Jump to content

In praise of Leica and Hasselblad


asimrazakhan

Recommended Posts

<p>I was just day dreaming and thought I'd share my thoughts.</p>

<p>I started travel/street photography at age seven. Now, three decades later, I've realized that the joy of photography has more to do with the 'struggle' or challenge of taking a photograph than the end result. If only the end result were important then I might as well go out and buy postcards instead. </p>

<p>In addition to this philosophy is attached the beauty of the mechanics and engineering of the camera itself. Cameras such as Leica M's and Hasselblad V's have really intrigued me. They are solid mechanical works of art that serve a unique purpose. And this purpose is juxtaposed by the joy of using them as well as their beauty when staring at them. </p>

<p>Over the years, I spent money on camera after camera while focusing on acquiring better automatic and electronic gadgetry. I started with a no-name point and shoot, moved up to an Olympus XA rangefinder for sixteen years while yearning for an auto SLR, got a low-level Pentax MZ5n, and then finally build up to a Pentax MZ-S and LX with several prime lenses, including their top quality limited editions.</p>

<p>Now I've realized that fast autofocus with auto modes and electric settings don't matter when taking the photo. In the end the only thing that counts the most is your shutter speed and aperture. Of course the quality of your lens and film is also a factor, along with stability and light quality. But in terms of camera technology, you only have the shutter speed and aperture in your control that will have an effect on the photo. </p>

<p>This brings me to the thought that photography in its raw form is best enjoyed with a manual camera. Using an auto camera (and especially a digital camera), one tends to start firing away like a machine gun with little thought put into the process as well as the end result. Consequently, this machine gun approach takes away from the joy of using the camera and the 'struggle' and challenge in taking the photograph. </p>

<p>This 'struggle' is a must in order to enjoy the hobby and art of photography. If cameras could do everything for the photographer and guarantee a perfect shot everytime while also making your breakfast and cleaning your house then we wouldn't really have to take photos at all. A couple of analogies; Why do people climb Everest? I'd say it's because individuals needs a struggle in order to acquire a sense of achievement. Why do people with endless amounts of money remain unsatisfied? I'd say its because they have no 'struggles' in their lives. And I actually dare to add on this photo website in a digital era that the reason we often find people turned off from digital photography is that their is a lack of 'struggle' in taking photos, and photography begins to feel bland and no longer challenging.</p>

<p>So one day, I hope to get back to the basics with a Leica M film camera and a Hasselblad 501CM. Thats when I'll use my automatic Pentax MZ-S to take photos of the two cameras side by side.</p>

<p>Maybe you'd like to suggest to me how to spend $1500 that I've saved up to spend on entering into one of these two brands.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Leica M and Hasselblad is totally different system...if you like travel around, street photogrpahy, candid, snap and go, then, Leica M is a great choice, Hasselblad is a little heavy, not working as fast as Leica M. I have both system, and use for different setting. I travel with Leica M, take with me all the time. Hasselblad is 500 C/M, for portraiture, this one don't have the build in meter, therefore, it is really slow me down to take a meter reading...and is heavy. I can hand hold Leica in low light, but, not with hasselblad.<br>

There are lots Leica M, and hasselblad on ebay, I think you could get one you like for $1500 around no problem ;)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First of all... Beautifully written. I really think that few people realize how much the mechanical and engineering excellence effects there love of a camera like these. I had a similar dilemma a little while back only on a bit smaller budget of $1100. I got a Leica M2 with a 50mm f/2.8 and a little meter. I was initially turned off by the high costs associated with 120 as compared with 35. (My TMax bulk 35 costs me about $2 a roll for 36 frames when all is said and done vs. $7 a roll for 12 frames of 120 at my local pro shop.) Despite these cost concerns I have found myself drifting back to the used dealer's websites in search of a clean body at a good price. They really are magical. I've also been considering a rolleiflex because I always thought that they too possessed that mechanical beauty that we all like so much. In the end this decision is really personal. These are different horses for different races. In the end you might end up with both so perhaps start with the more versatile and portable Leica.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Climbing Everest (not that I have done it) and photography have something in common. The view. To some extent you are right. The struggle is very important and valuable. But so is the view. And I would prefer to have my view than someone else's. So buying a postcard is not an option. I agree with Robert Meier that you should get a Leica M. Get the best one you possibly can, up to an M6. The current ones are too costly for your budget. Hasselblads are great too, though they have some cheaper parts in the new 500 model--my rapid wind lever is plastic and broke right off. But the Hass is harder to use and to handhold, doesn't have a meter, and does tend to jam at the worst times.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave, thanks for your helpful contribution and blind link; those are always appreciated and are really classy. (Not.)</p>

<p>But I see from your profile that you're a TLR "fanboy" (can we agree that anyone who publishes in their portfolio photos not just <em>by </em> cameras but <em><strong>of </strong> </em> cameras qualifies for the term?), so let's not throw the word around too lightly. After all, every photographer uses some kind(s) of camera, and usually there's a reason they chose that kind of camera over others. Are you saying that photographers shouldn't explain why they use that kind of camera to others who ask about it? What if someone asked about TLRs in the manual-camera forum and you answered; would it be OK to call you a fanboy?</p>

<p>Sheesh. OP asks an innocent question (<em>"How should I enter into one of these two brands?"</em> ) and inevitably someone isn't able to resist showing how wise and "above the gear talk" they are.... when in fact they're just into <em>different </em> gear as opposed to actually being "above" gear.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I started getting back into film recently as well and recently bought a Nikon FE2 which is fully mechanical. A great little camera that has helped me take my street photography to the next level (for me).</p>

<p>I still love shooting my <a href="http://www.sasisphotography.com">street photography</a> with my D300 + 20mm f2.8 combination. But you're right, when I shoot with digital I tend to fire away at anything, but when I'm shooting film, I take my time and look around and only click if I consider the scene a 'keeper'. I've found I take my time, become more methodical and as a result more satisfied when the final photo comes back from the developer and exceeds my expectations.</p>

<p>I've been looking at Leicas with envy for the last few months. I love how they feel, their look and history, but I still can't justify the expense. I just can't get out of my head that Leica's whole brand image is just an incredibly well set up marketing campaign supported by famous photographers over the years. Still, don't be surprised if you bump into me in the streets of Toronto with a Leica in my hand :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Asim:<br>

You seem to be evolving and growing as an artist, along a path well-trodden by many great photographers. I have followed a similar path and use both the M and V systems today along with digital, which certainly has it's place.The M and V cameras are indeed works of mechanical art, but that may be the wrong reason for a photographer to choose them. Leicas are much more flexible in their application, as others have noted, and are definitely to be recommended as a next step. You will likely find a place for the Hasselblads later (as I did), should you become more focused on the particular styles of photography for which they are best suited.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Asim, a well-concieved and well-written post.<br>

I understand your perspective and think the same way myself. After long thought and research, I am extremely happy with a Konica Hexar RF, Leica Summicron 50 / 2.0 (tabbed version), and a Leica Summar 50 / 2.0. The Konica is easier to shoot than a Leica M (easier metering, loading, and winding). Although it may not be the same marvel of engineering as an M, the Konica provides me with a simpler, more intuitive shooting process. The Summicron always astounds me with its image quality, even wide open, and the Summar (a clean example) gives me a classic/retro image quality that is radically different from the digital look .</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In "Being Happy", this is known as enjoying the trip rather than the destination.

 

To accomplished photographer, digital is still a struggle. Nothing has changed from the film era for them, the EOS 1D isn't that much different from an EOS 1V except it doesn't use film.

 

If you're shooting sports or ballet or news, an LCD isn't going to help much, there just isn't time enough to review histograms or ask the subjects to redo a poor composition.

 

The struggle to get a good news photo, to capture the decisive moment in photojournalism, doesn't change much with technology.

 

So to me, the attraction of using a fully manual camera is the feeling of being in absolute control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, I am a 'fanboy'... of photography. I take it as a very nice compliment. I must be obsessed with photography and cameras since I've been using them since the age of seven. My other obsession is traveling. Fortunately, the two go hand in hand like shutter speeds and apertures. :)</p>

<p>I remember during my last three month backpacking trip of South East Asia I saw one Leica, one Voigtlander, and one Hasselblad. It's interesting to note that I remember exactly where I was at the time, what the person looked like that was carrying each camera, and even what the weather was like. Besides this, I saw thousands of other cameras, but none that stood out like these. So yes, I am obsessed.</p>

<p>Just two weeks ago I was on KEH.com about to click on the 'submit' button to purchase a complete Hasselblad V system for about $1800 (body and two lenses). I stopped myself in order to step back and rethink if I would really be putting mileage on the camera. I decided as a travel photographer, I would be better off with a Mamiya 6 or 7 and halted my purchase. Since then, I've been researching rangefinders and was lead to Leicas. Yes, I would be better served with a Mamiya 6/7 in medium format as a travel photographer, but the Hasselblad is a mechanical marvel that pleases the eyes. Of course the Mamiya is an amazing camera as well, but I'm more in awe of the Hasselblad than the Mamiya just for its sheer beauty and engineering. In fact, it was this viewpoint that took away from Mamiya down the road to Leica. Leica holds the same awesome beauty that Hasselblad does. The Mamiya (for me) seems to be the link between the two. It better serves my purpose but it doesn't fully gratify the desire. This is why I'm like Buridan's Ass sitting between an apple and an orange... a Hasselblad and a Leica.</p>

<p>Currently I'm working overseas. When I get home I will purchase a slide scanner and become a full member of photo.net. I hope then I'll be able to share my work as much as I've enjoyed sharing all of your works. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>4 cameras that have impressed with their beauty and build quality. Leica M6 (never owned one but they are beautiful to behold) Hassy 500 cm. (Superb but after two bodies jamming halfway through the first roll I sold them quick. (Yes I know it was something I must have done wrong but I never had that problem with any other camera.) Rollei TLR's (near perfect for what they are.) And finally the Contax G2. (Leica folks forgive me but I think it might be the most beautiful camera ever built) Each may have a different nitch but in the right hands they all are capable of beautiful photos. (That part is up to you.)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

asim - i hope you will have both leica, and hasselblad, cameras, some day. they are both great to own, and use. they are

both fine for travel and street work. don't forget the hasselblad 200 & 2000 system - there are some amAzing lenses out

there for it! a 110mm f/2, for example : ] have a look on flickr - mike peters' stuff, particularly - and you'll see what i mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Asim, thank you for sharing your thoughts. It helps to know that others share and have very similar thoughts regarding the equipment that they use. I often get jealous at those photographers who have very little problems deciding what equipment to use/purchase. I was recently given an Olympus OM-1. Wow! It's so simple and takes wonderful photos. I set the f/stop and shutter speed and spend most of my time with composition. I also own a used Hasselblad 503 CX. Many moons ago I served in the military where I learned about repairing photographic equipment. I put these skills to the test by disassembling my Hasselblad and servicing it myself. It was a journey in and of itself! If you think that the outside of a Hasselblad is a thing of beauty you should see the inside. It is a well choreographed dance of gears and levers working in perfect harmony. I must have sat there for at least an hour just watching how everything went together and worked together. Disassembling a film back is very similar. It's hard to believe that anything in today's world is still built with such precision. Of course, I still enjoy wearing a mechanical watch over a digital watch. Keep in mind that this is a very personal decision for you to make. You will be very happy with whatever choice you make. Good luck, and keep taking lots and lots of photographs! </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>daaaaaaaa, sorry dude, but try taking ANY photo 1 workshop with a good teacher like. Then, either<br>

take up the fellow who is practically giving it away, if thats what you want , or get a diana plastic<br>

camera, and start dealing with THE IMAGE, NOT WITH THE EQUIPMENT, though you would be amazed<br>

what students can do with it, as well is other exhibiting shooters. NEXT, try the new little amazing<br>

looking leica...(sorry, i still cant afford it, though i dream about it...) the x whatever...if you check out<br>

the LCD you will see whats in front literally in B L A C K AND W H I T E...and youll go ooooooooooooo.<br>

i want that. just think, no equipment to log around, and you can let yourself be swept up by the<br>

image, god damn it. Your concerns raise the experience of this other dude who showed off his<br>

new canon at the moma when he first got his hands on digital equipment...i think he took 3 (not 2)<br>

trillions images, not one of them any good, but he was in canon heaven, so go figure. Some folks<br>

are just hung up on equipment, and its you, yes you, who are making all these companies raise<br>

their god damn prices ok. you heard it here first.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me a hand held meter and simple mechanical camera makes all the difference. I hated trying to figure out the Pentax PZ-20 my father gave me years ago. It was my first SLR and it seemed like one needed to be a rocket scientist to use. Then when I got my RZ67 which I could use with out jumping around a buch of menus my approach got a lot more simple and streamlined. Then when I bought a Nikon F2 I wonded why I wasn't steered torward a mecanical camera in the first place. So simple to use, it frees one up to actually concentrate on taking pictures!</p>

<p>However, there's no getting around the fact that for many photographers it's all about the camera. These folks like to have the latest and greatest and the stores like to sell to them. Hey, if one has the $$$ to buy a new digital body or back every 6 months or a year then great. As for me, I see no reason to upgrade my cameras.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In my opinion you try to generalise what is a very personal point of view. Of course a hobby can mean very different things for different people, but for me I wouldn't associate photography with 'struggle', certainly not the struggle with the technicalities of photography, at most the struggle with making a good composition and waiting for the good light (but that's too much fun to call it struggle). For me, the <em>less</em> camera technology I have to struggle with, the better. The fact that a camera can't guarantee a (technically) perfect shot has to do with the limits there still are in camera technique, mostly with exposure and (less so) with focus. I foresee a camera that has a greatly improved dynamic range (possibly with some sort of HDR-technique) that will make exposure a no-brainer. I've already seen camera's -admittedly very experimental- where one can shift the focus distance and dof <em>after</em> the photo has been taken. I am thrilled with these sort of improvements, shifting the focus away from technicalities to the creative aspects of photography.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...