Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

[Richard G]

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.

Agree with a backup. Don't agree with your other point at all. I think the mating of an M body with a non-Leica lens is in fact precisely the opposite of brand snobbery. For years I had no idea there was an option, but when I heard about CV lenses brand new for a few hundred dollars I didn't see that I would be doing that. Since breaking my adherence to Leica plus Leitz//Leica lenses I have enjoyed having the wonderful ZM lenses, just as good or better at 21/35/50 in many people's view and mine. Someone very brand conscious is not necessarily going to do that.

 

[mfogiel]

As Roland has pointed out, what most people on this forum are "cheap" about, is the scanner, and this is the most obvious mistake, if technical quality is the object of this discussion at all.
Most 35mm lenses at F5.6 are fantastic, however in some cases it pays to have an expensive lens, an example could be the 28mm Summicron, which you can shoot wide open at night, and it has no coma whatsoever, something I cannot say about the CV equivalents in this FL.

20113908 by mfogiel, on Flickr

The question of the body, before we speak of quality or price, in my mind is in the first place dictated by how good are the frames for the FL you want to use. To go back to the above example, the best camera for the 28mm frames in my opinion, is the Bessa R4, so this is why one might choose to use a 500 EUR body with a 3000 EUR lens. It could also work the other way round - I have bought a 3500 EUR 0.85x MP mainly to use it with a 300 EUR CV 75/2.5 and 100 EUR Hector 135/4.5. If somebody asked me, what is THE ABSOLUTELY BEST photographic quality combination for everyday shooting, it would certainly be the ZI+35/2 Biogon. Unparalleled VF, unbeatable ease of focusing, fantastic AE, light weight, easy to load, fast shutter speed available if needed - some of my best photos have been taken with this combo at f4.0 and 1/2000th:

07110222 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[hendriphile]

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.

[/IMG]

Eisenstadt took several exposures within a few seconds over his shoulder on the run ahead of the sailor, advancing the film with the knob-advance of his old pre-M Leica (probably fitted with an uncoated lens).

 

[Jonathan]

I routinely use a Nikkor 5cm f2 or Canon 50mm 1.5 on my Zorki 4K which has been shimmed.
The great thing is, noone gives you a second glace using it & if they do it is a "bless can't afford a decent camera"! look. Suits me fine

 

[Hamel]

Agree with a backup. Don't agree with your other point at all. I think the mating of an M body with a non-Leica lens is in fact precisely the opposite of brand snobbery. For years I had no idea there was an option, but when I heard about CV lenses brand new for a few hundred dollars I didn't see that I would be doing that. Since breaking my adherence to Leica plus Leitz//Leica lenses I have enjoyed having the wonderful ZM lenses, just as good or better at 21/35/50 in many people's view and mine. Someone very brand conscious is not necessarily going to do that.

Don't get me wrong, I see no problem with non-Leica glass. I actually prefer the bang-for-the-buck CV glass since I'm a broke, just out of school, photographer. I say use whatever the best body/lens combo you can afford with the emphasis on the lens rather than the body.

 

[Dirk]

I used to think that the lens was more important than the body, what with the camera is just a light tight box, but the lens makes the image, etc.

But that's actually not how things work in real life. The ergonomics and feel of the body, especially (for me) the shutter and mirror sound, the way it fits or doesn't fit the hand, the size and ease of focus of the viewfinder, are determinants of how often I grab that camera and shoot. Cheap cameras (the ones that were cheap to begin with, not the ones that are cheap today because they're considered "obsolete"), often fall short in those areas important to me. I'd rather have a good camera body with a merely decent lens, than an unsatisfactory body with an expensive lens.