Leica LTM Is my new IIIc already having shutter problems?

[gjlynx]

I always liked the images that I got from my Dad's IIIc + Summitar, so last week I bought one. It was supposed to have had a fresh CLA, but there seems to be something strange with the shutter. If I bracket a shot with the aperature and leave the shutter the same, the second shot sometimes has an over exposed vertical swath about 1/3 of the way from the right. I need to do some experimenting to make sure, but it seems that if I adjust the shutter speed between shots I don't have the problem. I have enclosed two shots that have the problem and one with that Summitar Bokeh that I've always loved. Any ideas about what's happening here?


As always, thanks in advance for all of the good answers on this forum.

 

[xayraa33]

is your finger hitting the highspeed shutter dial while making the exposure?

 

[Rob-F]

Shot #2 looks to me like it could be flare.

Apart from that: does it matter what shutter speed you have used?

 

[gjlynx]

is your finger hitting the highspeed shutter dial while making the exposure?

Probably not. I use the tip of my right index finger to fire the shutter and the camera has really good ergonomics for hands of my size.

 

[gjlynx]

Shot #2 looks to me like it could be flare.

Apart from that: does it matter what shutter speed you have used?

I was not keeping any notes from the shots but I think it was 1/200.

This shot was taken a few secs earlier.

 

[aad]

Looks like flare or a light leak-but more like flare.

 

[payasam]

Shutter defects usually affect the beginning or the end of the frame.

 

[Bill Snell]

I struck a similar problem once with a canon IVsb. I worked out that I had come to the end of the film when the shutter was partly cocked. I then rewound without the lens cap on and the film fogged in a similar way. The slit in the shutter was partly open and with knob wind light coming through lens fogged the film each time the rewind knob stopped. Hasn't happened since as I always make sure lens cap is on or shutter is cocked or released. This may or may not be your problem. Best of luck.

 

[cmedin]

My IIf did something similar, turned out it was actually the LENS that had a light leak around the barrel (I-50).

 

[Luddite Frank]

You might double-check your negatives to see if they have the same streak as the prints...

Before I switched to the local Ritz agency for processing, I was getting "streaky" prints; it turned out to be a lab-problem, not a camera problem.

Also, just a quick observation from your first three pics: looks like the sun was behind you ( ?) so I'm wondering it if is (possible to be ) lens-flare ?

My first rolls from my III-f / Sumicron were shot into nearly into the late-afternoon sun, no hood, and the prints had all sorts of "spots" abberations, that I was certain were lens-flare; there were other shots in the same roll that were very good.

Eventually, I became aware that the curtains in my III-f are shot (crackled), and what I was thinking was lens-flare was actually caused by the leaky curtains.

I suppose it is possible that your shutter is dragging a bit in mid-travel; with the lens off and no film in the camera, set it at 1/20 or 1/30, and observe the curtain travel / shutter sound when you press the button: do the curtains seems to move smoothly and the clockwork sounds regular and smooth ?

If the curtains appear to hesitate or the clockworks change in pitch or sound, that could be a sign that things are dragging...

My III-f and D (black II ) both get really draggy when they've been out in the cold; that shows up as the right side of the print being darker than the left; sometimes the last 1/4 of the image on the right side is dark.

I recently got a pretty ugly III (chrome) with a really gummy shutter ( would'nt even fire a complete cycle on any speed. Deciding to make it a guinea-pig, I flooded a mix of Ronsonol and gun oil around the shutter release button, and the high-speed dial, and kept exercising the shutter. After about 1/2 hour of fiddling, I got all the speeds to work smoothly, even the slows, all the way down to 1 sec. I've been out shooting a couple of test rolls, in the cold, and it doesn't seem to mind the cold at all. This is not a replacement for a proper CLA, but will at least enable me to evaluate the shutter curtains, etc.

But I digress.

You might try another roll, keeping careful notes in one of those little pocket flip-pads, maybe even put the camera on a tripod, and shoot the same scene, trying all combinations of f-stop / shutter speed that your film/ light allows, until you've covered the camera's full range.

Once you've done that, if it's a bright sunny day, you could try shooting the same scene at different times of day, early, with the sun behind you, and later with the sun between 90 & 45 degrees to the film -plane ("shooting into the sun")... this should tell you "how" your Summitar flares, and perhaps better enable you to judge whether your lens or your camera is the culprit...

Just some thoughts based on my recent Leica experiences...

Good luck !

Luddite Frank

 

[VictorM.]

The bright band in #2 and #3 looks like a light leak. If it's had a recent CLA, you should send it back for more work. Be sure the tech sees the pictures and understands when the problem arises.

 

[gjlynx]

Thanks everyone for all of the replies!

I went out and shot a couple of new rolls yesterday and today. For one roll
I used a brick wall as the subject with several combinations of exposure.
With the lighting I could not open the Summitar all the way up, but at f4 to
f16 I DID NOT see the problem. I also tried my 90mm Elmar and I only saw
a very faint indication of the problem on one shot. I tried some more shots
with the Summitar pretty much wide open at the Texas Capital dome and
observed an enormous washed out area, that even spills over into the sprockets
of the negatives. Numerous other shots with the Summitar came out
really nice.

So in summary, if the washed out area (over exposed) spills into the sprockets,
is that more likely to be flare or curtain leak? I have added three more images
to help you folks see the problems that I'm encountering.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

It looks to be an intermittent problem (which is always tricky) and probably not flare, judging by direction of sun in your earlier photos. The light going right across the full film width is interesting - it looks like a significant leakage of light into the film chamber. If it was only one film I'd suspect an error in processing but as it's happened to a number of films I'm thinking it's something to do with the camera.
Poor sealing of the light trap on the bottom film-loading plate could be one cause, and different hand pressure holding the camera might cause the variability.
It's unlikely to be light leaking past the lens threads, so another source I'm thinking it might be is that there are (as far as I know) two shutter curtains and it may be that they are seriously out of synch. It might be adjustable but it might also be due to one of the springs being on the way out.
Either way, I think you need to get it to a good Leica-trained techie, together with the frames you've taken. I doubt there's a home remedy for what's happening.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Thanks everyone for all of the replies!

I went out and shot a couple of new rolls yesterday and today. For one roll
I used a brick wall as the subject with several combinations of exposure.
With the lighting I could not open the Summitar all the way up, but at f4 to
f16 I DID NOT see the problem. I also tried my 90mm Elmar and I only saw
a very faint indication of the problem on one shot. I tried some more shots
with the Summitar pretty much wide open at the Texas Capital dome and
observed an enormous washed out area, that even spills over into the sprockets
of the negatives. Numerous other shots with the Summitar came out
really nice.

So in summary, if the washed out area (over exposed) spills into the sprockets,
is that more likely to be flare or curtain leak? I have added three more images
to help you folks see the problems that I'm encountering.

I'm wondering why the image is shifted over the sprocket holes... that suggests to me that either the film is not tracking properly across the frame mask, or perhaps the mask is missing ?

Looking at your capitol dome, I began to feel like James Stewart in "Vertigo"...
😀 ( That would not be a camera or lens problem ... )


Your flared shots don't look like lens flare to me; and if you achieved the same abberation with the 90 mm Elmar (non-collapsible), that would suggest that a light-leak around the barrel of the Summitar is not the culprit either...

As suggested above, I think your III-c needs professional attention; somebody like DAG, Golden Touch, or Youxin Ye...


Good luck with it - I hope the problem is easily corrected !

LF

 

[Luddite Frank]

I just had another thought... the camera records the scene "upside down" in respect to how we are holding the camera / seeing the scene...

Keeping that in mind, I'm wondering if this is being caused by a body leak at the bottom plate ?

Are you using this Barnack "naked" or in an Eveready-case ? If "naked", you might try one more roll, wrapping the bottom plate/body joint with black electrical tape to seal any possible light-leaks, and see if the problem persists ?

That middle image from the capitol: looks like the film was fogged from the back-side, not the lens-side....

Any dings in the edges of the top / bottom plates or missing vulcanite near the top / bottom that would suggest the body may have suffered impact ?

LF

 

[Stu W]

Does the camera have an add on or accesory flash sync? Stu

 

[Keith]

I had a similar experience with a IIIc and the flared areas were very similar to yours. It turned out to be a small screw missing from the front of the camera beside the lens ... to the left looking from the front. I hadn't even noticed it was gone. I know that sounds horribly obvious but have a look because my camera had supposedly just been CLA'd also and the screw had either been forgotten or subsequently vibrated out with use! Because it lives in the middle of all that vulcanite you don't really notice it.

The thing that amazed me was the light streaks appeared to be intermittent and only affected a third or so of my shots!

 

[gjlynx]

Does the camera have an add on or accesory flash sync? Stu

It looks to be stock IIIc with no flash sync.

 

[foto_fool]

One - my cynical side says that every eBay seller will tell you the camera has had a recent CLA 🙄.

TWO - it might just be that you have not mastered loading the film - the offset image drifting to the sprocket holes suggests this. IME to load the film properly you must remove the lens and hold the shutter open (you can use the T setting if it works - mine does not so I use the B setting and hold the shutter button open) while you manipulate the film so it is lined up correctly in the rails.

If this is not your loading protocol, check out the CameraQuest site:
http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmcam.htm
Look for "film loading" under "peculiarities".

 

[gjlynx]

I just had another thought... the camera records the scene "upside down" in respect to how we are holding the camera / seeing the scene...

Keeping that in mind, I'm wondering if this is being caused by a body leak at the bottom plate ?

Are you using this Barnack "naked" or in an Eveready-case ? If "naked", you might try one more roll, wrapping the bottom plate/body joint with black electrical tape to seal any possible light-leaks, and see if the problem persists ?

That middle image from the capitol: looks like the film was fogged from the back-side, not the lens-side....

Any dings in the edges of the top / bottom plates or missing vulcanite near the top / bottom that would suggest the body may have suffered impact ?

LF

The camera has been naked - just wearing a strap, but I do have an eveready case that it could wear. There are no dings around the edges of the bottom or top plates.
The vulcanite is intact and all of the screws appear to be present. There is a small ding on the center of the top plate near the center rangefinder window. The fogging does look most intense on the part of the film that would be closest to the bottom of the camera.