Loading my IIIc: need help...

i can load my IIIc with both methods, i choose whichever i like on that day and both ways for me take about the same time....since i pre-cut my film leader too. For me there's no correct method, u know its correct when the film loaded properly and u can take picture with the camera and the pictures come out okay
 
"Can't say anything logical, payasam?"

I will not be judged by your kind, Mister Javier. While I respect knowledge, I have only contempt for the closed mind that often comes with knowledge. Religions are the best example of the unquestionable absolute: they leave no space either for reason or for reality.
 
Please folks, can we stay civil? I can't think of anything less worthy of an argument. Both methods work for their proponents.

ZorkiKat, I have tremendous respect for your experience that you so freely share, here and on your website. However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs. We're talking spring steel here. That stuff doesn't get permanently flattened that easily. I also think you should count the time it takes you to cut the leader. Whether you do that in batches or one by one, it is time you spend.

aperture64, is it so hard to admit that your way involves more steps, and the need to find a safe place for the lens? Nobody denies that it's working for you, and once it becomes a habit, I bet it's quite fast enough. It should be permitted to point out these potential pitfalls to a beginner, though.
 
Zorkikat, I'm sorry if my post seemed to be directed solely at you, it wasn't meant to be. The remarks on fast reloading were a response to others' input here.

I agree with you on the chance of flattening springs when pushing the pressure plate, albeit the risk of flattened springs is bigger in Canons and other non-Leica Barnacks than it is with a Leica IIIc like the OP has. But pushing wasn't the issue here, touching was. Still no harm in that, and not in fingerprints either.

To each his own, I think removing the lens and setting the shutter to B before loading isn't that bad an approach, although some frown upon it. In all honesty I think neither is better or worse than the other, since there are no pressing circumstances (pun intended) to dismiss one of either methods.
 
The spool will never pull the film through the camera, it's not even designed to do that. It is only there to "take up" the loose film driven through the frame by the sprockets.

The only answer is to ensure that the sprockets are engaged correctly, if that means losing an extra shot, I think that's a small sacrifice.

I should have been more specific. It's true the take-up spool is on a slip clutch and does not, of itself draw the film through the gate. But it needs to take up the film coming at it from the sprocket drive.

In my case I had not inserted the film properly (i.e. far enough) into the spool clamp and it pulled out as I wound the first frame on. With insufficient tension on the film at that point (another reason to tension the film rewind gently) the take-up spool was able to rotate at a faster rate than the film advanced. The sprockets continued to drive film into the take-up chamber until it bunched up and jammed, thereby causing the film to tear, and after that, of course, the film did not advance at all. I was not watching the rewind knob and did not discover the problem until I took the (supposedly) exposed film out of the camera.
 
However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs.

I have seen one pressure plate that had a finger print etched into it so I do have to agree with him there. Will the springs be damaged? I doubt it..
 
One mistake I see that many new and some old Leica users make is when slipping the film leader under the slot on the take-up spool they do not look to see if the film is up against the round edge. If the film is not pushed up against it it will not properly line up with the sprocket since it will be feeding at an angle..

In the first photo the leader is fixed wrong (note the angle). In the second photo the leader is fixed on the spool properly.

4459022050_aaaf88ae72_o.jpg


4459022044_1d66f0d8c4_o.jpg


Doing it per the instructions I can be loaded and ready to shoot in under 30 seconds...
 
Last edited:
"Can't say anything logical, payasam?"

I will not be judged by your kind, Mister Javier. While I respect knowledge, I have only contempt for the closed mind that often comes with knowledge. Religions are the best example of the unquestionable absolute: they leave no space either for reason or for reality.

AND NEITHER WILL I BE BY YOUR ILK.

Putting religion, or comparing it in the course of the discussion, is non-sequitur. You say "no space for either reason or for reality".

Let's go again to my previous posts. Was anything there unreasonable or unreal? Did what I say sound as if it had been brought down from the mountains by a bearded old man who claimed he was talking to some burning bush? (btw, if there would be a bearded old man who likes to talk to bushes here, that would not be me).

I presented a point by point discussion on why the 'correct' method with its fewer steps is more efficient than the alternative method. I answered with facts, not theories or dogma, the questions posted by both aperture 64 and cle-rf. Timing, speed of loading, proof of etched pressure plates did not start from me; these were first asked.

I referred to Canon, not the canonical.

The Leica's mechanism was designed to take in film in a certain way. That's reality. There is also good reason to heed the instructions given by the various Leitz, Canon, FED, Zorki, Leotax, Reid, Kardon, Zenit,
Nicca, etc. They knew better, and what's good for the machines they made. What better reason could there be?

In contrast, I question the various alternatives presented to the published methods. If there is anything in the argument that comes closer to religion or dogma, it would be this. Why? Because it is based on belief. On belief that it is better. Or that it will do no harm. Or that it is better than what has been already established or proven.

That is not, as you say, 'leaving no space' for anything else. I have seen the consequences of doing the alternative methods. I had been there, having resorted to that in the past before I knew better. I had seen too many damaged parts in Barnack type cameras which may or may not have been caused by this method. I have no absolute proof for that, but seeing the wrecked parts, I can fairly speculate on what could have caused them.

Can you even see the difference between knowing and believing?
 
Last edited:
@ batterytype, cle-rf, colyn, regarding the pressure plate springs:

While Leica may have better springs under the pressure plate which may be able to withstand such unorthodox treatment, the other Barnack types don't.

Since this discussion is about bottom loading, it will concern just about every bottom loading camera, including those not from Leitz. The material used by the other manufacturers were not the same type as what Leitz did.

Here are so far what I have seen:

The Shanghai Leica copies used very poor metal springs. These cameras used small springs made of weak metal which easily flattened.

In a well used Canon II, I found the lower of the two PP springs less curved than the upper one. A depth-indicator reading showed that the lower part of the frame had a longer flange to focal distance than the upper one- it was almost 29mm.

Some FED require to have their springs bent before the PP is laid over them because the former goes flat when the latter is pressed in to facilitate the reinsertion of the shutter crate during reassembly. Starting with a well-bent spring compensates for the flattening. The 'straightened' springs aren't quite strong enough tot push the film flat enough, and far enough into the rails to maintain the needed flange to focal distance.
 
Last edited:
AND NEITHER WILL I BE BY YOUR ILK.

Putting religion, or comparing it in the course of the discussion, is non-sequitur. You say "no space for either reason or for reality".

Let's go again to my previous posts. Was anything there unreasonable or unreal? Did what I say sound as if it had been brought down from the mountains by a bearded old man who claimed he was talking to some burning bush?

I presented a point by point discussion on why the 'correct' method with its fewer steps is more efficient than the alternative method. I answered with facts, not theories or dogma, the questions posted by both aperture 64 and cle-rf. Timing, speed of loading, proof of etched pressure plates did not start from me; these were first asked.

I referred to Canon, not the canonical.

The Leica's mechanism was designed to take in film in a certain way. That's reality. There is also good reason to heed the instructions given by the various Leitz, Canon, FED, Zorki, Leotax, Reid, Kardon, Zenit,
Nicca, etc. They knew better, and what's good for the machines they made. What better reason could there be?

In contrast, I question the various alternatives presented to the published methods. If there is anything in the argument that comes closer to religion or dogma, it would be this. Why? Because it is based on belief. On belief that it is better. Or that it will do no harm. Or that it is better than what has been already established or proven.

That is not, as you say, 'leaving no space' for anything else. I have seen the consequences of doing the alternative methods. I had been there, having resorted to that in the past before I knew better. I had seen too many damaged parts in Barnack type cameras which may or may not have been caused by this method. I have no absolute proof for that, but seeing the wrecked parts, I can fairly speculate on what could have caused them.

Can you even see the difference between knowing and believing?

I'm an atheist and tend to go with what works or is proven. Holy writ on anything fails the test unless it can be demonstrably proven to be correct. There is more than one way to do most things.
 
However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs.

I have seen one pressure plate that had a finger print etched into it so I do have to agree with him there. Will the springs be damaged? I doubt it.

I stand by what I've said and ask that you read my posts closely.

Colyn, you're omitting part of my point (highlighted above).

ZorkiKat, I think you're being unfair to blame bent springs on the loading method. As you said yourself (but almost as an aside), it is far more likely to happen during disassembly of the camera. I have no doubt that this can do all kinds of damage to the pressure plate. But gently guiding the film through the front cannot.

EDIT: And by this I am not trying to say that you damaged the springs yourself. I mean careless disassembly at some point before the camera came to you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom