New-to-me Barnack - which one?

[Spicy]

Just picked up my first film Leica (D-Lux 4 doesn't really count), a Barnack. According to everything I can find on the web regarding serials, it's a IIc (serial 444xxx).

Here's where the plot thickens - it has the slow-speeds 1/30th - 1sec dial, and the fast speeds dial goes to 1/1000th.

The rangefinder/viewfinder windows are next to each other.
There is no flash sync.
The rewind knob has no film rating window
The viewfinder focus adjust has no post.

I'll try and figure out a way to post a picture, standby.

edit:

~Spicy

 

[Vickko]

Sounds like a IIIc. A IIc wouldn't have the slow speeds.

If the serial number is for a IIc, it might have had the slow speed capabilities added later in its life.


Vick

 

[Bobbo]

If the serial number is for a IIc, it might have had the slow speed capabilities added later in its life.

Leica really liked to do this kind of thing... They got to make money without having to produce a whole new camera 🙂. There's a whole thread on here of converted cameras.

Theoretically, you could take an original fixed-lens, zone-focusing Leica I and have it basically upgraded to a IIIf -- flash sync, rangefinder, slow speeds and an interchangeable lens mount. It's a lot like ordering a car at a base model then having the dealer upgrade the radio, ground effects and floor mats, but being able to send it in to the factory at 50,000 miles to get overhauled at the same time.

 

[MaxElmar]

That strikes me as an unusual conversion. It would seem to be a IIc converted to a IIIc - that's not unusual in and of itself, but one might think they would have added flash sync at that time. I guess the conversion was done before the f model came out in 1950-51? Or perhaps the conversions were "a' la carte"?
I wish I knew more about conversions. I have a Summar that came with my IIIa that went back for coating at some point.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leica really liked to do this kind of thing... They got to make money without having to produce a whole new camera 🙂. There's a whole thread on here of converted cameras.

Theoretically, you could take an original fixed-lens, zone-focusing Leica I and have it basically upgraded to a IIIf -- flash sync, rangefinder, slow speeds and an interchangeable lens mount. It's a lot like ordering a car at a base model then having the dealer upgrade the radio, ground effects and floor mats, but being able to send it in to the factory at 50,000 miles to get overhauled at the same time.

Not really. Until the IIIc it was a fabricated chassis; afterwards, cast (as in the IIIc shown).

Many conversions during and after WW2 were done (a) with whatever was in the parts box, as the the famous Mortimer Street Specials, or (b) to avoid import controls/customs duties on newer, more expensive cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[xayraa33]

It looks like a Leica IIc converted to a IIIc.
Not every owner needed flash sync even when the IIIf and IIf was in production or maybe the owner had already bought an optional SELIS flash sync base plate for occasional flash bulb use.

 

[rumbliegeos]

Whatever the pedigree of this Barnack, it is nice that you have a 50mm 2.8 Elmar LTM for it!

 

[John Shriver]

There were hefty excise (luxury) taxes in the US on cameras in the day. But they didn't apply to repairs --- which is how Leica upgrades were treated.

 

[Spicy]

Thanks guys -- I appreciate the ID help.

I'm looking forward to putting a few rolls of TriX through it. I was going for something pocketable, and quality examples are tough to find here in Seoul, particularly for a reasonable price (I found a plethora of basically brand new bodies for 1,500USD -- looks like someone bought them in the 40s or 50s and then just stuck them in a case, such a shame).

I was originally trying to find a high-quality, effectively pocketable 24/7 carry camera, meaning a good body with the 3.5 Elmar, but the place I found this body had basically all 3 options (3.5 Elmar, 3.5 Elmar in Nickel, and the 2.8), with cost differences in the range of 50USD. The size advantage of the 3.5 is pretty enormous, as is the weight, but the 2.8 is a significant advantage in available light, and I'm a bokeh-lover. Also, the 3.5 that they had's aperture ring was pretty grimy/sticky and painful to use, in addition to being inconveniently located, so I went with the 2.8. Unfortunately, it's a bit less pocketable and a bit heavier, but still quite small for a camera with a 50, and it'll be ok if I have big pockets.