johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
A parcel from Berlin today brought a remarkable Leica III with even remarkable Elmar 5cm 3.5 lens, and a chrome VIDOM viewfinder.
The camera has serial no. 11378. It started out in life as a Leica I from 1928. But, it is now chrome, and has a rangefinder housing from the Leica III, a body shell from the Leica III and a flash sync on the front of the body, where in later models the selftimer would be. The flash sync looks like a Leitz modification, not the 'sticking out' kind of thing but nice and flush with the body.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
The chrome on the camera: at first I thought it could not be original. But, the chrome on the top and bottom plate matches the quality of the rangefinder housing very closely, and the rangefinder housing was not re-chromed. The engravings are too 'sharp' for a re-chrome, but the engravings aren't as perfect as those on my Leica II from 1932. They're a bit shaky.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
The lens puzzles me even more. It has a serial 99045, signalling a 1930 production. Yet, it has a focusing mount that takes 180º to focus instead of the almost 360º of early Elmars. It also has a red lettering on the distance scale, it has a new(!) aperture scale and the lens is coated(!!). How on earth did that come to be? It's essentially a completely rebuilt lens with the 1930 serial number left on it.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
The camera has serial no. 11378. It started out in life as a Leica I from 1928. But, it is now chrome, and has a rangefinder housing from the Leica III, a body shell from the Leica III and a flash sync on the front of the body, where in later models the selftimer would be. The flash sync looks like a Leitz modification, not the 'sticking out' kind of thing but nice and flush with the body.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
The chrome on the camera: at first I thought it could not be original. But, the chrome on the top and bottom plate matches the quality of the rangefinder housing very closely, and the rangefinder housing was not re-chromed. The engravings are too 'sharp' for a re-chrome, but the engravings aren't as perfect as those on my Leica II from 1932. They're a bit shaky.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
The lens puzzles me even more. It has a serial 99045, signalling a 1930 production. Yet, it has a focusing mount that takes 180º to focus instead of the almost 360º of early Elmars. It also has a red lettering on the distance scale, it has a new(!) aperture scale and the lens is coated(!!). How on earth did that come to be? It's essentially a completely rebuilt lens with the 1930 serial number left on it.
Leica no. 11378 conversion by Johan Niels Kuiper, on Flickr
charjohncarter
Veteran
Have you tried it? I hope everything works together. Interesting history for sure.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Possibly owned by someone who liked to keep up with the times and sent the camera in for upgrades from time to time. Even had the lens coated.
Except for the Flash sync connector...I don't like those custom jobs much.
Still, nice set Johan.
Have fun shooting it
Except for the Flash sync connector...I don't like those custom jobs much.
Still, nice set Johan.
Have fun shooting it
Dralowid
Michael
Many Elmars were updated at the same time as the cameras. There is a way of telling by the shape of the focus mark on the scale. Erik knows the details.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Oh that's interesting! Currently the lens has a crescent moon black notch, and a black line to the distance scale. I'll post an image tonight!
Intersted to know the progressions of those focus marks!
Richard G
Veteran
Surely that top cover is not out of Wetzlar. Is the genuine engraving ever so bad?
benmacphoto
Well-known
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
They are done by hand, with a pantograph. They look genuine to me, very similar to my '38, though a near date camera is what it must be compared to Not that I am any expert at all.
benmacphoto
Well-known
I understand they are all "done by hand" in the sense of using a pantograph.
But these look as if they are done freehand.
The beading in the numbers, rather then smooth lines.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Well, it could very likely have been 1945/46 when the top cover was made —— then they had many more pressing issues; whether or not an engraving is perfect wasn't *that* important then, I guess?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
To me the top plate looks like it was originally a black one with Woods metal lettering (there are many names for it) that was re-engraved after the black paint was removed and the part was chromed. Then the engraving was re-done by hand. So the camera was originally black, but was afterwards chromed. Normally new parts were used for a conversion like this, but this conversion is most probably not done by Leitz themselves. The flash synch is surely not done by Leitz.
The lens is simply a post war conversion (from a nickel Elmar) when the glass parts were coated.
Erik.
The lens is simply a post war conversion (from a nickel Elmar) when the glass parts were coated.
Erik.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
That's very cool.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Bill Clark
Veteran
Elmar looks nice.
My IIIa doesn’t have D.R.P. engraved on the top.
My IIIa doesn’t have D.R.P. engraved on the top.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Currently I'm half way through the first roll of film, will be posting results to this thread once I have them!