Leica's Weird Bottom Loading

I keep seeing negative remarks about Leica's weird bottom

loading design. What's going on here? I have used Leica M

cameras for only about 5 years now- I own an M3 and an M6-

and I have no problems with this quirk. Frankly, I really like this

way of doing things- I find the M6 actually easier to load than

some swing back designs. Ok, so it's a slow process with the

M3 with it's removable spool- but done with just a little care, I

have never had a misload. I don't pull out tons of leader- I get 38

frames on most rolls. I do check the tension, and watch the

rewind crank move to make sure it's properly advancing, but I

find it's a good idea to do this with all manual loading cameras.

It's the same routine I go through with my Nikon FM2 and FE2.

<p>

I have read that Leica keeps this system partly because they are

afraid to mess with the design of the M body (a good choice, in

my opinion), but also because it means the body can be more

rigid and impact resistant.

<p>

So how do you folks feel about this? Does everyone hate this

loading system, or are there others out there who like or even

love this way of doing things? Why?

If Leica's m system of filmloading is such a blessing why does no

other manufacturer use it? Why is even the Leica's R system not using

it? The R8 even has a plastic back, talking of impact resistance.

<p>

To me, it is an outdated method with no advantages at all!

<p>

Frank

Apart from getting strange looks from people when I load my camera, I

dont have any problems with this! Its a very wise decision that

Leica have stuck with this method as it gives the M its distinctive

seamless look and of course like you mention, the solid rigid feel.

Drew

<p>

Point one: even if you are accustomed to this system it is a real

pain in the ass if you have to load fast.

<p>

Point two: (much more important IMHO) the separate bottom plate is a

real liability when you take pictures into the action (which after

all is one of the points which seems to be one of the real advantage

of the SFRF cameras). Have you ever been taking pictures of a

demonstration when the police charges ?...

<p>

Point Three (pending confirmation) it seems with the M7 this loading

procedure may preclude a correct reading of some DX code without

paying a special (and undue) attention to the film container

position.

<p>

As for the rigidity and impact resistance of a camera, I owned a

Nikon F2 and I had once to use it to defend myself (Nikon wone by KO

and was still fully operational and even not dented). Nikon F2's

have a standard interchangeable backdoor so the argument is void.

<p>

The truth is probaly Leica doesn't want to alter a body which has in

fact remained almost unchanged since the M4. It is soooo profitable

to use amortized tools without decreasing the price! ...

<p>

A last shortcoming of this system is it precludes any

interchangeable back be it a not so useful data one or an eventual

conversion to digital.

<p>

Finally I owned FM and FE 2 and I ever considered them much faster

and easier to load than the Leica M's I had.

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François

i really like it. it is part of the classic design. i get 38,

sometimes even 39 pictures of a roll of film. if the police charges

up, i rather run than load another film. todays digital slrs allow

hundreds of pics without changing anything. i don't need that.

The M6 is a vintage camera with a light meter. The bottom loading is

part of its character, its charm, something I have grown to enjoy.

As a practical matter the decision to leave the house with the M6 or

the Eos 3 does not hinge on how I like to load film that day. By the

way I even like loading the IIIf; its gives me a sense of

accomplishment for the day.

....It is soooo profitable to use amortized tools without decreasing

the price! ...

<p>

The INITIAL cost of tooling is of course covered. The MAINTENANCE of

that tooling, is an ongoing expense. Industrial automation experience

tells me that low volume, high precision manufacturing, the cost of

maintenance is about 25 to 35 percent of the initial tooling costs,

paid annually. Holding precision in tooling is really a never ending

battle.....

I kind of like the way the Leica M is loaded. I haven't has a single misload in 12 years of Leica M use. Just do it as it is printed in the manual. Works fine for me.

<p>

I'd hate to see Leica come up with a 'solution' for something that isn't a problem for lots of users. If you want to load film like an SLR go buy an SLR.

<<< Point Three (pending confirmation) it seems with the M7 this

loading procedure may preclude a correct reading of some DX code

without paying a special (and undue) attention to the film container

position. >>

<p>

Loading an M7 doesn't require any sort of different methodology than

any other M camera. The film cannister only goes in one way, and the

spring-loaded contacts read the DX spots. It can be a bit harder to

extract the film in an M7 than earlier cameras, as the spring-loaded

contacts tend to grip the cannister a bit. But this is just

something that one learns to deal with.

<p>

Personally, I find the M cameras not much more difficult to load than

most swing-back cameras that require threading of the film leader

into those damn little slots on the take-up spool. The autoload

cameras like the Hexar RF are a bit easier thought, as they

absolutely won't allow a misload.

<p>

Skip

With 30 years of use I never had a problem loading, and then on the

internet I discovered it was a problem. Isn't the internet wonderful?

People hate things which are different, and they love to complain--

that's got to be the one thing that separates us from animals, since

it's the one thing that keeps us fighting wars all the time. I'll bet

you that if all cameras loaded from the bottom and only Leica loaded

from the back, everyone would still complain about it.

" Does everyone hate this loading system, or are there others out

there who like or even love this way of doing things? Why? "<p>

I like this bottom loading system, it is the Leica Way, and

the Minox Way

I'm happy with the film loading procedure and so far haven't been

unfortunate enough to misload a film. However the Leica way means

that you cannot add and remove winders at will, in the same vein that

you can with SLR's etc..

Gentlemen,

<p>

I was not talking about misloadings but DARN SLOW LOADING and the

fact the M is the one and only contemporary 35mm camera to have

something which must be entirely separated from the body...

<p>

Specially for Mr. Bert Keuken, he seems to be the archetype of the

Leica fundamentalist: "it's the Leica way so it must be the best"...

<p>

For his information, there was and there is today many a rangefinder

camera which had or has a classical backdoor... So this doesn't and

didn't pertain to SLR's only...

<p>

Even Mr. Erwin Puts (hardly an "anti-Leica" biased gentleman) admits

the Hexar and even the Bessa way of loading are superior to the M

way...

<p>

To Charles: If Leica at least decided to go forward again and

produce a really revised camera on modern robotized lines, it won't

be very difficult for them to change things again and again through

some modifications of data in a computer and a few other tool heads.

By the way, I don't consider a casting process and some stamping

work for the coverplates to be jobs of any high precision... I guess

they are manually cleaned and retouched like they were 50 years

ago... So maintainance of the dispositive (knowing the few units

produced each year) doesn't probably reach the % you indicate...

<p>

Friendly.

<p>

François P. WEILL

So why would the M series preclude a digital back? Serious question.

I own a brace of old M3's and honestly do not know how the removable

hinged pressure plate back differs from subsequent model to

subsequent model, surely the base for any digital.

<p>

Other than that, over 20 years never stuffed up loading or really

resented it. Ruined an important roll for the first time 3 months ago

in a train, excuse; lots of noise, Meniere's disease etc., by

operating the rewind backwards, but I could have done that with many

cameras could I not??

I've had a few misloads, but then I see people using the standard

swingback cameras also have them. Not a major problem, I think,

percentage wise.

<p>

It is quirky and wierd, sure enough, but it doen't seem to work in

practice any worse than other systems.

the bottom loading is really cumbersome, i wouldn't say i "like" it

now--it's just that i got used to it. and i wouldn't exactly agree

that it's the "rangefinder way" of loading film (if this is the case,

then why is the hexar and bess have a swing-back design?).

APS is also a bottom loading system.

Leica bottom loading some time may cause misload.

Minox bottom loading is more convenient then even APS; with Minox,

loading consist of pull open the camera bottom back, drop in cassette

done in 2 secs, and when it is done, there is no need to rewind the

film. (110 cassette has this advantage, but all are back loading )

<p> APS cassette drop in can be done in 2 sec, but followed by a long

delay of film positioning before picture can be taken.

<p> The most tedious film loading system I used was a 4x6" camera

I had to load sheet film in darkroom, one sheet per steel film back,

going out with bag full of heavy film backs; to take picture, load

one film back, pull out steel blind, take picture, put back steel

blind, unload film back, just for one shot...

When I was using Leicas and Olympi side by side I had misloads with

the Olys, but never with the Leicas. . . . Until (instead of blaming

the camera) I figured out what *I* was doing wrong, and corrected it.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

François and others, don't tell me you like having to try and thread the end of the film leader onto

the receiving spool in any non-automatic 35 mm camera, while trying not to damage the shutter,

make sure the perforations align with the teeth of the wheel, holding everything in place and

taught while cranking a couple of times, etc... etc... Come on! Sorry, people, I LOVE the M

bottom loading. In terms of ease, it's second only to all-automatic electronic loading where you

just pull the leader to the red mark and shut the back plate. I've had one misload so far, when I

didn't properly put the bottom plate over the edge of the back plate, shut the thing and went

away shooting, only to have the bottom plate drop to the ground just before getting back in my

car. But that was stupid me, not the camera. Yes, you can shoot a M with the bottom plate not

properly put back in place. I learned it the hard way. But then again, how many times have I had

to reload my F3 (greast camera as it is) or FM2 because the film leader just pulled out of the

receiving spool. The M has a few irritating quirks, maybe, but bottom loading isn't one of them.

Mike I believe the rule you are quoting is "90% operator 10%

machine".:-) Personaly I've got an have both back loading flexes and

bottom loading rf's m3, IIIc's. I've misloaded each at least once. I

tried to learn from my mistakes and have figured out what to watch

for. I guess I just accept it as another old German machinist's

rule " Ve haf been doing it like dis for years vhy do you vant to

change it now?"

The M load is accurate and reliable, but definitely not fast and this

is a disadvantage. I also feel that as the whole camera cannot be

opened, dust and crud is more likely to accumulate in it than in a

conventional backed camera. But I do usually get 38 frames from the

camera, which is nice. Still my heart does rather sink when I am at

frame 33 and I know that some fast stuff is coming up. I would be

happy if Leica were to update this feature.

Stupid bottom loading, manual focus, antiquated AE in the brand new

body, slow top shutter speeds, slow flash synch, stupid designations

for lenses of differing apertures, huge expense even for used gear,

low-power flash, slow motor drive, battery pig, only one simple

metering pattern. The list goes on and on... Why do we even bother

with this out-moded, difficult to use camera when the top-end

autoeverything Nikon or Canon can be had with a bevy of lenses for

significantly less money???

<p>

<a href="http://www.leica-gallery.net/jbf/image-27906.html">I really

don't know...</a>

<p>

;-),

Neither do I Jack ;-) Sorry, I just don't get these postings. So

what if Leica isn't like every other camera in the world. Wouldn't

it be a nice place to live in if their was only one car, one camera,

one watch, etc? Boy I sure wouldn't want to live there. If you

love your FE, FM, Hexar so much, then buy them.

What Jack means is: DON'T TOUCH THE HOLY LEICA, DON'T HAVE COMMENTS

ON THE HOLY LEICA.

Olivier,

<p>

I never had any problem keeping my fingers off the shutter of a

classical backdoor camera but this may be is a question of practice,

like to drop the film into an M camera (though it is - at least for

me - a much slower process). Bsides when you open the hinged door of

a M, the shutter curtain is as expose as with a backdoor: the film

is hardly a protection for an eventual "finger intrusion".

<p>

By far the main shortcoming of the Leica M in this respect is the

fully detachable bottom plate. Even if the drop in procedure was

kept, there should have been a way to hinge this plate to the camera.

<p>

James,

<p>

The hinged door can be unassembled if needed for replacement but it

has nothing in common with an interchangeable back...

<p>

Just imagine you can withraw the silver based film back (as you can

do with many cmeras to replace it by a data back) and replace it

with a digital sensor, while using the empty cannister emplacement

for information stocking and additional battery... Both silver film

or digital as required... Somenthing far easier with a fully

detachable hinged back.

<p>

If the drop in procedure (which might be logical with a self

contained film reception device) was so good with 135 films, why

Leica is the only manufacturer to retain this way to load a 35 mm

camera ?

<p>

François P. WEILL