Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

[Richard G]

"it's all about the glass." I have never agreed with that. It's all about the picture and I am with the crowd that says that the camera body simplicity, ergonomics and reliability matter. The essential thing about Leica is not the lenses but the body, compact body, bright clear viewfinder, clear frame-lines, positive unequivocal focus, or no focus other than zone focus. My cheapest lens is the 25 Colour Skopar which was good enough on its own for a week's holiday. Yes I love my Zeiss lenses and my Summicrons but the camera matters. Orville Robertson who used to post here a lot and was a great fan of the M5 put this view firmly soon after I joined RFF and his pictures were fantastic.

[ColSebastianMoran]

May I suggest the real question is "quality of body, quality of the lens?" Not the price.

Today, for film cameras, many great bodies are cheap, but the lenses of corresponding quality are pricey.

For example, I have shooting recently with Contax SLR bodies (Aria, 159MM). These are fabulous camera bodies bought for only $50 to $120 today. The corresponding Zeiss lenses are still expensive. I have one, a terrific 50mm f/1.7 Planar, but otherwise I use the Yashica ML lenses which are excellent. That probably puts me in the category of "cheeping out on the lenses."

[denizg7]

I remember when Leica Glass wasn't this expensive.

The thing about Leica is, it's previous products in the past are what makes them so valued, such as the M3, the first summicrons V1 Noctilux etc.

And even with the inflation the new Leica glass is ridiculous even the used ones are higher than in the past.

We have no idea how long the m9 will be reliable , if so in par with M3's craftsmanship.

I thin Cosina Voigtlander Nails the price and built quality of their lenses, and they are as good and sometimes better than old leica glass.

I really wish leica would consider selling Summicron's at 800-900 new and Nocitlux at 2 grand.

thinking 25 years ago a used noctilux cost barely a grand.

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Talking of handling etc then I'd suggest the crown should go to a lot of P&S's that have excellent quality glass in them and handle well. A pity they don't take a cable release and have a hot shoe or 3mm coaxial socket.

I often wonder why people chase after top quality glass. Talk to the tech's in most labs and they'll tell you that 4" x 6" and 5" x 7" out number all the rest by a huge margin. I know it's different if we are talking slides for presentations or a double page spread. But for most people I think an uncoated Elmar would be more than adequate and a coated Summitar would be OTT.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

[Bob Michaels]

Let us remember that the majority of iconic or all time greatest photos were made with equipment that most members here will reject because it was not good enough for them.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

Let us remember that the majority of iconic or all time greatest photos were made with equipment that most members here will reject because it was not good enough for them.

amen!


.

[miatab]

I am perfectly happy with my old M mount collapsible Summicron 50mm with its miriad of tiny polishing scratches on the surface of the front element, mounted on my Bessa R2; If I were to find an M6 TTL body at an attractive price, the old Summicron would find a home on that body, and I'd be perfectly happy.

[Bill Clark]

When buying, I get the best lenses. So long as they will someday fit a different body I will purchase someday.

I'm looking for a new body, but at 64, I'm not having much luck. Maybe I'll have to be satisfied with a new body using Photoshop.

[sanmich]

Both the camera and the lens have to be "good enough", and have ergonomics that I like.
that doesn't mean that everything has to be Leica, but compromising too much on either side of the equation just to get the best of the best of the best (to quote Will) on the other side just doesn't work for me.

[ampguy]

Is it just me? or do others see that the more one spends on expensive gear like high priced Leica stuff, the less artful the outcome?

Anyone see a Steven Huffy photo that wouldn't look as good from a P&S?

[agfa100]

My thinking is it's always the glass, my digital M is a nex-3 and a Ricoh GXR, sure I would like a M-9 but would it improve my pictures.... no!

wbill

[Rotarysmp]

I have a really beat up M2, which was my first Leica. I mounted an Early 70's 50 Summicron on it.

Also waited till this year to buy an M8 (which is cheap conpared to the M9 . I got a 28 Summicron as well. So each time I buy a cheap body for an expensive lens.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

Let us remember that the majority of iconic or all time greatest photos were made with equipment that most members here will reject because it was not good enough for them.

But good enough to take decent photographs...

Regards, David

[ampguy]

The M9 might not help, but if you got your hands on the Diana Royal wedding film M, you'd feel so good holding that, it would improve anyone's photos.

Originally Posted by agfa100

My thinking is it's always the glass, my digital M is a nex-3 and a Ricoh GXR, sure I would like a M-9 but would it improve my pictures.... no!

wbill

[pdexposures]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I'm of the opinion that most lenses are good enough and the reason I concentrate on the body is that ergonomics are very important to me. If it doesn't feel right in my hands, how do I expect to ever feel good using it. I don't want to be distracted by gear when photographing. High quality lenses can be had at cheap prices.

This is about how I feel. I use an M6 and a Voigtlander 35mm 2.5. I'd love to own a Summicron someday, but owning a camera that doesn't feel cheap in my hands (sorry Voigtlander) was more important. The difference in images between my lens and a Summicron 99% of people wouldn't be able to discern.

[dee]

Interesting .

I love the various renditions of my creamy Summitar , genuine Sonnar mounted 1959 J3 from Brian Sweeney , ugly but amazingly sharp new Helios , and a sparkling little ' free with Fed2 ' , f3.5 collapsible which blew me away with it's colour renditon .
All used with M8 which was bought with amadeo adapter , for this purpose.

The sole ' modern ' lens which I own is a CV 35 f2.5 Color Scopar in ltm which actually finds more use on a Pansonic G1 - I love it .

I just love vintage lenses which happen to be inexpensive .

I have been pondering if I would buy a modern Leitz lens if I could afford it , but I don't know if it would substantially improve my admittedly , strictly considered snapshooter images .

[Pherdinand]

the ZI body is not cheap. Even the bessa r3a i have, is not cheap. Not by my standards, anyway.

A Fed is cheap. Or a Zorki.

[varjag]

A new Zorki is not cheap. Ok, it doesn't really exist, but a NOS Zorki would not be cheap either. It's not 2006 anymore

Conversely, a used Bessa R isn't really expensive.

[Thomas78]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

...

But for most people I think an uncoated Elmar would be more than adequate and a coated Summitar would be OTT.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

I agree on this.


An uncoated Elmar is a very nice lens (for me)


Leica III bl_Elmar 50 3,5_01_Ilford PAN F_001 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

And a coated Summitar is not bad, too


Leica IIIf_Summitar_Provia100F_01_009 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

[Lss]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Talking of handling etc then I'd suggest the crown should go to a lot of P&S's that have excellent quality glass in them and handle well.

Well, my experience is quite different.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Lss

Well, my experience is quite different.

Hi,

Well, no one can argue with that but it would help if you said what you'd had experience of; meaning actually used. FWIW, I've handled and tried to use some dreadful range-finders and SLR's and they had some very well known names on them.

Regards, David

[denizg7]

Originally Posted by ampguy

Is it just me? or do others see that the more one spends on expensive gear like high priced Leica stuff, the less artful the outcome?

Anyone see a Steven Huffy photo that wouldn't look as good from a P&S?

agree 100% steve huff site: aka men's jewelry site

[Lss]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Well, no one can argue with that but it would help if you said what you'd had experience of; meaning actually used.

Oh, a bunch of cameras by various manufacturers, film and digital. I do not remember most of the model names anymore. Bottom line is that they were not particularly good cameras in my experience. Some good pictures, but not good cameras for me. I think I may still have one of the Olympus mju cameras somewhere. A point-and-shoot I find pretty nice (especially image quality) is my Fuji 645. I can't say it handles too well, although it sure is simple. A compact film camera family I have never tried but expect to like is the Rollei 35.

[jarski]

rather good lens bad body, than other way round. that said, most amateurs dont use the even the cheapest equipment to the full extent. but its their own choice (and money) to buy new MP and Summilux, no moralizing about that.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Lss

Oh, a bunch of cameras by various manufacturers, film and digital. I do not remember most of the model names anymore. Bottom line is that they were not particularly good cameras in my experience. Some good pictures, but not good cameras for me. I think I may still have one of the Olympus mju cameras somewhere. A point-and-shoot I find pretty nice (especially image quality) is my Fuji 645. I can't say it handles too well, although it sure is simple. A compact film camera family I have never tried but expect to like is the Rollei 35.

Hi,

Well, I can't argue with that either although the 645 is a MF with iauto and manual settings and a nice lenses in my memory (such as it is). But I wouldn't call it a P&S; if I did I'd call the Leica R5 etc and M7 or M9 P&S's.

But I do think Konica, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, Ricoh etc have made some easy to use P&S's that turn out far better than you'd expect pictures: even using slide film. Many of them making me wonder why I bother with "serious" cameras (or perhaps seriously expensive cameras).

Regards, David