The curse of expensive equipment?

[hepcat]

I have gotten feedback for well over a thousand people at the 13 different solo photo exhibits I have had over the last 8 years. I mill around at openings and ask the open ended question "what do you think". The responses are interesting, especially what they never say vis-a-vis internet discussions.

Comments about boken? NEVER have gotten one

Comments about lens signature or lens related? NEVER have gotten one

Comments of any form about equipment? NEVER, once you eliminate the "these are really good, you must have an expensive camera"

Comments about Depth of Field? ONE, that was from my photo editor for my book.

Comments about the fact that my work is black and white? AN AMAZINGLY SMALL NUMBER, maybe 1-2%. Most viewers still do not question the choice.

Comments about content of the photos? NEAR UNANIMOUS.

I long ago came to the personal conclusion that the fascination with photo equipment and technical aspects was basically an internet discussion thing.

It's pretty simple really. Consumers of the images either like them or they don't. Consumers only care whether or not the image is strong. They don't care about "why" or "how".

And that brings to mind my point from another thread... photographers need to be concerned with those things as they're making the images as they all contribute to a strong image... but they're just not important to those folks who view them.

 

[enotslliw]

no sin

no sin

The shallow depth of field is very compelling. Unless a vow of poverty is compromised I see no sin.
Or possibly this is a cleverly worded post with a faint aroma of insecurity...an aspect that precipitates empathy or predation

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's pretty simple really. Consumers of the images either like them or they don't. Consumers only care whether or not the image is strong. They don't care about "why" or "how".

And that brings to mind my point from another thread... photographers need to be concerned with those things as they're making the images as they all contribute to a strong image... but they're just not important to those folks who view them.

I think you've captured the essence. Consumers of any product want the smooth glide that's above the waterline. They neither know nor care about the feet paddling back and forth beneath it.

The producers, on the other hand, have a tendency to get too involved in the minutae of the paddling. They worry about the number of strokes per minute and the angle of entry.

...this metaphor is in danger of falling flat but I hope you get my point.

 

[hepcat]

...this metaphor is in danger of falling flat but I hope you get my point.

I think your metaphore floats the concept quite nicely. 😉

 

[Vince Lupo]

So here is a 'curse' of expensive equipment -- I sent my Noctilux 0.95 back to Leica for a SECOND time for service. Thankfully it's still under warranty and the service doesn't cost me anything, but still.

The first time it was during my trip to New Mexico in February -- the lens was basically unsharp at around 10-12 feet, and I mean blurry. Plus, on one occasion, when I pulled the camera/lens out of the camera bag, the lens felt like it was all bound-up (focus). Strange, as the last time I pulled it out of the bag it was perfectly fine. The camera hadn't suffered any bumps, jostles, etc, as it basically sat on the back seat of the car while I was driving. After I got back from NM I sent it to Leica, and they made some adjustments to the mount and it was fine.

Fast-forward to two weeks ago in Minneapolis, and the lens 'bound-up' again. Same situation -- used it one time, perfectly fine. Pulled it out of my camera bag to use it again, lens focus is bound-up. I gradually worked it loose, but then it seemed like it developed a 'notch' in the focus between 8-10 feet. It still produced sharp images, but this 'notch' in the focus bugged me. So back to Leica it went.

Got an email last week from the service manager, who told me the following:

"I have just finished the repair to your lens. I replaced all 3 guides in the mount; which took care of the focusing issue. Will test the lens on Monday again; if all goes well we should be able to ship the lens then."

I asked him what would have caused this, and explained the Minneapolis scenario to him, and the fact that something similar happened in New Mexico earlier in the year. His response:

"None of us can say exactly what happens to a camera and lens when it is in a camera bag. The new Noctilux lens is very heavy to the front side. All three guides were replaced, and the lens works perfectly (focusing). I always tell people to carry the lens separate from the camera. Think of the lens as a lever mounted onto the camera. An physical force will be increased just like a crow bar. The longer the lens the more force will be exerted (weight is also a factor). I do understand your concerns, and there is no precise way to tell what happened or caused this. The lens gives great results on the MTF. Lens was tested again, and marked complete."

Has anyone who owns a Noctilux heard of such a thing? Carry the lens separate from the camera? What about just carrying the camera around your neck with the lens attached? Wouldn't that exert more physical force than it simply being attached to your camera in a padded camera bag (for the record, I use a Domke F803)? Or is there a certain way that it should be stored in a camera bag if it's attached to the camera? Lens pointed downwards? Sideways?

I use Nikon for most of my commercial work, and frequently I'll have a large heavy lens mounted to my D4 (24-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8 etc), and have never had any kind of issues like I've been having with this $11k lens (yes it's $11k not $9k). Plus, those lenses are put to extensive use - much more so than the Noctilux. Not that I'm hammering nails with it, but it seems to me that a lens such as this shouldn't have to be treated like some precious jewel, or am I being unreasonable?

Ah the curse of expensive equipment!

 

[starless]

"stop creating bokehy mess and make real pictures".

That is actually a good piece of advice.

 

[YYV_146]

So here is a 'curse' of expensive equipment -- I sent my Noctilux 0.95 back to Leica for a SECOND time for service. Thankfully it's still under warranty and the service doesn't cost me anything, but still.

The first time it was during my trip to New Mexico in February -- the lens was basically unsharp at around 10-12 feet, and I mean blurry. Plus, on one occasion, when I pulled the camera/lens out of the camera bag, the lens felt like it was all bound-up (focus). Strange, as the last time I pulled it out of the bag it was perfectly fine. The camera hadn't suffered any bumps, jostles, etc, as it basically sat on the back seat of the car while I was driving. After I got back from NM I sent it to Leica, and they made some adjustments to the mount and it was fine.

Fast-forward to two weeks ago in Minneapolis, and the lens 'bound-up' again. Same situation -- used it one time, perfectly fine. Pulled it out of my camera bag to use it again, lens focus is bound-up. I gradually worked it loose, but then it seemed like it developed a 'notch' in the focus between 8-10 feet. It still produced sharp images, but this 'notch' in the focus bugged me. So back to Leica it went.

Got an email last week from the service manager, who told me the following:

"I have just finished the repair to your lens. I replaced all 3 guides in the mount; which took care of the focusing issue. Will test the lens on Monday again; if all goes well we should be able to ship the lens then."

I asked him what would have caused this, and explained the Minneapolis scenario to him, and the fact that something similar happened in New Mexico earlier in the year. His response:

"None of us can say exactly what happens to a camera and lens when it is in a camera bag. The new Noctilux lens is very heavy to the front side. All three guides were replaced, and the lens works perfectly (focusing). I always tell people to carry the lens separate from the camera. Think of the lens as a lever mounted onto the camera. An physical force will be increased just like a crow bar. The longer the lens the more force will be exerted (weight is also a factor). I do understand your concerns, and there is no precise way to tell what happened or caused this. The lens gives great results on the MTF. Lens was tested again, and marked complete."

Has anyone who owns a Noctilux heard of such a thing? Carry the lens separate from the camera? What about just carrying the camera around your neck with the lens attached? Wouldn't that exert more physical force than it simply being attached to your camera in a padded camera bag (for the record, I use a Domke F803)? Or is there a certain way that it should be stored in a camera bag if it's attached to the camera? Lens pointed downwards? Sideways?

I use Nikon for most of my commercial work, and frequently I'll have a large heavy lens mounted to my D4 (24-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8 etc), and have never had any kind of issues like I've been having with this $11k lens (yes it's $11k not $9k). Plus, those lenses are put to extensive use - much more so than the Noctilux. Not that I'm hammering nails with it, but it seems to me that a lens such as this shouldn't have to be treated like some precious jewel, or am I being unreasonable?

Ah the curse of expensive equipment!

Leica's excuses for lens and body failures can be quite ridiculous. I almost laughed at their email reply to my request for a repair on the 21mm Summilux. However, I've also seen my fair share of equipment problems (and excuses) from various other brand...The 21lux is now fixed, and I couldn't be happier with their handiwork.

IMO the hand-assembled nature of Leica glass lends itself to greater potential of error, untightened screws and such. They are, as a result, simply more delicate tools than an AF Nikon zoom and perhaps ought to be treated as such.

 

[btgc]

Burning with purchase of expensive (each has its own measure) is good for GAS. For restraining GAS, I mean.
But time goes by and it crawls again 🙄

 

[raid]

When I saw this thread for the first time, what came to mind as actually something else; after using a more expensive and better lens, suddenly I leave behind my other lenses that are "nearly as good". In the end, it is that extra margin of improved performance that I seem to be clinging to. It is not the extra prestige.

 

[starless]

I think having expensive equipment is another incentive to go out an shoot.

And also, having the best lens one can buy, you stop thinking if how your photographs could have been better with a more expensive lens.

Still, the only thing that matters is the final result, regardless of the equipment used.

 

[Bill Clark]

Equipment can be most expensive for the times when they don't work.

 

[Vince Lupo]

IMO the hand-assembled nature of Leica glass lends itself to greater potential of error, untightened screws and such. They are, as a result, simply more delicate tools than an AF Nikon zoom and perhaps ought to be treated as such.

But I don't see how simply carrying the camera/lens in a camera bag is cause for this. Yes, if I was working quickly, throwing my lenses in the bag with reckless abandon, I could understand. But this lens almost 'lives' on my Monochrom, and if it's not around my neck, it's safely (or so I thought!) in my camera bag. I use my Nikon lenses much more and have never had any issues with them. For an $11k lens, I expect more resilience and less trips to the repair dept.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leica's excuses for lens and body failures can be quite ridiculous. I almost laughed at their email reply to my request for a repair on the 21mm Summilux. However, I've also seen my fair share of equipment problems (and excuses) from various other brand...The 21lux is now fixed, and I couldn't be happier with their handiwork.

IMO the hand-assembled nature of Leica glass lends itself to greater potential of error, untightened screws and such. They are, as a result, simply more delicate tools than an AF Nikon zoom and perhaps ought to be treated as such.

Well, potentially more delicate. If assembled right, they should be more durable. I'm not arguing with you, simply putting what you say in a different context.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Brian Atherton]

...IMO the hand-assembled nature of Leica glass lends itself to greater potential of error, untightened screws and such. They are, as a result, simply more delicate tools than an AF Nikon zoom and perhaps ought to be treated as such.

Aren't most high-quality lenses 'hand-assembled'?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm just posing a question, as I don't know.

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Aren't most high-quality lenses 'hand-assembled'?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm just posing a question, as I don't know.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Dear Brian,

Fair point. I was thinking of the cameras. There must be a continuum between mass-assembled lenses (jigs, power tools) and hand-assembled (the famous "gnomes of Wetzlar"). Alas, the famed Leica quality control suffices only to show that the lens is sharp when tested, not that every screw has been tightened fully.

Cheer,

R.

 

[zauhar]

But I don't see how simply carrying the camera/lens in a camera bag is cause for this. Yes, if I was working quickly, throwing my lenses in the bag with reckless abandon, I could understand. But this lens almost 'lives' on my Monochrom, and if it's not around my neck, it's safely (or so I thought!) in my camera bag. I use my Nikon lenses much more and have never had any issues with them. For an $11k lens, I expect more resilience and less trips to the repair dept.

In terms of physics, what the Leica tech told you makes complete sense. So, why didn't the Leica engineers who designed the lens take its weight into account and design the mount accordingly? As you correctly point out, people routinely use heavy and LONG lenses where the torque issue is certainly worse than with your Noctilux.

I bet if you had that huge, ancient Canon 0.95 you would encounter no trouble!

Randy

 

[mfunnell]

As you correctly point out, people routinely use heavy and LONG lenses where the torque issue is certainly worse than with your Noctilux.

Having carried and used a Canon 100-400mm zoom - hardly light in weight or short in length - on many a camera, including the original 300D (aka Digital Rebel; the original affordable designed-to-a-price-point consumer DSLR), I've never had a problem with either the mount on the lens or on the camera, at costs considerably less than pretty much any Leica lens or camera. If that's the excuse, it's a pretty poor one.

...Mike

 

[Brian Atherton]

…Alas, the famed Leica quality control suffices only to show that the lens is sharp when tested, not that every screw has been tightened fully.

Cheer,

R.

Similar then, to the British MOT (Ministry of Transport) vehicle test. Only valid on the day of the test!

Of course, to give Leica their due, they do provide a very handy warranty.

With regard to assembly methods I wonder what the difference (if any) is in reliability between mass-produced, computer and jig assembled photographic equipment and that which is hand-assembled and finished?

Given the many variables in usage and ownership it’s probably impossible to answer unless one has access to manufacturer’s records.

 

[YYV_146]

Aren't most high-quality lenses 'hand-assembled'?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm just posing a question, as I don't know.

Can anyone enlighten me?

From a general standpoint, yes. But I do know that most Canikon lenses are partly assembly line automation efforts. The individual parts of the lens is then joined together by a technician. I thought Leica may use more by-hand labor, since being manual lenses they should be fairly tight on tolerances.

 

[YYV_146]

Having carried and used a Canon 100-400mm zoom - hardly light in weight or short in length - on many a camera, including the original 300D (aka Digital Rebel; the original affordable designed-to-a-price-point consumer DSLR), I've never had a problem with either the mount on the lens or on the camera, at costs considerably less than pretty much any Leica lens or camera. If that's the excuse, it's a pretty poor one.

...Mike

To be fair, I've seen larger lenses (a 500mm f4, to be exact) tear out the entire mount of a 7d. Those lenses, if not properly handled, can really do some damage...

But I agree. Leica's excuse here is pretty poor. I think they're saying this simply to cover up for their own mistake during manufacturing. Anyways I'll need to keep an extra eye out for my Noctilux when I'm shooting it.