Rangefinder Quirks

[finarphin]

I have two rangefinders: a Leica IIIc and a Leica IIIf. I have some questions, and so I started this thread. I hope it's all right.

Both of these cameras have light leaks in the shutter. I'm wondering is this typical for Leica IIIs, or just typical for Leica IIIs that need maintenance?

I also notice that the framing of the image in the viewfinder is different than through the lens. If the camera is in landscape orientation, the top of the frame shows less on the negative. Is this typical for Leica IIIs, or could the rangefinder somehow be out of alignment? I also have a Canon powershot, also a rangefinder, but on that one the rangefinder shows more than what the sensor gets.

Finally, the mode of attachment of images to posts in this forum is something I'm not familiar with. I wonder if someone could explain the algorithm for that.

Thank you.

 

[Doug]

Welcome! Last question first... This is a fairly common concern, and is addressed at length in the first/sticky thread in the Forum HELP! forum here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=190

Then, framing. This is a normal effect of parallax, that is the difference in the view of the subject due to the optical viewfinder being in a different place than the lens that makes the picture. Usually, there are some marks in an accessory viewfinder to show a different cut-off for close-up shooting than for a more distant subject, as parallax is accentuated at close range. As mentioned, this is normal for a camera using an optical viewfinder, and it is eliminated in the SLR camera and any others where you view the scene as imaged through the taking lens (such as using the LCD screen on a digital camera). The solution for the viewfinder cameras is to get comfortable with how your camera behaves.

Finally, light leaks. These cameras have a cloth focal plane shutter. Sometimes people report pinholes in the shutters, and I have seen this myself. These were dark spots on negs from a used RF camera that had been in a west-facing showroom window... The sun occasionally was in a spot where the light was imaged by the lens onto the shutter, burning a hole. A metal shutter would have an advantage here, as would not letting the camera point at the sun without a lens cap. 🙂

There are other sources of light leaks, but on the III the unit construction makes them unlikely.

 

[JustPlainBill]

Hi,
A Leica IIIc or IIIf with light leaks in the shutter (or anyplace else) needs to be serviced. The bad news is that the repair is likely to be expensive; the good news is that it should last for many years. I chose to upgrade from a Leica IIf to the M4 shortly after the M4 was introduced and have been happily using Leica Ms ever since. I've also read some good reviews of the later Canon rengefinder cameras - the 5, 7, L, and P. I wish you good success in getting at least ONE camera working properly.
JustPlainBill

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You say "Both of these cameras have light leaks in the shutter. I'm wondering is this typical for Leica IIIs, or just typical for Leica IIIs that need maintenance?" Well, the simple answer is that it's typical of old age for those shutter blinds. The IIIc could be over 70 years old.

They can be repaired, many have used various black paints or replaced, at a price. It's not always expensive as there's quite a demand for them these days and so they are readily available. But don't ask where as I am not into fixing them myself.

Pinholes show up as flares of light in a regular pattern on the negatives. Not all negatives will show them as the lens cap stops the light getting to them.
Hope this helps.

Regards, David

 

[Luddite Frank]

With regard to "framing being off", I think this might be caused by use of modern disposable film cassettes, which tend to "ride lower" in the camera body than the re-loadable Leica brass magazines.

The result is the top of the image frame winds-up tracking over the sprocket holes. Some folks add a thin brass washer under the screw that secures the latch to the external knob, which causes the cassette to sit a little higher inside the camera body, and centers the frame between the sprocket-holes.

The issue with light leaks can be tricky... light leaks from missing body screws usually show-up along the edge of the film, flaring-in towards the center of the film... holes in shutter curtains can be more elusive.

I have a really nice Leica III-f that started behaving strangely - there were these strange bright-specks in the prints that looked at first like some sort of weird lens flare. But they weren't there all the time... next roll, there were more of them. I was blaming the lens at first, because the phenomenon occurred mainly when shooting into strong light...

Eventually I figured-out that it was really the shutter curtains - they were becoming all crackly.

It's not easy to check the curtains on a screw-mount Leica, because the back does not come-off.

A "process of elimination" test might be to carefully wrap the upper and lower body seams ( where the top plate / bottom plate meet the body ) with electrical tape, then shooting a test roll, several frames with the camera all wrapped, then remove the tape one band at a time, shooting a few more frames each time, until the camera is bare. Take notes as to which frames have which areas masked.

If the "light-leaks" persist with the camera taped-up, then you probably have compromised shutter blinds.

I have three Leica III's, two from 1933 and one from 1934, and a Leica II from 1932, and all have what appear to be their original curtains, and all are light-tight.

Let us know what you find with yours...

 

[finarphin]

Thanks, everybody, for taking the time to address my concerns.

I was aware of parallax, but I think that's not the reason I'm losing the top 10 percent of the frame at 30 yards. Film canister registration...interesting. Washers.

I'm sure the shutter curtains have holes -- or at least non-opaque areas -- as opposed to light creeping in from around the edges. I was just wondering if this was typical of Leica IIIs in general (with any kind of curtain, new or old). So now I know: with new curtains it won't happen. New curtains: 200 dollars. Check.

Attachment; looks like it may have succeeded.

 

[David Hughes]

Film canister registration...

Film canister registration...

Hi,

FWIW, I did a lot of measuring and so on and published the results here on RFF. The original Leica cassettes (the blackened brass ones) are 47mm high and the modern ones you get with film already in them are nearer 42½mm high. So there's a bit of room for slippage.

Secondly, colour film was slide film originally, not prints which came a lot later. So view finders tended to show a little less than the frame because slide mounts were slightly smaller than 24 x 36mm. You'll find this attitude persisted for a lot longer than you'd think if you do a bit of research. It was even used as the reason for SLR's only showing ninety something per cent of the frame...

The cure for slipping cassettes is a corn plaster or two on the cassette as they are the about right thickness and have a suitable hole for the rewind lugs etc to work. If you want to be precise then you'll have to align a modern cassette with a FILCA and work from there.

Have fun.

Regards, David

 

[Luddite Frank]

Thanks, everybody, for taking the time to address my concerns.

I was aware of parallax, but I think that's not the reason I'm losing the top 10 percent of the frame at 30 yards. Film canister registration...interesting. Washers.

I'm sure the shutter curtains have holes -- or at least non-opaque areas -- as opposed to light creeping in from around the edges. I was just wondering if this was typical of Leica IIIs in general (with any kind of curtain, new or old). So now I know: with new curtains it won't happen. New curtains: 200 dollars. Check.

Attachment; looks like it may have succeeded.

That's a "holy curtain" alright... 🙁. The fact that the leaks are "sprinkled" through-out the frame suggest that the rubberized curtain material is breaking-down, and not that the camera was left looking at the sun with the lens stopped-down and no lens-cap.

Otherwise, the image looks nice... what lens were you shooting?

 

[Rob-F]

Remember, the lens inverts the image. When the cassette rides lower, the film will see the top of the image just fine. If any thing were to be cut off, it should be at the bottom.

 

[finarphin]

That's a "holy curtain" alright... 🙁. The fact that the leaks are "sprinkled" through-out the frame suggest that the rubberized curtain material is breaking-down, and not that the camera was left looking at the sun with the lens stopped-down and no lens-cap.

Otherwise, the image looks nice... what lens were you shooting?

This was using a 1953 Leica Summicron 50mm f2 lens. It's stuck on infinity.

I agree, I think it looks good otherwise.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Reading the thread again I can't help thinking that a lot of people with ex-USSR cameras and lenses ought to be made to read it. It might give them a yard stick and stop the rants about QC 50 or 60 years after the event.

Regards, David

 

[Filzkoeter]

Regarding slipping cassettes: instead of seperate washers you can also unscrew that one screw (beneath where the cassette sits), take the small black washer underneath, turn it upside down and retighten the screw. This raises the washer a few mm and cures the "sprocket holes in the picture" problem.

 

[anjoca76]

I suppose "expensive" is a relative term, but I had Youxin Ye replace one of the curtains in my IIIc last summer--it had pinholes. It was about $200, including a CLA.

$200 is $200, of course, but I think that's reasonable to keep my 65-year-old camera functioning.

 

[finarphin]

That's a "holy curtain" alright... 🙁. The fact that the leaks are "sprinkled" through-out the frame suggest that the rubberized curtain material is breaking-down, and not that the camera was left looking at the sun with the lens stopped-down and no lens-cap.

Otherwise, the image looks nice... what lens were you shooting?

Here are three examples from the other camera (a Leica IIIc). I sent it back. It was usable, I think, if you were judicious with the lens cap (I don't have a lens cap), and if you want to use a lot of clone tool in the photo editing software.

 

[finarphin]

Registration

Registration

Hi,

FWIW, I did a lot of measuring and so on and published the results here on RFF. The original Leica cassettes (the blackened brass ones) are 47mm high and the modern ones you get with film already in them are nearer 42½mm high. So there's a bit of room for slippage.

Secondly, colour film was slide film originally, not prints which came a lot later. So view finders tended to show a little less than the frame because slide mounts were slightly smaller than 24 x 36mm. You'll find this attitude persisted for a lot longer than you'd think if you do a bit of research. It was even used as the reason for SLR's only showing ninety something per cent of the frame...

The cure for slipping cassettes is a corn plaster or two on the cassette as they are the about right thickness and have a suitable hole for the rewind lugs etc to work. If you want to be precise then you'll have to align a modern cassette with a FILCA and work from there.

Have fun.

Regards, David

Thanks David, I think you have explained the problem.

If I am understanding you correctly, the modern canisters sit lower in the camera, with the result that the top of the frame (the bottom edge of the film) is lower than it should be -- it's out of registration -- and there's less image exposed than what you thought would be by looking through the viewfinder. There's also a strip of unexposed film between the top of the frame and the edge of the sprocket holes. On the other end, the bottom of the frame (and the top edge of the film) the image creeps "up", overlapping the sprocket holes.

This was using a Leica IIIc. Apparently, and I don't know this for a fact, Lieca IIIf and later had a "flange" that either reduces or eliminates this problem. This is a Grade-A quirk.

Attached scan. The scan quality is crappy with all those horizontal lines, but you can see where the image boundaries are on the film, which I have tried to highlight in red.

 

[Bingley]

First, welcome to RFF from another Sacramentan! I can recommend Youxin Ye in Massachusetts for shutter curtain repair and servicing of your Leica IIIf. He brought my IIIc back to life and repaired my Canon IVSB2 as well. He's reasonable and has a fast turnaround time. A good guy to deal with.

 

[finarphin]

First, welcome to RFF from another Sacramentan! I can recommend Youxin Ye in Massachusetts for shutter curtain repair and servicing of your Leica IIIf. He brought my IIIc back to life and repaired my Canon IVSB2 as well. He's reasonable and has a fast turnaround time. A good guy to deal with.

Thanks; I'll keep that in mind.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks David, I think you have explained the problem.

If I am understanding you correctly, the modern canisters sit lower in the camera, with the result that the top of the frame (the bottom edge of the film) is lower than it should be -- it's out of registration -- and there's less image exposed than what you thought would be by looking through the viewfinder. There's also a strip of unexposed film between the top of the frame and the edge of the sprocket holes. On the other end, the bottom of the frame (and the top edge of the film) the image creeps "up", overlapping the sprocket holes.

This was using a Leica IIIc. Apparently, and I don't know this for a fact, Lieca IIIf and later had a "flange" that either reduces or eliminates this problem. This is a Grade-A quirk.

Attached scan. The scan quality is crappy with all those horizontal lines, but you can see where the image boundaries are on the film, which I have tried to highlight in red.

Hi,

Yes, you got it first time. I'll add that experience tells me that the smaller modern cassette can move a bit and you'll get diagonal miss-framing sometimes. The problem then gets worse as the camera's framing of the negative doesn't line up with the scanner or enlarger's frame. It can be a PITA at times and on other occasions I've cured it by having not 5 x 7's but 4.9's by 7's. It's what your print trimmer's for...

Have fun explaining why your camera needs corn plasters at the store. ;-)

Regards, David

 

[finarphin]

Focus

My lens focuses now; that's half the battle. I looked up "Summicron focus stuck" on Google, and sifted through the hits. One of them, which I can't find now, suggested heat, but not too much. So I put the lens in a plastic bag and carried it around in my pocket for about three hours. Body heat. It worked. the focusing ring moves now.

Funny image through the viewfinder. I can barely see the second image. It's there, though.

 

[Filzkoeter]

Funny image through the viewfinder. I can barely see the second image. It's there, though.

Propably desilvering of the beamsplitter (the small 50/50 mirror which projects the split image into the RF window).