I was today lucky enough to go see the Henri Cartier-Bresson's Early works exhibition. Quite interesting, to say the least! The collection included for example the classic decisive moment photographs of the man leaping over the water and the spiral stairs and the blurred bike rider under them. Wow.

While a collection like that certainly raises many thoughts in any photography enthusiast, here are some of mine.

First, I realize how the modern shooting often raises secondary questions about the picture's technical properties like noise (= film grain), motion blur, camera movement blur, tilted horizon and so on. Technically many of his greatest works are actually failures by today's approach! And yet many are so powerful. So, while many of us are a bit gadget-geeks, at least for me it would be important to concentrate more and more on the content. Then again, if one has as few ideas as I do, it's nice that we can at least play with the hardware!

Also, it seems that very many of the best pictures have been the result of a very fast reaction to a dynamic situation. HCB sees a situation, an interesting composition and immediately shoots away. That kind of shooting really needs a fast and handy camera system in addition to the conscious and subconscious processes that analyze the surroundings.

And while my honest plan was to concentrate more on the content, I have to wonder what kind of equipment would be good for HCB style shooting today. Something relatively small and unobtrusive, something with fast AF (or hyperfocal MF) and a fast shutter mechanism. Also a certain mechanical endurance and environmental shielding would be good. HCB style often also seemed to use WA lenses.

So what's your pick? While the µ4/3 cameras are small and handy, at least the Olys don't seem to focus that fast. Sony NEXes are slow according to the hear-say also. K-7, perhaps? But with what kind of a lens? I assume a fictional DFA 20mm f/2.8 WR would be great.

[gokenin]

well considering that he used a film camera I dont know why you are insisting on a fast autofocus? I would probably say a 24-28mm would give you roughly the same focal length that he used for most of his shots, I believe most of his shots were done with a 50mm lens

Gokenin, I'm talking about year 2010 and not the 30s - wondering what current equipment would work and not trying to replicate his. Therefore the need for AF. Also I'm a bit surprised if most of those photos were shot at 50mm, but don't really know what he used.

[Votesh]

I bet he'd use a Leica M9 and a 50mm Summilux. He used Leicas back then, so why not now too? It's not AF, but obviously AF isn't necessary, even for decisive moment stuff.

A brief googling reveals that he did indeed use mostly a 50mm lens with his Leica, but later also a Leica "point & shoot" with a 40mm lens.

[RioRico]

There is a hierarchy of importance of elements in the making of a photograph:

1) photographer
2) subject
3) light
4) lens
5) camera

I'm sure HCB would have shot splendidly with a 135 folder with a 50/3.5 lens (like my Kodak Retina I or Voigtlander Vito II). Use it for a few months, learn to judge distance and light, set your fingers to AUTO, and Voila! A later generation might use a tiny Rollei 35 or Olympus XA. What to use now? A Kx and kit lens. Set Av to f/8, use manual focus, and search out those significant moments. (Or maybe HCB would use a Holga now.)

We get hung up on gear. Oooh oooh, which is the best body, the best lens? If you're shooting decorative stuff, that matters; if you're shooting people engaged in their lives, it doesn't. Ansel Adams shot decorative stuff. That's nice. HCB and Eisenstaedt and Capa and Kertesz and that crowd, shot people in motion. The standards and approaches are different. Art does not reside in resolution. The camera is the least of your worries.

[Votesh]

That's a highly oversimplified view of things, and that hierarchy, aside from photographer being at the top, is highly subjective. If anything, a proper representation of the hierarchy would be a tree structure with "photographer" at the top, with seperate branches for gear and situation below that.

Of course the photographer and his or her "eye" is the most important element. However, based on that assumption, subject and light become much less important. Just like the fact that a great photographer wouldn't be held back by their gear, a great photographer wouldn't be held back by subject matter or light. Conversely, just as good subject matter and light can elevate the work of a great photographer, so too could great gear. The same would generally apply to the rest of us(i.e. regular photogs).

HCB chose the camera and lenses he did for a reason. Sure, he probably would have done well will any number of other camera and lens combinations. However, he chose to use a Leica and a 50mm lens for most of his shots. If he had been limited to different gear he probably would have been a different photographer, and it would probably work the other way around too.

Lens and camera do matter for more than just "decorative stuff". For example, an 8x10 view camera is not very conducive to candid street photography. It would make it quite hard to capture the "decisive moment". The bottom line is that there is gear which is undeniably better suited to different styles of photography. Discussing what would be well suited to HCBs style today is far from getting hung up on gear, and discussions of gear usually don't exclude the fact that there is more to photography than said gear.

Speaking of getting hung up on gear, aren't you the guy that bought more than a lens a day on ebay? I kid, of course.

[RioRico]

Speaking of getting hung up on gear, aren't you the guy that bought more than a lens a day on ebay?

Yeah, but they were cheap.

As for HCB's camera choice: He took up the Leica in 1931. It was the only 35mm cam available then. That tends to limit one's choices. (So like many photo students, he stuck with the camera he learned upon.) And it took rollfilm -- the first 135 cassette camera was the 1934 German Kodak Retina I, my favorite. That Retina, and its near-clone the Voigtlander Vito II, are tinier and less noticeable than the smallest Leica.

I guess my point is that for most shooting, the tools are almost incidental. Crap pictures have been shot with top-of-the-line gear. Striking pictures have been shot with crap gear. Another thread here asks, what should my next photo project be? I'll go back and suggest that they put a cheap uncorrected magnifier lens in a bellows on their camera, shoot with that. Try to make significant pictures with insignificant optics. Learn the tools and tricks of previous decades and centuries. Et cetera.

[Votesh]

Yeah, but they were cheap.

But why put the effort,time and money into buying 100+ lenses and so many cameras if all you need is a Holga or a pinhole camera made out of a cardboard box to create masterpieces. Time spent on ebay is time not spent shooting. It sounds like an obsession with gear to me

The Leica may have been the only 35mm camera at the time, but he didn't have to purchase a 35mm camera. He could have chosen to go the "decorative" route, and use a LF camera. He went with what would allow him to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish photographically. I highly doubt he just incidentally chose the Leica.

The Vito II and Retina I are fixed lens folders, are they not? I've never seen one in person or compared to an early Leica, but are they really that much tinier than a Leica with a collapsible lens? I doubt they could be too much tinier, and they are without a doubt more susceptible to damage(bellows and hinges on the lens mechanism) than a Leica. Plus they have fixed lenses. How do you know the prime reason he stuck with Leica was because he learned on one? Just because there were fewer choices back then doesn't mean there weren't choices.

The fact that crap photos have been taken with great gear, and that striking photos have been taken on crap gear is irrelevant to the discussion of what gear HCB would use today. It just sounds like you're on your soapbox, and for no reason. The thread wasn't about which gear is best, or whether so-and-so famous photographer would do just as well with any camera. Your condescension was quite misplaced.

[lithos]

There is a hierarchy of importance of elements in the making of a photograph:

1) photographer
2) subject
3) light
4) lens
5) camera

I'm sure HCB would have shot splendidly with a 135 folder with a 50/3.5 lens (like my Kodak Retina I or Voigtlander Vito II). Use it for a few months, learn to judge distance and light, set your fingers to AUTO, and Voila! A later generation might use a tiny Rollei 35 or Olympus XA. What to use now? A Kx and kit lens. Set Av to f/8, use manual focus, and search out those significant moments. (Or maybe HCB would use a Holga now.)

Do you hear that? That sound is a million Leicaphiles screaming after you just blew away their main reason for spending fifteen grand on the gear.

Some of the reasoning around HCB and Leica is mind-bogglingly backward.

[Digitalis]

If you look even earlier you will find some more interesting styles of photography. Check out the history of the Ermanox. "It was basically a 100mm f/2 (f/1.8 in the earlier versions) Ernostar lens with a rubberized-cloth focal plane shutter in front of (645)plate film. No rangefinder, just a folding glass viewfinder. Erich Salomon used this discreet camera to devastating effect."

Erich Salomon was the father of available light photography, and an inspiration for photographers like Henri cartier bresson.

[CWyatt]

I think one of the best set ups for street at the moment, having not used Leica, is the K-7 with 21mm limited (or 40mm if you prefer that). Not a super fast aperture, but a compact, responsive, quiet and discreet package for a DSLR set up, at a focal length between two favourite street sweet spots - 28mm and 35mm, and a good ISO range.

From what I've read HCB was very much attached to the 50mm, occasionaly using a 90mm (I think it was), and he used a 35mm in the US. I found it interesting, having seen a lot of his images online, that when I got his book HCB: Photographer, many of the images are somewhat out of focus. For me, it doesn't really take away from them at all, because the composition and moments are so good.