aauckland Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted February 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A really good example of the tilted/angled film BKY, .....with the sprockets slanting down from right to left, due to the the film cassette being low, (down towards the baseplate.) ....a paper packing would eleviate the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Hi aauckland, Take a look here Sprocket holes - clipping frame. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bkyoung Posted March 3, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 3, 2009 Ironically (I think), experience with M3s has taught me to be more careful with the film engaging the drive better (so that the sprocket holes are actually being grabbed by the sprocket -- in the M, missing that can result in double exposures as the drive rattles past the holes, not moving the film forward properly). Thus, I really haven't had this problem with the III since, because I've become hyper-careful about film placement... Time consuming, though, and occasionally frustrating... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iver Aldas Posted June 13, 2011 Share #23 Posted June 13, 2011 Here's an example from my experience with a IIIc (I think) and 90mm -- you can see the sprockets intruding well into the image... Personally, I love seeing photos were sprockets are intruding into the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 13, 2011 Share #24 Posted June 13, 2011 Personally, I love seeing photos were sprockets are intruding into the image. Hi Iver Yes The problem is the cassette chambre in Barnacks is 2mm longer taen the 1933 DIN for cassettes. The DIN was sponsored by Kodak (e.g. DrNagel) for Retinas, and Leicas were built different.. The FILCA Barnack relodable cassettes are (were) 2mm longer then the standard, so they wont slip down. The IXMOO (for M cameras) are to the DIN and can move down in Barnacks, but are usable in Barnacks, the FILCAs wont fit in Ms, the baseplate wont close. Dont ask how I know this.... Part way through IIIf production they included a finger in the baeplate to locate the film, the cassette 'dangles' from the film. Normally the film rails will hold the cassette in place, Never had it happen with my IIICs or IIf Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share #25 Posted June 13, 2011 Very interesting Noel, When Leica added the "Finger" to the IIIf production, they were probably fully aware of this issue. The design decision to go with the "finger", (not an ideal solution which allows the film cassette to dangle, and put more load on the film edge,) was to, maybe, still allow the re-loadable cassettes to fit correctly. The aesthetic preference for the clipping to be seen "within the Frame", is interesting since we are talking about a sprocket hole intrusion into the frame because of a faulty positioned film. Personally, I like to see a full negative printed, which could even include sprocket holes within the black border, (but never intruding within the image actual frame area.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJohnE Posted June 14, 2011 Share #26 Posted June 14, 2011 Pre-Solms wide angle lenses being close to the film plane can exacerbate the issue by encroaching into the sprocket area. John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 17, 2011 Share #27 Posted June 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pre-Solms wide angle lenses being close to the film plane can exacerbate the issue by encroaching into the sprocket area. John. They do as do J12 - a lot, and wide CV LTM (less so). But I never have a problem, I think the rails will hold the film & a cassette, in position. I always cut a ABLON style leader, and locate the cassette, against the rewind forks, , and tighten the film counter holidng the film on sproket tooth, my last finger is small enough. . Very interesting Noel,When Leica added the "Finger" to the IIIf production, they were probably fully aware of this issue. The design decision to go with the "finger", (not an ideal solution which allows the film cassette to dangle, and put more load on the film edge,) was to, maybe, still allow the re-loadable cassettes to fit correctly. The aesthetic preference for the clipping to be seen "within the Frame", is interesting since we are talking about a sprocket hole intrusion into the frame because of a faulty positioned film. Personally, I like to see a full negative printed, which could even include sprocket holes within the black border, (but never intruding within the image actual frame area.) I had not thought of the FILCA compatibility, that is true. Changing the casting (more) or baseplate latch would have been more expensive, And FILCA users upgrading to new body would have needed to trade in their FILCAs for IXMOO. Which I think were available. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
L39UK Posted July 9, 2011 Share #28 Posted July 9, 2011 On the early Leica II's and III's the easiest way to fix the problem is to unscrew the small black screw in the centre of locking ring on the inside of the baseplate and reverse the small black washer that lies below the screw and then re-insert the screw into the washer and re-tighten.This raises the washer slightly, which then raises the film cassette when it is inserted in the camera and the baseplate is locked.This usually corrects the problem of the sprocket holes appearing on the film without having to insert any paper packing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.