charlesk

January 16, 2008

The Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal republic of Germany) was founded in 1948. Until then, everything still had the "Reich" designator

Thanks, Winfried. I had no idea they still used "DRP" after 1945.

January 16, 2008

Actually, it just refers to the German state - which was named "Deutsches Reich" from 1871 to 1943

You are right. Thanks.

It is interesting that the term "Reich" was still used by the German Patent Office during the period 1919-33 when Germany was a Republic.

January 15, 2008

There are actually several other pnet threads on this subject, covering variations due to factory re-conditioning and upgrades, etc, that give additional information.

Thanks, Alan!

I will check them out. This forum is a great resource.

January 15, 2008

Bill M,

My saying is: "Never buy an American car built Monday through Friday."

January 15, 2008

Thanks everyone for the quick responses.

Adrian, "Deutsches Reichs Patent," (the "Imperial" designation) refers to the Third Reich (Empire.) Until now, I thought that the "P" stood for "Production."

I guess all post-war cameras which were patented during 1933-45 were marked, "DRP." I had assumed that after 1945 they abandoned the DRP altogether. I guess not.

Thanks for the info!

January 15, 2008

Thanks for taking the time to post, Glenn.

Should I assume that in 1951-4 Leitz had a supply of topplates which were marked "Reich Production" but had the space for the serial number blank? And they simply used these topplates from the war, filling-in the 1951-4 serial number but leaving the "DRP?"

For a company renowned for their attention to detail, it seems odd that they would sell a "Reich"-marked camera in 1951.

January 15, 2008

Thanks everyone for helping me identify that Leica III conversion earlier

this month. That was a great help.

I have another piece from this same collection which I am also having

difficulty describing.

Have passed it along to some of my Leica friends, but they're stumped.

It's a IIIfBD, camera #587444. This dates it as 1951-2.

Oddly, it has "DRP" on the topplate.

I can imagine Leitz using old topplates six years after the war ended to

build cameras in 1951, but would they have sold a camera at this time with the

"DRP" engraving?

Was this simply some sort of error?

Would appreciate any input on this.

<a href="http://www.klopman.net/12-30-49.jpg"><img border="1"

src="http://www.klopman.net/12-30-49s.jpg"></a>

(Image expands)

More photos <a href="http://criticalfocus.wordpress.com/">HERE.</a>

January 6, 2008

Sorry we got our signals crossed, Rob. I always value the information here.

I have another piece from this same collection which I am also having difficulty describing. It's a IIIfBD but with "DRP" on the topplate. Did Leitz use topplates from the war to build cameras in 1951?

Would appreciate any input on this.

Camera #587444

(Image expands)

More photos <a href="http://criticalfocus.wordpress.com/">HERE.</a>

January 5, 2008

Rob, did you read my last post where I thank everyone in the forum for the "thorough and useful information" they posted here? I even mention you by name. If you go to the Auction Site Which Shall Not Be Named, you will find I used the term Tom had provided--IIIFBD--in the title of my item description. I also give credit to the people on the forum at the end of the auction listing. So, I am not challenging any of the Leica authorities here or trying to prove that this is a Monte en Sarre camera. The possible existence of an "Antarctica Leica" was not a serious comment. How would I possibly know what cameras the Nazis are making in their secret underground base on that continent? (they probably use the Leitz ball-bearing shutters, though.)

My advice to both you and Tom is to twist up a fatty and STAY AWAY FROM THE CAPS LOCK and exclamation points!!!!!

Jesus... yelling is so ANNOYING!

btw, Lewis Carrol was an overrated photographer and a degenerate.

January 4, 2008

Thank you very much, William, Tom, Mike, Rob, Huub, Adrian, Mukul, and Anthony for taking the time to respond to my post with thorough and useful information. Whenever I need expert advice on all things Leica, this is the forum I come to. Glad you're all here ;-)

umm... any chance this camera was assembled after the war from spare parts at the secret underground Nazi base in Antarctica?

just a thought :-/

January 4, 2008

And this has NOTHING to do with Monte en Sarre

Calm down, Tom. It's just a camera and I am putting this out for people's opinions. I was very careful in my OP not to make any unsubstantiated claims. I am not a "Leica Historian," so I try to tread carefully when I post here.

January 4, 2008

If it was a III which was retrofitted after the war, then it would have retained the pre-war manufacturing marks (DRP)--so, the entire top cover would have to have been replaced. Why would they bother doing this when all they needed to do was modify the existing III cover?

January 4, 2008

I am having difficulty identifying this Leica. Here are its main features:

1. It is a Leica IIIa and has the 1/1000 shutter, even though the serial

number, 236864, indicates a Leica III batch from 1937.

2. Has flash sync and sync ring under Shutter Speed Dial.

3. "DBP" indicating a post-war camera.

The camera lacks the "Made in Monte en Sarre" stamp on the topplate, but has

all the other signs of being one of these cameras.

There is no doubt that this is a Leica and not some sort of replica. It came

from the estate of a serious collector and professional photographer.

For readers who do not know what I am referring to, I copied this from the Net:

In the period 1949-1951 about 500 Leica IIIa cameras were assembled at St.

Ingbert in french occupied zone of germany by the Saroptico company. These

cameras carried the engraving "Monte en Sarre" (assembled in Sarre) beneath the

word "Germany" on the top-plate. In this way they avoided the high tariff

imposed on foreign cameras imported into France. They were all sold in France or

the French colonies. Later examples had a film speed reminder in the wind-on

knob as introduced on the Leica IIIf in 1950. Some also have IIIf-type

synchronization, although this may have been fitted later as a conversion.

Click on picture for larger image.

<a href="http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n303/AvedonMS/leica-7.jpg"><img

src="http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n303/AvedonMS/leica-7s.jpg" border="1"

/></a>

I have some more images posted <a

href="http://criticalfocus.wordpress.com/">HERE.</a>

I would appreciate any opinions on this.

Thank you,

Charles.

March 13, 2004

I am selling a Norman 24/24 power pack for a friend.

It was purchased several years ago.

The current model, labeled, "P24/24-rev2" has a topplate

which has solid white sections rather than the stripes show here:

Is this identical to the current "P24/24-rev2"?

If not, are there any significant differences?

Thanks!

March 8, 2004

I have 2600 positive comments on Ebay. Many from camera buyers.

Lots of people get rid of "slightly used" cameras for a variety of reasons. People will buy a camera because they're going on a trip, then, when they get back, it will sit in a closet for a couple of years.

Students will trade-up thinking they need the better equipment right away.

Most people, however, will buy a camera and then realize that they just don't like photography all that much. Mint Leicas still pop up that had been sitting in camera bags for over 40 years.

They were bought as status symbols (surprise) by people who wanted something to compliment their fancy Swiss watch and new BMW.

I bought a brand new G1 at auction, in the box, and have put 5 rolls through it. Now, I have to decide whether to sell it (before I put a scratch on it) or keep it.

If a Seller has good feedback and a lenient return policy, it can be a smart buy. Return policy is everything.

I understand that many Sellers will liberally use the "5 or 10 rolls" line to describe a camera which is "barely used," even though he has no personal knowledge of the camera's history. This would be a Mint camera which has no box, but, someone put a strap on it, so, it is assumed that it was used somewhat. I don't do this, because, it is basically untrue (as you don't know,) but, if it really IS a Mint camera, it is not entirely unfair to say that it seems to have had only "a few rolls" put through it.

You're getting into the realm of what is a "Mint" camera, and this can be a little murky sometimes. Is it Mint/Unused, even though it has no display box? How do you know it's "unused," if it only appears unused? What's the real difference between a Mint/unused camera and one that had 4 rolls put through it?

December 18, 2003

the trick to extinction meters is to take the reading almost immediately.

as your eye adjusts to the dark viewing hole, more numbers will appear, causing you to underexpose.

December 16, 2003

I have also been reading Burkholder's site, and I have this question:

The film neg is scanned, adjusted , and enlarged to printing size.

That neg contains all the proper tones and contrast.

One would have to argue at this point that some of these tones can only be reproduced on silver/platinum paper. They would be "lost" if printed with inkjet.

But, how can this be?

The platinum paper cannot print tones which are not there in the first place.

And how would the inkjet "miss" any tones, when it was the same inkjet which produced the negative in the first place?

Are they saying that the inkjet negative contains more tones than the inkjet print?

This seems to be a theoretical impossibility.

December 11, 2003

Thankyou for the detailed responses.

I will send these lenses to Essex Camera.

Kinderman's prices are just way out of line and I doubt I will ever use them

for any type of repairwork in the future.

You are right: people hear the word "Leica" and they just assume

you're going to give them a blank check and not ask any questions.

Kinderman steadfastly refused to give me any sort of "ballpark" figure

on cleaning these lenses.

Even after I asked, "all things being normal, no broken parts and ONLY

a light fog to the elements' external surface", they still insisted

I send them the cameras.

I even asked "over $100?" and they still would not give me a response.

Once they GOT the lenses, it was obvious that their "standard" charge

for this work is $150.

Why couldn't they have told me that in the first place?

Did they just want to get the lenses in-hand before hitting me

with this enormous repair estimate?

December 10, 2003

Gerry's response included the following:

Disassemble, wash, clean and re-lube focusing mount and aperture mechanism

Perhaps, this is the difference?

That these $70 CLAs do not include

a complete disassembly of the focusing assembly and diaphragm?

December 9, 2003

They specifically stated US dollars.

December 9, 2003

I've heard a lot about Kinderman and their repair services.

I asked them how much it would be to clean the haze off two LTM

lenses (no cement problems.)

They said they couldn't give an estimate on the phone and would have

to see the lenses.

So, I mailed them the lenses (col. Cron and S-rit.)

They wrote today to say a simple cleaning would be $150 apiece.

I find this to be an astronomical price for a rather straightforward

job.

I'd be interested in your opinions.

November 24, 2003

Thanks, everyone for the insightful comments.

(Shaun, that was a fine collection of work: I enjoyed

the link very much!)

I look forward to using the system.

There's general agreement about the accuracy of the auto-focus,

the exposure system and the quality of the optics (personal taste aside.)

I can work around the rest.

The bottom line is that the camera is certainly capable of professional results and the vast majority of users I have polled regard the camera as "reliable" in the field.

I enjoy the classic feel of Leicas and shoot primarily with vintage equipment.

Yet, there are times when automatic features do have the advantage in "getting the shot."

Finally, it's difficult to ignore the system's cost.

G1s, new-in-boxes, are all over Eb*y for amazingly low sums, and this must represent one of the best camera bargains out there now.

November 23, 2003

About the 90... it has its drawbacks

I keep hearing this. Will just have to try it and see.

Thanks for the pic! Very well done.

November 23, 2003

You got a good deal right there. The G1 body goes for $300, the 45mm goes for $110 and the 90mm $200 ... Look inside the film chamber, you should have a sticker. If it's grey, you can't use the 35mm, if it's green, it's been modified !!

Yep... silver sticker...

$200 for that 90mm. That's a lot of glass for low dough.

.

hmmm - >> I << can tell the difference between Zeiss-G and Leica (and have, on this forum, ad nauseam).

This forum is a great resource.

I've read through the debates and they are very informative.

Sharpness isn't everything, I agree.

I look forward to posting some pics here for you to examine.

.

Regardless of the sticker color, a G1 will work with the 28mm and 16mm lenses

Great! (I did not know this)

.

Beyond that, it just takes practice (as with the Leica RF patch) to make sure you're actually aiming the AF marker at someone's eyes, not their nose.

Yes. For candid portraiture, I think this might work well.

.

I'd shoot with it for 6 months or so and then decide. The market has already tanked, so it won't lose significant value in the meantime.

Good advice. Hard to imagine the G1 market getting any worse...

Plus, I'm dyin' to play with the thing!

The camera does have a nice feel to it, and the AF seems to respond to low-light situations very well.

Besides the G1, I picked up an M3 and a 250 Reporter,

which will generate more market interest than the Contax.

If I do well with these two, I might get one of the shorter Zeiss lenses.

November 23, 2003

Thanks, Erik.

I think people have been unfair about the viewfinder,

which seems perfectly adequate.

In terms of "band-for-your-buck," it's an appealing system.

The proof is in the pictures, right?

I've seen a lot of Net shots taken with Gs,

and many are quite impressive.

Certainly capable of professional results.

Will I need to modify the camera to use the smaller lenses?

Have been poring over old threads talking about flash units,

and there's quite a bit of debate here.

May just go with the TLA200. Not sure yet.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by charlesk