wgerrard
Veteran
Things that come to mind while researching a new camera:
It's the lens that gathers the light and sends it on its way to the film or the sensor.
Right?
So, what does the camera body contribute to the game?
If all lenses were interchangeable, would Leica lenses on any other body be just as good as Leica lenses on a Leica body?
Are people who pay big bucks for expensive bodies and then use less expensive glass fooling themselves?
Is great glass on a ho-hum body better than vice-versa? Why? Is it all lack of noise and vibration?
It's the lens that gathers the light and sends it on its way to the film or the sensor.
Right?
So, what does the camera body contribute to the game?
If all lenses were interchangeable, would Leica lenses on any other body be just as good as Leica lenses on a Leica body?
Are people who pay big bucks for expensive bodies and then use less expensive glass fooling themselves?
Is great glass on a ho-hum body better than vice-versa? Why? Is it all lack of noise and vibration?
Morca007
Matt
What does it bring to the image itself?
Not much.
What does it bring to the user?
Considerably more.
Having a body you are comfortable with, has the features you want, is the shape and size that fits you best, allows you to work more efficiently. Ideally, the body functions such that you don't even notice it.
Not much.
What does it bring to the user?
Considerably more.
Having a body you are comfortable with, has the features you want, is the shape and size that fits you best, allows you to work more efficiently. Ideally, the body functions such that you don't even notice it.
jbf
||||||
A leica lens on any other body would be just as good for a photograph, yes. It is ultimately the glass that trumps all camera bodies; however it is the artistic and technical ability of the human behind the camera who makes the image.
Obviously if your using a camera that has no viewfinder you are being limited by the camera and thus your ability is being hindered.
However, if the camera fulfills the goals needed by a photographer in usability, then it does not matter.
The reason why Leica's pedigree for it's camera bodies is so strong is because of it's durability. Leica cameras are of the few varying camera systems, etc., that are made to last in some of the harshest of cameras.
People paying for leica glass and bodies are not fooling themselves. Leica glass is known to be world class. As are zeiss lenses.
Obviously if your using a camera that has no viewfinder you are being limited by the camera and thus your ability is being hindered.
However, if the camera fulfills the goals needed by a photographer in usability, then it does not matter.
The reason why Leica's pedigree for it's camera bodies is so strong is because of it's durability. Leica cameras are of the few varying camera systems, etc., that are made to last in some of the harshest of cameras.
People paying for leica glass and bodies are not fooling themselves. Leica glass is known to be world class. As are zeiss lenses.
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
I feel the body is the "translator" between photographer and lens. It controls the way you communicate to the optic, thus an integral part of photography by facilitating the experience of taking the shot. In that sense, it helps magnify (in case of a camera body the photographer enjoys) or lessen (a camera you don't like) the emotion in each shot.
thomasw_
Well-known
my reasoning is this: buy the best lenses you can swing for the kind of shooting you want to do; and price does not always equate with the best: for example, in the 25 FL, the ZM 25 is the touchstone. though in the 50 FL, the price does equate with the best.
a good 2nd hand m2/3 all-mechanical body will do the same job as a mp as long as you have an incident light meter. it is just a light tight box; it will be the feel, workability and finish that might encourage you to develop a preference for one make or model over another.
a good 2nd hand m2/3 all-mechanical body will do the same job as a mp as long as you have an incident light meter. it is just a light tight box; it will be the feel, workability and finish that might encourage you to develop a preference for one make or model over another.
summaron
Established
The feel and sound of the shutter seem to be very important to me. Also the clarity and directness of the viewfinder.
Last edited:
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
(if the camera body is digital, it brings in almost everything). For a film camera, shutter delay; compactness; viewfinder magnification, clarity, framelines, and information,;battery life if applicable; durability; weather resistance; etc. are all depedent on the camera body.
peter_n
Veteran
I currently use Leica, Bessa and Canonet and they are all really good cameras. I like the Leicas the best but I'm not sure if that's the ergonomics or what I paid for them.
FPjohn
Well-known
Ergonomics
Ergonomics
Hello:
The box supplies the necessary geometry*.
yours
Frank
*Well our posts crossed. I find that the CV Snapshot 25mm is a natural on my IIIb while it is not quite the "take a serendipitous stroll" inducing lens on a M.
Ergonomics
Hello:
The box supplies the necessary geometry*.
yours
Frank
*Well our posts crossed. I find that the CV Snapshot 25mm is a natural on my IIIb while it is not quite the "take a serendipitous stroll" inducing lens on a M.
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
I'll add reliability and film flatness to the list.
tripod
Well-known
New guy: Hello!
When i do wood working, there is a satisfaction I get from using a quality tool versus a cheap tool, even if they both do the job equally well. Think of hammers. Compare an inexpensive $4.99 chromed tubular shaft hammer with a rubber grip and separate forged head, to a one-piece forged steel Eastwing hammer with its handle formed by leather rings. The difference in function is minuscule, with the cheaper hammer transferring only slightly more vibration to your hand with each strike. But there IS a difference in the "feel" that can't be explained by saying the Eastwing hammer is more satisfying to work with because you know you paid more money for it.
When i do wood working, there is a satisfaction I get from using a quality tool versus a cheap tool, even if they both do the job equally well. Think of hammers. Compare an inexpensive $4.99 chromed tubular shaft hammer with a rubber grip and separate forged head, to a one-piece forged steel Eastwing hammer with its handle formed by leather rings. The difference in function is minuscule, with the cheaper hammer transferring only slightly more vibration to your hand with each strike. But there IS a difference in the "feel" that can't be explained by saying the Eastwing hammer is more satisfying to work with because you know you paid more money for it.