M3 Film Spacing

[patrick_owen]

I recently purchased an M3 and am enjoying using it very much. Since I shoot only B&W with

it for now, I'm also learning how to process my own B&W film. I've started to notice (and the

lab I go to has pointed out to me) that the space between frames is very inconsistent. I don't

really mind this at all except that some frames are run very close together to the point that

they practically touch each other. The only time this really bothers me is when I cut the film.

I find myself looking at two adjacent frames and deciding which I like better and risking

cutting into the other to save one. Is there a fix for this? A different film spool?

 

I apologize if this is a repeat question. I'm sure it's been asked in the past. I did a few

searches but found nothing.

[will_wright1]

it can depend on the lens..tighter spacing with wider lenses and vice versa...if the spacing

problem exists with the use of only one lens..say the 50mm, then see DAG.

[will_wright1]

it can depend on the lens..tighter spacing with wider lenses and vice versa...if the spacing

problem exists with the use of only one lens..say the 50mm, then see DAG.

[ken_ford1]

Huh? The film gate is the film gate - why would the lens matter?

[terence_mahoney1]

There's a bit of distance between the front of the film-gate and where the film presses against the guide-rails and certain wide-angle lenses project their images futher afield on the film than longer ones.

[SolaresLarrave]

If it's a double-stroke camera (like mine), the problem <b>may</b> lie there: you should be careful to do the film advance fully. <p>

Now, if it's a single-stroke... I don't know, but then, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[billc1]

My IIF is simialr to that but it is consistent though. The film spacing is like 1mm apart on each side and very close to touching each other. However, if you really think about it, it is better because you are getting more negative for your money. I was told it has to do how they cut out some piece inside the camera that allows this to happen.

[Ed_Ingold]

The spacing in a IIIf is as good as it gets. My M2 was never that consistent. My Nikon F5 is more consistent then the M.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With my M3's, or Bessa even a Zorki's or FED the nominal 24x36mm frame is a tad larger when I use a 15mm lens, versus a 135mm lens. In the 1950's the books called this slight effect "light scoots a little" under the film gate frame.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With the Lennigrad, there is no film sprocket. As one uses up the roll the frame spacing gets larger, as the film builds up wraps on the spring driven take up spool.

[Rob F.]

All this talk about IIIf's and wide-angle lenses is probably confusing the issue. Since it's an M3, Patrick may not even be using a wide-angle lens.

 

I'm afraid the camera needs to be looked at by a technician. None of my Leicas have ever had this problem. I think it's abnormal.

[Prof-K]

I too have this problem with my recently purchased M3. My only lens is 50mm. I don't have enough $$s for a CLA right now, and I have stable hands (so I can cut the neg nicely even with this prob). However, it would be interesting to know what exactly causes this problem.

 

Interestingly, this does not happen when I shoot the whole roll in one session. In other words, it only happens when I shoot (say) half a roll, keep it for a day or two, and then shoot again.

[kelly_flanigan1]

RE<BR><BR><i>I'm afraid the camera needs to be looked at by a technician. None of my Leicas have ever had this problem. I think it's abnormal.<BR><BR><BR>I too have this problem with my recently purchased M3. My only lens is 50mm. I don't have enough $$s for a CLA right now, and I have stable hands (so I can cut the neg nicely even with this prob). However, it would be interesting to know what exactly causes this problem.</i><BR><BR>In the National Camera Repair course in the 1960's it was brought up that some Leicas have a tighter frame spacing. <b>All of my MY Leica three M3's are like this; with 0.9mm gap between frames.</b><BR><BR>With my Bessa R; there is a huge 1.8mm gap between frames.<BR><BR>With my One Signet 35, it averages about 1.5mm between frames; with alot of wandering<BR><BR>With one of my Nikon F bodies, the gap is 1.0mm<BR><BR>With my Zoo of Zorki's they are all over the place, some eevn biased upward!.<BR><BR><b>Normally a full frame 35mm camera has a sprocket with 8 teeth, it rotates ONE revolution for each frame, and there is NO adjustment possible. </b><BR><BR>The spacing between frames is determined just by the film gate size, since the film movement is FIXED for each frame, written in stone by the 8 tooth sprocket's rotation of 360 degrees. A camera that has a narrower gap between frames just has a wider film gate, ie physical opening. Thus with my negatives fromt eh above cameras, the M3's and Nikon F body has a bigger negative than the Bessa R's. <BR><BR>There is no maximum spec for the size of a 24x36mm frame, the film gate can be filed and the frames can be made to touch if wanted.<BR><BR> For experimental cameras like the old 35mm panaromic camera enginnering mules I built; the height was reduced on one Zorki via engineering epoxy, and a 28mm F6 Orion 15 used on the mock up. This smaller frame keys up the panaromic mode of a many processors, and one gets a 12" by 4" print from a 12mm by 36mm frame. This was done before the 35mm panaromic cameras came out, a feasabilty model.<BR><BR><b>You should think whether the percieved "problem" is really a problem. The 8 tooth sprocket's rotation is fixed.</b> I suppose a hacker insane Leica tech could epoxy on some black crap to reduce the film gates horizontal width, like I got paid to do with my J B welded Zorki I got paid to build for an engineering study.<BR><BR>One could also send your M3 in for the meter being broken, auto focus being broken, dead battery, too : ) :):) An honest tech should'nt take your cash for a non problem. <BR><BR>Hopefully others will chine in and give some of their data on ACTUAL frame spacings in mm. <BR><BR>Here my Leica M3's have been just in the tighter swarm of the gap between frames, of all my 35mm cameras for many decades. Many of us actually notch our film gates on 35mm and 16mm movie cameras, 35mm still cameras, and 120/620 roll film cameras, to allow one to link the film to the camera.<BR><BR><b>Film spacing being inconsistant is a different issue than the gap between frames.</b> When a camera is not used for awhile with the film mid roll, many cameras will have the film scoot over a we bit of a mm if the camera is moved and bumped. There also might be some wear such the 8 tooth sprocket doesnt rotate one full rev; do to wear on some advance parts.<BR><BR>With a motion picture camera the film is registered with a pin to radically reduce jitter between frames. With an old amateur 8mm camera, this was almost never done, and one got some jitter between frames. With a 16mm amateur camera, this again was rarely done, with a Arri 16mm, thee is a pawl that holds each frame. <BR><BR>Patrick, invest in a mm rule, hold the sleeved fiolm up to the monitor and measure the film's gap between frames, and report back what you measure. You might just have the same thing that some of us have accepted as "normal" for decades. There is no reason to pad the wallet of a camera tech who cannot change this gap, unless they J B weld some toothpicks to the film gate. The only m3 I have had serviced was by Marty Forcscher in the 1960's, and it has alwys had this same gap between frames. <BR><BR>Every 35mm camera I own from Kodak Ektra to Retina II to IIIc to Signet 35, Zorki's, Feds's, Canon RF, bessa R, argus A2, Nikon F or F2, Exakta VX or Vx500, Nikkormats have slightly different film gate widths and gaps between frames.<BR><BR>Yes I do find cutting negatives slightly more stressfull with a narrower gap film negative than a wider gapped one. <BR><BR>With SOME film processors, the print enlargement is/was keyed off the "start of the edge" of the 35mm frames nominal 36mm film gate size, This means that ones prints might be abit scooted/biased abit right or left than one might think.

[Rob F.]

That was a very thorough dissertation, Kelly. But Patrick did say that his spacing is inconsistent. I know that the sproket should rotate one full revolution. However, if Patrick is getting inconsistent spacing, then the sprocket is evidently not doing what it's supposed to do. Hence the camera likely needs to be looked at.

 

Sherry Krauter replaced a defective screw in the sprocket of my M3. I don't know, but maybe that screww is the lock the sprocket to a shaft. If the screw couldn't be tightened, then perhaps the sprocket is slipping on the shaft--not always, but sometimes, and to a variable degree. The film would then advance a bit less than it should. Could it be that this is the problem with Patrick's camera?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Personaly I wouldnt worry too much about a little variation in frame spacing. Here I usually wind back the film on the film roll, to take up the slack, to also see if the film is advancing. This is ancient habit of mine. It also means there is abit of drag pulling the film out of the cassette. Hopefully Patrick will mention what the gap is with his M3. <BR><BR>Once with one of my old Exaktas the spacing was abit goofy but the camera worked well in all other regards. I use to use a PART of roll abit in the Nikon F, then rewind it and load in in the Exakta. This required burning a few extra frames unless one had ones act together. The weird thing is that upside down Exakta negatives and weird spacing was liked be me, to identify which camera body shot which negative! <BR><BR>With some 35mm cameras not really designed for double exposures, there was this weird sequence folks did to "take up the slack" so the negative would'nt micro scoot a grunt in the film travel direction. The really odd thing is that some of use only learned of these token methods long after we did double exposures the no approved way! With some cameras the "unclutching" of the advance mechanism can jiggle the film a tiny abit, by microrotating the sprocket a mini grunt of angle. <BR><BR>

[Prof-K]

Thanks Kelly, that was helpful. Although I didn't mention it, I was actually talking abt the inconsistency thing, causing uneven gaps. Anyway, I'm not to worried abt it right now.

[patrick_owen]

Well, I measured the space between my negs. Some of the frames are 3mm apart while some

are less than one. I just developed a roll from my friends Nikon FG. Each frame is

beautifully, evenly spaced. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to trade my M3 for his FG but I

did love cutting those negs. Maybe I'll just have to accept that this is how it goes with a 50

year old camera. For now, I'll just try to make sure that each stoke (I have a double stroke

M3) is full and try and be happy with what I get. I must say that the prints I just had made

that I took with the 90mm tele-elmarit (bought from Barry Weiss on this site) are really nice!

[melaniec]

I have recently started developing my own negatives taken with the M3, and the frame

spacing is absolutely consistent. My M3 was recently CLAed by Youxin Ye but I think the

spacing was consistent before this (I was not developing my own negatives then, but the

negatives my lab developed were evenly spaced. On the other hand, my Canonet G-III

QL17 has problems with the advance mechanism and the spacing is very inconsistent

between frames, with some running right up against each other. Don't know exactly what

to conclude from this but it seems like something might need looking at. After putting a

couple of rolls through my Canonet the advance lever and shutter release went totally

wonky to the point where the Canonet needed to be sent off for repair. Of course these

are two different cameras, so who knows.

 

Hope this helps.

[Rob F.]

PAtrick, I think your sprocket may be slipping on its shaft. I suggest having it looked at. You shouldn't be having this problem. It is not normal for your camera.