Body or Glass person

Bodies.
Regarding cameras, I think i can not say I am either. I need both a body and a lens to take an image. I guess you could say I am a photograph person.
 
Mainly glass. I sometimes think I have a fetish for them. I am often being tempted to buy new glass as I think its the heart and soul of a camera. But this is not to say that I do not own too many bodies too. However I am frequently tempted to buy lenses even when I have one similar. Part of the issue is that I now know only too well that different lenses render differently. In that respect they are like artists brushes. So its not really enough to have only one lens of each variant. You "need" more. Least that is what I tell myself.
 
Probably a body person, I find camera bodies interesting and they of course work in a wildly different way from one another, i.e. a Rolleiflex works completely differently to a GF670, but their lenses, are to all intents and purposes, identical.

I don't need fast lenses, and generally stop down to get a lot of DOF, at f/8 I find pretty much all lenses are equal.

Obviously different focals lengths aside, and exotica like the tilt/shift lenses, for my purposes, all lenses are good enough, they all work pretty much the same way. Bodies tend to have a lot more variety in ergonomics though.

I suppose unless you're using a specific quality of a lens, like shallow DOF, they are all pretty much the same to my eye. Bodies the 'interface' to the camera though, and can provide very different experiences even though they do the same thing. i.e. I love how a Leica M3 works, but a Voigtlander Prominent I found close to unusable.
 
GaryLH said:
I maybe wrong.. But I think the op's intent was, when u investigate buying a camera system.. What is your prime consideration? The glass or the body?

Gary
Click to expand...
My prime consideration is the images I will be able to capture with that system. I will want both the camera and the lens to be to my liking. If either is not I will look elsewhere. ( usually in my cupboard :()
 
Good question. I think body. People always say Leica is all about the glass. That might be true. But using Leica equipment to make photographs might not be that at all. To me the M rangefinder body and the necessary manual lens controls is what gives me control and what allows me to make the photographs I want. The quality of my newest and only aspheric M Leica lens is amazing, but I don't need that sharpness for the best pictures I've taken with that lens. My tiny VC 25 flares unfortunately, but it is so tiny that I often have it in the bag. I've taken some very successful pictures with it that would have been sharper with the Zeiss, but who cares? To me it's the body of the M, and the finest lenses are a great but not obligatory bonus.
 
Can't say I'm a 'glass person', but I do like lenses. I don't get along with 'Crons but do like Summicron's and Summilux, but hate 'Lux's'.

I prefer to think it is more than optical glass that makes a lens.


V
 
if I Don't like handling the Body than the Glass would do me no Good
so Its BOTH for me or have I just realized I'm a 'body' girl :eek:
and have been wasting all these years hunting Glass... :bang:
 
helenhill_HH said:
if I Don't like handling the Body than the Glass would do me no Good
so Its BOTH for me or have I just realized I'm a 'body' girl :eek:
and have been wasting all these years hunting Glass... :bang:
Click to expand...

Hi Helen, fast 50ties girl ;).

for me it's the same, first I have to be comfortable with the body. So for me that is Leica M since ... can't remember right now:eek:.
Then it's the glass. Most often I use MM with 2/50 Biogon w. yellow#2 , so I guess I'm mainly a b&w person:D.
 
In response to Bill Clark about both being required to make a picture I seem to remember making prints from a pinhole camera made from a shoebox and a sheet of film.
 
When it comes to Leica, I only care about the body.
The lens, I am happy with a CV lens.

But when it comes to SLR's I'm a lens brand snob :D
 
It is the body that one interfaces with more than the lens. It needs to function perfectly and become like second nature with as little fuss as possible. My M9 has become an extension of my hand and eye capturing exactly what I see in my mind's eye. But good glass is equally important. Glass does not need to be cuttingly sharp. Rather, like bodies, it needs to balance perfectly and focus smoothly. Case in point, the 35 Summicron type IV is my idea of perfection on the M9. It's small form and smooth operation together with the easy viewfinder field of view of the subject is as close optimal as I've ever found. The same could be said of the 28 Elmarit ASPH on the M8. Other lenses like the 50 Summicron or 50 Planar loose their balance slightly and require a momentary mental adjustment. The same could be said for longer lenses though I rarely object to the 90 Elmarit M as it cradles so nicely in the hand and operates smoothly with just the right amount of resistance.

So there is no clear answer. Body and lens need to function as one. If they don't, the fault or remedy often lies in the lens choice. And, after all, most of the glass from Leica or Zeiss and even Cossina Voightlander (if they are having a good day) is about as good as you can buy these days.
 
Last edited:
I could put the same film in different generations of M-mount bodies, shoot with the same lens, and get the same IQ. With digital bodies, as the sensors are integral, I have to consider body and lens as both having a profound effect on IQ. So my answer is, today they are of equal importance to me.
 
Well, the body does matter from UI and ergonomics stand point. But once I got into M system, most of the bodies over the generations including the digital ones share the majority of shooting experience so the rest of my setup consideration shifted to lens. As many said, the body and the lens must work as one, so I can't really choose between body and lens. I guess I'm a system person, then.

For underwater photography, it's largely the lens, lens port, strobe, etc so the body is the least priority. (not using M system of course)
 
After reviewing your question and examples it seems you are asking whether I am brand loyal or not, not whether I am a body or glass person.

So...I briefly considered writing a full treatise on my personal preferences, but that can change, sometimes day to day.

It really boils down to this:

I am basically brand, body, film/digital, format and lens agnostic. As long as it allows me to take photographs I tend to be pretty happy no matter what I am using at the time. :D
 
Not sure what it makes you if you like high quality fixed lens options. In my new Ona Brixton is a 903SWC, RX-1 and Monochrom with welded on CV15. Probably am a body man when holding either the 903 or the Monochrom:)
 
jsrockit said:
Body for sure... the body is in my hands, so it is important that I like the way it feels and reacts. Most lenses are pretty good these days, so, I don't stress that too much.
Click to expand...

exactly.



Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters
 
An interesting question. Looking back over several decades, I don't think I've ever sold a lens, but I've sold lots of bodies and am still acquiring new ones. I do like CV lenses and I've got some I bought when they first appeared. Never had a problem with any of them and some of them get juggled between screw mount Leicas, Feds, Zorkis, an M5, an M6 and a Ricoh GXR. I guess I'm a glass guy...TW
 
I like 'em all. If I say bodies the lenses get jealous. Otoh, there is something sensuous about those baubles of curved glass ...
How can I decide a question like this - I can't. I am a camera person!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom