MaZo
Established
Hi all!
I'm a little bit confused - can someone enlight me what kind of conversion this is? The accompanying description says I to IIc, but shouldn't it have had a different RF/VF?. Any insight will be greatly appreciated.
I'm a little bit confused - can someone enlight me what kind of conversion this is? The accompanying description says I to IIc, but shouldn't it have had a different RF/VF?. Any insight will be greatly appreciated.
Dwig
Well-known
There is something wonky about this camera...
To start with, it is IMPOSSIBLE to convert any pre c model to a c. The c had a different body size. This conversion is more of a II since it still has 1/500 as its top speed and has widely spaced eyepieces. A IIa would have a 1/1000th and a IIb would have close set eyepieces in a common surround. It does have the diopter adjustment of a III, something a born as II didn't have.
Whats odd is that it has a 11c style "cover" where the slow speed dial goes. The I and II didn't have these blank covers. There were a few late issues of the I after the introduction of the III and its slow speeds and these may have borrowed the III body shell and hence needed the cover. In 1930 when this serial number was issued that was not the case.
To start with, it is IMPOSSIBLE to convert any pre c model to a c. The c had a different body size. This conversion is more of a II since it still has 1/500 as its top speed and has widely spaced eyepieces. A IIa would have a 1/1000th and a IIb would have close set eyepieces in a common surround. It does have the diopter adjustment of a III, something a born as II didn't have.
Whats odd is that it has a 11c style "cover" where the slow speed dial goes. The I and II didn't have these blank covers. There were a few late issues of the I after the introduction of the III and its slow speeds and these may have borrowed the III body shell and hence needed the cover. In 1930 when this serial number was issued that was not the case.
Livesteamer
Well-known
I think it should not be called a IIc but a II. Upgrading a Leica I required a new top plate and perhaps a new body shell as well. Looks like a Leica II to me but it would help to know the serial number. I suspect it is a very late conversion. Joe
MikeL
Go Fish
The single screws on the front and back, which hold the top cover on the shell, seem kinda wierd. Mine have three on the front, three on the back.
colyn
ישו משיח
Nothing unusual here. This camera has gone through at least 2 factory upgrades. It started out as a Leica I then was upgraded to III or IIIa specs depending on top shutter speed. 500 for III and 1000 for IIIa. Then another upgrade to IIc specs.
It still is a model I just with upgrades..
It still is a model I just with upgrades..
Dwig
Well-known
Make that a downgrade to II specs.
Converting to a III with its slow speeds and then gelding it back to a slow-speedless II would account for the body shell change and the cover over the missing slow speed dial.
The serial number can't be read very well, but it has a 5 digit number starting with a 3 and is not gold plated which means it was "born" in 1930 as an "A" (fixed lens), non-standard I (aka "C") or a "B" (compur - no likely a candidate for conversion).
If the serial number is "35..." or "36..." and not "38..." and if Lager's data is correct then this was a fixed lens "A" at birth which would possibly account for the body shell change. If the conversion was done after the discontinuance of the II then existing shells for conversion would likely have the hole for the slow speed dial and would require the cover. Perhaps nothing is wonky after all.
Dralowid
Michael
Hi,
Can we move this thread to the conversions section?
Nice camera
Michael
Can we move this thread to the conversions section?
Nice camera
Michael
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
A lot of them have a mixed history. Especially as a result of WW2 when spares were like hen's teeth and many were cannibalised. This lasted until the early 50's when things were back to a version of normal. So look on it as one with character and history.
BTW, what's the body length? I can's see a long cover fitting an early one but can see the newer blank fitting where a hole for the ST has been but, again, did any short length ones have ST's?
Regards, David
A lot of them have a mixed history. Especially as a result of WW2 when spares were like hen's teeth and many were cannibalised. This lasted until the early 50's when things were back to a version of normal. So look on it as one with character and history.
BTW, what's the body length? I can's see a long cover fitting an early one but can see the newer blank fitting where a hole for the ST has been but, again, did any short length ones have ST's?
Regards, David
MaZo
Established
Thanks for your inputs. The serial no. is 38729, so it's apparently Leica I from 1930, but what happened thereafter?
Here's another picture (click to see bigger image):
Here's another picture (click to see bigger image):
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It is most probably a very late Leica II as they were made till 1948 and it had picked up some features of the Leica III at the later dates of assembly.
The only thing that might be non original is the black paint finish.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4401430
The only thing that might be non original is the black paint finish.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4401430
craygc
Well-known
Thanks for your inputs. The serial no. is 38729, so it's apparently Leica I from 1930, but what happened thereafter?
Here's another picture (click to see bigger image):
Dont know where youre hosting this image but if I open it I also get some nice porn with it on the same page...
Dralowid
Michael
It is a fairly normal post war conversion of Leica I to a Leica II but without synchronisation. Can be seen on the price lists somewhere in the 'conversions sticky'.
The body shell has been replaced (see vulcanite) with a new shell that has the hole for the slow speeds. This was done because we understand that the supply of 'short' shells without the hole dried up (this has been discussed before elsewhere). The original top plate has been retained hence the six screws.
Adding strap lugs and rangefinder with dioptre was all part of the conversion. (Although the 'return' on the dioptre is the old type and not the shorter post war one normally used)
It is a nice camera, I particularly like the fact that it has not been synchronised which would have only cost a few extra Marks but keeps it simple.
If the lens has no serial number it might too be a conversion.
If I am wrong no doubt someone will tell me!
Michael
The body shell has been replaced (see vulcanite) with a new shell that has the hole for the slow speeds. This was done because we understand that the supply of 'short' shells without the hole dried up (this has been discussed before elsewhere). The original top plate has been retained hence the six screws.
Adding strap lugs and rangefinder with dioptre was all part of the conversion. (Although the 'return' on the dioptre is the old type and not the shorter post war one normally used)
It is a nice camera, I particularly like the fact that it has not been synchronised which would have only cost a few extra Marks but keeps it simple.
If the lens has no serial number it might too be a conversion.
If I am wrong no doubt someone will tell me!
Michael
MaZo
Established
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that.
Here's another try, seems to be working fine and no addons
:
haempe
Well-known
Michael is right.
I to II postwar conversion w/o synch.
Nice.
I to II postwar conversion w/o synch.
Nice.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
These were regular kind of upgrades after WOII. There is a table were you can find all the factory upgrades there were done by Leitz. More info on all the uprades and samples are to be found here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91238
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Nice it has the sharkskin covering, the "old style" logo and no synch.
The shutter guard is not original.
Erik.
The shutter guard is not original.
Erik.
Penny Lane
Hopelessly Citrophile
'Sharkskin' covering was a material used in the 1948 to 1951 era, so that might put a time frame on the conversion. Also, sharkskin would normally be vertically patterned and not horizontally as this example looks to be, apparently unless workers were down to remains of sheets of material (see: http://www.nattenberg.org/downloads.html, two pdf articles by Olaf Nattenberg for VIDOM 98 and VIDOM 101, German language).
Derk
Derk