Am I just old? I can not tell the difference.

Too many people who use RFDR cameras insist that they are better instead of saying only that they prefer them. Today anyone who only wants to take good photographs has an array of mechanical cameras and fine lenses to choose from and acquire without spending much money.
 
i've a lovely Sr-T 100x (my first camera) with a Rokkor 45mm F2 pancake lens that takes beautiful images, as good as any camera I own (save for the 4x5).

I think the camera cost me $50 10 years ago? it sure doesn't feel like my M3 though 😉
 
cnphoto said:
i've a lovely Sr-T 100x (my first camera) with a Rokkor 45mm F2 pancake lens that takes beautiful images, as good as any camera I own (save for the 4x5).

I think the camera cost me $50 10 years ago? it sure doesn't feel like my M3 though 😉
Click to expand...

I have a later version Minolta SR-1 with a 58mm f1.4 that is the most leica feeling SLR I've ever encountered. The view through the huge (no meter) screen and that lens is just sexy.
 
Actually, I bought Nikon SLR lenses and Canon RF lenses because the expected results were good enough for my "old" eyes too. I have no desire for more expensive lenses 'cause I could not tell the difference, except on a enlarged print....and maybe not even then.

I'm perfectly satisfied w/ what I have.
 
kshapero said:
Is it really over 20 times better? First shot with Tri-X and the second with Ilford XP-2. So not a perfect comparison. But something to think about.
Click to expand...

I've eaten many meals under $10 an some at over $200 -- are/were the meals at $200 twenty times better than the ones at $10? Hardly ever and some of those $10 meals I would eat again and again; not so with all the $200 meals -- regardless of cost.

But the meal experience was not measured simply by the sustenance received.

Similarly w. cars driven and transport achieved.

But you are quite right -- it takes some thought to decide that, with all the wonderful 70's/80s era mechanical cameras/lenses available at throwaway prices, one needs to mortgage the house for new equipment.

Like the second photo, btw.
 
kshapero said:
Is it really over 20 times better? First shot with Tri-X and the second with Ilford XP-2. So not a perfect comparison. But something to think about.
Click to expand...

I guess it might be something to think about if there was some direct linear relationship between quality and cost, but of course such a thing doesn't exist. Simple fact of the matter is sometimes spending just a little bit more will give you a much higher quality product while at other times even getting the smallest improvement in quality will require paying much much more.
And of course this doesn't even factor in the intangibles like brand and product reputation.
 
Dear Mike,

Yup. At the bottom of the market, you may get twice the qality for twice the money. Then there's usually a long period of diminishing returns. You might double the price again and get 50% better quality; then double it again for 10%; then double it again for 1%.

Also, what's 'better'? Even if you can't tell one picture from another, the camera you enjoy using more is still 'better'. And the camera that performs better at the limits -- low light, say -- may be 'better'. Or the lens that gives more vignetting and edge softness for some kinds of portraiture, or absolutely even illumination and corner-to-corner sharpness for some kinds of interiors or still lifes. For hand-held outdoor photography at middling apertures, of course it doesn't matter: the 'quality plateau' is so low it can be met by an Exa with a Ludwig Meritar. But I'd still be happier using a Leica. And it would be more versatile.

Cheers,

R.
 
I have a bunch of slrs, fixed lens rfs and a Canon 7. What I really like about the 7 especially is the lack of mirror vibration at 1/30th and seeing so much outside the frame with a 50 on it. That 'makes sense' to my photo eyeball. Oh and it's quiet.
 
If we talk about a Nikon camera and a Nikkor 50 1.4 well used (I use both), there's no real difference in 99% of the shots and prints if we used any other brand, including Leica... A visual difference can be really seen if we go to medium format... If Leica was that different, more people in the world would dream of buying Leica equipment... They don't, at least not in a massive way. They don't even dream of buying Hasselblads... If there's a successful brand, that's Nikon. It's never depended on sales campaigns or status, it's been just image quality. And with most of their mechanical products, construction quality too.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom