How much Leica lore do you know?

Alan Gales · May 29, 2016

cuthbert said:
In the 80s my uncle (notorious snob and owner of an Hasselblad COMPLETE system that used only twice, all the gear is still stored in boxes) kept on repeating that Leica was making the best cameras and lenses ever and Contax and Zeiss lenses for 35mm were still made in W.Germany and superior to the Zeiss East Germany. He also wanted my father to spend the money for a Contax when I was 13 but my old man thought he was crazy, with some good reasons.

Talking about Leica lore, in the same years the Red Dot was forced to ask Minolta to make SLRs for them as the first and second Leicaflex proved they couldn't understand how to make proper SLRs but they refused for years to admit that, or they kept it "confidential".

When I was 22 I bought my Contax 139. It was on sale and I had to borrow some of the money from a friend to buy it. I was also still living at home with my parents. I can completely understand why a family man like your father didn't want to spend that much on a camera. For most people back then a Canon Sureshot was great for family snapshots but still not inexpensive for their budgets.

Why is the Hasselblad still stored? Someone needs to have it CLA'd and shoot it.

I don't know much about Leica SLR's. A very good friend of mine bought a used one a few years ago. I handled it and if felt good in my hands. Almost as good as a Contax which I have always felt was the most ergonomic of 35mm cameras.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Minolta-Leica SLR connection. Did Minolta make Leica SLR's? I have always been fond of the Minolta X700 for their reasonably priced cameras and very good lenses back in the day. The Canon AE-1 Programs outsold them but I never cared for shutter priority.

summicron1 · May 29, 2016

Lore?

Oskar Barnack was inspired to invent the Leica because he had asthma and liked to take pictures while hiking, but his camera was a big view camera, and the weight was too much.

He tried taking multiple exposures on one plate, using a moving lens mount, but that didn't work. Then one day he was pondering the camera that someone needed made to test short lengths of movie film because each batch had to be tested back them to see what the actual speed was.

The testing camera fit in his pocket and a lightbulb went off. The rest, as they say, is history.

All leicas are pretty much hand made, and books discussing the Leica M-series, especially, will talk about how even the screws are meticulously made and each screwed in with a screwdriver that fits precisely into the slot.

So, said look inside the mount of the Leica SL2 and what do you see? Phillips head screws. The bodies were being assembled in Portugal, this repairperson who trained at the factory told me, and cross-head or, more accurately, self-centering screws, are a bit quicker and were easier for the less-skilled workers doing the preliminary assembly work before they were sent to Germany to be finished.

The members of the board of directors of Leitz were reluctant to produce the 35mm camera because a lot of them owned stock in film companies that made larger format film. There was a long debate before E. Leitz said they would make it, as much as a way to provide work for their factory as anything else.

summicron1 · May 29, 2016

Alan Gales said:
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Minolta-Leica SLR connection. Did Minolta make Leica SLR's? I have always been fond of the Minolta X700 for their reasonably priced cameras and very good lenses back in the day. The Canon AE-1 Programs outsold them but I never cared for shutter priority.

Leica and Minolta made a number of cameras together. The R3 shares a body casting with a Minolta SLR, and the Leica CL body was made by Minolta in Japan. My R-4 is very similar to my son's Minolta SLR in many respects.

Minolta later came out with its own CL, branded with Minolta, and then the SLE, which is technologically more advanced than the CL. Sweet little camera.

Minolta made a number of Leica lenses. It made my 16mm Elmarit R fisheye, and it made the Leica 24mm Elmarit R, although the 24mm lenses were so thoroughly rebuilt after Leitz took delivery that they could, legally, stamp "Made in Germany" on them. A very high percentage of the Minolta-made 24s didn't pass Leica inspection and were sent back. Probably rebranded and sold as Minoltas.

Leica has had a number of its lenses made by others when it didn't have the technology. My 21mm F4 Super Angulon was made by Schneider Optik. My 28-85 Leica Zoom was made in Japan by a company that had the tech to make better zooms than Leica did. It made the Leica lenses to Leica specifications so, while it is a cheap lens because of its ancestry, it is a very excellent shooter, and sturdy as only a Leica lens is.

Alan Gales · May 29, 2016

summicron1 said:
Leica and Minolta made a number of cameras together. The R3 shares a body casting with a Minolta SLR, and the Leica CL body was made by Minolta in Japan. My R-4 is very similar to my son's Minolta SLR in many respects.

Minolta later came out with its own CL, branded with Minolta, and then the SLE, which is technologically more advanced than the CL. Sweet little camera.

Minolta made a number of Leica lenses. It made my 16mm Elmarit R fisheye, and it made the Leica 24mm Elmarit R, although the 24mm lenses were so thoroughly rebuilt after Leitz took delivery that they could, legally, stamp "Made in Germany" on them. A very high percentage of the Minolta-made 24s didn't pass Leica inspection and were sent back. Probably rebranded and sold as Minoltas.

Leica has had a number of its lenses made by others when it didn't have the technology. My 21mm F4 Super Angulon was made by Schneider Optik. My 28-85 Leica Zoom was made in Japan by a company that had the tech to make better zooms than Leica did. It made the Leica lenses to Leica specifications so, while it is a cheap lens because of its ancestry, it is a very excellent shooter, and sturdy as only a Leica lens is.

Thank you very much, Summicron1, for the very interesting information.

I'm 54 years old. I sold new 35mm cameras when I was young but am still learning.

benjiboy · May 29, 2016

A Leica is a very fine camera, but not a artefact to base a religion on.

calebarchie · May 29, 2016

This thread still going?

lxdude · May 29, 2016

CMoore said:
How did "The Red Dot" come to be.?

I don't know, but I wish my cat would stop chasing it!

cuthbert · May 29, 2016

Alan Gales said:
When I was 22 I bought my Contax 139. It was on sale and I had to borrow some of the money from a friend to buy it. I was also still living at home with my parents. I can completely understand why a family man like your father didn't want to spend that much on a camera. For most people back then a Canon Sureshot was great for family snapshots but still not inexpensive for their budgets.

Why is the Hasselblad still stored? Someone needs to have it CLA'd and shoot it.

I don't know much about Leica SLR's. A very good friend of mine bought a used one a few years ago. I handled it and if felt good in my hands. Almost as good as a Contax which I have always felt was the most ergonomic of 35mm cameras.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Minolta-Leica SLR connection. Did Minolta make Leica SLR's? I have always been fond of the Minolta X700 for their reasonably priced cameras and very good lenses back in the day. The Canon AE-1 Programs outsold them but I never cared for shutter priority.

You were lucky to get a 139 I assume, I was 13 at the time, not 22, and therefore you can imagine the perplexities of my father...my uncle is the stingiest person I have ever met, my father challenged him to give me the money for the Contax and he retracted...in the end my first "real" camera was an Exakta HS10, a forgettable Cosina made camera in K mount, the shop clerk fooled me saying it was a DDR camera and I was disappointed by finding it was made in Japan.

For the Hasselblad, my uncle doesn't allow anybody to touch anything he owns, so I assume we'll have to wait until he's dead. Allegedly his systems includes the Tele-Tessar 500mm and the Distagon 30mm, but they might be old wives' tales.

For Leica, Summicron is correct, all the SLRs with the red dot from the R3 to the R7 were made by Minolta and tweaked by Leitz. Not that there is anything wrong with that but at that time they kept the information "confidential" so a lot of people paid a lot of money for a redesigned Minolta XD, and I don't think it was correct for the customers and Minolta as well.

benjiboy said:
A Leica is a very fine camera, but not a artefact to base a religion on.

Word.

For the red dot, I think it was created with the M system to give the user a visual reference when you install the lens on the body, they decided something bold against the hard chrome background, then it became advertisement as "symbol" of the Leica M system, that's the reason why old cameras don't have it.

Alan Gales · May 31, 2016

Cuthbert, at 13 I had a Polaroid Square Shooter ll so your Exacta wasn't so bad. The Contax wasn't my first 35mm. In 1982 I purchased a store display model Canon AV-1 for $85.00 US. I took it to the 1982 Worlds Fair in Knoxville Tennessee and then down to the Florida gulf beaches for vacation. Nothing wrong with the Canon but after I learned how to use it I wanted a camera with full manual controls and not just Aperture Priority mode only.

I almost bought a Nikon FM but I talked to a young woman who I worked with and trusted. She owned a Leica M series and an RB67. She recommended a Leica to me. I couldn't afford Leica at the time with my money going towards keeping my old car running and paying for college. I also wanted an SLR so she recommended Contax. I soon sold the Canon and bought the 139.

Hopefully, your uncle will live a long full happy life and at the end, remember you in his will with the Hasselblad kit.

AgX · Feb 28, 2021

ciniframe said:
Don't know whether this would be called lore exactly, but look up "Leica freedom train " the Leitz family were genuinely good people that took risks to help others.

That story is questionable to say the least.
PM me to receive links to critical research on this matter.

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2021

AgX said:
That story is questionable to say the least.
PM me for links to critical research on this matter.

Search this website, it has been documented here before.

LeftCoastKid · Feb 28, 2021

Very little, actually. But I have heard that some guy by the name of Henri Cartier-Bresson was a fan? I bought a couple of cameras and lenses for "street" and festival-type photography, because I found that the racket my F2s made tended to annoy/frighten folks.

AgX · Feb 28, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
Search this website, it has been documented here before.

I got the documentation, you not.

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 28, 2021

None.

Arthurwg · Feb 28, 2021

Is it true that Leica was Anti -Fascist during WWII when Rolleiflex was pro?

benjiboy said:
A Leica is a very fine camera, but not a artefact to base a religion on.

Any worse than those gold tablets found under a rock in Pennsylvania?

SchwinnParamount · Feb 28, 2021

pentaxpete said:
I lost my 'Red Dot' in a smelly market in the Philippines ----- lens is now 'Dot-Less'

I thought that story was going... somewhere else that perhaps was best not shared...

SchwinnParamount · Feb 28, 2021

Alan Gales said:
Back in the 80's I was in a camera shop talking to a salesperson who was also a friend. A Dentist came in with his Contax RTS-ll kit with 6 lenses. He had just bought it all a couple months before but was trading it in on a Leica SLR kit. Some rich dude had told him that Leica was the camera to own. His wallet of course took a real beating but he didn't seem to mind.

I wonder what he did when he found out that real Leica men shot rangefinders and not SLR's.

Why is it always a dentist?

cliveh · Feb 28, 2021

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/leica-lenses.181416/

Alan Gales · Mar 1, 2021

SchwinnParamount said:
Why is it always a dentist?

You know, I've asked myself that same question!

eddie · Mar 1, 2021

SchwinnParamount said:
Why is it always a dentist?

This reminds me of something from my past.
About 35 years ago, I would help a friend sell photo equipment at a few of those camera swap meets they'd have in hotel ballrooms. At almost every one someone (always a different person) would offer to sell us "Hitler's dentist's Leica". I probably did about a dozen shows with him, and we got that offer at least 9 times (though one smart guy changed it to Goering's dentist). It got to the point where we'd bet on the time the Leica would stop by the tables.

Huss · Mar 1, 2021

All the dentists I know use their phones to take pics. Like 99.99% of the rest of the population.

Sirius Glass · Mar 1, 2021

I never knew a dentist with a Hasselblad nor a Leica.

film_man · Mar 2, 2021

Most important Leica lore: "people who never touched a Leica think the only people who own Leicas are rich dentists that like to show off".

Huss · Mar 2, 2021

It's interesting though. There is that stereotype that Leicas are owned by Drs and dentists.
To become a Dr or a dentist requires intelligence, drive and talent. Which speaks well for Leica users.

Unless being smart and educated is somehow an insult.

Sirius Glass · Mar 2, 2021

I think the myths of dentists owning Leicas an Hasselblads comes from people bitching that they cannot afford those cameras.

How much Leica lore do you know?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency