Jump to content

what camera did HCB use?


Recommended Posts

Early in his career he would have been using screw mount bodies like the IIIc and IIIf. The M3 had been on the market several years before the IIIg was introduced so I doubt he would have used one. The IIIc and IIIf had a built in finder for the 50mm lens only. The finder on top was for wide angle or telephoto lenses but some photographers preferred using them for all their photos. Although it's often said that HCB preferred using the 50mm lens many of his photographs look like they were shot with a 35mm lens. Cameras of this type are called rangefinder cameras because of the optical system used to focus them. Earlier cameras had a seperate built in viewfinder for the 50mm lens. Starting with the M3 the rangefinder was incorporated into the viewfinder, and frame lines showed the field of the 50, 90 and 135mm lenses. A few years later the M2 was introduced with frame lines of 35,50 and 90mm. Here we are 49 years after the M3 came out and the current M6 and M7 take the same lenses, and the viewfinder is essentially unchanged from the days of the M3 and M2. Progress!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Ellis said CB used a variety of Leica rangefinder cameras contemporary with the times he was taking pictures. In this picture he is using what looks like an M3:

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf.aspx?E=29YL53IQ1W7

 

Earlier on when his Leicas had smaller viewfinders he used auxiliary finders like the one you are referring to - either a VIDOM or IMARECT finder - see this Imarect picture on the famous auction site:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewItem&item=3004072639&category=29965

 

http://www.geocities.com/jagpage/vidom.html

 

In purported interviews with CB he 'said' that he used the auxiliary finder because it helped him compose with less distraction. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles:

 

this has nothing to do about his pictures being good only because they were taken by a Leica! why turn it into that old debate? I just love the look of this camera and i think i've also seen it also used in one of the james bond films and thought i'd learn more about it...thats all.

 

thanks guys for all the help. i've been reading up on these old leicas and am quite intriqued. myself am a rollei fan and user, but these old M3's and III series are tickling that funny bone that's in all of us.

 

thanks again

matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his "Focus, Memoirs of a life in photography"

(ISBN 0-8212-1904-9) Beaumont Newhall wrote:

(about H C-B in 1946)

page 158:

 

"For his vision, for his point of view, the Leica is the ideal instrument, except of the lens.

He had a Contax f/1,5 lens fitted to his Leica.

He explained that he hated flashlight, and never use it.

Hence he needs the large-aperture lens. etc.. "

 

Note: In 1946, the only 50mm Leica lens with the same aperture was the Xenon 50/1,5. Production figures in 1943 =9, 1944 = 0, 1945 = 1, 1946 = 2, 1947 = 1 !!

 

Page 159-160:

"When Cartier was asked for a portrait of himself to accompany my article, he said he had none, adding "Ask Beaumont". One afternoon I went around to his apartment with my camera. He had just bought a new

85mm f/1,5 lens (Summarex ?), which is common today but was extremely rare and expensive in 1946.

While I was photographing him he suddently handed me his new lens.

"Try this on your Leica, Beaumont", he said. etc.. "

 

Note: Production figures of the Summarex in 1943 = 90, 1944 = 0, 1945 = 28, 1946 = 18, 1947 = 6.

 

Rare indeed !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK Henri Cartier-Bresson is said to have a 90mm lens as well: some of the pictures he took in the U.S. in the 1950s are said to clearly show the use of a light tele. Could it be his "90mm" was in fact a 85mm Summarex?<p>Anyway, what's most important is that the myth of Cartier-Bresson using only one lens is wrong.<p>IMHO emphasizing that you can get along perfectly well with minimal equipment can be another form of gearheaditis, so there's nothing to worry about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry:

 

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be in the $300-450 range

(based on what I can remember seeing on eB*y), depending on

condition, of course. They're unusual, but not exactly super rare.

 

-------

 

"A bit of a tangent: Re Chris's post about the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5

in LTM, does anybody have any idea how much one of those is

worth today?"

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...