Old camera & new lens or old lens & new camera?

[Austerby]

I've realised that, having tried different combinations of old and new, that I actually like old Leicas and older lenses more than new cameras and lenses. I can certainly see the benefits of the new kit and all the disadvantages of the old stuff, but for my needs, for what I want out of my Leica, I like the old eg my M3 and 50mm f1.5 Summarit, though I do have modern Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses too.

What about others - do you stick a 50mm Elmar f3.5 screw-mount on your M8.2 or a 21mm f1.4 Summilux on your M3 or are most people happy with a mixture?

 

[Mablo]

I'll stick with my old Canon RF bodies and some old Canon RF lenses. They are about the same age with me. We are aging together gracefully.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends, too, on what you can afford/want to afford.

Two of my favourite combinations are 24 Summilux on M8.2 and 90 Thambar on M8.2 -- and if I want to shoot film, it's 35/1.4 pre-aspheric on MP and 75/2 aspheric on MP.

I've owned most Leicas, screw and bayonet, and used quite a lot of the ones I don't own. Unless you really like the compactness of screw Leicas (I've had A-Standard-II-III-IIIa-IIIb-IIIc-IIIf BD and RD-IIIg and played with B and IIId) I prefer M-mount. Despite the smoothness of the M3 I'd rather have an M2 than an M3 and an MP than either. What's not to like about the MP except (a) the price, (b) a purist objection to frames in pairs and (c) an even more purist objection to meters?

Cheers,

R.

 

[raid]

As long as the "old camera" functions like a new camera and as long as the old lens is still very useful, then the old-old set would work for me. I have no problems with old camera [Canon IVsb] with new lens [Kobalux 28mm], or a Bessa T with rigid Summicron. These two sets happen to be in my camera bag since yesterday.

 

[drewbarb]

I voted for the last option, since I don't much care. But most of the time when I head out the door, I grab an M3 with a DR 'cron; I've put more film through this combo than any other 35mm gear in years- and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[payasam]

An old camera which is well maintained is in practical terms as good as a new camera. This cannot be said about lenses. Often, however, the differences are not big enough to matter.

 

[Bingley]

I checked the first option, since that most resembles my current kit. I enjoy using my M2 and Canon P, and just picked up a IIIc to use as a pocket camera (well, jacket pocket). As for old lenses, I'm continually amazed at what these can do when combined w/ modern film emulsions.

 

[jmkelly]

I get a creative rush from the forced slowness of using old cameras/old lenses. Sometimes I want the simplicity of a new camera with the look to the shots I get with certain old lenses. I rarely use the old camera/new lens setup. The new camera/new lens combo can be technically perfect - and I use them - but sometimes I miss the flaws of the older systems and the excuses for missed shots that I can fall back on to rationalize away the reality of my mediocre talent.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

For 35mm RF's, I've mostly resigned myself to new on new. For me, old gear generally means squinty finders and flare prone lenses for which my patience is diminishing.

Though maybe there should be another selection for new-old lenses, eg. ZM Sonnar 50/1.5, Elmar-M 50/2.8, CV Nokton 35/1.4, etc. Lenses that are "new" but designed as updates to older classics.

 

[Keith]

It's great to have both and just 'mix and match' as you see fit I reckon!

 

[kermaier]

New camera (well, if you consider an R-D1 "new") with both old and new lenses. For me, APS-sized digital does almost everything I use to do with 35mm film with less fuss/muss, but the character of those vintage lenses is a special thing, even on digital. Of course, when you want sharp, clean and contrasty, newer is often better.
::Ari

 

[wgerrard]

Does an old lens on an old camera, let's say, really produce visibly different results than using the same old lens on a new camera, assuming equally accurate shutters, etc.

 

[ferider]

A lot depends, too, on what you can afford/want to afford.

No idea what money has to do with the question.

If I wanted a "clean", distortion free look in the output, I would probably use a FF DSLR in the first place. I like lenses with signatures, including modern lenses that were designed that way (like the Nokton 35/1.4 and Ultron 28/1.9).

I like the mechanical feel of older bodies, too.

Roland.

 

[mfogiel]

I think in RF it boils down to the need or lack of thereof, to use the AE or TTL metering. Obviously, this was not available in the "classic" cameras. Personally, for street photography, I use AE exclusively, so that eliminates the old bodies, however, I do like using certain old school lenses, in particular some Leica 50mm, for the particular bokeh and wide palette of greys, which makes high contrast lighting easier to manage - e.g. M7+DR Summicron 50

Another reason for using a modern body with an old lens, is a possibility to save on weight, in fact my latest favourite combo is becoming the Zeiss Ikon with the Collapsible Summicron 50:

On the other hand, for slow shooting, where I want a deliberate set up, be it for landscape or portraiture, an old camera with the appropriate lens can give that extra tactile pleasure...
This is my Old Camera rig:

 

[Sonny Boy Havidson]

Skills requested to a camera:
- Film planeity and regular view advance
- No light leaks
- Precision in speeds
- Lens mount that allow the use of good lenth at the correct distance to film.

Considering this, you can mount every lens you want on you camera. The rest is just a matter of taste in picture rendition. So I do not mind using some Voigtländer lenses on my Leica III as long as these do not hide the viewfinder.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No idea what money has to do with the question.

Dear Roland,

Consider the classic story of 'sour grapes'

For the first few years I used Leicas, I had no hope in hell of affording new anything. Human nature being what it is, I therefore persuaded myself that the small size and undoubted elegance of my original IIIa with its collapsible Elmar was the summa summarum of the Leica experience.

In fact I didn't get my first new Leica (or lens) until I was in my early 30s. At that point I could begin to make comparisons, and I have to say that while the M4-P was no real improvement over an M2, the 35 Summilux was a revelation after earlier 35mm Leitz lenses. Today, while I regard the MP as a major improvement over the M4-P, I still like the old Summilux for its tiny size and sweet handling.

The 24 Summilux is another revelation, but at $5995 I can think of several good reasons (nearly six thousand) why I might not like it as much as, say, a 25mm Zeiss.

Anyone who does not take into account the depth of his purse is fooling himself in one way, if not another.

Cheers,

R.

 

[blacknoise]

Leica IIIf and f3.5 elmar are my current favorites.

 

[ferider]

Dear Roland,

Consider the classic story of 'sour grapes'

: :

Anyone who does not take into account the depth of his purse is fooling himself in one way, if not another.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

In my mind, vintage vs. modern (the OP's question) is not equal to cheap vs. expensive, necessarily.

Your vintage 35 Summilux is more expensive than my modern Nokton. My vintage 50 Summilux is more expensive than a modern 50/1.1 Nokton. A clean LTM Nikkor 50/1.1 lens, one of the rare 50 Zunow's, etc., can run easily in the price range of a modern Leica lens. One of the best (in terms of IQ and handling) 35mm M mount lens is also one of the most affordable, namely the Color Skopar. Etc.

Also, it is one thing to say "I use(d) vintage lenses because I couldn't afford better". Another alltogether to say "I use modern Leica lenses, because I can afford them".

Cann't we keep wealth, money, prices and camera equipment separate ? Would do RFF well, IMO. And if we cann't, at least stop assuming how deep (or not) other people's purses are ? A thing considered impolite to talk about in some cultures.

Thanks,

Roland.

 

[peter_n]

Personally I really like the look of the older lenses and using them on modern bodies like the M7 and MP. One of the great things about Leica is that you can throw a 50 yr. old lens on a brand-new body and they work great together.

 

[raid]

Old cameras can break down easier than old lenses, so logically, the "old camera" options in the poll should get the lowest poll numbers, but this is not the case.