which is more important : body or lens?

[Honus]

I would take either kit in a heartbeat. To answer the question, however, I would take the MP+Nokton because I think the gap between the MP and R3A is greater than the gap between the Summicron and Nokton. Change the lens choices to Summilux and Skopar and I reverse my decision.

 

[pvdhaar]

.. A good lens can make up for a great many camera design faults..

And the opposite holds as well; if you've got a camera with great ergonomics, then that's the one you'll take everywhere and that'll be the one you take the most pictures with. It's also the one you'll learn most from and gain most experience with. And thus, even with a so-so lens, you'll have captured memories that will become more and more valuable when time passes..

 

[Honu-Hugger]

There's a lot of subjectivity here -- with both bodies and lenses. What qualities make either great?

For my money ergonomics mean very little; I've used a fair number of different cameras over the years and quickly adapted to every one of them. The ones I use today are among the quirkiest (Contax I with shutter/advance knob on the front and all of the Contaxes have a focus wheel, Alpa has the shutter release on the front and opposite advance lever direction, Rollei SL66 with oddball controls and release, I won't even mention the Rollei 35 😀...).

I primarily chose the cameras because of the lenses; but in doing so I also can not complain about the cameras, either. It's hard to imagine a really great lens on a really crappy camera...oh, wait -- I just remembered the Rollei XF 35 😀 (just kidding...a whore with a heart of gold comes to mind).

 

[berci]

You are better off with the best lens and a cardboard box than a plastic magnifier and the best camera body.

 

[RML]

Both are valuable to me. A good lens is a must, of course. But my R-D1 was a pricey item so, yes, it's valuable to me. And a good body has intrinsic value: crappy ergonomics or quaint operation can kill your shooting experience. Example, at first I liked to use the FEDs and Zorki I have but after a while the heavy film (re)wind got tedious and in the way of my shooting. Same for the metal eye cup. I started to worry more about not scratchin my glasses too much than focus on the shooting. Needless to say I soon gave up shooting the FEDs and Zorki, though they are great little cameras.

 

[schaubild]

The shorter the lens, the more important the camera body becomes. Reason: the focusing distance from minimum to infinity becomes much smaller which requires more precise mechanics.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Yesterday I took the M3, CL, and Canon IIf out with the Canon 50mm F1.5, 40mm F2 Summicron, 35mm F2.8 Summaron, and 5cm F2 Collapsible Nikkor.

What was the question?

 

[rover]

There's a lot of subjectivity here -- with both bodies and lenses. What qualities make either great?

For my money ergonomics mean very little; .....

Well, the results are what counts. Every time that I look at an image taken with my 35 Summicron (4th stubby version with over sized focusing tab and intrusive hood) I smile because the lens flat out can get it done.

But using the damn thing is a chore. This lens was not made for me at all, but I will live with it.

 

[taffer]

Whatever you choose, don't put crappy film inside 😉

 

[unohuu]

i think the lens is infinitely more important than the camera body, but a nice camera makes it easier to use that great glass.

 

[nomade]

Definitely the lens...But still the body is important, there comes the versatility and ease of use..

 

[JoeFriday]

I'm definitely attracted to a nice body, but for it to be a long term relationship, it's more important how she sees things

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I'm definitely attracted to a nice body, but for it to be a long term relationship, it's more important how she sees things

You certainly have a word with ways, Joe 😀

 

[heed]

Definitely the lens...you can learn any body given enough time....

 

[markinlondon]

Since I traded a Bessa R for a Leica M6TTL and kept my 2 favourite lenses from that outfit, I think a good handling camera is essential. I didn't think this thread was about relative importance of the components, but what you like ergonomically and thus I vote for CV glass on a Leica body every time (if that's the choice 😕 )

Mark

 

[Seele]

I am following this thread with some interest.

The way I see it, shutterflower's original question is more like whether the camera or the lens is the more important factor in the final image quality, the specific example of MP/Nokton and R3A/Summicron pairing might just be a little too specific: the performance difference between the corresponding cameras and lenses are not great enough to consider the situation in general terms.

Countless times I have heard this: "it is the lens that makes the image, the camera is just a light-tight box". But we are making the assumption that the camera body fulfills what it is intended to do: holding the film flat, perfectly perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens, and at the correct distance from it. Try putting a Leica-thread lens for the Zenit on your CRF camera and focus by scale, you won't get a thing on your negatives.

By its very nature, the CRF camera has other variables too. If the distance between the lens and film plane is accurate, and the lens is set to infinity, the rangefinder image should coincide for subjects at infinity. Rack the lens out to any other distance the rangefinder should agree as well; for those who tried using some fast FSU lenses on other cameras such as Leica, or tried to mix and match Contax and Nikon cameras and lenses, this is indeed a well-known issue.

Of course we also need to consider the accuracy and consistancy of the shutter, and other ergonomic factors. But the fact remains: only if the camera satisfies these basic requirements, can a lens be able to function correctly. In that sense, both the MP and R3A should satisfy these requirements thus making them "equal" except for the price difference and personal preference, so this specific case cannot really illustrate the big picture so to speak. But take a MP or Cosina/Voigtlander body and compare it against, say, a Zorki 4K which had been treated by a toddler as a football for two years, then things would begin to make more sense.

Scarpia has a good point regarding the printing phase. In fact the enlarger illustrates the validity of the Linn Theory (as proposed by the Scottish audio turntable manufacturer in the 1970s), but then it's another story.

 

[varjag]

I tend to like reliable, all-metal bodies, even if they're a bit too heavy and freeze the fingers in winter. They tend to be better companions to a decent lens too.

To me, inspiring feel and convenience of a body matters more than (often marginal) optical difference of lenses. If a mere glance at your camera urges you to go shooting, comparisions of MTF charts and tripod shots of brick walls become irrelevant.

My Kiev does it to me, and I'm sure that Leica MP would do too, once am in that price range 🙂

 

[ch1]

I really mean, which do YOU hold as most valuable?

Assuming that you are shooting with the same focal length, and the glass is not as distant in quality as, say, a scratched up old lens and a brand new Summicron, which would you say is more important to your photographic pleasure?

I mean, would you enjoy using an MP with a Nokton more than an R3A with a Summicron?

To me, in that case of the Nokton and the SUmmicron, the difference is not that much, and I would rather have the legendary body quality of the Leica so I could count on the camera for decades.

This query reminds me of the days when I was buying my first "serious" stereo (boy, the that date me or what!).

I was told how folks would often spend mucho $$$ for a top quality tuner and amp and then skimp on the amount laid out for speakers. Then they would complain how lousy their fancy new stereo system sounded!

Lenses are to cameras as speakers are to sound systems. Ideally you get a system of matched quality. But if you have to save somewhere, economize on the camera body (so long has it "works" and has light seal integrity) and blow the budget on the lenses!

 

[XAos]

Which is more important, your lungs or your kidneys? You can live on one of either. Lack of lungs will kill you in minutes, Kidneys hours to days. Just because it may take days to kill you doesn't mean it's less important than the one that can kill you in minutes. Urgent perhaps, but no less important.

 

[oftheherd]

That's very considerate of you. However, fondling a lens is no worse than doing the same with a a firearm, a fishing rod, or whatever 😀 .

Really? What have I been missing?!! 😛