Leica LTM Leica O series QA?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
P

pizzahut88

Well-known
Local time
7:31 AM
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
369
I think it looks cool.
Perhaps it's not practical at all.

But I simply don't know a thing about it.
Anyboby has one?
Anyone shooting with it?

I am also looking for a copy of the manual for this O-series.

What are the specs?
It has no meter right?

Cheers, Manfred
 
pizzahut88 said:
I think it looks cool.
Perhaps it's not practical at all ... It has no meter right?
Click to expand...

It's like no other camera - every other 35mm camera in existence started here.

Things that you have probably never knew you had to think about need to be taken care of:

To load film, make sure you have your swiss army knife - you need to cut a longer tail than is standard on cassettes.

The shutter is not self capping - so you have to replace the lens cap before winding on.
Half way though winding on is the only opportunity to change the slot width, which defines the shutter speed. It's calibrated in mm.
The first model ( mine ) has a cross hair and needle viewfinder, which you use at arms length like a digital compact. I don't use this, but use the superb SBOOI OVF instead ( see avatar )
The later model has a OVF, but cost will be $$$.
The aperture and scale focus are conventional.
There is no filter thread ( as the aperture lever is right next to the front element)

Exposure is by the sunny = 1/ISO at f/12 method.

All that said, it easy to use with practice, the lens is outstandingly sharp and boken is superb.

I scanned in the manual into pdf a while back, I can post a link if you like later ( once I get back from work )
 
Last edited:
spysmart said:
I scanned in the manual into pdf a while back, I can post a link if you like later ( once I get back from work )
Click to expand...

Ooo . . . lovely, I am trying to find out more about this camera.
 
pizzahut88 - I’ve been using the prototype-2 for a year and a half. Only difference from the proto-1 is the compact, permanently-fixed optical viewfinder that enables full head-to-camera support.

The viewfinder’s half-life-size tube image seems a negative but scene framing is reasonably bright, surprisingly accurate and very, very quick to the eye/brain.

Like spysmart says, operating the O requires RELIGIOUS FORETHOUGHT. Once set, it works like greased lighting for just ONE shot ... forget to recap and that shot and the next frame are fried during full advance or half-advance shutter reset. Hey, no big deal, O users quickly learn to not advance – the exact opposite of one's normal rangefinder instinct.

Speaking of nutty, O apertures and speeds are also vintage. I had to work up an exposure/dof reference card to become comfortable using, say 5mm/f12 for iso100 sunny16, the old-time equivalent to 125th/f16.

The camera is tiny, perfectly-balanced with a killer lens and a superb mechanical feel, but the best thing is that you must think before you leap – employ the mindset of a large format user without all the baggage. I love the routine and take the little beastie everywhere in it's little leather case.
 
Can I suggest a Leica I or Standard?

I've had a I for years but only started using it last year after a CLA. It's a great little camera with a wonderful feel and simple to use. External condition is pretty grim so there are no worries about beating it up.

Much cheaper than an O too!

Michael
 
spysmart said:
Okay, I've posted the manual here: Leica_OSeriesManual.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for the upload.

I have the read the whole thing . . . gas attack!!!
So there are two variations right?


Merlin has the later type, with the finder?
I suppose I would like to use the finder version.

It's really basic.
Zone focusing . . . no meter . . . . this is the final frontier
the beginning and the end of the all things about photography.
 
merlin said:
pizzahut88 - I’ve been using the prototype-2 for a year and a half. Only difference from the proto-1 is the compact, permanently-fixed optical viewfinder that enables full head-to-camera support.

The viewfinder’s half-life-size tube image seems a negative but scene framing is reasonably bright, surprisingly accurate and very, very quick to the eye/brain.

Like spysmart says, operating the O requires RELIGIOUS FORETHOUGHT. Once set, it works like greased lighting for just ONE shot ... forget to recap and that shot and the next frame are fried during full advance or half-advance shutter reset. Hey, no big deal, O users quickly learn to not advance – the exact opposite of one's normal rangefinder instinct.

Speaking of nutty, O apertures and speeds are also vintage. I had to work up an exposure/dof reference card to become comfortable using, say 5mm/f12 for iso100 sunny16, the old-time equivalent to 125th/f16.

The camera is tiny, perfectly-balanced with a killer lens and a superb mechanical feel, but the best thing is that you must think before you leap – employ the mindset of a large format user without all the baggage. I love the routine and take the little beastie everywhere in it's little leather case.
Click to expand...

Hi Merlin,

Thanks for your tip.
Is there room enough to tack on one of those Voigltander VC Meter?
I am terrible with guessing exposure.
My Rollei 35 suffers from my poor skills, its meter being dead.

And last thing to confirm, there is no rangefinder right?
So guess focusing is it?
 
spysmart said:
It's like no other camera - every other 35mm camera in existence started here.
Click to expand...
Not really. Here are some (no all) of the earlier 35mm still cameras:

Tourist Multiple, 1912/13
Simplex, 1913
Homeos, 1914
Minigraph, 1915
Sico, 1922
Debrie Sept, 1922
Phototank, 1922
Esco, 1923
Le Furet, 1923
Eka (1924)
Cent Vues (1924)
Photorette (1924)
Unette (1924)
Amourette (1924)

The Leica appeared, of course, in April 1925.

Some, it is true, used imperforate film; but the Eka was made by Krauss, which I believe to be the same firm that made (makes?) microscopes -- an interesting parallel with Leitz.

To return to the question, after trying to use a Nullserie replica (a friend has one), I decided that life wasn't long enough: I'd rather just take pictures...

Cheers,

Roger
 
I'm sure I'm jumping in over my head, but didn't Barnack create his UR Leica in 1913 ?

( Or have I been guiled by Leitz propaganda ?)

Thanks,

Luddite Frank

(PS: I was REALLY tempted by one of the Null replicas that Ritz had for sale, but decided that it was too "fiddly" ( and expensive) for a shooter, so I got two later cameras: a D ( II ) and a III-f... in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to using a Null is the lack of a self-capping shutter; that and the proprietary shutter speed code... )
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not really. Here are some (no all) of the earlier 35mm still cameras: ... The Leica appeared, of course, in April 1925 ... Some, it is true, used imperforate film; but the Eka was made by Krauss, which I believe to be the same firm that made (makes?) microscopes -- an interesting parallel with Leitz.

To return to the question, after trying to use a Nullserie replica (a friend has one), I decided that life wasn't long enough: I'd rather just take pictures...
Click to expand...

Roger - First, Hello.

OK, maybe Eka>Krauss still makes or doesn't make microscopes but aren't you, perhaps, maybe, splitting an oak tree as to which camera started the 35 Revolution? The original 1914-ish Barnack camera was 99% of the gene pool for the Leica Null, which evolved into all the little Leica LTM and less-little M models. Meantime, what did any of those other (albeit-very-interesting) fringe camera-makers ever amount too in the 35mm world?

As far as using the O, you must try harder – it's mechanical ponderousness lowers the blood pressure, forces one to slow down and relax and hopefully live a longer life, not a shorter life. Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it (until I die).

Bruce
 
Looking forward to the 0 Erik! I think the iiif will be going on the block here shortly once this baby arrives. The connection to large format is a good one- I've felt this about working with the iiif, there is a layer of disconnect I feel from the subject due to the mechanics. We'll see how it compares.
 
pizzahut88 said:
Hi Merlin,

Thanks for your tip.
Is there room enough to tack on one of those Voigltander VC Meter?
I am terrible with guessing exposure.
My Rollei 35 suffers from my poor skills, its meter being dead.

And last thing to confirm, there is no rangefinder right?
So guess focusing is it?
Click to expand...

The accessory shoe is obsessively true to the original, therefore you can't attach anything to it that was made after August 17, 1925 ... the torture never ends!

Read the current-running meter-no-meter thread ... in spite of what some say, thoughtful guessing works surprisingly well!

Yes, there is no rangefinder. I made up a really-helpful business-card-sized chart that is much simpler than the one in the manual - and it's needed in critical DOF situations as there can't be such indiicators on a microscopic collapsible lens. 7m@f12 (11'-∞º) is the set for ∞, and guesstimating close distances is not the ogre you'd think once you train yourself ... and know there will be occasional failures.

All said and done, the O is simply a trip you take or don't. Good luck in your quest. PM me anytime.
 
merlin said:
Roger - First, Hello.

OK, maybe Eka>Krauss still makes or doesn't make microscopes but aren't you, perhaps, maybe, splitting an oak tree as to which camera started the 35 Revolution? The original 1914-ish Barnack camera was 99% of the gene pool for the Leica Null, which evolved into all the little Leica LTM and less-little M models. Meantime, what did any of those other (albeit-very-interesting) fringe camera-makers ever amount too in the 35mm world?

As far as using the O, you must try harder – it's mechanical ponderousness lowers the blood pressure, forces one to slow down and relax and hopefully live a longer life, not a shorter life. Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it (until I die).

Bruce
Click to expand...
Dear Bruce (with a nod to Frank too),

Entirely fair, but the earliest British patent for a 35mm camera of which I am aware was in 1908, and we may fairly assume that most of the earlier cameras existed in prototype form, before they were patended (which was 1912 for the Tourist Multiple, for example). And one feature of the Nullserie which was significantly more primitive than many of its forebears was the viewfinder.

The information I gave in the earlier post was taken from my own A History of the 35mm Still Camera, Focal Press, 1984, and many more cameras have come to light in the quarter-century since I wrote it; take a look at

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

which includes a 1905 Andersen; as far as I am aware, never patented.

Yes, obviously all 35mm cameras owe a great deal to the Leica. All I was trying to suggest is that it is very easy to overstate this, and that (in my belief) many people do overstate it. SLR design owes a vast amount to Exakta; exposure automation, to Kodak; lens design, to many manufacturers other than Leitz/Leica; and the Steinheil Casca (1949) incorporated many features that would later appear in the M3.

As for slowing down, that's the last thing I want to do with a 35mm camera, which I see as a quick way of grabbing an image. If I want to slow down, I'll go to a larger format -- all the way up to my 12x15 inch Gandolfi, if I want maximum delay between seeing a shot and taking it -- but this is very much a personal way of looking at things, as is yours; neither is necessarily more valid.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I like the look of the 'O' and it inspired me to go out and buy a 1930 Leica 1a because when I read about having to cover the lens to wind on I thought "no thanks." I can deal with the scale focussing, strange aperture scale and odd shutter speeds of my 1a but having to remember to cap the lens before advancing the film as well would be too much! :p
 
I want to dispel the myth that the O-series is slow to use.
It's really no slower than using a Rollei 35 and not far behind a M6 with collapsable 50mm for stowed to single shot i.e. in pocket, extend lens, set aperture, focus and fire; cap, wind .... Capping the lens becomes so instinctive that it soon requires no thought.
The main inconvenience is setting the shutter speed to fit in with ambient lighting conditions. As I always wind on, that occasionally means wasting a frame to change shutter speed.

The accessory shoe works just fine with accessories made after 1925 - the trick is to use a small tab of leather under the OVF as a wedge. My SBOOI is very firmly held in place.

It's a great little travel camera, but does come with the feeling that you are a passenger in a Zeppelin airship.
 
I agree with Keith. The shutter capping bit is a step too far for me, hence my suggestion of the I.

They also happen to be original...

Michael
 
Dralowid said:
I agree with Keith. The shutter capping bit is a step too far for me, hence my suggestion of the I.

They also happen to be original...

Michael
Click to expand...
Seconded. I had a fixed-lens Standard from the late 20s for a while.

Even so, I still prefer an MP. I've owned Standard, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIIf (RD and BD) and IIIg, and M2, M3, M4-P, MP and M8, and played with I, IIId replica, 250FF, 250GG, M1, M5, M6, M6ttl, M7 (taking pics with about half of the latter), and for me, a Leica is a machine for taking pics, not an antique for wrestling with. I can see the appeal of old Leicas, and still have the first Leica I ever bought, my IIIa; but there's a big gap, as far as I am concerned, between the romantic dream and taking pictures. That gap has been widening steadily for decades.

I would not wish for an instant to discourage anyone from actually using old Leicas; I had a lot of fun doing it. All I'm saying is that the dream and the reality don't necessarily match for everyone, so think hard before spending large sums on a dream.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Personally, for an early, practical Barnack, I would happily "compromise" with an A ( I'm hooked by the "hockey-stick" infinity lock ! )...

I'm in Roger's camp when it comes to using ponderous, "fiddly" cameras: I'll switch formats and haul-out my 1890's "Rochester View" 8x10, long-focus Premo 5x7, Pony Premo 4x5, or even my 1960's battleship-grey Calument 4x5 monorail...

By comparison to those dinosaurs, my 1930's Zeiss "Donata" 9x12cm plate-camera, with Plaubel RADA 120 roll-film back is a "compact", speedy hand-camera !

Happy shooting !

LudditeFrank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom