Leica LTM UK - Would a CLA fix this?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
D

dd786

Established
Local time
12:56 AM
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
100
Hi All,
I just bought an IIIG but It is very difficult to focus because the split image is VERY faint compared to the rest of the VF. It is difficult to align the two images. I have cleaned all the glass on the outside so I'm sure its something on the inside.

Would a CLA fix this and if so, do any of the UK CLA guys do this?
 
dd786 said:
Would a CLA fix this
Click to expand...

Hard to say. The optics of the rangefinder/viewfinder of the IIIg are very complicated. If they are eaten by fungus, repair is difficult. The viewfinder/rangefinder of the IIIg is one compact unit.

Peter Grisaffi from CRR Luton however succeeded in removing the fungus in mine.

When you look from the front through the three holes of the viewfinder against a light source, what do you see?

Erik.
 
Or any one of the experts in the UK. Why not try Newton Ellis and Co, Skears and so on.

I dunno about CLA's that strikes me as a very vague thing. Better to ask for the thing to be checked and then for an estimate of the repair costs.

Regards, David
 
Erik van Straten said:
In the IIIg there is no beam splitter mirror, but prisms glued together; the rangefinder is more like the one in an M.

Erik.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that?

I had a IIIg for a short time in the mid 1970s that had a weak RF image and it was fixed by a Midland Leitz trained tech in Toronto and it did not cost more than the IIIc he fixed for me by replacing the beamsplitter mirror.

This was in the pre-internet days and getting camera parts for older cameras was nearly impossible and he said that he got both beamsplitter mirrors off a broken high end Polaroid parts camera.

I got rid of the IIIg soon after that but kept the IIIc.
 
David Hughes said:
Or any one of the experts in the UK. Why not try Newton Ellis and Co, Skears and so on.

I dunno about CLA's that strikes me as a very vague thing. Better to ask for the thing to be checked and then for an estimate of the repair costs.

Regards, David
Click to expand...
Dear David,

Exactly. What is needed is a repair. Ideally, a strip, clean and overhaul while they're at it. At its best, a "CLA" can be a strip, clean and overhaul (including replacement of all worn parts) and will cost several hundred, but the camera will be like new afterwards. At its worst, it's a sluice-out with a solvent, followed by over-tightening springs to overcome the resistance of the (still gummy) bearings. This will actually accelerate wear.

Cheers,

R.
 
xayraa33 said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...
I have a repair manual of the IIIg and I remembered this, but when I looked it up I was a bit confused about it. That is why I deleted my post.
I wil copy the relevant pages. Interesting enough anyhow.

Erik.

42923559565_c7ffb29b94_z.jpg


29957554748_bfecd6826e_z.jpg


42923559215_44fd7a9490_z.jpg


42923559045_08510d5108_z.jpg
 
xayraa33 said:
Are you sure about that?

I had a IIIg for a short time in the mid 1970s that had a weak RF image and it was fixed by a Midland Leitz trained tech in Toronto and it did not cost more than the IIIc he fixed for me by replacing the beamsplitter mirror.

This was in the pre-internet days and getting camera parts for older cameras was nearly impossible and he said that he got both beamsplitter mirrors off a broken high end Polaroid parts camera.

I got rid of the IIIg soon after that but kept the IIIc.
Click to expand...

Well, Malcolm Taylor's receipt (from 1999) for the IIIg that's in front of me at the moment certainly lists £25 for a replacement "R/F mirror" amongst the spares used.

I fully agree with David and Roger on the "CLA" front. OK, the IIIg cost a lot to fully strip down, repair and rebuild but it came back like a new camera and it's still like that 19 years later, so taken as a cost per year, it's not really worth worrying about! Ditto cameras that Peter Grisafi has serviced at CRR.
 
Mark Wood said:
Well, Malcolm Taylor's receipt (from 1999) for the IIIg that's in front of me at the moment certainly lists £25 for a replacement "R/F mirror" amongst the spares used.

I fully agree with David and Roger on the "CLA" front. OK, the IIIg cost a lot to fully strip down, repair and rebuild but it came back like a new camera and it's still like that 19 years later, so taken as a cost per year, it's not really worth worrying about! Ditto cameras that Peter Grisafi has serviced at CRR.
Click to expand...

I own many RF 35mm cameras , from top shelf stuff to lowly FSU gear but I have to say that post War made Barnack Leicas tend to have very poor quality beamsplitter mirrors for primo made costly cameras.

Even the original early 1950s Zorki 1 RF beamsplitter mirrors are of better quality, and I never had a Nicca/Tower Leica copy, most from the early to the mid 1950s vintage that needed the beamsplitter mirror replaced.
 
xayraa33 said:
I own many RF 35mm cameras , from top shelf stuff to lowly FSU gear but I have to say that post War made Barnack Leicas tend to have very poor quality beamsplitter mirrors for primo made costly cameras.

Even the original early 1950s Zorki 1 RF beamsplitter mirrors are of better quality, and I never had a Nicca/Tower Leica copy, most from the early to the mid 1950s vintage that needed the beamsplitter mirror replaced.
Click to expand...

Some of it may however have been luck: stuff that looked good 60 years ago has aged badly in ways that would have been very hard to foresee, cf. the bloody awful plastic knobs on a Linhof Color Kardan.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Some of it may however have been luck: stuff that looked good 60 years ago has aged badly in ways that would have been very hard to foresee, cf. the bloody awful plastic knobs on a Linhof Color Kardan.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree with the luck part, but it is odd that that Leitz beam splitter mirrors of their pre-war made cameras hold up much better than their post-war made stuff for their LTM cameras.

The M models are a different story, very top notch in just about everything, even the good at copying Japanese were taken aback with that design technology and manufacturing complexity and hand fitting finesse needed to emulate the M Leicas.

The late 1940s Leitz chrome plating was another fiasco, another oops ! but they quickly corrected that.

But like you said, Roger, no matter how top-of- the- line any firm is, they have no crystal ball to predict any future failures.
 
And chemicals in the air, especially if gas is used for cooking or heating in the house can affect the "silvering" on mirrors and so on. And cutlery etc...


Regards, David
 
splitimageview said:
beamsplitters are pretty cheap from nobbysparrow
Click to expand...

That is really fantastic !

I wish I knew that the Great Nobbysparrow was in business selling pre cut beamsplitter mirrors for Barnacks in the pre-internet years, even a tiny ad in
the back pages of an English language photo magazine would have sufficed.

Sure beats glass cutting them from Edmund Scientific 50/50 mirrors or lucking out and finding some high quality beamsplitter material off a parts Polaroid 250 or 360 Land camera with its exquisite Zeiss made or designed RF assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom