Views 76 Unique 51
Vote 23
Award Shortlist   

EXPENSIVE GEAR VS CHEAP AS CHIPS VINTAGE ...... NO CONTEST!

By hobbo
Elsewhere within the forums there is a debate raging about the necessity of owning lots of expensive gear, and does such gear improve your photography.

I wish to draw attention to these three mono shots taken today through a newly acquired vintage...... INDUSTAR 61 D..... manufactureD around the 1960s for Soviet film cameras.

It cost me just £19 delivered via a UK seller.... it arrived just this morning, so the three examples here were among my test shots.

My camera ? No! Not an £8000 Leica, but a second hand £375 LUMIX GX9 set to.........W/O LENS............ and to the.........D-MONOCHROME-L ..... setting.

The pics are JPEGS almost straight out of camera, just a tad of brightening, and a touch on the sharpness pedal.... You can see that those bike were moving apace....

Camera set to F8.....LENS to zone focus from circa 10 ft to infinity.... so literally a ...Point and Shoot.... no AF hunting, just solid focus ....within that chosen zone..... once learned it becomes second nature.

I am claiming that these are up to 2020 Leica standards.... ....

Comments-observations and feedback more than welcome....please look at the other two versions before doing so.

Hobbo

Tags: Street photography Black and white Manual VINTAGE LENSES ZONE FOCUS

Voters: mj.king, James_C, Saastad and 20 more


Get An Extra 20% Off Regatta New Season Arrivals

Comments


pablophotographer 10 1.9k 411
10 Jul 2020 5:43PM
"I use film" says pentaxpete and so do I (from time to time). We all age, it does not mean we're useless, lol.
pablophotographer
dudler Plus
18 1.7k 1877 England
10 Jul 2020 7:44PM
That's a very big claim, Cyril: I haven't used any Leitz digital gear, but I own both a pre-war Leica IIIa and an Eighties M6, and the latter offers formidable quality on film.

My personal view is that digital challenges film from around 24mp upwards, depending on a variety of things, including whether the sensor has an anti-aliasing filter on it. So in terms of sheer detail-resolving power, the current Leicas are likely to win.

The other issue is the quality of the image, the way that tones, colours and out of focus areas are depicted. Again, for sheer accuracy, I think that the latest Leitz kit will be hard to beat.

However, both are overkill for many purposes, and very often, the character of the image is more important than absolute technical quality... My collection of Lensbaby optics is testament to my love of the quirky and individual.

I'll be interested to see what others (especially any Leica digital users) have to contribute.
hobbo Plus
10 1.7k 4 England
10 Jul 2020 7:49PM

Quote:That's a very big claim, Cyril: I haven't used any Leitz digital gear, but I own both a pre-war Leica IIIa and an Eighties M6, and the latter offers formidable quality on film.

My personal view is that digital challenges film from around 24mp upwards, depending on a variety of things, including whether the sensor has an anti-aliasing filter on it. So in terms of sheer detail-resolving power, the current Leicas are likely to win.

The other issue is the quality of the image, the way that tones, colours and out of focus areas are depicted. Again, for sheer accuracy, I think that the latest Leitz kit will be hard to beat.

However, both are overkill for many purposes, and very often, the character of the image is more important than absolute technical quality... My collection of Lensbaby optics is testament to my love of the quirky and individual.

I'll be interested to see what others (especially any Leica digital users) have to contribute.



Yes! It is.... but after watching quite a few YouTube videos on the results obtained from £8500 worth of Leica gear..... I just wanted to prove just how little you need to spend to get remarkably similar results....

Question ? Are Leica results £7150 better?

FUJI
dudler Plus
18 1.7k 1877 England
10 Jul 2020 10:46PM
Now, value is an entirely different question...

As is personal preference. I know that some reviewers have rather taken against Sony Alpha 7 bodies, as 'too small' - to my hands, just right, while (say) a Canon 5D IV is horribly big and clumsy.

And different people get satisfaction from their cameras in different ways: I can say with certainty that just holding and playing with an M6 is an experience unlike any digital camera I've met - as is using a Contax RTS. Some people love squeezing every bit of quality from cheaper or lower-spec gear, while others have to have the latest, or the most-reviewed.

As it goes, I've met Panasonic's entry into the full-frame arena, and while it's capable of astounding results, it's too big, bulky and heavy for my taste. Ergonomically behind my 2008 Alpha 900, though it is probably far more waterproof and durable.

Would I spend that much on a Leica? Definitely not. If I had that much spare, I'd add an Alpha 7R IV and a couple more lenses to my kit. But if I already had Leica digital kit, I think I would...
Aeros 3 12 1 Canada
12 Jul 2020 4:18PM
Hmmm, I think I may regret jumping into the deep end here as I'm definitely out of my depth. I comment because I did have a moment of madness and spent $10,500 CAN on a Pentax 645D after shooting the film version for 20 years. I feel that my decision did improve my work by giving me more options for shooting. Clearly the quality of my images improved because I was using a camera that brought a lot more to the table. BUT, does that give me bragging rights for better work, I think not. It did bring me the options to shoot in ways not possible with less expensive cameras. I have no regrets in buying the Pentax 645D, it took me to places that were previously not reachable.

I liken this debate to painting. In the hands of a Maestro, a squirrel hair brush will produce a masterpiece, A sable hair brush in the hands of someone with very little skill, will produce work that reflects their lack of skill. Quality equipment in the hands of the skilled, will produce skilled work, lower quality equipment in the same hands will present challenges, but will not defeat the inherent skill of the artist.

Now I'm feeling confused. I hope I didn't confuse you.
hobbo Plus
10 1.7k 4 England
12 Jul 2020 4:42PM

Quote:Hmmm, I think I may regret jumping into the deep end here as I'm definitely out of my depth. I comment because I did have a moment of madness and spent $10,500 CAN on a Pentax 645D after shooting the film version for 20 years. I feel that my decision did improve my work by giving me more options for shooting. Clearly the quality of my images improved because I was using a camera that brought a lot more to the table. BUT, does that give me bragging rights for better work, I think not. It did bring me the options to shoot in ways not possible with less expensive cameras. I have no regrets in buying the Pentax 645D, it took me to places that were previously not reachable.

I liken this debate to painting. In the hands of a Maestro, a squirrel hair brush will produce a masterpiece, A sable hair brush in the hands of someone with very little skill, will produce work that reflects their lack of skill. Quality equipment in the hands of the skilled, will produce skilled work, lower quality equipment in the same hands will present challenges, but will not defeat the inherent skill of the artist.

Now I'm feeling confused. I hope I didn't confuse you.



Thanks Aeros ..... just the kind of response I love.... you are spot-on of course with your observations regarding the squirrel hair and a sable brushes .....

Exactly my point here.... my squirrel hair camera with its long past itís sell by date lens , are proving yours and my point....far beyond expectations.

Hobbo

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.