How important is a Body to the Final Image

[Gid]

I can SEE the effect a lens has on the final image, but what difference does the body make? For example, will a 50 'cron on an M3 result in a better image than the same lens on a Bessa X - assuming the same subject, lighting, focusing ability etc? I know that RF base length affects the extremes, but how else does the body contribute, technically, to the final result?

Can you tell I'm bored? Its raining here 🙁

 

[bmattock]

Shutter speed accuracy, metering if internal meter is used, and any automation that might be employed. Mechanics of film transport - both correct functioning and film flatness due to design constraints in the imaging chamber. Mechanics of lens flange-to-film correctness for any given lens. Familiarity with controls can of course have an effect - not on the image per se, but on the taking of that image. If all elements are within established and acceptable parameters between said cameras, then the difference can be said to be nil. Ultimately, a properly functioning camera is a light-tight box that holds film.

 

[dnk512]

Bill, thanks! You saved me a lot of typing 🙂

 

[andrew]

While it's not as informed or accurate a response as Bill's above, there are variables to increase accuracy and dependability, but in the end, they're all boxes .I like Abe Morrell's mainpage photo:

www.abelardomorell.net

It looks like an enlarger lens and lens board mounted to a cardboard box (I'm having my students build pinhole cameras and solarize right now, so I've been looking at this sort of stuff recently).

I still think Bill's answer is more informative, I just like looking at Morrell's image.

Have a good weekend everyone,
Andrew

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

How important is the body to the final image?

Hmm...are we talking about little light? A 50 lbs. body would be an important consideration.

Shooting underwater coral reefs? A Rolleiflex Automat would not be a good idea.

Doing a World Cup shoot? Perhaps a Daguerrotype camera is not the best thing.

Will you be taking photographs of desert animals and camping out for weeks? If you don't have dozens of memory cards and/or batteries and/or a solar-powered recharger, a super-loud high-speed digital SLR may not be a good choice.

I think it's important. What are we talking about, exactly?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

A body is just a light tight box, unless you are talking about an M3 paired with a 50mm? In this case the body lends itself to more accurate focusing, esp. wide open.

todd

 

[VinceC]

Body is important up to a point. Comfort and ergonomics. Accuracy of shutter speed and focus (rangefinder or SLR ground glass). Ability to squeeze shutter smoothly. Overall "balance" and fit (not too light, not too heavy ... just right.) Ability to easily shoot verticles. Ability to be easily carried. Accuracy and craftsmanship of film transport. Ability to take special add-ons (ie., a motor drive is almost essential for consistent results of some types of sports and action shots, such as rodeo).

 

[sf]

Less camera shake depending on the shutter assembly and how the shutter release operates. Cameras with very long shutter button travel, or which take more than a hair trigger's pressure to release, are going to be less benign than a body with a hair trigger, short travel, etc.

Weight of the body makes it stable for hand holding.

I know that the leaf shutter in the Bronica I use has zero effect on the camera as it opens and closes - but I could feel the shutter process on my Bessa R3A. Certainly, even if very very little, there was some vibration.

ANd, do the ergonomics of the camera allow you to operate everything comfortably? Can you focus and press the shutter release without contorting your grip?

 

[Gid]

I was just trying to "dig out" some non partisan (ie brand) views to see what the response would be, but still got a couple of leicas and a bronica. It might be interesting to match some of the responses against several bodies to see if the "scores" produced any interesting results. I just wanted to see what it might be that could lead an individual to one brand or another, price notwithstanding. I was also trying to see if I could rationalise my GAS - for some reason I have a hankering for a leica M even though my other light tight boxes are no slouches and they don't get enough use as it is 🙂 Oh, and yes, it was raining and I was bored and I should have been in London with some other UK RFFers but events overtook me 🙁

Gid

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I was also trying to see if I could rationalise my GAS - for some reason I have a hankering for a leica M even though my other light tight boxes are no slouches

oh. oooohh... :: pfft :: You need to rationalize Leica lust? 🙄 Some have tried to rationalize whether gravity pulls or if it's smoke and mirrors from inerta.

You know you want it. Just don't pay any price for it. Be patient. Vewy vewy patient.

 

[back alley]

camera bodies generally all do the same thing.
the impact they have on the end product is more a matter of 'feel' i think.

the canon p was my long time love, i liked the feel of the machine, rugged, utilitarian.
the zi has an odd feel. it's not quite as squared off as the p but it's also not so rounded as an m.
the m3 has a great feel, well balanced and i like the rounded sides (this surprised me).

i think the bottom line is that we can get used to whatever is in our hands.

joe

 

[laptoprob]

I guess it is the fondling as well. The bodies have the different knobs and the square or round edges.
You fondle the knobs and the edges.
I fondled the M4 I got for Jerevan over the weekend. Nice to hold a Leica M again after letting go the M2. I will stick to the Hexar and the IIf anyway.

 

[bmattock]

For the working professional, or even the serious amateur, there are some advantages to owning a Leica that no other rangefinder camera can duplicate. I say this as a non-Leica owner (well, I have a Hektor 135mm LTM lens, but that's not much).

1) A Leica M-series camera is one of the most durable ever built.
2) If you are in or near any major city in the world, you can get a replacement for most M-bodies.
3) A Leica holds its value very well compared to most cameras.
4) In a fix, a Leica can always be negotiated for cash. Usually a nice wad - enough for a plane ticket home from about anywhere.
5) And finally, as dumb as it sounds, having a Leica around your neck gets you recognized by other Leica owners and you cannot image how valuable that can be at times. Sometimes what it takes is not talent, but access.

Downside to owning Leica - recognizable theft magnet. Some people covet that little red dot enough to kill you for it. And some people put electrician's tape over their little red dot to avoid just that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

oh. oooohh... :: pfft :: You need to rationalize Leica lust? 🙄 Some have tried to rationalize whether gravity pulls or if it's smoke and mirrors from inerta.

There is no gravity - the world sucks.

Bill Mattocks
CIIU, Flat Earth Society. 'In your heart, you know it's flat.'

 

[StuartR]

If you are not comfortable with your body, nudes are very difficult to take.

 

[Doug]

Some valuable comments... I'd consider what it is the body does; the better it performs its functions, the less it impairs your results. Even if working perfectly as designed, there are issues of the user interface including focusing ease, the over-all feel, and user confidence in its consistent reliability. And there are choices in feature sets like dependency on batteries, auto-focus, auto-wind, various flavors of auto exposure, leaf or focal-plane shutter... So even with top-quality gear there are different good choices for different users and uses.

 

[tedwhite]

I guess what I'm wondering is this: If you put a Bessa R on a tripod with the 35/2.5 Color Skopar and took a picture of, let's say, a Model A Ford in open shade. Meter says f:8 at 125th with TriX. Then removed the Bessa R, replaced it with a Leica III (I really don't know Leicas - let's say the last one made in LTM) on the tripod. Used the same cv lens, same subject, same meter reading, developed both rolls in D76 1:1 for the same length of time, made 11X14's of each negative. Would there be any difference that one could discern?

 

[FrankS]

Shutter speed accuracy, metering if internal meter is used, and any automation that might be employed. Mechanics of film transport - both correct functioning and film flatness due to design constraints in the imaging chamber. Mechanics of lens flange-to-film correctness for any given lens. Familiarity with controls can of course have an effect - not on the image per se, but on the taking of that image. If all elements are within established and acceptable parameters between said cameras, then the difference can be said to be nil. Ultimately, a properly functioning camera is a light-tight box that holds film.

Bill articulated the technical side of the issue much better than I could have, but...

There is another aspect that is not as technical. It is also slightly off topic to the original question asked but important regardless. Is the camera body important, not directly in the outcome of the resulting pictures, but indirectly via the photographer's comfort/interaction with the camera body? This may be a little out there, but here goes: You know how you meet some people and they leave you feeling cold, others simply neutral, and then there are those people to whom you find yourself drawn to? I think that maybe cameras are like that as well. Of course any photographer can take a picture with any technically well-functioning camera (Bill's points) just as any one can sit and have a conversation with any other person. A conversation with the "right" person however, can be so much more satisfying, unforced, self-sustaining, richer, deeper, etc. I think that photographing with the "right" camera for you, can likewise be a much better experience than with a camera that you don't "connect" with. I take this a step farther and suggest that the camera body does have an (indirect) effect on the resulting pictures.

What do you think? Baloney?

 

[bmattock]

This reminds me of the 'wand choosing the magician' thing in the Harry Potter movies. Could be, although when I empty my mind of mundane thoughts and look into the Void I end up getting bored and wandering off.

Consider the sports car. There are many, are there not? And they all go fast, hug corners, brake like they had anchors, and make the pulse race for some. However, even if they are all equally capable, a driver who has a preference is going to do better, I would say, in the car they prefer than in the car that they don't. Even beyond familiarity with the controls, there is knowing what the car can do and what it cannot do. Where you can push it past design parameters and where you cannot. Thus, on any given Sunday - a driver in Car Brand X beats a driver in Car Brand Y - and then the next weekend, the opposite.

A photographer with a distinct preference for a Leica M body is going to make better photographs with a Leica M body than with any other sort - if my analogy holds water, that is.

But I'm in metaphysics up to my ankles now - past this, there be dragons.

So Mote It Be,

Bill Mattocks

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm more in the ergonomics camp - while ultimately the best camera is the one you actually have _with_ you, you're more likely to have a camera with you if it feels good to you and how you like to shoot.

I've used a few Leicas and even own one of the orphans, but none of them feel quite right to my hands. I've tried to find a way to express that feeling, but have yet to find the right words. The CL is, mostly, just too small for my long fingers but that size has enough other benifits that at the moment outwiegh the annoyances.

OTOH, picking up my Canon 7 for the first time was like I'd been using it all my life. my hands just feel to place, the VF is almost as nice as the Leicas, and it was _big enough_. I prefer a larger camera than most RF shooters I think and so for me the big Canon is a good fit. Someone else won't think of it the same way.

Beyond that, if it's functioning as designed and you're using it within its design parameters, then it is just a light tight box. As someone mentioned upthread, you can get used to any camera if you want/have to. But if you do have a choice, then these aspects can come into play. I really think that if I were to be given an M Leica, I'd probably still use the 7 more. It just fit's my conception of what the "Best Camera for Me" is.

William