View Full Version : Thinking of doing the "Old Europe with an Old Leica" thing
Hans Pahlen wrote, in the Volume 33, number 1 issue of The Viewfinder, an article titled "I love Paris . . . with my Screw mount Leicas." Leaving his M-bodies behind, Pahlen set out for Paris with a III, a IIIa, a 50mm Summar, and a 50/3.5 Elmar. Why? To photograph with the kind of Leica gear that earlier photographers had used 60 and more years ago. Some nice shots accompany his article.
I'm thinking of doing this myself. I could take my two IIIcs and four lenses. On a typical day I could carry one body and two or three lenses, and it would all fit in my Domke 5XB bag. I could even fit the tiny lenses into my photo vest and need no bag at all. The other body could stay in the apartment as a spare.
But then all my wonderful M gear would have to stay behind in the cabinet for three weeks. I'm not sure how I would feel, after the first 2 or 3 days, about leaving behind my MP with its very accurate and fast exposure readings; or the M7 with its auto-exposure; or the faster and better lenses that go with them.
SO: who else has considered this approach. What did you decide? If you went with the old Barnacks, were you glad you did? Any regrets?
john neal
12-01-2008, 00:18
Rob,
I tend to take an old Barnack for B&W, and my MP for colour. That way I get the best of both worlds :D
I'm thinking of doing this myself. [...] But then all my wonderful M gear would have to stay behind in the cabinet for three weeks.
Why don't you just try it out before going there? Lock your Ms in the cabinet and use only the Barnacks for a couple of weeks. If you're uncomfortable, or if you get the feeling you miss good pictures, take the Ms out of the cabinet again.
It's the picture that counts. Hans Pahlen is a professional photographer and a Leica nut; what works for him may not work for you. There's nothing inherently cool about using old Leicas. All you get is an approximation of what a photographer might have felt like 70 years ago - and even that is not accurate, because he was using top-of-the-line high technology to get good pictures, while you are deliberately using something quaint and outdated in hope to feel a bit like him. To me that seems a bit futile, and if it's only about collapsible lenses, separate viewfinders and a compact body you can have that with a Zorki.
Also, there's nothing inherently uncool about deciding, eventually, that an M with a built-in meter is actually a rather nice and useable camera.
Philipp
ClaremontPhoto
12-01-2008, 01:40
I think those photographers in the thirties and so on were using the best equipment of the day. And maybe we should do the same.
This brings to mind the young guy I once saw making a photo of a pretty nondescript scene near me. He had a wooden large format camera, on a wooden tripod, and he was dressed in clothes in the fashion of about 100 years ago. Pretentious stuff.
Ultimately, it's about what you'll enjoy.
If all we wanted was perfect photos, I'd probably use my hexar AF for everything, but on most days I take out my M3 because I prefer using it, perhaps because it's more challenging.
Take the screwmounts to Paris, it sounds like a great idea, although I would suggest you take three lenses maximum, otherwise you lose the benefit of their portability, and will be so busy thinking about what lens to use you'll miss the shot.
ClaremontPhoto
12-01-2008, 02:04
Perhaps Paul T. is right.
Perhaps I was being cranky.
Why not take the Barnack Leica to Paris, and the MP also. But only one lens for each camera.
One day walk the streets with the old camera, and the following day walk the same neighborhood with the new camera? See how the technology affects the photos you make?
But perhaps don't just look for Henri Cartier-Bresson type scenes of old Paris, go to the modern architecture, the TGV rail station, Disneyland...
Rob, do it.
On the practical side, lens choice is important. Personally, I would take four - the "holy trinity" of 35, 50 and 90 Elmars, with a CV 15mm. I have a Leica II and carry that in a pocket with the 50 attached. The 35 and 90 live in a LowePro hard shell spectacles case - you can get it, or something similar, from outdoors shops. They fit perfectly in the case, together with a Helios finder in it's own leather case and a cleaning cloth. That fits in another pocket. The 15mm with viewfinder goes in a third, in a leather pouch. A few rolls of film and you are all set.
A couple of other practical comments. I did just this when I went to Prague once - but I had been there twice before, know my way around, and know that I can go back again. If your trip to Paris is an unrepeatable one-off you may want to consider how you will feel if your self-imposed limitations cause you problems. Secondly, as a backup I carry a LX-2 - any capable zoom compact will do.
Don't let the risk-averse nay-sayers put you off - go and have some fun.
Regards,
Bill
Roger Hicks
12-01-2008, 02:37
But if you're REALLY going for the 'vintage experience' of 60 years ago you'd probably have had only one body (not two) and two or at most three lenses: people carried much smaller outfits in those days, not least because there was less money around.
My own feeling is that if you're going for pictures, rather than the experience of using an old camera, you'd do better with your M-series.
This is also based on personal experience. About 36-37 years ago I did take quite a lot of pictures on my first trip to Paris with my IIIa -- which was, of course, 36-37 years newer than it is today. They weren't very good, because I wasn't very good. I certainly wouldn't want to handicap myself today with the IIIa instead of the MP or M8.2.
Cheers,
R.
Dralowid
12-01-2008, 02:43
[quote=BillP;942950]Rob, do it.
'Secondly, as a backup I carry a LX-2 - any capable zoom compact will do.'
My diginasty P&S has become an integral part of what I take with me when I travel.
There is something refreshingly simple about carrying a camera that is virtually valueless ( and has no emotional value) and can be replaced almost anywhere.
How long will it be before the Leicas (either M or ltm) stay at home?
Michael
Austerby
12-01-2008, 03:44
I think it would be great fun to have a Barnack with you in Paris, but as a fun item to enjoy using and not be dependent on it for all photographs. It does depend, as other correspondents have noted, on the rarity of this visit - if it is a once in a lifetime trip then I wouldn't restrict myself to a Barnack. If you're a regular visitor then it would be a good way of seeing the city with fresh eyes.
I'm fortunate in making a regular trip to Hydra in Greece each May and as I have a large stack of photos from earlier visits am now taking some of my more specialised cameras with me - on the first couple of visits it was a D70, then I got my M3 so took only that the next year, last year was the Holga and the Hasselblad and I may well just take my IIIa on the 2009 trip. The different cameras help with different perspectives and images.
Enjoy making your decision!
Vince Lupo
12-01-2008, 04:23
Last year my wife and I did the Netherlands, Germany and France, and I had a black Leica III, a IIIa with a MOOLY motor, and all vintage lenses (50/1.5 Xenon, 35/3.5 Elmar, 73/1.9 Hektor, 90/4 Fat Elmar, and a 21/4 Voigtlander, which was the only modern concession). No problem, and wouldn't have done it any other way. Stood in front of the Barnack Memorial in Wetzlar with my black III -- don't think a photo of me holding my Blackberry there would've had the same effect.
The other thing is that the cameras are nice 'ice breakers', particularly if you're not up on the native language of the country you're in.
What a great variety of interesting viewpoints! BTW, the four lenses I was thinking of are: 25/4 CV; 35/2.5 CV; 50 Collapsible Summicron; and 75/2.5 CV. These are spaced far enough apart that I won't have to wonder which lens to use, as Paul T. mentioned. I'll know. But yes, I probably should include an M body and some lenses for it, and maybe cut back a bit on the amount of Barnack gear. All those CV lenses are not really from the Barnack era anyhow (they are better).
Actually the thing that appeals most about the Barnack cameras is their small size and lightness, more so than their age. So maybe one Barnack and two lenses for it; and then, say, the M7 with a couple or three more lenses?
BTW, I will have my D-Lux3 along for color work.
Great responses. Keep the thoughts coming!
mcgrattan
12-01-2008, 07:51
I've gone on holiday a few times with minimal gear -- just a K-mount SLR and a single 50mm lens, for example, or my dSLR and a single zoom -- so I'd quite happily go with just my IIIc and a couple of lenses for outdoor stuff. I'm not even sure if I'd bother with more than 2 lenses.
But, as I am terrible at guessing exposure indoors and lightmeters that can meter well in low light are as big as the IIIc [my Gossen meter is bigger than the IIIc, I think!], I'd definitely take a modern autofocus compact or digital compact for nights out, restaurants, pubs, etc.
A IIIc, 2 lenses AND an autofocus compact would fit in one tiny case. Ive done the same with a Fuji GS645S and an Olympus Mju II [stylus epic]. Slow film in the Fuji, fast film in the Olympus.
It bothered me when I was at an event with an old camera and lens and I took a photo of someone in a suit. When it was developed, it looked like the photo could have been taken 50 years ago. I think the same thing would happen with the old city. When make pictures that look old?
I'd do the old city in colour with new lenses and new contemporary themes with the old school items. It gives a sense of irony to the images and a unique look to modern events. I like Leicas for the way of working, but not the old optical signature.
My thoughts, have a wonderful trip whatever you take...
Well, whatever the camera you use, Paris of today is not the one of sixty years ago ;) ... but this apart, why use modern CV lenses then ?
the four lenses I was thinking of are: 25/4 CV; 35/2.5 CV; 50 Collapsible Summicron; and 75/2.5 CV. [...] So maybe one Barnack and two lenses for it; and then, say, the M7 with a couple or three more lenses?
Hm, why more lenses? They're interchangeable, just use the screwmount lenses on the Barnack.
Four lenses is still too much. Between 25 and 50 you don't really need a 35, and whether you need a portrait lens beyond the 50 is very much a matter of taste. Myself, I'd take the 25 and the 50, two bodies. Put the 25 on the Barnack, it's not rangefinder coupled but with an external finder it won't matter. With B&W film you can guess exposure. Put the 50 on the M7 for portraits and everything that is not wideangle.
But then again...
BTW, I will have my D-Lux3 along for color work.
you'll have three cameras with you? Seems like a lot to me. The D-Lux is a compact camera with a decent wideangle.
I'd try and get a clear idea first what camera you want for what purpose. When I was in Uzbekistan for most of this year, I had three cameras with me: a Panasonic FX07 for photographing documents and for party-style snapshot, a Leica M5 for photography in the city with a 21 lens on it (I had a 40 as well that saw hardly any use), and a Canon T90 for portraits, landscapes and flash (I had a 90 and a 50, later I found a nice 85/f1.5 on a flea market). Each camera had a specific profile, so that in the morning it was very easy which camera to pick.
So what is the Barnack for? Will you really do fast capture-the-moment street photography in a way that the small, compact, wideangle D-Lux won't do the job, so that you *need* the Barnack? Or are you taking the Barnack to do some B&W old-style film photography next to the D-Lux, in which case you don't need the M7? I have the feeling that one of your cameras is redundant here.
Philipp
Windscale
12-01-2008, 08:36
Rob-F,
The fact that you will be taking so many CV lenses would defeat the original object of yiour exercise. It is also only your point of view that these lenses are better than the Barnack ones. Yes they are more contrasty and sharper. But looking at pictures taken by them you will get the initial WOW feel. But your eyes will get tired very soon. Also, the older Barnack lenses will be softer but with that creamy feel and definitely more shadow details. And you will not feel tired looking at their pics for a long time. This is why I enjoy these lenses much more. It all depends on your personal inclinations. BTW, do you use any Leica Screw Mount lenses regularly? I noticed that you also have an XPAN. If I were you I won't leave for Paris without it!
My 2 bits: an M and 2 lenses for morning and evening, IIIc with Summar for midday.
If you need wider or get tired of the IIIc, you can use your M, or maybe a cheap and small digicam.
Rob,
I did something similar on separate trips to Venice and Amsterdam and I'm glad I did. In my case it was an M4 rather than a III, but I'd do the same with a III. My lens choice was also similar - 24, 35, 50 and 90 (you can see some of the results in my gallery). I only used B&W film, and I left 3 lenses in my hotel each day when I went out. For tourist shots for the family album I took a Leica compact digital and hardly used it (I think my wife used it a bit).
This is about more than the photos - this is about the experience. I firmly believe you don't give your photographic skills a chance to show what they can do until you force them to work within limitations. Go for it, Rob, and enjoy it. I did.
Windscale: The XPAN would be good for Paris? I had not thought of that. When I've used it in architectural environments, I've concluded it was the wrong choice, because of the limited vertical coverage. So: where in Paris would i use it? Along the Seine, perhaps? And would it serve me well in Southern France? We will be there too, in Provence. Also will visit Normany.
What do you think?
Leica0Series
12-01-2008, 10:34
A few years back I went on a 10-day trip to Italy with nothing but my 0-Series. There were a lot of shots I missed but I think I got more keepers out of those five rolls of film than I have before or since. I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.
It was nice just having one little camera and one lens (it's permanently attached, so no choice involved there). It also helps that the lens on that camera is a very good one.
Last year I went on a 10 day trip to Italy with just my IIIg. For lenses, I took a Canon 35 2.8, a collapsible Summicron 50 2.0 and an Elmar 90 4.0. I did just fine. I probably could have gotten by with just the Canon 35.
Windscale
12-01-2008, 12:44
Windscale: The XPAN would be good for Paris? I had not thought of that. When I've used it in architectural environments, I've concluded it was the wrong choice, because of the limited vertical coverage. So: where in Paris would i use it? Along the Seine, perhaps? And would it serve me well in Southern France? We will be there too, in Provence. Also will visit Normany.
What do you think?
There are many architectural structures which can benefit from the scale of a panorama type picture. Examples are the Notra Dame along the Seine, the Versailles, etc. not to mention all the chateau this and chateau that. I don't have an XPAN but if I had one I don't think I will think vertical too much. It is designed mainly for horizontal shooting. And I always think that the bigger the negative the better. I normally carry a 6x6 with a 47mm wide angle lens and another one with standard lens (75 - 85mm) or a Rolleiflex TLR on my travels and 135 are merely for p&s only. For well over 10 years, this 2 x 120 cameras setup has served me well in all my travels.
pschauss
12-01-2008, 13:45
For me the advantage of a Barnack body is that I can put a collapsible lens on it and carry it in my pocket so I don't look (so much) like a tourist. On my trip to Paris last summer I took a IIIa and a IIIf, one loaded with Plus-X, the other with Tri-X. Each morning I would decide which film I was going to shoot and that determined which camera I took with me that day. I think that there is a certain discipline that I impose by forcing myselft to work with just one lens, to live with or work around its limitations.
Another major consideration is that I don't want my wife to loose patience with the process because I am constantly fumbling around with lenses and cameras.
I've been to the Czech Republic and Prague in October and took a Leica M3 with 90mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, 17-35mm Nikon zoom on an adapter with me.
The auto focus, metered back up camera was a Hexar AF.
I can recommend it. No wavering when leaving the house, just pack all of this in a bag and go. My wife carried (and used) the Hexar.
A metered camera can come in handy, I use a small Gossen Sixtinette CDS meter that has trouble reading low light. An inconspicuous reading with the Hexar saved many a shot there. I guess digital will do the trick as well is a meter readout is provided.
infrequent
12-01-2008, 14:20
it must be nice to have so many choices...for me the gear picks itself because there is so little of it! ; )
good luck with your trip!
I took one of each. A IIf and a Hexar RF in my case. I just made sure that the lenses were all screw mount so they could be used on either. It is the lens that is going to give you vintage results, the body will give you the old-time experience.
I was all over France in September with my M3, collapsible 'cron and 20 rolls of Tri-X. Great fun and no decisions to make. I recommend one lens, or two max. Were I diong it again, I'd go 35mm.
Have fun!
Vic
@ Windscale: I didn't mean that I would shoot "vertical panoramas." I almost always hold the XPAN hrizontally. What I meant was that the limited vertical height of the XPAN frame, when held horizontally, doesn't leave much room for buildings of any height! Also, what you said about photos with the older lenses being easier to look at, less fatiguing to the eye, is a new concept for me. I never thought of the modern, sharp lenses as fatiguing to the eye; but I can see your point.
@ LeicaOSeries: You make a really good point, about taking the pressure off because it's all been photographed before anyhow. I did think about this: just shoot a personal record of impressions, and not try to document all of France in 3 weeks. After all, I've been photographing Colorado for many years, and still not done!
@ Peter Schauss: Yes my wife does get impatient with my photography. I definitely need to simplify for France, to improve the Wife Acceptance Factor (WAF)!
gutguido
12-03-2008, 00:21
I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.
That really is a very admirable and refreshing attitude. Much easier said than done, so well done to you.
I have personally gone through so many trips where I might not have missed the shot, but I missed the actual experience as I was being there. Yet I keep doing it from time to time.
Carlsen Highway
12-03-2008, 02:44
Without rules there is no game; "Barnack Leica in Paris" is a game I would appreciate.
ClaremontPhoto
12-03-2008, 02:55
I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.
I agree completely.
Why go to Paris and come back with photos of the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and a boat on the river?
It's been done already.
What you'll remember from your holiday will be the kiosks selling cigarettes, the women with miniature dogs, and the chic fashion ads on the metro. So bring back photos of that stuff.
On my last trip to Europe, I took one camera and one lens: Konica Hexar RF and a clean Summar 50/f2. On a tight schedule, I prefer auto-exposure, and the Hexar does this extremely well. And one lens was fine. Fewer decisions means you can work faster.
Looking at the images later, there are a few that I wish had been shot with a modern lens, but there are many more that I really enjoy because they were done with a 70-year-old lens. These are my favorites, and they wouldn't have happened if I'd given myself "better" lenses to choose from.
http://retnull.com/_img/94120010.jpg
Paris in the Summar-time
FifthLeaf
12-03-2008, 04:02
If you have a digital zoom as a second camera, just bring one lens. I've used a Leica iiig but I prefer the M because it's easier to load film, has a lever film advance, and has a much better viewfinder. You're photographing for fun so you should pick the camera that you have the most fun shooting with.
photovdz
12-03-2008, 08:04
do not forget that in Paris some youngsters are not very much found of being photographied... it's not religious but only social... don't insist if you see that it's not fit to take picture of people. Anyway with a leica III they won't look at you as if you where a "japanese tourist"...
Some say that nowadays HCB, Doisneau and Ronis would have a more dangerous life photographying people in the street in Paris, feelings have changed... still with a smile you can do a lot. (I would advice not to forget to have a compact digital camera with you so people can see the results immediatly... most people do forget there was an age before digital camera...)
Stephan... from Brussels (where the same rules applies...)
Thanks for all the replies so far! At this point I'm leaning toward one Barnack with 2 lenses, and an M body (maybe the M7 for auto-exposure) with several lenses for most of the shots. I would not carry them both at once--too much stuff! I'll keep the amount I carry down to what fits in a Domke F-5XB. For the M lenses, I'm thinking maybe 28mm Summicron and 40mm Rokkor. And maybe one more. For screw lenses, 35mm CV, and 25mm CV. They are easy to shoot with. Do I really need a 75 or a 90 along? We will be in Provence, Paris, and Normandy. Probably two days in Helsinki at the end.
Added: Yes I will have my D-Lux3 in my pocket! And yes to the idea of "taking the pressure off!"
Windscale
12-03-2008, 08:44
One additional idea I would offer is that if you were to take 2 bodies with a few lenses, it may be a good idea to bring something that are fully interchangeable. In case 1 body or one lens goes wrong you still have a good combination system. I have been lucky that throughout my years of travelling nothing has ever gone wrong. But it has happened to many friends of mine. So, do allow for gear failure whatever you take.
Yes I am aware of the need for a backup. Perhaps I will slip an extra IIIc and an spare M6 or M2 into my luggage.
I for one think it's a great idea.
Fun idea. Go for it!
Have a safe journey.
For heaven's sake, don't stick any camera in your checked luggage. Between having the bags thrown and the theft factor (personal experience) you are taking too much of a chance.
We are heading for New Zealand shortly. I have been having a similar debate. My normal "rule" is digital when flying and film when not. But I am thinking about my DLSR with a zoom and a Bessa R with probably a 35 and a 50, maybe an 85 (I don't have a 90). I have Barnacks, a IIIC and a IIIF, but the Bessa R uses the same lscrewmount enses with 35, 50, 75 and 90 frames in the viewfinder and built in metering. If I take the Barnacks, I would need an auxiliary viewfinder and want a meter. With the Bessa, the package is only slightly larger than the Barnack and its all in one piece.
Have a good trip.
Dave
Leigh Youdale
12-08-2008, 02:31
A couple of observations from travel to NZ and UK as well as within Australia over the last three years.
My preferred kit (mainly because it's already in my cupboard) is to take my Bessa 3A with its' M-mount Nokton f1.4/40, and the LTM CV lenses (with M adaptors) for 15mm, 25mm and 75mm. Usually with HP5+ or APX400. I guess that's pretty much the same as taking an M-series Leica.
In addition I take one of my IIIf's with the very compact collapsible f3.5/50 Elmar (leaving the f2/50 Summitar at home). My VCII meter is fitted in the shoe. I usually have colour film in this because if the light is too poor for the f3.5 then it's probably too poor for a decent colour shot anyway.
All three LTM CV lenses fit the IIIf and except for the 75mm I can use the CV viewfinders. Small problem is that the VCII is designed to go in the shoe as well, but it can be handheld just as well - it's not that precise!
Finally, the very small Canon Ixus 65 digital compact for 'grab' situations, poor light, flash or when my wife wants to photograph something.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.