This M4-P half frame does seem expensive but think of the money you'll save on film!

intersting but I would not have thought terribly desirable. Its like a minature RF645 with the vertical format!
 
Imagine the finder image! Frame is vertical, so there must be loads of space on the sides in the finder.
Why on earth were these made?
 
Possibly for some industrial/recording purpose where saving costs on film was an important consideration? Some of the Leica Post cameras were less than full frame, though bigger than half frame.
 
I have to confess I like half frame and my Konica Auto Reflex is a much cherished camera in spite of having a lens that falls of now and then when you're focusing. I also like cameras with a default portrait orientation.

A half frame that you can put a Noctilux on ... oooeee! :p
 
That doesn't look like a true half-frame, if the framing is as the seller describes it in the image of the frames drawn on the film. The spacing is far too wide. It looks like a masking of full frame—in which case you would still only get the normal number of exposures on a roll. I am far from a being a Leica aficionado, but I thought for sure I had read somewhere that Leica had never made a half-frame camera, and that there were no true Leica half-frame cameras. Interesting. Hmm.


/
 
Last edited:
RayPA said:
That doesn't look like a true half-frame, if the framing is as the seller describes it in the image of the frames drawn on the film. The spacing is far too wide. It looks like a masking of full frame—in which case you would still only get the normal number of exposures on a roll. I am far from a being a Leica aficionado, but I thought for sure I had read somewhere that there were no Leica half-frame cameras. Interesting. Hmm.


/
Click to expand...


I notice on our bartender's website where he's discussing uber rare Leicas ... he thinks that any half frame 'M' would not have come from the factory this way!

For nineteen and a half grand you'd want proof it was genuine! :D
 
RayPA said:
That doesn't look like a true half-frame


/
Click to expand...

But the counter ticks 'till 80! And the frame in the camera looks half frame to me. I don't think the spacing as drawn is correct in order to get close to '80'.
The frames aren't even drawn equally!
 
What a strange marketing decision. Who was the target demographic? People with enough money to purchase a Leica, but wanted to save money on film? Bizarre.
 
I'd guess that it is a legit Leica produced prototype of some kind, maybe even further along than a prototype. Seems that the fine finish of this example would be more along the lines of a pre-production example, something that may have been very close to being produced. Other Leica prototypes vary in their fit and finish, sometimes looking quite rough. Even though I'd never heard of them doing this to the M4-P model, but it IS known that Leica Canada did investigate at the time how to add new life to the Leica line (and the Canada production line in particular), and did quite a few interesting lens prototypes that never made it into production. Leica did use the 18x24 size in their other half frame prototypes (Leica 72) and this serial number does show to be from M4-P production of 1982. The use of the wording "HALF FRAME" on the front of the camera seems a bit strange to me, but Leica Canada did things differently from Wetzlar in many ways.
 
laptoprob said:
But the counter ticks 'till 80! And the frame in the camera looks half frame to me. I don't think the spacing as drawn is correct in order to get close to '80'.
The frames aren't even drawn equally!
Click to expand...

good point about the counter. although, it should show 72 not 80 (or 84) for a true half frame. interesting nonetheless, but I wouldn't pay the $19k to find out (@keith). :) I'll stick with my Pen (and a recently acquired Samurai, which I haven't tested).

/
 
i'm definitely no leica expert either, but it looks pretty legit to me. the masking, frame counter and "half frame" etching on the front don't look aftermarket, unless they were done by a very skilled machinist, and the frame spacing is probably just an estimation drawn on the film by the seller. the orientation of the viewfinder is a little odd, but it probably made sense (at least for testing & prototype purposes) to keep the original viewfinder and change only the projected framelines.
 
Officially, Leica only made 5 MD 22 cameras (1/2 frame MD-2) - 2 were dissassembled and "lost. However, they made a lot of the body castings and those were later disposed of. The M4P 18x24 was never an official camera and most, if not all of them were assembled in Japan and in the UK. I have even seen a olive green M4 P 1/2 frame in Hong Kong and also a black paint one.
Some of these had masked filmgates that only exposed 1/2 frame, with the 2nd 1/2 blank. The gate on the one for sale looks like a standard, centered one. The wide spacing was done on purpose. With some of the Md-2 cameras you could use small, plastic bars that could be inserted through a slot in the baseplate. You could do notes on these and when printed, they would show up. Most of the 1/2 frames were designated for use on microscopes, CRT recording devices etc. On the camera for sale, there seems to be no indication wether it has the correct bright lines for the 18x24 format.
Leica Midland would do "custom" cameras if you wanted it and could handle the cost and as they were rather sloppy with record keeping - some of these "specials" are proper factory output - but most of them were assembled by technicians outside of the 'proper" Leica channels.
 
Tom A said:
Officially, Leica only made 5 MD 22 cameras (1/2 frame MD-2) - 2 were dissassembled and "lost. However, they made a lot of the body castings and those were later disposed of. The M4P 18x24 was never an official camera and most, if not all of them were assembled in Japan and in the UK. I have even seen a olive green M4 P 1/2 frame in Hong Kong and also a black paint one.
Some of these had masked filmgates that only exposed 1/2 frame, with the 2nd 1/2 blank. The gate on the one for sale looks like a standard, centered one. The wide spacing was done on purpose. With some of the Md-2 cameras you could use small, plastic bars that could be inserted through a slot in the baseplate. You could do notes on these and when printed, they would show up. Most of the 1/2 frames were designated for use on microscopes, CRT recording devices etc. On the camera for sale, there seems to be no indication wether it has the correct bright lines for the 18x24 format.
Leica Midland would do "custom" cameras if you wanted it and could handle the cost and as they were rather sloppy with record keeping - some of these "specials" are proper factory output - but most of them were assembled by technicians outside of the 'proper" Leica channels.
Click to expand...

Finally, a Leica expert! :) Thanks, Tom. Very informative.


/
 
good point about the counter. although, it should show 72 not 80 (or 84) for a true half frame. interesting nonetheless, but I wouldn't pay the $19k to find out (@keith). :) I'll stick with my Pen (and a recently acquired Samurai, which I haven't tested).
Click to expand...

I don't know how authentic the camera is but a framecounter up to 80 sounds right - my M4 counter goes up to 40, and just as with full frame cameras you often but 37 or 38 pictures out of a roll, on my old Pen FT I could always get 76 or more pictures out of a roll.
 
They made a lot of parts for various 1/2 frame's - in anticipation of great interest among microscope users. The counter dial was one of them.
However, it is not a big deal to make it with modern computer controlled engraving machines.
For many years, the various importers of Leica cameras had their own engraving machines. When you bashed a top-plate beyond repairability, you gave it to the importer who had a stock of blank top-plates. They would remove the old top plate (and supposedly destroy it) and then re-engrave the original number on the replacement top.
As for the 1/2 frame M4P. At one time I saw 7 of them in the same store (in Hong Kong) and a couple of days later another 5 in Tokyo (the olive green one and the black paint one). As with anything Leica - value is what the seller and the buyer think is right and has nothing to do with usability or scarcity. I suspect that $19500 could get you one made from parts today, if you so wanted.
 
RayPA said:
good point about the counter. although, it should show 72 not 80 (or 84) for a true half frame. interesting nonetheless, but I wouldn't pay the $19k to find out (@keith). :) I'll stick with my Pen (and a recently acquired Samurai, which I haven't tested).

/
Click to expand...

Ray, you're gonna like the Samurai. I've owned a Samurai since they came out, it's a heckuva lot of fun and everyone thinks you're shooting video. It's a solidly built camera for an auto-everything, and the uniqueness factor is a plus. Unique as in- film, 1/2 frame, automatic.
 
I miss my Pen W. I had several other Olympus Pen models, but that was my favorite. I'm not likely to spend that much money for ANY Leicas though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom