Leica LTM Ken Rockwell's take on why Cartier-Bresson only shot with a 50

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
N

navilluspm

Well-known
Local time
7:11 AM
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
434
The below quote is from his article found here: http://kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm and I think that he is probably right on the money. :D

" [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Cartier-Bresson obviously went to a Parisian camera store, and bought his Leica and lens after much saving and scrimping. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]That's why he only shot with one lens his whole career: it's all he could afford!"[/FONT]


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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
I think, K.R. is a master to set up coffee sitting for himself, while reading rant on his recent Leica write-up :)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom