Thinking of doing the "Old Europe with an Old Leica" thing

Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
6:53 PM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,568
Location
The Show Me state
View My Gallery
Hans Pahlen wrote, in the Volume 33, number 1 issue of The Viewfinder, an article titled "I love Paris . . . with my Screw mount Leicas." Leaving his M-bodies behind, Pahlen set out for Paris with a III, a IIIa, a 50mm Summar, and a 50/3.5 Elmar. Why? To photograph with the kind of Leica gear that earlier photographers had used 60 and more years ago. Some nice shots accompany his article.

I'm thinking of doing this myself. I could take my two IIIcs and four lenses. On a typical day I could carry one body and two or three lenses, and it would all fit in my Domke 5XB bag. I could even fit the tiny lenses into my photo vest and need no bag at all. The other body could stay in the apartment as a spare.

But then all my wonderful M gear would have to stay behind in the cabinet for three weeks. I'm not sure how I would feel, after the first 2 or 3 days, about leaving behind my MP with its very accurate and fast exposure readings; or the M7 with its auto-exposure; or the faster and better lenses that go with them.

SO: who else has considered this approach. What did you decide? If you went with the old Barnacks, were you glad you did? Any regrets?
 
Rob-F said:
I'm thinking of doing this myself. [...] But then all my wonderful M gear would have to stay behind in the cabinet for three weeks.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just try it out before going there? Lock your Ms in the cabinet and use only the Barnacks for a couple of weeks. If you're uncomfortable, or if you get the feeling you miss good pictures, take the Ms out of the cabinet again.

It's the picture that counts. Hans Pahlen is a professional photographer and a Leica nut; what works for him may not work for you. There's nothing inherently cool about using old Leicas. All you get is an approximation of what a photographer might have felt like 70 years ago - and even that is not accurate, because he was using top-of-the-line high technology to get good pictures, while you are deliberately using something quaint and outdated in hope to feel a bit like him. To me that seems a bit futile, and if it's only about collapsible lenses, separate viewfinders and a compact body you can have that with a Zorki.

Also, there's nothing inherently uncool about deciding, eventually, that an M with a built-in meter is actually a rather nice and useable camera.

Philipp
 
I think those photographers in the thirties and so on were using the best equipment of the day. And maybe we should do the same.

This brings to mind the young guy I once saw making a photo of a pretty nondescript scene near me. He had a wooden large format camera, on a wooden tripod, and he was dressed in clothes in the fashion of about 100 years ago. Pretentious stuff.
 
Ultimately, it's about what you'll enjoy.

If all we wanted was perfect photos, I'd probably use my hexar AF for everything, but on most days I take out my M3 because I prefer using it, perhaps because it's more challenging.

Take the screwmounts to Paris, it sounds like a great idea, although I would suggest you take three lenses maximum, otherwise you lose the benefit of their portability, and will be so busy thinking about what lens to use you'll miss the shot.
 
Perhaps Paul T. is right.

Perhaps I was being cranky.

Why not take the Barnack Leica to Paris, and the MP also. But only one lens for each camera.

One day walk the streets with the old camera, and the following day walk the same neighborhood with the new camera? See how the technology affects the photos you make?

But perhaps don't just look for Henri Cartier-Bresson type scenes of old Paris, go to the modern architecture, the TGV rail station, Disneyland...
 
Rob, do it.

On the practical side, lens choice is important. Personally, I would take four - the "holy trinity" of 35, 50 and 90 Elmars, with a CV 15mm. I have a Leica II and carry that in a pocket with the 50 attached. The 35 and 90 live in a LowePro hard shell spectacles case - you can get it, or something similar, from outdoors shops. They fit perfectly in the case, together with a Helios finder in it's own leather case and a cleaning cloth. That fits in another pocket. The 15mm with viewfinder goes in a third, in a leather pouch. A few rolls of film and you are all set.

A couple of other practical comments. I did just this when I went to Prague once - but I had been there twice before, know my way around, and know that I can go back again. If your trip to Paris is an unrepeatable one-off you may want to consider how you will feel if your self-imposed limitations cause you problems. Secondly, as a backup I carry a LX-2 - any capable zoom compact will do.

Don't let the risk-averse nay-sayers put you off - go and have some fun.

Regards,

Bill
 
But if you're REALLY going for the 'vintage experience' of 60 years ago you'd probably have had only one body (not two) and two or at most three lenses: people carried much smaller outfits in those days, not least because there was less money around.

My own feeling is that if you're going for pictures, rather than the experience of using an old camera, you'd do better with your M-series.

This is also based on personal experience. About 36-37 years ago I did take quite a lot of pictures on my first trip to Paris with my IIIa -- which was, of course, 36-37 years newer than it is today. They weren't very good, because I wasn't very good. I certainly wouldn't want to handicap myself today with the IIIa instead of the MP or M8.2.

Cheers,

R.
 
BillP said:
Rob, do it.

'Secondly, as a backup I carry a LX-2 - any capable zoom compact will do.'

My diginasty P&S has become an integral part of what I take with me when I travel.

There is something refreshingly simple about carrying a camera that is virtually valueless ( and has no emotional value) and can be replaced almost anywhere.

How long will it be before the Leicas (either M or ltm) stay at home?

Michael
Click to expand...
 
I think it would be great fun to have a Barnack with you in Paris, but as a fun item to enjoy using and not be dependent on it for all photographs. It does depend, as other correspondents have noted, on the rarity of this visit - if it is a once in a lifetime trip then I wouldn't restrict myself to a Barnack. If you're a regular visitor then it would be a good way of seeing the city with fresh eyes.

I'm fortunate in making a regular trip to Hydra in Greece each May and as I have a large stack of photos from earlier visits am now taking some of my more specialised cameras with me - on the first couple of visits it was a D70, then I got my M3 so took only that the next year, last year was the Holga and the Hasselblad and I may well just take my IIIa on the 2009 trip. The different cameras help with different perspectives and images.

Enjoy making your decision!
 
Last year my wife and I did the Netherlands, Germany and France, and I had a black Leica III, a IIIa with a MOOLY motor, and all vintage lenses (50/1.5 Xenon, 35/3.5 Elmar, 73/1.9 Hektor, 90/4 Fat Elmar, and a 21/4 Voigtlander, which was the only modern concession). No problem, and wouldn't have done it any other way. Stood in front of the Barnack Memorial in Wetzlar with my black III -- don't think a photo of me holding my Blackberry there would've had the same effect.

The other thing is that the cameras are nice 'ice breakers', particularly if you're not up on the native language of the country you're in.
 

Attachments

  • Me and Oskar3.jpg
    Me and Oskar3.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
What a great variety of interesting viewpoints! BTW, the four lenses I was thinking of are: 25/4 CV; 35/2.5 CV; 50 Collapsible Summicron; and 75/2.5 CV. These are spaced far enough apart that I won't have to wonder which lens to use, as Paul T. mentioned. I'll know. But yes, I probably should include an M body and some lenses for it, and maybe cut back a bit on the amount of Barnack gear. All those CV lenses are not really from the Barnack era anyhow (they are better).

Actually the thing that appeals most about the Barnack cameras is their small size and lightness, more so than their age. So maybe one Barnack and two lenses for it; and then, say, the M7 with a couple or three more lenses?

BTW, I will have my D-Lux3 along for color work.

Great responses. Keep the thoughts coming!
 
I've gone on holiday a few times with minimal gear -- just a K-mount SLR and a single 50mm lens, for example, or my dSLR and a single zoom -- so I'd quite happily go with just my IIIc and a couple of lenses for outdoor stuff. I'm not even sure if I'd bother with more than 2 lenses.

But, as I am terrible at guessing exposure indoors and lightmeters that can meter well in low light are as big as the IIIc [my Gossen meter is bigger than the IIIc, I think!], I'd definitely take a modern autofocus compact or digital compact for nights out, restaurants, pubs, etc.

A IIIc, 2 lenses AND an autofocus compact would fit in one tiny case. Ive done the same with a Fuji GS645S and an Olympus Mju II [stylus epic]. Slow film in the Fuji, fast film in the Olympus.
 
It bothered me when I was at an event with an old camera and lens and I took a photo of someone in a suit. When it was developed, it looked like the photo could have been taken 50 years ago. I think the same thing would happen with the old city. When make pictures that look old?

I'd do the old city in colour with new lenses and new contemporary themes with the old school items. It gives a sense of irony to the images and a unique look to modern events. I like Leicas for the way of working, but not the old optical signature.

My thoughts, have a wonderful trip whatever you take...
 
Well, whatever the camera you use, Paris of today is not the one of sixty years ago 😉 ... but this apart, why use modern CV lenses then ?
 
Rob-F said:
the four lenses I was thinking of are: 25/4 CV; 35/2.5 CV; 50 Collapsible Summicron; and 75/2.5 CV. [...] So maybe one Barnack and two lenses for it; and then, say, the M7 with a couple or three more lenses?
Click to expand...
Hm, why more lenses? They're interchangeable, just use the screwmount lenses on the Barnack.

Four lenses is still too much. Between 25 and 50 you don't really need a 35, and whether you need a portrait lens beyond the 50 is very much a matter of taste. Myself, I'd take the 25 and the 50, two bodies. Put the 25 on the Barnack, it's not rangefinder coupled but with an external finder it won't matter. With B&W film you can guess exposure. Put the 50 on the M7 for portraits and everything that is not wideangle.

But then again...

Rob-F said:
BTW, I will have my D-Lux3 along for color work.
Click to expand...
you'll have three cameras with you? Seems like a lot to me. The D-Lux is a compact camera with a decent wideangle.

I'd try and get a clear idea first what camera you want for what purpose. When I was in Uzbekistan for most of this year, I had three cameras with me: a Panasonic FX07 for photographing documents and for party-style snapshot, a Leica M5 for photography in the city with a 21 lens on it (I had a 40 as well that saw hardly any use), and a Canon T90 for portraits, landscapes and flash (I had a 90 and a 50, later I found a nice 85/f1.5 on a flea market). Each camera had a specific profile, so that in the morning it was very easy which camera to pick.

So what is the Barnack for? Will you really do fast capture-the-moment street photography in a way that the small, compact, wideangle D-Lux won't do the job, so that you *need* the Barnack? Or are you taking the Barnack to do some B&W old-style film photography next to the D-Lux, in which case you don't need the M7? I have the feeling that one of your cameras is redundant here.

Philipp
 
Rob-F,

The fact that you will be taking so many CV lenses would defeat the original object of yiour exercise. It is also only your point of view that these lenses are better than the Barnack ones. Yes they are more contrasty and sharper. But looking at pictures taken by them you will get the initial WOW feel. But your eyes will get tired very soon. Also, the older Barnack lenses will be softer but with that creamy feel and definitely more shadow details. And you will not feel tired looking at their pics for a long time. This is why I enjoy these lenses much more. It all depends on your personal inclinations. BTW, do you use any Leica Screw Mount lenses regularly? I noticed that you also have an XPAN. If I were you I won't leave for Paris without it!
 
My 2 bits: an M and 2 lenses for morning and evening, IIIc with Summar for midday.

If you need wider or get tired of the IIIc, you can use your M, or maybe a cheap and small digicam.
 
Rob,

I did something similar on separate trips to Venice and Amsterdam and I'm glad I did. In my case it was an M4 rather than a III, but I'd do the same with a III. My lens choice was also similar - 24, 35, 50 and 90 (you can see some of the results in my gallery). I only used B&W film, and I left 3 lenses in my hotel each day when I went out. For tourist shots for the family album I took a Leica compact digital and hardly used it (I think my wife used it a bit).

This is about more than the photos - this is about the experience. I firmly believe you don't give your photographic skills a chance to show what they can do until you force them to work within limitations. Go for it, Rob, and enjoy it. I did.
 
Windscale: The XPAN would be good for Paris? I had not thought of that. When I've used it in architectural environments, I've concluded it was the wrong choice, because of the limited vertical coverage. So: where in Paris would i use it? Along the Seine, perhaps? And would it serve me well in Southern France? We will be there too, in Provence. Also will visit Normany.

What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom