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

[kdemas]

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]

That’s so true, but he’s bloody good at it isn’t he

Yes he is, as here we are discussing him again.

 

[Sam N]

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]

Somewhere, someone on the internet is wrong.

 

[icebear]

Get the whole picture - or read...

Get the whole picture - or read...

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 .

 

[alliv]

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...

 

[splitimageview]

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]

People, get a life...KR is just teasing with you

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.

 

[splitimageview]

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.

 

[outfitter]

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.

 

[Nh3]

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.

 

[Schlapp]

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

 

[Nh3]

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.

 

[Schlapp]

Sounds interesting. I'd love to know more

 

[BigSteveG]

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]

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.

" [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.

cartier bresson était pas d'une famille pauvre ceci dit , donc la théorie qu'il aurait économisé chaque rondelle est bidon

c'est son extraction sociale qui lui a permit de prendre le temps pour faire de la photo

 

[Nh3]

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]

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]

My apologies the the Moderators!

My apologies the the Moderators!

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.

 

[bmattock]

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.