Leica Standard or Leica I

[Mackinaw]

Raid, have you thought about contacting Jim Lager? I see he has his own sub-forum here in RFF. Maybe he can help answer your questions.

Jim B.

 

[JB-Dancer]

Raid- this book is available from WWW.ABEBOOKS.COM

Leica the First Fifty Years: Rogliatti, G.
Stock Image
Leica the First Fifty Years
Rogliatti, G.

Published by Hove Camera Foto Books (1977)

ISBN 10: 0852425945 ISBN 13: 9780852425947

Used Hardcover
Quantity Available: 1

From: Vera Enterprises LLC /VeraBook (Clarksburg, NJ, U.S.A.)

Seller Rating: 3-star rating

US$ 17.50
Convert currency
Shipping: US$ 9.00
Within U.S.A.
Destination, rates & speeds
About this Item: Hove Camera Foto Books, 1977. Hard Cover. Condition: Near Fine. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good +. Second Edition. Near fine in VG+ dj with wear to dj spine ends. Text is clean and tight. Seller Inventory # 045113

More information about this seller | Contact this seller

 

[Erik van Straten]

There are 2 batches of 1 Standard cameras making 650 in total.
camera serial no's 142501 - 142700 in 1934 (200 cameras)
camera serial no's 160701 - 161150 in 1935 (450 cameras)

Yes, you are right, apperently I've been to lazy to check if there were other batches.

I only have the "red" books by Lager, not his more sophisticated later ones. In the "red" books "1 Standard" Leicas are not mentioned.

In Laney's 2nd edition of his Collectors Guide the 142501 - 142700 batch is mentioned as "1 Standard", but the 160701 - 161150 batch is mentoned only as "1".

In Rogliatti both batches are mentioned as "1 Standard".

Erik

 

[David Hughes]

😀:bang:

I must be a fake Leica user, David!
Thanks for the information on the books. I will search for a copy.

Nice one. ;-)


FWIW, I consult the accessory one over and over again, a mine of info.


Regards, David

 

[raid]

Yes, you are right, apperently I've been to lazy to check if there were other batches.

I only have the "red" books by Lager, not his more sophisticated later ones. In the "red" books "1 Standard" Leicas are not mentioned.

In Laney's 2nd edition of his Collectors Guide the 142501 - 142700 batch is mentioned as "1 Standard", but the 160701 - 161150 batch is mentoned only as "1".

In Rogliatti both batches are mentioned as "1 Standard".

Erik

I have contacted Nicolas Uhl at Leica about this issue. Hopefully, he can give a good reply.

 

[JB-Dancer]

In the book "Leica. A History illustrating every Model and Accessory" by Paul Henry van Hasbroeck in his write-up on Standard Leica cameras on page 73 he mentions the fact that during the early years of the Second World War, Leitz of New York, converted Leica Standards into X-ray cameras for the Westinghouse Corporation.These X-ray cameras differ from the Leitz Wetzlar cameras in that they are of the full 24x36 mm format, not the 24x24 format of the Leitz Wetzlar models.One of these New York conversions is shown on page 74 photo 42d.The camera shows that the finder has been removed.
Is it possible that Raid's camera was sent back to Leitz of New York to have it converted for X-ray use at this time.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Unfortunately Van Hasbroeck does not mention the "1 Standard" model. It seems that this model is mentioned only in the year and number overviews and never in any text.



Erik.

 

[raid]

Is Van Hasbroek still alive and could he be reached for advise?

 

[Sumarongi]

There are 2 batches of 1 Standard cameras making 650 in total.
camera serial no's 142501 - 142700 in 1934 (200 cameras)
camera serial no's 160701 - 161150 in 1935 (450 cameras)

Unfortunately Van Hasbroeck does not mention the "1 Standard" model. It seems that this model is mentioned only in the year and number overviews and never in any text.

Puts in his pocket book has:

[camera serial no's] 142501 [–] 142700 [model designation] I Standard [year] 1934 [items] 200
[camera serial no's] 160701 [–] 161150 [model designation] I [sic!] [year] 1935 [items] 450

Hope this mistake in Mr Puts's booklet may give you some solace, Erik 🙂

 

[raid]

So my post on my camera being "Standard" or "1" was sort of a correct title.
The possibility of it being a Leitz modified camera for microscope use sounds a possibility. Thanks to JB-Dancer for this idea! Everyone involved in this thread has contributed very interesting material. Thanks.
The name "I Standard" was not on my radar, but Rob said it. "Yours doesn't, suggesting it is a transitional piece between the I and the standard"

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hope this mistake in Mr Puts's booklet may give you some solace, Erik 🙂

Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.


Erik.

 

[Sumarongi]

Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.

Dear Erik,
I did *not* know that, but I can imagine 😀

 

[raid]

Puts never gave me any solace whatsoever. I know the guy personally.


Erik.

Your are very informed on Leica issues, Erik.
Do you correspond with Puts?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Your are very informed on Leica issues, Erik.
Do you correspond with Puts?

No, but he is Dutch, like me, I've met him a couple of times. He is not a nice guy at all. I will not say more about this, because it is a personal matter.


Erik.

 

[raid]

I won't even ask, Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

Snip ... The possibility of it being a Leitz modified camera for microscope use sounds a possibility. Thanks to JB-Dancer for this idea! Everyone involved in this thread has contributed very interesting material. Thanks.

I have done a bit of work with microscopes and so on and can't see why an extra accessory clip would be needed. All you need do (ignoring exposure) is align the axis of the microscope with the camera's optical axis. Usually done with a tube screwing into the camera body in place of the lens and then fitting the other end of the tube on to the microscope. Viewfinders and so on don't come into it. Neither do range-finders nor anything else I can think of.

I'd put up a photo of my microscope adapter for you (alone and in use) but finding it and so on would disrupt thing domestically here...

I think the most obvious use for a double clip would be a better view finder and a vertical RF like the early ones (FODIS) that came with the first Leicas.

Regards, David

 

[Erik van Straten]

I have done a bit of work with microscopes and so on and can't see why an extra accessory clip would be needed. All you need do (ignoring exposure) is align the axis of the microscope with the camera's optical axis. Usually done with a tube screwing into the camera body in place of the lens and then fitting the other end of the tube on to the microscope. Viewfinders and so on don't come into it. Neither do range-finders nor anything else I can think of.

I'd put up a photo of my microscope adapter for you (alone and in use) but finding it and so on would disrupt thing domestically here...

I think the most obvious use for a double clip would be a better view finder and a vertical RF like the early ones (FODIS) that came with the first Leicas.

Regards, David

I fully agree with David here. Cartier-Bresson, the most famous user of the Leica 1, said that he could see "nothing" through the standard finder of the 1, he always had a Vidom in the accessoryshoe.

Cartier-Bresson was right, the finder was completely unreliable because the viewing angle was much too large, so important parts of the image could be left out of the image unintentionally.

Erik.

 

[Rob-F]

Yes, I think the extra shoe was for the accessory rangefinder. I didn't know there was a FODIS. There was a FOKOS, as I recall. I've seen pictures of the model I with FOKOS attached.

 

[raid]

🙂 I certainly find the second accessory as being useful for a RF. I have a RF that is not a Leica made one, and I used to use it with 5cm lens on the Standard. The center shoe is used for the finder. I have to agree with Cartier-Bresson here! 😎

 

[Erik van Straten]

I didn't know there was a FODIS.

The first model of the vertical rangefinder was called "FODIS".

Erik.