Leica LTM First roll of film in a Barnack

[Richard G]

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

I’ve always worried about a sharp right angle created by trimming the leader, finding its way onto the cloth shutter and gouging a tear. I have been curving that little corner. I will now stop trimming it. When the Leica first arrived no-one had fiddled with thin film in such a small device. Perhaps in 1925 they were just trying to be helpful with their instructions. I’ve had more trouble with one of the very floppy Fuji slide films going into an M5 than I’ve had with easier films in my II or IIIf.

Thank you Godfrey. You’ve always been resistant to received opinion. An admirable trait.

 

[38Deardorff]

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...


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:

View attachment 4868697

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!

I've never been a fan of the 135mm length on SLR & on Leica rangefinders the 135 frame has always been to tiny for me. (I've owned both the Tele-Elmar and the goggled Elmarit 2.8). I think where the petite Barnacks shine is with wide angles and accessory finders (21/25/28/35). If and just if it were me w a Barnack, i'd use the 90mm and then jump to the 200 Telyt LTM with the visoflex. Of course that's just my extremely personal preference. In SLR I happily jumped from 90/105 to 180 (3.4 Apo/ or Nikkor 180 2.8).

 

[Bingley]

I’ve always worried about a sharp right angle created by trimming the leader, finding its way onto the cloth shutter and gouging a tear. I have been curving that little corner. I will now stop trimming it. When the Leica first arrived no-one had fiddled with thin film in such a small device. Perhaps in 1925 they were just trying to be helpful with their instructions. I’ve had more trouble with one of the very floppy Fuji slide films going into an M5 than I’ve had with easier films in my II or IIIf.

Thank you Godfrey. You’ve always been resistant to received opinion. An admirable trait.

This^^^. I've stopped trimming the leader too, mainly bc I don't always have the right tool w/ me and if I don't get the angle right bits of the film leader can break off and fall into the camera.

Here's my film loading hack, courtesy of the estimable Youxin Ye: remove the lens, set the shutter to "T" and open the shutter, remove the baseplate and take-up spool, feed the (uncut) leader into the slot on the take-up spool, gently slide the take-up spool and film canister into the camera, watch the film slide down into position through the opened shutter and guide it down w/ your finger if necessary, then close the shutter, and put the lens and the baseplate back on. Works like a charm. Takes me less than two minutes to complete.

 

[Bingley]

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.

Congrats on the IIIf! I also find my IIIc very fast in use. I always use an external vf, so the framing experience is fast and enjoyable. Another plus of Barnack Leicas is the longish effective baselength, so it's possible to focus fast lenses accurately. Returned last week from Scotland and used the IIIc for all my film photos. I enjoy using these Barnack Leicas as much, if not more, than the M cameras.

 

[Richard G]

I've never been a fan of the 135mm length on SLR & on Leica rangefinders the 135 frame has always been to tiny for me. (I've owned both the Tele-Elmar and the goggled Elmarit 2.8). I think where the petite Barnacks shine is with wide angles and accessory finders (21/25/28/35). If and just if it were me w a Barnack, i'd use the 90mm and then jump to the 200 Telyt LTM with the visoflex. Of course that's just my extremely personal preference. In SLR I happily jumped from 90/105 to 180 (3.4 Apo/ or Nikkor 180 2.8).

135 is a problem but I found it much more satisfying with the SHOOC finder. Easpecially if my subject remains at the same distance and I’m just framing and not focussing.

 

[Godfrey]

I’ve always worried about a sharp right angle created by trimming the leader, finding its way onto the cloth shutter and gouging a tear. I have been curving that little corner. I will now stop trimming it. When the Leica first arrived no-one had fiddled with thin film in such a small device. Perhaps in 1925 they were just trying to be helpful with their instructions. I’ve had more trouble with one of the very floppy Fuji slide films going into an M5 than I’ve had with easier films in my II or IIIf.

Thank you Godfrey. You’ve always been resistant to received opinion. An admirable trait.

You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment! 🙂

I haven't used my IIIc for a few months (too many other cameras...!), so just for giggles I pulled it and a practice roll of film* out for a test yesterday. I practiced loading it four times. My times to complete a load were 1:20, 1:05, 0:55, and 0:56 ... So, with a modicum of practice, about one minute to load a fresh film (uncut leader) once I'm in the groove. Just for the amusement value, I pull out the M4-2 and measured my loading times with it four times: 0:35, 0:21, 0:23, and 0:20. So loading an M with the 'drop in loading' system takes about 1/3 the time that it takes to load the IIIc. Analyzing the loading a little further, about 10-15 seconds with either camera is spent in fussing with removing and replacing the baseplate, which I guess is why the swing open back on most 1960s and later cameras was/is so highly prized: much less stuff to fuss with just to get the film out and into the camera.

A secondary note is that loading either of these cameras is a much faster operation (for me...) than loading most of my 120 roll film cameras. Case in point: the Plaubel Makina 67 (which I really love shooting with) usually takes me 5-6 minutes to load properly; it's just so fussy to get the backing paper to roll onto the take up smoothly! Either that or I'm just particularly clumsy with it... LOL!

G
--
"No matter where you go, there you are."

* "practice roll of film" — I have way too many cameras, and many of these older cameras have loading sequences which can be a little difficult to remember if you haven't been using them recently. So I keep a couple of "junk" rolls of 135 film handy that I can practice/re-learn loading specifics with. It's proven very handy ... The Vitessa, the Vito II, the Leica Barnak, the Kodak Retina IIc, etc etc, all have different (and often very specific) operations to perform when loading a film so that they operate correctly. It's best for me to practice at least once before loading a roll of film to go shooting with if I haven't used one of them for a bit. More modern cameras seem to be simpler and easier to load and set up properly without so much study and practice, one of the larger advances in camera technology to my mind.​

 

[MNS]

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.

You make a valid point, I hadn't thought of it that way.