Lens or Body?

[Leica Geek]

Hi,

I wanted to get an opinion on something. At this current time in my life I can't really justify buying a Leica M6 or M7 which is always been my dream camera. I recently bought a Voigtlander Bessa R2a and I'm using my Leica SM lenses on it and so far the pictures look great. Not as good as my G2 but pretty close.

I was wondering what you all feel is more important, the lens or the camera body. Would it make that much difference if I were shooting a Leica body with Leica lenses as opposed to my Bessa R2a with Leica lenses?

Is it the glass that is more important than the camera body?

I realize Leicas are built much more solid and are quieter than my Bessa, but how does that effect image quality?

Thanks.

 

[aad]

If you shoot film, and the rangefinder is accurate, the only influence a body has is how you like using it.

 

[PlantedTao]

Glass is all that matters...the body is just a light tight box. (or so I heard about a billion times on this forum 😉 )
But if I could afford the best light tight box around (MP) I would and sell my R2 very quick like.
The lens gives the photo the look, but the body is what connects with the photog...
Being broke or near to it (my camera needs are filled)...my money goes to film, chemistry and paper and darkroom rental time.

 

[Leica Geek]

So if I'm satified with my Bessa I should invest in good lenses? I did notice a difference between my Leica lenses and the Voigtlander lens. The Leica lens are sharper and render better, but the Voigtlander lens is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[vrgard]

I can't disagree with the general statement that it's the lens that matters. I sorta view this as the old "garbage in, garbage out" theory. However, I have read comments about why images taken with a particular camera are as good as they are specifically because of the camera, in addition to the quality of the lens of course (again, garbage in, garbage out). I'm referring to comments about the little Rollei 35 and about how good a job it supposedly does at keeping the film flat, and therefore uniform across the film plane, when in position to take a shot. Assuming that's true, then there's an argument for why one camera body may be superior to another in terms of its picture taking quality. And yes, I realize that the Rollei 35 is a fixed lens camera, but the argument holds true for removeable lens cameras as well. And makes me think that's one of the reasons I get decent quality shots from my little Leica CL since it has a very similar mechanism to the Rollei 35 for holding the film in place. I'd be curious what others think of this.

-Randy

 

[Kim Coxon]

I think that it is the glass that gives the picture it's "look" and is very important in the quality stakes. However, I would agree with Randy. The body does need to be more than a light tight box. Both the shutter accuracy and film transport will affect image quality. You also then need to add in the handling capabilities of the body/lens combo. If it handles well and is ergonomic, then you are likely to use it more and perhaps "lose" lees shots.

If you are happy with the Bessa, don't pick up a Leica, it may change your opinion and then you will be lost.

Kim

 

[Leica Geek]

Believe me I will own a Leica M6 or M7, that is a goal of mine. I actually enjoy shooting my IIIf more than the Bessa, but it's just a pain to load. I like the convenience of the Bessa R2a. It's a nice camera, but like I said if I could afford an M7, I'd be shooting with a grin on my face.

Isn't the Bessa R2 a pretty good camera? How big of a difference in quality would there be if I'm using Leica lenses on the Bessa as opposed to a Leica with Leica lenses? Would it be minimal or significant?

 

[back alley]

How big of a difference in quality would there be if I'm using Leica lenses on the Bessa as opposed to a Leica with Leica lenses? Would it be minimal or significant?

i would say minimal.

to find the real answer to your question you need to look at photographers and their photos more than the gear.
a good shooter who has average gear, will still take good shots.
if a poor shooter has outstanding gear, he will still be a poor shooter.

the only improvement in my shooting has come from practice, shooting lots of film and trying to figure out what I like in a photo.
the gear is the least of it.

but i am still a gear head...🙂

joe

 

[FrankS]

Well said, Joe.

 

[back alley]

Well said, Joe.

thank you frank.
i had a moment...😉

 

[f8&go]

Could not agree more woth back alley.

Yet...

A lot of this is about just wanting something better
and more beautiful as an object and a tool.
Life is short, there's no guarantee of a reward in
the hereafter and my view is the guy who dies
deepest in debt (having enjoyed getting there) wins!

I own a IIIf and look forward to checking out
M's & ZI's in time, but I have to say that
that durned Barnack might not be surpassable
for my viewfinder needs.

Be warned: no sensible person has ever been known
to take my advice

 

[Leica Geek]

Thanks Joe. I completely agree with what you are saying and thanks for the good advice. I still want a Leica though, but I feel I need to wait awhile before I invest in a M6 or M7. I'll buy more Leica lenses for my Bessa R2 and one more lens for my Contax G2.😀

 

[payasam]

You have a Leica already, so you are set up for both screw and bayonet Leica lenses. If at this time in your life you cannot justify the purchase of an M6 or an M7, perhaps you should hone your skills with what you have. The shooter, not the gear, someone is believed to have said.

 

[Leica Geek]

Well the IIIf is great, don't get me wrong and I realize that the shooter is what's important. The thing is, the IIIf is not easy to load on the fly. You have to really sit and take your time doing this. I needed a camera that was easier to load, that's why I bought the Bessa R2. I agree with the statement "The shooter, not the gear" to a point. Quality of image is important to me, that's why I asked the question at the beginning of this post. The IIIf is also really hard to focus with, because you're looking through this tiny peep hole. I want a Leica M and prefer an M with modern features, such as TTL.

If my Contax G2 was quieter and had faster lenses I would be completely satified with it. I will own an M6 or 7 one day.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Leica Geek]

Well, I went and did it. I won myself an M5 on ebay! Good price too!

Happy happy, joy joy!

 

[BillBingham2]

As much as I agree with many of the writers here about the camera not making the photographer, there needs to be something said about the feel of a camera in your hand, how it blends to become part of you, an extention of your eye, your mind, you. I have several cameras that do this for me, one of them is my Leica M6, another is my Nikon F2AS. My Bessa T comes very very close and if I had an R2/3/4 I bet that would be as good as a T.

I do not think there is a camera that is perfect for everyone but I believe you need to be able to forget about the tool you are using and focus on the task. Once you do that, you can become the best you can be. A camera that works as an extention of you, the way you want to work. The M5 has always interested me because of the great design of the shutter speed dial and spot-like meter. The more you use a camera, the higher potential there is for it to become a part of you.

There is a world of difference between a smooth lens and one that binds every so often around the dial.

World class equipment is not a requirement for great pictures, but the ability to use the camera you have and not focus on the tool (the camera or lens) is.

Your mileage may varry.

B2 (;->

 

[back alley]

The more you use a camera, the higher potential there is for it to become a part of you.


i think this is the universal truth when it comes to any tool, like our cameras. i can't recall a camera that i felt all thumbs with.
and any camera that i used for a few days straight, shooting lots, soon became very comfortable in my hand.
the m3 was very comfortable and it took very little time to realize this.
the cle/cl was very nice too.
the canon p's were made to fit my hands.
the zi fits nicely also.
maybe the nikon f2 i had was a bit cumbersome but i loved the canon f1, go figure.

use your cameras, learn them, become intimate with thm and never have to think about them again.

joe