Why bottom loading?

B

brianentz

Member
Local time
2:42 PM
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
45
I’ve heard a few reasons why bottom loading film cameras are better. I’ve heard:
1) it allows closer placement of the film plane to the lens elements for better optical performance.
2) It holds the film flatter
3) Stronger body
4) less chance of light leaks

What say you?
 
brianentz said:
I’ve heard a few reasons why bottom loading film cameras are better. I’ve heard:
1) it allows closer placement of the film plane to the lens elements for better optical performance.
2) It holds the film flatter
3) Stronger body
4) less chance of light leaks

What say you?
Click to expand...
All the above, and in addition, probably closer tolerances in lens-to-film distance. And the bodies look cool.
 
There's a counter argument for each of those points:
1) Hexar RF/Bessa R show that a back door is no obstacle
2) Pressure plate decides flatness
3) Nikon F redefined ruggedness
4) In return you get a repair nightmare because there's no easy access to the camera internals

Bottom loading is an anachronism at best (said as an owner of an M4)
 
pvdhaar said:
Bottom loading is an anachronism at best (said as an owner of an M4)
Click to expand...
As the owner of an M2 I concur.
Of course, Leica's were designed to perform well in many severely technical fields of photography like engineering, astronomy, scientific macro and micro photography, places where whatever extra precision a solid body might give to an optical system could actually be realized, but all of these potential advantages disappear the moment you use the camera hand-held.
 
On a camera that is between 40 and 100 years old it probably depends on the individual camera and the life it’s had. What matters is that it gives the desired results.

However, bottom loaders are just better because they make you feel happy IMHO; especially if they are black and a bit brassed and were made in the early 30s.
 
Out to Lunch said:
If and when done correctly, bottom loading film is faster and less complicated than backdoor loading. Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...
Controversial take, but that's a hill I'll die on with you. I've had far more issues getting film to load correctly on various "quick load" systems than I have with a Barnack and a correctly-cut leader.

Other than that: the number one reason I like a bottom-loading camera is because it feels good. Nothing simpler than that. No hinge under the hand, no slight play in the back where the film door doesn't quite sit solidly, no cracks on the sides... just a solid-feeling camera.
 
I would say the bottom loading barnak style cameras are very rugged.
But I have seen quite a few with light leaks. Yes they don't have problems with leaks around folding doors. But the cameras with light leaks around the doors are often poorly designed in the first place.
 
I've long thought of bottom loading (= bottom feeding?) as an outdated, anachronistic technique foisted on the camera buying public in the 1930s by Leitz and a few other European manufacturer.

Anyone disagreeing (this said most respectfully) should try loading a Leica LTM for the first time.

I do it because I have to. And trim my film leaders every time I prepare my cassettes for the day's photography.

I usually think several rather bad words while I'm doing it.

Another positive for regular loading is, I get two or even three extra images from my Nikkormats by carefully loading (untrimmed) film. A nice plus for me.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
All the above, and in addition, probably closer tolerances in lens-to-film distance. And the bodies look cool.
Click to expand...
I would counter that with the evidence of the original Leica’s being all over the place and having their camera covering machined to set the distance individually for the lens.

Really though the door doesn’t set the lens to film distance, the film gate does which isn’t part of the door.
 
DownUnder said:
I've long thought of bottom loading (= bottom feeding?) as an outdated, anachronistic technique foisted on the camera buying public in the 1930s by Leitz and a few other European manufacturer.

Anyone disagreeing (this said most respectfully) should try loading a Leica LTM for the first time.

I do it because I have to. And trim my film leaders every time I prepare my cassettes for the day's photography.

I usually think several rather bad words while I'm doing it.

Another positive for regular loading is, I get two or even three extra images from my Nikkormats by carefully loading (untrimmed) film. A nice plus for me.
Click to expand...
I've used/owned Barnacks....they're lovely in their own way. I can see why the M cameras built on that framework.... that was their history.
I've loaded enough Ms to never even think about it. But the Barnacks are smaller (except the lllg).....& so more fiddly.
Every camera/tool has its idiosyncracies....(removeable Nikon F backs, Rollei 35s... for example.....still well-loved)
IMG_5862.JPG
 
Last edited:
I've owned an M2 and an M3, and now have a iig.

On an entirely personal basis, I prefer the Barnacks to the Ms. My iig takes me to what photography was like way back then. In the days when photographers concentrated on the images more than the (rather primitive) equipment they had to work with.

38Deardorff (#15) - I'm madly envious. A wonderful kit. What I could do with the same. The Cooler Skopars are by far my favourite Voigtlander lens, for their color and mid-tone rendition.

So yes, terrible thoughts are now coming into my mind. I may soon be financially broke again...
 
brianentz said:
I’ve heard a few reasons why bottom loading film cameras are better. I’ve heard:
1) it allows closer placement of the film plane to the lens elements for better optical performance.
2) It holds the film flatter
3) Stronger body
4) less chance of light leaks

What say you?
Click to expand...
5) Germans over-engineer stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom