Charles Woodhouse
Collector,User,Repairer.
I've just been reading a thread about late model Leotax cameras and would have to agree that their build quality is excellent, although their dimensions seem massive compared to similar styled Leica copies.
However from my limited experience repairing them, Leotax cameras from 1942 to 1949 were absolute rubbish, and should only be regarded as rare and interesting collectables, and not as users. I would include all cameras up to the D II and many of the early D III's in this category. A few years ago I obtained a Special B (that had been converted to Special in 1946) from an old friend of the original owner in exchange for an excellent Leica IIIc and five 4X4 TLR's. The original owner, who had bought the camera in Japan in 1946, told his friend that it was a useless camera that had never worked from new. When I dismantled it for a complete rebuild I found out why. Many of the internal parts including some of the most critical were roughly hand filed, and the second curtain latch was totally the wrong shape. After about fifty hours work including a complete curtain and tape rebuild I finally had the camera working, but the 3.5/50 Letana was and is a disaster.
My next experience with Leotax was a D II which needed a shutter rebuild and a new beamsplitter. The shutter job was straightforward, but when it came to the rangefinder I was stymied. It could not be dismantled and reasssembled because it was held together with grubscrews whose slots had been filed away. Because the owner had promised he only wanted to use the camera and had no intention of selling it, and because all the screw holes lined up with a Zorki 1 rangefinder, I fitted one of these and it worked perfectly. Then some months later I found out the owner had sold the camera on Ebay. Caveat emptor!
I have a D IV in my collection and it's a fine usable camera (again after a curtain rebuild), but I am baffled by the mysterious 1.5X mark between the VF and RF eyepieces. Perhaps a bit of early misleading salesmanship!
However from my limited experience repairing them, Leotax cameras from 1942 to 1949 were absolute rubbish, and should only be regarded as rare and interesting collectables, and not as users. I would include all cameras up to the D II and many of the early D III's in this category. A few years ago I obtained a Special B (that had been converted to Special in 1946) from an old friend of the original owner in exchange for an excellent Leica IIIc and five 4X4 TLR's. The original owner, who had bought the camera in Japan in 1946, told his friend that it was a useless camera that had never worked from new. When I dismantled it for a complete rebuild I found out why. Many of the internal parts including some of the most critical were roughly hand filed, and the second curtain latch was totally the wrong shape. After about fifty hours work including a complete curtain and tape rebuild I finally had the camera working, but the 3.5/50 Letana was and is a disaster.
My next experience with Leotax was a D II which needed a shutter rebuild and a new beamsplitter. The shutter job was straightforward, but when it came to the rangefinder I was stymied. It could not be dismantled and reasssembled because it was held together with grubscrews whose slots had been filed away. Because the owner had promised he only wanted to use the camera and had no intention of selling it, and because all the screw holes lined up with a Zorki 1 rangefinder, I fitted one of these and it worked perfectly. Then some months later I found out the owner had sold the camera on Ebay. Caveat emptor!
I have a D IV in my collection and it's a fine usable camera (again after a curtain rebuild), but I am baffled by the mysterious 1.5X mark between the VF and RF eyepieces. Perhaps a bit of early misleading salesmanship!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the later Leotax cameras are excellent, save for the last model made, the Leotax G.