davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
"Non-standard mount"
I don't understand the usage of the term. I thought a camera body might not be 28.8mm from the mount to the focal plane, but how is a Leica lens non-standard mount?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-SM-35...008016?hash=item3cfff0c950:g:zb8AAOSwHnFVwIVe
I don't understand the usage of the term. I thought a camera body might not be 28.8mm from the mount to the focal plane, but how is a Leica lens non-standard mount?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-SM-35...008016?hash=item3cfff0c950:g:zb8AAOSwHnFVwIVe
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For a short while, when they were first introduced, interchangeable lenses were individually matched to bodies. The last three numbers of the body serial number were engraved on each matched lens. Obviously the lenses had non-standard register just as the bodies did.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
If the body is non-standard in register, the matching lens must obviously make up for that, and cannot be standard either...
JohnTF
Veteran
Roger, you almost want to call them "changeable" rather than "interchangeable" ???
Pretty rare, am guessing some folks bought them with more than one lens matched to the body?
Perhaps a silly question, but Did Leica Factory offer upgrades for the early ones to Standard? Or even II?
I have several Standards, nimble little cameras-- I do not use the Aux RF, I shot everything zone with my first 35mm camera--
Regards,
John
Pretty rare, am guessing some folks bought them with more than one lens matched to the body?
Perhaps a silly question, but Did Leica Factory offer upgrades for the early ones to Standard? Or even II?
I have several Standards, nimble little cameras-- I do not use the Aux RF, I shot everything zone with my first 35mm camera--
Regards,
John
Dralowid
Michael
There was a limited range of lenses available at that time but yes, I have seen 'sets' of 'non standard' camera and two or three lenses all marked appropriately.
Over the years Leitz converted many 'non standard' cameras to 'standard' II, III etc etc.
Over the years Leitz converted many 'non standard' cameras to 'standard' II, III etc etc.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I don't think that they imagined a huge sale for extra lenses (Edit: but see my last para. below) and so were OK fitting the 5cm lens to a body and so on. Then they'd take back the body for the next lens and match it.
After all's said and done the lenses for the first sixty thousand or so cameras were fixed; then about three thousand non-standard ones were made with removable lenses in 1930 and then the penny dropped and the standard registration was normal.
Similar things have happened elsewhere, the OM-1 had to be returned to the factory for a motor drive to be fitted, or rather, to be modified to take the motor drive. Then the penny dropped and like Leitz in the 30's they sold them ready for a motor drive with a little MD badge.
Also, in the 1930's magazines I own a lot of firms were advertising conversions to the Leica to take extra lenses of their make. I expect they wanted the trade.
(EDIT) So I typed that and then wondered what other Lietz made lenses were available then. So I've gone through the Hove Foto guide and it seems 1931 was when the extra lenses started; meaning the 135mm Elmar, the fat 90mm, the 73mm, the f/2.5 Hektor and in 1932 the 3.5cm Elmar. So I now guess the standard registration was part of the change to make it an interchangeable lens camera.
Regards, David
I don't think that they imagined a huge sale for extra lenses (Edit: but see my last para. below) and so were OK fitting the 5cm lens to a body and so on. Then they'd take back the body for the next lens and match it.
After all's said and done the lenses for the first sixty thousand or so cameras were fixed; then about three thousand non-standard ones were made with removable lenses in 1930 and then the penny dropped and the standard registration was normal.
Similar things have happened elsewhere, the OM-1 had to be returned to the factory for a motor drive to be fitted, or rather, to be modified to take the motor drive. Then the penny dropped and like Leitz in the 30's they sold them ready for a motor drive with a little MD badge.
Also, in the 1930's magazines I own a lot of firms were advertising conversions to the Leica to take extra lenses of their make. I expect they wanted the trade.
(EDIT) So I typed that and then wondered what other Lietz made lenses were available then. So I've gone through the Hove Foto guide and it seems 1931 was when the extra lenses started; meaning the 135mm Elmar, the fat 90mm, the 73mm, the f/2.5 Hektor and in 1932 the 3.5cm Elmar. So I now guess the standard registration was part of the change to make it an interchangeable lens camera.
Regards, David
Dralowid
Michael
Apart from the Elmar 50mm 3.5 you could also get Elmar 35mm 3.5 and Elmar 135mm 4.5 in non standardised mount.
I've seen a non standardised camera with a viewfinder mask for 135mm. I've also seen a an early camera with factory fitted 35mm viewfinder but don't know if it was standardised or not.
As David mentions, there were only 3000 or so, it was a transitory period.
I've seen a non standardised camera with a viewfinder mask for 135mm. I've also seen a an early camera with factory fitted 35mm viewfinder but don't know if it was standardised or not.
As David mentions, there were only 3000 or so, it was a transitory period.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
Even in 1930: Meyer Plasmat 40, 50, 75mm f/1.5, with either the 40 or 50 (I've forgotten which) as early as 1927.
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I left out the "Mountain" Elmar 105mm and f/6.3 lens of 1932.
What's really amazing is the film speeds; as far as I can tell, 4 ASA/ISO in the mid 1920's meaning Perutz Aerial which was fine grained enough for the Leica. And by 1936 film had reached 80 ASA/ISO and that was probably a very fast and expensive film.
I know Kodak offered one of the earliest 35mm films in cassettes (for the Retina) and they became the standard but I wish I knew more about this;-
it's very obviously a 35mm cassette but nothing like the standard version with it's blocked top.
Regards, David
I left out the "Mountain" Elmar 105mm and f/6.3 lens of 1932.
What's really amazing is the film speeds; as far as I can tell, 4 ASA/ISO in the mid 1920's meaning Perutz Aerial which was fine grained enough for the Leica. And by 1936 film had reached 80 ASA/ISO and that was probably a very fast and expensive film.
I know Kodak offered one of the earliest 35mm films in cassettes (for the Retina) and they became the standard but I wish I knew more about this;-
it's very obviously a 35mm cassette but nothing like the standard version with it's blocked top.
Regards, David
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
Taking about finger trouble I seem to have deleted my message twice.
I was going to say that this might be for something like a cassette to cassette camera like an Agfa Karat which winds on only using the perfs but I have nothing to check it against anymore. I don't think they were much more than 12 exposures.
I was going to say that this might be for something like a cassette to cassette camera like an Agfa Karat which winds on only using the perfs but I have nothing to check it against anymore. I don't think they were much more than 12 exposures.
Dwig
Well-known
What Kodak developed was the standardized 35mm cassette, specifically the film packaging and sizing spec "135". The cassette used by size 135 film was developed to be compatible with the then existing Leica cameras, which were designed to use a proprietary cassette, as well as to work with the new Kodak Retina camera, which Kodak was having made for them by Nagel Kamera Werke in Germany. Kodak correctly felt that to be successful, the camera needed to be useable with film you could buy in a ready to use form, rather than requiring the user to bulk load some proprietary cassette. When Oskar's dream went on the market, you couldn't just go down to the local drug store and buy a roll of film to filt. You had to buy a long roll spooled for movie cameras and bulk load cassettes yourself. The 135 cassette was the first "universal" standard for preloaded for 35mm film and became the dominant packaging as other manufacturers built their cameras to accept Kodak's cassette.
Typical of Ol' George's business method, after Nagel proved that they could build a very good camera they were purchased by EKC and became their German division. As I understand it, a young engineer named Victor worked for EKC's German division before returning to Sweden to create his own company. This experience is part of what lead him to contract with EKC to produce the lenses for his first models of the Hasselblad.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
it's very obviously a 35mm cassette but nothing like the standard version with it's blocked top.
A very common early concept was to wind the film from cartridge to cartridge (much like 120 film) rather than rewind it after exposure - some more affordable 35mm cameras from that period did not even have a rewind knob. Correspondingly, cartridges without rewind capability were quite common before the war. Agfa further extended that in the Karat/Rapid system which had a transport that did not even need a spool at the take-up side any more (the film was pushed into the cartridge instead of being wound onto a spool).
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
For the record, it is nothing like my old (and long sold) Karat cassettes. And Kodak's 135 is different in size from the two Leitz and the Contax versions although the inner spools are the same length.
This Perutz one is odd in almost every way.
And in the heap of 30's magazines (and late 20's) there are adverts for the cameras and Perutz spools as a package.
Rgards, David
For the record, it is nothing like my old (and long sold) Karat cassettes. And Kodak's 135 is different in size from the two Leitz and the Contax versions although the inner spools are the same length.
This Perutz one is odd in almost every way.
And in the heap of 30's magazines (and late 20's) there are adverts for the cameras and Perutz spools as a package.
Rgards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Missed from my previous post:-
My finger trouble because I'm still shaking from the referendum results...
REgards, David
My finger trouble because I'm still shaking from the referendum results...
REgards, David
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Thanks for the variation that this tread has taken (sincerely) as I am pretty new to vintage equipment, and enjoy most all things vintage.
I still do not understand why or how a lens is adjusted to a body.
Were lens built with a certain amount of variation in the focal point, then the body shimmed to make the lens focus at the film plane, as determined by the little hole in the camera back. The numbers were engraved to match the lens to the body?
I still do not understand why or how a lens is adjusted to a body.
Were lens built with a certain amount of variation in the focal point, then the body shimmed to make the lens focus at the film plane, as determined by the little hole in the camera back. The numbers were engraved to match the lens to the body?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The "standardized" cameras had a 0 engraved on the mount of the camera. I have used "non standard" lenses on regular screw mounts. The difference is small and only the Hektor 135 showed signs of being off focus at f4.5.
On the old screwmounts you also have "plug" at the back - and corresponding hole in the pressure plate. This was intended for fine tuning the focus of the camera. Never tried to do it I must admit. Obviously you put the lens on the camera, checked focus with loupe and then adjusted the mount adding or removing shims under the mount. Quite brilliant actually. The same set up could also be used for doing very precise copying - tedious, but worked.
On the old screwmounts you also have "plug" at the back - and corresponding hole in the pressure plate. This was intended for fine tuning the focus of the camera. Never tried to do it I must admit. Obviously you put the lens on the camera, checked focus with loupe and then adjusted the mount adding or removing shims under the mount. Quite brilliant actually. The same set up could also be used for doing very precise copying - tedious, but worked.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I gather from oddities I've seen that the mount was shimmed to the lens. And the focal length of the lens varied slightly. Don't forget that less than 3000 of these cameras were made and there after both lenses and bodies were adjusted to give 28.8mm registration.
This is not unusual, one of the M2's lenses (90mm f/2.8) that I use is marked with the variation from the exact focal length using a code; luckily mine is exactly 90mm. It dates from the early 60's.
FED's from the 30's did a similar trick as I have seen them with holes for the fine tuning in the pressure plates.
Regards, David
I gather from oddities I've seen that the mount was shimmed to the lens. And the focal length of the lens varied slightly. Don't forget that less than 3000 of these cameras were made and there after both lenses and bodies were adjusted to give 28.8mm registration.
This is not unusual, one of the M2's lenses (90mm f/2.8) that I use is marked with the variation from the exact focal length using a code; luckily mine is exactly 90mm. It dates from the early 60's.
FED's from the 30's did a similar trick as I have seen them with holes for the fine tuning in the pressure plates.
Regards, David
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
As an example, a "non-standard" 50mm 3.5 Elmar is actually 49.5mm and the flange is shimmed out .5mm.
If the body is non-standard also, the adjustment must take both the lens and body into account.
It is actually the body that is being adjusted, not the lens.
Is this right?
Thanks guys.
If the body is non-standard also, the adjustment must take both the lens and body into account.
It is actually the body that is being adjusted, not the lens.
Is this right?
Thanks guys.
Dralowid
Michael
And to make it worse some of the earlier cameras have the mounted shimmed directly onto milled vulcanite plus a few shims, ie the vulcanite goes under the mount. Now I know this applies to the 'hockey stick' cameras but I'm not sure if it also applies to the no-standardises ones.
Standardised cameras have the vulcanite butting up to the lens mount and not going under it.
Standardised cameras have the vulcanite butting up to the lens mount and not going under it.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It's difficult to answer this, usually I answer when I've one of the cameras in the heap/collection and I can look at it and the manual and other contemporary documents. But the non-standard ones were made in a small batch and a long, long time ago (about 85years). And then the war caused a lot of bodging to go on as cameras were patched up with cannibalised parts.
What I would guess is that the bodies were made and the lenses were made and then in the final check the bodies were measured for registration and the lenses for the registration needed and they were then paired up. This was normal in other trades for many years after.
Then after the non-standard stuff went everything was made to the 28.8mm registration.
So if a non-standard one then needed the extra lens I'd guess that originally they'd make/shim a non-standard lens for it or else take back the non-standard lens and body and standardise them. Don't forget that Leitz started the extra range of lenses after deciding on the standard registration.
I guess it's like today, if you want work on a Leica you get it done by a local expert or Wetzlar. And in those days other lens makers would be happy to do it for you and you'd have a very non-standard camera in some cases...
I hope this helps, early Leicas involve opening a lot of cans of worms at times. Even semi-official (written by people who worked for Leitz) publications contradict each other. And one-off prototypes escaped from the factory...
Regards, David
It's difficult to answer this, usually I answer when I've one of the cameras in the heap/collection and I can look at it and the manual and other contemporary documents. But the non-standard ones were made in a small batch and a long, long time ago (about 85years). And then the war caused a lot of bodging to go on as cameras were patched up with cannibalised parts.
What I would guess is that the bodies were made and the lenses were made and then in the final check the bodies were measured for registration and the lenses for the registration needed and they were then paired up. This was normal in other trades for many years after.
Then after the non-standard stuff went everything was made to the 28.8mm registration.
So if a non-standard one then needed the extra lens I'd guess that originally they'd make/shim a non-standard lens for it or else take back the non-standard lens and body and standardise them. Don't forget that Leitz started the extra range of lenses after deciding on the standard registration.
I guess it's like today, if you want work on a Leica you get it done by a local expert or Wetzlar. And in those days other lens makers would be happy to do it for you and you'd have a very non-standard camera in some cases...
I hope this helps, early Leicas involve opening a lot of cans of worms at times. Even semi-official (written by people who worked for Leitz) publications contradict each other. And one-off prototypes escaped from the factory...
Regards, David