Does my Leica need a CLA or is it user error?

[EASmithV]

Seems like most rolls i shoot turn out like the attached photo, sprocket holes as part of the image. it's kind of annoying as i lose image area. Is it me, do I need a CLA, or is it a loading error?

Annoying, because it will look off with my filed carrier.
This was shot with a Barnack (IIIA)

 

[Trask]

If you are using an earlier thread mount model like a III or IIIa, where the film is slid down into the back that does not open, then this can easily happen. If you're using an M3, M2, M4 etc then it's 99% user error for not properly aligning the film onto the film rails before closing the back and putting the bottom back on -- because with an M camera you can visually confirm that the film is properly installed.

So I imagine you're using an earlier model. Leica insisted on the film leader being cut to an exact pattern so that, after having attached the leader to the take-up spool, you would insert the film cassette on one side and the take-up spool on the other, and there was no film coming out of the cassette that could catch on the lower (when the camera is upside down to be loaded) edge of the film gate. So step one is to trim the film leader properly. Possible stop two is to get a stiff yet this sheet of plastic that you can slide down into the camera as if it were the film, then slide the film itself down behind that plastic -- the plastic would ensure the edge of the film does not catch on the film gate/opening. I just loaded by IIIa yesterday, and to be certain it was loaded properly I removed the lens, set the speed to "Z" and clicked the shutter, so I was looking right at the film and could visually check that it was loaded. Since you are having difficulties, I suggest you load the film with the lens off and shutter locked open so you can watch the film descend, and you'll quickly see what I mean about the film catching on the edge of the film opening. You can gently put you finger on the film and work it down into proper position.

I hope this helps. Remember -- even Henri Cartier-Bresson has exhibited photos where you can see the sprocket holes, so don't feel bad about your loading issue, as you're in good company!

 

[02Pilot]

My understanding it that's it's a fairly common problem with Barnacks. Figure out if the film is too far up or too far down in relation to the film gate. If it's not up far enough, the solution is easy: a little washer on the guide pin for the take-up spool on the base plate. If it's too far up, it might be a little more complicated. Without having a camera open in front of me I can't say for sure, but you might get away with shimming the top of the take-up spindle. I use thin plastic washers attached with rubber cement; no damage, easy to remove if need be. Completely reversible.

 

[jimjm]

My IIIF was doing the same thing, but the sprockets intruded at a slight angle. Film coming out of the cassette was positioned too low across the film gate, but less so as it neared the take-up spool.

I glued a thin plastic washer to the inside of the base plate, directly under the film cassette. It supports the spool high enough now to solve the problem.

If your take-up spool is slipping down, you may need to do the same for both sides.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Dont worry , there would be always mistakes when you start with a barnack or hasselblad. I advise you to not use the camera at serious job until you learn how to load and use the camera properly. After 10 rolls loaded and shot properly , you can switch to these beauties , Do you tension the film from other roller or do you keep your eye open , when you turn one roller other end rotates , you are lucky because my first rolls always came blank 20 years ago. Best of luck , if your body damaged , you can buy from dag , sheryl kreuter or chinese guy with trading. By the way , your image quality is jaw dropping.

 

[Dali]

It is not a mistake at all, it is simply the fact that Barnack bodies were designed around Leitz cartridges which are not exactly the same size (shorter) as those from today film manufacturers. The washer to offset the size difference as explained above is the way to go.

 

[Xmas]

It is not a mistake at all, it is simply the fact that Barnack bodies were designed around Leitz cartridges which are not exactly the same size (shorter) as those from today film manufacturers. The washer to offset the size difference as explained above is the way to go.

The Barnacks were designed before the DIN for cassettes the DIN is 2mm shorter than the Leics FILCA.
The IIF and IIIF (and laster) had a enhanced base place to avoid the problem but still accept FILCA,
The M are to the DIN, so dont accept FILCA, needing IXMOO.
Think the FSU clones are ok.

 

[Dali]

With FSU, it is OK even if the image is not perfectly centered. (lack of) Manufacturing tolerance and soft body shell are the usual suspects in this case.

 

[EASmithV]

can ii mod my baseplate for proper function?

 

[Xmas]

Hi

The Soviets taught the Germans how to spell tank, sniper and play chess.
The early Kievs are as good in every way as a ContaxII, nothing like as bad as a Contax I.

Noel

 

[Dali]

Hi

The early Kievs are as good in every way as a ContaxII

Noel

Especially those made with German parts...

 

[Xmas]

can ii mod my baseplate for proper function?

Not like the factory they milled the chassis to accept a prong on the baseplate.
A plastic spacer push fit into base plate latch should be ok or similar bodge
You are in good company HCB did some sprocket shots.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I used two 1946 3C Leicas , 1954 FED , 1955 Zorki without any problem , I dont know they are in DIN or not and two 3F without any problem.
I am using a Zorki 1955 with - still waiting the hektor 135- If you cant afford a body , buy few soviet cameras from europe , they work with leica lens.

 

[snapguy]

buy

But a Nikon or even (shudder) a Canon.

 

[IloveTLRs]

can ii mod my baseplate for proper function?

Somewhere I saw a quick mod, removing a screw and flipping a piece over. I can't find the thread anymore and don't know if it works.

 

[250swb]

can ii mod my baseplate for proper function?

You don't need to in 99.9% of cases, it is just a matter of loading the film correctly, not making modifications to offset incorrect loading.

The very simple way to see if the film is loaded correctly is to unscrew the lens, set the camera on T, and look. If you can see the sprocket holes push the film up with your finger through the open shutter. When it is located between the film rails everything else will line up even if the cassette is shorter than the Leica type. All adding a washer does is try to force the film to engage between the film rails when it's been loaded cack-handed, it doesn't guarantee it.

Steve

 

[Xmas]

You don't need to in 99.9% of cases, it is just a matter of loading the film correctly, not making modifications to offset incorrect loading.

The very simple way to see if the film is loaded correctly is to unscrew the lens, set the camera on T, and look. If you can see the sprocket holes push the film up with your finger through the open shutter. When it is located between the film rails everything else will line up even if the cassette is shorter than the Leica type. All adding a washer does is try to force the film to engage between the film rails when it's been loaded cack-handed, it doesn't guarantee it.

Steve

Ok steve you just committed the big sin of saying HCB could not load film into his Barnack, 40 Hail Marys.
Leitz ignored the DIN from '32 till '52 when they bodged the late IIIf & IIf.
It is important to not remove a lens or stick your finger in the film gate unless it is necessary.
It is instead quite sufficient to bottom the end of the cassette spool and the take up spool with thumb.
Ive never had it happen with my IIIc or early IIf.
But I'm not that careful at loading either.

 

[removed account4]

E -

you might email youxin ye and ask him what his professional opinion is.
he is a leica repair man ( and a darn nice guy too ). i am sure
he has seen this common problem and can offer a suggestion to or not to fix it.
if it was my camera, i'd probably frame a little wider and be willing to crop the sprockets out
or get another camera ( user m2? ) if it was huge trouble, OR maybe i would just leave the sprocket holes as part of
the presented image, after all your clients paid for film
while it has been suggested to just get FSU leica clones becasue they are every bit as good as the real deal
( because they accept leica lenses ) .. while might be a ton of fun ( i loved my zorki ) they are not a leica by any stretch of the imagination,
and i'd have a repair guy's email/website ( can't remember his name now ) in your bookmarks+back pocket,
because sometimes the shutters have problems and don't work right and leak ... which is a lot worse than sprocket holes appearing
on your film ...

john

 

[georg16nik]

I see a desperate need for visual clues in this thread.
So, here we go..

What the OP noticed is quite normal for Barnacks and some derivatives up to ~ WWII.
If you alter your body, then you are stuck with the “modern” cartridges, whether they are shorter or longer than FILCA, well, u see...
Some folks use washers, other just don't push the take-up spool to the very bottom of the body, I frankly don't care and just shoot away.

 

[Xmas]

I see a desperate need for visual clues in this thread.
So, here we go..

What the OP noticed is quite normal for Barnacks and some derivatives up to ~ WWII.
If you alter your body, then you are stuck with the “modern” cartridges, whether they are shorter or longer than FILCA, well, u see...
Some folks use washers, other just don't push the take-up spool to the very bottom of the body, I frankly don't care and just shoot away.

Up to '52 or so, and a late IIIf will still accept FILCA, the baseplate change does not push the cassette but the film.

 

[tessar]

From my experience, swb50 (above) is right. I've loaded both a IIIa (1938) and a IIIf (1951) with modern cassettes -- no trouble, as long as the sprocket holes engage the sprockets correctly. After some practice you won't have to make sure by removing the lens anymore. I think using a Barnack with washers is not a good idea.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think I learned lot of things from posts , tessar and john put the final words.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have a 1933 III, never noticed anything like this. I guess I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[georg16nik]

I have a 1933 III, never noticed anything like this. I guess I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way.

Then your 1933 III is not stock, while the OP attached photo reveal non modded Barnack body.

 

[Hatchetman]

That must be the case.