Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lss said:
Well, my experience is quite different.
Click to expand...

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
 
ampguy said:
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?
Click to expand...

agree 100% steve huff site: aka men's jewelry site
 
David Hughes said:
Well, no one can argue with that but it would help if you said what you'd had experience of; meaning actually used.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Lss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
denizg7 said:
...
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. ...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Hamel said:
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.
Click to expand...


exactly my thoughts
 
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.
 
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.
 
Hamel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
froyd said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPHZzqgq-H8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom