In praise of Leica and Hasselblad

[john_h.1]

<p><em>In addition to this philosophy is attached the beauty of the mechanics and engineering of the camera itself... ...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. </em><br>

Its all about the camera and then its not about the camera.</p>

[john_afflitto]

<p>Well, there is nothing wrong with admiring a finely engineered and crafted instrument made with fine materials. If one can afford such an instrument to do his photography with, then why not ? I can catch fish with my utilitarian spinning reel and a good rod but I can also catch them on my lightrweight graphite Orvis fly rod and finely machined aluminum alloy Orvis reel. It is a different experience. I used to have a Contax camera and many fine Zeiss lenses. I loved those lenses. They were as smooth as silk, looked and felt beautiful and yielded beautiful results.</p>

[chris_nauta]

<p>I hear what you are saying about old school shooting... I found a Zeiss contina 1a in a rummage shop yesterday for 20$, went home, hit the shutter with a hair dryer to loosen up the hard grease and get it clicking again, and shot a few rolls of 400 B&W yesterday. Scale focusing and guessing distance and exposure.... it was a blast, and suprising how many shots were good.<br>

I wonder, have you considered the m-mount rangefinder Leica CL (AKA Minolta CL/CLE) Based on what I have seen on craigs-bay around my area, if you were patient you could score the body a two lens kit for that kind of money. The build quality is above average, but you can always "upgrade" to the M series body if you felt it necessary and already have glass. You might fall in love with its pocketable size and super handling- it is a fantastic little camera all-around.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"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."</p>

<p>A great example of blaming the gear for the photographer's weaknesses.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_brigham]

<p>If you've "saved up $1500 to enter," my advice is that you cannot afford to enter into Leica. I've admired them for years too, but never felt justified plunking down that much cash to become an entry-level Leica owner. If manual is what you want, then I think for $1500 you could go very far in a Nikon F system (I sold a mint F body and 5 prime lenses, all for less than $700 a year or 2 ago). Or a basic Canon FD body. There is very good glass in both those lines. If you're set on a rangefinder, take a look at Zeiss Ikon M-mount, or some of the other M-mount cameras. I agree with you about the joys of manual cameras--for some kinds of photography they're great, for others (e.g. sports) they're not practical. But they do put you in control. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Its interesting to read the responses to Azim's posting. We get the usual "mine's the best" argument, but I think they are all missing the point.<br>

There is magic to taking photographs with a purely manual camera and getting good results WITHOUT a light meter. The digital camp stress out about whether this or that option is correctly switched on etc...and worrying about whether all the options have been set.<br>

Don't get me wrong as I appreciate the load this takes off, say, a news or sports photographer. Its easier to capture the moment if all you worry about is composition. And that fine.<br>

But manual, film photography can reward the photographer in a different way. Its like the large format photographer who goes to Yosemite for a weekend and takes six photos. The excitement and challenge for him is the adventure of developing and successful printing. To see the image gradually appearing on the print as its forming during the development phase is magic...as is to know when to put the print in the fixer. All challenges. The results are like art. But its not for everyone...even at 35mm level.<br>

To me the art is about the difficulty and reliance on instinct and experience. Take William Henry Jackson. There he was somehow perched on the edge of cliff in the Rockies, with a donkey and assistant. He made his shots on HUGE glass negatives, having just mixed up his silver whatever by hand and smeared it all over the glass. Then rushing to the huge box camera on the tripod he mounts the glass and takes the shot. Then back to the tent to fix the image. He took about a dozen shots that day, having trekked two days to get there. He put all the glass negatives in a special slotted box and loaded this and all his gear on the donkey for the long trip back down the mountain. Alas, the donkey slipped and fell over a precipice and took all his negatives and camera to destruction. Damn! So what did he do? He went all the way down, caught a train to Denver and bought all new gear and went back up the mountain and tried again. THATS the challenge. Imagine his sense of achievement when his image is hailed by the The Sierra Club as a work of art, and today, hundreds of comtemporary photographers makee the trek and try to achieve an image as good as William did way back then.<br>

This is then the excitement Azim is talking about and which can still be experienced with a Leica or Hassy today.</p>

<p>Google "William Henry Jackson" and browse his collection which has now been digitized.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I am shooting digital I place just as much thought into each shot shot as I do when I am shooting film with a totally manual camera. The viewfinder is the world at that time, ideally, and discipline, concentration, and the proper creative mindset are not the exclusive domain of any one brand or type of cameral. </p>

[hphotographics]

<p>It has been quite a period of time since I logged into photo.net and this posting is rather timely. I kept almost all of my manual film equipment when I "went digital" several years ago. This weekend I moved it all over to my office with the intent of listing it on ebay and "cleaning out the closet."<br>

I agree there is something about the mechanics but I also miss the darkroom with its solitude and the magic of an image appearing in the print developer.<br>

The real difference I see in the image making experience between digital and film is when I visualize an image. With film I always tried to "see" the print before capturing it in the camera. With digital I see the image evolve on the computer screen.</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<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>While i understand your thought, i don't agree. "Photography in its raw form," for me, is more about the resulting image than the physical act of pushing the button. It doesn't matter to me if i shot one frame with a manual focus, manual wind camera, or 10 frames with AF and motor winder. When the print is made, that's all meaningless. </p>

<p>It also dismisses commercial work, where a photographer will "struggle" for 10 hours on a shoot, on a set, directing a crew, using motor winding, AF, and whatever technological advantages, all to capture, maybe ONE publishable image. Why is it more "work" to take one picture in ten seconds, using a manual camera, than it is to take a thousand in 10 hours, using automated equipment? You're making judgements based only on your personal experience. I suppose, that's what your post is all about, but you're making blanket statements about what 'real photography' is all about, and that applies to everyone. </p>

<p>And, what of post capture? What if a photographer uses a manual camera, slowly, and with great forethought, but then hands the film over to a lab for processing and prints? Why is the pre-shutter release decision more important than what happens afterward? In my mind, the craft involves more than just a timing decision. It's about the choices that are made later.</p>

<p>As Desmond says above, one can use an automated or digital camera with the same discipline and sensibility as a manual camera. AF, digital cameras also have manual focus and exposure capabilities. </p>

<p>But., whatever. We all have prejudices. We should, though, know that they are prejudices and that they're not objective. My prejudice is for film, and against digital images. I use digital, but i would want all of my 'important' images to be on film. As well, when i buy someone else's prints, i don't think i would be interested in one that was shot on a digital camera. That may come in time, but for now, 'real photographs' originate on film. </p>

[vic_.]

<p>Amen, Derek. However Asim did say he was daydreaming, envisioning an ideal world.</p>

<p>That's also one of the attractions of Nikon. They have not abandoned the F mount. Is there any other camera brand (other than Leica and Hassy) where the mount has stayed constant through all the generations?</p>

<p>It's fun to ruminate.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>"There is magic to taking photographs with a purely manual camera and getting good results WITHOUT a light meter."</em></p>

<p>Its just another way to do it. If pleasure is derived from using an finely crafted foot pedal sewing machine rather than a electric on with some pre-set functions then I'm glad for you but, putting it a pedestal of magic while looking down on someone else's method as "stressful" one moment and then claim that there are no 'worries' the next is silly. People enjoy doing what they are doing but we are creeping towards the Lieca is better than thou attitude again. If you enjoy it great but don't make everone else out to be soft on accomplishment. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>John, I don't think that Stephen Asprey's quote is in reference to Leica or any other brand in particular, but to the sheer joy of knowing enough about exposure to be able to nail it without a light meter. I confess that I can only do that under certain conditions, but some people have gotten very, very good shooting in manual mode and can do astonishingly well under a variety of conditions.</p>

<p>Not only does that joy have nothing to do with Leica, it has nothing to do with film v. digital, either, in my opinion--as Stephen suggests. When I have shot my Canon 5D with a manual focus Nikon 600 f/4.0, I have shot manually, and I really liked it. I don't always nail it, of course, but that is where digital can also be quite helpful. One can shoot again and again until one gets it right, and, no, that does not necessarily mean getting sloppy or shooting too many shots. It simply means having one more way to do what one really wants to do with the equipment at one's disposal:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5227368&size=lg</p>

<p>The linked shot was made at ISO 1600 and so is a bit grainy with the 5D. I just bought some Hassy stuff and can't wait to see what I can get with both film and manual focus again. It's been a while. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[02Pete]

<p>Asim --</p>

<p> Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking post. One of the things that one discovers about shooting with a Leica or other manual rangefinder camera is that characteristics that initially appear to be limitations (the focus, shutter speed and aperture all have to be set manually, one can't change focal lengths without changing lenses, the built-in viewfinder frames cover only a limited variety of lenses, etc.) turn out to impose a certain sort of mental discipline. One has to think about what one is doing, and make and implement conscious choices, in order to take a picture. The result is that one gradually learns how different choices about focus, shutter speed and aperture affect the pictorial qualities of the pictures one takes, knowledge that becomes useful when one wants to achieve certain results and knows how to get them. The knowledge one gains through this process is not limited to manual RF cameras, and can later be used with any automated, SLR or digital camera too.</p>

<p> One should strive to shoot with mental discipline regardless of which type of camera one is using. It is certainly possible to achieve excellent results with highly automated film cameras, SLRs or current digital cameras. Leicas are not the only good cameras out there by any means. Snobbery about equipment doesn't make much sense. The most important pieces of equipment are always the eye and the brain behind the viewfinder, rather than the camera body or lens. Having acknowledged those things, however, there is a lot to be said about learning as much as possible about photography by seeing what one can accomplish using a Leica or other manual RF and a limited range of lenses, accepting and working within the limitations that such equipment imposes.</p>

<p> With $1,500 many choices are possible. For example, one could buy a used Leica M2 body; a used 35mm lens such as a Canon 35mm f/2 LTM, a used Leitz 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, or a used second or third series Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron; and a Gossen Scout 2 or other hand-held light meter in good operating condition. Alternatively, one could buy a used Canon P and a used Canon 35mm f/2 LTM, or a Voigtlander body with a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 lens. There might even be enough money left over to buy a used Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM lens and a Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM lens, for a 3-lens outfit including a wide-angle lens, a high-speed standard lens for available light shooting and a portrait lens. These choices might not be fully up to the standards of the latest and most expensive current production Leica cameras and lenses, but they would be more than good enough to produce satisfactory results, and to explore the mental discipline and enjoyment of Leica or comparable manual 35mm RF photography.</p>

<p> Whatever choices you make, and whatever equipment you acquire, good luck with your efforts to learn more about photography through the challenges you face in taking pictures.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Thanks Landrum,<br>

You have got it. Its the experience of putting your judgement up against all the possibilities of a scene. the challenge that you can get it right just by looking.<br>

The other is the magic of Bresson and his contemporaries. He was not worried about the technical beauty of his images, as some a pretty crappy image wise, but only that his images told a story....but thats candid photography in a nutshell. His camera was pretty crappy by todays standards...A Leica III with a collapsible 50/2.8. He used it because it was small and portable.<br>

One has only to look at the images displayed on the Photo.net home page today. They are all artistically and technically gorgeous. Most are very over photoshopped and somehow artificial. Would you pay $500 for a copy?<br>

Have a look at Bressons "Isle de la Cite" that I have attached. It is recognised as one of his masterpieces. How would you feel if you could reproduce that image without any meters or any assistance....just your judgement. That would be awesome.<br>

This is what we are talking about with manual lenses of quality. They resolve light in a deeper and more pure way. You can tell.</p><div></div>

[john_lovelace]

<p>Asim, I hope that you got some good counsel from Daniel's response early in this forum. I did, and I'm an M6 owner and longtime Leica shooter. Absorb his advice and check out the link he suggested for the MP modification. Jack your budget up a few hundred $s and you can own and shoot with the best of 'em. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>"It simply means having one more way to do what one really wants to do with the equipment at one's disposal"</em><br /><em></em><br />Exactly. The difference is that you didn't gratuitously add things such as "The results are like art", "Its easier to capture the moment if all you worry about is composition" or that "The digital camp stress[es] out about trivial matters. It is one thing to say that one method can be more challenging which makes it more enjoyable, Its another to make inferences that the other process is somehow unworthy or void for using instinct expereince and expertise or that the results are not quite at the level of "art". There is no reason to add these things unless the other process is claimed to lack these qualitites. That is the sort of thing that suggests there is elitism and not only appreciation.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I shoot with both the Hasselblad 501CM and a Leica MP. The end result gives me satifaction, since I was an integral part of the operation. Occasionally, when I am a little more lazy, I shoot with an F6 & 20-35mm lens. The Nikon gives me satisfaction because it is such a solid and accurate machine.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>One has only to look at the images displayed on the Photo.net home page today. They are all artistically and technically gorgeous. Most are very over photoshopped and somehow artificial. Would you pay $500 for a copy?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

As though the great majority of pre-digital photography was pure in it quality. It too was riddled with less desirable attributes. Here we go again with the inferences that other's methods are unworthy; that digital users brought a huge swale of undeserving imagery to the photographic community as though that never existed before. </p>

<p><em>Its the experience of putting your judgement [sic] up against all the possibilities of a scene. the challenge that you can get it right just by looking.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Which can be done and is done by learned photographers using all mediums.<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>The other is the magic of Bresson and his contemporaries. He was not worried about the technical beauty of his images, as some a pretty crappy image wise, but only that his images told a story</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Another implication that today's whippersnappers with their newfangled equipment don't know how to tell a story. Totally unnecessary to show that manual film photography is enjoyable. Storytelling with photography applies equally to film and digital. There is no reason to differentiate unless it to imply that one method is lacking in this artistic vision.<br>

Its great that these cameras and processes are enjoyable and worthy but suggesting that another method is not by providing false distinctions between them serves no good purpose.</p>

[anthony_d.]

<p>Asim, I can appreciate your post and I also agree that the struggle is what makes photography rewarding. If the process is too easy, then excellent photos become so commonplace, they are rendered obsolete. To a certain extent that is already happening. <br />My love affair with photography began with a B&W photography class I was required to take in high school, nearly 30 years ago. Watching a photo develop was like a kind of magic I've never forgotten. At the time, my camera was a rangefinder, the brand of which I am unable to recall because I took it for granted at the time, thinking it was too limited. I wanted an SLR and when I finally purchased one( a minolta), the images never did equal those of the rangefinder. Partly as a result of my disappointment, I lost interest for many years. Eventually I purchased a Canon SLR and the while the results were far better, my love affair with photography was still tempered. <br />Then along came Sigma-Foveon.<br />As far your predilection for Leica and Hasselblad, I can only equate it to my appreciation of Sigma and the superb cameras and lenses they have recently released. And yes, I am entirely serious. The Sigma DP1 is fashioned like a rangefinder of old, with a detachable viewfinder and superb optics. It is the only small camera designed for serious B&W enthusiasts. Similarly the SD14, with its unique Foveon sensor, seems to me a thing of beauty when compared to the other DSLR's I've held. Both cameras are rather simplistic...but simplicity is a virtue. As you've come to realize, aperture priority is all you really need anyway. Neither camera offers the iso versatility of other dslr's, but working within limitations can be beneficial. Also, Sigma has recently released several lenses (primes and zooms) that have surpassed Canon and Nikon's best. Both in terms of design and philosophy, Sigma is the manufacturer that has motivated me to return to photography after all these years.</p>

[peteradownunder]

<p>Try what your dreams lead you to try.</p>

[asimrazakhan]

<p>It is very nice to see all the responses from people that have planned over the years their strategies when approaching photography. Everything that I have said is from my thoughts regarding myself. I am not in any position to dictate other peoples' experiences. This website has an endless supply of amazing photography from both digital and film users. I am sure many of these people would look upon their digital cameras or non-Leica/Hasselblad cameras and stand in awe. Personally speaking, I have to tip my hat to Hasselblad and Leica above other manufacturers. Perhaps attitutes like this cause these companies to jack up their price, but I also hope that these attitudes will allow the availability of film to endure for years to come. </p>

<p>There are many techniques and approaches to photography. And the reason we have such an array of choices is because there are different situations for each. I wouldn't backpack with a Canon 600mm f/4 IS nor would I show up to the Olympics with a Hasselblad. But for me personally, taking into consideration the kind of photography I've grown to love during my lifetime, I have to say that to me Hasselblad and Leica are machines of beauty and mechanical intrigues.</p>

<p>I tend to think too much about photography. I research and research far beyond what is needed before taking the plunge. I am now in the process once again of researching and thinking. I have noted what people have said here and am trying to figure out the next step. Afterall, the next step could be to remain happy with the equipment I have and spend $1500 on taking photos and traveling. </p>

<p>Decisions, decisions, decisions.<br>

And thank you everyone for giving your insight on this discussion. I'll be checking back to see if anyone else has added anything.</p>

[chris_mearns]

<p>Sorry but there is simply no way that we invest as much thought on taking a photograph with a dslr, as we do making decisions about focus, aperture and shutter speed with a manual camera. It is true that it is possible to programme out automation, but we don't. Not really, do we.<br>

Nice thread. Leica film cameras are always out of date, and therefore never obsolete. </p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry but there is simply no way that <strong>we</strong> invest as much thought on taking a photograph with a dslr, as <strong>we</strong> do making decisions about focus, aperture and shutter speed with a manual camera. It is true that it is possible to programme out automation, but <strong>we</strong> don't. Not really, do <strong>we</strong> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I</strong> 'm able to set the aperture, shutter, and focus with my Leicas even when <strong>I</strong> 'm so drunk <strong>I</strong> can barely stand. It really doesn't take that much thought, just a fair bit of practice. <strong>I</strong> also can (and often do) spend a fair amount of time and thought carefully considering the composition, DOF, point of focus, etc. even when <strong>I</strong> 'm using an autofocus, autoexposure digital camera.</p>

<p>I won't speak for everyone, but I can say that not all of us are so incredibly lazy that we need you to speak for us.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I shoot with about the same care on both digital and film.</p>

<p>I have two full-frame Canons, but some of the most fun I have had in the last twelve months has been with a Canon 7 rangefinder using the Canon 50mm f/0.95, frankly a great disappointment to me wide open (which was the whole point of buying it, after all). I would like to get a Leica screw mount lens for it and eventually get the body to go with that, but in the meantime the Canon 7 (vintage 1965 or so) will have to do. (I have to proceed incrementally, since the Hasselblad stuff on eBay set me back a bit.)</p>

<p>If I were to get one Leica screw mount lens on a teacher's budget, what ought it to be? (Sorry that I don't know the terminology for Leica lenses.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sam_johnson5]

<p>Asim, this is very insightful. With your revelation, you are now really ready to move to a higher level. My feeling is that, unless you are a Peter Lik, Jack Dykinga or Thomas Mangelsen and need the very best that technology has to offer for landscapes or wildlife, it really isn't about the equipment - it's about what is going on between your ears and simply being there. Countless highly emotion-evoking images have been produced on substantially less that state-of-the-art gear. Take Capa's Normandy invasion photos, for example.</p>

<p>BTW, I believe your budget is quite adequate to get into Leica M. Not too long ago, I purchased a perfectly operating M2 and crystal clear 35mm Summicron III for $1100. Add a cheap Gossen digisix meter and the total is actually under $1200. Be patient, these are out there in the used market, especially in today's economy. Sellers on pnet and RFF are especially reputable.</p>

<p>Best wishes to you on your journey.</p>