Odd Standard

[wes loder]

And why didn't Leitz start with a model IV name, with the die cast body, instead of calling it the IIIc...
Because a Leica IV was prototyped but never saw production … It would have had a combined viewfinder-rangefinder.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks, I was thinking and reasoning from the public's and sales viewpoint.

To me a new body would have a new model number.

Regards, David

 

[Dwig]

Thanks, I was thinking and reasoning from the public's and sales viewpoint.

To me a new body would have a new model number.

Regards, David

I think they were locked into the I=no RF, II=RF no slow speeds, and III=RF & slow speeds pattern as the "models" and that everything else was just 'minor" advancements, hence the III>IIIa>IIIb>... pattern.

BTW, yes my facsimile catalog is the Hove "Ernst Leitz, London and Wetzler, November 1931, no prices" version. It has a price sticker for $5.95 (USD) and I bought it used, likely at 1/2 that price.

 

[David Hughes]

That's my thinking too, they seemed to get locked into a lot of things then but model IV for the new die cast body and longer body still makes sense to me; oh well...

Regards, David

PS I always think Leica owners should 'forever pray and light candles' etc for Hove Foto Books; to quote that old legal expression but look on ebay and a lot of their books sit there unsold...

 

[Dwig]

That's my thinking too, they seemed to get locked into a lot of things then but model IV for the new die cast body and longer body still makes sense to me; oh well...

Regards, David
...

Yeah, but when the IV did finally see the light of day it not only have a new chassis and an integrated VF/RF time had made the old spinning shutter speed dial and thread mounts a bit behind the times. As a result the "IV" hit the streets with a bayonet mount and called an "M".

 

[analoged]

Here's one more last maybe interesting pic, some initials stamped or engraved inside the top plate.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Fascinating what you find written or stamped inside cameras. And we'll never find out what they mean. An all purpose explanation is the pawn broker's ticket number...

Regards, David

 

[Erik van Straten]

some initials stamped or engraved inside the top plate.

Many parts were produced with slighty different dimensions, so they would fit better on parts with also slightly different dimensions. They were of course marked.

Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

Many parts were produced with slighty different dimensions, so they would fit better on parts with also slightly different dimensions. They were of course marked.

Erik.

Hi,

I'm pleased you said that as when I pointed it out some years ago as being perfectly normal engineering practice I was howled down. I guess because everyone thinks Leitz camera parts were made to ±½ micron. My experience is that some parts need to be made very precisely and other parts not so but can be matched to produce the correct fit.

I expect the engineers at KMZ, FED etc worked this way as it was normal but, stupidly, they get blamed for poor QC. Apparently poor QC accounts for focus shift in old USSR made lenses too...

EDIT, I guess I ought to explain that when you do a repair or replace a part you have to look at the size code and then match it. Otherwise you get problems. And on the internet it's blamed on the maker's poor QC.

Regards, David

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hi,

I'm pleased you said that as when I pointed it out some years ago as being perfectly normal engineering practice I was howled down.

It was also normal practice for the workers to throw the parts that didn't fit on the floor. I know that from an old Leitz technician who got his training in the fifties in Wetzlar. He used to collect those discarted parts in a dustpan.

Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

It was also normal practice for the workers to throw the parts that didn't fit on the floor. I know that from an old Leitz technician who got his training in the fifties in Wetzlar. He used to collect those discarted parts in a dustpan.

Erik.

I guess that was after a discrete thump with a hammer had failed to correct the mismatch: mentioned in the 1940's report on the Leitz production methods.

Regards, David