The second miniature revolution

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, willeica said:

I was further making the point that any 'working hypothesis' is technically a work of fiction until it is proven.

And as we well know from reseaching Grubb lenses, any 'facts' written down long ago are in themselves often imperfect records and when it comes to secondhand, published information they may even be at minimum somewhat biased in how things are presented. A good example is the contrversy reported in the photographic press about whether Dallmeyer's patent for the 'Rapid Rectilinear' lens was preceded in actual lens production by Thomas Grubb (who had made 'Grubb Patent Doublets' in 1865, whilst the patent was 1866). There were already two sides and whilst they argued, neither is actually well supported by the lenses in question, nor by Dallmeyer's original patented lenses either. The 'Rapid Rectilinear' as it became known was, or became, a symmetrical lens, whereas neither Dallmyer's patent , nor Thomas Grubb's lenses were actually symmetrical! At this distance in time all we really know is that Dallmeyer was to be become regarded as the 'inventor' of such lenses, although Grubb had actually made some lenses which seem to fulfil the patented design, but before the patent was granted. We can conjecture why this situation arose but it is unlikley that we will ever get to the 'facts' bahind what actually went on. Whether any definitive proof of the 'facts' ever existed is one question, and whether if documentary evidence, if it existed, would be regarded as definitive is another question. History is difficult to be certain about and I often think that if we spent as much time considering the future rather than the past it might be a good thing.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

And as we well know from reseaching Grubb lenses, any 'facts' written down long ago are in themselves often imperfect records and when it comes to secondhand, published information they may even be at minimum somewhat biased in how things are presented. A good example is the contrversy reported in the photographic press about whether Dallmeyer's patent for the 'Rapid Rectilinear' lens was preceded in actual lens production by Thomas Grubb (who had made 'Grubb Patent Doublets' in 1865, whilst the patent was 1866). There were already two sides and whilst they argued, neither is actually well supported by the lenses in question, nor by Dallmeyer's original patented lenses either. The 'Rapid Rectilinear' as it became known was, or became, a symmetrical lens, whereas neither Dallmyer's patent , nor Thomas Grubb's lenses were actually symmetrical! At this distance in time all we really know is that Dallmeyer was to be become regarded as the 'inventor' of such lenses, although Grubb had actually made some lenses which seem to fulfil the patented design, but before the patent was granted. We can conjecture why this situation arose but it is unlikley that we will ever get to the 'facts' bahind what actually went on. Whether any definitive proof of the 'facts' ever existed is one question, and whether if documentary evidence, if it existed, would be regarded as definitive is another question. History is difficult to be certain about and I often think that if we spent as much time considering the future rather than the past it might be a good thing.

Measuring and proving things from 100, 150 or 170 years ago is always difficult. Based on my experience with archives and historical research, you are unlikely to get to the bottom of any of the above points about Grubb and Dallmeyer, not withstanding . The papers from Grubb's factory in Rathmines, Dublin, including the camera lens manufacturing records, which you and I have seen, Paul, went to Britain with the move to St Albans in 1918 and then on to Grubb and Parsons near Newcastle when it was founded  in 1925. Ironically, at that point in time, Sir Charles Parsons was also Chairman of the Ross Optical Company which had historic links with Dallmeyer. There is a great book called 'Telephotography' by Cyril Frederick Lan-Davis which goes into the history of Dallmeyer lenses, but only from about the 1890s onwards. The book was 'kept alive' and updated for many years after the death of Lan-Davis in WW I. I have seen some early Dallmeyer factory records on this site http://thedallmeyerarchive.com/index2.html but I have not gone into them in detail as I only have a few 19th Century Dallmeyer lenses. 

In the case of Leitz, the company survived 2 World Wars, with the second one being the more impactful. I have a memory of reading somewhere that Leitz papers had been sent to nearby Giessen or Marburg and had been destroyed in Allied bombing. In addition the tunnel from Leitz offices which connected to the family villas were also damaged. I have been at the door to that tunnel, but have been told it was unsafe to enter. If there are records of significance such as minutes of the meeting of June 1924, decisions about manufacturing changes in the early days etc, these would have been seen a long time ago. I did manage to go through some 1920s Leitz blueprints quickly the day before they were sold at auction in Wetzlar in 2022. There are some photos on the auction site, but the blueprints themselves are probably now in the vaults of a wealthy collector who has no interest in analysing them. The one hopeful sign is that I was told that some of the early optical records are still in Peter Karbe's Department. Peter told me in June that when he retires, possibly next year, that he intends to do research in the archives, which may mean that some of the mysteries about the Anastigmat-Elmax-Elmar chain may get resolved. I have corresponded with Peter about this recently and he sent me some period drawings which I believe I have posted somewhere on this forum. 

There are many areas of photographic research where people are still looking for 'Dead Sea Scrolls' . The biggest problem of all is proving who was first and who influenced whom. In this online talk I am giving about early colour photography on 16th September I am going through a paper given by John Joly in Dublin in June 1895 in which he criticised the work and conclusions of earlier colour photography pioneers, such as Maxwell, and praised others, such as Ives. Having gone through that 1895 paper at length I find that there are places where Joly is producing evidence, but in other places he was giving his opinion. In the paper Joly, who was a scientist and a professor, does in places go into the issue of the colour sensitivity of monochrome plates of the isochromatic and panchromatic variety, issues which would interest Roland as he has been looking at whether Barnack used yellow filters on the Ur-Leica and other Leitz prototypes. Joly describes the yellow UV filter which he used c 1895. The link for my upcoming talk is here.

https://www.chstm.org/group/color-photography-19th-century-and-early-20th-century-sciences-technologies-empires

It is a pity that Barnack did not write such a paper, particularly one which analysed the work of others at around the same time. The book 'Rare and unusual screw mount Leicas and accessories described by Paul Henry Van Hasbroeck Vol 1 , Part 1 there are some early chapters which are somewhat relevant including Chapter 2 called 'How the Leica was Created' and attributed to Oskar Barnack, but it is written at a 'high level' and is not very detailed. There is a longer chapter by Theodor Kisselbach which refers to a piece which Barnack wrote for 'Die Leica' in 1931 ( which I am sure Roland has seen) and seems to contain quotes from it. Again there is no 'Eureka' content in that, as it mainly repeats what we know already. Barnack was a fine mechanic and seemed to prefer using a screwdriver to using a pen. Maybe if he had lived to retirement age he might have written some more. 

William 

[XK50]

Hi Roland,

I will leave others to debate your thesis.  This is just to applaud your research, and thank you for an informative read, this afternoon.

 

John

[lmans]

Barnack passed away in his mid/late 50's...what did he die from? 

[SpotmaticSP]

2 hours ago, lmans said:

Barnack passed away in his mid/late 50's...what did he die from? 

He designed the Leica because he was unable to carry large and heavy photographic equipment on walks and travels, due to his respiratory problems (asthma). Those problems got worse, eventually leading to his passing. I visited his grave (and that of his wife) in Wetzlar about a month ago.

[roydonian]

I have always wondered why he did not switch from plate-based cameras to a small folding rollfilm camera. 

[SpotmaticSP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, roydonian said:

I have always wondered why he did not switch from plate-based cameras to a small folding rollfilm camera. 

The reasons of him using and testing cine film is explained earlier in this thread. But the most important reasons of designing the Leica were due to him being an engineer. He wanted more exposures per roll, better film flatness, better tolerances (the bed of a folding camera will never be very sturdy and thus will never have a lens which will be perfectly parallel to the film plane). And with the focal plane shutter it was much easier to couple the film advance with the cocking of the shutter, which also enabled designing a foolproof double exposure prevention.
It's easy to understand that he did not really like the folding cameras. Manual film advance while watching the red window on the back, manual shutter cocking, not always a shutter button on the body but only near the lens/shutter in front, etc.

Ergonomically the Leica had a big influence on almost all later (35mm) cameras. That's why a 1980's 35mm SLR camera still has all controls in exactly the same spot as on the first Leica. Rewind knob, shutter speed dial, shutter button, transport knob.

[willeica]

17 hours ago, SpotmaticSP said:

The reasons of him using and testing cine film is explained earlier in this thread. But the most important reasons of designing the Leica were due to him being an engineer. He wanted more exposures per roll, better film flatness, better tolerances (the bed of a folding camera will never be very sturdy and thus will never have a lens which will be perfectly parallel to the film plane). And with the focal plane shutter it was much easier to couple the film advance with the cocking of the shutter, which also enabled designing a foolproof double exposure prevention.
It's easy to understand that he did not really like the folding cameras. Manual film advance while watching the red window on the back, manual shutter cocking, not always a shutter button on the body but only near the lens/shutter in front, etc.

Ergonomically the Leica had a big influence on almost all later (35mm) cameras. That's why a 1980's 35mm SLR camera still has all controls in exactly the same spot as on the first Leica. Rewind knob, shutter speed dial, shutter button, transport knob.

Focal plane shutters were large and Thornton Pickard were producing them in the mid 1890s. Even by the 1920s they were much larger than Barnack's design and were being produced for quarter plate and 5x4. 3 days ago I examined a 1920s Thornton Pickard 5x4 Press Camera which had  a focal plane shutter with a 1/1000 of a second maximum speed which Leica did not have until 1935. It was very similar in design to the Goerz Anschutz camera from the 1890s. 

The Vest Pocket Kodak and various models produced by Nagel and others were very small roll film cameras, so size alone was not the only factor. 

The key to Barnack's creation is 35mm film and his decision to go with 24x36mm and a length of film that could produce up to 36 exposures. This more than anything else determined the size and layout of the Leitz Kleinfilm camera. His decision to go with a focal plane shutter was also inspired , but it is difficult to say that he was planning on interchangeable lenses from the beginning. It took 5 years for the first interchangeable lens Leicas to appear. I have the sixth ever production Leica with an interchangeable lens in my collection, but there were parties in Britain producing interchangeable lens Leicas before then, I have some examples of those. What we don't know is what exchange of information was going on between the engineers in Britain and their counterparts in Wetzlar. The LTM 39mm mount did not appear in 1925, but rather in 1930. I am always astonished at the number of 'Leica experts' who do not know that. 

There is an old saying about research which applies to studying early Leicas " The more we know, the more we know what we don't know".

William 

Edited September 18 by willeica

[lmans]

On 9/18/2025 at 3:09 AM, willeica said:

 I am always astonished at the number of 'Leica experts' who do not know that. 

There is an old saying about research which applies to studying early Leicas " The more we know, the more we know what we don't know".

William 

I find the history of Leica or any other camera or for that matter a brand, is akin to your own ancestry. You don't have to go back far in your family history before there is no one around to remember many seemingly obvious details... 😉

[willeica]

2 hours ago, lmans said:

I find the history of Leica or any other camera or for that matter a brand, is akin to your own ancestry. You don't have to go back far in your family history before there is no one around to remember many seemingly obvious details... 😉

Alice, Through The Looking Glass etc Looking back from now is never the easiest way to determine what might have happened 'back then'. Even contemporary literature can mislead, without knowing the context in which it was written. The 'Ancestry' craze has led to people discovering all kinds of things about their families and sometimes they are things that they would rather not have known. As regards Leitz/Leica, in the early days a lot of the work in the factory was the subject of handwritten notes, some of which are in Ulf Richter's book on Barnack and the Leica. Without knowing the context in which they were written it is very difficult to interpret them exactly 100 years later. All we can do is to try a best guess. The only hard evidence often lies in the early cameras and lenses themselves, when we can find or get our hands on them.

William 

[LocalHero1953]

I take reassurance from the fact that for a good many centuries we have been studying the history of the last few thousand years as a serious, academic, evidence-based subject, with some success. I think we can get beyond 'best guessing' - as this thread shows.

[Roland Zwiers]

Are we open to separating fact from fiction?

In the past weeks I have been away from home and couldn’t contribute in the meantime.
Also, because on coming home I had to catch up with work.
I am still doing this research in my free time.
And at 63 I am still too young to consider retirement.

I am very happy with the support for my working hypothesis approach.
A working hypothesis is not a free lunch, it requires a lot of research to arrive at a plausible one!
A plausible hypothesis is based on as much evidence from primary sources as possible.
But even a plausible hypothesis can be disproved when new information arrives at the scene.
Free access to the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar could, for example, be a game changer.

Suppose one of my working hypotheses is disproved by new information.
Would my reputation be in ruins?
Would I lose face?
Would I be eliminated from this International Leica Forum?
Of course not!

By formulating the best possible working hypothesis and by being explicit on what information it is based,
I invite criticism in a transparent and respectful way.
In this way I have invited William several times to disprove a working hypothesis on the basis of his extensive knowledge of post-1950 Leica literature.
So far Willliam has not been able to do so!
He (ultimately) agreed with me all the time.

Sometimes I still have insufficient information to formulate a plausible working hypothesis.
For example, this applies to the relationship between the Photometer for Dr. Jentsch and M875.
I have been explicit about this and I have invited other researchers like Bill to share information with me.
This has led to new information on Dr. Jentsch!
This is exactly the way to make progress together!

Now there is one additional point that I would like to make.
It is not only difficult to separate fact from fiction after a period of 100 years.
In addition, I have experienced a lot of resistance against my independent research of common wisdom.
I will explain this in the next slides.

[Roland Zwiers]

Separating fact and fiction
The merits of a working hypothesis approach
Do we have to believe Leica legends?

Do we have to believe Leica legends?
Just because they have become common wisdom (if not Holy Scripture)?
This is the underlying question when one wants to separate fact and fiction on the early development of the (Ur)Leica in post-1950 Leica literature.

After more than 100 years, separating fact and fiction is not easy.
In my opinion one can best use a working hypothesis approach.
When new information becomes available, it may be necessary to formulate a new working hypothesis.

This has nothing to do with authority, status, prestige, ego, nationality, language, or reputation.

It is a slow-moving process for which we need a free exchange of information and a transparent, respectful and openminded way of communication.
In this exchange of information, it is indeed important to disclose and share primary sources that have been difficult to access.
This also relates to the translation of German sources in English.

When I see how much progress we have already made on this Forum in the past two years,
then I feel confident that much more progress is still in store.

[Roland Zwiers]

Established Leica literature on 1905-1926 does not clearly distinguish between fact and fiction

When one uses common wisdom as a basis for further research, then one does not ask the right questions anymore.
E.g. technological bottlenecks for early Leica photography are explained away by an ill-founded legend on the early availability
(already in 1922-1924) of a 35mm Perutz Fliegerfilm.
I will come back to this later.

When one uses common wisdom as a basis for further research, then one may well move in wrong directions,
simply because the assumed ‘wisdom’ has no foundation in reliable sources.
I will give an example of this as well.

As many stories about the early development of the Leica (say 1905-1926) originate with German authors,
I have tried to contact these Leica historians for further clarification.
This concerns experienced foot soldiers, Leica-nobility and a High Priest in Wetzlar.
Unfortunately, several Leica historians, with one notable exception, do not want to discuss these matters with me.

In this situation one has to look for other options.
In this way two years ago, I started the post “100 years Null-Serie” on this International Leica Forum.
On this Forum I can share my views freely and invite discussion in a transparent and respectful way.

[Roland Zwiers]

A first legend from 1905

A first legend was launched in 1931 by high Leica-nobility, Oskar Barnack himself.
It concerns a charming anecdote on how in 1905 he carried his heavy 13x18 equipment in the Thuringer Forest.
This anecdote has been interpreted in such a way that Oskar Barnack is considered as the originator of the concept ‘small negative, big print’.

As indicated in an earlier slide, ‘small negative, big print’ is a 19^th century concept.
In a separate article I explain that Oskar Barnack must have been well aware of this.
Consequently, he may not have had the intention of claiming to be the originator of this concept.

In 1905 he still preferred his 13x18 outfit.
In 1905 he reluctantly had to accept the merits of photography with a miniature camera.
It would last up to 1914 before his heavy 13x18 outfit would be retired.

The problem with this charming anecdote of 1905 is that it has become common wisdom in Leica literature.
In this way one forgets to ask the obvious question:

In 1913, why would Oskar Barnack still embark on his Liliput project when so many high quality Liliput cameras were already on the market?

In the next slides I show two pre-1913 advertisements for Liliput cameras.
The first advertisement is from the British Journal Photographic Almanac of 1906.
It shows a French Blocknote that is capable of enlargements of 8,5x6,5”
‘practically without losing any of the original sharpness’.

The second slide shows part of a 1912 review of the VP Kodak.
The reviewer mentions the well-known category of Lilliputians (‘Liliputaner’), to which Kodak has just added a new 4x6½ cm camera.
Indeed, in the 1890s-1910s ‘Liliput’ or ‘Lilliput’ was a common name for miniature cameras in general.

[Roland Zwiers]

The French Blocknote was available before 1905. The advertisement is from BJA 1906
According to the ad it is capable of enlargements of 8,5x6,5”
‘practically without losing any of the original sharpness’.
During his work for Zeiss Palmos (1902-1909) Oskar Barnack may well have advised producers of such miniature cameras of the suitability of Zeiss lenses.  

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]

Two references to Liliput/ Lilliput cameras: 1891 and 1912

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]

A second legend relating to 1913 and 1924

A second legend holds that Otto Perutz in Munich began production of perforated 35mm cine negative film in 1913.
And that the Perutz Flieger-emulsion (used on glass-based dry plates for aerial reconnaissance photography) had been available for the Null-Serie
before the go/no-go decision of June 1924.

This legend is widely quoted in Leica literature, but is at odds with contemporary sources, including Perutz literature from the 1910s and 1920s.
When I approached the author of this legend, he was unwilling to help me with separating fact from fiction:

‘You have your opinion, I have mine. Only Heaven knows which of us is right.”

[Roland Zwiers]

A third legend relating to 1926

A third legend again concerns high Leica-nobility, Dr Paul Wolff.
In 1936 Dr Paul Wolff claimed to have won his first Leica in a 1926 photo competition.
This newly won Leica would subsequently, but not immediately, have led to his Saulus-Paulus conversion.

I have dealt with this legend in more detail earlier in this thread.
In 1926 Dr Paul Wolff did not win a Leica at all.
He acquired this Leica as payment in kind for organising the 1926 exposition in his new hometown Frankfurt a/M.
From other Dr Paul Wolff publications one can observe that he used a prototype Leica in 1924, very likely one of Oskar Barnack’s loaner cameras (in German: Leih-Kamera).

[I will produce a 1924 picture by Dr Paul Wolff in a later slide.]

As discussed before, Oskar Barnack’s Werkstattbuch has several references to such Leih-Kameras.
In yet another publication Dr Paul Wolff is explicit that he acquired (instead of borrowed) a Leica in 1925. 

Unfortunately, even relatively recent Leica literature mentions that Dr Paul Wolff acquired his first Leica at the beginning of 1926.
And that his first provable use of the Leica dates from early 1927.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Legends are a poor basis for further research

When legends become common wisdom, then researchers have to take care.
When researchers use this common wisdom as a starting point for new research, then this easily leads to wrong conclusions.

Another example can be found in an otherwise fascinating study on Ernst Leitz II.
Again, I regard the authors (Knut Kühn-Leitz and Ulf Richter) as high Leica-nobility.

Unfortunately, the authors base themselves on the legend that the Perutz Fliegerfilm was available for the Null-Serie Leicas of 1923 and 1924.
In this way the experience with the Perutz Fliegerfilm would have played a role during the June 1924 go/no-go decision by Ernst Leitz II.
In a fictional account of the June 1924 meeting it is said that the Perutz Fliegerfilm was acceptable for a postcard sized enlargement, but not for bigger formats.

Now this storyline is at odds with contemporary sources.
The 35mm Perutz Fliegerfilm was not available in 1922-1924; it was only introduced in 1926.
The first mention may well be the November 1926 Leitz catalogue, see the next slide.
I owe this November 1926 catalogue both to Alan and to Ulf Richter.

After 1926 the Perutz (Spezial) Fliegerfilm quickly became the best possible Leica film in terms of grain and orthochromatic properties (sensitive to all colours except red).
The first Leica pictures by Anton Baumann with the Perutz Fliegerfilm appear in 1927.
In January 1928 Curt Emmermann considered this film as the best possible Leica film, enabling enlargements of up to 36x54cm.