Robert Capa and a Rolleiflex an unlikely combination.

[oftheherd]

Perhaps the independent civilian journalists used miniature format cameras, but the cameramen of the US military used mostly 4x5 press cameras. They would have to carry at least one or two extra single shot film holders, since the Grafmatic septums are easily bent. They also carried a Corona 3 typewriter, a roll of paper, a couple ribbons and basic tools (pliers and a screwdriver), on top of the extra film, bullets, rifle, (or carbine, depending upon their company and position in their platoon), and grenades. They wouldn't have carried all this daily, but they would have had to pack it all up and hand carry if necessary, which would have been a regular occurrence with moving battle lines.
Phil Forrest

I can see how they would want access to all those things at different given times. You didn't mention food as well 😉. Depending on where they were and how far back a company HQ (with vehicles) was, it might have meant they were able to store things there.

My experience in the US Army Airborne suggests they would have made a lot of guesses and left behind anything they would not likely need, like a typewriter, for important things like food, paper scraps to write on, ammo, and first aid packs.

Also, cameras may have depended on what was available to them. I went from our investigative school straight to Vietnam. We had trained on the 4x5, but none were in our TO&E (equipment as well as personnel allowed). My crime scene cameras were a personal Minolta 16, and my father's Welta Welti, as well as film tech sheets for lighting. Since I had some personal experience before joining the Army, it didn't work out as badly as one might had expected.

And of course, there was also any good soldiers ability to scrounge and accept some minor hardships. Ah, the good old days.

 

[Rob-F]

Ref the bolded text, I think they may have had the film back that held 6 and/or 12 sheets in septums, but I am not sure. Maybe somebody who knows more can confirm or deny.
.

Yes that is right. I was the high school photographer in the mid-1950's. I used a Speed Graphic with Tri-X film packs the school supplied me with. You pulled a paper tab in order to bring the next film into position. I don't remember exactly the number of shots to a pack, but I think maybe 10 or 12.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Think about cost as well, a 35mm rangefinder would cost the military way too much, compared with the simple, less expensive press cameras, readily available and easily repairable. The same goes for a TLR. No sailor, Marine, or soldier would have ever had access to a TLR or 35mm RF unless they were a higher ranking NCO or an officer. Same goes for when I was on an aircraft carrier back in 1998-2000. I wasn't allowed to even look at a Nikon D1, and I was an E5. Only our LPO, Chief and the DivO were allowed to use that expensive piece of gear. I barely even got to use a Nikon F5, I was always stuck with an F4 or 6006 if I needed a second body. I had to put up an organ on deposit if I needed to check out exotic glass or take out the big Pentax 67 for an aerial. No way a lower ranking photographer would have had access to an expensive camera like a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex or Leica during WWII.
Phil Forrest

 

[Doug]

Yes that is right. I was the high school photographer in the mid-1950's. I used a Speed Graphic with Tri-X film packs the school supplied me with. You pulled a paper tab in order to bring the next film into position. I don't remember exactly the number of shots to a pack, but I think maybe 10 or 12.

In the mid-1960's I used Kodak Tri-X in film packs with 16 exposures... but those were 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 format not 4x5... And the film was noticeably thinner than regular sheet film.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Perhaps the independent civilian journalists used miniature format cameras, but the cameramen of the US military used mostly 4x5 press cameras. They would have to carry at least one or two extra single shot film holders, since the Grafmatic septums are easily bent. They also carried a Corona 3 typewriter, a roll of paper, a couple ribbons and basic tools (pliers and a screwdriver), on top of the extra film, bullets, rifle, (or carbine, depending upon their company and position in their platoon), and grenades. They wouldn't have carried all this daily, but they would have had to pack it all up and hand carry if necessary, which would have been a regular occurrence with moving battle lines.
Phil Forrest

Cameramen/Photographers within the US Army worked differently in World War 2, they weren't imbedded directly in the combat units;
Signal Photographic Companies of the Army in Europe in 1944/45 used 3-man teams consisting of a Photographer with a Speed Graphic, a Cameraman with a 35mm Eyemo and a Driver. What they couldn't fit in their Jeep (and/or Bantam trailer) was not brought along. The typewriters were not their standard issue equipment either. Those would stay with the companies clerics at their HQ. (From what I've read most of the space in the jeep was dedicated to food and booze)
The teams had a very high freedom of movement and of what subjects they could shoot (except when a specific assignment came through). Usually they followed closely behind the frontline units (and sometimes in front of them too...sometimes on purpose)
Their driver would gather up the material they shot, with the filled out caption cards and would return these to HQ and return to their sleeping arrangements with fresh film.

Only the driver was armed with an M1 Rifle or Carbine, the Cameraman/Photographer were issued firearms as an afterthought, usually an M1911A1 pistol or an M1 Carbine. Sometimes they would pick up weapons from the battlefield.
They were not allowed to repair their issued cameras. That was to be left up to a dedicated maintenance group at HQ.


They might have had sheet film holders, but they mainly used Pack Film throughout the war for their Speed Graphics. Grafmatics weren't around during World War 2.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

No way a lower ranking photographer would have had access to an expensive camera like a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex or Leica during WWII.
Phil Forrest

The Table of Organisation & Equipment for the Summer of 1944 from a Signal Photographic Company calls for some 13 Leicas (they're even marked as an unofficial item)
These would be issued to officers within the company.

As the campaign in the ETO progresses they do show up more and more in the hands of lower ranking GIs as 'private purchase' items. Mainly from barthering, stealing, looting and plundering.

I've read several accounts from SPC men and the British Army Film and Photography Units (AFPU) where they would simply go into a freshly 'liberated' German village and demand everyone hands in their camera 'for security reasons'

 

[Peter Browne]

Capa used a Rolleiflex Old Standard in WW2 (and quite possibly other cameras), except for his D-day foray where he had two Contax II.

Here is Capa reloading what appears to be a Rollei TLR on June 16, 1944 in Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, during the advance of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR) of the 82nd Airborne Division (10 days after D-day).





You will notice that the other members of the Life magazine team in June 1944 also have Rolleis, as well as a Graflex Speed Graphic. Capa also showing his best profile...with the ever-present fag dangling from his lips.





This is all interesting and part of the study of great photographers and their work. Capa was indeed a character.




You can see similar things with other war photographers, like Larry Burrows, Sean Flynn, Dana Stone and Tim Page, all unique characters, and I think this comes through in their photographs.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Capa used a Rolleiflex Old Standard in WW2 (and quite possibly other cameras), except for his D-day foray where he had two Contax II.

July 1944, In the middle of Operation Cobra (The Normandy Breakout); That's appears to be an RF111a or Automat.

March 1945, before Operation Varsity. There is the Old Standard Again.