Is this leica III nickel or chrome?

[mingaun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.dewitcameras.com/product/leica-ic-camera-converted-to-leica-2a/?lang=en

When the camera was upgraded, is the black paint on the top plate and the printing original or repainted and reprinted. 

[nitroplait]

35 minutes ago, mingaun said:

https://www.dewitcameras.com/product/leica-ic-camera-converted-to-leica-2a/?lang=en

When the camera was upgraded, is the black paint on the top plate and the printing original or repainted and reprinted. 

The camera didn't have a rangefinder when it was first upgraded, it was a IA - again, see Jerzy's comment. The top was added at a later time. The engravings looks correct for the 50's to me.

[Advertisement]

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

[mingaun]

My bad. Probably did not understand some of the things being said. All this is pretty foreign to me. But now I am slowly piecing it all together. 

The other thing I want to know is what can I expect from this lens. It must have been upgraded. But the only upgrade I can think of is coating the lens. But what am I to expect from the image quality. Were the old elmars from 1a any good? Are they compatible with all screw mount leica bodies. 

[nitroplait]

5 minutes ago, mingaun said:

The other thing I want to know is what can I expect from this lens. It must have been upgraded. But the only upgrade I can think of is coating the lens. But what am I to expect from the image quality. Were the old elmars from 1a any good? Are they compatible with all screw mount leica bodies. 

From the pictures it is not obvious to me that it has been coated.

Without serial number, it is almost given that the optics are from the 1930 camera and has been rehoused into a red dial housing - it does not make it a red dial Elmar.

In the upgrading process the camera and lens was standardised so camera and lens can be used together with the rest of the Barnack Leica system - so yes - compatible.

Regarding performance of the lens. Originally it performed very well for its time. How it performs now depends on how it has been treated in the past 90 years.

It was most likely cleaned at the time of conversion/rehousing, from then to now it is anyones guess what has happened to it. 

If in good condition and uncoated, it will perform well but with a vintage look.

[jerzy]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb mingaun:

When the camera was upgraded, is the black paint on the top plate and the printing original or repainted and reprinted. 

not a single part of this camera was on original IA, was brand new when came back from Leitz after conversion. As to the lens - mechanical details indicate that not only mount but as well optics has been renewed, thus this is red scale Elmar without serial number.  From the user point of view - very good set. Only one thing - curtains from mid 50-ties tend to become dry and cracked, ask the seller abot condition

[mingaun]

4 hours ago, jerzy said:

not a single part of this camera was on original IA, was brand new when came back from Leitz after conversion. As to the lens - mechanical details indicate that not only mount but as well optics has been renewed, thus this is red scale Elmar without serial number.  From the user point of view - very good set. Only one thing - curtains from mid 50-ties tend to become dry and cracked, ask the seller abot condition

Thank you. That means at that time the whole camera became like a new camera. Even the glass of the lens was changed? Lens housing would have changed too because now it is chrome instead of nickel. What about the body of the camera? That should be ia body right? If not then this is no longer a conversion. I asked the seller to weigh the camera without the lens on and it weighs 403g which I like because it is light. What I don't get is why would a buyer go through the whole trouble of this change. Why not just buy one brand new? Is it that much cheaper?

I have asked the seller and she said the curtains are in good condition. 

[mingaun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, nitroplait said:

From the pictures it is not obvious to me that it has been coated.

Without serial number, it is almost given that the optics are from the 1930 camera and has been rehoused into a red dial housing - it does not make it a red dial Elmar.

In the upgrading process the camera and lens was standardised so camera and lens can be used together with the rest of the Barnack Leica system - so yes - compatible.

Regarding performance of the lens. Originally it performed very well for its time. How it performs now depends on how it has been treated in the past 90 years.

It was most likely cleaned at the time of conversion/rehousing, from then to now it is anyones guess what has happened to it. 

If in good condition and uncoated, it will perform well but with a vintage look.

So that means I also can use the lens with an adaptor on my Leica M3?

Thanks for your information.

[jerzy]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb mingaun:

What I don't get is why would a buyer go through the whole trouble of this change

model IIa syn was never in regular production, it was created in the factory to preserve the value of previous investments. You could have buy model IIf as new but is it different camera. Original serial number was preserved after conversions beceause of 2 reasons: IA was not existing anymore (was kept in the factory) and with the same serial number buyer could avoid customs fee which he/she would have to pay when purchasing new IIf. As mentioned befotre - it was completly new camera that buyer received, none of the parts (including glass and body) was ever on original IA.

Replying to your Elmar question - yes, you can use it on M3 but you need adapter with cutout, like on attached photo. Otherwise you will not be able to unlock the lens when in inifinity position. 

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!

[jerzy]

adding to the subject why to convert/upgrade...
this was IA serial 8669. between 1928 and 1932 camera went 4 times back to the factory to implement modifications and do upgrades. I would add one more reason why people did convert - personal, emotional aspect

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 15, 2023 by jerzy

[mingaun]

Thank you so much Jerzy. Now with all this information, I am still no nearer to making a decision. Perhaps all of you can help. I currently own an M3 with a Summilux 50 asph but the setup is too heavy. I am looking for a lighter setup and came across Matt Osborne's youtube videos and I got hooked on buying a Barnack. And two days ago after watching another one of his videos I ordered a Light lens lab Elcan replica 50mm f2 and it is on its way as a write. I bought it on the spur of the moment because I saw that it was discontinued. Now I am having so much dissonance because I am not sure I am going to like the lens after using something like the 50 lux. So back to my decision. I seem to like the converted Barnack because it looks beautiful but I might be paying for another 50mm lens that I probably will not use. Even though everyone is saying that you have to get an Elmar if you buy a Barnack. For me, it is all about small, light, ease of use, pretty and has value. So my question is if you don't have a single Barnack camera, which one will you choose and why? Maybe by hearing your reasons, I might be able to make a wiser decision .... 

Choice A - https://www.ebay.com/itm/305018183017?hash=item4704801d69:g:ol0AAOSw04dkqiFX&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwFMCTjuPNpv141RfL%2FVdnpDGJParrQXryYoiQYi8Mbm9WCOg%2BgMjCnaQuLirnD1h74rI52dLj2dTsx8cPhNZgK%2BHd29KlASFQY1dv%2FJ0likBvF3763vDmnj5SMX%2Bb6yjpuJmEcYiEoUOvm7%2BpfRT%2FZCRJGJ6CJGylbIdacJRSSztbq0j%2FBS41zDG774vEVyNJfibRy8MBV8oI1Otef64Ak47UxX1fjh4LF7oGtSzOuj8JdEts0aKiFLAh%2BUYwT6E6Q%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR6idlp65Yg

 

Choice B- https://www.dewitcameras.com/product/leica-ic-camera-converted-to-leica-2a/?lang=en

Bear in mind choice B the seller told me is in good condition but it is not tested. Whatever that means. 

[jerzy]

I can reply only from technical perspective, I am not a user

Choice A - looks like being in original condition, technology from 1936. CLA-ed, no need to get it serviced before using
Choice B - technologically superior over choice A, new shutter, 1/1000th, most probably not CLA-ed, speeds not tested/adjusted otherwise the seller would mention this. I would calculate cost of CLA on top if I would decide for B

A is in US, B is in Holland - in any of the case, depending where are you located, you need to calculate customs on top of selling and shipping price

[nitroplait]

5 hours ago, mingaun said:

So that means I also can use the lens with an adaptor on my Leica M3?

Thanks for your information.

As you can see, it is always wise to pay attention to what Jerzy has to say  

Please disregard what I said about the original lenses being rehoused in the linked camera - It was the case in my IA to IID conversion (20 years earlier) so I mistakenly thought it was the case for unnumbered lenses.

However, speaking from experience, If there is no recent documented service performed on a Leica, you should reserve funds for a CLA - as you will probably need it sooner rather than later.

 

[TomB_tx]

I wouldn't discourage you from buying a Barnack model - I have & use several - but for light weight and M-mount compatibility you might consider a Leica (film era) CL - the compact Leica made just after the M5. I bought a used one in the later 1970s and used it a lot for bicycle touring where weight and size were an issue. Mine has the wonderful 40mm Summicron-C lens, but the CL viewfinder has framelines for 40, 50, & 90 lenses. It also has a wonderful spot meter like the M5. It does have a shorter rangefinder base, so focusing with very fast lenses is less precise - it was designed for 40-50 f2 and 90 f4 lenses, although the other M lenses fit.

But, as much as I like the CL it doesn't have the solid compact feel of the Barnack Leicas.

[mingaun]

On 8/15/2023 at 8:52 PM, TomB_tx said:

I wouldn't discourage you from buying a Barnack model - I have & use several - but for light weight and M-mount compatibility you might consider a Leica (film era) CL - the compact Leica made just after the M5. I bought a used one in the later 1970s and used it a lot for bicycle touring where weight and size were an issue. Mine has the wonderful 40mm Summicron-C lens, but the CL viewfinder has framelines for 40, 50, & 90 lenses. It also has a wonderful spot meter like the M5. It does have a shorter rangefinder base, so focusing with very fast lenses is less precise - it was designed for 40-50 f2 and 90 f4 lenses, although the other M lenses fit.

But, as much as I like the CL it doesn't have the solid compact feel of the Barnack Leicas.

Yes, I did consider the CL but my GAS brought me to the Barnacks. The barnacks look so nice and vintage.

[Guest]

Buying more film instead of an additional camera (that will need a CLA) with a third 50mm lens is an option, too. 

[Eugene3535]

On 8/14/2023 at 11:06 PM, mingaun said:

I am looking for a lighter setup and came across Matt Osborne's youtube videos and I got hooked on buying a Barnack

Because of Matt I bought a few Barkacks already and keep hunting for another one. My favorites are pre-war III (or IIIa) and black / nickel. I'd choose the first one

[Roland Zwiers]

Nickel or chrome?

The discussion on nickel or chrome may also have a Null-Serie dimension.
Note that in Leica literature one pre-Null-Serie camera is described as  nickel-plated.

• Why nickel, why not chrome?
• Why was nickel replaced by chrome in the course of the 1930s?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

In Oskar Barnack's work notes (page 115 of the socalled Werkstattbuch) it seems that he writes 'vernickelt' (= nickel plated) in two locations.
Page 115 is from 1923 and mentions the test cameras that he gave as a present (central column) and on loan (the column on the right) to selected photographers.
The first example is in the column 2 Leihkameras (2 cameras on loan), where vernickelt is crossed through.

If the handwriting indeed stands for vernickelt, then the crossed through photographers (presumably Freund and Flohr) must have received a nickel-plated loaner camera.

 

The second example is at the bottom of the central column:  - - - - Freund, vernickelt

 

It is interesting to note that the same photographer Freund is associated twice with a nickel-plated Null-Serie camera.
It implies that the other Null-Serie cameras in the central column were not nickel-plated.
Otherwise Oskar Barnack need not have added this adjective explicitly.

If so, why would the loaner cameras (column on the right) have been nickel-plated whereas the cameras that were presented as a gift (central column) were not?

Of course, I am 99%, but not 100% sure that the handwriting stands for vernickelt.
It just seems to be the only interpretation that makes sense.

 

Roland

 

 

 

[willeica]

40 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Nickel or chrome?

The discussion on nickel or chrome may also have a Null-Serie dimension.
Note that in Leica literature one pre-Null-Serie camera is described as  nickel-plated.

• Why nickel, why not chrome?
• Why was nickel replaced by chrome in the course of the 1930s?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

In Oskar Barnack's work notes (page 115 of the socalled Werkstattbuch) it seems that he writes 'vernickelt' (= nickel plated) in two locations.
Page 115 is from 1923 and mentions the test cameras that he gave as a present (central column) and on loan (the column on the right) to selected photographers.
The first example is in the column 2 Leihkameras (2 cameras on loan), where vernickelt is crossed through.

If the handwriting indeed stands for vernickelt, then the crossed through photographers (presumably Freund and Flohr) must have received a nickel-plated loaner camera.

 

The second example is at the bottom of the central column:  - - - - Freund, vernickelt

 

It is interesting to note that the same photographer Freund is associated twice with a nickel-plated Null-Serie camera.
It implies that the other Null-Serie cameras in the central column were not nickel-plated.
Otherwise Oskar Barnack need not have added this adjective explicitly.

If so, why would the loaner cameras (column on the right) have been nickel-plated whereas the cameras that were presented as a gift (central column) were not?

Of course, I am 99%, but not 100% sure that the handwriting stands for vernickelt.
It just seems to be the only interpretation that makes sense.

 

Roland

 

 

 

The picture is very mixed. Some very early Leicas had black painted brass accessories and then some had aluminium knobs - which are prized by some collectors. With Leica, Nickel with Black Lacquer was the most common Leica finish up to the early to mid 1930s, but when chrome was introduced around 1933 it was very popular and, contrary to today's market, early chrome models were more expensive at retail level than the black items. Some say that nickel could have harmful health effects https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7037090/ . From about 1935 onwards nickel was replaced by chrome on black cameras, but, by then, chrome bodies and furniture were the runaway market leaders on Leica cameras. The same applied to other camera makes and nickel plating was phased out in favour of chrome during the 1930s. 

The camera you show above is one which was around the Leica workshop for a long time and, according to what I have read, it was being altered up to the late 1930s, so nickel plating could have been done at any time. Below is a photo of one of my I Model As (this one is from 1928) which has been entirely nickel plated, probably in relatively recent times. It would have originally been black paint with nickel fittings.

We can have a wide ranging discussion about the topic in Wetzlar in the week after next with Jim Lager, Lars Netopil and others present. 

I presume that you are, by now, aware that 0 series No 121 sold at auction today for 2.8 Million Euros plus premium. Looking at the pictures in the catalogue the 'furniture' on it would seem to be black painted, but worn, brass. Lars should be able to confirm that. 

William 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

This is very interesting information.
In the early 1930s Leitz must have become aware of the negative properties of nickel.
And so nickel wasn't used anymore.

Is it possible that by then aluminium had become so much cheaper that it could replace brass/ nickel-plated brass as a new standard?

[The 1909 British Ensignette was originally made of brass.
But in the early 1920s the new version was all aluminium.]

The work notes of Oskar Barnack still contain a lot of under-researched material.
Ulf Richter was so kind as to send me a better scan of page 115.
I can now decipher texts that were irreadable to me only one month ago.
E.g. the likelyhood that 'vernickelt' appears on two locations on page 115.

This makes me curious after the other pages in the Werkstattbuch.
I really look forward to an integral scan in the public domain.
A second best option would be an integral scan that is accessible for the members of LSI.

It puzzles me why one Null-Serie camera is so much more valuable than the other.
And why the nickel-plated pre-Null-Serie camera should be less valuable.
After all, the remaining two pre-Null-Serie cameras are even more scarce than the remaining Null-Serie cameras of 1923.

Roland
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear