Leica LTM First roll of film in a Barnack

[Jbennett68]

The iiif I just got back from YYE is the only camera I have with the separate magnified rangefinder. At first I thought it would be a pain but it would just be cool to add to my collection. I’m really thrilled with how easy it is to focus precisely and moving my eye isn’t that big a deal. I think I might be faster with this than with my M4 or 240.

 

[DownUnder]

I was just as excited when my iif was returned from a CLA. It's indeed a wonderful thing to have a 70+ year old all mechanical camera, functioning like a new one. Nothing like it, but then there's nothing like a Leica LTM...

Mine was from a deceased estate. I paid a fair but not exactly cheap price for it. Bought new by its original owner, not greatly used, and left to gather dust in its never-ready case for 20 years before it fell into my hot little hands. So in that sense, a great find and a bargain, most definitely.

I initially thought mine was a iig, but as it turned out it's a iif which at some time was returned to Leitz to sort of upgrade it. Probably a repair or a CLA at the time, but I did wonder why it wasn't upgraded at that time to a iii.

Finding all this out took me a while and quite a lot of time researching on web sites and in books. Odd I reckon that Leitz, usually so accurate and precise with its data and user information, could be vague on its later model LTM cameras. Other owners have told me they had the same situation in looking up info on theirs.

Over time I've picked up a fair number of useful accessories. One super good find was an early version collapsible Summicron 50/2.0 with caps, a fitted lens hood and filters, kindly given to me by an elderly neighbour who'd had it in a box in his garage for many years. There was a lot of haze in it and I had to get it dismantled and cleaned, which cost me a little more than I paid for the iif. But the 'look' of that lens has made the $$ I put into it, well worth it.

Given my poor eyesight, a decided to (wisely as it turned out) invest a little extra $$ in a Leitz turret viewfinder. Which makes all the difference in using the camera.

Loading film can be a PITA. It took me a while to fine-tune the film trimming to get it safely into the camera without losing too many exposures. It can be done, and if an all-thumbs person like me can figure out a way, then it's easy.

I now have a 35/3.5 Summaron and the legendary 90/4.0 Elmar, both circa 1960 lenses. So newer than the camera. Someone has offered me a 135/4.0 for a good price, but I reckon the LTMs aren't the best camera to use for those long lenses, so I may pass on it. Or knowing me, I'll buy it as a collectable, it's a 1950 lens.

In this digs-everything era I don't use my film cameras as much as I should. The cost of film (here in Australia) is the main reason for this. I use the iif a little more than my once-beloved Contax G1 kit, which has by far the best lenses, in my opinion better than any Leitz glass I've used. Subjective, of course, and entirely my opinion. Also maybe comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Jbennett68]

I was just as excited when my iif was returned from a CLA. It's indeed a wonderful thing to have a 70+ year old all mechanical camera, functioning like a new one. Nothing like it, but then there's nothing like a Leica LTM...

Mine was from a deceased estate. I paid a fair but not exactly cheap price for it. Bought new by its original owner, not greatly used, and left to gather dust in its never-ready case for 20 years before it fell into my hot little hands. So in that sense, a great find and a bargain, most definitely.

I initially thought mine was a iig, but as it turned out it's a iif which at some time was returned to Leitz to sort of upgrade it. Probably a repair or a CLA at the time, but I did wonder why it wasn't upgraded at that time to a iii.

Finding all this out took me a while and quite a lot of time researching on web sites and in books. Odd I reckon that Leitz, usually so accurate and precise with its data and user information, could be vague on its later model LTM cameras. Other owners have told me they had the same situation in looking up info on theirs.

Over time I've picked up a fair number of useful accessories. One super good find was an early version collapsible Summicron 50/2.0 with caps, a fitted lens hood and filters, kindly given to me by an elderly neighbour who'd had it in a box in his garage for many years. There was a lot of haze in it and I had to get it dismantled and cleaned, which cost me a little more than I paid for the iif. But the 'look' of that lens has made the $$ I put into it, well worth it.

Given my poor eyesight, a decided to (wisely as it turned out) invest a little extra $$ in a Leitz turret viewfinder. Which makes all the difference in using the camera.

Loading film can be a PITA. It took me a while to fine-tune the film trimming to get it safely into the camera without losing too many exposures. It can be done, and if an all-thumbs person like me can figure out a way, then it's easy.

I now have a 35/3.5 Summaron and the legendary 90/4.0 Elmar, both circa 1960 lenses. So newer than the camera. Someone has offered me a 135/4.0 for a good price, but I reckon the LTMs aren't the best camera to use for those long lenses, so I may pass on it. Or knowing me, I'll buy it as a collectable, it's a 1950 lens.

In this digs-everything era I don't use my film cameras as much as I should. The cost of film (here in Australia) is the main reason for this. I use the iif a little more than my once-beloved Contax G1 kit, which has by far the best lenses, in my opinion better than any Leitz glass I've used. Subjective, of course, and entirely my opinion. Also maybe comparing apples to oranges.

Loading wasn’t too bad. I got one of the many trimming templates out there and watched a short video. Hardest part was getting the leader into the take up spool. Like your I don’t think mine was used hardly at all and the slot in the take up spool was tight. Didn’t feel like it had a bunch of leaders shoved in over the years.

 

[Coldkennels]

I think I might be faster with this than with my M4 or 240.

This is definitely my experience - I'm much more accurate with the various Leica III variants than I am with an M, at any rate...

I now have a 35/3.5 Summaron and the legendary 90/4.0 Elmar, both circa 1960 lenses. So newer than the camera. Someone has offered me a 135/4.0 for a good price, but I reckon the LTMs aren't the best camera to use for those long lenses, so I may pass on it.

Honestly, if you've got the 1.5x rangefinder in that IIf-to-IIg conversion, you've probably got one of the best bodies possible for the 135mm. The focusing accuracy with the 1.5x RF is only surpassed by the M3. I love using 135mm lenses on my Barnacks - they're so easy to focus. Trying to use them wide-open on a 0.72x M is a nightmare in comparison.

I didn't note the exposure for this, but I'd guess it was at f/5.6 and obviously very close up with the IIIg and a Canon 135mm Serenar:



Just do yourself a favour and splash out for the dedicated 135mm frameline finder. It's a much more pleasant experience than the VIOOH set to 135mm!

 

[Jbennett68]

I’ve only got the 50mm f2 summitar at the moment but I’m looking at a canon 28 3.5 with finder that’s really tiny.

 

[lynnb]

The iiif I just got back from YYE is the only camera I have with the separate magnified rangefinder. At first I thought it would be a pain but it would just be cool to add to my collection. I’m really thrilled with how easy it is to focus precisely and moving my eye isn’t that big a deal. I think I might be faster with this than with my M4 or 240.

Congratulations, it’s a great camera. I agree about the ease of focusing with the magnified VF.

Coldkennels: I use the business card loading method and find it fast and easy. No trimming required.

 

[Godfrey]

Congratulations, it’s a great camera. I agree about the ease of focusing with the magnified VF.

Coldkennels: I use the business card loading method and find it fast and easy. No trimming required.

I just load the film by carefully feeding it down the slot. Works fine. 🙂
Mine is a IIIc circa 1947 or so. A lovely camera.

G

 

[MNS]

Coldkennels: I use the business card loading method and find it fast and easy. No trimming required.

Please excuse me for jumping in but I always thought with any 'Barnack' camera you had to cut a long leader to use it. This is the main reason I've never purchased a screw mount Leica.

​

 

[DownUnder]

I’ve only got the 50mm f2 summitar at the moment but I’m looking at a canon 28 3.5 with finder that’s really tiny.

An old Leica urban myth has it that the Summitar is as good as the Summicron. The earlier versions of the latter, anyway.

I have one of the latter but not the former. When I got it (given to me s a gift, some people are truly wonderful!) it had so much haze in it, doing the flashlight trick made it look like I had a Zeiss Softar II from a Rollei TLR on it. But it all cleaned off and my lens is now as good as a 1952-1955 Summicron left in a box in somebody's garage for 20 years can be. In fact I was totally amazed when it was returned to me, to actually see how good it looked.

Someone I know who uses a Summitar 50 (in fact he owns about four, lucky guy) told me this lens produces a sort of 'glow' on the edges of the highlights. He described it as the light somehow wraps itself around the highlights. He added it also cuts through the shadows and records a surprising amount of detail.

So you have a pretty good lens in that Summitar, if it isn't riddled with haze and/or fungus. Sadly, so many are.

 

[Dralowid]

Honestly, if you've got the 1.5x rangefinder in that IIf-to-IIg conversion, you've probably got one of the best bodies possible for the 135mm.

I'm getting confused, IIf to IIg? Surely not.

 

[Coldkennels]

I'm getting confused, IIf to IIg? Surely not.

Just going off what @DownUnder was saying about his Leica. I guess it's not impossible... but I've never seen an earlier Leica overhauled with the IIIg's finder, personally.

Please excuse me for jumping in but I always thought with any 'Barnack' camera you had to cut a long leader to use it. This is the main reason I've never purchased a screw mount Leica.

You really should use longer leaders, but it's not that big a deal. The business card & "just slowly shove a regular leader up there" options both take longer and risk damaging something. Cutting a new longer leader isn't rocket science, and you can do it the moment you buy a roll of film to make sure it's ready in advance. I did it with some scissors on a Swiss Army knife on the counter in Nik & Trick while I was talking to the owner on Saturday. Took me all of five seconds.

 

[MNS]

You really should use longer leaders, but it's not that big a deal.

It's only because I'm a bit tight and don't like wasting film. Bulk Fomapan has double in price in some places and as for Tri-X, forget it!

 

[d_c]

It's only because I'm a bit tight and don't like wasting film. Bulk Fomapan has double in price in some places and as for Tri-X, forget it!

I'm not sure there would be any film wasted - the leader still needs to be pulled out of the cassette the same amount to "span" across the camera to the take up spool. All that's being changed is the location of the transition from half-width to full-width in that piece of wasted film so that it sits just outside the cassette when the film is loaded, rather that part-way across the imaging aperture.

 

[Richard G]

The iiif I just got back from YYE is the only camera I have with the separate magnified rangefinder. At first I thought it would be a pain but it would just be cool to add to my collection. I’m really thrilled with how easy it is to focus precisely and moving my eye isn’t that big a deal. I think I might be faster with this than with my M4 or 240.

I was musing on just this very subject this morning. I started with an M2 in 1977. Did I really neeed any other camera after that? But I was thinking really about exactly the IIIf, my most recently acquired Leica. Seventy years later it is still fantastic, the RF, but also the SBOOI finder: possibly the quickest and stealthiest street shooter ever.

 

[Godfrey]

Please excuse me for jumping in but I always thought with any 'Barnack' camera you had to cut a long leader to use it. This is the main reason I've never purchased a screw mount Leica.

...
You really should use longer leaders, but it's not that big a deal. The business card & "just slowly shove a regular leader up there" options both take longer and risk damaging something. Cutting a new longer leader isn't rocket science, and you can do it the moment you buy a roll of film to make sure it's ready in advance. I did it with some scissors on a Swiss Army knife on the counter in Nik & Trick while I was talking to the owner on Saturday. Took me all of five seconds.

It's only because I'm a bit tight and don't like wasting film. Bulk Fomapan has double in price in some places and as for Tri-X, forget it!

I'm not sure there would be any film wasted - the leader still needs to be pulled out of the cassette the same amount to "span" across the camera to the take up spool. All that's being changed is the location of the transition from half-width to full-width in that piece of wasted film so that it sits just outside the cassette when the film is loaded, rather that part-way across the imaging aperture.

I've never shoved a credit card up the slot ... that could damage a shutter curtain if you're not careful. Regards not cutting the leader, well, I've not cut the leader for Barnak bodies probably thousands of times since 1968 and I've never damaged anything. I don't see how it could unless you do something foolish.

As d_c@ said, you're not wasting any film either way. You still need to pull the film far enough out of the canister that the exposed portion clears the film gate, which doesn't change regardless whether you trim the leader or not.

I stopped trimming the leader early on because I found having to either use a template and cutting instrument with every film load OR spending time mucking about with pre-trimming a few rolls of film when I was putting the camera in the bag was a PITA, just a waste of time. Loading with or without a cut leader takes exactly the same amount of time, and poses exactly the same risks of doing it wrong, as far as I can see. It takes me about 20 seconds to load a Barnack either way, and I've never had a film jam because of a short leader. I tend to get 37 or 38 exposures out of a 135-36 roll of film anyway.

G

 

[Jbennett68]

I'm getting confused, IIf to IIg? Surely n

I've never shoved a credit card up the slot ... that could damage a shutter curtain if you're not careful. Regards not cutting the leader, well, I've not cut the leader for Barnak bodies probably thousands of times since 1968 and I've never damaged anything. I don't see how it could unless you do something foolish.

As d_c@ said, you're not wasting any film either way. You still need to pull the film far enough out of the canister that the exposed portion clears the film gate, which doesn't change regardless whether you trim the leader or not.

I stopped trimming the leader early on because I found having to either use a template and cutting instrument with every film load OR spending time mucking about with pre-trimming a few rolls of film when I was putting the camera in the bag was a PITA, just a waste of time. Loading with or without a cut leader takes exactly the same amount of time, and poses exactly the same risks of doing it wrong, as far as I can see. It takes me about 20 seconds to load a Barnack either way, and I've never had a film jam because of a short leader. I tend to get 37 or 38 exposures out of a 135-36 roll of film anyway.

G

I just assumed what I heard was correct so I trimmed it. Not sure I really grasp why it’s done other than film used to be made that way.

 

[38Deardorff]

You're not wasting film.... it still takes the same few inches across the gate...
BTW the best thing i did was to put a shim under the film roll since commercial cassettes are smaller than original Leica, and it helps keep the image square on the film

 

[Godfrey]

I just assumed what I heard was correct so I trimmed it. Not sure I really grasp why it’s done other than film used to be made that way.

According to an older Leica tech rep I knew back about 50 years ago, Leica recommended trimming the leader to make it easier to load the Barnak bodies. He shrugged, and said, "I never found it made much difference either," when I told him I'd done it both ways and hadn't noticed any real difference in ease of loading.

G

 

[rfaspen]

FWIW, I've done it both ways too and found the trimmed leader easier. I once missed some images because I needed to reload and it was an untrimmed roll I needed to load before the action passed. I sat in the shade and struggled with that roll until I just gave up. That's rarely happened over the years and might be a function of what film I was using at the time...but it's happened enough times that I try to trim leaders for barnacks now.

 

[aw614]

I've been using the Ausgeknipst quick load spool on my IIIC without cutting and no issues, but for some reason I've had more issues on my Barnack copies (Leotax and Nicca) loading the film uncut with the same spool. So I switch off between cutting on them for now. On the Nicca and Leotax I've had problems getting the film canister to sit further down and is getting stuck from the rewind know so it won't engage the sprocket gears.