Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...
This. I'm not a pixel-peeper by any definition, but I care a great deal about interfaces and ergonomics, so most of my camera bodies are more expensive than the lenses I've used with them.
 
Body is important

Body is important

Don't neglect your body :=|
A camera body is a complex device : shutter, film advance or capture system, power and numerous electronic contacts, finder (precise calibration required) ; a (prime) lens is a much more simple thing and less exposed to dysfunction. I think a new good body and used lens (there are fine "good enough" ones) is a more reliable solution.
 
Price is not usually relative to performance after a certain point.
Leica sells luxury products to those who can afford, and justify affording tem.
You're no necessarily getting something that is functionally superior, only perhaps with the air of being a "boutique" item.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Equipment really doesn't mean anything. Most of the gear that you can buy is "good enough". The only limitation occurs with the photographer.
Click to expand...

I also think that the influence of the equipment ist much overestimated.

For most of the pictures taken, even a simple lens like a Tessar or Elmar would do the job perfectly.

The most important thing for me that I like to "work" with it and that I also like to carry it around.

This is the reason why I rarely use a Hasselblad, and not its image quality.
 
ferider said:
The difference, say, between a US 250 Canon 50/1.8 LTM and a > 7k US 50 Apo Summicron is not crucial at all, when you consider output.

As long as a lens is good enough, nobody will be able to tell the difference when looking at your photo.

However, it's a whole different story to shoot with a camera that you like vs. one that feels cheap, unreliable, etc. How I feel clearly impacts my photos, as it should.

Also, compared to their modern DSLR counterparts, unless you look at Russian lenses, all Leica mount lenses today are expensive. 300 dollars and up is not cheap.

Roland.

PS: looking at your other thread, denizg7, I would also never cheap out on a scanner 🙂. It's one of the pieces in my flow with the most impact on results.
Click to expand...

you are right about the prices. I know for a fact that the v1 noctilux did not cost 10grand but around 1 grand used even with inflation. And with todays economy new Leica glasses are very hard to afford.

I think CV is capturing the classic line leica , not maybe in image quality but more in price range.

900 dollars is a premium price even for 1.1
 
"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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
well...

well...

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.

agfa100 said:
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
Click to expand...
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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