature used a photo of the SL and 24-90 zoom lens held in a (small) hand in a way that implied it was massive (well, more massive than it is) - there was discussion in the LUF about it.

Edited August 5, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

7 hours ago, willeica said:

I'm not sure what he had in mind, but this is how Kodak did it in 1916.

Interesting but ..... a quick look at the specification suggests that this was probably not a very accurate rangefinder due to the 135mm lens and apparently relatively small separation of the rangefinder. Idea was good, but again it looks as though it probably mixes a helicoid (required for the rangefinder?) and bellows. So evolving but not yet there. Barnack's eventual solution is far better and as accurate as required within its design confines. As it still is on the M.

[Roland Zwiers]

14 hours ago, willeica said:

I used hand rolled 127 from Japan in the VPK ( pictures are in my article) and I also have some rolls of similarly hand rolled 828. Somebody gave me a roll of 116 Verichrome last week with a 'best before' date in 1952!

 On Thursday I gave away some out of date 3x4 and 4x5 film sheets in boxes to a friend who has a darkroom and a photography school. I also gave her a deluxe changing bag.  Those items came to me with a camera from the 1880s which had a much later Goerz Anastigmat lens with a leaf shutter and a rare Ross Combined lens with an Acme shutter. David Gardner is very jealous of the second (Ross) item because it is rare and British, although I am glad to report that David, who is normally a British camera only collector, recently bought his first Leica, a Leica I Model A. I'm not sure which of us (Roland or myself) can claim credit for his 'conversion'. 

That is good to hear. However, we must still be careful about the conclusions which we draw from such information. For the talk I am giving on 15th August, I am stress testing everything. We have the plates and prints from the 1890s and the photographer's notes and even the enlarging easel that was used back then, but I am asking the local archivist to measure everything , so that we can be sure that these are the same images for the purpose of determining how they were made up to 130 years ago. Ultimately, we may have to second guess or give a 'best estimate' on the basis of probabilities. It is the same with the material in the Leica Archive. What is always good is if you can find two contemporary  records which cross confirm each other. For example, while film for Leicas was originally on 35mm celluloid only, daylight loading paper-backed 35mm film for the Leica became available in the 1930s and Leica manuals of that time gave instructions how to use this,. One must look at the continuum of development of the Leica that continued up to the time of Barnack's death. One interesting point that Paul makes is that Barnack may have foreseen some of the developments which came later. It is often very difficult to confirm this, but Wilhelm Albert's book is full of prototype cameras that were made many years before they came on the market and some never made it out of the factory.  It is the same with the negative size issue.

William 

 

18 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Your table is useful, but we have to be careful about avoiding post hoc rationalisation in looking back over 100 years. 

William, 

It is the other way round.
The table is presented from the point of view of 1912.
For this I have studied photo literature from this period.
Both in Dutch, German and English.

For this project I have visited libraries in Holland, Belgium and Germany.
And on-line libraries in Austria, Australia and the USA.
In addition I am still collecting photo magazines from this period.

Unfortunately, a lot of Leica literature is indeed based on post hoc rationalisations.
Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of 'common knowledge' in post-war literature that is never questioned.
In the course of this thread we have already seen many examples of this.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your table is useful, but we have to be careful about avoiding post hoc rationalisation in looking back over 100 years. 

Wlliam,

I am a bit surprised by your replies.
As far as I know in Leica literature no attempt has been made to compare the technological ecosystem of 1912 (the available cameras, the features of these cameras, the available plates and films) with the reasons that Oskar Barnack may have had to embark on his Liliput project.

Maybe I am wrong and so I asked you directly: have I overlooked something in post-war Leica literature?
You do not give me a straight answer.
But after a long disussion you fortunately agree that the Leica was not created in a vacuum.

When I present a table that presents the technological trade-offs in 1912, based on contemporary literature, you do not discuss it al all.
But this is the discussion that we must have!
This discussion has been absent in Leica literature so far.
It is no problem to disagree; this may focus our questions when we visit the Leitz archive in October.

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!

[nitroplait]

In what way could the Ur-Leica be used as an "exposure meter" for a movie camera? 

Are we talking test exposure on a smaller filmstrip?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, nitroplait said:

Are we talking test exposure on a smaller filmstrip?

Yes - probably for a specific batch of film.