"The more expensive, the better". Is it true?

Keep in mind that the OPs Leica is I think somewhat older than the Ricoh 500G, no?

In the late 60's and early 70's you started to see computers helping more with optical designs and the quality of these small cameras improved. Yes if you want to put a Asph 'Cron against it the 'Cron wins, but then it's a lot more expensive. You can have a lot of fun with a camera that might not be the best. There are a lot of fine older fixed lens rangefinders out there that are lots of fun to use.

B2 (;->
 
If you look at the current selling price of gear of 35mm equipment of the 20th century, most of them sell for 5%~10% or so of their original price. Most of them still work with some minor repair, changing the light seals, cleaning the finder, lubing the mechanism. My Retina IIIc with F2 Xenon is as good as the collapsible Summicron. The IIIc cost $15, needed a little work. The meter is still accurate.

I walked into an antique shop and picked up a Leica IIIa+Summar, Leica III+Elmar, and Rollei TE with a Tessar for $15 each. The Rollei gives the sharpest pictures, but no complaints from me about the Leica's.
 
BillBingham2 said:
Keep in mind that the OPs Leica is I think somewhat older than the Ricoh 500G, no?

In the late 60's and early 70's you started to see computers helping more with optical designs and the quality of these small cameras improved. Yes if you want to put a Asph 'Cron against it the 'Cron wins, but then it's a lot more expensive. You can have a lot of fun with a camera that might not be the best. There are a lot of fine older fixed lens rangefinders out there that are lots of fun to use.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...
yes! - like women and musical instruments....'there's many a good tune played - on an old fiddle!' :D
 
Here is another shot with the Konica S2

picture.php


picture.php


and tight crop. Done with an Epson 3170, probably the limiting factor here.

These were not cheap cameras "in the day". Not as flexible as a Leica, Nikon, or Canon- but capable of delivering quality results. They are fun to find, fix, and use. And do not bust the bank doing so.
 
To get back to your original posting, the first problem is that you're comparing your Ricoh to a Leica lens that is notorious for flare, haze and cleaning marks. The second problem is that you're comparing it to YOUR Elmar lens. Every old Leica lens images differently. Some are great, some not so great. Different models produce different results, and they produce different results in individual samples. So it isn't as simple as it first appears to compare lenses.

I can usually tell a Summicron shot, especially an R Summicron, because they image a particular way. Same w/ the Voigtlander 105 Heliar and the Rokkor lens on the Minolta Autocord TLR cameras. 3D imaging that nearly no other lens can produce. I once owned a 50 Summicron collapsible that was really soft, even stopped down. But I also recently sold another 50 Summicron collapsible that was the sharpest 50mm lens I have ever used, and later I found out that it had haze and the beginnings of fungus. I told the buyer I would be glad to buy it back, but when he looked at the shots he took from it he wouldn't sell it back!

The moral here is that if you get a good sample of any lens, don't sell it. And if you do, don't expect another one like it to be as good. It might be, and it might not be.

The shots people are posting here of their Ricoh cameras show it is capable of producing top quality images. Very impressive.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Here is another shot with the Konica S2

picture.php


picture.php


and tight crop. Done with an Epson 3170, probably the limiting factor here.

These were not cheap cameras "in the day". Not as flexible as a Leica, Nikon, or Canon- but capable of delivering quality results. They are fun to find, fix, and use. And do not bust the bank doing so.
Click to expand...
agreed! - this one gives loads of satisfaction, for £25 off Ebay!
Dave
4157317321_5abce1ff93.jpg
 
Steve M. said:
The moral here is that if you get a good sample of any lens, don't sell it. And if you do, don't expect another one like it to be as good. It might be, and it might not be.
Click to expand...

I very much agree. This is even true for modern lenses, IMO. One of the perils of GAS is the assumption that a lens that you like is easily replaceable. I have found this to be wrong for myself.

And no, price and value (to you) are completely different metrics. Unless you believe they are related, they are not.

:)

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Steve M. said:
To get back to your original posting, the first problem is that you're comparing your Ricoh to a Leica lens that is notorious for flare, haze and cleaning marks. The second problem is that you're comparing it to YOUR Elmar lens. Every old Leica lens images differently. Some are great, some not so great. Different models produce different results, and they produce different results in individual samples. So it isn't as simple as it first appears to compare lenses.

I can usually tell a Summicron shot, especially an R Summicron, because they image a particular way. Same w/ the Voigtlander 105 Heliar and the Rokkor lens on the Minolta Autocord TLR cameras. 3D imaging that nearly no other lens can produce. I once owned a 50 Summicron collapsible that was really soft, even stopped down. But I also recently sold another 50 Summicron collapsible that was the sharpest 50mm lens I have ever used, and later I found out that it had haze and the beginnings of fungus. I told the buyer I would be glad to buy it back, but when he looked at the shots he took from it he wouldn't sell it back!

The moral here is that if you get a good sample of any lens, don't sell it. And if you do, don't expect another one like it to be as good. It might be, and it might not be.

The shots people are posting here of their Ricoh cameras show it is capable of producing top quality images. Very impressive.
Click to expand...


I put the title ""The more expensive, the better". Is it true?" on this thread. My questions: have you ever bought a camera on a fraction of the price of another camera you've got and (for your own reasons) you enjoy it better? Yes, it happened to me and my example is the Ricoh and the Leica.
I am not trying to prove that the Rikenon is better than the Elmar. I want to hear if you have a similar experience.
 
There are/were many cameras that dont cost a lot and can deliver great results. Even if you take just the RFs. Konicas, Canon QL17 GIII, Yashicas, Olympus and many more that perform very well and are nice in use. Add SLRs and you get even more choices. In my personal experience I've used many cameras that I like better than Leicas. This is not to say that some Leicas are very very good and many people prefer them to anything else. Personal choice, really.
 
Last edited:
Steve M. said:
The moral here is that if you get a good sample of any lens, don't sell it. And if you do, don't expect another one like it to be as good. It might be, and it might not be.
Click to expand...

Dear Steve,

Very, very true. Especially with hard-to-find lenses.

I've had two 100/2.8 Planars (Linhof-selected). The first was much better than the second. And I have two Series 1 35-85/2.8 Varifocals (I inherited the second). Again, the first (bought new, as far as I recall) is significantly better.

Cheers,

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