findlandezul
Member
Hello everyone,
After a few years shooting Leica copies, from FED1, Zorki1 to recend FED4, I now plan to buy my first leica.
And it's this one: https://www.olx.ro/oferta/vand-leica-cu-obiectiv-si-filtru-ID7EZBI.html
I have some doubts about it's authencity, first being the lock pin position of the lens, the speed dial and the trim around the mount, only seen in the FSU cameras (at least for me). What do you say, is it a real Leica II, or a FEDkenLeica?
Have great light!
After a few years shooting Leica copies, from FED1, Zorki1 to recend FED4, I now plan to buy my first leica.
And it's this one: https://www.olx.ro/oferta/vand-leica-cu-obiectiv-si-filtru-ID7EZBI.html
I have some doubts about it's authencity, first being the lock pin position of the lens, the speed dial and the trim around the mount, only seen in the FSU cameras (at least for me). What do you say, is it a real Leica II, or a FEDkenLeica?
Have great light!
mcfingon
Western Australia
I'd say it's a fake. Close but not exact copy. The body cover in particular looks very Fedspicious.
MIkhail
-
I am certainly no expert but in my Leica IIIf the focusing and composing windows are closer together and of a different shape.
The trim of a window on front is also quite different.
And where is the slow speed dial?
I would say - fake. I would pass on this one.
The real old Leicas from reliable sources are not that expensive.
The trim of a window on front is also quite different.
And where is the slow speed dial?
I would say - fake. I would pass on this one.
The real old Leicas from reliable sources are not that expensive.
mcfingon
Western Australia
Pic of my genuine 1933 Leica III:
mcfingon
Western Australia
The detail in the front of the "Elmar" lens is not correct either. There should be a little tab to change the aperture on an Elmar. The lens matches exactly the chrome ring aperture change detail in the front of an Industar-22 lens I have. So I'd say it was a double-fake: body and lens.
Richard G
Veteran
The camera looks real enough to me. Some things about the lens look genuine and others not. The E of Elmar looks right, but as you say, the lock pin position of the lens is not typical of 11 o'clock Elmars and these are usually (exclusively?) nickel. The retaining ring of the front element is also not typical of a nickel Elmar, nor is the button of the lens lever. Mine is marked 1:3.5 F=50mm. This one is different. This distance scale marking in relation to the pin are not those of an 11 o'clock Elmar. My much later Elmar (1950) has the same button for the focus lever, but cannot be made to match the foniguration of the pin and lens lock recess as with this lens. And its retaining ring is still nowhere near so complicated as this one looks. I look forward to more expert input.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
For RON (Lei) 800 — less than EUR 180 — I would not expect a genuine Leica.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The lens does not look right. As to the slow speed dial, this is consistent with a II, not a III (there is no slow speed dial). But the close distance between the eye pieces, consistent with a later model, not a II. The hole in the shutter release is typical of a copy. I dunno about that lens!
greyelm
Malcolm
The lens is a Soviet Industar with fake engraving.
Mark Wood
Well-known
...and they're definitely Fed/Zorki-style rangefinder windows and the body covering shape and style is undoubtedly Zorki (rather than Fed) but it all looks genuine apart from that...
Seriously, that really is a Zorki 1 (not Fed) of some description with an Industar 22 lens. Leica never used that "curved" shape of covering, set into the body around the lens mount or rangefinder windows that look quite like that.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
on the 5th photo, you can clearly see diaphragm blades are behind the second lens elements. On a true Elmar, they are on front. Also diaphragm tab is clearly one from Industar:
Pass and keep looking.
Marcelo
Pass and keep looking.
Marcelo
findlandezul
Member
Thank you guys. So my concerns were real, and it certainly is a fake Leica. A pretty good one also. It might have Leica parts or someone did some real work transforming the Zorki into it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It screams nothing, but Зоркий at me. Get Leica IIf, it is impossible to fake them, they are less desirable among collectors, but it is true Leica camera for taking pictures. Leaves Zorki, FED-1 in the dust, but doesn't cost much.
IIf RD, Summitar, VIOOH.
Leica IIf with Industar-22.
IIf RD, Summitar, VIOOH.
Leica IIf with Industar-22.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
on the 5th photo, you can clearly see diaphragm blades are behind the second lens elements. On a true Elmar, they are on front. Also diaphragm tab is clearly one from Industar:
Pass and keep looking.
Marcelo
Industar-10 (FED-50) has same tab and size as Elmar.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Thanks for the photo Ko.Fe. Fed 3.5 sure looks like an Elmar.
Regards.
Marcelo
Regards.
Marcelo
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
It screams nothing, but Зоркий at me. Get Leica IIf, it is impossible to fake them, they are less desirable among collectors, but it is true Leica camera for taking pictures. Leaves Zorki, FED-1 in the dust, but doesn't cost much.
IIf RD, Summitar, VIOOH.
Leica IIf with Industar-22.
Agree Ko.Fe. IIf got the (IMHO) best ergonomics. Slow speed dial kinda gets on the way when I grip my IIIf, but IIf feels more relaxed.
Regards.
Marcelo
Dralowid
Michael
Bits of it are certainly not Leica II. The camera body is a later Zorki I. Notice the black metal moulding running along between the black covering and the chrome. Nobs and shutter release Zorki also.
The thing that catches the eye is the 'dog leg' on the viewfinder window moulding. This is very 'Leica II' and apart from Leica only appears on rare early Feds which would cost a whole lot more than a contemporary Leica. Baseplate looks Leica too.
Others have identified the lens.
If it weren't too expensive and works well there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't take good pictures.
The thing that catches the eye is the 'dog leg' on the viewfinder window moulding. This is very 'Leica II' and apart from Leica only appears on rare early Feds which would cost a whole lot more than a contemporary Leica. Baseplate looks Leica too.
Others have identified the lens.
If it weren't too expensive and works well there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't take good pictures.
Dralowid
Michael
Curiously what I can make out of the serial number makes it a 1935 Leica II.
Of course the number may be re-engraved but that top housing is about right.
I'm tempted to suggest that what we have is a genuine top housing and baseplate with a Zorki sandwiched in between (if that can actually fit), add some Zorki fittings and that's about it.
Of course the number may be re-engraved but that top housing is about right.
I'm tempted to suggest that what we have is a genuine top housing and baseplate with a Zorki sandwiched in between (if that can actually fit), add some Zorki fittings and that's about it.
findlandezul
Member
It's expensive for a Zorki 1. I also have one in much much better shape.
I will pass it, or maybe talk the seller into reducing the price as to match a good Zorki 1m though I am sure that he will still believe it's a Leica.
And as you stated, it might have Leica parts, and it's not much obvious as a fake like the "Luftwaffe Leica" are.
I will keep you up as it goes.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I have a well-adjusted Zorki 1, a Zorki-Zorki as they are called, with both Russian and English markings. It has a clean Industar 22 lens.
There isn't any reason to buy a Leica II unless you are looking for the "experience" of Leica, the Zorki can take just as good pictures, and is just as reliable.
There isn't any reason to buy a Leica II unless you are looking for the "experience" of Leica, the Zorki can take just as good pictures, and is just as reliable.