Barnack conversions - good buys?

[astral]

Some dumb questions -

 

I know that over the years many Barnacks have been upgraded in one way or

another, like factory conversions from, say, IIIc to IIIf specification.

 

What I cannot reliably judge is this: do factory conversions significantly

affect the price I/we should pay for a good, clean useable camera? For example,

how should I judge the fair price for a IIIc/IIIf conversion, compared to a

'straight' IIIf in similar condition. (I am disregarding the issue of dubious

flash socket modifications, which may significantly affect both asking prices

and resale values).

 

My interest is from a user's point of view, wanting a good value-for-money

camera, not from a long-term investment or collector's perspective. Is this an

area where a prospective user-buyer should invest in a mini-library of Leica

literature in order to make an informed purchase, or are there general

principles that may apply?

 

While I have a couple of 'straight' Barnacks (III, IIIa, IIIfRD) I am

considering just one more (the British pound buys a lot nowadays). However, I am

beginning to wonder if the world of conversions and upgrades requires both

caution and greater knowledge. Your advice would be most welcome, thanks. AC

[john_shriver]

I will look at it from the "user" point of view.

 

Well, any conversion of a IIIb or earlier camera is going to have the built-up shutter crate, rather than the cast shutter crate. It's also not going to have any ball bearing races for the shutter curtains, and maybe limited or no curtain brakes.

 

What's this mean? You may have slightly less accurate collimation due to the built-up crate. You may have less accurate high shutter speeds, and maybe more irregularity of exposure across the frame at high speeds.

[Rob F.]

I would be willing to consider most conversions. I watch eBay, and I have the impression that conversions generally go for a reasonable price, not top dollar. Here are a few thoughts:

 

Leica II to III conversion: Adds the slow-speed dial, and also adds the strap lugs--an important feature if you are going to use the camera, especially without a case. I see nothing to worry about there.

 

Leica III to IIIa conversion: adds 1/1000 shutter speed. Not to worry.

 

Take note of John's caveats, above--but if you use the earlier Leicas with their contemporary lenses, the greater DOF of these older and slower lenses should cover up any less than perfect collimation issues. I might add that the greater abberations of lenses of that period should be an added benefit in this regard!

 

IIIc to IIIf: Adds the flash sync, with its synch delay dial. Adds the film-reminder winding knob--very cool! No worries. You almost have to check the serial# to know it wasn't born as a IIIf. There are a lot of these around, too.

 

Personally I don't use flash on a Leica RF, so I feel that the IIIc, with its minimalist personality--no self-timer, no flash dial--is the best user. I do have some sentimental feelings about earlier models, especially the II, since my dad owned one.

 

I would--and do--avoid the hack jobs. No Barnacks with the add-on flash connection sticking out the top or front for me! I just saw one with the connector mounted in the middle of "Wetzlar" on the top. UGH!

[peter]

I have a 111a which was factory converted to the 111f standard with the larger shutter speed dial and the flash setting ring around it. The lens a prewar Elmar was coated as well. It looks as if the top plate was replaced too as although the number is prewar. The top is marked Leica DBP not DRP. It was in very nice condition so I had to pay a pretty good price for it.

[Troll]

With the exception of the original Leica A, the prices of converted cmeras seems to be in line with other cameras of the final product. Leica A prices go down if they've been screwed with.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

"It looks as if the top plate was replaced too as although the number is prewar. The top is marked Leica DBP not DRP."

 

Leitz ALWAYS re-engraved the original s/n when the top place was replaced during factory conversion. So you sometimes find a camera with post-war features, a post-war D.B.P. engraving (DRP = Deutsches Reichs-Patent, german imperial patent, DBP = Deutsches Bundes-Patent, german federal patent) and a pre-war s/n.

 

There were very few non-Leitz conversions/upgrades, I have seen one of them on a photo and it did not have any s/n on the top plate. The author removed the top plate and found it was a conversion from a Leica Standard with a s/n lower than 200. Without the conversion, this item would have been worth a small fortune.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

"I just saw one with the connector mounted in the middle of "Wetzlar" on the top. UGH!"

 

I have one of these and seen another one like this on ebay some years ago. The advantage is that the flash connector will not pinch your eye when you hold the camera.

[astral]

Thanks gents.

 

I therefore deduce that conversions from a 'c' model to an 'f' specification (eg IIIc/IIIf) shouldn't be any more expensive than a straight 'f' - and possibly quite a bit cheaper. Upgrades to earlier models may reduce the value of mint examples, but otherwise may marginally increase the price/value, reflecting the additional features. Upgrades of pre-war cameras to the post-war 'f' specification seem to be significantly cheaper than a straight 'f' model, but only a little dearer than an unconverted camera. The best value-for-money may be a IIIc to IIIf conversion, since the 'c' chassis and r/f is an improvement over earlier models. Condition is an overriding consideration. Collectors are finnicky about everything (and should be given their own planet ;-)).

 

In real terms, I have the option on a IIIF BD+DA (1950 IIIC conversion) with 1950s Summitar, SOOPD, 2 Leitz filters & erc in excellent (95%) condition. The asking price is 410 GBP ($850 in today's mini-dollars, but the GB pound is very strong, so comparison is a bit meaningless). Because it's an outfit, judging whether it's a fair price has been difficult ... and I've seen a lot of 'funny prices' elsewhere along the way, hence the question. (It's still a lot of money for an obsolete camera, bought mostly for fun and ego, and partly as a minor financial speculation vis a vis international currency rates, etc .....)

 

Many thanks again, AC

[Troll]

"... the 'c' chassis and r/f is an improvement over earlier models."<P> This is a natural assumption but not necessarily correct. Until the Red Dial model, the changes were more to allow easier manufacture than to improve the product.

[astral]

"This is a natural assumption ... " Yes I was a bit wary of that assertion, but it slipped in while I was looking at another sentence!

 

One question I avoided asking initially is: at the worst, is a flash socket "hack-job" ("bodged" in colloquial English) likely to have any significant effects on the shutter operation (etc) of a Barnack camera? 'Odd-mods' certainly do seriously affect prices if they are 'uggerly', but as few Barnacks are likely to be used with flash nowadays (presumably), is this just a cosmetic issue? I've seen some really nice cameras with 'interesting' but not horrible sockets at very attractive prices, but don't know if they are good buys or not. AC

[dan flanders]

I use flash only rarely these days, but when it comes to Barnacks I strictly avoid the internal flash conversions, preferring the external systems such as "Hakosyn" that rely upon a cam-shape attachment to the speed dial. Obviously the internal sync systems by Leitz were more reliable, but many after-market systems often damaged other internal functions. In my most arrogant opinion we are too often tempted to use flash when it isn't necessary. Collectibility is also an issue unless one desires only a good user.

[mike_gillespie]

that price is way to high Alan, bd IIIfs are readily available on e bay for around $250-300 and a summitar isnt worth more than 200 tops. The IIIc conversions are just as good as the real IIIfs provided all work is factory done, and the price is usually less. I have 2 of these , one is almost mint due to the new top plate and vulcanite, new film reminder knob etc and cost less than an original.

[steve salmons]

The world of conversions does require some caution but the knowledge gained from the research required to piece together the history of a conversion can be rather rewarding and very illuminating. <br>

I bought the camera in the attached pic about 3 years ago as a Leica II conversion. At the time I did not realise how big or late a conversion.

The serial number indicates a Leica I from 1930. The conversion was done in the early 1950s (see the second pic showing the top-plate logo) but only to the Leica II specification. Whoever had this done saw no need for flash capability.<div></div>

[steve salmons]

The work required to convert from I to II would have been major including a top plate rebuilt, the removal of the "hockey stick" and possibly the standardisation of the film to flange distance too. The lateness of the conversion is indicated by the "new" Leica logo on the top plate. Please excuse the rather distorted image.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

"I use flash only rarely these days, but when it comes to Barnacks I strictly avoid the internal flash conversions"

 

As mentioned earlier, I own a IIIa with third party flash conversion and flash socket on the top plate. I did not use this camera for several years now but made a lot of shots with it in earlier days. It always worked flawlessly and I never had any problems with the flash sync, it just worked.

[dan flanders]

I am sure that most of the after-market flash conversions are reliable, and some of them were not cosmetically offensive; it's just that among my many trades I have had enough bad luck to make me wary. I have a III converted by Leitz to a IIIf that is perfectly satisfactory, but flash is so seldom resorted to that I would prefer to trade it for an unaltered II. I obtained the Hakosyn because I didn't want the hassle of mailing and waiting. It has always performed to expectations. Other acquisitions haven't been so fortunate.

[astral]

I'm intrigued by the various points made about the use of flash. I have been generally disinclined to use flash on older cameras, either as main lighting or fill-in, whereas it's so easy with modern cameras. Then I thought: hmmm, when using older lenses that may have sharpness or contrast issues at the wider apertures (eg Summitars, etc), flash might help in some circumstances by permitting the use of smaller apertures....

 

Now, if I can find my old reflector-style flashgun & cable, etc, and fabricate a "high voltage" battery (about 18v I think), I have a supply of nice big, beefy, hot (and possibly now lethal) FP bulbs that could be fun to play with ... However wonderful electronic flash is, it seems so inappropriate for 1940-50's cameras. AC

[Rob F.]

Alan wrote,

 

"... the 'c' chassis and r/f is an improvement over earlier models."

 

Bill wrote:

 

This is a natural assumption but not necessarily correct. Until the Red Dial model, the changes were more to allow easier manufacture than to improve the product.

 

---But not necessarily incorrect, either. It depends on how early a model we are comparing the c model to. At the time of the IIIb, lenses were getting bigger and heavier. The IIIb was strengthened so that the weight of the lens would not distort the front of the camera. The IIIc follows suit, only this time using a die-cast chassis, which was then continued in the IIIf (and in any f, whether IIf or IIIf).

[astral]

OK. So, setting aside the differences in internal construction between the IIIc and earlier cameras, (which may not affect users to a significant degree), the next question relates to the quality of chromework on the II/IIIc series: when was the poor post-war chroming improved ... was this before 1950?

 

Certainly poor chroming is quite evident on many IIIc cameras, but this may not be very evident if buying from an auction site or by mailorder.

 

I am guessing that 1950 was a significant date, since from then onwards production and export increased significantly - possibly tripling according to some S/N lists. Hence, is it reasonable to assume that more of the late models (post-1949, good chrome) will have been converted to IIIf specification, compared to the early (1946-49, poor chrome) ones? I appreciated that all Leica dates are fuzzy.

 

So far I haven't seen and IIIc/IIIf models with classic pitted chrome, though 'uggerly' IIIc specimens are fairly common. Thanks folks - AC

 

PS - I'm beginning to sound 'nerdy' .... Help!