The myth of smoothness of leicas

[250swb]

How about we agree that whoever wants to to preventive CLAs with their gear can do so, and whoever want to wait and see until a piece of gear breaks, can also do so? These two approaches can co-exist peacefully.

Do you know what CLA means, it mean Clean, Lube, and Adjust, it doesn't mean repair or even repair in anticipation. So it's very easy to throw around 'oh your camera or lens needs a CLA' when in reality if adjustments aren't needed and there's nothing to repair it's a waste of money.

 

[Axelwik]

Do you know what CLA means, it mean Clean, Lube, and Adjust, it doesn't mean repair or even repair in anticipation. So it's very easy to throw around 'oh your camera or lens needs a CLA' when in reality if adjustments aren't needed and there's nothing to repair it's a waste of money.

About 90% of the time a camera or lens "repair" is nothing more than a CLA - typically no broken parts to replace. The most common failure is dried out and/or sticky lubricants that aren't doing their job anymore and need to be replaced, hence disassembly, cleaning of the components, reassembly with new and proper lubrication, and adjustment as necessary. In short, a CLA restores the function of the camera or lens. The old organic lubricants (whale oil in some cases) can't be expected to last forever and tend to gum up the works. Modern synthetic lubricants will probably last longer.

Up to the photographer when he/she wants to get this done. Recently my old Leica iiif was starting to give me inconsistent shutter speeds. Took it to a friend/technician who specializes in screw and M mount Leicas and watched while he did a CLA. That's all it needed. Now the camera is smoother than it ever has been since I had it. He also maintains my large format shutters/lenses.I've never had to buy a part - it's always been a CLA to get things working again.

 

[chuckroast]

About 90% of the time a camera or lens "repair" is nothing more than a CLA - typically no broken parts to replace. The most common failure is dried out and/or sticky lubricants that aren't doing their job anymore and need to be replaced, hence disassembly, cleaning of the components, reassembly with new and proper lubrication, and adjustment as necessary. In short, a CLA restores the function of the camera or lens. The old organic lubricants (whale oil in some cases) can't be expected to last forever and tend to gum up the works. Modern synthetic lubricants will probably last longer.

Up to the photographer when he/she wants to get this done. Recently my old Leica iiif was starting to give me inconsistent shutter speeds. Took it to a friend/technician who specializes in screw and M mount Leicas and watched while he did a CLA. That's all it needed. Now the camera is smoother than it ever has been since I had it. He also maintains my large format shutters/lenses.I've never had to buy a part - it's always been a CLA to get things working again.

I have a IIIf, M2, and M5 all of which have been CLAed within the last year. Why? Because the people who know how to do this are dwindling in numbers and parts are getting harder to get (depending on the part). By having the cameras tuned and checked (mine needed no new parts other than some vulcanite replacement), I am reasonably well assured that they will last the remainder of my photographic life.

A quality machine like a Leica or Nikon doesn't need a CLA frequently, but the cameras in question were made in 1955, 1961, and 1974 respectively and it didn't seem excessive to have a great repair person (YYE for the IIIf and DAG for the Ms) go through them. They are all now pretty much whisper quiet and run flawlessly.

 

[brbo]

About 90% of the time a camera or lens "repair" is nothing more than a CLA - typically no broken parts to replace. The most common failure is dried out and/or sticky lubricants that aren't doing their job anymore and need to be replaced, hence disassembly, cleaning of the components, reassembly with new and proper lubrication, and adjustment as necessary. In short, a CLA restores the function of the camera or lens. The old organic lubricants (whale oil in some cases) can't be expected to last forever and tend to gum up the works. Modern synthetic lubricants will probably last longer.

Up to the photographer when he/she wants to get this done. Recently my old Leica iiif was starting to give me inconsistent shutter speeds. Took it to a friend/technician who specializes in screw and M mount Leicas and watched while he did a CLA. That's all it needed. Now the camera is smoother than it ever has been since I had it. He also maintains my large format shutters/lenses.I've never had to buy a part - it's always been a CLA to get things working again.

You were sooooooo lucky.

If you'd read this thread earlier you'd have known that cameras are designed to be serviced regularly or else there will be far more catastrophic failures (broken parts, stripped gears...) if you wait until you can see/feel something is wrong with the camera.

 

[Axelwik]

You were sooooooo lucky.

If you'd read this thread earlier you'd have known that cameras are designed to be serviced regularly or else there will be far more catastrophic failures (broken parts, stripped gears...) if you wait until you can see/feel something is wrong with the camera.

If it's a camera that I depend on and don't know its history, then I'll have it serviced (I don't buy many new cameras anymore). Most of my Leica and Hasselblad cameras fit into this category, as well as the large format lenses/shutters that get regular use.

If it's a camera that I don't depend on (not taking it on an expensive international trip for example), then it gets put aside at the first sign of trouble, then maybe it will get serviced as funds become available (or my camera tech has time - his primary business is watchmaker).

Not everything fits into a neat category, but when I depend on something, such as my M2 on a recent trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea, you better believe it's been serviced within the last 5 or so years.

 

[Axelwik]

I have a IIIf, M2, and M5 all of which have been CLAed within the last year. Why? Because the people who know how to do this are dwindling in numbers and parts are getting harder to get (depending on the part). By having the cameras tuned and checked (mine needed no new parts other than some vulcanite replacement), I am reasonably well assured that they will last the remainder of my photographic life.

A quality machine like a Leica or Nikon doesn't need a CLA frequently, but the cameras in question were made in 1955, 1961, and 1974 respectively and it didn't seem excessive to have a great repair person (YYE for the IIIf and DAG for the Ms) go through them. They are all now pretty much whisper quiet and run flawlessly.

Yep, the old lubricants do wear out, dry out, and gum up the works. I think a proper CLA with modern and proper lubricants applied sparingly only where they are needed on freshly cleaned parts will help a camera or lens function properly for a very long time.

Of course the cloth shutter curtains in Leicas need replacement once in a while; sometimes age, other times carless photographers who point their lenses at the sun or physically damage them in some way - I suspect that there are very few LTM Leicas with their original curtains.

 

[chuckroast]

Yep, the old lubricants do wear out, dry out, and gum up the works. I think a proper CLA with modern and proper lubricants applied sparingly only where they are needed on freshly cleaned parts will help a camera or lens function properly for a very long time.

Of course the cloth shutter curtains in Leicas need replacement once in a while; sometimes age, other times carless photographers who point their lenses at the sun or physically damage them in some way - I suspect that there are very few LTM Leicas with their original curtains.

I have done some basic CLA type work on other cameras and my consistent experience is that they more often need (C)leaning, than (L)ubing, or (A)dusting. A judicious application of naptha to flush out old grunge often brings old mechanisms back into fine fighting form.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Question from a technical layman with two left hands:

Why would one NOT remove dust or old oil from a delicate thing such a fine camera?!

 

[Axelwik]

I have done some basic CLA type work on other cameras and my consistent experience is that they more often need (C)leaning, than (L)ubing, or (A)dusting. A judicious application of naptha to flush out old grunge often brings old mechanisms back into fine fighting form.

Flushing with a solvent might do more harm than good. Sure, it might get it working temporarily, but probably not the best way to do it.

 

[chuckroast]

Flushing with a solvent might do more harm than good. Sure, it might get it working temporarily, but probably not the best way to do it.

I wouldn't describe it as "flushing". It's a very light application to the affected area. I actually learned about doing this from talking to Frank Marshman.

You're right, it's not a real or permanent fix in some cases, but it others, it works really well.

 

[warden]

I have a IIIf, M2, and M5 all of which have been CLAed within the last year. Why? Because the people who know how to do this are dwindling in numbers and parts are getting harder to get (depending on the part). By having the cameras tuned and checked (mine needed no new parts other than some vulcanite replacement), I am reasonably well assured that they will last the remainder of my photographic life.

A quality machine like a Leica or Nikon doesn't need a CLA frequently, but the cameras in question were made in 1955, 1961, and 1974 respectively and it didn't seem excessive to have a great repair person (YYE for the IIIf and DAG for the Ms) go through them. They are all now pretty much whisper quiet and run flawlessly.

Same here. When I bought my Yashicamat LM (and quickly fell in love with that lens) I wanted it serviced by Mark Hama asap because he assembled Yashicamats back in the day and was near retirement age. It’ll likely not need service again in my lifetime and works perfectly thanks to Mr. Hama.

 

[chuckroast]

Same here. When I bought my Yashicamat LM (and quickly fell in love with that lens) I wanted it serviced by Mark Hama asap because he assembled Yashicamats back in the day and was near retirement age. It’ll likely not need service again in my lifetime and works perfectly thanks to Mr. Hama.

Odd you should mention him. I have this pretty much flawless Yashica MAT-124G that was developing a very slight case of haze and had a flakey meter. It was- and is otherwise pretty much like new. He just went through it and did a CLA, lens cleanup, and meter tune up so it really is like new.

Sadly, I do not use it enough to justify owning the camera so I think it's going to go out with the next thinning of the herd...

 

[warden]

Odd you should mention him. I have this pretty much flawless Yashica MAT-124G that was developing a very slight case of haze and had a flakey meter. It was- and is otherwise pretty much like new. He just went through it and did a CLA, lens cleanup, and meter tune up so it really is like new.

Sadly, I do not use it enough to justify owning the camera so I think it's going to go out with the next thinning of the herd...

My LM is one of my least used MF cameras (love the lens, don’t love the TLR way of doing things) but I always like the images it makes, and hey it doesn’t take up that much space on the shelf.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Just had my M6 in my hands, inspired by this thread. Yes, compared to my R6, the handling is "smooth". Delicate, fine-boned, like surgical instrument, while the R6 feels more like a tool.

Tool vs. instrument. Both have their use cases.

 

[Radost]

Just had my M6 in my hands, inspired by this thread. Yes, compared to my R6, the handling is "smooth". Delicate, fine-boned, like surgical instrument, while the R6 feels more like a tool.

Tool vs. instrument. Both have their use cases.

I have 11 leicas. My 3 Minolta CLE are smoother winding.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Quality varies. Maybe time for a CLA?

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I can’t believe you people actually talk about this ? Wind,?smoothness. Sounds like a lot of b.s. . Either the image is awesome or not? Anything on 35mm is poor! Unless it’s a pinhole.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I can’t believe you people actually talk about this ? Wind,?smoothness. Sounds like a lot of b.s. . Either the image is awesome or not? Anything on 35mm is poor! Unless it’s a pinhole.

Oh no, if it ain't smooth dump it and buy something else. I sold all my Leica cameras after I used my mother's old Kodak Dualflex II. Smooth film advance and very smooth lens focusing. She gave it to me and now I'm happy. Pictures are a little fuzzy, but who cares as long as it focuses smooth and winds like silk.

 

[mshchem]

Oh no, if it ain't smooth dump it and buy something else. I sold all my Leica cameras after I used my mother's old Kodak Dualflex II. Smooth film advance and very smooth lens focusing. She gave it to me and now I'm happy. Pictures are a little fuzzy, but who cares as long as it focuses smooth and winds like silk.

It's Duaflex not Dualflex. You must have a Chinese knockoff

Damn counterfeiters!!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well when I was a teenager I got to use a Leica M3 and the winding and exposing feel was smooth, but I could not have one because I could not afford it. No other camera has felt quite the same in my hands.

 

[chuckroast]

I can’t believe you people actually talk about this ? Wind,?smoothness. Sounds like a lot of b.s. . Either the image is awesome or not? Anything on 35mm is poor! Unless it’s a pinhole.

You've clearly never experienced the difference.

I am a die hard Nikon mechanical 35mm SLR shooter (when I shoot 35mm). A last count, I had 4 such bodies and more than a few F mount lenses in AI and AIS. But, a month with a Leica made me an addict. They both have a place but the Leica is smaller, much quieter, and runs like silk compared to any SLR I've ever used. (When I say "any SLR", this include Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh, Mamiya, Sears, and some others I've forgotten at this point.)

I just got back from Europe shooting monochrome film on a Leica M2 with Summicrons and a Color-Skopar in the bag. It was hotter than Hades but the coastlines were just gorgeous. I cannot imagine lugging an SLR onto the beach in that heat and environment, let alone a view camera.

As to 35mm quality. The size of the film dictates the size of the print and that dictates the viewing distance. A properly rendered 35mm negative printed well to 8x10 and viewed at, say, 3-5 feet, is indistinguishable from a 16x20 from a 4x5 negative viewed at twice that distance. AND, because lens designers know that 35mm is challenging to enlarge well, lenses made for 35mm cameras actually have notably greater resolving power than, say, a 4x5 lens.

The idea that one is inherently better than the other is held only by people who have not taken the time to master both. When I want the choice of being able to make larger prints, I shoot Hasselblad or 4x5, but neither is great for working in hot, crowded street environments where the Leica reigns supreme. And I mean any Leica rangefinder from the IIIf through any M film body. When I need really long lenses with proper framing, the Nikons come out.

I would suggest a thorough reading of Thronton's "Edge Of Darkness". I suspect you might find it ... illuminating.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It's Duaflex not Dualflex. You must have a Chinese knockoff

Damn counterfeiters!!!

OMG! Chinese? That must be why it's so smooth. The focusing helical and winding gears on my Chinese Dualflex II are made of bamboo, which makes them very smooth and silent. I'm sure glad my mother never knew she was taken advantage of. Damn tricksters anyway!

 

[John Wiegerink]

You've clearly never experienced the difference.

I am a die hard Nikon mechanical 35mm SLR shooter (when I shoot 35mm). A last count, I had 4 such bodies and more than a few F mount lenses in AI and AIS. But, a month with a Leica made me an addict. They both have a place but the Leica is smaller, much quieter, and runs like silk compared to any SLR I've ever used. (When I say "any SLR", this include Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh, Mamiya, Sears, and some others I've forgotten at this point.)

I just got back from Europe shooting monochrome film on a Leica M2 with Summicrons and a Color-Skopar in the bag. It was hotter than Hades but the coastlines were just gorgeous. I cannot imagine lugging an SLR onto the beach in that heat and environment, let alone a view camera.

As to 35mm quality. The size of the film dictates the size of the print and that dictates the viewing distance. A properly rendered 35mm negative printed well to 8x10 and viewed at, say, 3-5 feet, is indistinguishable from a 16x20 from a 4x5 negative viewed at twice that distance. AND, because lens designers know that 35mm is challenging to enlarge well, lenses made for 35mm cameras actually have notably greater resolving power than, say, a 4x5 lens.

The idea that one is inherently better than the other is held only by people who have not taken the time to master both. When I want the choice of being able to make larger prints, I shoot Hasselblad or 4x5, but neither is great for working in hot, crowded street environments where the Leica reigns supreme. And I mean any Leica rangefinder from the IIIf through any M film body. When I need really long lenses with proper framing, the Nikons come out.

I would suggest a thorough reading of Thronton's "Edge Of Darkness". I suspect you might find it ... illuminating.

Yes, all kidding aside, my M2, M3 two stroke and M4-P were all very smooth, but I no longer have those. I think we associate quality with smoothness, but there is more to quality than just "smooth as silk" mechanics. You can have the greatest smoothness in winding if the gears are made of softer metal and well machined. How long would they last? What do you think? My old Nikon F2AS might not have been as smooth as my old M2 Leica after CLA, but I trusted it just as much if not more than the M2.

 

[RezaLoghme]

When comparing M4 (the plain one, not -2 or -P) and M6, the M4 feels more like a surgical instrument and the M6 more like a tin can - I am exaggerating hugely, but if I were to describe the nuances, that is who i would describe it. Maybe it is the top plate made from different materials? As for the later versions of the M4, I could not live with the printed "Leitz" logo on the top of the body.

M4 and the early Hasselblad 500C evoke the same tactile impressions.

R4 feels more like "made from metal", compared to R6, which has a 1980s plastic Amstrad stereo vibe to it. For me, th R4 body seems cooler to the touch, and heavier compared to the R6 (which is rubbish, I know). The plastic shutter speed dials don't really help, in both cases. Also the film transport lever's action is somewhat more coarse than the M ones.

This is all highly nuanced and really bordering on OCD, but coming from someone who has owned all these.

 

[GregY]

I have 11 leicas. My 3 Minolta CLE are smoother winding.

You're saying you have 11 Leicas that need service??