back alley
IMAGES
ever get tired of hearing how your camera lacks 'build quality?
well, they say, "it's NOT a leica...great camera but lacks the build quality of a leica...not like a leica" etc. blah, blah blah...
i would like to know who here has a degree in 'build quality'?
how the ever loving for christmas sakes do YOU know about build quality?
do you mean 'it's heavier'? like an anvil might make great pics?
it has brass, like an old cannon ball might make great photos? or is that lead? it's heavy too, no?
i think people read this crap and just pass it on from one mindless internet thread to another.
now, i'm NOT saying anything negative about the build quality of ANY camera here, i'm saying what do YOU know? that the rest of us don't?
joe
well, they say, "it's NOT a leica...great camera but lacks the build quality of a leica...not like a leica" etc. blah, blah blah...
i would like to know who here has a degree in 'build quality'?
how the ever loving for christmas sakes do YOU know about build quality?
do you mean 'it's heavier'? like an anvil might make great pics?
it has brass, like an old cannon ball might make great photos? or is that lead? it's heavy too, no?
i think people read this crap and just pass it on from one mindless internet thread to another.
now, i'm NOT saying anything negative about the build quality of ANY camera here, i'm saying what do YOU know? that the rest of us don't?
joe
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
As someone who's owned a Bessa R3A and a number of Leicas (M3, M2, CL, M6 and M7) I can safely say that I know that the Bessa, as nice as it is and as great as it is for bringing back the RangeFinder "Revival", it doesn't "feel the same" as the Leicas.
The CL feels different than the M3
The M3 and M2 feel pretty close to being the same.
The M6 and the M7 feel different
Now.. does that mean that one build is "better" than the other?
Nah.. just means that under my usage, there are cameras that are better suited to my "style" (read: banging around in my bag) than others
Dave
The CL feels different than the M3
The M3 and M2 feel pretty close to being the same.
The M6 and the M7 feel different
Now.. does that mean that one build is "better" than the other?
Nah.. just means that under my usage, there are cameras that are better suited to my "style" (read: banging around in my bag) than others
Dave
fishtek
Don
Dang, Joe....tell us what you REALLY think about the incessant critical statements about this subject! (Just kidding...I happen to agree with your tone)
It's just like watches...I've got about 30, all prices and qualities. Some of my cheapest are better performers than some of the pricier ones. Those of us who admire the mechanical (and electronic) marvels that are cameras and watches are bound to be a bit opinionated, but...hey...they're OUR toys, so I guess we can pontificate if we want, eh?
Doesn't mean we REALLY know what constitutes wonderful engineering, though...especially in my case. I don't own any Leica cameras, nor any Rolex watches.....can't afford 'em, so I appreciate what I have, and don't bother denigrating anybody else's gear.
Just my own take on the subject...
Regards!
Don
It's just like watches...I've got about 30, all prices and qualities. Some of my cheapest are better performers than some of the pricier ones. Those of us who admire the mechanical (and electronic) marvels that are cameras and watches are bound to be a bit opinionated, but...hey...they're OUR toys, so I guess we can pontificate if we want, eh?
Doesn't mean we REALLY know what constitutes wonderful engineering, though...especially in my case. I don't own any Leica cameras, nor any Rolex watches.....can't afford 'em, so I appreciate what I have, and don't bother denigrating anybody else's gear.
Just my own take on the subject...
Regards!
Don
Sparrow
Veteran
In most machines mass in the moving parts is the enemy, however in the frame it’s flexibility and distortion that’s the issues, the questions the designer asks are about material selection and engineering tolerance, and those have changed out of all recognition from the “classic” days, little to do with weight these days
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
My idea of build quality is relative to the task at hand.
My "old" Canon 300D has a build quality that many have criticized...but, 60,000 exposures after I bought it (used) it is still functional in every way. No failure of any any kind. So, that's good build quality...as far as my needs are concerned. Give it to a pro sports photograher and tell him to shoot a football game in the pouring rain and his opinion would be radically different than mine (not considering the functional limitations of the camera for that application).
For my uses, I'm quite happy with the build quality of my R3A. I do understand the love relationship with the build quality of a Leica, but I think that much of it is for the joy of using something that involves little compromise rather than any functional advantage.
It seems worthwhile to me to have confidence that your rangefinder assembly is going to stay in alignment because it is built well. It seems less worthwhile that the body is a solid piece of metal.
My "old" Canon 300D has a build quality that many have criticized...but, 60,000 exposures after I bought it (used) it is still functional in every way. No failure of any any kind. So, that's good build quality...as far as my needs are concerned. Give it to a pro sports photograher and tell him to shoot a football game in the pouring rain and his opinion would be radically different than mine (not considering the functional limitations of the camera for that application).
For my uses, I'm quite happy with the build quality of my R3A. I do understand the love relationship with the build quality of a Leica, but I think that much of it is for the joy of using something that involves little compromise rather than any functional advantage.
It seems worthwhile to me to have confidence that your rangefinder assembly is going to stay in alignment because it is built well. It seems less worthwhile that the body is a solid piece of metal.
markinlondon
Elmar user
It's a funny thing isn't it, Joe, but sometimes you pick something up and it feels just right. I never got that feeling from my Bessa R, especially when it turned upside down on the strap. My Leicas have all had a "heft" for want of a better word that inspires confidence in their handling. The M2's "feel" better built than the M6. It's hard to pin down.
Off topic, the worst case I've suffered of this build quality fetish is when I tried out a Japanese Fender Telecaster (a guitar for the uninitiated ) in a London dealer one day. I hadn't gone out to buy a guitar and only picked it up out of idle curiosity. I bought it half an hour later, it sold itself to me by its immediate impression of quality and simple "rightness".
Off topic, the worst case I've suffered of this build quality fetish is when I tried out a Japanese Fender Telecaster (a guitar for the uninitiated
) in a London dealer one day. I hadn't gone out to buy a guitar and only picked it up out of idle curiosity. I bought it half an hour later, it sold itself to me by its immediate impression of quality and simple "rightness".
FrankS
Registered User
back alley said:
Don't feed the troll.
VinceC
Veteran
I always think the phrase "build quality" sounds kind of prissy. I suppose it's comparable to "fit and finish" when buying a car. But I don't equate weight with quality.
EDIT: Still, now that I think of it, I can't think of a more accurate phrase. But why can't we just say, "it feels well-built" ... "it is ergonomic" ... "it has greater precision" ... "the controls are correctly positioned" ... "the size and weight are well-balanced" -- Build quality seems to cover all these and yet is so vague as to border on being vapid, like you're parroting someone else's opinion instead of explaining why you prefer it yourself.
EDIT: Still, now that I think of it, I can't think of a more accurate phrase. But why can't we just say, "it feels well-built" ... "it is ergonomic" ... "it has greater precision" ... "the controls are correctly positioned" ... "the size and weight are well-balanced" -- Build quality seems to cover all these and yet is so vague as to border on being vapid, like you're parroting someone else's opinion instead of explaining why you prefer it yourself.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i often go by 'feel', in many areas of my life for many different things.
i have no problem with 'feel', it's the assumption that if it feels good to me than it must be good and therefore mine is better than yours because i like how mine feels compared to yours.
it's a subjective thing but we assert it as objective, a known truth, a universally accepted known truth.
i have no problem with 'feel', it's the assumption that if it feels good to me than it must be good and therefore mine is better than yours because i like how mine feels compared to yours.
it's a subjective thing but we assert it as objective, a known truth, a universally accepted known truth.
back alley
IMAGES
FrankS said:Don't feed the troll.
not true, not trolling.
working on semantics, objectivity, subjectivity, the ignorance of man, the indifference of language use...but not trolling.
joe
dazedgonebye
Veteran
back alley said:
I just take it as a good thing that people are happy with the gear they have, and as an even better thing that I'm able to be happy having spent less money.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
back alley said:
hehe... ya know.. there's SO much that can be done with that statement....
Dave
back alley
IMAGES
dcsang said:hehe... ya know.. there's SO much that can be done with that statement....
Dave
lol! rotflmao...
I think it is important to define what is "good" build quality. The first time I handled my M6 yes, I did feel that it was made better than any other camera I ever owned (other than my Hasselblad). But, shortly there after I also realized how over built it was for 99.9% of the people who use it. Yes, it is built to the standards of a NASA toilet seats, but mine is never going to go through re-entry into the atmosphere.
Therefore, I always like to think that a Bessa/Canon EOS/Digi Point & Shoot/ZI.... as having a certain good build quality, and the Leica as being overdone.
Therefore, I always like to think that a Bessa/Canon EOS/Digi Point & Shoot/ZI.... as having a certain good build quality, and the Leica as being overdone.
back alley
IMAGES
how does a camera feel made better?
weight?
weight?
markinlondon
Elmar user
dcsang said:hehe... ya know.. there's SO much that can be done with that statement....
Dave
And I thought innuendo was a peculiarly British vice
Sparrow
Veteran
back alley said:
I’m a designer and the son of an engineer, my view is often at odds with the general consensus simply because I aim for a rational evaluation, feel is for the marketing dept
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
The only Leica I have is a CL, and it feels better than any other camera I own. I still use the A-1 SLR more than the CL, but the CL seems to be just a bit better built. I do wonder which camera will last longer between CLAs though, so judging "Build Quality" buy whether a camera is plastic or metal is silly, even though I know I do it every time I pick up a camera.
VinceC
Veteran
Things I've used that have too much "build quality" --
the original prewar Contax and postwar Kiev shutter -- engineering elegance run amok;
the 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor ... it weighs more than a pound of frozen cheese!
the Zeiss 21/4.5 Biogon from the 1950s ... it weighs nearly as much as a pound of frozen cheese;
the original $5,000 IBM PC ... a surprising number of these stilll work as designed, if you have a 5.25-inch floppy disk to put in the slot.
the original prewar Contax and postwar Kiev shutter -- engineering elegance run amok;
the 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor ... it weighs more than a pound of frozen cheese!
the Zeiss 21/4.5 Biogon from the 1950s ... it weighs nearly as much as a pound of frozen cheese;
the original $5,000 IBM PC ... a surprising number of these stilll work as designed, if you have a 5.25-inch floppy disk to put in the slot.
telenous
Well-known
Joe, what a thorny topic.
here's my take: 'Build quality' signifies a psychological attitude we take towards various objects. It is based on our inductive experience with countless other objects which inform our predictions and expectations on the future use of new ones. It is not an exact science but nor is it a randomly assembled verbiage we regurgitate every time we are faced with a new object: what we say is based in experience but experience can only give us a limited, finite sample upon which to form opinion.
The different attitudes we take towards different objects can then be explained on the basis of the different past experiences we had . What to me shows build quality, doesn't to the eyes of another. (To take an example from the RFF community, think how difficult it will be to convince Avotius or Vlad about the 'build quality' of the ZI since they had so many problems with it; try to do the converse with Joe and all the others who love passionately their ZI and never had a problem with it).
With cameras, things get a bit more complicated. They are usually so expensive that we tend to buy one or two (ahem!) so 'build qulity' seems to be a factor in deciding between very expensive and quite similar equipment. But it is no more than a vague prediction about the longevity, usability, quality sample invariance of a specific camera make. After all, we do have to choose one! 'Build quality' is vague and a prediction and as in other walks of life some people are better at it and some are worse. We all vote with our wallets in this game, time will tell (and one hopes that we all get it right).
here's my take: 'Build quality' signifies a psychological attitude we take towards various objects. It is based on our inductive experience with countless other objects which inform our predictions and expectations on the future use of new ones. It is not an exact science but nor is it a randomly assembled verbiage we regurgitate every time we are faced with a new object: what we say is based in experience but experience can only give us a limited, finite sample upon which to form opinion.
The different attitudes we take towards different objects can then be explained on the basis of the different past experiences we had . What to me shows build quality, doesn't to the eyes of another. (To take an example from the RFF community, think how difficult it will be to convince Avotius or Vlad about the 'build quality' of the ZI since they had so many problems with it; try to do the converse with Joe and all the others who love passionately their ZI and never had a problem with it).
With cameras, things get a bit more complicated. They are usually so expensive that we tend to buy one or two (ahem!) so 'build qulity' seems to be a factor in deciding between very expensive and quite similar equipment. But it is no more than a vague prediction about the longevity, usability, quality sample invariance of a specific camera make. After all, we do have to choose one! 'Build quality' is vague and a prediction and as in other walks of life some people are better at it and some are worse. We all vote with our wallets in this game, time will tell (and one hopes that we all get it right).
Last edited: