Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Leica stuff is cheap when you consider the durability.


No it isn't. This is one of the main fallacies Leica lovers spew, and it's crap. How is Leica gear any more durable than old Russian gear or old Nikon gear? It just isn't. Most old Leicas won't be on their original shutter curtains, they wear out, unlike the Contax.


Well look at 30 year old Leicaflex lenses and then look at 30 year old Minolta or any Japanese lens. Unless they have been babied or just left on a shelf, you will see a lot more problems with the Japanese stuff. Go to any used camera store and see how many of the old Japanese lenses are in some way messed up. Typically, old Canon AE-1s and Milnolta XG cameras and lenses have problems. If you pay $1000 for a lens and keep it 20 years, that's $50 per year (then you can sell it if you want for at least as much as it cost). I bet most people spend that much on coffee per month. ($2/day x 30 days = $60, x 12 = $720 per year on coffee!)


I'm sorry, but this is just rubbish. I have at least 50 Japanese lenses, all of them at least 30 years old and they all work perfectly. Not one has a stuck aperture or a stiff focus, the Konicas and Topcons all work like they are new.

I have a Minolta 2/45 that had fungus when I got it, soon cleaned it and it works perfectly. The first copy of the Konica Hexanon 3.5/200 I had had stuck aperture blades, had it professionally cleaned and the repairman tells me all that was wrong was the lens had never been used since it left the factory (it was mint as new) and the lack of use had just mean lubricants and dust had gummed up part of the aperture linkage, he fixed it in 5 mins flat just by cleaning that part.

Russian lenses, I have had at least 30 and never had any problems with them either, never a stuck aperture or a slow aperture, some had slightly stiffer than ideal focus but they are from the 1950s and if I spent some time relubricating them they would be perfect again.

German lenses, I have had at least 25 Meyer and Zeiss Jena lenses, the Zeiss are often problematic, had several with stuck apertures, a couple with very stiff focus. The Meyers are free of these problems. Have had stuck apertures and other issues with the later plastic Pentacons though.

I have a couple of 1960s Nikkors, both have been used by pros for years and show it, very worn, bt you know, they still focus smoothly, apertures work perfectly and they still take great pics.

So how does investing 1000 in a Leica lens 40 years ago form a better investment than forking out 200 40 years ago on a Konica or a Nikkor or a Topcon? Experience tells me the likelihood of the Konicas, Nikkors etc still working perfectly after those 40 years is very high, even if they have seen lots of use.

This longevity thing is just another line from the usual Leica follower's hymn sheet, not an actual unique selling point of Leica. Let's file it alongside 'Leica glow' and 'haptics' as spurious crap people use to defend Leica's high prices that really doesn't apply to Leica anymore than it does to many others. Lots of lenses of many brands display glow (CZJ Biotar is a prime example of a lens famous for it's glow that has bugger all to do with Wetzlar) and there are lots of lenses with superb haptics (the amazing focus actions on Topcon RE Auto Topcors springs to mind) so I will stick to my guns and be adamant that while Leica make great lenses, it's wrong to hold them us as some paragon others can only aspire to, such a notion has as many holes as a strong vest.


Sorry, my personal experience differs. You can go to any camera shop that has a large collection of older equipment and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it. The Minolta XGs and Canon AE1s...see the light leaks, the rotting mirror sponge, the broken this and that. You can't make good stuff cheaply, anywhere. The Japanese have moved a lot of production to other Asian countries to reduce costs. It isn't economically possible for Leica or any European company to produce cheap goods. They must therefore strive to produce state-of-the art products for the market that sees the benefit of owning such products and thinks long-term. Nothing I have ever owned has been as good an investment as my Leica gear (well my Yamaha NS-1000 speakers are still like new, but then they don't get moved around much or played loud). Clothes wear out. Cars die. CD players die. But my Leicaflex stuff just keeps going and going and going....

Quote:
So how does investing 1000 in a Leica lens 40 years ago form a better investment than forking out 200 40 years ago on a Konica or a Nikkor or a Topcon?"


Image quality (usually best at the time they are introduced and for some time thereafter) and reliability.

Many of those older lenses would no longer be working., for one thing. And they never would produce the same image quality even when new.

How much have you spent on coffee over the last 20 years?

It remains true that you get what you pay for. I still like Pentax best of all the Japanese lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon AE-1's and (presumably, no experience there) Minolta XG's have particular problems with old age.

Canon FT/FTb's or Minolta SRT 101/102 ? Not so much.

The more modern stuff was mainly not made to last. The older stuff, yes it was. Even the non-premium brands. Some things are more likely to be survivors than others, and some of the best survivors can be surprising.

Some of the excellent old stuff, superbly made, doesn't age well. Retinas are notorious for problems of old age, as are Contarex.

Lets go out on a limb here - For one reason or another I have acquired (came with a lens, in a lot, etc. -and gave away, mostly) over a dozen Ricoh TLS (mostly in Sears brand). These were certainly not selected for working examples. How many were working perfectly ? 100%
The Ricoh TLS is a humble camera but apparently extremely resistant to aging. This is not the case for Leica RF's at least. Out of a dozen neglected, unserviced units I doubt you are likely to find all of them working 100%.
Is that Ricoh better than Leica ? Certainly not, in several departments.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Canon AE-1's and (presumably, no experience there) Minolta XG's have particular problems with old age.

Canon FT/FTb's or Minolta SRT 101/102 ? Not so much.

The more modern stuff was mainly not made to last. The older stuff, yes it was. Even the non-premium brands. Some things are more likely to be survivors than others, and some of the best survivors can be surprising.

Some of the excellent old stuff, superbly made, doesn't age well. Retinas are notorious for problems of old age, as are Contarex.

Lets go out on a limb here - For one reason or another I have acquired (came with a lens, in a lot, etc. -and gave away, mostly) over a dozen Ricoh TLS (mostly in Sears brand). These were certainly not selected for working examples. How many were working perfectly ? 100%
The Ricoh TLS is a humble camera but apparently extremely resistant to aging. This is not the case for Leica RF's at least. Out of a dozen neglected, unserviced units I doubt you are likely to find all of them working 100%.
Is that Ricoh better than Leica ? Certainly not, in several departments.


In about 1975 the Japanese started mass-producing cheap, fully automatic easier-to-use cameras to expand the potential market. Before that, SLR cameras were expensive, harder to use, and bought primarily by men of means. The Minolta SR, SRT, and Canon Ft/Ftb cameras were just about the only manual cameras that sold in large numbers. Nikkormats sold fairly well too, but not in the same numbers. But the AE-1 broke the market wide open for SLR cameras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_AE-1


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:

Sorry, my personal experience differs. You can go to any camera shop that has a large collection of older equipment and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it. The Minolta XGs and Canon AE1s...see the light leaks, the rotting mirror sponge, the broken this and that. You can't make good stuff cheaply, anywhere. The Japanese have moved a lot of production to other Asian countries to reduce costs. It isn't economically possible for Leica or any European company to produce cheap goods. They must therefore strive to produce state-of-the art products for the market that sees the benefit of owning such products and thinks long-term. Nothing I have ever owned has been as good an investment as my Leica gear (well my Yamaha NS-1000 speakers are still like new, but then they don't get moved around much or played loud). Clothes wear out. Cars die. CD players die. But my Leicaflex stuff just keeps going and going and going....


Your Leicaflex stuff is big, ugly, outmoded even when new and overpriced when compared to the best of the competition. It has nothing in quality or engineering that can't be rivalled by the top end of the Japanese makers - Topcon, Konica, Nikon etc. Leica got their ass handed to them in the 60s by Canon and Nikon in the rangefinder arena, Canon's rangefinder optics were far more advanced designs than Leica's and their performance was easily as good and in some cases better than Leica. Just because Canon did it at a better price doesn't make them cheap or inferior, it just makes Leica overpriced. Explain to me how a Leicaflex with a Summicron is better than a contemporary like a Topcon Super DM with Tocor 1.8/58. It isn't, not in optical quality or any other way. Or the Konica Autoreflex T with Hexanon 1.4/57, the Konica AR cams are superbly well made and engineered, most of them still work perfectly today, I happen to have one I use regularly that still feels new and shows no signs of wearing out after 40 years, the Hexanon 1.4/57 is a stunning lens of fabulous optical and mechanical quality, the focus and aperture are both working like new and I have to say, the smoothness and feel of the focus ring is as good as anything I've ever touched. So if you really think your heavy ugly Leicaflex is superior you're either hopelessly close-minded or haven't experience of the Topcons, Konicas etc of this world. Hell, even my Miranda Sensorex is as well made as what the Germans were making at the time, if you sat it next to an Icarex, Contaflex or Leicaflex it wouldn't look or feel inferior in quality at all.

Quote:
Image quality (usually best at the time they are introduced and for some time thereafter) and reliability.

Many of those older lenses would no longer be working., for one thing. And they never would produce the same image quality even when new.

How much have you spent on coffee over the last 20 years?

It remains true that you get what you pay for. I still like Pentax best of all the Japanese lenses.


This is just insane, you clearly haven't got experience of other brands than Leica or are just spreading black propaganda. I have 50 or 60 lenses as old as your Leicaflex overpriced stuff and you know what, none of them have stopped working, it's is just some absurd fantasy of yours that older lenses would no longer be working.

I've spent exactly nothing on coffee over the last 20 years, don't drink the stuff.

You need to realise how much you are making yourself look ridiculous here by making all these silly statements about the poor quality and cheapness of other brands compared to Leica and how other lenses stop working over time. If you were correct we would all own masses of broken lenses and lens repairman would be a thriving career path, but nope, we are all happily shooting with our cheap inferior cameras and lenses and laughing at elitist close-minded Leicists who insist our equipment will soon break. Smile

Bottom line is Leica make top quality products and charge elitist prices, therefore few can afford to use them and this has enabled those few to sneer at everyone else without being instantly refuted because not everyone has tried Leica equipment themselves. If it was cheaper and more widely used by people, the scope for sneering would be much less because people would know for themselves how good they were.

For most people, Leica doesn't make sense because if the optical quality is better (and it isn't always better) it is only very slightly better, often close to imperceptably better. Therefore most people take the sensible route and buy something else that offer 99% of the quality for 10% of the price.

Honestly, anyone who thinks the near imperceptable quality difference of Leica is worth the huge price differential, then they have more money than they actually need.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:31 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


Honestly, anyone who thinks the near imperceptable quality difference of Leica is worth the huge price differential, then they have more money than they actually need.


I assure you that I have spent far less on camera equipment than almost anything else. I have invested perhaps $9000 over 20 years. If you think about that, you will realize how silly what you said is. Most of us spend more that $1000 or $2000 a year on beer, cigarettes, or wine, and it is consumed. You are fooled by the fact that with a lens you have to pay for it all at once, but in the long run, even expensive lenses (Leica's or anyone else's) are extremely cheap. You just see $1000 and don't stop to think that this is nothing in the long run. And things that are consumed obviously have no resale value.

I buy a bottle of $10 wine about every other day. That amounts to about $1800 per year. Now do you understand my perspective?

Far from making myself look ridiculous, I believe if you think about it a little it begins to make sense.

And I do agree that Topcon made good stuff. I do have lots of experience with other brands, too.

I am not saying that Leica is the only way to go, but with any product that is durable it pays to get the best you can. It lasts longer and performs better, and in some cases can be resold for what you paid, or even at a profit.

Last edited by Oreste on Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax was the king of the market of fully-mechanical SLR's in the late 60's-early 70's.
There were times in the 1960's when Pentax sold more Spotmatics than all other SLR's from all makers combined.
If you check used cameras on ebay you will see an echo of this. More Spotmatics for sale than Minolta SRT's, Canon FT's, etc.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Pentax was the king of the market of fully-mechanical SLR's in the late 60's-early 70's.
There were times in the 1960's when Pentax sold more Spotmatics than all other SLR's from all makers combined.
If you check used cameras on ebay you will see an echo of this. More Spotmatics for sale than Minolta SRT's, Canon FT's, etc.


Yes, they were popular. I almost brought one myself, but I snagged a used Leicaflex SL that a dealer had, and a nice lens, and I was good to go. I didn't like the stop-down metering anyway, or the screw-thread mount. Once I had the Leicaflex in my hands, it was love at first sight. Used Nikon F4's sell cheaply nowadays. That is not true of used Leicaflexes. They have held their value.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-F4-F4s-slr-film-camera-/321003520529?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4abd4d0211

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.agoraquest.com/viewtopic.php?forum=51&topic=39256


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"in the long run, even expensive lenses (Leica's or anyone else's) are extremely cheap. "

Are you married ? I assure you this is a difficult argument to make to many wives. Women tend to do cash accounting.

It is true though, that up to a point, over the last decade USED lenses have been a good investment.
Over the life of these, if bought new, however, they are not free. You have to analyze using discounting of purchase price vs current resale value using an interest rate representing a realistic alternative investment.

If I were to consider my Pentax LX and its several lenses (50/1.4, 24/2.8, 50/4 macro, Tamron 35-135) I bought as a lot (not new), for $500, purchased in 1986, vs an alternative investment in an S&P stock fund, I have certainly lost money. That lot is now worth maybe $1000, a bit generously. If I had stuck the money in the S&P fund I would have maybe $2500. So it has cost me roughly $60 a year to hold on to this lot.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
"in the long run, even expensive lenses (Leica's or anyone else's) are extremely cheap. "

Are you married ? I assure you this is a difficult argument to make to many wives. Women tend to do cash accounting.

It is true though, that up to a point, over the last decade USED lenses have been a good investment.
Over the life of these, if bought new, however, they are not free. You have to analyze using discounting of purchase price vs current resale value using an interest rate representing a realistic alternative investment.

If I were to consider my Pentax LX and its several lenses (50/1.4, 24/2.8, 50/4 macro, Tamron 35-135) I bought as a lot (not new), for $500, purchased in 1986, vs an alternative investment in an S&P stock fund, I have certainly lost money. That lot is now worth maybe $1000, a bit generously. If I had stuck the money in the S&P fund I would have maybe $2500. So it has cost me roughly $60 a year to hold on to this lot.


True, but you could not use the stock to take photographs. The point is that good camera and stereo equipment retains a good share of its value, unlike consumable which in the long run add up and leave you with nothing but memories...

But some cameras have lost a lot of value. The Nikon N90S used to sell for about $1100 but can now be bought for about $65.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-N90s-35mm-SLR-Auto-Focus-Camera-2267197-Free-Shipping-/271081617925?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3f1db93a05

Last edited by Oreste on Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


Honestly, anyone who thinks the near imperceptable quality difference of Leica is worth the huge price differential, then they have more money than they actually need.


I assure you that I have spent far less on camera equipment than almost anything else. I have invested perhaps $9000 over 20 years. If you think about that, you will realize how silly what you said is. Most of us spend more that $1000 or $2000 a year on beer, cigarettes, or wine, and it is consumed. You are fooled by the fact that with a lens you have to pay for it all at once, but in the long run, even expensive lenses (Leica's or anyone else's) are extremely cheap. You just see $1000 and don't stop to think that this is nothing in the long run. And things that are consumed obviously have no resale value.

I buy a bottle of $10 wine about every other day. That amounts to about $1800 per year.


"Leicas aren't expensive because they last long and there's people that spends more in -generic consumer good- than I do in leicas"
If this is not ridiculous...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
Oreste wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


Honestly, anyone who thinks the near imperceptable quality difference of Leica is worth the huge price differential, then they have more money than they actually need.


I assure you that I have spent far less on camera equipment than almost anything else. I have invested perhaps $9000 over 20 years. If you think about that, you will realize how silly what you said is. Most of us spend more that $1000 or $2000 a year on beer, cigarettes, or wine, and it is consumed. You are fooled by the fact that with a lens you have to pay for it all at once, but in the long run, even expensive lenses (Leica's or anyone else's) are extremely cheap. You just see $1000 and don't stop to think that this is nothing in the long run. And things that are consumed obviously have no resale value.

I buy a bottle of $10 wine about every other day. That amounts to about $1800 per year.


"Leicas aren't expensive because they last long and there's people that spends more in -generic consumer good- than I do in leicas"
If this is not ridiculous...


It isn't. It's the truth. Do you think $9000 over 20 years is a lot of money? How much do you spend on candy bars, pop, beer, wine, etc.?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leica better than wine because retains value.
Leica better than shares because you can't take pics with shares (even if shares increase their value more than Leica)
Shall I deduce that you can drink Leica lenses and enjoy their taste?
Or smoke leicas?

Or maybe ther is a golden absolute midpoint between value stability and enjoyment, and casually it is placed in the Leica spot in the value vs fun graph?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It should be noted that collector value does not always reflect user value or quality. Some of the most collectible things cost so much because they are rare or unusual, mis-struck coins for instance, which have no value whatsoever except as collectibles.

The Leicaflex cameras will always have collector value simply because they have the Leica name on them, and simply because they're uncommon. Which actually would seem to indicate that they were never a good value - otherwise there'd be more of them around. Wink That's not to say they were bad cameras either. Leitz just came to the SLR game a day late and dollar short. The original Leicaflex was goofy, expensive, lacked features cheaper cameras had, and had few lenses available for it. So they never really had a chance with professionals, were too expensive for the hobbyists, and basically just had to sell to Leica customers who wouldn't bother touching an SLR until an SLR was made by Leica. The SL fixed some of this, but could never change that they came to market late. It is a nice camera, but why bother when there were other nicer cameras?

Additionally, by Leica standards the Leicaflex and SL are not worth that much. You can easily find one with lens for under $500, without a lens for under $300. It's a lot for a camera of that sort, but not that much for a Leica, compared to what the contemporary M cameras sell for these days.

Last edited by Mos6502 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:35 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Present value of a $9000 investment over 20 years at 8% (assumed rate for US stock market funds like S&P) is about $42,000.
That may buy a condo somewhere cheap and colorful.

Like this -

http://www.condo.com/Condo_Godoy-Cruz_Properties-for-Sale-in-Argentina_5220565

Here -

http://gosouthamerica.about.com/cs/southamerica/a/ArgMendoza.htm


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Present value of a $9000 investment over 20 years at 8% (assumed rate for US stock market funds like S&P) is about $42,000.
That may buy a condo somewhere cheap and colorful.

Like this -

http://www.condo.com/Condo_Godoy-Cruz_Properties-for-Sale-in-Argentina_5220565

Here -

http://gosouthamerica.about.com/cs/southamerica/a/ArgMendoza.htm


True, but the investment itself is small, less than wine or beer for 3 or 4 years.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being a housewife, I get your economics,But what I don't get ....is the fact most people on budgets (include children in that budget), would have to wait a very long time to save and buy a Leica camera.When in reality there are the "cheaper" cameras available to buy, that do the job that most families want and that is to record memories "today" not in a few years time. This is where the Japanese lens makers,camera makers meet the supply and demand of the average Family's photography need.Now when the average family member (individual) decides they enjoy photography this is when you could apply your economic equations of wine beer,cigarettes...especially with the high price of the later it would not take long to save for a Leica...Very Happy

Don't get me wrong if I had money to burn I would buy a Leica, to see for myself what the fuss is about.Until all my children leave home I will settle on buying what I can afford....using the knowledge of peoples experience on this forum for the better camera/lens options that are out there...including your opinions on the quality of Leica.

Can I ask, do you shoot regularly with your gear?...or does it play in the back of your mind about how much it costs and if it could get damaged/stolen?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Germans and Americans catered for the average consumers before the Japanese and countries had their own small domestic camera industries too.

It would be interesting to see some Leica sales figures over the decades, see just how niche their market is. Their initial success was due to being the first to take 35mm seriously hence Erich Salomon, Henri Cartier-Bresson and others took them up.

But I doubt they ever had more than a tiny niche in the market.

People just didn't buy a Leica to shoot family pics, that's why there are millions of Kodak Brownies and other consumer mass market cameras still out there.

It would be interesting to think what might have happened in the rangefinder market if ww2 hadn't come along and ruined Zeiss. Quite possibly Leica would have been crushed by the might of Zeiss Ikon and their Contax, but the war put paid to ZI's plans for rangefinder domination. In the 1930s ZI was the world's largest photography conglomerat and Leitz were a small company with a single factory.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
Being a housewife, I get your economics,But what I don't get ....is the fact most people on budgets (include children in that budget), would have to wait a very long time to save and buy a Leica camera.When in reality there are the "cheaper" cameras available to buy, that do the job that most families want and that is to record memories "today" not in a few years time. This is where the Japanese lens makers,camera makers meet the supply and demand of the average Family's photography need.Now when the average family member (individual) decides they enjoy photography this is when you could apply your economic equations of wine beer,cigarettes...especially with the high price of the later it would not take long to save for a Leica...Very Happy

Don't get me wrong if I had money to burn I would buy a Leica, to see for myself what the fuss is about.Until all my children leave home I will settle on buying what I can afford....using the knowledge of peoples experience on this forum for the better camera/lens options that are out there...including your opinions on the quality of Leica.

Can I ask, do you shoot regularly with your gear?...or does it play in the back of your mind about how much it costs and if it could get damaged/stolen?


All of us have priorities, and I don't expect everyone to share the same values that I have. I was simply making the point that although there is of course a large initial investment, in the long run it is not expensive. And credit is always an option. Many photo pros finance large equipment purchases and think nothing of it. The fact that there are inexpensive cameras tends to distort our perspective. It need hardly be pointed out that the Leica market is not for back-yard snapshooters, but for those with the means and wherewithal to travel to exotic locations, or to spend a great deal of time on their craft, even if they don't travel. You simply cannot take photographs such as this with snapshot equipment. This 560mm lens can be purchased on the used market for between $800-1600.



PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You could take a shot like that with a Zeiss, Schneider, Voigtlander, Konica, Topcon, Nikkor etc etc.

Mo's point is that the mass of people have always bought cheap cameras that were simple to use.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You could take a shot like that with a Zeiss, Schneider, Voigtlander, Konica, Topcon, Nikkor etc etc.


Perhaps the same perspective, but not the same color quality and sharpness in a portable package. That lens is unique. The image quality is astonishing. And no auto-focus system is capable of getting the focus right, the way this is, through a helmet. You can see the creases in his eyelids!

Quote:


Mo's point is that the mass of people have always bought cheap cameras that were simple to use.


Yes, some have, but not all. And do you want to be one of the masses? I sure as hell don't.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Who said anything about portable packages? I meant a telephoto slr lens from many of those makers or many others.

Seems when you buy Leica it comes with this free virus that infects the owner and makes them think all other lenses are inferior.

It's not a viewpoint that can stand much examination.

Many makers made superb lenses, not just Leica.

Seems to me Leicas appeal to people who consider themselves to have faeces which does not stink like everyone else's does, those who like to think they are above others, superior in some way.

I'm happy being part of a proletarian mass and abhor the whole concept of elitism.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Who said anything about portable packages? I meant a telephoto slr lens from many of those makers or many others.

Seems when you buy Leica it comes with this free virus that infects the owner and makes them think all other lenses are inferior.

It's not a viewpoint that can stand much examination.

Many makers made superb lenses, not just Leica.

Seems to me Leicas appeal to people who consider themselves to have faeces which does not stink like everyone else's does, those who like to think they are above others, superior in some way.

I'm happy being part of a proletarian mass and abhor the whole concept of elitism.


You need to read some Nietzsche, perhaps.

"Nicht zu vergessen! — Je höher wir uns erheben, um so kleiner erscheinen wir Denen, welche nicht fliegen können."

"The higher we elevate ourselves, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly."

And I certainly don't think 'all other lenses are inferior'. The fact is that I have a Leicaflex system and other lenses are irrelevant since I can't mount them on my camera.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I am British, the folk who fought to destroy the Nietzschian notions of the super man therefore that entire concept is abhorent to me, it lead to a lot of death and destruction and one would hope it is an attitude that has been abandoned by sensible civilised people.

Freud would find some interesting things to say about people who feel the need to increase their sense of self esteem with hyper-expensive possessions, he'd probably see it as something to do with a deep seated insecurity, possible to do with penises, but he was a weird old Austrian. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photographers buy cameras because they want photographs, not because they want a camera.

Arguing over the relative merits and demerits of numerous camera/lens systems, which are all capable of taking high quality photographs, is pretty pointless if you ask me. The only thing that matters is the photograph; the moment captured.

If we were to look at the work of a number of famous (professional) photographers known to use specific types of camera, we could decide which is the best. All that would tell us is who takes the best photographs, not what takes the best photographs: After all, cameras do not take photographs - people do.

For professional standard photographs there ARE minimum technical requirements, but they are of secondary importance compared to the photographer's eye and imagination.

If we were to select maybe the 20 best, most iconic photos of the last 150 years, and then looked at the cameras used, I doubt we would see one camera standing out from the rest.

If someone like Leica - good for them; if someone prefers Nikon - good for them.......and so on, ad infinitum.

The single most important thing in photography is the image. Everything else is just cars and petrol.

Last edited by skida on Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:36 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well I am British, the folk who fought to destroy the Nietzschian notions of the super man therefore that entire concept is abhorent to me, it lead to a lot of death and destruction and one would hope it is an attitude that has been abandoned by sensible civilised people.

Freud would find some interesting things to say about people who feel the need to increase their sense of self esteem with hyper-expensive possessions, he'd probably see it as something to do with a deep seated insecurity, possible to do with penises, but he was a weird old Austrian. Wink


I have spent less on my equipment than you have spent on beer. Get it?

And I won't tolerate any further ad hominem attacks, OK? Leica is cheap, not expensive. If you think you can take a photo like the one above (of a moving subject, of course) with other equipment, be my guest. I own Leica equipment because it allows me to take the kinds of photographs that I like better than any other. I really don't care what it costs. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

and I could say something about the British class system, but I won't.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9