james_elwing

Thanks for sending photos.

Interesting camera and accessory stuff. Shutter looks viable, what one can see of it, but lenses and viewfinders cloudy, look a bit in need of professional help. Hope you feel like having it all cleaned and lubricated, repaired only as necessary, as it's an interesting camera.

Lens (50mm) looks like 1941, and the Schneider lens looks like it would be 135mm.

Obviously cost is not an issue (joke), but at least you could get somebody good to look at it all and go from there.

Richard's response if it happened to ship in an unusual configuration (e.g. with a winder base plate) is very possible. Given the Sn. it belongs to a wartime period when parts would have been hard to come by, and just post war when some Leicas were apparently assembled from existing parts still in the factory.

As you probably know by now, its serial number is 1943-46 and the K means it has a superior winterised roller bearing shutter.

Leica has always been very helpful in the past when I wrote to them for information; there is probably a link on the Leica website.

How about a few more photos, like shutter curtains, lens (Summitar?). (please)

If the original plate was damaged or lost, what you have would have been a common sense replacement.

Incidentally, what colours are the shutter curtains; could be red & black; very desirable.

The C/V 10mm and 12mm M lenses would make respectable 13mm & 16mm lenses on the M9; M8 of course, not M9

The C/V 10mm and 12mm M lenses would make respectable 13mm & 16mm lenses on the M9

True. Digital Leicas at least, don't have sensor vibration on shut down. Canon EOS does, and it's a boon. I haven't had had a dust issue in over 10 years, while the M9 sensor often looked a bit like a CD on loan from the public library (exaggeration).

There is no base plate. That makes a difference. I would keep it with its case...

Irritatingly right again, Richard. I knew the thought must have come from somewhere. There are no such instructions on my Leica I; I should look further before I say anything more. Thank you.

Of course you are right, Richard. No loading instructions appear to ever be on the base plates.

Pentax SMC lenses get caught on Praktica bodies I think. If Fujica has locking pin, its lenses may get caught in mount holes the same way. I don't think early Contax S/D fit lenses (early 1950's) fit all later cameras as they block the pin stop mechanism.

Looks like a regular Leica base plate to me, minus the film loading instructions

mine are 47g, 44g, 44g Yours is for the larger tripod screw, therefore, should be 44g.

What are you using to measure it? 1 oz seems rather a round figure.

I am pretty sure the base is for a IIIc, as the IIIf bases I have seen look different at the tripod screw.

Mr Troll, sir; I second the Morgan and Morgan. I think up to the 13th it was Morgan and Lester, the 14th Morgan and Morgan. I have just been looking them up. Very bright and inventive people, including Morgan's wife Barbara. Apparently Lester left in 1956. Isn't it great what you can find....

I get 47g, again post war, by electronic scales, so who can be sure. I have another few at work I can check, one of which is wartime 1941 I think.

Base sounds quite interesting. Leica body chrome often looks a bit matted and soft, so that's probably what it is, just a replacement for a lost or damaged part. Yes photos would be nice, thanks.

Lens sounds OK. Later, variable viewfinder 35-135mm, for other lenses. 90mm Elmar, 135 Hektor lenses are cheapish, lenses wider than 50 usually a bit more expensive and may need cleaning. Wider 35mm & 28mm Canon lenses are OK. All will focus with your rangefinder.

Yes, a meter, unless you want to waste heaps of film until you get it right.

As Jochen says, this is a goggle Summaron without goggles. The mount brings up 50mm frame lines and as far as I know will not focus accurately. It was made for M3, and lots of folk over the years have pondered on leaving it without the goggles. It would appear to require major engineering alteration. You would have to sell the lens to someone with goggles or buy goggles.

Camera looks OK. What's the thing with red dots? I can't see any benefit with a red dot unless you think it prettier.

I never got to use B&W film with Pentax 110. It just wasn't around much. On whim, I printed a few colour print negs on Kodak Panalure B&W paper, and image quality was so much better than what I had got with D&P colour.

Just the kind of D&P I got used to.

Looks like IIIa.

'A Leica IIIa has the composition and focus close together'

No, IIIb is the first that does that

I think D&P processors killed off 110 by putting lazy antisocial people (they were about to sack), who had no concept of quality control, on the ageing 110 line. At its best the Pentax 110 was capable of a good 8x10; a charming little camera.

Does bokeh actually exist for such a small format?

I have also been unable to manually focus any longer lenses without stopping down. With EOS 400D,or Rebel XTi there was only an APS-C narrow angle pentamirror viewfinder, with no access to live view. The autofocus was so good that it didn't jump out as a problem.

As dcstep says, live view focus works, but with difficulty, so my 750D is less restricted.

While I blame my ageing eyeballs, pentaprism full frame was the answer for film SLR's and probably is for digital too. Even with my old Zenit 3M with matt screen, I could get to where I needed to go with a bit of wiggling back and forth.

Thinking about what Richard said:

I think you would be best served economically with an old M4p given you have at least 75, 50 & 35mm lenses. For some reason an M2, maybe 25 years older seems to cost a fair bit more, around the same as an M6. Any earlier M camera would have framing limitations, but give you familiar handling characteristics. Otherwise, an early M3 in poor cosmetic / good working condition offers good economy, a different kind of viewpoint to your digital M, and at least you wouldn't need to buy a lens.

Otherwise, a good manual focus SLR with metering, lens, is dross on the market.

Otherwise, a clean IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIIf, with similarly clean lens, would be pretty much the same. A lot of photographers looked after their 50mm f3.5 Elmars, the faster lenses, perhaps not.

Im tired; talking rubbish

google how to use a leica IIIf or something similar and get a simple instruction booklet, read that & work out where you need to go. Instructions for Leica III, IIIa, IIIc are pretty much the same.

It is UOOYN / 16590. There are also on-line reports of identical unmarked bellows adaptors.