Leica LTM Did I just purchase a Frankenstein IIIa?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
It's an odd duck for sure. The serial number makes it a IIIa as does the top speed of 1/1000th. BUT, there's no slow speed dial on the front and it doesn't appear as if it ever had one. My guess is this: It began life as a IIIa and at some point the body was damaged beyond repair. However, the mechanism was still OK so a damaged or bad model II was robbed of it's body shell and that's how you see it now. Perhaps not the best solution but a workable one that gets the camera back in operation.

One thing I'm certain of: It's not Russian. It's genuine Leica.

Walker


trittium said:
Ok so i wanted and IIIa, so I bid on a one on the bay. The only problems is on second inspection it doesn't look like an IIIa. There is no low speed dial. The knob and serial number point to an IIIa, but I haven't seen any without low shutter speeds.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7623126660

Were parts used from an IIIa to replace other parts?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Doubs43, that is encouraging at least it is probably a leica. I never really uses any low speeds, so I don't really need them. I tend to use fast film and lenses instead.
 
The serial number is right for a IIIA of 1935 vintage, assuming my list is correct. But if it hasn't got slow speeds then it's actually a II. I think it is a Leica though rather than a copy: It appears to have a roller cam follower rather than the solid one that Russian copies used. Interesting.

Paul
 
It looks like it is a chrome Leica II
the Zorki 1 VF window top outside ridge, on the front, was flush with the top plate edge.
the Zorki 1 never had rf diopter adj. but the Leica II never had this feature also.
 
It indeed doesn't look like my Zorki. There's a screw too much on the back side in the middle under the VF&RF window, for example, and the VF/RF windows are Leica-style. Also, the shutter speed dial is a different size. Could it be a ii with a iiia top cover ?


Peter.
 
The photo of the top is not very sharp, but I believe I can make out "1000" on the shutter speed dial. If that is the case, it appears to be a Leica II that has been upgraded to a IIa with the addition of the "1000" speed. I have a IIIa that started life as a III and was upgraded. It might make a good shooter.

Jim N.
 
I have the least of all knowledge about these things. I'd think Jim N. is pretty close. IMHO, it definately looks Leica, not Zorki, for the above mentioned reasons. Unusual for sure. If it were my purchase. . .? for that price. . .? I'd pull it out of the box, clean, load it, shoot it, love it.
icon14.gif
 
Congrats on a good buy! It's a true Leica, the top plate probably came from a IIIa hence the serial no. and the 1.5X magnified RF, everything else looks like a II. If you take off the top plate there will probably be a different serial no. inscribed underneath or in the shutter crate. If the camera is CLA'd it'll be a nice shooter and good price.

Joseph
 
Congratulations on the Leica II. - A pocketable shooter with an Elmar, if nothing else. A Jupiter 12 would be a nice lens to have with this as well.
 
Thanks guys. I am planning on shooting with this camera. If I can get the rf adjusted, and the blinds are ok, it will be a good camera.

Question?

I have a III. Could I use it's body to restore the camera to original appearance?The III was manufactured in 1936 1 year after the IIIa.
 
Last edited:
Unless you really need the speeds below 1/20th, I would leave it alone. The II mechanism is simpler than the III because the slow speed escapement is not involved. It should be more reliable.

Jim N.
 
trittium said:
Thanks guys. I am planning on shooting with this camera. If I can get the rf adjusted, and the blinds are ok, it will be a good camera.
Question?
I have a III. Could I use it's body to restore the camera to original appearance?The III was manufactured in 1936 1 year after the IIIa.
Click to expand...

Basically that camera looks like a Leica II and the only tell-tale sign of any conversion is the 1.5 x RF magnification at the back which leads me to believe the top plate came from a IIIa. The significant difference between the III/IIIa to a II is the slow speed selector dial in front and the aforementioned 1.5 RF mag.

If I were in your situation, I'd look into getting the camera in usable shape and worry about the cosmetics later.

Hope this helps!

Joseph
 
one thing I ask myself is maybe its a leitz IIIa, but the body shell is a leitz III. Maybe if you are skilled with your hands, you can try removing the body shell to see if there is the slow shutter hole.
 
I would like to think of myself as good with my hands/ technical wisdom seeing as I am an engineering student, but I am not a natural. How easy is it to remove the shell and put it back together? I don't want gears and springs popping out when I remove it.
 
trittium said:
I would like to think of myself as good with my hands/ technical wisdom seeing as I am an engineering student, but I am not a natural. How easy is it to remove the shell and put it back together? I don't want gears and springs popping out when I remove it.
Click to expand...

Hi Matt,

Try these Rick Oleson links - Zorki 1 [Leica II] and Leica III/IIIa. I've successfully CLA'd my Leica IIs using these drawings as reference and also shows the mechanical difference between the models.

Joseph
 
Not to worry.. It is in fact a IIIa. The reason for no slow speed dial is somewhere in the past this cameras shell was probably damaged and replaced with a pre III model shell thus eliminating the slow speed function.
I had one several years ago done the same way.
 
I got the camera today. It is a wonderful user camera. The mechanics work well, and the body is rough. I like it. I don't think I am going to take it appart. It works, and I don't want to screw it up. Joseph, thanks for the schematics. I was able to adjust the rf patch with them. Lets just hope the negatives space well. The curtains seem a little dirty and old, but they are pliable, so they should work fine. Thanks!

The only weird thing is the enscription on the top. Did leica change it from 1935 to 1936 because my III's top plate looks different. The script "Leica" is slightly different, and the layout is different.

III:
Leica
D.R.P.
Ernst Leitz
Wetzlar

IIIa/II (whatever it is):

Leica
Ernst Leitz
Wetzlar
D.R.P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom