War photographer uses Summicron 35 on her Sony

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the new movie "Civil war", Kirsten Dunst uses a manual focus 35mm Summicron on her Sony a7RV as her normal (non-tele) lens for documenting events of a fictional US civil war in the near future. Sony's logo is taped over (maybe she feared somebody would steal it), but Leica's script on the Summicron front is left for the viewer to adore.
(Photo courtesy of A24 Press Kit).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[graphlex]

We’ve had many a civil war on this forum over 35mm lenses. 

Edited April 28, 2024 by graphlex

[Alberti]

And seen from behind 35mm lenses 😗

[andybarton]

The immediate question is "Why?"

[Keith (M)]

42 minutes ago, andybarton said:

The immediate question is "Why?"

Product placement?

[andybarton]

You’d have to look very hard AND know what you’re looking at. 
 

Not like an Aston or Omega in Bond. 

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's to make it look like she's doing something with the camera, in other words it's prop to use when some acting is needed.

[Al Brown]

4 hours ago, andybarton said:

You’d have to look very hard AND know what you’re looking at. 
 

Not like an Aston or Omega in Bond. 

Well there is one close-up filling almost the entire movie screen where you can very clearly read every detail on the front face of the 35mm Summicron.

[Al Brown]

5 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

Product placement?

I doubt Sony would like to have a M lens mounted on its body as product placement, nor Leica having a Sony body behind its Summicron. There is the other photographer in the movie and she is using the Nikon FE2 with the standard lens. It is my guess not even Nikon would want THAT particular body as product placement...

[Danner]

Japanese camera, German lens, and perhaps an Italian strap.  Hmmm...

[lct]

Why not? Most if not all my Leica lenses work fine on my A7r2 mod. Little to do with war though. Here S-A 21/3.4:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Sony-A7r2-Leica-2134-pre-asph/i-4NbWTWb/2/GPRQv4ZVDKhsDst7dS6QMV6CJvKcDzM67C2KXfrf/X4/DSC02651_si-X4.jpg

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I doubt Sony would like to have a M lens mounted on its body as product placement, nor Leica having a Sony body behind its Summicron. There is the other photographer in the movie and she is using the Nikon FE2 with the standard lens. It is my guess not even Nikon would want THAT particular body as product placement...

Why so sniffy, it’s a fine camera, far more reliable than a Leica M7 if auto exposure is a factor and far, far cheaper to buy?
 

But I guess given the film is some sort of prediction of the next American civil war it may be that journalists in the near future have to use whatever they can get hold of to record the atrocities. Matthew Brady had very few digital cameras available to record the last one and he didn’t do a bad job, so who’s to say in the next one with the destruction of the internet it wouldn’t lead to the rise of analogue photography again?
 

But perhaps the film makers use of a Sony body is even more simple that a conspiracy theory, it looks a bit like a Leica in terms of film making, and is a whole lot cheaper if they need a few backup cameras for filming in different locations?

[Al Brown]

1 hour ago, Giacomo Busoni said:

they taped the Sony not because they feared it would be stolen in the fiction of the film

My comment was a nod to the utterly pointless practice of taping the Leica red dot due to fears of attracting thieves.

[BernardC]

The only problem is that she hasn't taped over the white model number. The Alpha 7 lettering is mildly distracting.

I assume that the scene that explains her camera choice didn't make it past the first draft. Maybe the kit zoom broke and she replaced it with something more sturdy.

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, Al Brown said:

My comment was a nod to the utterly pointless practice of taping the Leica red dot due to fears of attracting thieves.

I've done it to discourage unwanted attention from camera bores!

[earleygallery]

That's not a war photographer, that's an actress.

[lct]

She needed an M-E adapter for M lens to fit on a7 body. Deliberate choice i would think.

[Al Brown]

12 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Maybe the kit zoom broke and she replaced it with something more sturdy.

The 70-200 G lens is very prominent in other scenes. That one is used for checking on snipers and other stuff.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[charlesphoto99]

These films cost tens of millions of dollars to make. They thought this one out. I wouldn't be surprised if they rented/borrowed a whole bunch of gear and ran screen tests first to see how it would look in regards to HER face on camera, and her face only. Maybe taping over the Sony Alpha 7 made it look too blank, or they liked the look of the font, the full circle of white lettering on the Leica lens. Believe me, whatever they did here was deliberate. 

[Bartian]

Question A) Why the Leica lens? It could be as simple as personal preference (based on user history) from this fictional character. There are war photographers who use Leica products. Sony bodies are obviously superior to Leica bodies from a performance point of view, but Leica lenses are small, cute and therefore non-intrusive. Sony lenses are larger. Also: manual focus could be an advantage. In a way its more reliable when you have to get the shot - no possibility of autofocus mishaps. Additional bonus: it saves on battery life. Lastly: if you use a camera all day, you might as well use gear that you love. Personally if I'd use a Sony i might wanna compensate the computer like user experience with something romantic like a Leica lens.

 

2) Why the tape over the logo? Less distracting. Stealth. More beautiful. Unwillingness to be a billboard for a brand? I know several people who tape off their logo and I did it as well in the past. For me it was to not distract my subjects with a word when making a portrait of them. To her the camera is a tool and the logo might not have a function. Maybe she just likes the way it looks - who knows.