Roger Hicks
Veteran
Increasingly, I doubt that there is. Too much depends on what you want; what you can afford; and what you need, in that order.
The 'quality plateau' -- the level of equipment where your talent matters more than the camera's technical delivery -- is incredibly low, regardless of your talent. Sure, there are cameras and lenses that fail to rise above the plateau, especially FSU cameras where the quality control failed. But a good FSU camera or lens delivers enough quality to make a good picture.
Then again, good equipment delivers even better technical quality, and is a LOT more pleasant to use. I could use a (good) Zorkii 4K and a Soviet copy of a 1930s 35/2.8 Biogon, but why would I?
Surely if I can 'afford' something 'better' (and I put 'afford' and 'better' in quotation marks to emphasize that they are subjective qualities), then I'd be a fool not to buy it and use it. I'd rather have a Bessa than the Zorkii, and I'd rather have a 35/1.7 Ultron than the 1930s Biogon copy. Likewise, I'd rather have my pre-aspheric Summilux and my MP than the Voigtländer products. And I've tried all of them.
So what is 'bang for the buck'? It's equipment that rises above the minimum level that delivers acceptable quality (the 'quality plateau') -- and of course, a lot depends on what you call 'acceptable'. For me, FSU cameras and lenses are borderline, unless you get a good one; Voigtländers are well above the quality plateau, unless you get a really unusually bad one, probably second-hand and abused.
Above the quality plateau, incremental improvenents are more and more expensive. But they are still improvements, and whether they are worth the money to you depends on what you want, what you need, and what you can afford. Which is where I came in.
Cheers,
R.
The 'quality plateau' -- the level of equipment where your talent matters more than the camera's technical delivery -- is incredibly low, regardless of your talent. Sure, there are cameras and lenses that fail to rise above the plateau, especially FSU cameras where the quality control failed. But a good FSU camera or lens delivers enough quality to make a good picture.
Then again, good equipment delivers even better technical quality, and is a LOT more pleasant to use. I could use a (good) Zorkii 4K and a Soviet copy of a 1930s 35/2.8 Biogon, but why would I?
Surely if I can 'afford' something 'better' (and I put 'afford' and 'better' in quotation marks to emphasize that they are subjective qualities), then I'd be a fool not to buy it and use it. I'd rather have a Bessa than the Zorkii, and I'd rather have a 35/1.7 Ultron than the 1930s Biogon copy. Likewise, I'd rather have my pre-aspheric Summilux and my MP than the Voigtländer products. And I've tried all of them.
So what is 'bang for the buck'? It's equipment that rises above the minimum level that delivers acceptable quality (the 'quality plateau') -- and of course, a lot depends on what you call 'acceptable'. For me, FSU cameras and lenses are borderline, unless you get a good one; Voigtländers are well above the quality plateau, unless you get a really unusually bad one, probably second-hand and abused.
Above the quality plateau, incremental improvenents are more and more expensive. But they are still improvements, and whether they are worth the money to you depends on what you want, what you need, and what you can afford. Which is where I came in.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
In this vein, I am perplexed when I read: "I want a good Rolleiflex for under $200". Roger, I use you as a role model. When I sought a Rolleicord, I bought a mint one from Harry Fleenor and had him install a Maxwell screen, and overhaul the shutter before sending it. Thus, I have a one thousand dollar Rolleicord, which I love.
I'm sure the M9 is delightful to those who like those sorts of things. At US$7,000 it doesn't really have any competiton. I wonder what an inflation-adjusted M3 would cost, updated from 1956 to 2009?
I've read that a mid-fifties Rolleiflex cost 6 months of average industrial wages at the time.
I'm sure the M9 is delightful to those who like those sorts of things. At US$7,000 it doesn't really have any competiton. I wonder what an inflation-adjusted M3 would cost, updated from 1956 to 2009?
I've read that a mid-fifties Rolleiflex cost 6 months of average industrial wages at the time.
gho
Well-known
For a tinkerer, FSU stuff is great. I just finished servicing an Industar 61 L/D and am very contempt that I am able to help myself, if something is not quite right. There was a lint just in the center of the lens behind the front element. I had to disassemble the lens almost completely and on the go, I cleaned and relubed the heliocid. I would not do that with my Voigtländer Nokton. I would not be too afraid of hammering a nail in a wall with a Zorki, but with a Bessa R I would not do that. Picturewise, both systems deliver. If Zorkis had an internal lightmeter and a reasonable viewfinder with selectable framelines I would clearly prefer them over a Bessa R. But more or less I agree, finally it depends on who you are, what you want and how much time and money you got.
yanidel
Well-known
I think the term "best value for money" only applies to the pro world. Basically, what is the tool that will do the best job at the least cost. In can be in terms of cost per hour, tons, good, ...
But when you reach the amateur world ... this does not apply because value perception will be different if you make $10000 a year or $1'000'000.
The very American concept of "Best Value for money" you see in ads is obviously aimed at the average middle class household. In this forum it is either the $50-$500 FSU-CV or the >$3000 Leica. There is no best value equation, it is more "you have the money or you don't".
But when you reach the amateur world ... this does not apply because value perception will be different if you make $10000 a year or $1'000'000.
The very American concept of "Best Value for money" you see in ads is obviously aimed at the average middle class household. In this forum it is either the $50-$500 FSU-CV or the >$3000 Leica. There is no best value equation, it is more "you have the money or you don't".
40oz
...
there can be a sweet spot where the quality is really very good but the price is mid-range. This doesn't occur in every product, but there are many areas where this kind of bargain may be found.
I'm not sure why some people use FSU equipment as some sort of whipping post. Why not use the typical P&S that have been coming out of Japan for the last 20-30 years as an example of total crap for far too much money?
Part of the problem with FSU cameras in the West is they are often rejects shipped west for low prices. Obviously if you pay bottom dollar for camera you can expect bottom dollar quality. How many times does someone post on this board about a Leica M needing work? I dare say it is nearly as often as a post about an FSU needing it, but how many FSU bodies are out there today? Millions, perhaps? Not so strange that the market might be saturated with examples that could do with some TLC and a CLA, I don't think.
Fix your camera. If you don't think an FSU body is worth fixing when you can buy another busted one for the price of repairs, fine. But at least acknowledge your own shopping habits and prejudices are the issue, not the cameras and lenses themselves.
I cannot understand the kind of logic that says that a camera from the Ukraine is not worth more than a $100 because I can buy a worn out version for less than that. I can buy a worn out Leica for $100, but who really thinks that's some sort of "good deal"? What kind of person would buy the cheapest beat-up Leica they could find on ebay and then tell everyone Leica cameras are crap for quality because they don't work?
Seriously, what is the issue here? If you don't like Kievs and Zorkis and FEDs, big deal. Don't buy them.
I'm not sure why some people use FSU equipment as some sort of whipping post. Why not use the typical P&S that have been coming out of Japan for the last 20-30 years as an example of total crap for far too much money?
Part of the problem with FSU cameras in the West is they are often rejects shipped west for low prices. Obviously if you pay bottom dollar for camera you can expect bottom dollar quality. How many times does someone post on this board about a Leica M needing work? I dare say it is nearly as often as a post about an FSU needing it, but how many FSU bodies are out there today? Millions, perhaps? Not so strange that the market might be saturated with examples that could do with some TLC and a CLA, I don't think.
Fix your camera. If you don't think an FSU body is worth fixing when you can buy another busted one for the price of repairs, fine. But at least acknowledge your own shopping habits and prejudices are the issue, not the cameras and lenses themselves.
I cannot understand the kind of logic that says that a camera from the Ukraine is not worth more than a $100 because I can buy a worn out version for less than that. I can buy a worn out Leica for $100, but who really thinks that's some sort of "good deal"? What kind of person would buy the cheapest beat-up Leica they could find on ebay and then tell everyone Leica cameras are crap for quality because they don't work?
Seriously, what is the issue here? If you don't like Kievs and Zorkis and FEDs, big deal. Don't buy them.
FrankS
Registered User
IMO there is a "best value for money" but it is totally subjective and individual and rarely transferable for one person to the next because each has different ideas about what they want or think they want, about what they need or think they need, and about what they can afford or think they can afford.
f16sunshine
Moderator
If we think in terms of what the result acheived is......
There is such a thing as "best value for the money" when comparing two like items.
For example a FLRF canonet QL17 GIII can produce nearly the same result as an MP or CLE with 40mm cron attached.
Does this make it a best value for the money?
I think if the result is what is most considered. Yes!
Sorry if this camera comparison is so mis-matched.
It does illustrate the point.
There is such a thing as "best value for the money" when comparing two like items.
For example a FLRF canonet QL17 GIII can produce nearly the same result as an MP or CLE with 40mm cron attached.
Does this make it a best value for the money?
I think if the result is what is most considered. Yes!
Sorry if this camera comparison is so mis-matched.
It does illustrate the point.
wgerrard
Veteran
Well, I have no reason to disagree with that. Once someone gets over the "more expensive hardware makes me better" phase, then it really is a matter of knowing one's own skills and talents well enough to know which hardware works with you rather than against you, and knowing how much you are willing to pay for not-so-intangibles like durability, comfort, familiarity, reputation, panache, etc.
That MP won't necessarily crank out better pictures than the Bessa. But, if someone is OK with spending the money to buy what the MP provides that the Bessa does not, then I certainly think it is good value for their money. Maybe not the next guy's money, but certainly for their money.
That MP won't necessarily crank out better pictures than the Bessa. But, if someone is OK with spending the money to buy what the MP provides that the Bessa does not, then I certainly think it is good value for their money. Maybe not the next guy's money, but certainly for their money.
For a professional, I guess "best value for the money" is the product that gets the job done in the most cost-effective manner. I tell the engineers that work on my projects that computers are cheap, their time is expensive, buy what they want.
Now for camera gear: A Nikon D1x with a full set of Micro-Nikkors has served me for almost 8 years, since they were announced. $20K for two cameras, lenses, and flash gear. For a Pro photographer, the best value for the money is the camera equipment that minimizes the time that they require to post-process the image. The equipment that Optimizes Workflow. I will not replace the D1x's until they die. That is where Nikon really screwed up with the D2x: optimal workflow for processing Raw images. The "DAMNED" encryption of color balance data on the RAW files and forcing photographers to use an inferior piece of software for processing caused a lot of problems. I did not replace my D!x's with the D2x because of this.
For home: it's just for fun. Pleasure derived from owning and using a piece of equipment cannot be stated in terms of monetary return on investment. So if you like it, and buying it does not cause angst, get what you want. Your free time is precious.
Some precious free time, frozen in time with my 1953 J-3.
Now for camera gear: A Nikon D1x with a full set of Micro-Nikkors has served me for almost 8 years, since they were announced. $20K for two cameras, lenses, and flash gear. For a Pro photographer, the best value for the money is the camera equipment that minimizes the time that they require to post-process the image. The equipment that Optimizes Workflow. I will not replace the D1x's until they die. That is where Nikon really screwed up with the D2x: optimal workflow for processing Raw images. The "DAMNED" encryption of color balance data on the RAW files and forcing photographers to use an inferior piece of software for processing caused a lot of problems. I did not replace my D!x's with the D2x because of this.
For home: it's just for fun. Pleasure derived from owning and using a piece of equipment cannot be stated in terms of monetary return on investment. So if you like it, and buying it does not cause angst, get what you want. Your free time is precious.
Some precious free time, frozen in time with my 1953 J-3.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Roger, Roger, Roger. You make your living sowing doubt. It's what sells magazines. And gear.
larmarv916
Well-known
Well let's talk this topic from a design perspective. Most often when you see a new product hit the market..most often if it is a success. It due to the design team finding value added features that other products lack or benefits that the previous model failed to incorporate and customer feedback "complaints" have been treated with utmost importance. The new model is a fix like the M8.2.
The price point is such that no fancy "fairy tales" are needed to rationalize why the cost of brand X is only 1/2 of the parent companies identical product.
When a design team is working on offering a generational leap forward to catch up or leap frog over competition the traditional development goal is deliver superior product within 10-20% of the same "flagship" of your main competition.
So if the new product is not "better" and has a major value added margin for the customers...it will fail ! Case closed. It may be slow death which will cause "hard core" customer to leave the brand and sell off all equipment. Or it you will see a instant rejection by the customer base. In which case, the previous product actually see an increase..because it was not as over priced or not as bad as the new"improved" and overpriced model.
So internal management culture will steer the design team and failure is again based at the directions from the highest levels of the company. Classic case in point...Nikon years ago knew it needed better industrial design talent and turned over it's actual product to "Giugiaro" the famous car designer. So all the cameras you love come from the hands and hearts of Italy's greatest car design family ! If you look at the history of Nikon sales that point in time is when they went vertical. But it was the senior Management of Nikon who's bias toward better value for the customers is what they responded to and the benefits are historical evidence.
All the best....Laurance
The price point is such that no fancy "fairy tales" are needed to rationalize why the cost of brand X is only 1/2 of the parent companies identical product.
When a design team is working on offering a generational leap forward to catch up or leap frog over competition the traditional development goal is deliver superior product within 10-20% of the same "flagship" of your main competition.
So if the new product is not "better" and has a major value added margin for the customers...it will fail ! Case closed. It may be slow death which will cause "hard core" customer to leave the brand and sell off all equipment. Or it you will see a instant rejection by the customer base. In which case, the previous product actually see an increase..because it was not as over priced or not as bad as the new"improved" and overpriced model.
So internal management culture will steer the design team and failure is again based at the directions from the highest levels of the company. Classic case in point...Nikon years ago knew it needed better industrial design talent and turned over it's actual product to "Giugiaro" the famous car designer. So all the cameras you love come from the hands and hearts of Italy's greatest car design family ! If you look at the history of Nikon sales that point in time is when they went vertical. But it was the senior Management of Nikon who's bias toward better value for the customers is what they responded to and the benefits are historical evidence.
All the best....Laurance
JohnTF
Veteran
Well, the answer to your question is, "it depends"
You bring up FSU equipment, I might be able to make them work, but have had so many that just needed too much help, I felt it was a project to make the samples I have work. Same with the Pentacons, Kiev 6x6, Flexarets, -- some examples of each have some sort of problems which make them unreliable under many circumstances, regardless of attention and service, and I just would only work with them for something serious, if I had no other choice. Just as I would not start out for California in my 1970 MGB.
Does not mean I do not think they are capable, when they work. I have purchased more than my share, and I have kept my share of cars running for myself and friends. Maybe it is a question of desire and my age? I do not carry many tools in the trunk of the car anymore.
If I am shooting something serious, I also want two good cameras with me.
If I am getting paid, then they are tested that week.
None of those mentioned cameras put me in my comfort zone, and I want to be able to think of the image, not if the shutter, or film advance will hold up.
Opportunity and access to reasonable service also play a roll.
If I am carrying an M2, or some other vintage quality camera, to use, or buying for a friend, I want that camera reliably serviced.
As of late, I am fortunate to have access to reasonably priced service, so unless the camera really checks out, it gets serviced. What is marginal for one person can become a best buy if you have access to good, reasonable service.
User grade Leicas-- when you find them at low prices, can be really superior "buys", you can service them, use them, and perhaps not only get your money back if you decide to trade or sell, but you might make a profit. That might be a "best buy". I sold the lens and accessories from one "scruffy" M from a local shop (they did not want it when it was traded in) and ended up with basically a user camera for just about free. (Plenty of deals went the other way).
Timing and location-- You can generally get certain cameras in certain markets at surprising prices.
I would say if you are in the right place, a Hasselblad 500CM Kit could very well be a best buy in this area.
The M8 might soon be a best buy, depending on how people react to the M9.
So, it kind of "depends".
So, Yes, there are best values for money, but if the equipment is not reliable, it can be of no value at all that day.
It might also depend upon whether you feature a previously "sleeper" camera in print. ;-)
Regards, John
You bring up FSU equipment, I might be able to make them work, but have had so many that just needed too much help, I felt it was a project to make the samples I have work. Same with the Pentacons, Kiev 6x6, Flexarets, -- some examples of each have some sort of problems which make them unreliable under many circumstances, regardless of attention and service, and I just would only work with them for something serious, if I had no other choice. Just as I would not start out for California in my 1970 MGB.
Does not mean I do not think they are capable, when they work. I have purchased more than my share, and I have kept my share of cars running for myself and friends. Maybe it is a question of desire and my age? I do not carry many tools in the trunk of the car anymore.
If I am shooting something serious, I also want two good cameras with me.
If I am getting paid, then they are tested that week.
None of those mentioned cameras put me in my comfort zone, and I want to be able to think of the image, not if the shutter, or film advance will hold up.
Opportunity and access to reasonable service also play a roll.
If I am carrying an M2, or some other vintage quality camera, to use, or buying for a friend, I want that camera reliably serviced.
As of late, I am fortunate to have access to reasonably priced service, so unless the camera really checks out, it gets serviced. What is marginal for one person can become a best buy if you have access to good, reasonable service.
User grade Leicas-- when you find them at low prices, can be really superior "buys", you can service them, use them, and perhaps not only get your money back if you decide to trade or sell, but you might make a profit. That might be a "best buy". I sold the lens and accessories from one "scruffy" M from a local shop (they did not want it when it was traded in) and ended up with basically a user camera for just about free. (Plenty of deals went the other way).
Timing and location-- You can generally get certain cameras in certain markets at surprising prices.
I would say if you are in the right place, a Hasselblad 500CM Kit could very well be a best buy in this area.
The M8 might soon be a best buy, depending on how people react to the M9.
So, it kind of "depends".
So, Yes, there are best values for money, but if the equipment is not reliable, it can be of no value at all that day.
It might also depend upon whether you feature a previously "sleeper" camera in print. ;-)
Regards, John
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I believe in the axiom: "Cheap is Expensive".
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Products are engineered based on quality/price for their intended market segment. If I am a professional bartender I sure hell wouldn't want a $15 blender from Wally World but for the occasional protein shake or margarita it may be value for the money.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
1) Very nice work, Brian.
2) They grow up so dang fast...
(edit)
3) I'm in the "yeah there is but it's subjective as heck so don't worry be happy" camp. :angel: Certain things are good whether at $100, $1000 or $10,000 prices - cameras, mauser rifles, triumph motorcycles, etc...
William
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
I am assuming we are not talking about insurance or resale value, but about subjective value. So yeah, there is, but it's personal, by definition.
It's typical for sales and marketing folks to wrongly justify high product prices with high engineering costs, quality, "value", etc. There is often less correlation than there should be, the customer does not "get what (s)he pays for", the customer pays what the market bears, the manufacturer and seller get the highest ROI possible.
It's typical for sales and marketing folks to wrongly justify high product prices with high engineering costs, quality, "value", etc. There is often less correlation than there should be, the customer does not "get what (s)he pays for", the customer pays what the market bears, the manufacturer and seller get the highest ROI possible.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Best value for the money depends on your ultimate goal. Use one criteria if your going on a jungle safari. Use a different set of criteria if your going to the local zoo.
Sam Abell said he could produce publishable fotos with his high school TLR. But he shoots with Leicas.
Sam Abell said he could produce publishable fotos with his high school TLR. But he shoots with Leicas.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First point: no, they're not rejects. When the last photographer to the Supreme Soviet (Mike Shushakov) wanted a Horizont in about 1990, he ordered a dozen and chose the best one. When he lent it to me he said, "always take two or three shots, because sometimes you get stripes." Every Russian photographer I know has the same opinion of Soviet cameras and lenses: the best are OK, but you don't always get the best, even new, out of the box (and yes, I'm old enough that I remember that too).
Second, Japanese P+S get a free ride because they are consumable: their design life is so short (sometimes as little as 100 rolls) than no one takes them seriously. People pay FSU cameras the compliment of treating them like real cameras.
Third, I couldn't agree more about the £100 Leica.
Fourth, my point was not attack FSU cameras, merely to point out that if you want something 'better' (for a personal definition of 'better') and can afford it (for a personal definition of 'afford'), then it's better value for money for you.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Larry,
Obviously I'm flattered, and equally obviously, I agree that it's better to have what you want, in good order, even if it costs you more than its resale value.But amazingly many people seem to consider resale value when buying a camera, as though it's an investment in shares, when a much better idea is to consider it as buying an experience (like a holiday), a tool (like a chain-saw) or even a work of art (just to enjoy possessing it).
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dea Andy,
First, you say 'nearly'. Well, yes, that was my point. An improvement is an improvement: it's merely a question of whether you want/can afford the improvement.
Second, the QL17 G3 is an elderly camera with a fixed lens. Some old fixed-lens RFs I've had have been great. Others have suffered from dim rangefinders (that's why I got rid of my Lynx 14), sticky shutters, clapped-out meter cells.
Third, the best fixed-lens RFs I've has (Konicas) still aren't as comfortable or easy to use as Leicas.
Cheers,
R.