The curse of expensive equipment?

[YYV_146]

I'm much like you in that regard, Victor; but being over a little more than twice as old as you, I've had twice as long to acquire and liquidate. I've only found a few items over the years that I've liked enough to re-purchase, or to be able to buy "the thing" I wanted the first time around. That time has given me the ability to gain the perspective of what works for me and what doesn't, and I can pretty well assess how a piece is going to fit me before I buy it. I'm pretty much in the place now that I know what works, and interestingly enough I'm content enough with my gear that I can do pretty much anything I need to do with it. I only have about as much invested in my three-body, eight-lens M kit as you have in your M9 and Nocitlux. I re-bought a late-manufacture Hasselblad two-body, seven-lens, six back kit a few months ago, and spent less than the cost of an M9.

It's amazing what you can get when you know what works for you and you're patient about it.

Well, I have two A7s instead of an M9. Leica bodies are too rich for my blood, and limited for the work I do. If I had a sudden windfall I would probably buy a digital M, but that would be for street photography only, and a rapidly depreciating piece of equipment. The prices almost add up though, since I have some nice A7 accessories 😀

If I really like a lens, I find a way to keep using it...Either for the FOV or for the unique look. And if I use it but don't really want to, and keep putting it aside for other choices, then I might just have the wrong lens for me...

 

[Godfrey]

Well, I just got the lens...And some of the interesting stuff I shot with it is paid work, so I don't want to post it here.

But here's a rather nice one 😀

Very nice!

G

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Where the trouble comes in is when one person's outlook is transformed into judgement and is turned against others.

Yes, that is the cause of trouble.

 

[hepcat]

Well, I have two A7s instead of an M9. Leica bodies are too rich for my blood, and limited for the work I do. If I had a sudden windfall I would probably buy a digital M, but that would be for street photography only, and a rapidly depreciating piece of equipment. The prices almost add up though, since I have some nice A7 accessories 😀

If I really like a lens, I find a way to keep using it...Either for the FOV or for the unique look. And if I use it but don't really want to, and keep putting it aside for other choices, then I might just have the wrong lens for me...

My bad... I knew you had A7s... If Mr. K can shoehorn that Sony sensor into a Bessa body at $3k... I'm there. 😉 Until then, Leica is the only game in town for a digital body with a true optical viewfinder with a coincident rangefinder.

 

[noisycheese]

At the risk of repeating what others have already said, a lot of these critical comments, whether they're directed at the Noctilux or other expensive equipment (mostly Leica), are borne out of jealousy. Ignore them and do whatever floats your boat with your money. BTW, the Noctilux pictures can not be duplicated by other lenses. They are unique and different. If that difference is worth it to you, only you can decide.

I'll second that - all of it.

There is no duplicating the fingerprint of the Noctilux, be it the classic f/1.0 version or the new f/0.95 ASPH version.

Same thing with the 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH - no lens can produce a reasonable facsimile of the images this lens makes. Take a look at page 42 of LFI magazine issue 3/2012 and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Sparrow]

I'll second that - all of it.

There is no duplicating the fingerprint of the Noctilux, be it the classic f/1.0 version or the new f/0.95 ASPH version.

Same thing with the 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH - no lens can produce a reasonable facsimile of the images this lens makes. Take a look at page 42 of LFI magazine issue 3/2012 and you'll see what I mean.

Couldn't you say that about any lens? ... personally I don't see the fingerprint thing makes so much difference, wouldn't you say it's the content that makes a photo special not the minutia of the lens?

 

[Bob Michaels]

Couldn't you say that about any lens? ... personally I don't see the fingerprint thing makes so much difference, wouldn't you say it's the content that makes a photo special not the minutia of the lens?

yes, Yes, YES!

 

[nongfuspring]

Couldn't you say that about any lens? ... personally I don't see the fingerprint thing makes so much difference, wouldn't you say it's the content that makes a photo special not the minutia of the lens?

I agree. I have to admit though there are often times when I look through my photos finding one that I'm proud of and wish in hindsight I used a different lens/camera/film. You can't go and retake that shot, and while I agree content is very important there's always the niggling feeling that the photo would have been a bit better had you used something else. For most people that something else is a more expensive lens.

 

[daveleo]

.......there's always the niggling feeling that the photo would have been a bit better had you used something else. For most people that something else is a more expensive lens.

For most people, maybe true. But in retrospect, criticizing my own work is always "I should have stepped to the left a bit", or "Why didn't I see that trash can in the background", etc. etc. etc.

 

[Rodchenko]

For most people, maybe true. But in retrospect, criticizing my own work is always "I should have stepped to the left a bit", or "Why didn't I see that trash can in the background", etc. etc. etc.

This.

Actually, most often it's 'Why didn't I stand still enough to take that shot?'

 

[Michael Markey]

Content first obviously and yes why didn`t I avoid that pole sticking out the back of their head.
I see no harm though in entertaining oneself by trying different lenses for the way they provide a certain look to the shot.

I don`t see it as an end in itself .

I guess its analogous to the way some use different developers or pre sets in photoshop

 

[Sparrow]

I agree. I have to admit though there are often times when I look through my photos finding one that I'm proud of and wish in hindsight I used a different lens/camera/film. You can't go and retake that shot, and while I agree content is very important there's always the niggling feeling that the photo would have been a bit better had you used something else. For most people that something else is a more expensive lens.

How could one possibly know what difference would be? ... there are so many other variables involved and differences in lenses are so trivial I fail to see how it could be of any consequence, and the idea that even that tiny difference is linked to cost?

 

[Michael Markey]

I can see a marked difference between my ZMC Sonnar and my 50 Summicron ...not so much between the J8 and the Zeiss.

The CV40sc looks totally different to any of those.

In SLR lenses my Pentax 50/1.2 surprised me by having a very different look to the 50/1.7 which it replaced .

Non of this matters of course if the content isn`t there .
I know that I can tell the difference because I can go through my flickr shots and fill in the lens details ...sometimes I`m wrong but mostly not.

More modern designs... I`m stumped I must admit .
Its just a bit of fun an added interest if you like but I doubt if I`d pay a lot for that difference in look .
Its the main thing which keeps me using Rangefinders to be honest otherwise I might aswell just buy the latest modern designs for my DSLR.

The content would still be there ...or not ...but for me some of the enjoyment would be missing

 

[Sparrow]

I can see a marked difference between my ZMC Sonnar and my 50 Summicron ...not so much between the J8 and the Zeiss.

The CV40sc looks totally different to any of those.

In SLR lenses my Pentax 50/1.2 surprised me by having a very different look to the 50/1.7 which it replaced .

Non of this matters of course if the content isn`t there .
I know that I can tell the difference because I can go through my flickr shots and fill in the lens details ...sometimes I`m wrong but mostly not.

More modern designs... I`m stumped I must admit .
Its just a bit of fun an added interest if you like but I doubt if I`d pay a lot for that difference in look .
Its the main thing which keeps me using Rangefinders to be honest otherwise I might aswell just buy the latest modern designs for my DSLR.

The content would still be there ...or not ...but for me some of the enjoyment would be missing

But would you know which would make the better photo before you took it? ... and does the more expensive, the Summicron, always produce a superior photo to the Sonnar?

 

[hepcat]

But would you know which would make the better photo before you took it? ... and does the more expensive, the Summicron, always produce a superior photo to the Sonnar?

And how often does one think "ahhh... this would look better with..." have all of the selection of lenses in your bag, select and mount the "best" lens, and still have the shot in front of you?

The "best" lens is the one you have on when you see the image. Cost, coatings, and design are seldom of concern as you release the shutter. Using the glass you have is a much better plan. If you decide you prefer the look of something else, then fine, go after it... but in the final analysis it makes little difference. If the image is "made" because of the properties of a lens, it likely wasn't a strong image to begin with. Strong images, otoh, can be made into exceptional images if you know how to "work" the special properties of a lens.

 

[Michael Markey]

No I wouldn`t they all take the same photograph in that respect.

Its just that they would look different in the same way as people choose different film emulsions.

Trix looks different to HP5 and XP2 looks different to them both.
I tend to look for the same thing but use lenses instead of different films.

For example, sometimes I don`t want that micro contrast and sharpness that the summicron has .
I wouldn`t go as far as to take shots that I think might suit a particular lens .

Its still the shot which is important and the lens just a way of ...as I said ... adding something different into the mix.

 

[icebear]

Couldn't you say that about any lens? ... personally I don't see the fingerprint thing makes so much difference, wouldn't you say it's the content that makes a photo special not the minutia of the lens?

yes, Yes, YES!

I guess for the majority of bad photographs it's NOT the fault of the lens - or the camera for that matter, expensive or not.
A wild guess: this is also true for good photographs 😉.

 

[Sparrow]

And how often does one think "ahhh... this would look better with..." have all of the selection of lenses in your bag, select and mount the "best" lens, and still have the shot in front of you?

The "best" lens is the one you have on when you see the image. Cost, coatings, and design are seldom of concern as you release the shutter. Using the glass you have is a much better plan. If you decide you prefer the look of something else, then fine, go after it... but in the final analysis it makes little difference. If the image is "made" because of the properties of a lens, it likely wasn't a strong image to begin with. Strong images, otoh, can be made into exceptional images if you know how to "work" the special properties of a lens.

... I really don't see how this could ever be tested or relevant for that matter

 

[zauhar]

Steve Huff did a side-by-side comparison of the Noctilux f/1 vs the much cheaper Nokton f/1.1 . Honestly, looking through the photos I couldn't see a reason to prefer the Noctilux, I often preferred what the Cosina lens captured.

Of course that was NOT the f/0.95 Noctilux, so there is room for more comparisons of photos of angels dancing on a pinhead.

Last night I was struggling to record an incredibly cool image in low light, and I would have happily had either lens with me. ;-(

Randy

 

[Godfrey]

Couldn't you say that about any lens? ... personally I don't see the fingerprint thing makes so much difference, wouldn't you say it's the content that makes a photo special not the minutia of the lens?

Hmm. It's "the fingerprint of the lens" that can make or break the content of the photograph...

I think you're talking yourself into a corner. ;-)

G