I was watching C-SPAN this morning (Am I an exciting guy or what?) and they had presidential photographer PF Bentley on talking about photography and presidents. He has a website which he showed, and he also brought several 11 X 14 inch prints to show.

I was surprised that several of the usually political callers asked many questions about photography. The subject came up regarding digital vs. film, and Bentley said that film is "gone", and that everything is on "chip" now. This caught me as funny, because his website photo shows him cradling a Leica M. He said at this time, digital equals film (his words), but even on the relatively low resolution of my TV, you could see the pixels and digital smearing on the 11 X 14 inch prints. Obviously the time constraint of his work means that digital is needed, but for hanging something on the wall, he didn't make the case to me. He is using multi-thousand dollar Canon digital cameras and doing his own editing on his computer. They also showed the several covers he had for TIME and NEWSWEEK.

If interested, go to his website and look around. PF Bentley's photo website

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 18, 2002

Answers

That's definitely not a Leica he's holding, I think it's an X-Pan.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 18, 2002.

It doesn't look like an XPan either. I wonder if it is a Canon (digital) G-1?

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), February 18, 2002.

Looks like M5 to me.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), February 18, 2002.

I think it's a Konica Hexar.

-- Phil Andrews (philandrew@hotmail.com), February 18, 2002.

My vote's for the Hexar - it's certainly not an XPan or M5 - the mystery camera is too 'square' for either of those.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 18, 2002.

I'm leaning towards the Hexar myself. It has chrome strap lugs, white writing on the front and a frameline illumination window, all of which looks like the camera here: Hexar

I guess it is all moot, since on the show this morning, he said he has quit using film.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 18, 2002.

I think now it does look like a Hexar, I put a loupe up to the screen. I'm happy he quit using film. That'll leave more for me.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 18, 2002.

I don't think it's a XPAN. The light-gathering window does not look much like that of an M, unless maybe the M3; but I don't think it's an M3. Also, it has not got a frame-selector lever, which would make it not an M unless a very early M3. The light-collecting window does, however, remind me of that of a CL.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 18, 2002.

Hello,

I just emailed them for an answer. Now don't anyone else spill the beans until I get the answer back.

Correct answerer get's the Flesher/Dixon Leica Historic commerative "I took Hillary Clinton's centerfold picture" 75mm lens.

There's just too much at stake here.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 18, 2002.

While I use both film and digital, I think that using digital to document the Prez is a mistake. The reason is that with digital you sit down at the end of the shoot and delete the "losers" and keep the "winners", whereas with slides many people put all of the well exposed slides into plastic pages and submit the "winners", but they still keep many of the slides that don't get published. This can be important for historical reasons. Sometimes the photographer does not realize the importance of a photo until much later. This came up during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The famous photo of Clinton hugging Lewinsky at a party was considered unimportant by the photographer on the day he shot it. Months later when he saw a photo of Lewinsky he swore he had seen her someplace before, and started to go through his slide files then-Bingo- there was the photo of the two of them. The guys who had shot the same event with digital would never have been able to dig out the photo. The "delete" button has its downside.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), February 18, 2002.

Hello,

PF email'd me the answer. He's in Hawaii.

Any other guesses?

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 18, 2002.

The mystery of the camera is one thing, but, there is something on his website that I'd like a second or third opinion on. It is something that seems rather bizarre. I went to his 'Contents Page', and saw that he had a 'Canada' link. I looked at the page, and, well, as I have said, I'd like some other opinions.

The answers should be interesting.

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), February 18, 2002.

Ans: Hexar RF He wanted to know if there was to be a Leica digital camera. Says he still has the leica lenses but doesn't use them. Wishes he could.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 18, 2002.

Ian, it appears that the web designer has screwed up the links. Otherwise it's a subtle joke on Canada...

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), February 19, 2002.

Dave,

Have you looked closely at the first photo?

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), February 19, 2002.

Medium format Fuji rangefinder anybody? Who knows? I have seen a pic of Clinton's personal photographer during a visit to New Zealand. She is festooned with gadget bags and about half a dozen cameras - including a Canon EOS 1 with long white lens and hood, and, surprisingly, a black Leica M6 - which looks very much out of place. The Leica, after all, was designed to be a compact, surreptitious camera. I suppose since the president travels with not one, but two fully laden 747s, a miminalist photographer would be out of the question. But Clinton charmed everyone during his stay.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), February 19, 2002.

Ian,

Yup, ok not so subtle...the rather phallic image of the Washington Monument that is the link is intersting too. Did you notice that the cow pic linked to a cropped crowd shot from the aforementioned linked pic? Mooooo!

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), February 19, 2002.

:):):):):):):):) Prize please! Oh alright, Phil was first!

:)

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 19, 2002.