Leica LTM Show off your Leica I/II/III/LTM Camera

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
It is not evenly covered across the lens, I would say in the centre it is at most and towards the sides it disappears, but in fact it is hard to see. I have other Elmars and a Hektor that show this phenomenon too. I don't know if "blooming" is the right word for it, I am not a native speaker of English. It has absolutely no effect on the transparency of the glass. It simply looks like a very thin coating with iridecent colors.

Erik.
 
Book on Leica I

Book on Leica I

Erik van Straten said:
Yes, I know what you mean. I've been studying the Leica I for many years. The development of the camera from 1924 to 1930 is fascinating. Many things were added or changed during those years. A book on the subject is most welcome.

Erik.
Click to expand...

I would very much like to see and purchase a book on the Leica I, of course with many photographs
 
Erik van Straten said:
The surface of the uncoated lens, 85 years old, shows some coloring, like coating, and in fact it works as such. Do not try to clean it!

Erik.

15858578105_68e2c5af33.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought I'd post this to demonstrate differences in engraved lettering on early Elmars.

Erik's is in the 5x,xxx range and mine in the 1x,xxx but nothing like as tidy!

Michael

1-IMG_2219 by dralowid, on Flickr
 
Thank you, Michael, very interesting.

Could be that when Leitz concluded that the Leica was a success, they invested in new machinery and an improved design. The later numerals are sharper defined and easier to read. Bigger too.

Erik.
 
I've lost the original of my avatar which also shows this older type.

I have also misplaced a CD on which there is an old short film showing the manufacture of the Leica I and casting of some microscope parts at Wetzlar.

Anyway I assume this is on the internet somewhere?
 
Here is my two black LTM cameras, a leica IIIc and a Corfield Periflex.
The chrome on the IIIc was almost all gone when I got it so I stripped it off and painted it black. I also covered it in black kid skin.

attachment.php


I havn't used the periflex yet, but hoping to soon!

regards,
nathan
 

Attachments

  • photo 1.jpg
    photo 1.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 3
Wonderful photo, Erik! Indeed, the lens is performing incredibly well.

As I understand it, the chemical slow self-oxidation process of the unprotected (uncoated) glass-surface leads to this kind of glass-oxide coating, showing the color in your previous photo of the lens. Is this correct?

Erik van Straten said:
Leica I No.52783, Elmar 50mm f/3.5, Tmax400.

The lens is like new. Incredible performance.

Erik.

15667792109_9d8f5b73b2_b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
maddoc said:
Wonderful photo, Erik! Indeed, the lens is performing incredibly well.

As I understand it, the chemical slow self-oxidation process of the unprotected (uncoated) glass-surface leads to this kind of glass-oxide coating, showing the color in your previous photo of the lens. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Gabor!

Yes, I understand the phenomenon exactly this way. I have another lens from the same era that has it too, a Hektor 50mm. Also my wartime Elmar has it, but I never saw it on a Summar. Maybe it has to do with the type of glass.

Erik.
 
I feel like everyone else's Elmars show the distance scale in meters, while mean shows it in feet (I wonder why). I wish mine had meters; less numbers to look at it.
 
1950 Leica IIIC

1950 Leica IIIC

After some time messing around with Feds and Zorkis, I have finally obtained "the real thing"!

Summitar is very clean with only a little dust, and the body is only spoiled by some corrosion on the bottom plate. Everything seems to work smoothly; but of course putting a film through it will be the test.

Took a few shots with the Summitar mounted on my Olympus E-M1 and the results were so sharp; amazing for such an old lens.

Had a look on eBay for a replacement bottom plate, but they are more than half of what I paid for the camera, Any suggestion as to where I could source one would be gratefully received. Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • PC170045-3.jpg
    PC170045-3.jpg
    138 KB · Views: 0
Leica IIIf

Leica IIIf

This is a 1951 Leica IIIf. I thought I would post another shot of it.
 

Attachments

  • Leica 901 small.jpg
    Leica 901 small.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 0
SpikeT,

I'd ask around in the usual repair places, like dagcamera.com, sherrykrauter.com or yyecamera.com.

It is a very typical thing for these early postwar year model to have bad chrome. Mine (from 1949) exhibits the same chrome loss.

Nice that yours has the "sharkskin" vulcanite. BTW, my baseplates measures 135 mm across the length. The earlier ones are a few mm shorter as far as I understand it.
 
Bottom plate

Bottom plate

Thanks to Ron and Jerevan for the offer and advice.

For now I have fixed the bottom plate by covering it with a half case!

P2030041 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

Been shooting with it for the past week, along with an M6 which someone kindly loaned me. The M6 is easier, but the IIIC is a more involving experience.
 
SpikeT said:
Thanks to Ron and Jerevan for the offer and advice.

For now I have fixed the bottom plate by covering it with a half case!

P2030041 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

Been shooting with it for the past week, along with an M6 which someone kindly loaned me. The M6 is easier, but the IIIC is a more involving experience.
Click to expand...



Sweet case. Where'd it come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom