Less interest in what digital M and more interest in Lenses?

[eleskin]

M8, M9, R-D1, blaa, blaa, blaa,,, you know the drill. Over time, I have become bored with this and that camera. Really, the quality of what the M8 and M9 can do is at such a level (assuming you know how to create incredible photos and understand the limits of ISO etc,,) that in the right hands, the camera becomes secondary.

The vision or pre visualization of the photograph you want to take and the LENS that you want to use to accomplish that becomes a million times important than any camera.

To me, the camera threads are becoming redundant. Maybe on this forum , especially in the digital M forum, there should be a lens section. The criteria should be as long as it was taken with a digital rangefinder.

It is really interesting. Even with the other camera makers and DSLR's. At some point, the camera achieves such a level of quality, that talking about it becomes yesterdays news. Remember when film cameras were the norm. Most had the same layout. Yes, you had improvements in exposure, more auto features, but in the end, the Lenses were all the talk. I remember all the juicy reviews of lenses in the 1980's and 1990's. Is it my imagination or are there more camera reviews now than lenses?

In the end, our vision or 'eye" will be a more relevant topic than any digital M or any camera. But remember, the LENS forms the vision of what we pre visualize, not the device that records it. As time marches on, this will become more so. Here, companies such as Leica, Cosina, Zeiss, etc,, will become even more relevant. We may again see Lens reviews become more common than camera reviews, and with that, more talk about making photographs than technology!!!!

 

[jsrockit]

See, I feel the opposite. The camera is much more important to me than the lens. Most lenses for these cameras are really good. Sure, some are more charecter lenses and some are more clinical, but they are all worthy of use. However, when you are a rangefinder fan and like digital, the camera body you choose is very important. It's a comfort thing, not a quality thing for me.

I would argue that lenses and cameras are equally important in digital.

 

[Mcary]

The reason that you see more reviews for cameras then for lens these days is simple. New camera's are being released at a much great frequency then new lens. Think about it how many different DSLRs does Canon and Nikon between the time they upgrade their pro-lens. Plus most people who buy a DSLR don't even care what lens goes on it just give them a 18-200 or 18-300 and their happy.

 

[Mcary]

See, I feel the opposite. The camera is much more important to me than the lens. Most lenses for these cameras are really good. Sure, some are more charecter lenses and some are more clinical, but they are all worthy of use. However, when you are a rangefinder fan and like digital, the camera body you choose is very important. It's a comfort thing, not a quality thing for me.

I would argue that lenses and cameras are equally important in digital.

Agree

Here's simple question for those here shooting with an M8
Let say for example you have the previous version of the 35mm and 50mm Lux or the current version of the 35mm and 50mm Cron and you have about $7000 to spend would you
A. Buy the current version of the 35 and 50 Luxs
B Buy the M9.
C Ok you don't have the 7K do you Sell the M8+35 and 50mm Lux buy a M9+35mm summarit?

 

[tbarker13]

But in a digital world, the camera plays a much more important role than it did in the film world.
I was thinking back recently to my old days of Nikon film cameras. At one point I had an F3, FM2 and maybe an FE. Certainly there were differences among the models (max shutter speeds, winder compatibility, etc.), but I could slap the same lens on any of those bodies and take pretty much the same photo.
I don't think the same is true today - comparing, say, a D700, D70 and D1.
Things like megapixels, crop factors, high iso performance, etc. make the camera body much more important today.
I used to live with the belief that you could make a minimal investment in your camera body and focus the bulk of your money on lenses. That's just not true anymore - at least not for digital shooters.

 

[kbg32]

But in a digital world, the camera plays a much more important role than it did in the film world.
I was thinking back recently to my old days of Nikon film cameras. At one point I had an F3, FM2 and maybe an FE. Certainly there were differences among the models (max shutter speeds, winder compatibility, etc.), but I could slap the same lens on any of those bodies and take pretty much the same photo.
I don't think the same is true today - comparing, say, a D700, D70 and D1.
Things like megapixels, crop factors, high iso performance, etc. make the camera body much more important today.
I used to live with the belief that you could make a minimal investment in your camera body and focus the bulk of your money on lenses. That's just not true anymore - at least not for digital shooters.

Very true Tim.

 

[kxl]

But in a digital world, the camera plays a much more important role than it did in the film world.

YUP... Back in the day, camera bodies were considered by some as not much more than light-tight boxes. Obviously no longer true with digital cameras.

 

[robklurfield]

Every camera I've ever owned, since my first Kodak Instamatic in 1967, has been more advanced than I am.

The variable that needs improvement for me is the photographer; not the body and not the lenses. all the upgrades over the over the years (and I'm not as acquisitive, trade or upgrade-inclined as a lot of folks on RFF; same M4 and same three lenses for 26 years before I traded them for the M8) has been to satisfy my feelings, tastes, ease-of-use, etc. The only thing that needs improving in my case, is me. That said, I'll probably buy some glass and another body or move into a another format next year.

I honestly think that the most cost-effective way to overcome boredom with one's gear is to try different emulsions. You could easily live many years taking on new challenges just by trying to master different film stocks.

The difference in my results is far less due to whether I was using a $4,900 digital body with an $1,800 lens versus a 50-year old Barnack with a $30 J-8, then it is due to where I planted my feet, pointed my lens... and how I engaged those connections between my hands, eyes and brain. That part of the chain would appear to be truly infinitely upgradeable. And one only need invest time.

A disclaimer: I'm as motivated by human nature as the next guy. If I buy a winning lotto ticket, all bets are off. I will splurge on some gear.

 

[Phew!finder]

Camera's are more 'important' in the digital world because unlike for film,

digital camera = camera + sensor

The sensor in a film camera is the...film, which is shared across the board of light-tight boxes and can be swapped out every 36 exposures .

 

[noimmunity]

The lenses have traditionally been a constraint, because of the proprietary mount.

Locked in to M mount lenses, I REALLY want a digital body to match. We're still not there, yet. Not even the M9.

So I shoot mostly film.

The advent of mirror-less digital bodies eliminates the constraints imposed by mount, but imposes other compromises in terms of crop factor and image quality.

M4/3 shows that the lenses are less important than the bodies, both in terms of the ability to mount any kind of lens and in the fact that native m4/3 lenses often look better than legacy lenses adapted to m4/3 bodies.