This morning the temperature here in
Minneapolis was right around 0. But we
have bright sunshine and it is actually a nice day to go out and shoot. This brings up the ever reoccurring question
if we need to treat our cameras differently in cold weather? The short answer is ‘not really’.
These days, when our our cameras rely
more than ever on sufficient battery power, we should, however, be aware that
they don’t like low temperatures very much at all. Subsequently, one or two fully charged extra
batteries are definitely a good idea.
Carried in an inside pocket, to keep them warm, should prevent any
mishaps of camera failure due to lack of battery power. In addition, it is advisable to carry the
cameras underneath our clothing as well to keep them from getting any colder
than necessary.
Finally, carry along a ziplock bag,
big enough for the camera and lenses.
After a while of shooting, when getting ready to back inside, put the
camera, lenses and other equipment into the plastic bag and seal it. This prevents the warm, moist inside air to
get into contact with the equipment.
Otherwise the result will be that the moisture condensates on the cold
camera equipment. Excessive moisture and
cameras simply don’t mix. Keeping the
camera equipment in a closed case will also work as long as it is not opened.
All this reminds me of a new Leica M5
that I acquired several years ago. I had
always heard of the impressive resistance of Leicas to cold temperatures and
decided to give the camera a good test.
The weather forecast was predicting
temperatures as low as -30F. To give the
camera a head start, I put it in a freezer overnight. The next morning the thermometer did indeed read
-30 degrees. I set out to take
photographs. I purposely carried the
camera on a strap, outside my clothing, to make sure it would get as cold as
possible.
I noticed no ill effects. The camera worked as it should. The only difference was that the 50mm f/2
Summicron on the camera was a bit stiffer during focusing.
One of the subjects I photographed was Minnehaha Falls in Minneapolis. When it is cold enough, the entire falls freezes, with the rushing water still running inside.the frozen mass. I took the opportunity to climb up the ice and walk behind the falls. It was like being in an ice cave, with the light taking on the greenish color of the ice, and the rumbling waters of the fall penetrating the otherwise perfectly quiet environment.
Minneapolis - Minnehaha Falls
Behind Minnehaha Falls
Behind Minnehaha Falls
I had been shooting for about 2 hours
when I decided to go home. Once I
returned, against my own advice, I went right inside, forgetting about the
plastic bags. To my horror, the camera
instantly froze over with about 1/8 inch of solid ice. The camera was so cold that the condensation
froze immediately. As it warmed up and
the ice thawed, I immediately wiped it off.
The camera showed no ill side effects and served me well for many years
after that.
That was obviously some extremely
rough treatment and I certainly don’t recommend subjecting any of your cameras
to such torture. But it showed that
Leica’s claims in regard to cold weather operation are not exaggerated.
I have long since switched to digital Leica
equipment and I have refrained from repeating that test with any of my current
cameras, but I have used them at temperatures as low as about 0 with no ill
side effects. I would not hesitate to
use any of my cameras at temperatures a lot lower than that. But I don’t have anything to prove anymore,
not with my cameras and certainly not for myself. Unless absolutely necessary, I will wait for
more pleasant days for my outdoor shooting.
Amazing. How did you get behind the waterfall?
ReplyDeleteI climbed up the ice below the large opening at the upper right. It took several tries, but I made it. The photographs were taken behind the ice where the two small openings are at the top left.
ReplyDeleteReader Uwe Ehlert wrote on Facebook:
ReplyDeleteGreat Photos
Must be super cool to be behind the ice. And i mean cool in two ways here.
Doesn't film get brittle in cold temperatures?
ReplyDeleteWhat film did you use?
Film definitely gets stiffer at low temperatures, but I have never experienced any problems at all from film getting brittle. Minnesota in Winter is a good testing ground for that.
ReplyDeleteThe film I used was Agfachrome 64. I just scanned the transparencies yesterday for this article. The photos were taken in February of 1972. This shows that films other than Kodachrome can definitely survive a long time without fading, providing they are stored properly.
I can't believe you subjected that camera to such torture. Weren't you afraid it might get hurt?
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, weren't you afraid to get hurt yourself? 30 below sounds absurd.
ReplyDeleteI didn't consider it torture at all. Leica has always stated that their cameras can withstand rather high temperature extremes. After all, Leicas have been used on polar expeditions as well as expeditions to the highest peaks in the Himalayas and elsewhere on earth, where they have been subjected to even colder conditions. I simply wanted to see if my camera was capable to do so. It passed with flying colors.
DeleteAs for myself, I had no problems at all. To withstand such low temperatures is simply a matter of dressing accordingly. As a matter of fact, this wasn't the only time I was out under such conditions and on several occasions I actually opened my jacket slightly because I was getting too hot. It is an interesting thought though, that a freezer or meat locker would appear relatively warm in comparison to 30 below. But I want to assure everyone that Minnesota is far from being the frozen tundra it is considered to be by many. During Summer it can easily reach 100 degrees or more. My cameras have performed equally well under those conditions also.
Did you test any other cameras under those conditions?
ReplyDeleteYes, I did. At the same time I had the Leica M5, I also owned a Zeiss Contarex, the so called Cyclops model. Unfortunately I sold it when Zeiss discontinued making the Contarex. A follow up model of the Cyclops, the Contarex Electronic, was the first camera to ever be used in space when the US conducted the first space walk with Ed White. I still consider the Contarex one of the all time greatest 35mm SLR cameras and, together with the Alpa, it was the only other commercially available camera made with the same tolerances as the Leica cameras.
DeleteMy Contarex performed just as well as the M5 did, except it operated a lot slower. The shutter worked flawlessly, it was the mirror drive that got rather slow. Unlike most SLR cameras, which simply allow the mirror to flip up under spring tension, the Contarex used a gear drive. This was done to prevent any vibrations from the mirror going up. The mirror was literally moved to its upper position by a gear which, after the exposure reversed and moved the mirror downwards. The cold temperatures stiffened the lubrication of these gears to the extend that it took about three or four seconds for the mirror to reach its upper position. After that the shutter would be released and then the mirror slowly would move back down into the viewing position.
How was that Zeiss camera used during the space walk? Was it mounted to the space suit like the Hasselblad cameras later on?
ReplyDeleteSorry about the late reply, I just now noticed the question after re-posting this article. For the space walk Ed white had been given an experimental manouvering device. It consisted of a tank with a propellant, about the size of a small fire extinguisher. At one end was a handle, to hold it with one hand and a crossbar with a nozzle at each end. The device was supposed to allow movement in various directions simply by triggering the exhaust nozzles. The Contarex was mounted on top of the device in the center. As it turned out, the camera worked flawlessly, the maneuvering unit proved to be a failure.
DeleteMy M4-P, loaded with TRI-X, has endured the harshest of Canadian winters for almost 26 years. I have never had a problem, neither the film has ever broken or jammed...
ReplyDeleteBased on my own experiences with Leica cameras here in Minnesota, that does not surprise me at all.
Delete