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

A few years back I went on a 10-day trip to Italy with nothing but my 0-Series. There were a lot of shots I missed but I think I got more keepers out of those five rolls of film than I have before or since. I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.

It was nice just having one little camera and one lens (it's permanently attached, so no choice involved there). It also helps that the lens on that camera is a very good one.
 
Last year I went on a 10 day trip to Italy with just my IIIg. For lenses, I took a Canon 35 2.8, a collapsible Summicron 50 2.0 and an Elmar 90 4.0. I did just fine. I probably could have gotten by with just the Canon 35.
 
Rob-F said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are many architectural structures which can benefit from the scale of a panorama type picture. Examples are the Notra Dame along the Seine, the Versailles, etc. not to mention all the chateau this and chateau that. I don't have an XPAN but if I had one I don't think I will think vertical too much. It is designed mainly for horizontal shooting. And I always think that the bigger the negative the better. I normally carry a 6x6 with a 47mm wide angle lens and another one with standard lens (75 - 85mm) or a Rolleiflex TLR on my travels and 135 are merely for p&s only. For well over 10 years, this 2 x 120 cameras setup has served me well in all my travels.
 
For me the advantage of a Barnack body is that I can put a collapsible lens on it and carry it in my pocket so I don't look (so much) like a tourist. On my trip to Paris last summer I took a IIIa and a IIIf, one loaded with Plus-X, the other with Tri-X. Each morning I would decide which film I was going to shoot and that determined which camera I took with me that day. I think that there is a certain discipline that I impose by forcing myselft to work with just one lens, to live with or work around its limitations.

Another major consideration is that I don't want my wife to loose patience with the process because I am constantly fumbling around with lenses and cameras.
 
I've been to the Czech Republic and Prague in October and took a Leica M3 with 90mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, 17-35mm Nikon zoom on an adapter with me.

The auto focus, metered back up camera was a Hexar AF.

I can recommend it. No wavering when leaving the house, just pack all of this in a bag and go. My wife carried (and used) the Hexar.

A metered camera can come in handy, I use a small Gossen Sixtinette CDS meter that has trouble reading low light. An inconspicuous reading with the Hexar saved many a shot there. I guess digital will do the trick as well is a meter readout is provided.
 
it must be nice to have so many choices...for me the gear picks itself because there is so little of it! ; )

good luck with your trip!
 
I took one of each. A IIf and a Hexar RF in my case. I just made sure that the lenses were all screw mount so they could be used on either. It is the lens that is going to give you vintage results, the body will give you the old-time experience.
 
I was all over France in September with my M3, collapsible 'cron and 20 rolls of Tri-X. Great fun and no decisions to make. I recommend one lens, or two max. Were I diong it again, I'd go 35mm.
Have fun!
Vic
 
@ Windscale: I didn't mean that I would shoot "vertical panoramas." I almost always hold the XPAN hrizontally. What I meant was that the limited vertical height of the XPAN frame, when held horizontally, doesn't leave much room for buildings of any height! Also, what you said about photos with the older lenses being easier to look at, less fatiguing to the eye, is a new concept for me. I never thought of the modern, sharp lenses as fatiguing to the eye; but I can see your point.

@ LeicaOSeries: You make a really good point, about taking the pressure off because it's all been photographed before anyhow. I did think about this: just shoot a personal record of impressions, and not try to document all of France in 3 weeks. After all, I've been photographing Colorado for many years, and still not done!

@ Peter Schauss: Yes my wife does get impatient with my photography. I definitely need to simplify for France, to improve the Wife Acceptance Factor (WAF)!
 
Last edited:
Leica0Series said:
I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.
Click to expand...

That really is a very admirable and refreshing attitude. Much easier said than done, so well done to you.

I have personally gone through so many trips where I might not have missed the shot, but I missed the actual experience as I was being there. Yet I keep doing it from time to time.
 
Leica0Series said:
I also took the pressure off myself by saying that the place has been photographed to death so I didn't need to try to capture everything, just things that caught my eye.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

Why go to Paris and come back with photos of the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and a boat on the river?

It's been done already.

What you'll remember from your holiday will be the kiosks selling cigarettes, the women with miniature dogs, and the chic fashion ads on the metro. So bring back photos of that stuff.
 
On my last trip to Europe, I took one camera and one lens: Konica Hexar RF and a clean Summar 50/f2. On a tight schedule, I prefer auto-exposure, and the Hexar does this extremely well. And one lens was fine. Fewer decisions means you can work faster.

Looking at the images later, there are a few that I wish had been shot with a modern lens, but there are many more that I really enjoy because they were done with a 70-year-old lens. These are my favorites, and they wouldn't have happened if I'd given myself "better" lenses to choose from.

94120010.jpg


Paris in the Summar-time
 
If you have a digital zoom as a second camera, just bring one lens. I've used a Leica iiig but I prefer the M because it's easier to load film, has a lever film advance, and has a much better viewfinder. You're photographing for fun so you should pick the camera that you have the most fun shooting with.
 
do not forget that in Paris some youngsters are not very much found of being photographied... it's not religious but only social... don't insist if you see that it's not fit to take picture of people. Anyway with a leica III they won't look at you as if you where a "japanese tourist"...
Some say that nowadays HCB, Doisneau and Ronis would have a more dangerous life photographying people in the street in Paris, feelings have changed... still with a smile you can do a lot. (I would advice not to forget to have a compact digital camera with you so people can see the results immediatly... most people do forget there was an age before digital camera...)

Stephan... from Brussels (where the same rules applies...)
 
Thanks for all the replies so far! At this point I'm leaning toward one Barnack with 2 lenses, and an M body (maybe the M7 for auto-exposure) with several lenses for most of the shots. I would not carry them both at once--too much stuff! I'll keep the amount I carry down to what fits in a Domke F-5XB. For the M lenses, I'm thinking maybe 28mm Summicron and 40mm Rokkor. And maybe one more. For screw lenses, 35mm CV, and 25mm CV. They are easy to shoot with. Do I really need a 75 or a 90 along? We will be in Provence, Paris, and Normandy. Probably two days in Helsinki at the end.

Added: Yes I will have my D-Lux3 in my pocket! And yes to the idea of "taking the pressure off!"
 
One additional idea I would offer is that if you were to take 2 bodies with a few lenses, it may be a good idea to bring something that are fully interchangeable. In case 1 body or one lens goes wrong you still have a good combination system. I have been lucky that throughout my years of travelling nothing has ever gone wrong. But it has happened to many friends of mine. So, do allow for gear failure whatever you take.
 
For heaven's sake, don't stick any camera in your checked luggage. Between having the bags thrown and the theft factor (personal experience) you are taking too much of a chance.

We are heading for New Zealand shortly. I have been having a similar debate. My normal "rule" is digital when flying and film when not. But I am thinking about my DLSR with a zoom and a Bessa R with probably a 35 and a 50, maybe an 85 (I don't have a 90). I have Barnacks, a IIIC and a IIIF, but the Bessa R uses the same lscrewmount enses with 35, 50, 75 and 90 frames in the viewfinder and built in metering. If I take the Barnacks, I would need an auxiliary viewfinder and want a meter. With the Bessa, the package is only slightly larger than the Barnack and its all in one piece.

Have a good trip.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom