Why bottom loading?

[Kai-san]

What camera is that?

It's a Wirgin Edinex from around 1946 - 47, first introduced in 1935. It came with a variety of lenses, this one has a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 1:2,8/50.

 

[Glenn2]

Lugers were bottom loading, perhaps that’s where Oscar got the idea? ;-).

 

[Dralowid]

What camera is that?

Edinex. A very compact device often forgotten.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I think that there may be only a marginal advantage with regard to light leaks from bottom loading, but with enough use, those strap lugs (if the camera has them) will wiggle loose a bit and there's your light leak. As for loading the camera quickly, the M2 never failed me, even when I was running in the streets of Fallujah, Iraq, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was faster. Certainly not more convenient, but probably slightly cleaner for someone out in the dirt.
Really, it's my opinion that it's all just style and personal preference for the user interface. I doubt there is much, if any, advantage to a bottom loader camera, beyond the placebo effect.
Phil

 

[markjwyatt]

My guess: Because that is how the Contax and Leica did it, then Nikon RF followed suit, and the Nikon F kept the trend going. Then others said, nah, lets go to easier and more convenient rear loading.

 

[seany65]

On a bottom feeder Like a (sorry, bottom loader) an early Leica, how can you tell if the sprockets have engaged the sprocket holes?

 

[raydm6]

On a bottom feeder Like a (sorry, bottom loader) an early Leica, how can you tell if the sprockets have engaged the sprocket holes?

When properly loaded, you will feel some tension rotating the winding knob (film advance) and the rewind knob will rotate in the opposite direction.

Also, notice the IIIf (and I think the IIIc) have an off-center black dot on the shutter button. This dot will rotate as you advance and rewind the film. When rewinding the film, you can estimate - after feeling a little tension - when it exits the take-up spool. At this point, the dot stops rotating and you can choose to stop rewinding - to leave a little leader outside the cassette, or fully rewind the leader back into the cassette after a few more rewind turns.

Ingenious usability design.

 

[Coldkennels]

On a bottom feeder Like a (sorry, bottom loader) an early Leica, how can you tell if the sprockets have engaged the sprocket holes?

You can see 'em.



It's really easy to see with a glance if the film isn't laying flat across the sprockets. It's only normally a problem if you've hooked the leader half-way up the take-up spool!

 

[aw614]

I don't mind bottom loading, but do find it annoying while traveling. Yeah I can bring precut film, but I've been iffy on flying with scissors just to cut my film leader if I need to pick up any film from say Walmart..I've had issues loading my Leotax, it feels like the larger Leica IIIC style body has made it a bit more fiddly to get the film on the sprockets

I will say, my favorite film loading with a door is the one from the Minolta 35, I don't know why Minolta didn't stick with that one on their later cameras because it was much easier to load that model vs the ones on the CLE, and SRT models.

 

[santino]

You know what, I came to the conclusion that the best loading is a mix of both: Like the Leica CL or some Exa cameras. The camera‘s construction is sturdy andit is easy to load.

 

[JoseP]

Sounds more like a problem with that cameras take up spool since I've almost never had that happen. I did lose several rolls with bottom feeders till I started a modified version of that - stick uncut leader into the take up spool, wrap it twice, begin inserting the take up spool into the camera, pull enough film out of the canister to slide back along the edge of the film path to where the can drops in and the slide it all down into place. Then put on the bottom plate with my third hand... 😈 Put a roll of Pan F into my Canon IId the other day like that in anticipation of testing it when I get a really sunny day off again.

Don't forget the rangefinder needs calibrating, my friend!

 

[rick oleson]

I’ve heard a few reasons why bottom loading film cameras are better. I’ve heard:
1) it allows closer placement of the film plane to the lens elements for better optical performance.
2) It holds the film flatter
3) Stronger body
4) less chance of light leaks

What say you?

Rigidity.

 

[brianentz]

Tom Abrahamsson told me he rewinded his Barnacks by spinning it over his head. I am sure he was kidding.

Made me laugh!

 

[Richard G]

Back to the baseplate and the M hinged back when loading.

1. I hold the baseplate between my left fifth finger and the third and fourth, while holding the camera in my left hand, lens facing down, and feeding the film canister and extended leader in with my right hand. (An ad for the M4 showed a man with gloves on loading the film.)

2. Only now do I realize that the reason for the hinged back of an M has little or nothing to do with inspection, and relates only to the ease of insertion of the film leader by getting the pressure plate out of the way.

 

[wlewisiii]

Don't forget the rangefinder needs calibrating, my friend!

Needs a test roll to determine what it needs first. Only with data can you proceed. The lens, for example, was not hazy at all, when used on my digital M 240.

 

[johnf04]

As the owner of an M2 I concur.
Of course, Leica's were designed to perform well in many severely technical fields of photography like engineering, astronomy, scientific macro and micro photography, places where whatever extra precision a solid body might give to an optical system could actually be realized, but all of these potential advantages disappear the moment you use the camera hand-held.

The 1930s Contax rangefinders were used for all that too - and had removable backs, for easy loading...