View Full Version : Ken Rockwell's take on why Cartier-Bresson only shot with a 50
navilluspm
12-10-2008, 05:55
The below quote is from his article found here: http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm) and I think that he is probably right on the money. :D
" Then the light turned on. After many decades of thinking Cartier-Bresson shot with just one lens because it let him shoot faster and smoother, I realized that Cartier-Bresson was, duh, a journalist. Journalists don't get paid anything. They aren't the rich hobbyists who buy Leicas, romanticize about the fascination and unique "Leica look," which is how the cameras look sitting in their glass display cases and Danish Royal Wedding presentation boxes.
Cartier-Bresson obviously went to a Parisian camera store, and bought his Leica and lens after much saving and scrimping.
He liked it, and when he went back to get another lens, found out the price, shouted "Merde!" and promptly waked out. Cartier-Bresson never again dared to return to a camera store.
That's why he only shot with one lens his whole career: it's all he could afford!"
EDIT: the smiley face means that I do not believe what KR is saying here, but understand that he writes in jest. The whole article is a sarcastic editorial on the price of the Nikon Dx3 and should be read as such.
Fred Burton
12-10-2008, 05:57
HCB shot and is pictured shooting with a number of different focal lengths. Rockwell is wrong.
Michiel Fokkema
12-10-2008, 06:00
Rockwell is way out of line her.
HCB was quit wealthy. He never didn't really have to work or make money with his pictures.
Rockwell clearly did not even check it. If you google for 1 second you'll find it.
I was about to mail him about this but he proudly says on his website that he doesn't answer mail. This article really annoyed me. Normally I like what he is doing but this really made me mad.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
This is just another swipe at Leica users.
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-10-2008, 06:07
Michiel is right. Bresson was born into wealth and could buy anything he wanted, and he did shoot with several lenses. Most of his work was done with a 50, but I think that is simply because in the early 20th century most photographs were made with standard lenses. Wide angles were not as common as today, and anything wider than 35mm was considered exotic until the 1960's. Short teles like 90 or 135 were much more popular but a 50 is usually more versatile.
nightfly
12-10-2008, 06:07
Bresson was widely know to be the son of a wealthy family.
Ken Rockwell is widely know to be an idiot.
If Rockwell was a normal forum skulker/user and didn't have his own site he would have been banned for flaming years ago. He's outrageous! :p
If Rockwell was a normal forum skulker/user and didn't have his own site he would have been banned for flaming years ago. He's outrageous! :p
That’s so true, but he’s bloody good at it isn’t he
;)
blackwave
12-10-2008, 06:25
Guys, read the article and chill.. it's tongue-in-cheek, as are a lot of his writings. He goes on to make the point that Leica is a relative bargain compared to the highest end digital equipment.
Relax! :bang: :rolleyes:
But wait - the initial asking price of 2008's Nikon D3X was so absurd that even Hitler came back through history out of astonishment.
Think about it: you could flush $8,000 down the toilet into a Nikon D3X. A D3X can't even take pictures until you've bought a lens and memory card, and charged the batteries.
For just $8,080, you could buy a brand-new Leica M7, and 28mm, 50mm f/2 and 90mm lenses. You'd have a complete Leica setup for the same price as a stripped Nikon body. You could pay $200 less and opt for the 50mm f/2.8 instead, or save $1,000 and not even bother with a 50mm lens. You also could pay a lot less finding these items used.
You could shoot with the Leica system for years.
In three years, the Nikon D4 should be announced. By then, the D3X body will have a resale value of about $775. Your Leica system? Well, it will still be cranking out great photos, and from what dangerous little I know of Leica prices, with inflation, the same system will probably be worth about $10,000 with inflation, not $775 like the D3X with digital rot.
Leica may be expensive, but it's a bargain compared to digital.
navilluspm
12-10-2008, 06:28
BTW - I linked the whole article to read. It is obvious that he doesn't know much about HCB. The article is obviously meant in jest. I also knew that HCB was from a wealthy family, but I just thought it was a funny thought of him going into a store - especially given today's Leica prices and increases.
At the end of the article, he still says that you can get a Leica M7 and three lenses for the same price as a D3x, and that it would be a better investment over all - so he makes fun of Nikon too.
Changing lenses takes time - not the best way to capture the "decisive moment".
yours
FPJ
ruby.monkey
12-10-2008, 06:41
The knees are jerking nicely, I see.
Justin Smith
12-10-2008, 06:46
I'm thinking that HCB's less intrusive shooting style lent itself more to using a 50mm, rather than a shorter focal. For me, a 50mm just seems natural for the way I see.
Pherdinand
12-10-2008, 06:48
LOL, how could ANYONE take a KR article seriously (and e.g. get mad)?
Obviously he's poking fun of another overdiscussed urban legend (and tof the ones that spread it).
With a bit of googling (on the same site), you can also find him himself saying that he's not exactly serious in his articles.
They aren't the rich hobbyists who buy Leicas, romanticize about the fascination and unique "Leica look,"...
Sounds like Mr. Rockwell hit a nerve. :p
The knees are jerking nicely, I see.
A fair minded observation has been made that article points to a Leica kit as good value. Not entirely kneejerk...
Mr Rockwell has apparently replaced Mr Puts as chief provocateur.:)
yours
FPJ
Robin Harrison
12-10-2008, 07:13
Glad I'm not the only one to find that KR article annoying! It didn't come across as an attempt at humor. The irony was he was making a point about journalists, and his journalism was non-existent. The man has put together a pretty good gear site. Let's face it, there's plenty to oggle at there, but his ego has become bigger than the site. This is a man who pleads for donations on every page to help his family, and then openly gloats that people have sent him cameras (and then broadcasts the fact he needs help with them - hey, spend five minutes doing your own research).
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 07:14
Oddly, he actually praises Leica in this "article." Such is the nature of digital though; just as the D3x will devaluate, so will the M8. Good lenses usually maintain their value regardless (e.g. Canon L, Leica M) since they can be used on film and new digital bodies.
What scares me is when he says, "Someone sent me a Leica M4-P so I could review Leica M lenses. It came with a 50mm lens." Great, so we'll be hearing more from Rockwell on the matter... ;)
I think, K.R. is a master to set up coffee sitting for himself, while reading rant on his recent Leica write-up :)
Al Kaplan
12-10-2008, 07:18
A lot of people who are lucky enough to live off of their trust fund don't feel the need to impress the neighbors. That's one reason why their families were able to afford to set up trust funds. I grew up in Massachsettes in a neighborhood of modest two story three bedroom houses. I played and went to school with kids whose families owned the coal company, the newspaper, a well known builder of quality wooden sailboats, a wholesale liquor distributor, and most of them kept the family's only automobile for five years or more before trading it in. HCB and his one Leica would have fit right in.
While HCB was born in one of the wealthiest family in France, he decided very early not to join the business and made a point of honor of generating his own revenues through his own work. He was also very close to the left movements, even working at times for the communist party. So the glamorous image of a millionaire spending his fortune around the world is simply not correct.
Later on, he was indeed successful making a living out of photography and would have been much richer if not for R. Capa almost bringing Magnum to bankruptcy several times with his extravagant way of live on expense of the company ;)
This information comes from a HCB biography which I recommend, an amazing book.
A fair minded observation has been made that article points to a Leica kit as good value. Not entirely kneejerk...
Mr Rockwell has apparently replaced Mr Puts as chief provocateur.:)
yours
FPJ
He would need the Vatican’s approval to replace Mr Puts
:enigmatic:
Argenticien
12-10-2008, 07:36
This information comes from a HCB biography which I recommend, an amazing book.
Which biography is that? And is it written in English or in French? I could read it in a few days if the former, or a few months if the latter! (Je lis comme enfant de cinq ans!)
--Dave
(Je lis comme enfant de cinq ans!)
An American who reads French! Good Lord, we must report this to Homeland Security ASAP! :D
xayraa33
12-10-2008, 07:50
What if HCB's first Leica camera was a Leica I (A) with the fixed 50mm lens?
Which biography is that? And is it written in English or in French? I could read it in a few days if the former, or a few months if the latter! (Je lis comme enfant de cinq ans!)
--Dave
The one I read (in French) is the following :http://www.amazon.fr/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-LOeil-du-si%C3%A8cle/dp/2070414108/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228924187&sr=1-3 (http://www.amazon.fr/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-LOeil-du-si%C3%A8cle/dp/2070414108/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228924187&sr=1-3It)It seems to exist in English version :http://www.amazon.fr/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-Biography-Pierre-Assouline/dp/050051223X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228924187&sr=1-12 (http://www.amazon.fr/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-Biography-Pierre-Assouline/dp/050051223X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228924187&sr=1-12Go) Go for the French ... so you learn two things at the same time ... while in homeland security jails ;)
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 07:53
An American who reads French! :D
I have heard of this... "French." Isn't it a salad dressing? :D
Argenticien
12-10-2008, 08:06
An American who reads French! Good Lord, we must report this to Homeland Security ASAP! :D
LOL! Too late. DHS are already on to me. There is a process running on my computer, called DHSspy.exe, which I cannot terminate or uninstall, and when I read Forum photo argentique (http://35mm-compact.com/forum/index.php), I notice that this process starts generating network traffic, presumably reporting my treason back to Headquarters.
Thanks, Yanidel, for the links to the books. I shall have to attempt one or the other if I can find them aux États-Unis.
Philip Whiteman
12-10-2008, 08:11
Q: Why do so many Leica users lack a sense of humour?
A: Because it's never been listed in any Leitz or Leica catalogue
Hmm – some of you have spoiled this joke already
funkaoshi
12-10-2008, 08:25
Bresson was widely know to be the son of a wealthy family.
Ken Rockwell is widely know to be an idiot.
Quoted for emphasis.
" Then the light turned on. After many decades of thinking Cartier-Bresson shot with just one lens because it let him shoot faster and smoother, I realized that Cartier-Bresson was, duh, a journalist. Journalists don't get paid anything. They aren't the rich hobbyists who buy Leicas, romanticize about the fascination and unique "Leica look," which is how the cameras look sitting in their glass display cases and Danish Royal Wedding presentation boxes.
Cartier-Bresson obviously went to a Parisian camera store, and bought his Leica and lens after much saving and scrimping.
He liked it, and when he went back to get another lens, found out the price, shouted "Merde!" and promptly waked out. Cartier-Bresson never again dared to return to a camera store.
That's why he only shot with one lens his whole career: it's all he could afford!"
heh.... I didn't realize that Ken Rockwell hung out with Cartier Bresson OR had a time machine to travel back in time.
I'm now going to refer to him as Ken (What A C)Rockwell :D
Cheers,
Dave
This popped up on my reader, and I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a thread about it here.
I love Ken Rockwell. Why?
Because he has an uncanny ability to bring out the most juvenile responses in so many people. He creeps and crawls under skins, pricking as he goes, all the while laughing to himself, and at everybody else, whose skin he just pricked. I did not read past the first post, it was good enough for me, and I've seen enough Rockwell threads. The closest thing I can compare it too is a 14 year old girl leaving a message on her friends myspace wall, typed something like this :
OMGGGGGG LOLZ LOLZ RCKWLL IS SOOOOOOO WRNG!!!!! OMG HE KNWS NUFIN BOUT LIECA! LOLZ LOLZ HE SHUD JUST STFU OMG OMG HE DUSNT EVN TAKE GUD PICS!!!
Most of you need to learn how to take a joke.
John Rountree
12-10-2008, 09:14
I know the article is in jest, but to the question of HCB and his camera shopping habits; don't you think that if HCB let the word out that say, he wanted a 28mm lens, that Leica would have just given him one, or two?
I have heard of this... "French." Isn't it a salad dressing?
Yes, it's like pouring treason right on your vegetables! :D
Yes, it's like pouring treason right on your vegetables! :D
It would certainly spoil ones Freedom Fries
:D
It's like The Onion newspaper. Man I hate that thing and consider it a waste of newsprint. Lots of people love it though. Opinions vary.
Nachkebia
12-10-2008, 09:30
Bresson was widely know to be the son of a wealthy family.
Ken Rockwell is widely know to be an idiot.
Haha, exactly my thoughts.....
funkaoshi
12-10-2008, 09:31
Most of you need to learn how to take a joke.
Except he wasn't making a joke, he was being sincere. He is in fact totally wrong about pretty much everything in that post. (Which is par for the course for him.)
It would certainly spoil ones Freedom Fries
Bien sur!
No WAIT, please don't shoot!
I meant to say you betcha! ;)
MCTuomey
12-10-2008, 10:07
An author's tone is often quite difficult to discern in print. So, there's room for interpretation.
KR is "dangerous" - because he writes first to amuse himself, imho. He seems to prefer to bend an untruth toward provocation than to state a dull truth. Toward the end of his article, you'll see that he steers back to straight-forward exposition, more or less. At least most of the time. And readers will hate it or appreciate it, to taste.
Me, I find him amusing.
35mmdelux
12-10-2008, 10:08
we are not rich Leica hobbiest. we are not. we are not.
blackwave
12-10-2008, 10:09
Yes, it's like pouring treason right on your vegetables! :D
THAT is funny :D
Most of you need to learn how to take a joke.
Except he wasn't making a joke, he was being sincere. He is in fact totally wrong about pretty much everything in that post. (Which is par for the course for him.)
And that.. wow, just wow. :bang:
Bresson was widely know to be the son of a wealthy family.
Ken Rockwell is widely know to be an idiot.
Love this quote, so true. My favorite Rockwell reviews/opinions are those where he has never seen or touched the item in question.
Hmmm.... maybe that's a new business opportunity in these tough times. I think I'll review a Bugatti Veyron this afternoon!
:) Kent
Al Patterson
12-10-2008, 10:56
That’s so true, but he’s bloody good at it isn’t he
;)
Yes he is, as here we are discussing him again.
Taken literally, it's obviously wrong in many ways (although obviously it wasn't meant to be taken this way).
Taken as a "joke" it's not funny.
Taken as a critique of Nikon's D3x pricing or Leica "value" it still doesn't make sense. So what if you can buy an M7 and 3 lenses for the price of a D3x? Nobody is forcing every Nikon user to buy one. The D700 is still a great deal for what it is and doesn't cost much more than an M7. His comparison is like saying you could buy 3 excellent motorcycles for the price of one sports car. Comparing things that are only tangentially related is pretty useless.
Carlsen Highway
12-10-2008, 11:26
Somewhere, someone on the internet is wrong.
Most of times it turns out to be wise to read the original article in full and also follow the links that are provided as free information.
All the rants about that K.R. is totally wrong about HBC because everyone knows that HBC was born in a rich family would be so superfluouss like hot air.
Ken provided a link to the wikipedia article about HBC - I just assume that he might have read it before posting the link - but I might be mistaken :rolleyes:.
I know the article is in jest, but to the question of HCB and his camera shopping habits; don't you think that if HCB let the word out that say, he wanted a 28mm lens, that Leica would have just given him one, or two?
No, of course not. Because at that time, when he desperately needed Leica glass, nobody, not even the HCB himself knew that he will become the great HCB many years later...
digitalintrigue
12-10-2008, 11:52
he got a hare up his butt
This is a family site, we shan't be speaking of furry animals residing in out-of-the-way places. :)
dave lackey
12-10-2008, 11:52
People, get a life...KR is just teasing with you:D
Sarcasm is funny to him. Why is it you cannot read through this?
BTW, he got me recently on something I caught him on...turned out he wrote something just to catch someone like me and had a great laugh about it.
He is just that way.:rolleyes:
digitalintrigue
12-10-2008, 11:54
Hey, he just found out about Sherry.
Good news: I've learned that it's trivial to get any Leica, even back to the 1920s, repaired. (http://www.sherrykrauter.com/)
outfitter
12-10-2008, 12:19
Michiel is right. Bresson was born into wealth and could buy anything he wanted, and he did shoot with several lenses. Most of his work was done with a 50, but I think that is simply because in the early 20th century most photographs were made with standard lenses. Wide angles were not as common as today, and anything wider than 35mm was considered exotic until the 1960's. Short teles like 90 or 135 were much more popular but a 50 is usually more versatile.
Geesh, both Leitz and Zeiss had a full array of wideangle lenses for their 35mm cameras before the war! I even amuse myself with a Soviet pre-war f4.5/28mm in LTM - quite credible results too. The 35mm Zeiss Biogon in Contax mount was used unchanged until the mid 1950s and slightly changed into the 1960s - pretty impressive results too. If I recall correctly HCB also used a 35mm lens regularly. A short tele, before the war, was considered a "mountain" lens for taking distant views and really is not ideal for candid photos with a RF.
aperture64
12-10-2008, 12:41
It is still beyond me why people read the crap that Ken writes.
There is a reason why he used a 50mm the same way that Robert Frank shot most of the photos in The Americans with a 50mm. I will not disclose whats the reason, you must find out for yourself.
There is a reason why he used a 50mm the same way that Robert Frank shot most of the photos in The Americans with a 50mm. I will not disclose whats the reason, you must find out for yourself.
Please do tell. I am intrigued now
Please do tell. I am intrigued now
I wish I could explain it but it has to do with subconscious and approaching photography from a surrealist perspective. And aligning your vision with the focal length.
Sounds interesting. I'd love to know more
BigSteveG
12-10-2008, 13:01
I tried to read through this thread and just coudn'y take it. What a waste of time. I'l go develop some film.
le vrai rdu
12-10-2008, 13:04
The below quote is from his article found here: http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm) and I think that he is probably right on the money. :D
" Then the light turned on. After many decades of thinking Cartier-Bresson shot with just one lens because it let him shoot faster and smoother, I realized that Cartier-Bresson was, duh, a journalist. Journalists don't get paid anything. They aren't the rich hobbyists who buy Leicas, romanticize about the fascination and unique "Leica look," which is how the cameras look sitting in their glass display cases and Danish Royal Wedding presentation boxes.
Cartier-Bresson obviously went to a Parisian camera store, and bought his Leica and lens after much saving and scrimping.
He liked it, and when he went back to get another lens, found out the price, shouted "Merde!" and promptly waked out. Cartier-Bresson never again dared to return to a camera store.
That's why he only shot with one lens his whole career: it's all he could afford!"
EDIT: the smiley face means that I do not believe what KR is saying here, but understand that he writes in jest. The whole article is a sarcastic editorial on the price of the Nikon Dx3 and should be read as such.
cartier bresson était pas d'une famille pauvre ceci dit , donc la théorie qu'il aurait économisé chaque rondelle est bidon :o
c'est son extraction sociale qui lui a permit de prendre le temps pour faire de la photo :o
Sounds interesting. I'd love to know more
Use a 50mm for a couple of months and don't use any other focal length. Discipline yourself harshly and be patient.
And remember, good things takes time.
le vrai rdu
12-10-2008, 13:06
et puis qu'importe, le drame de ce forum c'est qu'on n'y voit la photo que par le biais du matériel, c'est pathétique
navilluspm
12-10-2008, 13:12
I must apologize to the moderators.
I know the golden rule of RFF is: " No "Flaming" 1) You will not post any messages to the forum or send by PM (private messages) that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
But I didn't know my link to KR would do this? Maybe you could at a part "b" to the above rule reading: "This means you should not link any posts to KR's site or quote or refer to him.
:o
bmattock
12-10-2008, 13:12
I don't know what HCB's reasoning was, but a 50mm lens is called a 'normal' lens for a reason. First, it approximates the human FOV (ok, some say a 43mm is more closely aligned to human field-of-view, but I don't think he had that choice then) and second, the 50mm gives the least perspective distortion on 35mm film.
Many may argue this, and I could well be wrong, but this is the common wisdom that has been passed down, and it works for me. I find I can easily keep both eyes open when shooting 50mm or something close to it with most rangefinders and SLRs.
I have always preferred 50mm myself, although I'm also pretty happy with a fast 40. Oddly, I still prefer a fast fifty on a dSLR, with a crop factor that makes it look more like a 75mm. I am not sure why that is, but it is my preference.
EDIT: PS, by the way, I thought the article was intended to be humorous and I took it that way. I lolled.
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 13:17
Frank shot with 35, 50, 90 and 135 lenses on two M6s.
bmattock
12-10-2008, 13:22
Frank shot with 35, 50, 90 and 135 lenses on two M6s.
I always wonder why it matters. I've never asked my wife what spatula she used to make pancakes, but trust me, they are works of art. 'Spose it is because of the spatula?
'Spose it is because of the spatula?
I love pancakes, so I simply must know what brand of spatula your wife uses! :D
summaron
12-10-2008, 13:32
Cartier Bresson was not an ostentacious guy and the family was fairly modest. Cartier Bresson and his brother were actively involved in the Resistence, they were very much engaged in social matters, symphathetic to 1968, etc.
I love the 50mm as much as the other person, but it's not really a normal lens, especially when shot vertically--portrait style. The 40mm agreed is normal-ly, if there is indeed a normal...It takes 20 years to really get to know a lens, Brassai says somewhere.
bmattock
12-10-2008, 13:36
I love pancakes, so I simply must know what brand of spatula your wife uses! :D
I will ask. And you're welcome over anytime for some of her pancakes. You will leave a very happy man if you're a true pancake fan.
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 13:40
I always wonder why it matters. I've never asked my wife what spatula she used to make pancakes, but trust me, they are works of art. 'Spose it is because of the spatula?
It never really "matters" what tools are used except perhaps on a curiosity or technical level. As long as you like the end result, that's the important thing I say.
Now, about those pancakes... :D
bmattock
12-10-2008, 13:48
It never really "matters" what tools are used except perhaps on a curiosity or technical level. As long as you like the end result, that's the important thing I say.
Oh, I agree. I always wonder about the endless arguments, though. HCB used only 50mm lenses and he never cropped! Yes, he did use other lenses and he did crop! No, he didn't, and I hate you now!...etc.
Now, about those pancakes... :D
I've gone and done it now. Not only do I have others wanting some of my wife's famous pancakes, but here I am in Michigan and she's in North Carolina. I won't be home until later this month. And now I really, really, want some of her pancakes. Mmmm, pancakes....
visiondr
12-10-2008, 13:52
I will ask. And you're welcome over anytime for some of her pancakes. You will leave a very happy man if you're a true pancake fan.
The key here is: "...if you're a true pancake fan." Some people just don't know the difference between a good pancake and a poor one; sad, but true.
Well some people think non-stick spatulas are the modern way to cook pancakes; me, I go with aluminum all the way. No other material gives you the elasticity, control, and heat-dispersion characteristics of aluminum.
(OK, I'll stop now. :D )
Robert Frank shot with M6's the Americans 1953? The M6 1984?
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 13:56
Oh, I agree. I always wonder about the endless arguments, though. HCB used only 50mm lenses and he never cropped! Yes, he did use other lenses and he did crop! No, he didn't, and I hate you now!...etc.
I think that happens when you get a bunch of gearheads involved. Most people would just say, "hey, now that's a nice photo." Others will look at the bokeh and say, "WTF? That's so... Swirly!" :D
I've gone and done it now. Not only do I have others wanting some of my wife's famous pancakes, but here I am in Michigan and she's in North Carolina. I won't be home until later this month. And now I really, really, want some of her pancakes. Mmmm, pancakes....
Now you're stuck... Looks like a late-night run to IHOP is in order! Heh.
funkaoshi
12-10-2008, 13:56
Two words: time travel.
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 13:57
Robert Frank shot with M6's the Americans 1953? The M6 1984?
Well no, of course he didn't shoot The Americans with an M6. ;)
I always wonder why it matters. I've never asked my wife what spatula she used to make pancakes, but trust me, they are works of art. 'Spose it is because of the spatula?
If you think serious photography (not amateur stuff) is like making pancakes then I'm in awe of your confidence.
Photography is like climbing mt. Everest with a gas mask on. If its not that difficult for you then you're a genius photographer.
I heard a story, maybe true, maybe not, that HCB once buried one of his Leicas in the back yard to keep the nazis from finding it, but then could never relocate the spot where he'd buried it. How much of your yard would you dig up, if you knew there was a leica under it?
People get too caught up in gear. A great photographer can make a great image with a Holga, or an old polaroid camera. Some people can't take a decent snapshot with $5000 worth of gear. As an old friend of mine used to say, "It's not the wand; it's the magician."
I always wonder why it matters. I've never asked my wife what spatula she used to make pancakes, but trust me, they are works of art. 'Spose it is because of the spatula?
The spatula has very little to do with it. A well seasoned skillet or griddle ... that makes a difference. As does the liberal use of butter and, of course, skill and experience. But mostly butter. :)
Photography is like climbing mt. Everest with a gas mask on.
For some of us more like eating pancakes with a gas mask on. :p
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 14:20
I heard a story, maybe true, maybe not, that HCB once buried one of his Leicas in the back yard to keep the nazis from finding it, but then could never relocate the spot where he'd buried it. How much of your yard would you dig up, if you knew there was a leica under it?
Only what I needed to. I'd buy a metal detector, find where it is and dig it up. The proceeds from the sale would pay for the metal detector. But I digress... :D
Photography is like climbing mt. Everest with a gas mask on.
No way, that's way too easy. Photography is like hunting Moby Dick in a pool float, armed only with a swizzle stick!
You're taking the easy way if you're using a swizzle stick. ;)
Al Patterson
12-10-2008, 14:35
I heard a story, maybe true, maybe not, that HCB once buried one of his Leicas in the back yard to keep the nazis from finding it, but then could never relocate the spot where he'd buried it. How much of your yard would you dig up, if you knew there was a leica under it?
I'd get a Leica sniffing dog and have at it...
Who needs a yard anyway?
I'd get a Leica sniffing dog and have at it...
Who needs a yard anyway?
I'd suspect that one of those aristocratic pigs the French use for sniffing out truffles would have no trouble at all finding a buried Leica! :p
35mmdelux
12-10-2008, 14:42
The Nazi produced cameras, why would he bury one?
What HCB actually buried were several shoe boxes of fotos. To his "surprise" they were still there at the end of the war.
Double Negative
12-10-2008, 14:45
"As war engulfed Europe, Cartier-Bresson enlisted. He buried his Leica in the Vosges mountains, in Eastern France, where he was taken prisoner in 1940 and held for three years until he eventually escaped. While photographing the liberation of Paris in 1944, with his unearthed Leica, he heard that New York's Museum of Modern Art was planning a posthumous exhibition of his work."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/henri-cartierbresson-from-amateur-snapper-to-photographic-icon-790386.html
In fact, here's a picture of it:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4418383
What kind of pancakes did the man like? Good God, can't you people focus!? :bang::D:D:D
bmattock
12-10-2008, 15:03
Robert Frank shot with M6's the Americans 1953? The M6 1984?
Yes, he did. Robert Frank could just WANT an M6 to exist and it would. He's like the photographic Chuck Norris. He could make decisive moments happen just by aiming his camera somewhere.
nightfly
12-10-2008, 15:28
So to sum up:
Bresson used a pancake lens and Ken Rockwell is still an idiot.
Photography is like climbing mt. Everest with a gas mask on.
I'm struggling to find the meaning in your statement Nh3 ... photography is more complex than a lot of people realise no doubt but surely the difficulty is relevant to the the level you feel you need to atain to actually regard yourself as a photographer.
There's a lot of highly talented mountaineers who have never reached the summit of Everest and never will ... it doesn't mean they haven't succeeded as climbers.
Why do you make this statement ... be more specific please. :)
xayraa33
12-10-2008, 16:05
a Leica M6 is not that much far off from a 1955 Leica M3
DanOnRoute66
12-10-2008, 16:14
After months of reading references here and there to Ken Rockwell, I finally broke down to visit his Web site to see what all the excitement is about. I saw some excellent photos there but most were just OK. I still don't get it. Why do so many people get so worked up over what he has to say?
Yes, he did. Robert Frank could just WANT an M6 to exist and it would. He's like the photographic Chuck Norris. He could make decisive moments happen just by aiming his camera somewhere.
I believe so too. :angel:
35mmdelux
12-10-2008, 16:20
I make occasional $ contributions to KR because he has some excellent gear reviews and this has saved me money (Ok, maybe not Leica).
I dont get worked up over what he says.
Harry Lime
12-10-2008, 16:36
Eh, no. There's so much misinformation in that piece that I'm not even sure where to start.
Bresson came from a very wealthy family and didn't exactly have to scrape money together to buy his first Leica. They were the largest manufacturer of sewing thread in France and among the biggest in Europe. They were borderline aristocrats. Early in his life Henri wanted to be a painter and fell in with the surrealists. He described himself as an anarchist until his dying day, but he was always torn between those two worlds.
Bresson started with a 50, because around 1930 that was pretty much all you got. The original Leica only came with a fixed 50 and it wasn't until around 1930 that the Leica Standard arrived. With this camera you could freely exchange lenses, as the flange focal distance was standardized for all bodies.
Before zooms it was not uncommon that professionals standardized on a single focal length for their work. People like Antonin Kratochvil and Winogrand picked the 28. Capa mostly shot with a 50.
A 50 in capable hands can do almost anything, unless you are shooting something specialized like wildlife etc. Bresson settled on a 50 and VIDOM finder for the majority of his work.
He started out with a 3.5/50 Elmar and it seems also used a 2/50 Summar. At some point during the 1940's he got hold of a Sonnar 1.5/50 in Leica LTM mount, that he used until around 1954, when he switched to the Summicron 2/50 collapsible. He continued to use the Summicron collapsible and rigid Summicron 2/50 for the next several decades. There also are some pictures of him with a black 2/50 Summicron that appears to be a type 3. But he stuck with the old glass, because he preferred their lower contrast.
Back in the early days (until about 1960) with few exceptions notably from Zeiss, the performance of anything wider than a 50 was not exactly stellar. Anything wider or significantly longer than a 50 was also several stops slower and with film speeds ranging from 6 asa - 100asa, this was a serious consideration. We didn't get Tri-X until 1954 and then it was rated at a breathtaking 200 asa.
There are photos of Bresson shooting with a 35 and he was also known to shoot with a 90 (mostly landscapes). Shortly after the war he shot large portions of a project on the USA with a 35, but his mainstay was the 50. He and probably 90% of 135 format shooters, until the 1960's, when good 35's became widely available.
The Contax was not as popular as the Leica for several reasons. Back in those days Zeiss had the better lenses, but the Contax I was a disaster, with a shutter that was totally unreliable and it's reputation lingered. Even someone like Henry Scherer (www.zeisscamera.com) can't get these cameras to run reliably. The Contax series was also very expensive. By the time Zeiss released the Contax II (which is a good camera), Leica had established itself as the brand of choice and the system and it's clones were enjoying world wide popularity. The outbreak of WWII probably also didn't help the Contax II, as few examples were exported. Leica's and LTM lenses were readily available outside of Germany. After the outbreak of hostilities there were active programs among the Allies to clone Leica LTM bodies to meet domestic demand.
Sometime around 1936-38 Robert Capa switched from Leica to a Contax II, but he was in the minority. He favored the stellar Sonnar 1.5/50 and combined rangefinder viewfinder. Apparently Eugene Smith also used a Contax II for a period in the Pacific, but Smith would shoot with anything that made a picture.
Bresson was and wasn't a journalist. Even before the outbreak of WWII Bresson was a photographic artist with an international reputation. Unlike Capa and the rest, HCB did not have to make a living as a journalist and was free to travel and shoot whatever he wanted.
HCB was a POW for several years during WWII. He made several escape attempts and eventually succeeded. He dug up his Leica and negatives and hid out in Paris, until the Allies liberated the city in 1944. During this period HCB was actually thought to be dead and shortly after the war he traveled to New York to visit a posthumous exhibit of his work.
After WWII Capa, HCB, George Roger and Seymour Chim founded MAGNUM. Bresson shot assignments for all the major publications, but if you look at his catalog his work, it is very different from the hard news that Capa etc were doing. Again, money and temperament had a lot to do with it.
This article really annoyed me. Normally I like what he is doing but this really made me mad.
Michiel: I think this was KR's point. He found out that you weren't already annoyed with him, and that got HIM really annoyed! ;)
Michael: You sure know how to get things riled up around here, don't you? ;)
summaron
12-10-2008, 16:51
The Cartier-Bressons were not really borderline aristocrats. They were/are a well to do upper middle class family who hyphened their name in the mid 19th century when that was the thing to do. All of the family have worked except for Henri C-B who was an artist, in the way that 19th families always had a member who became a priest.
To call him Bresson is a bit confusing, I guess, because of Robert Bresson the film director who is really the "Bresson." The shortened use, Mr. Cartier, I've heard used in France, but I don't know if that's correct.
bmattock
12-10-2008, 16:59
Eh, no. There's so much misinformation in that piece that I'm not even sure where to start.
It was intended as humor. I'm not sure how it is that people don't get that. Even if one doesn't find it amusing, surely it isn't that hard to recognize a jape when one sees one?
Harry Lime
12-10-2008, 17:02
The Cartier-Bressons were not really borderline aristocrats. They were/are a well to do upper middle class family who hyphened their name in the mid 19th century when that was the thing to do. All of the family have worked except for Henri C-B who was an artist, in the way that 19th families always had a member who became a priest.
Well, after the French revolution there obviously weren't many aristocrats left... They were replace by a new upper class made up from business men, industrialists etc. I meant it in that sense, not necessarily lineage.
To call him Bresson is a bit confusing, I guess, because of Robert Bresson the film director who is really the "Bresson." The shortened use, Mr. Cartier, I've heard used in France, but I don't know if that's correct.
Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure that on this list we all know whom we are talking about.
Frank Petronio
12-10-2008, 17:03
I think Ken is more sophisticated than most of you guys think. He was using literary license to make a point and the article is a complete diss of Nikon's pricing strategy on the D3x. If you actually read it, he directly and indirectly praises Leica, film, and HCB. He obviously knew that Contaxes sold for more than Leicas back in the day, so he is hardly ignorant, he is just trying to jostle (your?) wealthy hobby photographers' chains.
More power to him for supporting his family from those silly articles, it's amazing really.
Harry Lime
12-10-2008, 17:04
It was intended as humor. I'm not sure how it is that people don't get that. Even if one doesn't find it amusing, surely it isn't that hard to recognize a jape when one sees one?
Hard to tell. Rockwell has written some good things, but also a lot of silly stuff over the years, so it's hard to tell when he's being serious.
bmattock
12-10-2008, 17:22
Hard to tell. Rockwell has written some good things, but also a lot of silly stuff over the years, so it's hard to tell when he's being serious.
I guess it's just me. Being a natural-born smartass, I've seldom had trouble spotting another. He's just taking the piss.
Zenjitsuman
12-10-2008, 18:04
So he is not funny, neither is David Letterman and he has a staff of so called joke writers.
I will be interested in the reviews of the Leica equipment, I hope that he has a good selection to test. I enjoyed KR's reviews on medium format Mamiya 6 &7 rangefinders, and agreed with his findings.
I note that Leica film gear is holding its price against Nikon F5 very well. If the F5 is worth that little then he is right the digital stuff will likely suffer more rapid depreciation in the coming years.
KR's is a skilled showman, a Victor Borga type prankster , he pokes fun but its tough to tell when he is serious and can play a Rondo or not.
It makes those that hate him come back for more abuse.
I'm struggling to find the meaning in your statement Nh3 ... photography is more complex than a lot of people realise no doubt but surely the difficulty is relevant to the the level you feel you need to atain to actually regard yourself as a photographer.
There's a lot of highly talented mountaineers who have never reached the summit of Everest and never will ... it doesn't mean they haven't succeeded as climbers.
Why do you make this statement ... be more specific please. :)
How to visually capture the essence of a poem that one reads and then reads it again and again, and each time it means something else.
Btw, I'm perfectly sober. :)
P. Lynn Miller
12-10-2008, 18:15
Whatever you think of Ken Rockwell, he will go down as a legend on the photography world for good and bad reasons, but that is more than most of us will ever do. Nobody writes or talks, or even knows anything about us, while we debate Ken's sense humour and literary skills in a audience of thousands.
He has outsmarted us...
As for a 50mm lens, I have decided that if I had to hock everything I owned to survive this 'financial meltdown', I would keep my Bessa R2 and Nokton 50/1.5...
Ken Rockwell is an American phenomenon. In America whoever talks the loudest he/she is considered an authority of sorts.
photogdave
12-10-2008, 18:33
Ken Rockwell is an American phenomenon. In America whoever talks the loudest he/she is considered an authority of sorts.
You "talk" like you're an authority on America. Have you even ever been there?
A lot of the greats had money
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Walker Evans
Diane Arbus
Richard Avedon
I'm sure the list goes on.
Bob Michaels
12-10-2008, 20:27
but he proudly says on his website that he doesn't answer mail.
Michiel Fokkema
Don't believe that Ken Rockwell doesn't answer e-mail.
Earlier this year, I e-mailed him about a significant technical error in his article about how to do auto fill flash with a Vivitar 283/385. He responded within 24 hours thanking me and indicating he had corrected his article.
Now I bet that 99% of his e-mail does go unanswered. But that is because he would otherwise spend his time in endless debate.
bmattock
12-10-2008, 20:38
But that is because he would otherwise spend his time in endless debate.
You forgot to add '...with knuckleads' to the end of your sentence.
P. Lynn Miller
12-10-2008, 20:47
I suggest that you keep your Med Format stuff. ;)
Well, I recently stocked up on 60 rolls of 120 Tri-X, so maybe I should keep the Norita 66 with the Noritar 80mm f2.0... instead of the Bessa R2 and Nokton 50/1.5.
Thanks,
Al Kaplan
12-10-2008, 20:54
When Tri-X Pan first came out in 1954 it was rated at ASA 200 but the way of rating film at the time included a one stop safety factor to avoid underexposure. Just about everybody knew that if you used an exposure meter, and not everybody had one in 1954, you could safely rate Tri-X at 400. At some point in the 1960's they changed the way films were rated and Tri-X "became" a 400 speed film. Before 1954 Kodak's high speed wonder was Super Double-X Pan which would be rated by today's standards at 250 ASA.
summaron
12-10-2008, 22:26
A lot of the greats had money
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Walker Evans
Diane Arbus
Richard Avedon
It's less about money than time. Time to think out your ideas about photography and not to have to deal with the corrosive office politics of a 40 hour a week job.
Evans, I think, went through some skimpy times. Being a photographer or artist in those days involved a lot of loneliness and bare bones choices that we don't really have a model for now. The 1970s were the last of that period.
amateriat
12-10-2008, 23:41
Ken who? :rolleyes:
- Barrett
It is still beyond me why people read the crap that Ken writes.
Probably because, unlike most gear reviewers and sites, he's reasonably realistic about what benefits a specific camera or lens is likely to give the average photographer... which is not much unless they have actual photographic ability.
Ken is great: he's reasonably funny; he isn't afraid of stating controversial views; and he isn't beholden to any particular camera manufacturer. He also has an uncanny ability to needle the pompous blowhards who infest photography web forums, and I find that very entertaining.:D
I feel some justice is needed to HCB because really I read the simplification "he had money so he could take pictures all the time" way too much.
The Cartier-Bresson family, which was not aristocratic, but a self made family business that got to the status of one of the biggest fortune in France at some point.
But, despite the money of this family, one of HCB main characteristic was is ability to meet and merge with many of the famous people of his times. He had an interest in everything, was passionate by art, and did definitely "spend every minute with the unfolding of history".
People who take Ken too seriously → :bang::D ← Ken
Ken Rockwell is a genius. Why because with little knowledge and some writing skill he manages to evoke so much emotion from so many people. Reminds me of a saying I once read " better to be spoke of badly than not at all".
The knees are jerking nicely, I see.
he he he he he he he he heh! Nice one
navilluspm
12-11-2008, 05:39
Should I confess that I was the one who suggested that he send his Leica M4-P to either DAG or Sherry to get repaired? I did try to convince him that he should send his Leica to me, that it was dead, or to Sherry our DAG for repair. He did respond within 24 hours thanking me.
I asked him if he was ever going to review a Pen F, but he said that he doesn't have one. The next Olympus he is reviewing is the 35RC. I wonder if he will do a comparison with the Leica M4-P. . .
digitalintrigue
12-11-2008, 06:34
Last August he also discovered Pete Smith and sent a Nikon SP to him for cleaning. And then he discovered that the SP was a 'real camera.' It's always good when Ken has a revelation. :)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2008-08-new.htm (no direct link, scroll down to August 15)
bmattock
12-11-2008, 06:52
Ken is great: he's reasonably funny; he isn't afraid of stating controversial views; and he isn't beholden to any particular camera manufacturer. He also has an uncanny ability to needle the pompous blowhards who infest photography web forums, and I find that very entertaining.:D
Yup. It is a lot of fun to watch people's heads exploding over something he's gone and said.
And then he discovered that the SP was a 'real camera.'
And people have a tendency to quote Mr. Rockwell out of context to suit their own purposes. :) Here's what he said in context (italics mine: )
When I got it the viewfinder was dim, orange, hazy and fuzzy. I couldn't see the rangefinder dot unless I really worked at it. Online reviews said this was what an SP did, and that its finder was never that great. I sent it to Pete to see what he could clean out.
Yikes! I almost dropped it from surprise when I got it back. The viewfinder is now as big, crisp, clear and 3D as my Mamiya 7. It's better, in fact, because the SP viewfinder is life-sized by design. You can focus and compose with both eyes open. Now the SP is a real camera and I guess I'm going go have to shoot and review it.
It's obvious that what he means is now that the camera actually works, he'll have to try it out.
It's always good when Ken has a revelation.
It truly is. His enthusiasm more than makes up for any factual errors.
digitalintrigue
12-11-2008, 08:02
I have nothing against Ken at all. These threads pop up every few weeks, and then he gets more traffic. Good for him. :)
Aha...the perfect storm for camera forum bashing- HCB, Leica, and Ken Rockwell.
I posted the link for the Hitler/Nikon video on my camera club's forum and one member referred to KR this way: "...he is an internet joke himself. He is all about himself. Please stay away from that site.............."
Then I knew which camp my compatriot was in. He's a good photographer, but apparently a "don't get it" as well. C'est la vie.
nightfly
12-11-2008, 09:19
There seems to be a camp that thinks that everyone else doesn't "get" that Rockwell is trying to be funny. They think everyone else is missing the humor and not realizing that his tongue is pressed firmly in cheek. But I think it's more that although I see what he is trying to do, I just don't think it's funny (like his head is buried deeply up his *ss).
It's like Letterman or Leno or any of the other mainstream late night guys. I get what's supposed to be funny, it just isn't. It's just kind of painful and sad.
I'm not incensed, I just think he's pathetic.
(like his head is buried deeply up his *ss).
Diagnosis: Humorless.
bmattock
12-11-2008, 09:44
There seems to be a camp that thinks that everyone else doesn't "get" that Rockwell is trying to be funny. They think everyone else is missing the humor and not realizing that his tongue is pressed firmly in cheek. But I think it's more that although I see what he is trying to do, I just don't think it's funny (like his head is buried deeply up his *ss).
You say you 'get' that he is trying to be funny, you just don't appreciate that form of humor. Fair enough. Then you add the bit about his head being up his ass, which gives the lie to your previous statement.
I don't find Benny Hill funny, but I don't think he had his head up his ass, I just didn't care for his type of humor.
I think the reactions to his humor, especially those that list all the reasons he is 'wrong', are as funny as the original column that spawned the responses. I think there are people who live to be offended - they hang on his every word (and Erwin Puts, and others like them) so that they can react with shock, disbelief, horror, anger, and whatever else they can dredge up when those worthies say something that offends their delicate sensibilities.
Ha, ha, and ha. I like to read his columns, and I like to read people spewing venom about them as their heads explode with rage.
Harry Lime
12-11-2008, 10:25
It's less about money than time. Time to think out your ideas about photography and not to have to deal with the corrosive office politics of a 40 hour a week job.
Evans, I think, went through some skimpy times. Being a photographer or artist in those days involved a lot of loneliness and bare bones choices that we don't really have a model for now. The 1970s were the last of that period.
Very true.
I think that what p1sses a lot of people off about Ken Rockwell is that he actually gets off his arse and tests the bits of gear that most others only fantasise about, and he's not afraid to criticise it. The squeals of outrage here when he pointed out that the Zeiss ZF 50mm lens was no better than the Nikon version, but cost about four times as much, could have been heard outside the solar system!
Good luck to him; I don't agree with a good deal of what he writes but I do like the way he does it.
photomoof
12-11-2008, 11:09
It's like Letterman or Leno or any of the other mainstream late night guys. I get what's supposed to be funny, it just isn't. It's just kind of painful and sad.
So are you saying that bursting water-melons in slow motion is not funny?
The next thing you are going to tell me that Sponge Bob isn't funny, or that Beavis and Butt-head are not national treasures?
I am not sure you can be trusted. :cool:
Svitantti
12-11-2008, 11:12
Human field of view is close to 180 degrees rather than 50mm FOV.
bmattock
12-11-2008, 12:45
Human field of view is close to 180 degrees rather than 50mm FOV.
No, sorry. FoV is not measured in degrees, AoV (Angle of View) is. Human vision is indeed stated as being nearly 180 degrees (with both eyes). The human FoV has generally been accepted to be similar to the FoV as seen through a 43mm lens (on a 35mm camera), although this is somewhat misleading as the 35mm frame would have to considerably taller than it currently is for it to be an ideal match.
However, a normal-vision, uncorrected, human eye viewing through a 35mm SLR with a 43mm lens should see an uninterrupted field of vision if they have both eyes open, depending on variables such as magnification of the viewscreen, focus distance, and so on.
This argument has been going on forever, but it can be easily demonstrated just by trying an SLR with a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens while keeping both eyes open.
Carlsen Highway
12-11-2008, 12:51
In my endless quest for seeking out those who are wrong on the internet and chastising them mercilessly, I have felt a disturbance in the force eminating from this thread.
Al Kaplan
12-11-2008, 13:34
I think that what we consider a "normal" field of view is a very personal thing. Some people "see wide", others don't.
In my endless quest for seeking out those who are wrong on the internet and chastising them mercilessly...
Why do I hear I am I, Don Quixote, Man of La Mancha...! playing in my head now? :D
I think that what we consider a "normal" field of view is a very personal thing. Some people "see wide", others don't.
Al, you don't leave that VC 15mm finder on your eyes all day, do you? ;)
Years ago I used to target shoot. Shooters are like most people who inhabit these forums - they love to buy guns / cameras simply for the love of the "stuff" involved in the hobby.
We had an adage - "Beware the man who has only one gun." Meaning of course that this person knew that gun inside out and knew how to use it. And was likely as not, more interested in using it than taking it out and oiling it and stroking it by the fireside like the rest of us were. Is it not too much to suggest that HCB may have been the same as the "one gun man." To me this is as compelling an argument fro HCBs approach as any. He was first and foremost an artist. He did not idealise his tools. He used them.
And while on the topic, why the flaming and harsh criticism of KR in these forums. I actually like the guy. I do not agree with everything he says. He has his quirks - as do we all!!!! But he is a pleasant read and seems like a decent person. And he buys stuff and tests it in the field.
You may not like his conclusions -- In which case may I suggest something radical?. DONT READ HIS COLUMNS AND SAVE YOURSELF THE ANGST. I do like him and will continue to do so till I change my mind.
Well said peterm1...now will somebody send me their M4-P to test? I promise to post here what I think of it. And yes, I will return it.
bmattock
12-11-2008, 19:17
You may not like his conclusions -- In which case may I suggest something radical?. DONT READ HIS COLUMNS AND SAVE YOURSELF THE ANGST.
These people are the same as those who are horrified and angered by Rush Limbaugh. They cannot wait to be offended second-hand, they must listen assiduously to his show so they can be offended live on a daily basis.
I have often been accused of listening to Rush Limbaugh, which I assure all and sundry I do not. However, the people who accuse me of it seem to know Rush's show line and verse - meaning THEY listen to it - through gritted teeth.
I think some people just have a perpetual need to feel offended, oppressed, and get their noses out of joint. They are, as I have offered before, defined by what they hate. To those worthies, I offer my most sincere Bronx Cheer.
Rush is amusing but as with most political commentators not to be taken seriously.
bmattock
12-11-2008, 20:48
Rush is amusing but as with most political commentators not to be taken seriously.
I agree - the point is that there are a huge number of people who take him quite seriously, and are made apoplectic thereby. Why would people line up willingly to listen to a man they detest say things they hate hearing, so that they can then complain about how awful he is?
Same-same Ken Rockwell.
Al Kaplan
12-11-2008, 21:01
Kevin, the truth is that I rarely use the 15mm finder as a finder when shooting with the 15mm lens. I mostly hold, aim, fire, and wind one handed, and I can do that with either hand. The camera is often in places I couldn't get my eye if I tried, like over my head or three feet outside a window.The finder is handy to hook a finger around for a more secure grip. Framing is a matter of experience and/or sheer luck, because l usually just fire off 2 or 3 frames.
Why would people line up willingly to listen to a man they detest say things they hate hearing, so that they can then complain about how awful he is?
Same-same Ken Rockwell.
Because some people are not happy unless they can complain.
HansDerHase
12-12-2008, 05:32
Some of you guys here are so funny...
Don't you ever get the point?
Cool down; then read again and try to figure out the point..
Uh-oh: Ken weighs in again, but this time in favour of Leica and film...
and damn it, he's right...
Rockwell on Leica (http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/return-2008.htm)
We've all been waiting for the Orient to introduce a small, real, quiet camera with a decent sized sensor. Duh! The joke's on us: Germany's Leica M8 has been here all along.
Rockwell can be a bit much at times but he often makes some pretty interesting observations.
digitalintrigue
12-17-2008, 16:04
Heh, get set for another 4 pages of posts about Ken. :)
Seriously, he put up an article about how to work ebay, there is some good stuff in there. Dammit. Now everyone will know the secrets. :)
The best part? "pretards." :)
mcctoronto
12-18-2008, 13:05
No, sorry. FoV is not measured in degrees, AoV (Angle of View) is. Human vision is indeed stated as being nearly 180 degrees (with both eyes). The human FoV has generally been accepted to be similar to the FoV as seen through a 43mm lens (on a 35mm camera), although this is somewhat misleading as the 35mm frame would have to considerably taller than it currently is for it to be an ideal match.
However, a normal-vision, uncorrected, human eye viewing through a 35mm SLR with a 43mm lens should see an uninterrupted field of vision if they have both eyes open, depending on variables such as magnification of the viewscreen, focus distance, and so on.
This argument has been going on forever, but it can be easily demonstrated just by trying an SLR with a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens while keeping both eyes open.
Aren't you too old to be a smartass?
navilluspm
12-18-2008, 13:33
Uh-oh: Ken weighs in again, but this time in favour of Leica and film...
and damn it, he's right...
Rockwell on Leica (http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/return-2008.htm)
Won't that be fun, when he reviews the M8.2 . . .
Hi folks
Here in Israel the masses are in an euforic trans with the reality TV shows, like "survival" on the island, etc.
Is something of the like going on here at RFF concerning Ken Rockwell ?
Cheers,
Ruben
Hi folks
Here in Israel the masses are in an euforic trans with the reality TV shows, like "survival" on the island, etc.
Is something of the like going on here at RFF concerning Ken Rockwell ?
Cheers,
Ruben
ROTFL ....... :p:p:p
Hi folks
Here in Israel the masses are in an euforic trans with the reality TV shows, like "survival" on the island, etc.
Is something of the like going on here at RFF concerning Ken Rockwell ?
Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben you are like a breath of fresh air !.
Everyone else read KR's about on his home page, if you need to READ IT AGAIN !
Now you have it in perspective you can enjoy the lad.
Seasons greetings to all on this forum who so richly entertain me.
ron
digitalintrigue
12-27-2008, 18:24
Hey, Ken went and bought some Leica gear!
"I figured now's the time, so I just ordered a new Leica 28mm f/2.8 ASPH from Adorama, and a new 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M as well. Each is $300 off, after you mail the forms and wait what is now about three months for your check."
navilluspm
12-27-2008, 18:52
Who knows - maybe he'll join RFF too!
By the way, that Rockwell Leica mention was not in favor of of the Red Dot, it was a very tongue in cheek rip job.
Who cares, read him if you like it, ignire it if you don't (that's my New Years resolution:)
Kent
Uh-oh: Ken weighs in again, but this time in favour of Leica and film...
and damn it, he's right...
Rockwell on Leica (http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/return-2008.htm)
navilluspm
12-31-2008, 15:49
This was in an article he posted today about 25 years with Nikon
"Yesterday the mailman brought me a used Leica M7, which cost me less than I paid for my D300 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm) last year. I haven't shot my D300 in over a year, but the Leica M7 ought to last me another 25 years. "
First a Leica M4, which he sent to repairs. Now a Leica M7 with summarit lenses. 2008 was a crazy year!
Gabriel M.A.
12-31-2008, 16:02
This is just another swipe at Leica users.
What!? Unbelievable. The consensus is that the camera doesn't matter, only the photographer. So why would a photographer take a swipe at something that doesn't matter? :rolleyes:
Gabriel M.A.
12-31-2008, 16:04
Ken Rockwell is a genius. Why because with little knowledge and some writing skill he manages to evoke so much emotion from so many people. Reminds me of a saying I once read " better to be spoke of badly than not at all".
Does that mean that Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is a genius? Didn't even have a single writing skill, and yet "evoked" so much emotion from so many people.
Use a 50mm for a couple of months and don't use any other focal length. Discipline yourself harshly and be patient.
And remember, good things takes time.
I Just about shoot with std lens ALL the time !
amateriat
01-02-2009, 22:52
This was in an article he posted today about 25 years with Nikon
"Yesterday the mailman brought me a used Leica M7, which cost me less than I paid for my D300 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm) last year. I haven't shot my D300 in over a year, but the Leica M7 ought to last me another 25 years. "
First a Leica M4, which he sent to repairs. Now a Leica M7 with summarit lenses. 2008 was a crazy year!
Well, for Dog's sake, don't tell him about the Hexar...he's likely to party like it's 1999...
- Barrett
Guys, read the article and chill.. it's tongue-in-cheek, as are a lot of his writings. He goes on to make the point that Leica is a relative bargain compared to the highest end digital equipment.
Relax! :bang: :rolleyes:
but why lie about Cartier Bresson? the writer is a jerk. since it's the internet it flies.. was this guy a "journalist"he would be looking for another job already.
Jason808
02-12-2009, 07:49
but why lie about Cartier Bresson?
It's the nature of satire. Sometimes it's hyperbole (like saying every M8 owner is a rich dentist), or sometimes (in this case) it's more subtle. Rockwell writes a lot of satire, though I don't think he does it well. Pimping himself however...how many site hits did he get from this? Gotta give him that.
Gabriel M.A.
02-12-2009, 08:16
It's the nature of satire.
Satire is not about lying and/or plain distortion with malice in mind. Satire is about making fun and presenting a caricature of the subject.
The line between Satire and Distortion is often confused with the same one between Sarcasm and Personal Attack, or between Fact and Interpretation.
Jason808
02-12-2009, 08:49
Satire is not about lying and/or plain distortion with malice in mind. Satire is about making fun and presenting a caricature of the subject.
The line between Satire and Distortion is often confused with the same one between Sarcasm and Personal Attack, or between Fact and Interpretation.
Please. At best the line is gray and its borders subjective. I don't see anything in Rockwell's post that was so severe and damaging to any person's (or brand name's) character. If so, the HCB estate as well as Leica should file suit.
Gabriel M.A.
02-12-2009, 08:50
Please. At best the line is gray and its borders subjective. I don't see anything in Rockwell's post that was so severe and damaging to any person's (or brand name's) character. If so, the HCB estate as well as Leica should file suit.
I was talking about Satire.
Jason808
02-12-2009, 09:01
I was talking about Satire.
So was I - I felt Rockwell's post is satirical and justified the apparent 'lies' about HCB - I retract an earlier statement about it being hyperbole. In this case I do think Rockwell was in fact going that route. I think derision and sarcasm are tools of satire in many cases - perhaps is a classical sense there is a difference but in modern terms, the line between them is blurred.
You appear to disagree with my assessment. Fair enough.
Gabriel M.A.
02-12-2009, 09:09
Yes, I am talking about Satire, not KR, which you are. So, yes, I disagree.
BTW,
Satire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) is not Hyperbole (http://volweb.utk.edu/school/bedford/harrisms/hyperbole.htm), nor vice-versa.
Jason808
02-12-2009, 09:29
Yes, I am talking about Satire, not KR, which you are. So, yes, I disagree.
BTW,
Satire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) is not Hyperbole (http://volweb.utk.edu/school/bedford/harrisms/hyperbole.htm), nor vice-versa.
"A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. "
I never equated the two, but implied they were used as components - as I did in the original post about how satire was delivered and as the definition you supplied indicates. Apparently it needs to be a combination of them, or perhaps I need to speak to the kids and spell it out in minute detail.
My bad, I promise to be more pedantic in the future.
summaron
02-12-2009, 10:37
The problem with the KR's orignal post is that it begins in good faith and draws us in
It's easy to frame a fixed-lens photo by walking forward and back. Weak photographers, who have gotten too soft shooting zooms, have usually forgotten this.
and suddenly switches tone to irony--or satire which is more peevish--without any heads up.
The irony is used to point out that Cartier Bresson was "rich" (and by implication spoiled) and KR isn't and simplicity (a single lens) is more expensive now than what was previously expensive (zoom lenses). But it's a bit heavy handed.
sebastel
02-12-2009, 11:00
not worth a second of my life's time.
too much said already.
Here's to Ken: My M8 has never given me problems with its lack of an IR cut filter; even without the supplied screw-ons Leica sent me for the lenses.
My Leica M6 & M8 will outlast and outvalue all his Nikons and Canons, haha :)
outfitter
02-12-2009, 11:46
I was about to mail him about this but he proudly says on his website that he doesn't answer mail. This article really annoyed me. Normally I like what he is doing but this really made me mad.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
I had a problem with one of the online camera stores that advertise on Ken's site and complained to him. I must say he stepped up to the plate intervened with the store and send many very kind and thoughtful emails until the problem was resolved. Cut him some slack he was just kidding to make a point.
Bresson was widely known to be the son of a wealthy family.
Ken Rockwell is widely known to be an idiot.
:D
And right you are!
For what it's worth, two years ago I missed by pennies the auction of an original eighties era Paris-shot photo of HCB using a Minolta CLE. Had a brief discussion on the net with someone who wanted to convince me it was actually a Leica CL, but the top plate layout was wrong. I owned a CLE back then and could easily compare.
Cut him some slack he was just kidding to make a point.
Yes, but the RF Taliban take it very seriously when you make fun of their beards. :p
Here's another photo of HCB with a CLE:
http://clerf.multiply.com/photos/album/3/3#1
Hi Johan,
the photo is copyright'ed by Delduque, who is also on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umdiaumafoto/24763474
Roland.
Gabriel M.A.
02-12-2009, 12:35
Yes, but the RF Taliban take it very seriously when you make fun of their beards. :p
Or when the RF 700 Club just call anything that they don't agree with as the RF Taliban :cool:
PhotoMat
02-12-2009, 12:39
Does any rational adult believe what's printed in the National Enquirer? Shouldn't KR be viewed in the same vein? The only thing that's missing is a headline like "PARENTS OF THREE-HEADED CHILD PREFER NIKON'S MULTI FOCUS POINTS OVER CANON'S!"
Good Ole Kenny again. Why does anyone here even bother to go to his site. There is way more usefull information here on the RFF anyway.
Gabriel M.A.
02-12-2009, 12:44
Does any rational adult believe what's printed in the National Enquirer? Shouldn't KR be viewed in the same vein? The only thing that's missing is a headline like "PARENTS OF THREE-HEADED CHILD PREFER NIKON'S MULTI FOCUS POINTS OVER CANON'S!"
I'm more interested in what Elvis thinks of the Coolpix line :D
There is way more usefull information here on the RFF anyway.
Sometimes. The chaff-to-wheat ratio can be pretty high, on occasion.
russianRF
02-12-2009, 14:49
Does any rational adult believe what's printed in the National Enquirer? Shouldn't KR be viewed in the same vein? The only thing that's missing is a headline like "PARENTS OF THREE-HEADED CHILD PREFER NIKON'S MULTI FOCUS POINTS OVER CANON'S!"
I LOL'd. I've always thought of him more as a talk show host, like Geraldo or Maury or something.
"Ken, I'm 1000% CERTAIN that he's NOT the father! After all, he's a Canon user!"
waileong
02-12-2009, 20:46
Does any rational adult believe what's printed in the National Enquirer? Shouldn't KR be viewed in the same vein? The only thing that's missing is a headline like "PARENTS OF THREE-HEADED CHILD PREFER NIKON'S MULTI FOCUS POINTS OVER CANON'S!"
KR is funny. The guys here are too serious.
That HCB couldn't afford another lens is a joke-- geddit? As is the rest of the article-- so hilarious!
An American who reads French! Good Lord, we must report this to Homeland Security ASAP! :D
My friend's 4 year old in Villejuif reads English probably as well as I read French, report both of us. :D Picked it up from a video game.
Makes ordering off the menu an adventure, often a surprise. ;)
My Czech friends want me to learn Czech, and the Mexican friends want me to learn Spanish, and the French ones to speak more French and more quickly. My Cleethorpes' friends want me to repeat myself. My German friends gave up on me.
I have spoken Leica in the Czech Republic.
vbarniev
03-14-2009, 18:48
There is a reason why he used a 50mm the same way that Robert Frank shot most of the photos in The Americans with a 50mm. I will not disclose whats the reason, you must find out for yourself.
A great photographer is the one that takes great pictures with just a 50mm lens.
vbarniev
03-14-2009, 18:50
Aha...the perfect storm for camera forum bashing- HCB, Leica, and Ken Rockwell.
I posted the link for the Hitler/Nikon video on my camera club's forum and one member referred to KR this way: "...he is an internet joke himself. He is all about himself. Please stay away from that site.............."
Then I knew which camp my compatriot was in. He's a good photographer, but apparently a "don't get it" as well. C'est la vie.
There are better ways to spend your time than reading Ken R.
photogdave
03-14-2009, 18:54
There are better ways to spend your time than reading Ken R.
There are worse ways too...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.