the body is a real but slightly modified Leica.
the lens is a real "Zeiss Lens" which may or may not have been made by Zeiss,
or by the Ruskies as a sales gimmick. Zeiss nuts are still trying to sort that one out.
Stephen
the lens is a real "Zeiss Lens" which may or may not have been made by Zeiss,
or by the Ruskies as a sales gimmick. Zeiss nuts are still trying to sort that one out.
Stephen
LChanyungco
Well-known
thank you Stephen and everyone !! i feel like i just stepped off a roller coaster. i've sent the seller an email apologizing for my claims that the camera is fake... but still no response from her. when she finally gets home to ALL of my emails she's going to think i'm insane. thanks again everyone.
BillP
Rangefinder General
LChanyungco said:
I will be happy to be proven wrong, but it still doesn't feel right to me.
Regards,
Bill
LChanyungco
Well-known
i guess we'll know 100% after i send it in for its CLA. thanks for your input Bill !
BillP
Rangefinder General
LChanyungco said:
You're welcome. I do hope I am wrong. Once you get it, just unscrew the lens and look at the focussing cam. It should be a wheel, not a solid cam.
Regards,
Bill
colyn
ישו משיח
BillP said:I'm sitting here with my Leica II to hand, and the Leica Pocket Book 7th Edition. The last observation I would make is that the viewfinder window frame is missing the notch that mine has, and the picture in the book has.
This is mine:
Regards,
Bill
The Leica II had 2 different viewfinder frames the one like yours and the other fuller with a slightly squared off edge. Just looked it up in the book..
The camera in the OP's photos is a real Leica..
LChanyungco
Well-known
colyn said:
my systolic pressure drops with every positive I.D. thanks Colyn.
Limpovitj
Established
CameraQuest said:
Yes, I limit my "even the lens is genuine" above, to that the glass is a genuine Zeiss Sonnar - as it looks to be uncoated. It's not one of the common Russkie Sonnars made put of Jupiters with re-engraved name rings, that's for sure.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
At first glance, I would say this looks OK to me. When you get the camera, take the bottom plate off and have a look at the layout of the flat spring across the bottom of the shutter crate, the tension adjustments and the bottom of the shutter release rod, etc. If you can post a pic here, it will greatly help in a final decision as to genuine or not.
For the moment, my money is on it being OK - there are a couple of variations of the VF window surround, and as has been pointed out the speed dial could be the flashsync one - as for the shutter release, my II came with exactly the same one - it will unscrew from the body to reveal the original knob underneath. It was an early attempt at a soft release, and helped to keep your finger away from the speed dial during exposure.
Don't panic just yet....
For the moment, my money is on it being OK - there are a couple of variations of the VF window surround, and as has been pointed out the speed dial could be the flashsync one - as for the shutter release, my II came with exactly the same one - it will unscrew from the body to reveal the original knob underneath. It was an early attempt at a soft release, and helped to keep your finger away from the speed dial during exposure.
Don't panic just yet....
jolefler
Established
I compared it to my II....
I compared it to my II....
and it's very similar. The VF window is identicle. Even the shutter guard ring is similar, though not identicle, to my 1937 II also in chrome. Really, the big give away is the RF cam....when you check it, it should be a wheel, not a wedge.
Jo
I compared it to my II....
and it's very similar. The VF window is identicle. Even the shutter guard ring is similar, though not identicle, to my 1937 II also in chrome. Really, the big give away is the RF cam....when you check it, it should be a wheel, not a wedge.
Jo
Attachments
Last edited:
George S.
How many is enough?
Since no one has mentioned this yet, allow me to state what should be obvious-
That the time to do the research into a purchase would be BEFORE the ebay bid and not after winning the auction.
But hey, I hope it works out well for you.
That the time to do the research into a purchase would be BEFORE the ebay bid and not after winning the auction.
But hey, I hope it works out well for you.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Really? Well, then, I would have sent this back; it really looks odd.xayraa33 said:
Isn't knowledge a nice helpful thing?
It really looked like a "job" to me.
Limpovitj
Established
Limpovitj said:
Ah, yes, quoting myself... I've changed my mind about the coating. In one of the pictures I think I'm seeing a faint red "T", which would mean that's it's coated. I still don't think the lens is a Soviet fake, though, at least not of the plain rebadged Jupiter-8 variety, since it doesn't share the barrel design of any Jupiter-8 that I've seen.
burninfilm
Well-known
Don't you love it when you ask a question about a recent purchase, only to be drastically misinformed? Giving out advice and expertise is great, but only when the information given is verifiable fact.
This camera, as has been noted before, appears by ALL signs to be genuine. The serial number matches up well with the features of the camera (for instance, the frame around the viewfinder window is the correct shape, which was also mentioned earlier). The black covering does NOT appear to be fabric. It seems to be cracked/chipped/broken exactly like the brittle vulcanite Leica used to cover the camera bodies. The shutter release collar and shutter speed knob can be found on LOTS of similar vintage Leica cameras.
Doing research before a purchase is good advice. However, it's also good not to believe everything you read when asking a question in an internet based photography forum.
This camera, as has been noted before, appears by ALL signs to be genuine. The serial number matches up well with the features of the camera (for instance, the frame around the viewfinder window is the correct shape, which was also mentioned earlier). The black covering does NOT appear to be fabric. It seems to be cracked/chipped/broken exactly like the brittle vulcanite Leica used to cover the camera bodies. The shutter release collar and shutter speed knob can be found on LOTS of similar vintage Leica cameras.
Doing research before a purchase is good advice. However, it's also good not to believe everything you read when asking a question in an internet based photography forum.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Finally I get to put my TWO CENTS here about this camera.......
Sorry I normally "jump" all over 1939 to 1945 Leica posted stuff but I have been gone from here a few days
This is a REAL Leica folks, a seemingly uncommon WW2 1940 issue Leica II with a aftermarket "soft release" collar, often put on there after the original ones were lost etc. etc. and an accessory shutter speed ring - (this camera was more than likely brought home by a returning American GI)
The vulcanite damage is normal for 1939 to 1946 issue Leica`s the vulcanite changed patterns twice during the war years and the rubber "gummi" content was`nt so gut damals and so after 60+ years alles ist gonna be ein bisschen little bit KAPUTT - about 60% of all "wartime" Leica have bad vulcanite and must be replaced or repaired - DON`T remove what`s STILL left on the camera, I know someone who might? be able to RESTORE that for you
The f2.0 Sonnar looks like it MIGHT? be an original one......hard to tell, in these photos, or could be a co-op/Russkie CZ CKO lens from the 1946/49 era - would the OP please send me some photos of it when you get this camera and I can give you my insight on it
Tom
Sorry I normally "jump" all over 1939 to 1945 Leica posted stuff but I have been gone from here a few days
This is a REAL Leica folks, a seemingly uncommon WW2 1940 issue Leica II with a aftermarket "soft release" collar, often put on there after the original ones were lost etc. etc. and an accessory shutter speed ring - (this camera was more than likely brought home by a returning American GI)
The vulcanite damage is normal for 1939 to 1946 issue Leica`s the vulcanite changed patterns twice during the war years and the rubber "gummi" content was`nt so gut damals and so after 60+ years alles ist gonna be ein bisschen little bit KAPUTT - about 60% of all "wartime" Leica have bad vulcanite and must be replaced or repaired - DON`T remove what`s STILL left on the camera, I know someone who might? be able to RESTORE that for you
The f2.0 Sonnar looks like it MIGHT? be an original one......hard to tell, in these photos, or could be a co-op/Russkie CZ CKO lens from the 1946/49 era - would the OP please send me some photos of it when you get this camera and I can give you my insight on it
Tom
Last edited:
DrLeoB
Shoot a IIIc "K" !!!
WOW, what is up with these people who just seem to want to bash anyone who
has a great camera??? There is absolutely nothing about this body
that is not valid. I have worked for several years understanding the nuances of Leicas
from this period and completely believe that this is a good purchase. You should consider that there is nothing substantial about the naysayers remarks (perhaps they are the competition?) better to consider my remarks including, especially Tom E. and Stephen G.'s remarks. I have three of these bodies with valid history (and fully disassembled, by me and CLA'd) and there is nothing bogus here. I also own several FSU's which have dramatically d ifferent internal construction! The clincher here would be to see some of the internal images, baseplate construction, film loading plate, etc. The russian cameras are also very different here. I am really disturbed at the negative nature of many of these postings ... The buyer just asked a simple question and doesn't deserve the amount of "you're a jerk" attitude ... lighten up guys!!!
has a great camera??? There is absolutely nothing about this body
that is not valid. I have worked for several years understanding the nuances of Leicas
from this period and completely believe that this is a good purchase. You should consider that there is nothing substantial about the naysayers remarks (perhaps they are the competition?) better to consider my remarks including, especially Tom E. and Stephen G.'s remarks. I have three of these bodies with valid history (and fully disassembled, by me and CLA'd) and there is nothing bogus here. I also own several FSU's which have dramatically d ifferent internal construction! The clincher here would be to see some of the internal images, baseplate construction, film loading plate, etc. The russian cameras are also very different here. I am really disturbed at the negative nature of many of these postings ... The buyer just asked a simple question and doesn't deserve the amount of "you're a jerk" attitude ... lighten up guys!!!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
That's what this place seems to be turning into," I am right, you are wrong" ego inflating type of forum.
the OP wanted some help and most of us tried doing just that.
some like to squabble because they fear that their opinion might wrong or someone says the contrary to what they said.
in the end it all won't matter folks.
the OP wanted some help and most of us tried doing just that.
some like to squabble because they fear that their opinion might wrong or someone says the contrary to what they said.
in the end it all won't matter folks.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Well said Leo!
I don't have the necessary level of knowledge or experience to tell anyone that their camera is a fake. Even if I did, would it help?
I don't have the necessary level of knowledge or experience to tell anyone that their camera is a fake. Even if I did, would it help?
hou baloo
Member
I was attracted to this site by what I perceived to be a generally collegial atmosphere, where there could be disagreement - even strong disagreement - without rancor or arrogance. I'm here for light, not heat, and I hope we can police ourselves to maintain that atmosphere.
LChanyungco
Well-known
update : the Leica II is real, and so is the Sonnar
thanks for all the help everyone.
thanks for all the help everyone.
Last edited: