How important is a Body to the Final Image

[tedwhite]

When I was a kid doing amateur road racing in California, I always did better in my old Porsche 356 coupe than in other cars people asked me to drive, Alfa Guilietta, Fiat Abarth Zagato coupe, Triumph TR3, Austin Healy 100, etc. As you say, Bill, it was my car of preference.

Of all the SLR cameras I've used, the Pentax Spotmatic fit me best, despite the quirky stop-down metering. In RF cameras, the Bessa R (especially with the side grip) and the M3.
The M3's more solid, the Bessa's easier to load. I'd rather have the M3 (prestige, perhaps), but being "retired" and on a relatively fixed income, the Bessa does just fine.

 

[sherm]

Frank is definately on to something when he talks about the "connection" with the camera. I'd go as far as to say that because you're using a Leica you want to do this camera justice and live up to it's reputation.... it forces or coerces you to take the time to make better images. It's like when I play golf with someone who's a 10 handicap and I'm an 18. I end up playing better because I'm playing with "better" golfers.

Long and short of it, get the Leica it's great even if you shouldn't spend the $$ DO IT. Don't forget though get some or one piece of Leica glass; this is where the real magic happens IMO you're not doing an M body justice with a Jupiter for instance all your really trying to do is Leica on the cheap and this isn't possible with Leica.

Pardon the ramblings.. it's late, it's not raining but I had some dental work done and I have VICODIN 😀 😀

Scott

 

[Doug]

Frank is definately on to something when he talks about the "connection" with the camera. I'd go as far as to say that because you're using a Leica you want to do this camera justice and live up to it's reputation.... it forces or coerces you to take the time to make better images.

Scott, interesting and thought-provoking. I agree with Frank too. As to living up to the quality of the gear... I can immediately relate to this concept in relation to cars and driving. If you're driving a Mercedes you're probably going to be especially conscientious about not making foolish clumsy gauche moves on the road. Definitely a factor there in doing one's best to live up to the image of the car.

But I had to think long and hard whether it relates to the Leica and photography. Maybe, but only faintly, if at all. At least for me. All the gear I like to use is worth my serious attention in "getting it right" when out shooting. Even when it's just snapshots, I might as well do my best to get it sharp, well-exposed, interesting stuff filling the frame attractively, etc. Good practice if nothing else. I think I'm not any more dedicated to this with the Leica than with the CLE or a Contax G or a Pentax.

But there IS some element of this relating to film formats. For instance, 110 Instamatic film in my tiny Pentax: Why am I going to all this trouble to make a nice pic when it'll be recorded on an itsy-bitsy film? Same feelings to a slightly lesser degree with half-frame 35mm and APS. On the other side, there's satisfaction with 6x4.5 and 6x7 that there's a worthy patch of film in there, recording what I hope won't be yet another crappy pic! 🙂

 

[sf]

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?

only possible areas for difference in that case would be :

1. Is the distance from lens to shutter/film plane exactly the same in both cases?

2. Do both shutter assemblies create exactly the same shake?

3. Are both shutters firing at exactly the same speed?

4. Are both the focal plane and the film plane equally parallel in both cases?

5. Do both bodies hold the film exactly to the same degree of flatness?

if those things are all yes, there will be ZERO difference.

 

[Honus]

I agree with Frank. Ultimately, the lens, the film and the development determine the image. Assuming, of course, that the correct exposure has been determined and that the camera is capable of delivering the goods.

The camera is the conduit between the photographer and the lens. That relationship, IMHO, is more art than science. It is very personal, and is primarily aesthetic. What works for me doesn't necessarily work for you . To each his own.

When the camera 'just feels right' in your hands, it's magic.

Robert

 

[doubs43]

My analogy is rather simple and direct. Image that the camera is a race car. The lens is the engine, the film is the fuel and the body contains the running gears and wheels. Which one can you do away with and still have a car/camera that works?

Each part is necessary and therefore no single piece is more or less important than any other. The finest racing body in the world is still no better than it's engine and fuel.

Walker

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Maybe at one time in the past one body was better than the others, but with modern production techniques everything, including cameras, is made so much better that I can't belive that there is any real difference in everyday use.

What matters to some people is the 'guaranteed' everlastingness of the Leica against the we-don't-know-yet of the Voigtlander.

 

[jaapv]

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

Are there any statistics on this,Bill? I have a feeling that the average mugger would rather go for the cell-phone or digi P&S, the same way that a far higher percentage of Volkswagens is stolen rather than Ferrari's. It is all a matter disposability. Or are you referring to RFF-ers? Some of us may well have left a swath of (human-not camera) bodies lying behind them in their extreme GAS! 😀

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

People in less affluent countries don't even know what a Leica is.

I lent mine to a friend and he said that he had another friend who had a better camera: a Canon APS. Later I met his friend and admired his Canon Ixus.

 

[RML]

For me the body is important as it is the interface between my fingers and eye on one side and the picture on the other side. An interface that let's me work the way I want, is why one body might suit me just fine and another not at all.

 

[Gid]

OK then, which M and black or chrome 🙂 BTW, how many of you have been mugged for your Leica?

 

[Rich Silfver]

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 .

Isn't that a bit like saying that in the end a car is just a car as the gas will still take you from A to B.

Things like reliability, smooth ride, speed, looks, build quality, resell value, prestige, joy in using it, etc, etc can in many ways be directly translated to if a camera body makes a difference.

I find that I really like my Leicas and Hasselblad - much more than other cameras I've owned - or own. That makes me more willing to take them with me anywhere I go and hence I use them more than if I for instance just owned a camera that I didn't enjoy as much.

Obviously this is a luxury I can afford as I am an amateur. If I was a pro I'd be shooting whatever got the job done in the most cost efficient way.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> If I was a pro I'd be shooting whatever got the job done in the most cost efficient way.

Yes, but more professional drivers are in 18-wheelers than race cars.

Analogy Police! Analogy Police!

There are big differences in the amount of vibration that a camera body introduces into an image. I was at a Museum this weekend where they had banned the use of tripods and bipods as it was considered a tripping hazard. Obviously from a mishap; several months ago they were allowed. Monopods were Okay. I would not have been using the SLR's with the same ease as the Nikon RF's.

 

[BrianShaw]

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?

Not baloney... just a bit soft in my opinion. Both the technical and metaphysical issues are *direct* influencers, not (indirect) in my opinion.

The bottonm line is that I screw up less using a good body that I'm intimately familiar with: I frame better compositions; I see images that might have gone unseen; and I have confidence that I'm being successful using a good body that I know and work well with.

I have basically one working camera in each format... and I stick to them because we work well together. Perhaps any well-functioning camera could become a favorite for me, but that's a matter of time and experience together. But really, I'm more of a "the camera chooses the photographer" type. When that happens, stop looking at the alternatives!

The thing I hate the most (other than my wife not having dinner ready when I get home from work) is folks thrusting their camera at me saying things like: "get this shot for me... you're a good photographer." I can do it... I just despise it.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is no gravity - the world sucks.

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

Get that nasty cigarette out of your mouth... and wash that mouth out with soap, young man. How dare you talk like that in polite company!

 

[Kim Coxon]

And perhaps even more important, a race car cannot win a race without a good driver. 😉

Kim

My analogy is rather simple and direct. Image that the camera is a race car. The lens is the engine, the film is the fuel and the body contains the running gears and wheels. Which one can you do away with and still have a car/camera that works?

Each part is necessary and therefore no single piece is more or less important than any other. The finest racing body in the world is still no better than it's engine and fuel.

Walker

 

[Kim Coxon]

I am not sure I fully understand your argument. At the end of the day, a car is just a means of transport. As long as you put the right fuel in it it will take you from A to B. The advertisers might try and persuade us otherwise but for many it is a tool like any other and they choose the most appropriate car for their needs. That doesn't mean any one brand or indeed model is any "better" than another. However, some are more suitable. My wifes Volvo estate is easier to transport the kids and all their stuff to and from University but I find it easier to take my little Volkswagen to do the shopping run.

For others, their car is much more than a means of transport and they choose to make a statement with it. Some will pay 1,000's for a special number plate but that doesn't affect the function. I find it amusing that in many cities in the UK you find whole fleets of large 4 wheel drive cars driven by middle aged women with kids in the back that I doubt have ever been on an un-metaled road let alone off road! What they choose to drive and how they spend their money is entirely their perogative but it doesn't change the function of the car.

The question here is surely how much effect the body has on the final photo and not how enjoyable it is to use. As to some of the other factors such as resell value, that again is slightly different but this can also be misleading. If I bought a new Leica MP, took one roll and sold it, I would probaly lose about the same as buying a new Bessa, taking the same roll and throwing it away.

I'm not sure the pro analogy stands up. A "pro grade" camera is a luxury for many amatuers because we tend to respect our kit and take photos for fun. A pro has to have something that will stand up to the rogours of the trade and someone else is usually paying the bill.

Kim

Isn't that a bit like saying that in the end a car is just a car as the gas will still take you from A to B.

Things like reliability, smooth ride, speed, looks, build quality, resell value, prestige, joy in using it, etc, etc can in many ways be directly translated to if a camera body makes a difference.

I find that I really like my Leicas and Hasselblad - much more than other cameras I've owned - or own. That makes me more willing to take them with me anywhere I go and hence I use them more than if I for instance just owned a camera that I didn't enjoy as much.

Obviously this is a luxury I can afford as I am an amateur. If I was a pro I'd be shooting whatever got the job done in the most cost efficient way.

 

[PetarDima]

Thank you for nice discussion(spelling correct?) RFF friends!
U rukama Mandušića Vuka
svaka puška biće ubojita. ( Njegoš) - in serbian
In Mandushic Vuk's hands
every gun will hit the target.(Njegosh- greatest poet from Montenegro).
In other words - every camera will be fine in master's( of phtography) hands. I believe , taht's true... But take look on the other side ...
Many thanks to Bill Mattocks and Frank.S... I agree with both of you...
Camera body is a simple box, and in a same time connection with that box is most important to me. If I am in a mood to take a photo the photo will be better, and the mood is made by camera too... that's why I am at thiss fine RFF place...
I want to ask just one , big question( Bill and Frank, specially), RFF friends:
If you take RF camera to shoot in low light and night,[/B]( FROM HAND -no tripod!) which camera will it be, and why?
I allready know that LEICA M have beautifull shutter( NO VIBRATION) , but it cost ... give me some other thoughts- what do you think about Besa- it is very popular.
THANK'S.

 

[bmattock]

Well, here's another analogy, but only smokers and former smokers will understand (I'm a former smoker, despite my avatar).

A cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette. They all stink, and they all taste like flaming death.

Ah, not so, says the Bobbie Smokie-treat. They taste great. And I like my brand best.

Well then, says Joe Cleanlungs-gonna-die-anyway, let's say we divide them up. Menthol and non-menthol. There. Now they're all the same in each pile.

No, no, says B.S. My brand tastes different from the others.

Well, I've tried cigarettes, says J.C., and they all taste uniformly awful. So they're the same.

But the fact is - and any smoker can confirm this - a smoker has a brand preference, and a strong one at that. They *do* all taste different, and we can demonstrate by telling the difference between brands with one puff. We know *our* brand - in fact, some of us, addicted as we are (or were) will pass up a cigarette that is not *our* brand and will drive from store to store in the middle of the night looking for *our* brand. The others just won't do.

This is no affectation - if you're addicted and would rather do without than smoke a different brand - there's a difference between them. That a non-smoker doesn't believe that is of no consequence.

Leica folk may not be able to exactly describe why they prefer a Leica over all other cameras. They may insist that there is a difference where others see none. But it is there for them - and therefore, it exists.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks, former evil awful bad smoker - still gonna die.

 

[FrankS]

I want to ask just one , big question( Bill and Frank, specially), RFF friends:
If you take RF camera to shoot in low light and night,[/B]( FROM HAND -no tripod!) which camera will it be, and why?
I allready know that LEICA M have beautifull shutter( NO VIBRATION) , but it cost ... give me some other thoughts- what do you think about Besa- it is very popular.

The Bessa R is probably the best value in non-FSU RF cameras, with its built-in meter and super viewfinder. For less money, a Kiev 4 is also very good and has a range of slow speeds that the Fed2 does not..