There's a review of Helen Levitt's new book "Crosstown" (Powerhouse, $52.50 on Amazon) in the November 19, 2001 issue of The New Yorker, page 88. Levitt has been shooting since the 1930's and most of her work has been with a Leica rangefinder. I am fortunate enough to know one of her relatives, who says she now shoots with a Contax rangefinder.

[Aside] This is interesting because I recently attended a talk by Elliott Erwitt, who also used an M. He says he now uses a Contax as well --I guess that generation just needs AF now...? :)

FYI, wayne

-- Wayne C. Lee (wlee@s.psych.uiuc.edu), November 16, 2001

Answers

Here’s the URL click here. By the way, I don’t consider the Contax G a “rangefinder;” it’s more of an auto focus point and shoot. I suppose the designation does distinguish it from an SLR.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), November 16, 2001.

no, try this.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), November 16, 2001.

Once one reaches the age of using bifocals, it's nearly impossible to compose and focus through that little viewfinder hole in the Leica. The viewfinder is the one area where trying to use their 50 year old camera design simply doesn't work. The .5 finder model isn't the answer, either.

-- wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), November 16, 2001.

I'm surprised by the comment. With bifocals the last couple of years, I find the 'finder as easy or easier to use than an SLR. My specs are continuous fades, instead of bifocals with a distinct line.

-- Joe Brugger (joebrugger@news.oregonian.com), November 16, 2001.

"I don't consider the Contax G a "rangefinder"."

Oh, piffle.

A "rangefinder camera" is a camera that sets focus by measuring the distance (finding the range) to the subject, via one of several possible technological means, including optical triangulation, rather than by focusing an image on a substitute image plane (view camera, SLR, TLR). By this means it avoids the necessity for a moving mirror in the image path, and the consequent shake and exposure delay, along with other advantages (relative compactness) - and disadvantages (viewfinder parallax error).

All of the following are rangefinder cameras: Leica-M, Konica Hexar/ Hexar RF, V'lander/Cosina Bessa R/T, Fuji 690, Mamiya 6 or 7, Mamiya Press, Speed Graphic 4x5 (using the RF), the Fuji 645 AF/RF (I forget the exact designation) - and Contax G.

The G measures distance (in part) by bouncing an infrared beam off the subject. Leica sells a little device that measures distance by bouncing an infrared beam off the subject - the LRF 800 Rangemaster. Leica calls this device (uuhhhh!) a rangefinder.

On the other hand, the Leica A or Standard or whichever (my wife vacuumed today and I can't find the Laney book), as well as the UR- Leica and the original "null" series, had no distance-measuring devices at all (except for the human eye), at least for the first couple of years. Yet most people consider them the root of the Leica rangefinder family tree. What definition of "rangefinder" includes them and not the Contax G?

I've used Contax G - it's the camera that turned me on to rangefinders. The Contax has a different set of strengths and weaknesses from the Leica-M; but then so do each of the other rangefinders listed above.

Now, I prefer the Leica's set - faster response, focus that stays put between shots, extra silence, f/2 and f/1.4 lenses, longer tonal range lenses.

But many people like the G. In addition to the photographers already named, Bruce Davidson and Annie Leibowitz and one of the English Magnum members (name escapes me - he had a Contax G2 picture in the Pop. Photo Magnum article within the past year) have also used them.

End of rant.

I look forward to seeing both the review and the book - Thanks, Wayne.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 17, 2001.

Is my Yashica T4 a rangefinder?

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), November 17, 2001.

In a not too recent TV documentary about Mary Ellen Mark, I noticed that she had a Contax, probably a G2, slung around her neck. Her students were all using M6's, black, of course. I wonder if someone, perhaps Contax, could come up with a true manual focusing lens that used a non-mechanical rangefinder like the G1-G2 uses in so- called "manual mode". Seems that this might be less prone to the misallignment problems that one hears about so often with the complex rangefinder mechanism of the M's. Radical! John

-- John (mymacv@aol.com), November 17, 2001.

Thanks for giving everyone a heads up about the article & book, Wayne. Re: the G2 as rangefinder question. Yes, Phil, under Andrew's definition it seems your T4 could be considered a RF (as would the old autofocus Polaroid that used sonar). But didn't we all just have that discussion? Oh wait, that was on another list . . . http://www.topica.com/lists/rflist/read

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), November 17, 2001.

excuse me for diturbing your rangefinder-no-rangefinder discusion, but I belive there is a lot more to talk about Levitt´s tremendous body work than the lattest camera she has been seen with; even HCB uses a point and shot model now, I don´t care, they have done in photography what they had to, and more, lets not get disturbed by the camera they pick out of the closet that day. ;-)

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 17, 2001.

Does anybody know what the review said?

-- Wilhelm (bmitvh@home.com), November 17, 2001.

Mr. Watson,

-- John (mymcv@aol.com), November 17, 2001.

Mr. Watson: I don't think any of the discussion infers disrespect to Helen Watson. Wayne Lee's messsage was received and processed. I, for one, will read the review in The New Yorker rather than just looking at the cartoons.

-- John (mymcv@aol.com), November 17, 2001.

Just so that Wayne doesn't get deluged with emails that have nothing to do with Helen Levitt or "Crosstown", I have opened a new thread on what is/isn't a rangefinder camera here.

I invite anyone interested in that part of the discussion to follow me there for drinks and conversation (BYOB).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 17, 2001.

Andy, thank you for that second thread. It was not my intention to start a debate on equipment. As this is a Leica forum, I felt the need to mention that Levitt has used Leica equipment for many of her images --this post seemed to go well with the "Leica Photographers" section. However, at the same time I did not want to lead others to believe that she has used an M-series camera for all of her work.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Levitt's work, basically she is a street photographer who has been shooting for a very long time (primarily in NYC, where she lives). She has also published a handful of books over the years.

To Wilhelm, please check out the link provided in Phil's second post if it is the actual content of the article that you are looking for. The on-line version of the article does not have the image (from her work) that accompanies the print article.

Just trying to clarify, wayne

-- Wayne C. Lee (wlee@s.psych.uiuc.edu), November 17, 2001.

Sorry if I sounded too rude; I was just willing to read more on Levitt´s work, Andy´s second tread is very interesting, as well as knowing her way of working, sorry for beeing so close mind some times friends.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 19, 2001.

Hello, me again. I was talking to the relative of Helen Levitt yesterday, and she told me that Levitt has a color TV in her apartment but has actually turned the color off! I'm not joking here. She says Levitt dabbled in color, but then switched back to B&W, which is what she uses today. The cover of her book was just one of those from the color collection.

-- Wayne C. Lee (wlee@s.psych.uiuc.edu), December 01, 2001.