I don't completly understand the reasoning behind the method of film loading via the bottom plate and partially opened camera body back. What is the advantage to this method vs the hinged back? Has it always been this way with Ms? Thanks for the insight

-- Brooks (bvonarx@home.com), July 11, 2001

Answers

Yes, Brooks, Ms have all loaded this way since day 1. Screw mounts, prior to the Ms, loaded similarly, except they had no hinged back at all. The reasoning has to do with rigidity of the body structure. With a full open back (the way of today's SLRs) you'll note there is no "closed box" structure. Therefore you can literally "twist" the body (ever so slightly) and put lens out of alignment with the film plane. With the M you'll note there are vertical bars at the back, linking the top and bottom of the camera. This provides rigidity against a twisting force (even a slight one).

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 11, 2001.

...oh, and by the way, the more rigid box structure also provides a more solid foundation for the internals - shutter mechanism, rangefinder, etc - making the whole package more durable and resistant to shocks.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 11, 2001.

It's been this way since the first Leica's, only worse before the M's. The screwmount cameras didn't have the hinged plate and so it was at times pretty hit or miss when loading. The reason the camera has this design is one of strengh. The body is nearly a one piece casting and is nearly indestructable. I deal with camera repairs in my job on a daily basis, and a hit that will actually bend the frame of any other camera (which usually shows up as a loss of focus across the film plane) , often causes only cosmetic damage to an M camera. The Canadian Leica rep used to have an interesting selling technique. He would put an M6 on the ground and stand on it (he was probably 175 pounds), then ask us if we would care to do that with any other camera in the showcase. Never took him up on it.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 11, 2001.

If it was a snake it would have bit me. Thanks for 411!

-- Brooks (bvonarx@home.com), July 11, 2001.

BTW, the posters here have offered this new guy an education that no sales rep could or would ever provide. Thanks to all!

-- Brooks (bvonarx@home.com), July 11, 2001.

I've always been curious, if the bottom-loading feature was indeed a purposeful design made in the interest of body rigidity (as opposed to being simply a fortuitous coincidence of this most inconvenient feature which dates back to the 1920's), then why wasn't it incorporated in the Leicaflex, SL and SL2 (all 100% in-house Leitz designs)?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 11, 2001.

I do not an answer but believe me you need a metal paper clip in order to properly loading your film since nobody mentioned that before.

I usually use the tip the metal paper clip (it has more than hundred usages other than clipping paper together and here is one) to guide the film to align to the teeth. Make sure there is a strip of chrome part still showing under the bottom of the film. Film loading is now more 'engineering' than 'hit-or-miss' thing. I am happy.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), July 11, 2001.

I've been told (though I don't know how reliable the source is), that they went to the hinged back on the SLR's to facilitate the use of databacks. Sounds plausible.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 11, 2001.

The designers of the SLR Leica were largely former Carl Zeiss engineers, who did not understand the traditions that had kept the Leica sucessful all those years. See what a mess their counterparts at Zeiss made of the Contarex. They even screwed up such elemental things as the direction which the shutter speed dial turns. Incidentally, the CL was more of an update of the Contax, than a derivitive of the Leica.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 11, 2001.

If it was Zeiss engineers who designed my SL and SL/2, they did a terrific job!

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), July 11, 2001.

Paper clips - ye Gods!

If you are using ANYTHING other than 25 seconds and a fresh roll of film to load your Leica, please oh please oh PLEASE go to this web site and read the simple five-step intructions on how to load a Leica M:

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/index.shtml#000b

(site courtesy Andrew Nemeth - an occasional poster here)

Above all, DON'T start winding until the back and bottom are closed - there are integral parts to the fast-load system built into both, and if they aren't in position, the mechanism won't work as designed.

Since I started using this technique I have had 2 mis-loads in 50 rolls of film - and they were both my errors.

The ONLY cameras easier to load than a Leica are the motorized auto- load/auto-rewind bodies - no other thumbwind cameras come close anymore.

(paper clips??!......)

back on topic: Brooks, notice that the shell of a Leica M is one continuous oval of metal (look at the bottom rim when the bottom plate is off) No welds, no seams, no screwed-together bits. The only other camera built this way (not counting Leica copies) was the original Nikonos/Calypso underwater camera, and for the same reason - body integrity and strength (important if you're going down to 4-5 atmospheres and want to remain watertight). I think Herr Barnack chose a simple, strong, easy-to-manufacture design for the body, and THEN decided to load the film through the only place still available, (since the wind and shutter controls were plugging the top) - the bottom.

I think the reason the SLRs didn't follow the M pattern is the mirror box - it's easy to fit a rangefinder into a smooth oval body, but an SLR mechanism requires a protruding lens mount that won't fit into a simple metal shape. Although the R8 makes a valiant attempt.

I have my doubts about databacks being a consideration - I don't think the first databacks showed up until about 1970 (could be wrong!) - 7-8 years after design work started on the first Leicaflex.

I'll go away now....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 11, 2001.

This one is for Bob T (show it on to your Leica rep). How to destroy an Mbody with the hinged back? pull the spring loaded pin that forms part of the hinge mechanism and let it slip loose from under your nail, in a way that the pin hits one side of the eyelet head-on. With a bit of luck the eyelet will snap right of the body, presto! I did it in a camera store, never went (looked) back.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), July 11, 2001.

Forgot to tell you about a Fuji rep who extinguished cigarettes right centre on Fuji glass. I never tried that at home.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), July 11, 2001.

Although the main reason is probably to maintain body rigidity, the shape also helps keep the camera a bit smaller than it would otherwise be w/a hinged back. However, it's not necessary to have bottom loading to have a tough camera. The Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs, for example, had removable backs & they're just as durable & shock resistant (& more so if you're talking about the RF & shutter mechanisms) than either the thread mount & M Leicas. The removable back system also make the Contaxes much easier to load (although not as convenient as hinged backs) & make the camera system as a whole more versatile by allowing the use of glass plate backs & bulk film canisters, etc.

-- Christopher Chen (furcafe@cris.com), July 11, 2001.

No, that should only be done by trained professionals. Never try this at home :<)

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.

I was wondering how come that the same engineers who made such a wonderful job designing the M3 could have messed it up designing the R line. Now, from Bill's comment I realize that they couldn't have been the same people. If they were they had designed a F2 instead: much more flexible with mirror lock up and interchangeable prism. In fact the only advantage I can find in R Leicas over other main brands is lenses (not the less important issue, of course) but though certainly well built, I consider the bodies way behind in functional design. And, Andy: my FM2-n is far easier to load than any M. I don't subscribe the opinion that loading the Ms is hard to do (I have never had a misloaded roll) but I think it is far from being easy. Regarding Brook's question: I think the rigidity theory could have some truth in it but I guess that alternative ways to get the same rigidity could have rendered an easier film loading operation. Do we have a mechanical engineer on board who could give us some insight? Regards

-Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 11, 2001.

Iván:

Now that you mention it, yeah, I guess a MOTORIZED FM2/FA, back when I owned one, WAS pretty easy to load. I think I would still prefer the Leica to the unmotorized FM2 body - I tried one again the other day and the film popped out of the take-up slots twice before I got it to stay put.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 12, 2001.

If I remember well, when Leitz sell equipment to the army in the second war world there was some instructions on how to destroy the Leica body with a single knock, does any one have come across this information?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

Andy: In my FM2-n at least there is a very helpful characteristic that makes loading film extremely easy: the take up spool can be easily rotated by lightly pushing it with your finger so that you are sure that the film did engage in the sprocket before closing the door. It is so easy than most of the time just pushing the film leader in the slot the proper way is enough for it to get securely engaged. And that is way easier than loading my M3s though I enjoy doing it all the time. Regards

-Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 12, 2001.

Leicas haven't always been associated with features like, "drop and load" and "point and shoot". Even in loading Leicas, as in photography, you'd still have to think of what you're doing. Again, it's the process that makes it special, and not just getting the job done.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), July 15, 2001.

The process?! I just want to take pictures, not think about how to load my camera. Maybe they could have added a padlock to make the process more beguiling. OTOH, I find the Leica very easy to load, so I'm not complaining.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), July 16, 2001.