Why did so many pros put up with their cameras in leather cases?

Richard G

Richard G

Veteran
Local time
3:02 AM
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
6,991
I used my M2 with its leather case for ten years or more. It was convenient when putting it in a hiking pack and for putting the baseplate in when changing film. But now I almost never use such a case, or even half case.

I've never seen a Vietnam War photographer with a leather case but some WWII photographers are seen with them. Yesterday I saw a self portrait of Doisneau with his Leica in a full leather case and so many Rolleiflex pros seem to keep the leather case on, even with only a few shots before the next change of film.

Could it be that the pace of work, life, thinking, back then was such that the good sense of a protective case remained convincing, and the minor irritation of juggling the case and the camera and the film was nothing to them?
 
Heh. Well for all the other geezers who saw that movie, and thought it was the most risqué film we ever had to sneak into - yay. I was kinda into photography before, but after seeing that, I no longer wanted to be a rock star!
 
That said:
leicawithcase.gif
 
Put up with? I think for most people, a camera was a pretty big investment, and a case was a good way to protect that investment.
 
For real photographers camera is never investment but tool. Imagine HCB or GW using camera as "investment". "Most people" are crap shut and nothing else. It is up to you which side try to join.
 
I used to always have my Nikon F in the lower part of the case because the strap hooked to the case and was in a better position than a strap connected to the camera's eyelets was. I'd only put the top of the case on when I was storing the camera.

Matter of fact, I just bought a brand new (NOS) Nikon F leather case for my early F. Got it for $35. It's sitting in it now, nicely protected and looking great, ready to use.

I don't use a case on my Leica M-D or SL, but I do use an A&A half case on my M4-2 and the lower case on the Leicaflex SL. Same reasons as for the Nikon F with the Leicaflex SL; with the M4-2, it gives the body a little more thickness which fits my hands better.

G
 
Early on, a camera would be considered a pretty spectacular piece of engineering. We're now used to it, jaded, and we take it all for granted.

That, and if the camera manufacturers sold cases, they probably made it seem like that was just the thing to do. Another piece of profit for them, and for the consumer of such a new product, they didn't have a reason to not accept the companies' 'suggestion.'
 
I find getting a Rolleiflex in and out of the case a bit tedious and don't have an assistant to hold it while I find somewhere to sit and load the film....I take some sort of camera with me every day and none of them has a mark on it, except the pristine black paint Leica III I dropped on the wooden floor at home yesterday, overladen with the groceries. Lost a tiny bit of black paint off the baseplate.
 
I read in a FED manual that the leather case is good for stopping condensation on the camera coming indoors. I got this very noticeably on one of my cameras in a humid restaurant last week, despite bright sun streaming in and the temperature well above 10 degrees C outside. I had the camera, without case of course, in the boot of the car since early morning in a dark concrete carpark. It was cold.
 
My case(s - I have one on my OM1n, and Nikon FG as well) makes the camera fit hand holding (it's easier to grip single handed), and it abates my clumsiness somewhat. I tend to bump things I carry into stuff. So I carry my Leica on a shoulder strap with the lens turned toward my body. The half case absorbs the slight bumps it inevitably experiences in that position.

It's purely pragmatic, but it also makes it look ... radically cool, eh?
 
Not my sort of thing, and none of the Pros I've worked with over the years have used them either - in fact most made a point of removing everything that could be removed from a new camera prior to putting it to work.

John
 
At the time, when I bought my new Zorki, Pentax SL and Nikon F2 Photomic, they all came with a camera case, which was included in the purchase price. The camera cases weren’t an accessory.

The Zorki case was tough, stiff, workmanlike; the Pentax case beautiful, soft and dimpled; the Nikon case shiny and hard. All were leather.

Pretty soon, I got fed up using the Zorki with its case (too much faffing about when changing film), and subsequently the Pentax and Nikon were never used with their cases from day one.

Since then I have never bought a new camera with a case – unless included for free, as I don’t use cameras with a case.

Why? Too many lenses I used – and use – don’t fit in a camera case and I prefer the feel of a body without a case attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom