M Cameras

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, pippy said:

A queer fish, to be sure, and not terribly attractive (😸) but showing signs of some of the thought processes going on at the factory in the route towards the creation of the M.

Exactly, and what a challenge for a draughtsman to integrate the framelines. There are numerous pictures in "Prototype Leica"  but have Copyright so I will not try and share. According to Netopil the M3 was initially referred to as the 'IV' within Leitz. 

[luigi bertolotti]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

 

 

 

A queer fish, to be sure, and not terribly attractive (😸) but showing signs of some of the thought processes going on at the factory in the route towards the creation of the M.

Philip.

A lab camera - function THEN form 😉 ,, quite interesting indeed... the quick lever wasn't yet on the design table...

[NZDavid]

According to the story in Popular Photography, above, Barnack's approach was decisive in determining the size and shape of all models of the Leica camera he worked on.

"There are two basically different approaches to technical instrument design. One starts by deciding all of the necessary functions, and then determines the size and shape required. The other begins by fixing a set of maximum dimensions, and then decides how many desirable functions can be contained. And this was Barnack's way.

"The rangefinder was valuable, but the camera's comfortable shape was vital. Nothing must destroy that indefinable 'feel' that was the classic Leica's most famous, and most universally admired feature. Calling his team of engineers together, Barnack laid a metal rule across the flat top of the winding and winding knobs at either end of the Leica I, and told his team: 'Gentlemen, if we are going to have a built-in rangefinder, it must fit within the space.' "

I think there's still a lot to be said for that approach to industrial design.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, NZDavid said:

..."The rangefinder was valuable, but the camera's comfortable shape was vital. Nothing must destroy that indefinable 'feel' that was the classic Leica's most famous, and most universally admired feature"...

Thanks for posting this quote, David, because it raises one aspect of where two of the primary pre-WWII giants of German camera manufacture - Leitz / Leica and Zeiss / Contax - had adopted different approaches in terms of design.

In many ways the Contax II of 1936 was a superior camera to the Leica IIIa of the same era but in the hand many photographers found it to be more awkward in use. For one thing it was essential, when shooting with the camera, to adopt "The Contax Grip" because, otherwise, the middle finger of the right hand would otherwise obscure the view / patch from the secondary rangefinder window. The Contax is also larger, heavier and has a less comfortable body-shape; it being, in effect, an elongated octagon as opposed to the flattened-ellipse of the Leica.

I have a (really rather wonderful!) '36 Contax II / 5cm Sonnar and I do love the pairing very much but to choose the Contax over a 'Barnack' does require an act of considerable deliberation...

Philip.

[pippy]

Not wishing to go off-topic too much but, just for fun, here is a snap of the 1936 Contax II alongside a trio of her post-WWII Kiev-born cousins which date to 1955 and 1956. The awkward (in use) positioning of the smaller rangefinder window at the far end of the top-plate can clearly be seen;

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!

When, after the 1939-1945 hostilities were over, Nikon decided to release their own versions of the Contax II starting in 1948 (the Nikon I, S and M) it was notable that they chose to relocate this r/f window to a position nearer the centre-line of the body;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_I,_M_and_S

Philip.

Edited October 3, 2024 by pippy

[Pyrogallol]

19 hours ago, pippy said:

 

I'm sure William will add more regarding the Leica IV when he has the opportunity but in the meantime here are two further pictures showing the camera. These plates are taken from Rogliatti's well-known book but, from what picture-credits there are mentioned in the volume, I believe the originals were provided  by Ernst Leitz GMBH.

It would be interesting to know whether the viewfinder design was such that removeable(?) viewers were intended to be used for lenses of different focal-lengths. Also noteworthy is the positioning of the rewind knob! I'd also like to know more about the shutter-release button...

Incidentally the 5cm f1.5 Xenon dates to 1935.

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

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

A queer fish, to be sure, and not terribly attractive (😸) but showing signs of some of the thought processes going on at the factory in the route towards the creation of the M.

Philip.

Looks more like a later Zorki to me.

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for posting this quote, David, because it raises one aspect of where two of the primary pre-WWII giants of German camera manufacture - Leitz / Leica and Zeiss / Contax - had adopted different approaches in terms of design.

In many ways the Contax II of 1936 was a superior camera to the Leica IIIa of the same era but in the hand many photographers found it to be more awkward in use. For one thing it was essential, when shooting with the camera, to adopt "The Contax Grip" because, otherwise, the middle finger of the right hand would otherwise obscure the view / patch from the secondary rangefinder window. The Contax is also larger, heavier and has a less comfortable body-shape; it being, in effect, an elongated octagon as opposed to the flattened-ellipse of the Leica.

I have a (really rather wonderful!) '36 Contax II / 5cm Sonnar and I do love the pairing very much but to choose the Contax over a 'Barnack' does require an act of considerable deliberation...

Philip.

To me, if you carry any extra lenses for a Contax/Kiev/Nikon S then the design fault is that you have to carry at least two different rear lens caps in your bag. One design for the 50mm lenses and up to three for long and short focal length lenses which have shallow, medium and deep rear caps. With Leica lenses there are only screw or bayonet back caps and rarely deep ones for very short focal length lenses.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Looks more like a later Zorki to me.

Now would seem to be a good time to have a game of "Spot the Leica!"......😸......

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!

Philip.

Edited October 3, 2024 by pippy

[pedaes]

21 minutes ago, pippy said:

"Spot the Leica!"..

Perhaps 'they' were expecting the Prototype IV to be the next Leica.

[willeica]

I came back from a holiday in the Pyrenees where we were involved in a bus accident and then when I got back home I seem to have contracted Covid, an unfortunate double whammy. Anyway attached are some bits and pieces on the Type IV.

The flip door and the rewind job with a lever came along in 1934 and this prototype will be sold at the Wetzlar Camera Auction next Saturday. You can get more information from the Wetzlar Camera Auctions website. The important point is that this was being considered  during Barnack's lifetime , even if these features did not appear for many years after his death.

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 Mark IV Did not appear until 1936 according to this entry in Wilhelm Albert's diary from April 1936,  3 months after Barnack's death, so he may have been involved in the development of this model. 

 

The Mark IV had an LTM mount, but had a combined rangefinder and viewfinder which was detachable and had frame lines for different focal lengths. 

There is some information in the middle of this article

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/search?q=Leica+Prototypes

 

 

The Mark IV was not a prototype for the M series, it just was an early proof of concept for some of the features which appeared many years later, just as the 1934 prototype had been for other features. Here are some actual prototypes for the M3. A camera similar to the one on the right is up for auction at Wetzlar Camera Auctions next Saturday.

Trying to look into the minds of Barnack and his team from 90 years ago is a difficult task. The only thing I am certain of is the they were inveterate testers and that continued to be the case after Barnack's death.

 

William 

Edited October 6, 2024 by willeica

[wlaidlaw]

The "Contax grip" has another function on the Contax, which is to operate the coupled focus roller, with either the index or middle finger. Unfortunately although a good idea, its implementation is poor, with the roller being somewhat stiff and with very sharp edged knurling on it. If I use it for more than about 10 minutes, I will have blister on the end of my finger. 

Wilson

[NZDavid]

On 10/6/2024 at 11:20 PM, willeica said:

I came back from a holiday in the Pyrenees where we were involved in a bus accident and then when I got back home I seem to have contracted Covid, an unfortunate double whammy. Anyway attached are some bits and pieces on the Type IV...

Sorry to hear that, Will. Hope you feel better soon!

Many thanks for that fascinating detail. Indeed, the "inveterate testers" of Barnack's era were true pioneers. Today's lot seem pretty conservative, by comparison. Although, it could be argued that once the M came along, they had a mature product, so why tamper with perfection?

[willeica]

1 hour ago, NZDavid said:

Sorry to hear that, Will. Hope you feel better soon!

Many thanks for that fascinating detail. Indeed, the "inveterate testers" of Barnack's era were true pioneers. Today's lot seem pretty conservative, by comparison. Although, it could be argued that once the M came along, they had a mature product, so why tamper with perfection?

There is an argument that the M3 was the best one of all and that it has been all downhill since then 😇. Up to the beginning of the electronic era if the company had an issue, they engineered their way out of it, now it is completely different with electronic parts being changed to achieve progress.

I still have the after effects of Covid which means that I have had to cancel out of my 7th trip to Wetzlar, which was due to start tomorrow. I have seen everything there on previous trips, but I was hoping to get in some networking with Leica enthusiasts from  different countries. I hope to do that at an event in Vienna next May.

William 

[NZDavid]

6 minutes ago, willeica said:

There is an argument that the M3 was the best one of all and that it has been all downhill since then 😇. Up to the beginning of the electronic era if the company had an issue, they engineered their way out of it, now it is completely different with electronic parts being changed to achieve progress.

I still have the after effects of Covid which means that I have had to cancel out of my 7th trip to Wetzlar, which was due to start tomorrow. I have seen everything there on previous trips, but I was hoping to get in some networking with Leica enthusiasts from  different countries. I hope to do that at an event in Vienna next May.

William 

To me, the fact that the latest M series, as well as the Q, look very much like the original M3 speaks volumes for the virtues of the classic design and engineering concept: usability, concentration on the essentials, highest technical quality.

You are so lucky in Europe being able to meet up with fellow Leica enthusiasts. I have only met a couple here on this side of the world!

[IkarusJohn]

Fascinating discussion, thank you all for the contributions!

[wlaidlaw]

William, I sincerely hope your Covid after effects resolve faster than mine, where three and a half years later, I still have them. 

Wilson

[willeica]

2 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

William, I sincerely hope your Covid after effects resolve faster than mine, where three and a half years later, I still have them. 

Wilson

My current issues are in the 'Tiffin Department', Wilson, but, hopefully, this will improve over the next few days.

11 hours ago, NZDavid said:

To me, the fact that the latest M series, as well as the Q, look very much like the original M3 speaks volumes for the virtues of the classic design and engineering concept: usability, concentration on the essentials, highest technical quality.

 

Yes, there is an obvious lineage going back even to the I Model A from 1925. The fact that Leica has maintained the M line is an obvious part of that heritage being maintained. There is, however, a tendency with most electronic items for things to be come more 'plastic blobby' over time. Leica still puts an important emphasis on optics in a world where most things can be corrected (I won't say 'created') using electronics. I agree with your comments, but I suspect that a lot of today's customers don't think that way, alas.

William 

[willeica]

30 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I for one do not think Leica Q has *anything* to do with the old Bauhaus design.

William 

[wlaidlaw]

I was just checking the RF focus of my new old stock Zeiss 21/2.8 ZM Biogon lens, which arrived from Japan today, with both my M10-R and M7, On the M10-R I was comparing focus peaking, RF focus and optical focus accuracy, zooming in on fine detail. On the M7, I was comparing the RF coincident distance with scale and seeing what the view was like using a 21mm Voigtlander VF (not the greatest VF I have got by a fair margin - better than my KMZ ones but not a patch on my Leica VF's). Using the M7, with its MP upgraded viewfinder, it was noticeable how much better and brighter the upgraded M7 VF was than my M10-R. I have a tiny suspicion that there may have been some cost paring on the M10-R. The optical focus, scale focus, focus peaking and RF focus of the 21 Biogon all seem perfectly coincident. 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

6 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I was just checking the RF focus of my new old stock Zeiss 21/2.8 ZM Biogon lens, which arrived from Japan today, with both my M10-R and M7, On the M10-R I was comparing focus peaking, RF focus and optical focus accuracy, zooming in on fine detail. On the M7, I was comparing the RF coincident distance with scale and seeing what the view was like using a 21mm Voigtlander VF (not the greatest VF I have got by a fair margin - better than my KMZ ones but not a patch on my Leica VF's). Using the M7, with its MP upgraded viewfinder, it was noticeable how much better and brighter the upgraded M7 VF was than my M10-R. I have a tiny suspicion that there may have been some cost paring on the M10-R. The optical focus, scale focus, focus peaking and RF focus of the 21 Biogon all seem perfectly coincident. 

Wilson

Yes, and I also found the M3 viewfinder very bright and clear and easy to focus with its higher magnification.