"The more expensive, the better". Is it true?

[p.giannakis]

Hi everyone.
I got back the films taken with a Ricoh 500G and my immediate reaction was "wow, these are better than the ones taken with my Leica".
The small rikenon appears to produce sharper pictures and controls flare much better. I paid £4 for it while my IIc with the Elmar 50f/3.5 cost me £300.
Do you have any similar experience to share? I know it is quite subjective matter but i would like to hear your opinion.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Ricoh was not a cheap camera "in the day". People forget that these fixed-lens RF's that now go cheap used to cost in the $100~$150 range in the 1960s and 1970s. The money went into the lens. The lens on the Konica S2 is first rate.

And decades later, still true. Wide-Open at F1.8.

The Leica's have held their value. Others have not, and can be real picture-taking bargains if you find one that has not been abused.

 

[Vince Lupo]

A few years ago when everyone was dumping their film cameras in favour of those new fangled digital thingys, a local camera store *gave* me a Ricoh TLS 401 with a 50/1.4 lens (the former owner gave it to them when he 'traded up' for a digital point'n'shoot). The next day I was I was at another camera store and they had a Vivitar wide angle lens that fit the Ricoh for $15.

So with my total $15 investment I shot a roll of film and was pretty pleased with the results. I then got a phone call from one of my magazine clients, and they wanted me to do some photos to accompany a story. So I decided to shoot the story with my new Ricoh. The magazine ran three photos for the story and I got paid $400. Not bad for a $15 investment.....

 

[nonot]

Wholeheartedly agree. I bought a little ricoh 520m for about $15 and love the results.

Only issue is that at one point it was reliably double-exposing on every 5th frame and now it seems a bit more random. I'll try to fix it when I have the time.

 

[oftheherd]

Mr. Sweeney is spot on. Check threads on "P&S" film cameras like the Olympus SP or others, various Konicas (some of the best lenses around), Fujica (I sing loud praises for their M42 SLR lenses), Canonets, Nikons, etc. Even the lowly Petri cameras gave good photos. You will find other RFFers praising those cameras and showing photos.

Care to show some of yours Mr. Giannakis? We'd love to see them.

 

[jsrockit]

Hi everyone.
I got back the films taken with a Ricoh 500G and my immediate reaction was "wow, these are better than the ones taken with my Leica".
The small rikenon appears to produce sharper pictures and controls flare much better. I paid £4 for it while my IIc with the Elmar 50f/3.5 cost me £300.
Do you have any similar experience to share? I know it is quite subjective matter but i would like to hear your opinion.

How many years of technological developement between when the two lenses were produced?

 

[p.giannakis]

Here are some:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is it true? Obviously not. Do you often get more quality, versatility, etc., for more money? Obviously.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Hi everyone.
I got back the films taken with a Ricoh 500G and my immediate reaction was "wow, these are better than the ones taken with my Leica".
.

....just out of curiosity - did you get prints back?...if so - what size? 🙂

 

[p.giannakis]

I don't ask for prints. I only get scans and i post the pics online.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

The lens on the Konica S2 is first rate...And decades later, still true.

First rate in terms of what? Not performance. I think any lens in Leica's current line-up would outperform the Konica S2's lens, judging by how soft your (very lovely) model is.

Fist rate in terms of character? That's purely subjective. I guess I couldn't argue with you there, but a couple of modern lenses--e.g., the 50 Summilux-M Asph; the 35 Summicron Asph.--has better character in my opinion. They offer character and performance whereas the Konica lens seems bland.

So, in this case more expensive is better.

 

[p.giannakis]

I know that this discussion is based on something very subjective. I would like to know how true is that for you rather than if this a general truth.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I don't ask for prints. I only get scans and i post the pics online.

Not wishing to be argumentative - but I get pretty decent scan results, yet the ones I post online - I can't really tell any difference in quality, or whether they were made with any particular 50mm lens from my selection, the situation may change a bit concerning large prints! of course - YMMV 🙂

 

[Krosya]

First rate in terms of what? Not performance. I think any lens in Leica's current line-up would outperform the Konica S2's lens, judging by how soft your (very lovely) model is.

Fist rate in terms of character? That's purely subjective. I guess I couldn't argue with you there, but a couple of modern lenses--e.g., the 50 Summilux-M Asph; the 35 Summicron Asph.--has better character in my opinion. They offer character and performance whereas the Konica lens seems bland.

So, in this case more expensive is better.

I'm not sure if Brian's photo was not focused well, or cameras was off, but I can tell you that I often find that my Konica S delivers superb results, often on par with far more expensive cameras. Ok, maybe not like Summilux ASPH, but I didnt pay for it over 3k either. Here is a thread where you can see camera and some pics from it (pics were scanned on a flatbed, so in reality they are even better):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63176

 

[furcafe]

I think @ least part of Brian's point was that the Konica S2 lens' performance was first-rate compared a Leica equivalent from the same time period, not some modern ASPH ringer, & I would say that a Leica lens from the 1960s-70s is even more expensive today when compared w/an S2 today.

I think the OP might also being making an unfair comparison if his 50/3.5 Elmar is from the 1940s-50s when the 500G is from '70s.

First rate in terms of what? Not performance. I think any lens in Leica's current line-up would outperform the Konica S2's lens, judging by how soft your (very lovely) model is.

Fist rate in terms of character? That's purely subjective. I guess I couldn't argue with you there, but a couple of modern lenses--e.g., the 50 Summilux-M Asph; the 35 Summicron Asph.--has better character in my opinion. They offer character and performance whereas the Konica lens seems bland.

So, in this case more expensive is better.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Several years ago - on the...gulp!... Leica forum, I posted a picture as part of my reply to a long debate about the merits of a certain lens. The picture received very favourable comments, and several to the effect - "Ah yes - you can always tell a Summicron image!". Later, to my embarrassment - I found the picture was actually from my Agfa 'Super Silette'! 😱 😀

 

[J J Kapsberger]

I think @ least part of Brian's point was that the Konica S2 lens' performance was first-rate compared a Leica equivalent from the same time period...

True, part of his point was that indeed. But I focused on the part about it still being first rate decades later to argue, perhaps in the extreme, that more expensive--in the case of Summilux Asph. vs. Konica--is significantly better.

 

[p.giannakis]

Dave, i think what you say is very important.
Does it mean that there is some kind of suggestion in place? We are expecting to see a very nice picture from a very nice lens only (and we are surprised to find out that an Agfa can take a nice pic too)?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Well- one shot done at 1/15s second posted on the web is not a good metric for lens quality. I could dig out some tests from pop Photo done when the camera was new. The point is, the lenses on these cameras were often as good as that of the SLR's of the day. The Leica lenses of the day held the edge, again based on Pop Photo's test of 32 normal lenses done in 1976.

 

[btgc]

"Ah yes - you can always tell a Summicron image!"

Haha 🙂

I still have not seen bad lens in those FL RF's. Let me think...no...I can not remeber. They each have it's own flavour, though all are decent and good performers. For me they mainly differ by size/weight and ergonomics.

I can not say for 500G - I gave it away because RF patch were too small for me and advance lever hadn't proper tension/sound combo. Shutter release felt a bit tighter than I prefer. For me this criterias means more than couple of lpp or how they are called. Say, VR/RF patch of 35RC, camera of very similar size, pleases me a lot more, and advancing is like singing in chorus with divine angels. Aperture ring in both is too narrow and too close to body, but this is common to small FL RF's with AE mode. 500G had low springy noise after releasing shutter - that could be sorted out, but....I have enough of them, cameras I mean. I still have not published book or arranged exhibition.

Lens on 500G is last thing that bothers me, judging by other Rikenon glass I use they knew how to make lenses (probably, still know?). Sure that lens is different from more expensive ones, but then who will peep for microcontrast on print as long as it is interesting?

Well, sorry for getting too pathetic. Personally I'm believer if we talk about Ricoh.