100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So with early Oskar Barnack pictures it is important to know how he arrived at colour-correct (in German; Tonrichtig) results n black-and white.
[The theoretical part of this subject is explained in my article 'The colour of balck-and-white', which is situated in 1914.]

The original route (1914-1915) must have been to self-sentitize his colourblind black-and-white films.
This may well be the case with the zeppelin pictures of 1914.
[the date is confirmed by notes in his Werkstattbuch]

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]

For the second route he may well have used Agfa fliegerfilm from the period 1915-1918.
Candidates are the pictures of 1917 that were taken in the Black Forest.
These pictures combine a fine grain with surprisingly good tonal quality.
The example below is included in Theo Kisselbach (1955) Das Leica-Buch.

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!

This is how far I can come this evening.
The subject certainly deserves further research!

Roland

 

 

[derleicaman]

6 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

The second clue as to early negatives has to do with grain and orthochomatism

This is a big subject and I cannot possible finish this in one hour or so.
One can see that Ernst Leitz II used a colour blind cine negative film during his June 1914 visit to the USA.
One advantage of colour blind film was that it had very good keeping properties.
This was relevant for a long trip abroad.
Oskar Barnack may well have cut the films to size in Germany.

Note the light stains on the waterfall picture.
I assume that this was caused by internal reflections in the Summar lens.
This lens had six separate lens elements separated by air.
This construction was prone to flare, especially in the absence of a sunshade.

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!

 

 

 

Ernst Leitz II made several stops as he traveled from the East coast to the West coast of the US. One of those stops was in Chicago, which had a branch office of the Leitz company. Chicago was also a major rail hub for cross-country travel in the US.

The photo in the second row on the left is the Art Institute on Michigan Ave. here in Chicago. If you look closely, you can see the two lion statues in front. He was also here in Chicago for the dedication of the Goethe monument in Lincoln Park on the lake front. Chicago had a large German community, and my family came direct to Chicago from Germany in 1929.

Here is a photo of it.

Edited June 2 by derleicaman

[derleicaman]

18 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

Ernst Leitz II made several stops as he traveled from the East coast to the West coast of the US. One of those stops was in Chicago, which had a branch office of the Leitz company. Chicago was also a major rail hub for cross-country travel in the US.

The photo in the second row on the left is the Art Institute on Michigan Ave. here in Chicago. If you look closely, you can see the two lion statues in front. He was also here in Chicago for the dedication of the Goethe monument in Lincoln Park on the lake front. Chicago had a large German community, and my family came direct to Chicago from Germany in 1929.

Here is a photo of it.

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!

Here is a better picture of the lions at the front of the Chicago Art Institute looking North. The lake is two blocks East.

 

 

7 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

The second clue as to early negatives has to do with grain and orthochomatism

This is a big subject and I cannot possible finish this in one hour or so.
One can see that Ernst Leitz II used a colour blind cine negative film during his June 1914 visit to the USA.
One advantage of colour blind film was that it had very good keeping properties.
This was relevant for a long trip abroad.
Oskar Barnack may well have cut the films to size in Germany.

Note the light stains on the waterfall picture.
I assume that this was caused by internal reflections in the Summar lens.
This lens had six separate lens elements separated by air.
This construction was prone to flare, especially in the absence of a sunshade.

 

 

 

Ernst Leitz II made several stops going from the 

Edited June 2 by derleicaman

[Roland Zwiers]

Bill,

Thank you for sharing this information.

During 1914-1918 the Netherlands were neutral.
Yet both my grandfathers were called up for militrary duty so as to safeguard the neutrality of our borders.
In this way my grandfather on the father's side was unable to finish his education for becoming an architect.
After the war the institute had closed down and he had to find a job as a carpenter.

Just before 1914 the USA had liberalised foreign trade to a major extent.
This also meant much lower import duties on German and British cameras and optical equipment.
At the same time there were anti-trust procedures against the market power of Kodak/ Edison.
This market power prevented the entry of foreign producers even more.

So I infer that the June 1914 visit by Ernst Leitz II was more than a holiday trip with his wife.
He must also have been curious about the new market opportunities for Leitz microscopes, the Mechau film projector, the Barnack movie camera and, who knows, the Ur-Leica.
The worknotes of Oskar Barnack (Werkstattbuch) show that Barnack prepared a fabrication model of the Ur-Leica in Ernst Leitz II's absence. 

From Oskar Barnack's work notes one can also infer that several innovations in the 35mm sphere were ready for market introduction in the first half of 1914.
This timing may not be coincidental.
It may well be due to the foresight of Ernst Leitz II, who wanted to have a portfolio of 35mm products on offer for his visit to the USA.

In 1914 the centre of the American film/ cinema industry was slowly moving from New York/ Rochester to Hollywood. 
This was also because of independent film producers escaping the reach of the Kodak/ Edison trust.
So if Ernst Leitz II had more time at his disposal, a visit to Hollywood might well have been on the cards.

Roland

 

 

[qqphot]

Roland, this has been fascinating and educational - thank you for all this!

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

qqphot,

Thank you for your kind words.
It is my aim to share information with an international audience that thus far has been hard to uncover.
Partly, as William points out, because the primary sources in the early period are especially in German.
And, moreover, in hard-to-read handwritten documents!

Below I insert the handwritten notes by Oskar Barnack relating to May and June 1914.
I can read the text, but cannot fully explain the context/ implications.

The German text and the translation in English will be presented on the next slide.

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]

Mai / Aufnahmekino, 2 neue Modelle

         Wiedergabe Kino, neue Greifer

         2Liliputkamera, Patentanm[eldung]

Juni/ 1 Mustermodel Liliputkamera
         für Fabrikation (Verbesserung)
         Kinoaufnahmegestell fertig

 

Translation:

May/  movie recorder, 2 new models [= 35mm movie camera?]
           movie projector, new solution for filmtransport
           2Liliputcamera [single, not plural!], patent application

June/ 1 test-demonstration-sample model Liliputcamera for production (Improvement)
          a stable construction for using a movie camera is ready [possibly so as to combine a 35mm movie camera with a microscope for micro-cinematography]

 

These notes give rise to many questions.
But one can see that Oskar Barnack finalised a production version of the Ur-leica while Ernst Leitz II was in the USA.

Now Leica literature assumes that on his return from the USA Ernst Leitz II remarked: we have to keep this Ur-Leica in mind (in German: im Augen behalten)

In my altyrnative working hypothesis Ernst Leitz II was already convinced of the viability of the Ur-Leica before his departure to the USA.
And so he instructed Oskar Barnack to prepare a production model in his absence.

To be continued.

Roland
          

 

 

[sandro]

This makes much sense in my opinion, Roland! Very interesting, as it would indeed mean an interesting shift in the chronology of the development and the production of the Ur-Leica!

Lex

[willeica]

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:38 AM, Roland Zwiers said:

June/ 1 test-demonstration-sample model Liliputcamera for production (Improvement)
          a stable construction for using a movie camera is ready [possibly so as to combine a 35mm movie camera with a microscope for micro-cinematography]

 

These notes give rise to many questions.
But one can see that Oskar Barnack finalised a production version of the Ur-leica while Ernst Leitz II was in the USA.

 

Just a few bits and pieces here

There are photos of prototype No 3. Laney (page 49) and van Hasbroeck (page 16) give confusing accounts about prototype No 2, including possible conflation with No 105, but there seems to be a possibility that No 2 may have been around as early as 1914. However, unless the camera actually turns up, which is unlikely, anything about it is pure speculation. I can ask the folks at the Archive about No 2, but, I think they are unlikely to have anything concrete. 

My article about the forthcoming auction and No 112 is here https://www.macfilos.com/2025/06/03/46th-leitz-auction-after-100-years-camera-no-112-leads-the-way/#comment-86254

Mark Osterman has sent me a negative produced on a 1928 I Model A with a roll of film with the qualities usually found in 35mm film between 1925 and 1930

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 have inverted it here.

Mark was travelling last week, so I wasn't able to ask him too many questions. I believe that he is liaising with the Leica Archive about his project.

I should be in the Archive in about 3 weeks time and I will ask questions about these matters. I will also be at the auction of No 112, as will Alan (beoon).

William 

 

 

 

[derleicaman]

2 hours ago, willeica said:

 

Just a few bits and pieces here

There are photos of prototype No 3. Laney (page 49) and van Hasbroeck (page 16) give confusing accounts about prototype No 2, including possible conflation with No 105, but there seems to be a possibility that No 2 may have been around as early as 1914. However, unless the camera actually turns up, which is unlikely, anything about it is pure speculation. I can ask the folks at the Archive about No 2, but, I think they are unlikely to have anything concrete. 

My article about the forthcoming auction and No 112 is here https://www.macfilos.com/2025/06/03/46th-leitz-auction-after-100-years-camera-no-112-leads-the-way/#comment-86254

Mark Osterman has sent me a negative produced on a 1928 I Model A with a roll of film with the qualities usually found in 35mm film between 1925 and 1930

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 have inverted it here.

Mark was travelling last week, so I wasn't able to ask him too many questions. I believe that he is liaising with the Leica Archive about his project.

I should be in the Archive in about 3 weeks time and I will ask questions about these matters. I will also be at the auction of No 112, as will Alan (beoon).

William 

 

 

 

If Ur Nr. 2 was for the patent application, would not the DRP (Deutsches Reich Patent) Office have retained it? Or, would they have returned it to Leitz?

[Roland Zwiers]

Bill and Wiliam,

These are very interesting issues!
Part of the anwer may be found in a file that was first discussed in Ulf Richter (2009).
I will present it below.
The letters C-H are my additions.

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]

At C and D one can see that Leitz originally applied for patent protection on 12 June 1914.
This is the very same month as the handwritten note in Oskar Barnack's Werstattbuch that I discussed before.

The handwritten commentary reads:

zugehörige Patent Anmeldung wurde zurückgewiesen wegen DRP 120441 und DRP 161634

in English:

the related patent application was rejected because of the German Empire patents 120441 and DRP 161634

This shows that the patent application was rejected because it violated earlier patent rights.

Consequently, Ernst Leitz II had to settle for a plan B.
This plan B was to forego patent protection and to settle for Gebrauchsmuster protection instead.

This alternative Gebrauchsmuster protection was granted with a long delay.
My research on this subject is not yet finished.
It seems that in the same month as the Leitz Gebrauchsmuster application there was a conflicting/ overlapping application by another German producer.
And so the Emperical German patentoffice had to do a double-check.

Ulf Richter (2009) states that the patent office requested Leitz to send in a copy of the prototype camera.
When I asked Ulf Richter for his underlying source, he could not reproduce it.
Together we agreed that in the contemporary German patent legislation this obligation to hand in a physical prototype was not explicitely stated. 
But it was not explicitely excluded either.

Interestingly in a later year, I remember 1920, I found a remark that for Gebrauchmuster protection one could hand in a physical prototype instead of a technical drawing.
But this is 1920, not 1914.
in the meantime German patent law may have changed.

  

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

At C one can also see that the Gebrauchsmuster protection had been prolonged to 1920, and even to 1923.

Now in the relevant contemporary German weekly I can not see that Ernst Leitz II requested prolongation with three years up to 1920.
The ordinaty duration for Gebrauchsmuster protection was three years.
It could be prolonged, at a fee, for another three years.
The suggestion that in 1917 Ernst Leitz II did not do so is very interesting.
It suggest that in 1917 he saw no reason for spending additional money on this project!

Now in the course of the war there was a discussion in Germany that the value of patent rights was much diminished.
There was no market for these products, the inventors were called up for military duty, the inventors had no staff to execute their projects because many employees were in the army, etc.
So plans were made for prolonging the duration of patents rights so as to compensate for this.

This would lead to the prolongation of the famous 1902 Tessar patent up to 1922 (so 5 additional years).
In the German empire a patent had a duration of 15 years, which could not be ectended.
I discussed this before with UlliWer in relationship to the Leitz Anastigmat patent of 1920.
[This is, again, a very complex subject, that requires further research.]

It is my working hypothesis that the same prolongation of patent rights applied to the Leitz Gebrauchsmuster of 1914, even if Ernst Leitz II did not apply for prolongation in 1917 himself.
In 1920 he could just pay a fee in case he was still interested in continued Gebrauchsmuster protection.
This fee may even have provided him with additional protection until 1923.

The interesting question that you are referring to is:
in 1920, would Ernst Leitz II have handed in a more recent prototype to the Patent Office so as to ensure the additional Gebrauchsmuster protection?
In my manuscript of June 2023 I indeed make this assumption.
And I link it to a pre-Null-Serie prototype that was analysed by Ottmar Michaely.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

8 hours ago, derleicaman said:

If Ur Nr. 2 was for the patent application, would not the DRP (Deutsches Reich Patent) Office have retained it? Or, would they have returned it to Leitz?

I'll leave the stuff about the German Patent Office to Roland who can understand German. I had a reason for giving page numbers above. Laney states that what Ernst Leitz brought to the US in 1914 was a second Ur-Leica prototype, identical to the first one. He then, however, goes on to quote Rogliatti (from where?) and appears to conflate the second prototype with No 105 by mentioning Conrad and the Munich Museum. I have to assume that if the first prototype went into the German Patent Office it was probably returned with the rejection. For the second process mentioned by Roland and the extensions a sample may have been required. Despite 2 World Wars, it is likely that some paper work, at least, survives, but I would leave the hunt for that to the German speakers among us.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Indeed it is important to avoid confusion!

In Leica literature I find two opinions on the existence of a second Ur-Leica. 
One opinion is that there was no second Ur-leica.
This implies that Ernst leitz II borrowed Oskar Barnack's Ur-Leica on his june 1914 visit to the USA.
And brought it home again.

The second opinion is that Oskar Barnack produced a second Ur-Leica for Ernst leitz II. 
This second Ur-leica was used for the June 1914 visit to the USA.
And must at one stage have gone lost.
The production of a second Ur-Leica in early 1914 is confirmed by the worknotes of Oskar Barnack.

Your No 105 Leica is obviously an early Null-Serie Leica.
So a camera that must have been produced in the beginning of 1923.

Now in 1923 the prolonged Gebrauchsmuster protection came to an end.
Ernst Leitz II must have applied for this prolonged protection in 1920.
Obviously, No. 105 was not yet produced in 1920.
So if Ernst Leitz II handed in a prototype to the patent office as part of the prolonged Gebrauchsmuster protection, it must have been a prototype that was produced in 1920 at the latest.
So a pre-Null-Serie-prototype.

I remember that Ed Schwartzreich published an article on such a pre-Null-Serie prototype.
In my working hypothesis, this camera (or its sister model) would qualify.

To be continued!

Roland 

 

 

 

 

[beoon]

8 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

This second Ur-leica was used for the June 1914 visit to the USA.

 

Roland,

In recent email correspondence with Oscar Fricke, he confirmed that the ship passenger records show that Ernst Leitz II travelled to New York aboard the SS Vaterland's sister ship SS Imperator, arriving in New York on 4th June 1914.

Alan

[willeica]

8 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Your No 105 Leica is obviously an early Null-Serie Leica.
So a camera that must have been produced in the beginning of 1923.

If you read Laney's piece you will see why I mentioned No 105. The subsequent 'life' of prototype No 2, as described by Laney, matches that of No 105. I believe that Laney and/or Rogliatti may have confused the two cameras which, as you point out, are different cameras from different eras. 

That is all that I was trying to say.

As for any second Ur-Leica prototype, this is either no longer with us or 'hiding in plain sight'. I don't know of any recent reports of its existence.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Indeed, I did not read Laney's piece.
So I am at a loss as to what he wants to say.
Where to find this information?
Is his working hypothesis that the second Ur-Leica of 1914, metioned in Oskar Barnack's worknotes, somehow was reworked into Null-Serie No 105?

Below I show the worknotes (Werkstattbuch) for April 1914.
One can read: 

Apr. 2 Liliput Kameras fertig Eig.Co. 

So in English: April/ 2 Liliput cameras finished, my own construction

It is logical to assume that the second Liliput camera was presented to Ernst Leitz II.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[beoon]

9 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

Roland,

Here is a Leitz factory technical drawing with hand written notation "12/6: 19"

This might be the initial lens design by Max Berek for a Null Series prototype (Anastigmat lens 4 elements in 3 groups)?

We know that a patent No 343 086 for the original Anastigmat lens was submitted on 9th October 1920 (drawing from patent attached).

I am not an optical expert and the technical drawing looks like it has been drawn at a later date than the hand written date would indicate?

Certainly this technical drawing looks similar to the patent application drawing?

Any later technical drawings I have seen (post 1925) have the factory internal reference number assigned for the Leica camera of 4201 on the drawing.

This technical drawing is courtesy of Dirk Mann.

I welcome input from others regarding this drawing

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 June 4 by beoon