jeremy_tok Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 It's precisely because the lens is the least sharp among Leica's standardlenses. Because he scaled-focussed so much, a later, sharper lens would show uphis focussing misjudgements more clearly and would even distract from thecomposition. It has nothing to do with any subtle properties of the lens. He must havecomplained his whole life, "They don't make 'em as soft as they once did!" Hewas said to have collapsibles multi-coated by Leica, so it couldn't be for anyoccultish glow. It has to be for the softness which covers up focussinginaccuracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_tok Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 So there you go, an earthbound reason to use a very earthbound lens. I want to see eBay prices for that lens decline from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Composition and content trounce reolution and contrast in people photography. He understood that. He could also stick the camera in his jacket pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socke Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 did he? As far as I know he used a Sonnar first and various P&Ss later. I'm under the impression he wanted as small a kit as possible with decent picture quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Cartier Bresson dissing--bad Karma! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_tok Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Of course he did. No use doing Zeiss evangelism here!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 If your theory is valid...I doubt it, he should have used a Summar or a Summitar or the "dog" called Summarit (Xenon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 and he would have loved a Leica Lensbaby... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_tok Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Those who doubt my theory and would say so much must propose a competing theory. The collapsible is earthbound enough not to have to use an even earlier-generation lens...as the motto goes: As new as possible, but no newer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstate1 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I guess you have never actually OWNED a perfect condition collapsable Summicron. They blow the Elmars, Xenon, Summarit, Summilux 1 and 2 out of the water from 2.8 down. Of if the lens is foggy, as most are, or damaged/yellowed they can not be compared. Once I picked up a like new model I dumped my current gen Summicron because it just didn't make that much of a difference, and was worth more on the used market. Final note: The Collapsable has a very flat field so it is sharp right into the corners even at f3.5. 50 years later the new Biogon 35 still can't manage that trick, not to mention the Summicron R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I'd also heard that he often used a Zeiss Sonnar, but I think I heard it here, so there's no guarantee it's accurate information.<P> <i>Because he scaled-focussed so much, a later, sharper lens would show up his focussing misjudgements more clearly and would even distract from the composition.</i><P> From his published photos, I don't see that his focusing was often inaccurate or that his images were generally soft. The idea that a lens with slightly lower resolution will mask focusing errors from zone focusing inaccurately is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I use a colapsable and find mine sharp enough. I can't imagine HCB devising a master plan on what lense to use because he thinks he stinks at focusing although it would make a fun scene for an indie film about a photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I doubt that HCB had any such complicated rationale. When he bought the lens it was the best of the Leitz stable. The Summarit was just a coated Xenon and weighty bulk that would have required a specific reason to be hung on an otherwise ergonomic body. Since his tastes were simple he probably liked the collapsible feature because of its compactness. And then when later lenses were offered he probably didn't regard the improvements as significant enough to change his MO. Artists of his caliber are often very practical in their choice of tools. If they do the job and are convenient to manipulate the artist will rely on his innate abilities rather than depend on his tools to impart a footprint to his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anhtu Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 just love the black tape over the red dot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 He used it becasue he was comfortable with it and it made it possible to slip the camera into his jacket pocket. End of story. Also unless you have looked at some actual prints of his work at 11x14 or larger --and I have seen several --you just don't know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piotr_panne Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The bokeh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 My collapsible Summicron is a pretty decent lens. It surely beat my Summitar (and Elmar at equivalent apertures) wide open. If you have a poor performing Summicron, you may wish to have it checked for decentered elements or other damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leon chang Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 He just used what was available at that time. Just like people use digicams with zoomlenses today. The fact that this lens was collapsible was just a plus; since now he could use his camera as a "sniper cam" not to be noticed in the crowds. I don't think HCB had a theory on this like what is sugeested in this thread. He was simple, his photos were simple, his gear was simple hence he could concentrate on the subject. Simplicity triggers the senses and creativity. Like a famous photographer once said: "all that is needed for a good photograph is simple observation". This man could probably make a great photograph with a self made pin hole camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leon chang Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Amazing to see that little photographers have achieved what he has. It just shows that gear is of secondary importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 >I'd also heard that he often used a Zeiss Sonnar, but I think I heard it here, so there's no >guarantee it's accurate information. If you dig around on the MAGNUM site you will find pictures of him in China with a IIIc and Sonnar.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_ries Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I agree with Al, HCB's work was all about composition and content. From what I have read he never developed or printed his own film, he would just turn the rolls over to an assistant when he returned from a trip. If he were active today I have little doubt he would be using a small quality digital and electronically transfering his work from the field or just turning in memory cards upon his return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Reasons why HCB shot with a collapsible Cron: - Compact. He liked to travel light and unobtrusive. It fit nicely in his jacket. - HCB preferred low contrast prints. The combination of the collapsible Cron and 777 developer, along with flat printing gives you exactly that look. - As far as I know the multi-coating story is an urban legend. - HCB treated his shooting as a diary. Once he found this lens, which produced the results he liked, he stuck with it so there would be a consistency to his work over the decades. Think of it like this. You see the world with the same set of eyes, through your entire life. You don't turn 60, get a new set of eyes and suddenly the world looks different. Same for his photos. The look of his work is one uninterrupted line. HCB's work is very recognizable, not only for it's composition and subject matter, but it has a certain look or visual signature, just like the palette of a painter does. And on a technical note, the collapsible Summicron was a huge improvement over all pre- war designs. At f8 it is very, very sharp. HCB shot mostly at f8 with focus set to 5 meters (15ft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 FWIW HCB's favourite lens was discussed back in 2001:<p> <<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002l93">photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002l93</a>><p> Seems the consensus was that he mostly used a Zeiss Sonar 50mm f1.5.<p> FWIW, the "assistant/technician" he used was actually more than one. First it was "Pierre Gassmann", then from the mid 1960s onwards "Georges Fèvre".<p> Which raises an interesting point - every time you look at a HCB print, you're really looking at a collaborative work created by The Henri (who pressed the button) and PG/GF (who did everything else). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_spiers Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I've heard he briefly used a Contax T. Is that true? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 >Which raises an interesting point - every time you look at a HCB print, you're really looking at a collaborative work created by The Henri (who pressed the button) and PG/GF (who did everything else). The "everything else" should include Leica (the body) and Zeiss (the glass). :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now