Optics or Body?

[kyte]

For me, lenses matters more than the bodies because digital bodies are still evolving.

 

[Rodchenko]

Best camera's the one you've got with you, so, while lens quality is very very important, having a camera small enough, robust enough, and natural enough in your hands to carry every day is, I'm afraid, my priority.

That said, you can frame it in the lens quality way by restricting your choices to those with well-respected glass. Could be Nikon, or Leica, or Zeiss... In my case, it's almost always Zuiko, and occasionally Minox.

 

[krötenblender]

As some above already said: both. This option is really missing the point. I want the RF experience - though I think, the term "experience" is a little overrated, it is just the type of focusing and using a camera that works best for me. And of course I want the best lenses on that body. So I'm using both: RF bodies and the best lenses I can afford on them. Result: maximum enjoyment when using my cameras.

 

[oltimer]

Best camera's the one you've got with you, so, while lens quality is very very important, having a camera small enough, robust enough, and natural enough in your hands to carry every day is, I'm afraid, my priority.

That said, you can frame it in the lens quality way by restricting your choices to those with well-respected glass. Could be Nikon, or Leica, or Zeiss... In my case, it's almost always Zuiko, and occasionally Minox.

Speaking about Zuiko, Rodchenko. Did you see that fabulous picture that Skopar Steve took, and posted here in "OM, I've become a Zuikoholic" of the female with a 2.0 Zuiko Macro? This picture too me is one of the best posted in a long time in black and white.

 

[Red Robin]

Both !

Both !

Like some others I'll take the unwritten third option. Some days it's the Barnack, other days I use my Bessa R, but most times its a Canon P that "feels" right. Summing up it';s the LSM that allows me to choose the "camera-o-the day"and the lens -o-the day.If I make the right choices I then have a chance at getting my shot-o-the day. (but only if I'm at the right place, at the right time)😉

 

[Spanik]

Interesting question, I had to think about it. Went with the "body". I'm not so good a photographer that using better than mediocre lenses would make a difference. But if a camera doesn't let me work like I want to work then I just wouldn't use it (or avoid having to use it).

 

[zuiko85]

Voted 'optics' but, like many have commented, it is a mixed bag. Having used the Olympus Pen F film camera for years (with it's 28.95mm flange to film distance) I became familiar with adapted lenses well before 'mirrorless' came along. Now, although I have not bought into any system yet I see the appeal of the very short flange distances. I'm leaning toward m4:3 and will purchase adapters for my Pen F, Leica M, Oly OM, M42 and who knows what else. Sometimes, there is just too much choice but it's hard to resist when there are so many lenses, and so little time.

 

[Peter_wrote:]

I like Donald Duck.

 

[John E Earley]

For film it's the lens. For digital it's the body.

 

[Dirk]

I've voted "Body". I used to be a "Optics" guy, but over many years noticed that I would gravitate more to the cameras that "fit" me in an ergonomic sense. For me, taking photos, i.e. the entire process, is fun, and my fun is enhanced when I shoot with a camera that feels right. I take it out more often, get to know it better, and simply get more "in the zone" with it. The resulting photos are often better from an artistic standpoint, if not from a technical standpoint, than the ones shot with the best possible glass on lens/camera combinations that don't suit me as much.

 

[tunalegs]

In the vast majority of cases a lens of indifferent quality is still good enough to get the photo the photographer wanted.

I find the quality of the viewfinder and the handling of the camera itself more important in getting the photo than the quality of the lens. Not that the lens is unimportant, but that just about any lens of higher than Holga quality is good enough at recreating what is seen in the viewfinder than is worth worrying about - especially if one is just posting the photos online, printing them in a magazine article, or putting them into a photo album. If one is making large prints or slides for projection, lens quality is a bit more critical - but not much really.

 

[michaelwj]

Though in the end I seem to have trouble developing or printing the story I imagined.

This way it always as good as you imagined!

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Archiver]

I'm both, but for slightly different reasons.

RF lenses from Voigtlander and and Zeiss are good enough that I don't have to be concerned about whether I have Leica lenses in every focal length. On the other hand, I don't particularly like very old lenses as I prefer a more contrasty rendering. So while I have some leeway as to what lenses I use, they tend to fall within a certain group, so I'll say it's lenses.

On the other hand, I much prefer to shoot a rangefinder, small mirrorless or compact camera over a DSLR any day. My largest camera is a 5D Mark II, and it just feels so big and clunky compared with the M7 or Olympus EM-5. So in that case, it's the body.

I must admit that when I shoot with my M7, I feel compelled to use Leica lenses, as I believe this is what differentiates a Leica film image from anything else. The digital Leica M bodies have their own unique sensors which put their own "Leica" stamp on an image, whereas with a film camera, the image itself is all about the film and the lens. I also have to admit that I prefer to use Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses on the Zeiss Ikon for the same reason. Slightly irrational, maybe, but that's how I think of it.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'd have to vote both.
I recently got a NEX 7 so I could use all my old lenses with digital. While I love my D7000, I find I'm carrying the NEX with me when I go out the door a LOT more than I ever thought I would or did with the D7000.

 

[jsrockit]

I've always been a body first guy who believes that most lenses are good enough. If great native lenses are available, even better.

 

[narsuitus]

I have always been a glass man.

 

[sdotkling]

ART:
Lenses are over-rated. Many of the greatest small-format photos ever made are a little soft, or grainy—impressionistic enough to negate the need for perfect lens performance. Being in the right place at the right time matters more, catching the exact 1/250th sec that tells the story. For that reason, the responsiveness of the machine, and the instinct required to use it without the luxury of forethought is the most important thing to me.


COMMERCE:
Exactly the opposite. In a studio setting, where the moment is not captured but created, precision trumps interface. Here you need the focus to fall exactly where you want it, within millimeters. You need the ability to separate tones or meld them together, as required. My Hasselblad is a clunky machine, with dark slide handles always turned the wrong way, sharp ridges on the lens bodies that hurt my fingers, and the absurd possibility of stripping the gears if you change the lens at the wrong time in the cocking cycle. But I put up with it for the Zeiss lenses.

 

[shadowfox]

Body guy here.

There are always good *enough* lenses out there to buy and use.
But a camera body that makes you feel like you're ready to take on the world and take great pictures is hard to come by.

That is why I have an Ultron practically glued to my Leica M4-P. Not having a Summilux or Zeiss never hinder me from doing the best I can in taking pictures.

 

[Pioneer]

Hey!! Make some calls. We've gotta get some optics guys over here before the body guys run away with the entire show.

 

[uhoh7]

Lens lens lens. The lenses will finally lead you to the best body.

But the body will always be the quirky, flawed partner.


DSC09458 by unoh7, part of the early collection 🙂