Leica the reporter' camera?

[DominikDUK]

The recent threads regarding the suitability of the Leica M 8/9 for photojournalistic work and this comment on the LF Forum "well 90% of the great photojournalist pictures you've ever seen were taken with a Leica." Made me think about the fact that Leica is considered the reporters camera, but looking at the history of the medium I have to say that this doesn't seem to be true. A lot of reporters especially the magnum guys used the Leica, but a lot of other photographers of the 50's used a Rolleiflex or a Graflex as their main camera and since the Vietnam war the number of photojournalists using the Leica is getting lower and lower. Capa prefered the Contax to the Leica and so did a lot of other photojournalists.
Leicas are superb cameras no doubt but they always were expensive compared to other cameras, and photojournalists didn't/dont have the kind of money. There even were some Magnum Guys that didn't use Leicas Werner Bischof and Willy Ronis come to mind.

This is not supposed to be an anti Leica rant as I still believe them to be the best made 35mm cameras in production. But I am wondering why Leicas are considered "the reporter's camera". HCB was a rich boy so maybe it always was a rich boys toy, some of them even had a lot talent.

Dominik

[swoop]

I think a lot of it is marketing. HCB being the posterboy for traditional photojournalism and the Leica being his camera of choice.

I'm a photojournalist and I use a Leica, and I can honestly say I've only seen one other credentialed photojournalist cover an assignment in NYC with a Leica. So there are two of us in this whole city. Anyone else I've seen with a Leica is usually just some guy that stumbled upon a protest or parade. Never an actual news event working on assignment.

[tbarker13]

Definitely a case of then-versus-now.
Have to keep in mind that Leicas, while always on the pricey side, have been around long enough that there's been steady supply of excellent used film cameras.
And back in the days of film, it made total sense for newspapers to invest in Leicas. They were quiet. And one the best options running for low-light shooting.
Unfortunately, those factors don't really hold true today.

[Phil_F_NM]

Film Leicas also have one of the most robust shutter mechanisms out there. An investment in a Leica body was one that would pay off handsomely with only routine adjustment. They are light and small and allow the photographer to carry more of the other stuff that they need.

Nowadays the Leica has been supplanted by the Canons and Nikons because of the things it lacks. Doesn't excel past 135mm nor closer than 3 feet, not as robust, slow, there exists a thought of unreliability with Leica digital bodies and a few more things. It's also not a big camera and so it doesn't scream "I'm a professional quality tool" which is a blessing and a curse. Many people don't take you seriously when shooting a Leica. And many people don't take you seriously when shooting a Leica.

Phil Forrest

[DominikDUK]

Paul thanks for the tip. I hope I can find a copy of the book.

Dominik

[Paul Luscher]

Originally Posted by DominikDUK

Paul thanks for the tip. I hope I can find a copy of the book.

Dominik

You're welcome. Seems appropriate to bring it up, since Horst Faas, who was a shooter in Vietnam himself, and who helped put the book together, died just recently.

(FYI: the book is a memorial and tribute to all the photographers who died in Vietnam covering that conflict. All the photos in the book were taken by those photogs. Very powerful and disturbing images. Includes shots from Larry Burrows' famous Life magazine article "One Ride with Yankee Papa 13."

Remember seeing the article when I was a kid. Brought me up short. At that time, my head was filled with the romantic and unrealistic notions of war as presented by TV shows such as "Combat", but this was something different.....and sobering....

If I remember right,more photographers were killed during the Vietnam war than in any conflict up to that date...)

[Paul Luscher]

They're wonderful cameras, but while I do think they were one of the cameras photojournalists used back then (check out the book "Requiem", about the Vietnam war photographers, and note how many of those guys wee using Leica Ms along with their Nikon Fs), not so today. The field seems to have been taken over by Canikons....

[sevo]

Originally Posted by DominikDUK

Made me think about the fact that Leica is considered the reporters camera, but looking at the history of the medium I have to say that this doesn't seem to be true.

I suppose that is a misconception from later days of film, when consumers had forgot that there ever had been anything other than 35mm film.

Until SLRs took over in the mid sixties, rangefinders (with Leica the main brand) arguably had been the most widely used 35mm camera type in press photography - that forty year period is much longer than the 20 years with mechanical SLRs the main press tool or the even briefer periods of electronic SLRs or AF SLRs that followed.

However, the bulk of press work back then was done on sheet or 120 film, 35mm was a unpopular niche format mostly used for stealth purposes or when the photographer had to travel light (war, expedition and similar subjects). It only established itself as a commonly accepted format towards the very end, and even in the late sixties, when it had become standard among international agency photographers (whose employers had to distribute by print or fax in any case, so that the intermediate print did not matter) and the Leica was already being displaced by the Nikon F (or a Leicaflex), many smaller papers still rejected 35mm for their local press work (as its need for enlargement broke their direct-to-block photogravure processes).

[Araakii]

Based on my limited knowledge, most famous photojounalists back in the day had at least one Leica. BUT, they probably didn't use the Leica on a daily basis on their jobs. I think I've read more photojournalists shooting with Nikon than Leica. But Leica was always something that everyone wanted to own.

[DamenS]

Wait - HCB wasn't a rich boy was he ? I thought the whole reason he went for Leica was because it was cheaper than Contax at the time. Anyway - I thought most non-freelance photojournalists actually used Nikon SLR's (at least from the 60's onwards) as this is what the newspapers/magazines used to own. Pretty sure I'm right here.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by DamenS

Wait - HCB wasn't a rich boy was he ? I thought the whole reason he went for Leica was because it was cheaper than Contax at the time. Anyway - I thought most non-freelance photojournalists actually used Nikon SLR's (at least from the 60's onwards) as this is what the newspapers/magazines used to own. Pretty sure I'm right here.

HCB was born filthy rich. He was rolling in dough. He outsourced development and printing. He traveled around the globe at his own expense.

[DominikDUK]

Damens HCB was the son of one of the richest men in France. Photography was not for the poor neither before nor in the war.

Dominik

[semilog]

That's about right.

When I was in high school I was a stringer at the periphery of the scene. All the pros I encountered carried a bag with 2-3 F2 or F3 Nikons — usually with motors attached. A minimal kit would have been an F3 and a smaller camera, maybe an FM. I had an FE2+MD12 and an FM. 24/35/85/180, a Nikon strobe, a bounce card, a small grey card, and maybe 10 rolls of HP5.

For some pros maybe there would be an M with a wide lens in the bag, maybe not. Leica gear was definitely not de rigeur. Nikon stuff absolutely was.

[DamenS]

Damn - there goes one of my nicest illusions ... now when I think "poor boy made good", I'm going to have to read Dickens instead ...

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by DamenS

Damn - there goes one of my nicest illusions ... now when I think "poor boy made good", I'm going to have to read Dickens instead ...

Read Great Expectations by Dickens. There's a great "Poor boy makes good" story.

[uinku]

Originally Posted by DamenS

Damn - there goes one of my nicest illusions ... now when I think "poor boy made good", I'm going to have to read Dickens instead ...

Read Gordon Parks' bio.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by uinku

Read Gordon Parks' bio.

That's a good one too. The book is called "A Choice of Weapons." Parks, who was black, overcame not only crushing poverty, but racism too.

[Araakii]

With sufficient money to support yourself financially and an above average photographic skill, pretty much anyone can become a great artist. Talent is always overrated and a lot of the success is due to strenuous and concentrated effort plus some good marketing and networking.

After seeing all the great work from a lot of the members here, if they have millions of dollars at their disposal, could become a national sensation quite easily.

[Phil_F_NM]

Originally Posted by Araakii

After seeing all the great work from a lot of the members here, if they have millions of dollars at their disposal, could become a national sensation quite easily.

There IS a lot of fantastic photographic work on RFF as well as other places but if a person has enough money they can make a sensation in any way they want, talent or not. If I had millions of dollars at my disposal, I could crap on a paper plate in front of an audience, call it performance art, make money off the performance AND the "artwork" I made.

Phil Forrest

[ChipMcD]

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM

There IS a lot of fantastic photographic work on RFF as well as other places but if a person has enough money they can make a sensation in any way they want, talent or not. If I had millions of dollars at my disposal, I could crap on a paper plate in front of an audience, call it performance art, make money off the performance AND the "artwork" I made.

Phil Forrest

Sorry, I think that one has been done already. Maybe if you did it while doing a hand stand.

[Phil_F_NM]

Good point, originality still can trump money to some extent.

Phil Forrest

[zuiko85]

I think for a lot of PJ's of the 50's and 60's the main concern was reliability. Their cameras simply had to work, no breaking down in the middle of an assignment a thousand miles from nowhere. A camera that is durable has to be made to a high order of quality to stand up to heavy use so it's no surprise that if Leica or Nikon were going to the extra effort to build tough cameras they might as well make the optics as good as they knew how at the time.

Of course being reliable is no good without excellent, intuitive and quick handling. An awkward camera, no matter how well constructed, is an instrument that can cause you to miss that "decisive moment".

Sure, Leica's were always expensive, but the cost, amortized over the expected service life of a camera kept the cost within reason. You folks have probably all seen the picture of Garry Winogrand's last M4 over at the head bartenders site. Sure looks like he got his money's worth out of his Leicas.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

I think for a lot of PJ's of the 50's and 60's the main concern was reliability. Their cameras simply had to work, no breaking down in the middle of an assignment a thousand miles from nowhere.

Not that many PJ's had (or have) assignments a thousand miles from nowhere. Indeed, most never had/have a assignment out of town - the average paper will buy pictures from an agency if they need photographs from somewhere way out of their regular field of operation.

Reliability is relevant enough that almost everyone in the business carries a spare - you can't simply re-enact press photographs even if the camera fails. But as long as the paper can provide spares, long term reliability does not matter that much.

[BobYIL]

Before the introduction of the M3, the Contax IIa/IIIa was the favorite camera of the majority of the photojournalists, not the screw mount Leicas. This book "The Great LIFE Photographers" has the pictures of almost all of them with their cameras.

The M3, due to its excellent viewfinder with frames for lenses other than 50mm has found wide acceptance and in the '60s Contax ceased production. Actually the years '55 to '65 were the golden years of the classical M-Leicas until the Nikon F started to rule the market. I recall of reading in Time in 1966 with a heading like: "Nikon started to blur Leica's Picture." These years two Pulitzer prizes were won by Leica using Horst Faas and Nick Ut, who knows how many by other camera users..

1970's were Nikon years, Nikon SLR sales was probably ten times more than Leica however it was still possible to see some photojournalists with the M2/M4s attached with 35mm lens besides their Nikons. Canon and Olympus also entered in the sector with wide range of offerings. In 1979 I met Marc Riboud with two tiny Olympus SLRs dangling from his neck.

1980's were rather struggling years for Leitz to survive. The camera division was constantly losing money and around the mid-80s the family finally sold it.

As far as the equipment is concerned, photojournalists are like surgeons, top dentists, race drivers.. only the best is good enough for them.

[johannielscom]

Another finger in the cake: Erich Solomon started photo journalism with an Ernemann Ermanox.

Which in fact still baffles me every time I realise it. The Ermanox was a 4.5x6 cm zone focus camera with a 1.8 aperture lens. Focus depth must have been thin as a razor blade

I'd love to own one in the future and actually shoot it, but it probably would cost me miles of film to master the wide open lens focusing...