Why DO you "Barnack"...?

[storybrown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pecole -- that Oskar paper is excellent! What a nice edition to your equipment!

[Advertisement]

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

[Pecole]

Pecole -- that Oskar paper is excellent! What a nice edition to your equipment!

 

Yes, it's nice. I received this precious piece of paper from former Leitz man Georg Mann in 1984 or 85, when he was chairman of the German Leica Historica, on the occasion of a visit of a party from this association to my "Fontenelle Collection" in Brussels.

[lars_bergquist]

Why I do "Barnack"? I don't.

 

Those wonderful old clunkers are very interesting, from the point of view of the history of technology ... but actually using them .... no thanks. They are just barely usable.

 

Leitz and Barnack had a prototype with many of the elements of the M already in 1935, the "Leica IV". It had all speeds on one non-rotating dial (slotted for a pre-war Leicameter, it seems!). It had a combined rangefinder with Albada type light frames. Then Barnack went and died in the early days of 1936. And Ernst Leitz went into collective hysterical stasis. Every quirk and mistake and provisional solution in the design was holy. Nothing could change! Even though Barnack himself had been in the process of changing them. When the thing was totally re-engineered inside in 1939, for the 1940 IIIc, it was to ease production only. Outside, the camera was nearly unchanged. It took a world war to get the company out of its rut.

 

I mentioned the Leica IV. But there was a world outside Wetzlar too. In 1936 the Kine-Exakta had lever wind-on, single stroke, mind you, and electrical internal flash sync. The combined view-rangefinder of the Contax II (1936) was not too spiffy, but any Retina II type 011 (1946) had a better one. And I will not even mention the tread mount itself.

 

I started my photography with a Zeiss 6x9cm roll film folder, complete with Ye Olde Red Windowe and a brilliant viewfinder, which was far from brilliant in use. I don't want to go back to the Neolithic. When I feel like going primitive I put film in my M4-P. I still know how to expose film by dead reckoning, but not with a stone axe, please. And the M8 has taught me more photography than the previous sixty years. So -- collector's pieces, yes. Conversation pieces -- yes. For patting while sitting in the rocking chair on a winter night -- yes. Users -- no.

 

The old man from the Age of Digital

[dkCambridgeshire]

It's a lot more economical than running classic or vintage cars ... especially as regards garaging.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[lagrassa]

It's a lot more economical than running classic or vintage cars ... especially as regards garaging.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

 

 

I use my classic/vintage IIIc (c.1950) to take photos of my classic/vintage Porsche (c. 1970). Both made in Germany, of course.

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!

[lars_bergquist]

The proper analog of a LTM Leica is not a 1970 Porsche. It is a 1936 Ford Eifel forcing you to spend more time under it, adjusting the brake stays that stretch forever into Einsteinian space, than in it. And it goes without saying that it must have a starting crank (which I have sorely missed on more modern cars during subarctic winters).

 

So--intriguing, yes. Aggravating, yes, yes, YES! Practical? No.

 

The old man from the Age of Cranks

[lagrassa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[quote name=

 

So--intriguing, yes. Aggravating, yes, yes, YES! Practical? No.

 

/quote]

 

1970 Porsche: Intriguing? Yes, definitely. Aggravating: Yes,sometimes. Practical: No, not in the modern sense.

 

Sounds a lot my Lecia IIIc.

[cbretteville]

Because I can.

 

I bought one because I wanted the Summitar that was on it and it was dirt cheap. I ended up having the IIIf serviced by DAG and now it is just a pleasure to use with a 50/3.5.

 

- Carl

[iShutterbug]

Because I can--

 

I don't mind being seen as an "old timer" in photography when I'm carrying one of my 50 to 70 year old screwmount Leicas and an exposure meter, to me that's a real status symbol. I latched onto digital photography early on and wouldn't be without it but I also wouldn't be without a sm Leica in my kit for the "artist" in me.

[lars_bergquist]

If (a big if) I would 'Barnack', it would be with a real Barnack camera: A black-and-nickel Leica II, preferably in a contemporaneous eveready case. Ditto Elmar of course. That would be an outfit with style. After that, everything went downhill.

 

The old man from the Age of Rangefinder Cameras

[bill]

If (a big if) I would 'Barnack', it would be with a real Barnack camera: A black-and-nickel Leica II, preferably in a contemporaneous eveready case. Ditto Elmar of course. That would be an outfit with style. After that, everything went downhill.

 

The old man from the Age of Rangefinder Cameras

 

You mean like this...?

 

 

(It has taken up residence in a Luigi half-case since I took this... )

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wizard]

In addition to all the reasons stated above, I use my LTM Leicas because they are still up to date in the sense that they allow me to take photographs, slides in particular, of the highest quality. That alone I find remarkable for a device which is 50 years of age and older.

 

Andy

[bobtodrick]

I regularily show in galleries and have published one book so far...most of the images having been shot with a IIIg.

Why, because I like the size of the cameras, and to show people like 'the old man from the age of digital' that they don't know what they're talking about.

[lars_bergquist]

Bill, that is a really nice one. But as I said, a cuddler, not a user.

 

Of course you can take technically excellent pictures with one--if you have a technically excellent lens in LTM mount (a big if, that) and technically excellent film for it. But the standards for technical excellence are set in the digital area nowadays, and the M8 is better than any lens Leitz made before 1979, and most made after that time too. And when I compare low ISO film professionally scanned, to M8 output through the very same lenses, the quality difference is nothing short of embarrassing. Film is fast becoming an affectation.

 

So when I feel oldfashioned, I put a 1960 50mm Elmar on my M8. What I get depends entirely on the lens. There are no film limitations and no grain to hide the true face of a simple four element Elmar. Sometimes I like it. But marrying it ... no.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa --we're nearly exact contemporaries.

[bill]

Lars, what can I say...?

 

Rangefound: Sharp is not the only fruit

 

...well, this, I suppose

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bobtodrick]

Lars, that's also the issue I have with your posts. Who made you the arbitrator of what makes a good image. In my office I have two images, one the infamous Che photo and the other an image made by HCB of Picasso...the one with the birds on the birdcage.

The M8 with modern optics would likely put both of them to shame, sharpness-wise.

Would they necessarily be better images if they were sharp...not in my opinion. For the same reason some images work better with the gritty grain of pushed Tri-X, even if there is enough light for Tmax100.

Oh, and by the way...we're discussing Barnack cameras, not necessarily lenses. If need be I'll compare the sharpness of my IIIg with the special edition 35mm Sumicron Asph (that I paid a dear price for) against an M8 image any day.

You like the M8, I like my Barnacks, to each his own. Why do you need to suggest that those who want to use the older cameras are obviously putting out lesser quality images?

[stunsworth]

Lars, that's also the issue I have with your posts. Who made you the arbitrator of what makes a good image?

 

No one. We all have our own definition of what constitutes a good image (personally content beats sharpness almost every time for me). Lars is expressing his preference, just as you are yours.

[bobtodrick]

Steve, sorry but I take Lars statement: "And when I compare low ISO film professionally scanned, to M8 output through the very same lenses, the quality difference is nothing short of embarrassing. Film is fast becoming an affectation." to be a bit stonger than 'opinion'.

Especially in B&W. sharpness is not everything.

An example is this quote from Ralph Gibson (March 2009) "And I have discovered that, in these irregularities there is some creative input. I don’t want my film to be developed too well, too cleanly, too smoothly. I don’t want that slick look. I’ve had a life long relationship with grain. You know I originally started out as a photojournalist when I was young. I’ve always felt that grain gave texture both to cinema, as well as photography. I’ve used it for any number of reasons for the entire length of my career. It’s almost harder to get a grainy image nowadays than it is to get the shot."

 

Now Lars statement "film is fast becoming and affectation"...well someone should tell Mr. Gibson. I guess he really should give up film and join the digital bandwagon.

Again, sometimes sterile 'perfection' is not what is wanted/needed to make a photograph.

I use digital more than film to be truthful, but it sure as hell doesn't do everything I need it to, and when those needs arise I switch to film. And my old Barnacks, though needing a little more forethought do the job just as well as and M7 (or M8).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

Lars, that's also the issue I have with your posts. Who made you the arbitrator of what makes a good image ...

We are talking of different things. Some great pictures have been taken in the past with equipment that today would be regarded as technically totally unacceptable. I have myself often pointed out that there are other things to pictures than technical excellence. Quoting oneself is usully regarded as bad form but "sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers".

 

But from the fact that good pictures were sometimes taken with bad equipment does NOT follow that using bad equipment will make you take good pictures.

 

What I was speaking of was technical performance: Optical, mechanical and ergonomic. And there, LTM Leicas fall far below today's standards. It was not by chance or for reasons of expediency that the M2 became the basis of all later Leica RF cameras until today. The M8 has what is basically a M2 rangefinder.

 

What has technical excellence to do with artistic ability? It makes the artist's performance easier. For instance, the combined finder-rangefinder makes taking the picture into one fluid process, instead of three distinct ones. And better lenses, and film-and-sensors, gives the user more options to work with. If your lens is too sharp for your purpose, you can easily soften it (tried breathing on the front lens?) But if it is too soft, then you cannot sharpen it. And while you can use a bleeding-soft 1930's Summar on a M8, you cannot use an aspherical Summilux on a Leica III.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica IIIa

[ismon]

I don't know why Leica doesn't make their modern lenses in Thread Mount. There are some 750,000 LTM bodies out there, not to mention the Japanese cameras. Would I use an aspherical Summilux on my Leica III ? Why not. The LTM cameras have a longer effective measuring base than any of the current M bodies. Still, much of the charm of the the "Barnacks" is imaging character of the "Barek" lenses. (Frankly, I often prefer the Hektor to the Summar, but I suppose it depends on the situation).