Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by denizg7

...
Now I have no problem with Cosina Voigtlander lenses, and I think they get unfair reviews by some leica fanatics.

I think a lot of people have forgotten how lenses are more crucial than the body. ...

I use neither 'cheap' bodies nor 'cheap' lenses. I chose the equipment I use due to its quality and whether I liked working with it, without regards to price.

[froyd]

At $700 for the Bessas and $1200 for an Ikon the only reason to call them "affordable" is comparing them to high number Ms or the MPs. For my wallet, these are still quite expensive cameras, heck, you can get a Rolleiflex for less than either of those two RFs. and older Ms can be had for little more than a new Bessa.

By affordable body, I would describe the more common FSU cameras. And as much as they have their charms, I don't find them nearly as pleasant to use as other RFs.

[chrishayton]

I have a Leica M body and have had lots of different Leica Lenses ranging from cheap to modern and expensive and I sold my last Summicron to use a 35mm F2.5 Voigtlander. So I have a Expensive(ish) body and a cheap lens. However that 'cheap' lens is as good as any 'expensive' lens I have tried. I don't use the Skopar because its cheap, i use it because its a fantastic lens.

[Hamel]

I would much rather have a 'cheap' Bessa and good glass any day over a Leica body and cheaper glass. You can always tell the people who buy a Leica for the name and status and not for serious shooting because they have an M9 or M6/7 and a horrible lens on the front. All a camera does is hold the film, and wind the film. The lens does all of the work when it comes to the image. People get wrapped up in gear and forget about that. I would argue that any Bessa is just as good as any Leica because it's the photographer that matters when making the picture and the lens that matters when determining the quality of the photo when you click the shutter.

Another preference would be to have TWO Bessas, of the same model or not, instead of ONE M6 or M7 with good glass. That way you have a backup. How else can you work if you spend all of your money on an expensive body, good quality glass, and then the body breaks. No one should be without a backup.

[denizg7]

Originally Posted by Hamel

I would much rather have a 'cheap' Bessa and good glass any day over a Leica body and cheaper glass. You can always tell the people who buy a Leica for the name and status and not for serious shooting because they have an M9 or M6/7 and a horrible lens on the front. All a camera does is hold the film, and wind the film. The lens does all of the work when it comes to the image. People get wrapped up in gear and forget about that. I would argue that any Bessa is just as good as any Leica because it's the photographer that matters when making the picture and the lens that matters when determining the quality of the photo when you click the shutter.

Another preference would be to have TWO Bessas, of the same model or not, instead of ONE M6 or M7 with good glass. That way you have a backup. How else can you work if you spend all of your money on an expensive body, good quality glass, and then the body breaks. No one should be without a backup.

exactly my thoughts

[thegman]

Get what feels right for you. For every person proclaiming the kit does not matter, there's another who feels that Leica glass has a "glow" or "soul" or whatever. The truth is probably somewhere in the grey areas, as it often is.

My own personal view is that to spend a large amount of money getting the very best lenses for 35mm is not that great a plan, as you can spend far less on medium format gear and the image quality will blow it away. If you want a certain "look", by all means get the Leica gear, but for technical quality, I'd skip 35mm film.

35mm film totally has it's place of course, just that for technical quality, a Mamiya 6 or 7, or a GF670 is not that much bigger or heavier, and will deliver far greater technical resolution.

[shadowfox]

I would gladly pay twice what I paid for my M4-P had I known back then how much enjoyment I would get out of using it and how reliable it is throughout these past few years.

But my "desire" for Leica glass died as my happiness with my pictures using a $250 CV Ultron grew.

[froyd]

Originally Posted by Hamel

You can always tell the people who buy a Leica for the name and status and not for serious shooting because they have an M9 or M6/7 and a horrible lens on the front.

What do you mean by horrible? Most M lenses and Leica screw mount lenses are quite good. Certainly miles better than the kit lenses sold with consumer-grade cameras. Even my lowly FSu lenses are phenomenal.

Your argument is fine if all you care about is the final image, if all that matter is the destination, not the journey, or more crudely, nvermind...

For soem of us, photography is an hobby, not a profession, and there are pleasures to be had in all aspects of the art. When phototography is more than a jut a J.O.B. I advise folks to get the camera AND lens that will bring a smile to your face whenever you handle it.

[denizg7]

Originally Posted by froyd

What do you mean by horrible? Most M lenses and Leica screw mount lenses are quite good. Certainly miles better than the kit lenses sold with consumer-grade cameras. Even my lowly FSu lenses are phenomenal.

Your argument is fine if all you care about is the final image, if all that matter is the destination, not the journey, or more crudely, nvermind...

For soem of us, photography is an hobby, not a profession, and there are pleasures to be had in all aspects of the art. When phototography is more than a jut a J.O.B. I advise folks to get the camera AND lens that will bring a smile to your face whenever you handle it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPHZzqgq-H8

[denizg7]

[quote=thegman;191990435mm film totally has it's place of course, just that for technical quality, a Mamiya 6 or 7, or a GF670 is not that much bigger or heavier, and will deliver far greater technical resolution.[/QUOTE]

medium format is a whole different level.

[Richard G]

Originally Posted by Hamel

I would much rather have a 'cheap' Bessa and good glass any day over a Leica body and cheaper glass. You can always tell the people who buy a Leica for the name and status and not for serious shooting because they have an M9 or M6/7 and a horrible lens on the front. All a camera does is hold the film, and wind the film. The lens does all of the work when it comes to the image. People get wrapped up in gear and forget about that. I would argue that any Bessa is just as good as any Leica because it's the photographer that matters when making the picture and the lens that matters when determining the quality of the photo when you click the shutter.

Another preference would be to have TWO Bessas, of the same model or not, instead of ONE M6 or M7 with good glass. That way you have a backup. How else can you work if you spend all of your money on an expensive body, good quality glass, and then the body breaks. No one should be without a backup.

Agree with a backup. Don't agree with your other point at all. I think the mating of an M body with a non-Leica lens is in fact precisely the opposite of brand snobbery. For years I had no idea there was an option, but when I heard about CV lenses brand new for a few hundred dollars I didn't see that I would be doing that. Since breaking my adherence to Leica plus Leitz//Leica lenses I have enjoyed having the wonderful ZM lenses, just as good or better at 21/35/50 in many people's view and mine. Someone very brand conscious is not necessarily going to do that.

[mfogiel]

As Roland has pointed out, what most people on this forum are "cheap" about, is the scanner, and this is the most obvious mistake, if technical quality is the object of this discussion at all.
Most 35mm lenses at F5.6 are fantastic, however in some cases it pays to have an expensive lens, an example could be the 28mm Summicron, which you can shoot wide open at night, and it has no coma whatsoever, something I cannot say about the CV equivalents in this FL.

20113908 by mfogiel, on Flickr

The question of the body, before we speak of quality or price, in my mind is in the first place dictated by how good are the frames for the FL you want to use. To go back to the above example, the best camera for the 28mm frames in my opinion, is the Bessa R4, so this is why one might choose to use a 500 EUR body with a 3000 EUR lens. It could also work the other way round - I have bought a 3500 EUR 0.85x MP mainly to use it with a 300 EUR CV 75/2.5 and 100 EUR Hector 135/4.5. If somebody asked me, what is THE ABSOLUTELY BEST photographic quality combination for everyday shooting, it would certainly be the ZI+35/2 Biogon. Unparalleled VF, unbeatable ease of focusing, fantastic AE, light weight, easy to load, fast shutter speed available if needed - some of my best photos have been taken with this combo at f4.0 and 1/2000th:

07110222 by mfogiel, on Flickr

[hendriphile]

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.

[IMG][/IMG]

Eisenstadt took several exposures within a few seconds over his shoulder on the run ahead of the sailor, advancing the film with the knob-advance of his old pre-M Leica (probably fitted with an uncoated lens).

[Jonathan]

I routinely use a Nikkor 5cm f2 or Canon 50mm 1.5 on my Zorki 4K which has been shimmed.
The great thing is, noone gives you a second glace using it & if they do it is a "bless can't afford a decent camera"! look. Suits me fine

[Hamel]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Agree with a backup. Don't agree with your other point at all. I think the mating of an M body with a non-Leica lens is in fact precisely the opposite of brand snobbery. For years I had no idea there was an option, but when I heard about CV lenses brand new for a few hundred dollars I didn't see that I would be doing that. Since breaking my adherence to Leica plus Leitz//Leica lenses I have enjoyed having the wonderful ZM lenses, just as good or better at 21/35/50 in many people's view and mine. Someone very brand conscious is not necessarily going to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I see no problem with non-Leica glass. I actually prefer the bang-for-the-buck CV glass since I'm a broke, just out of school, photographer. I say use whatever the best body/lens combo you can afford with the emphasis on the lens rather than the body.

[Dirk]

I used to think that the lens was more important than the body, what with the camera is just a light tight box, but the lens makes the image, etc.

But that's actually not how things work in real life. The ergonomics and feel of the body, especially (for me) the shutter and mirror sound, the way it fits or doesn't fit the hand, the size and ease of focus of the viewfinder, are determinants of how often I grab that camera and shoot. Cheap cameras (the ones that were cheap to begin with, not the ones that are cheap today because they're considered "obsolete"), often fall short in those areas important to me. I'd rather have a good camera body with a merely decent lens, than an unsatisfactory body with an expensive lens.