Help please, can't decide which path to take. Upgrading from D750

[r.harris1]

You seem to be a fan of the old lenses, and that's fine, if you like the aesthetics offered by such. Personally, I don't, much, and prefer the optical superiority of newer lenses. But to each, their own. It's worth noting that many lenses, particularly the new Z-series (S-Line) are being designed around new digital sensors, so the whole game has changed significantly. Many of the later G-series F-mount lenses have been designed for digital sensors, and of course all the new Z-series. IMO, photography changed when full frame digital cams such as the Canon EOS 5D and Nikon D700 were released. And things have only got better since. I was a staunch film acolyte right up until that point, whereupon I finally saw the light.

I believe you've stated that you'll take the modern clinical look any day. That's fine, if you like the aesthetics offered by such . I don't specifically disagree in some cases. Some of my modern Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are insanely wickedly sharp and very, very clinical, certainly on modern large sensors. I love the results I get from them, certainly in architecture and landscapes. I love the results I get with new lenses on older sensors or film too. Or even old optical designs on modern sensors. I'm glad you saw your light, whatever you feel that is (it's entirely personal, isn't it?). At the end of the day, photography is about light through optics onto a light recording medium, be it film or a digital sensor, old or new. The person creating the image should hopefully enjoy the process of making it and hopefully others can enjoy seeing it. Photography is so simple .

 

[Boidem]

I believe you've stated that you'll take the modern clinical look any day. That's fine, if you like the aesthetics offered by such . I don't specifically disagree in some cases. Some of my modern Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are insanely wickedly sharp and very, very clinical, certainly on modern large sensors. I love the results I get from them, certainly in architecture and landscapes. I love the results I get with new lenses on older sensors or film too. Or even old optical designs on modern sensors. I'm glad you saw your light, whatever you feel that is (it's entirely personal, isn't it?). At the end of the day, photography is about light through optics onto a light recording medium, be it film or a digital sensor, old or new. The person creating the image should hopefully enjoy the process of making it and hopefully others can enjoy seeing it. Photography is so simple .

I do understand subjective views on aesthetics, and welcome it. Personally I'm not a fan of things like 'swirly bokeh'; to me it just looks like the photographer has used a flawed lens, and I find it distracting. I especially don't like this current trend for using flawed old film camera lenses for movie/tv work; add motion to that and it beocmes quite unsettling. I've stopped watching stuff cos I was too distracted by the annoying optical effects caused by lens choice.

Regarding things like old large format lenses; yes, they can be amazing, especially on 35mm film/FX sensors. Because they were designed for a much larger image plate. So on 35mm, you can be using jsut the small central portion of the image circle, which will be super sharp.

Beyond sharpness, there's also things like colour rendition; modern coatings make for much more accurate colours. Then there's stuff like ghosting/internal reflections, flare, all that. I rarely use a lens hood these days, as such things are dealt with so effectively. I've used the Nikkor 14-30 zoom on the Z6, in situations where flare etc from bright light sources is unavoidable, yet it copes just fine. Brilliant.

 

[r.harris1]

I do understand subjective views on aesthetics, and welcome it. Personally I'm not a fan of things like 'swirly bokeh'; to me it just looks like the photographer has used a flawed lens, and I find it distracting. I especially don't like this current trend for using flawed old film camera lenses for movie/tv work; add motion to that and it beocmes quite unsettling. I've stopped watching stuff cos I was too distracted by the annoying optical effects caused by lens choice.

Regarding things like old large format lenses; yes, they can be amazing, especially on 35mm film/FX sensors. Because they were designed for a much larger image plate. So on 35mm, you can be using jsut the small central portion of the image circle, which will be super sharp.

Beyond sharpness, there's also things like colour rendition; modern coatings make for much more accurate colours. Then there's stuff like ghosting/internal reflections, flare, all that. I rarely use a lens hood these days, as such things are dealt with so effectively. I've used the Nikkor 14-30 zoom on the Z6, in situations where flare etc from bright light sources is unavoidable, yet it copes just fine. Brilliant.

And just to say that the modern variants of the Rodenstock and Schneider lenses are brilliant too and easily resolve 100mp+ sensors. The Rodenstock 138 float is one of the sharpest best corrected lenses I've ever tried of anyone, hands down. I don't own it unfortunately as it's pretty expensive and not a focal length/fov I tend to work in, but their 32, 40 and 90 HR are all superb and work brilliantly on medium format digital backs. The Schneider 150 2.8 , 45 3.5, 35 3.5 BR lenses done for Phase One are also brilliant on high MP sensors. I'm pretty wide-ranging in my tastes tough and do like at least some optical characteristics of older lenses. It depends on what I'm after, and that depends on the day.

 

[bunnspecial]

I enjoy modern lenses a lot, and in fact today at a Christmas get-together was snapping away happily, both some regular snapshots and some attempts at being more creative, with the 24-70 f/2.8E on my D850. It’s a ridiculously good lens, but to me is almost boring. It’s better than the old 24-70 f/2.8G I used for a while(and need to sell) but it’s honestly not that much better. For that matter when I’ve tested them side by side with the old 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D, the old lens mostly showed corner weakness wide open(and of course the difference between 35mm and 24mm is huge to me).

I do like older lenses, though, in the right situation. One of the things I enjoy is learning to work with the flaws I know are there.

If that means I’m somehow not enlightened, so be it, but I’ll continue using what I like whether it’s a 5 year old lens or 100 years old.

 

[Boidem]

I try to

If that means I’m somehow not enlightened, so be it, but I’ll continue using what I like whether it’s a 5 year old lens or 100 years old.

That's all good. I really like the idea of using all sorts of older lenses on my Z6, via adapters. I'm going to buy a M42 screw adapter in the NY, to try some really cheap old Praktica lenses, see if I can 'replicate' my first proper efforts in photography some 30 years ago. I don't think it was that bad tbh. I can't remember what it was, but likely to be a Pentacon 50mm f1.8.

Tools must suit the individual; I've always worked quite 'fast', I'm not one to spend ages carefully setting up shots. To me, that loses any spontaneity. This is why AF is a boon, and things like Eye Detect a real bonus. I really do like the way you can now select pretty much any point in the frame, as a focus point with cams like the Z6. Having said that, I got used to a single AF point in my F801s, so I can do the focus then compose then shoot thing. Comes naturally to me. Modern lenses now focus so fast, this process is even easier. I tend not to use auto select AF as I find it can sometimes lock onto the wrong subject, then it's a bugger to shift it. Works well with simple backgrounds, but not so good with fussier ones. Whenever I see video demonstrations of such AF systems, they always seem to be done in very good light. A lot of my stuff gets done in less than optimum light, so you need to be on top of the limitations of the electronics. Working with basic equipment, in very demanding situations and environments, is a good way to really learn skills. I cut my teeth shooting political demonstrations in London in the early 90s, where everything can move really fast, and you need to avoid getting battered by violent riot police etc. Sharpens the mind into a tool better than any sophisticated electronic camera function.

 

[kenoh]

I try to

That's all good. I really like the idea of using all sorts of older lenses on my Z6, via adapters. I'm going to buy a M42 screw adapter in the NY, to try some really cheap old Praktica lenses, see if I can 'replicate' my first proper efforts in photography some 30 years ago. I don't think it was that bad tbh. I can't remember what it was, but likely to be a Pentacon 50mm f1.8.

Tools must suit the individual; I've always worked quite 'fast', I'm not one to spend ages carefully setting up shots. To me, that loses any spontaneity. This is why AF is a boon, and things like Eye Detect a real bonus. I really do like the way you can now select pretty much any point in the frame, as a focus point with cams like the Z6. Having said that, I got used to a single AF point in my F801s, so I can do the focus then compose then shoot thing. Comes naturally to me. Modern lenses now focus so fast, this process is even easier. I tend not to use auto select AF as I find it can sometimes lock onto the wrong subject, then it's a bugger to shift it. Works well with simple backgrounds, but not so good with fussier ones. Whenever I see video demonstrations of such AF systems, they always seem to be done in very good light. A lot of my stuff gets done in less than optimum light, so you need to be on top of the limitations of the electronics. Working with basic equipment, in very demanding situations and environments, is a good way to really learn skills. I cut my teeth shooting political demonstrations in London in the early 90s, where everything can move really fast, and you need to avoid getting battered by violent riot police etc. Sharpens the mind into a tool better than any sophisticated electronic camera function.

Urth (formerly Gobe) make a great selection of dumb adapters (no electronics) at great prices.

For me, I tend to take the approach that most of the lenses I like experimenting with have an adapter that converts them to Leica M mount because the M mount seems to be the one that everyone making adapters for cameras seems to offer. I then have M to L, M to FE, M to Z adapters to reduce the need for yet another adapter.

Like I said previously, in a world where everyone makes perfect lenses, with accurate colour reproduction and absence of any ghosting, flare or other character, then I enjoy using flawed lenses to give a different result. The one thing that I don’t like is Swirly bokeh - I agree with you on that.

 

[Boidem]

Like I said previously, in a world where everyone makes perfect lenses, with accurate colour reproduction and absence of any ghosting, flare or other character, then I enjoy using flawed lenses to give a different result. The one thing that I don’t like is Swirly bokeh - I agree with you on that.

I've been reading up about the various Nikkor 50 1.8's, and it's interesting (to me at least) to see how lens design has evolved over time. Or not, as the case may be. Nikon used the same (successful, tried and tested) basic design from like 1964 right up until 2011 when the AF-S G was introduced. The Z-lens was a completely new design optimised to work with the new sensors and the much smaller flange distance, has lots more elements (12 v 6/7), two aspherical elements, two ED glass elements, much better coatings, the lot. So it's no surprise it's significantly, better than previous designs (it is also significantly more expensive, too). It's a completely different beast.

I'm now going to read up on older lenses, including Leica. See if there's anything actually worth buying. Should be interesting.

 

[dimme]

I have a few older lenses I have been using for the last 40+ years. They were great on film but they have some shortcomings when used on a modern digital camera. But with the tools that are available in Lightroom or other programs most if not all of these flaws are corrected.

 

[kenoh]

I've been reading up about the various Nikkor 50 1.8's, and it's interesting (to me at least) to see how lens design has evolved over time. Or not, as the case may be. Nikon used the same (successful, tried and tested) basic design from like 1964 right up until 2011 when the AF-S G was introduced. The Z-lens was a completely new design optimised to work with the new sensors and the much smaller flange distance, has lots more elements (12 v 6/7), two aspherical elements, two ED glass elements, much better coatings, the lot. So it's no surprise it's significantly, better than previous designs (it is also significantly more expensive, too). It's a completely different beast.

I'm now going to read up on older lenses, including Leica. See if there's anything actually worth buying. Should be interesting.

Remember to look at Zeiss lenses too. The 21mm, the 50 f2 planar and the 50mm f1.5 sonar are all really good. The f1.5 sonar has a particular look to the images, the planar being more clinical.

 

[Boidem]

Remember to look at Zeiss lenses too. The 21mm, the 50 f2 planar and the 50mm f1.5 sonar are all really good. The f1.5 sonar has a particular look to the images, the planar being more clinical.

Hmm. Having seen the prices of such things, I've gone off the idea a bit now. Especially Leica prices; they're insane. People wanting silly money for ancient battered old lenses that just a few years ago, would have gone for a fraction. I see old III series cams aren't that mad though. And tbh, I think I'd much rather get an R mount adapter, as that kit is in far less demand, so prices are at least closer to reasonable. Same quality at a fraction of the cost. Particularly the Canadian made stuff; exactly the same thing, but far less desirable. No rational reason for this at all.

I have a few older lenses I have been using for the last 40+ years. They were great on film but they have some shortcomings when used on a modern digital camera. But with the tools that are available in Lightroom or other programs most if not all of these flaws are corrected.

And here's the thing. A cursory look around The Internet suggests that many M-mount Leica lenses don't fare so well on Z cam sensors. AFAICT, this is cos of the aforementioned issue with the angle of light hitting sensors and stuff (why Leica sensors are designed differently). So it could well end up being a fool's errand to spend a lot of money on some Leica lenses, only to discover that far cheaper kit performs better. A bit of lazy 'research' is not making me want to delve into the world of Leica. It seems the only way to really enjoy the mythical benefits of such things, is to invest fully in a Leica system. I've always wanted a Leica, M6 perhaps, but the prices are silly. I cannot justify spending that much on what will effectively be a 'toy'.

So back to information that might actually be useful to the OP; A ML cam could open up all sorts of other possibilities in terms of enjoying photography, with all sorts of lenses, previously not a viable option to photographers.

 

[Boidem]

What I should have added, is that the new possibilities opened up by ML cams + adapters, makes photography more accessible to more people, as (after the initial expense of the cam) far more lenses will be available, many at relatively low prices on the s/h market. For eg; you can get Pentax and Olympus 50mm lenses for as little as ten pounds on ebay. This makes experimentation and learning much cheaper and more accessible. As someone who once struggled to afford to buy film in my student days, anything that opens up art to more people, can only be a good thing.

 

[r.harris1]

What I should have added, is that the new possibilities opened up by ML cams + adapters, makes photography more accessible to more people, as (after the initial expense of the cam) far more lenses will be available, many at relatively low prices on the s/h market. For eg; you can get Pentax and Olympus 50mm lenses for as little as ten pounds on ebay. This makes experimentation and learning much cheaper and more accessible. As someone who once struggled to afford to buy film in my student days, anything that opens up art to more people, can only be a good thing.

Yes, the options for people who wish to experiment with and pursue dedicated camera photography at any level they choose to spend is pretty astounding. I have hopes for the future, too, when it comes to dedicated camera photography (and not just ML cameras). Younger folk are driving at least some of the resurgence of film and the use of older cameras and lenses. I was in London a couple of times this year and saw anecdotally "more (mostly younger) people than I would expect" using either film cameras of various types or older digital dSLR cameras. I see it a fair amount around here in my home base of Denver, US as well. A surprising number of the old pentax and bronica medium format cameras. This may be that we have a large-ish art school around here that has a degree course in photography and you have to go through darkroom classes, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[dimme]

I have been following this thread, I own a D750 and very happy with it. It is starting to get a bit funky and I will need to sent it in for service soon. I have been wanting a second body and I pretty much decided it will be a Nikon Z something. I also want something smaller. Most of my work nowadays is only viewed on line, so do I need a full frame camera? I should also add, low light performance is important.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have been following this thread, I own a D750 and very happy with it. It is starting to get a bit funky and I will need to sent it in for service soon. I have been wanting a second body and I pretty much decided it will be a Nikon Z something. I also want something smaller. Most of my work nowadays is only viewed on line, so do I need a full frame camera? I should also add, low light performance is important.

Low light performance will be better with a FF sensor, but it depends on what you are prepared to fix in post and what you find to be an acceptable amount of noise. Photography is always a trade off of one thing or another.

 

[kenoh]

Low light performance will be better with a FF sensor, but it depends on what you are prepared to fix in post and what you find to be an acceptable amount of noise. Photography is always a trade off of one thing or another.

Like being rich OR having too many cameras and lenses?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Like being rich OR having too many cameras and lenses?

Too many? Is there such a thing?

 

[Boidem]

I have been following this thread, I own a D750 and very happy with it. It is starting to get a bit funky and I will need to sent it in for service soon. I have been wanting a second body and I pretty much decided it will be a Nikon Z something. I also want something smaller. Most of my work nowadays is only viewed on line, so do I need a full frame camera? I should also add, low light performance is important.

Then a FX cam will offer better low light performance, no question. I shoot a lot in very low light conditions, such as clubs and that, and my Z6 is superb. The Z6 and Z6II are slightly better in low light than the Z7 versions. The cams themselves are smaller than DSLRs, but of course the lenses are at least the same size if not larger in some cases (the new Z f1.8 primes are relatively larger than their F-mount counterparts). Moving to the DX format will allow for smaller kit, but at the expense of some low light capability. Then there's the crop factor; not such a problem if you use tele lenses more, but definitely a significant factor is you use wide angle lenses a lot, as I do. If you have the D750 already, then I'd suggest the Z6II or Z7II are better replacements, as the Z50 is aimed more at the 'consumer' end of the market.

Too many? Is there such a thing?

Yes. Especially if you don't use stuff. I'd quite like a Z50 and mini zoom for a 'pocket' cam, but tbh, it would be a frivolous purchase.

 

[kenoh]

Too many? Is there such a thing?

As long as you are spending your own money, not the banks money, then no, your money, your choice.

 

[Boidem]

Overconsumption is why our planet is ****ed. So, reduce, repair, recycle. Regardless of whose money it is. Which is why adapters that allow the use of older lenses is such a great thing.

I've gone right off the Leica idea now though; stupid sums of money for no actual scientifically provable advantage, simply because Leica. Given that many ML lenses are now actually better than Leica alternatives, I think the myth of Leica is truly burst for me. Give me Pentax, Olympus, Minolta. My money; my choice.

 

[kenoh]

Overconsumption is why our planet is ****ed. So, reduce, repair, recycle. Regardless of whose money it is. Which is why adapters that allow the use of older lenses is such a great thing.

I've gone right off the Leica idea now though; stupid sums of money for no actual scientifically provable advantage, simply because Leica. Given that many ML lenses are now actually better than Leica alternatives, I think the myth of Leica is truly burst for me. Give me Pentax, Olympus, Minolta. My money; my choice.

Overconsumption is a major concern but I don't see why it is a overarching factor in enjoying well made items. Arguably, again you have contradicted yourself. Reduce, repair, recycle absolutely, yet you are of the latest is greatest mindset as we have seen above - this is over consumption is it not? you choose an apple watch over a mechanical watch - can't repair an apple watch and the PCB inside it goes into landfill for eternity. A mechanical watch once beyond repair can be stripped for parts, recycled, used to repair others and so is reducing.

Using cameras that I buy used is not buying something new spat out of an assembly line in some far off land. I am reusing something that exists already and keeping it from being thrown away. I enjoy using things that are not mass produced, there is a lovely feel to them. Leica don't make thousands a day, they make a thousand a year - this means they need bigger margins to recoup R&D and manufacturing costs.

I get that you are a fan of modern things. Things manufactured to very tight tolerances, using CNC machines to grind a glass element within a micron of variation will yield much more consistent and exacting results. Consistency and accuracy being key to reducing manufacturing costs. I get that but that is not the be all and end all. I like that there is someone in Germany who at some point sat down and made my lens by hand. Hand ground glass elements by someone whose skill in life is the precision that they can produce from experience and mastery of their craft. This contributes to why Leica lenses are expensive.

Pentax, Olympus, Minolta (Sony now) are all made by a machine. Fuji are arguably the best manufacturers of lenses in the world (think bigger than cameras) and they are amazing but there is a joy to using something made by hand in a world where almost everything has a computer in it today.

Now getting to reuse old lenses is indeed a great thing. You don't have to go with new Leica lenses and you need to understand that while you personally cannot see any reason to want a Leica lens over a new Z mount Nikkor or a lovely Canon 50mm f0.95 for example, that doesn't mean there isn't something special about them that others appreciate.

It just means you cannot see the difference and so for you there is no need to spend that amount. Great, good on you. Your money; your choice.

Now, until you have spent a decent period of time using something like a 50mm asph. Summilux or a 35mm Asph. FLE Summilux, I really think you should stop banging on about how Leica lenses offer nothing special. Look at the fall off, look at the transition from in focus to out of focus for example. You don't get that on an Olympus or a Ricoh

Something to look at for a comparison if you want to really look into them. Rangefinder lenses are optimised for sharpness wide open and they only get better as you stop them down. Other lenses are typically optimised to be sharpest between f5.6 - f8 (or normally at least 2 stops down from wide open). As a test, go find a comparison of a 50mm f1.4 Nikon lens against a Leica Summilux 50mm at f1.4 centre sharpness to give the Nikon a chance, then tell me the Leica isn't good bearing in mind one was made by a machine, the other an actual person. Yes there is a hefty price difference but diminishing returns means that is usually the case - that extra little bit of performance adds an exponential increase in price. I am sure you don't have issue with a Lamborghini Sian costing more than a Huracan do you?

 

[Apple fanboy]

As long as you are spending your own money, not the banks money, then no, your money, your choice.

Your money your wife’s choice I thought?

 

[kenoh]

Your money your wife’s choice I thought?

Jeez-oh man! give me some credit! 😂

 

[Boidem]

Arguably, again you have contradicted yourself. Reduce, repair, recycle absolutely, yet you are of the latest is greatest mindset as we have seen above - this is over consumption is it not? you choose an apple watch over a mechanical watch - can't repair an apple watch and the PCB inside it goes into landfill for eternity. A mechanical watch once beyond repair can be stripped for parts, recycled, used to repair others and so is reducing.

No you're absolutely right. I did think that as I typed it out. In my defence; I tend not to 'upgrade' to new gadgets quite as often as some (seem post about my ancient MacPro on the 'oldest Apple thing you own' thread), and I definitely don't 'consume' as much as many other people.

I agree re Apple watch. But I find it very helpful in helping to motivate me to be fitter, it has helped make a difference. So I'm not consuming medical/health resources. Everything's a compromise. My Airpods were completely an unnecessary luxury purchase. I'm no angel. I'd quite like a nice (s/h)Rolex, but I absolutely don't need one, and besides it's a pretty poor device in relative terms, in both function and value.

BUT

Creativity is a big part of who I am. Photography is a major component of that. I don't 'need' it, no, but it does bring me joy, so probably has knock-on health benefits. It has also earned me a little bit of money over the years. So having decent equipment is kind of important. Bear in mind I used a (bought new) Nikon D600 from 2013-2019, when I bought my Z6 as a lighter 'travel' option, and still use both cams. I'm not about to 'upgrade' any time soon, probably not for several years to come really. Both cams are good enough for me, and will continue to be for ages yet. The D200 I had prior to the D600 just wasn't that great, so an 'upgrade' was fair enough I thought. I would not have been able to do a lot of the photographic work I have done, with that camera. So it wasn't fit for purpose for me. I had to wait a bit until technology caught up with what I required from a cam. Leica don't offer what would work for me, new or otherwise. Too limited.

Most of my lenses I bought s/h. The only new stuff is a 24-120mm f4 I bought back in 2014 or so, at a price cheaper than you could see it for s/h more recently! And the Z kit and lenses, cos there's bugger all s/h availability really, and it's better value to buy new and get a full warranty, than the few quid 'saved'.

Using cameras that I buy used is not buying something new spat out of an assembly line in some far off land. I am reusing something that exists already and keeping it from being thrown away. I enjoy using things that are not mass produced, there is a lovely feel to them. Leica don't make thousands a day, they make a thousand a year - this means they need bigger margins to recoup R&D and manufacturing costs.

I use what works, I don't attach sentimentality to tools, much. If something offers me better results, I'd buy that. Leica doesn't. So, I won't be buying Leica kit.

I get that you are a fan of modern things. Things manufactured to very tight tolerances, using CNC machines to grind a glass element within a micron of variation will yield much more consistent and exacting results. Consistency and accuracy being key to reducing manufacturing costs. I get that but that is not the be all and end all. I like that there is someone in Germany who at some point sat down and made my lens by hand. Hand ground glass elements by someone whose skill in life is the precision that they can produce from experience and mastery of their craft. This contributes to why Leica lenses are expensive.

Expensive, but no better. This is my point. New ML lens designs are offering superior results, so why spend more to get inferior results? No brainer really. I like the whole hand made ethos,I get why Leica kit is expensive, I have no issue with that, but it's not for me. I don't need jewellery, I need tools. I make furniture and other things with wood, I'm quite good at it, some of my pieces live in the homes of others who enjoy them. But does anyone care that I used a set of £7.99 LiDL chisels, rather than some exotic Japanese ones costing hundreds of pounds each? No. Is it nice to use quality tools? Yes; I own some nice bits, that are far nicer to use than cheap alternatives. This aids the whole making process. The experience is much nicer for ME. So I do get all that. But Leica doesn't actually offer me, personally, that enhanced experience.

It just means you cannot see the difference and so for you there is no need to spend that amount. Great, good on you. Your money; your choice.

Now, until you have spent a decent period of time using something like a 50mm asph. Summilux or a 35mm Asph. FLE Summilux, I really think you should stop banging on about how Leica lenses offer nothing special. Look at the fall off, look at the transition from in focus to out of focus for example. You don't get that on an Olympus or a Ricoh

This is nonsense. You're talking about optical characteristics that you consider subjectively, nothing more. What if I prefer the bokeh of a Ricoh lens? Does that me less of a human being? No. This just smacks of elitism and marketing guff. I have spent time with Leica equipment, I mentioned it earlier in the thread. I have experience of a LOT of photographic equipment. So why are you assuming I lack such knowledge? Because I don't buy into the Leica myth? No lens offers anything 'special' other than through subjectivity. I prefer to remain as objective as I can, and not be swayed by myths. I've used Leicas, Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, large format cams with Rodenstock, Schneider etc lenses, so I'm not without experience. So I know that Leica lenses offer nothing 'special'.

What you should be asking yourself, is how much your own subjectivity is influenced by the amount of money you've spent on stuff. People who spend a lot on things, tend not to find too many negatives in their own purchases, lest that reflect poorly on their own judgment...

 

[kenoh]

Expensive, but no better.

In your opinion. That's all, your opinion and you are entitled to that. Remember you are subjectively comparing them too.

I don't need jewellery, I need tools.

This is unnecessary. This is the type of comment that triggers people. There is a side to Leica ownership that is not about the bling.

This is nonsense. You're talking about optical characteristics that you consider subjectively, nothing more. What if I prefer the bokeh of a Ricoh lens? Does that me less of a human being?

You said this, not me. I have been respectful you are making this debate personal again. I enjoy using my Ricoh as much as my Nikon and my Sonys. I think they are great cameras especially the GRIII I would like a GRIIIx as I think 40mm is probably a useful focal length.

why are you assuming I lack such knowledge?

I am assuming no such thing. You are putting that narrative into my mouth.

I've used Leicas, Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, large format cams with Rodenstock, Schneider etc lenses, so I'm not without experience. So I know that Leica lenses offer nothing 'special'.

In your opinion and that is absolutely fine but I dont see you beating on Hasselblad like you are on Leica.

What you should be asking yourself, is how much your own subjectivity is influenced by the amount of money you've spent on stuff. People who spend a lot on things, tend not to find too many negatives in their own purchases, lest that reflect poorly on their own judgment...

I dont need to ask myself anything I make bad purchases and good purchases and on my shoulders it is. The long standing members on here have had many a chuckle at me doing something daft.

I bought into Olympus and regretted it so I moved on. I bought into Fuji. Liked the cameras, hated the way Lightroom treated the files. I moved on, now Adobe have fixed Lightroom, I regret moving away. The XF 56mm f1.2 is a wonderful lens. Again you are suggesting that there is something wrong with buying Leica. There isn't going back to the original argument of when buying "normal" Leica equipment as opposed to the bling models.

 

[r.harris1]

No you're absolutely right. I did think that as I typed it out. In my defence; I tend not to 'upgrade' to new gadgets quite as often as some (seem post about my ancient MacPro on the 'oldest Apple thing you own' thread), and I definitely don't 'consume' as much as many other people.

I agree re Apple watch. But I find it very helpful in helping to motivate me to be fitter, it has helped make a difference. So I'm not consuming medical/health resources. Everything's a compromise. My Airpods were completely an unnecessary luxury purchase. I'm no angel. I'd quite like a nice (s/h)Rolex, but I absolutely don't need one, and besides it's a pretty poor device in relative terms, in both function and value.

BUT

Creativity is a big part of who I am. Photography is a major component of that. I don't 'need' it, no, but it does bring me joy, so probably has knock-on health benefits. It has also earned me a little bit of money over the years. So having decent equipment is kind of important. Bear in mind I used a (bought new) Nikon D600 from 2013-2019, when I bought my Z6 as a lighter 'travel' option, and still use both cams. I'm not about to 'upgrade' any time soon, probably not for several years to come really. Both cams are good enough for me, and will continue to be for ages yet. The D200 I had prior to the D600 just wasn't that great, so an 'upgrade' was fair enough I thought. I would not have been able to do a lot of the photographic work I have done, with that camera. So it wasn't fit for purpose for me. I had to wait a bit until technology caught up with what I required from a cam. Leica don't offer what would work for me, new or otherwise. Too limited.

Most of my lenses I bought s/h. The only new stuff is a 24-120mm f4 I bought back in 2014 or so, at a price cheaper than you could see it for s/h more recently! And the Z kit and lenses, cos there's bugger all s/h availability really, and it's better value to buy new and get a full warranty, than the few quid 'saved'.


I use what works, I don't attach sentimentality to tools, much. If something offers me better results, I'd buy that. Leica doesn't. So, I won't be buying Leica kit.

Expensive, but no better. This is my point. New ML lens designs are offering superior results, so why spend more to get inferior results? No brainer really. I like the whole hand made ethos,I get why Leica kit is expensive, I have no issue with that, but it's not for me. I don't need jewellery, I need tools. I make furniture and other things with wood, I'm quite good at it, some of my pieces live in the homes of others who enjoy them. But does anyone care that I used a set of £7.99 LiDL chisels, rather than some exotic Japanese ones costing hundreds of pounds each? No. Is it nice to use quality tools? Yes; I own some nice bits, that are far nicer to use than cheap alternatives. This aids the whole making process. The experience is much nicer for ME. So I do get all that. But Leica doesn't actually offer me, personally, that enhanced experience.

This is nonsense. You're talking about optical characteristics that you consider subjectively, nothing more. What if I prefer the bokeh of a Ricoh lens? Does that me less of a human being? No. This just smacks of elitism and marketing guff. I have spent time with Leica equipment, I mentioned it earlier in the thread. I have experience of a LOT of photographic equipment. So why are you assuming I lack such knowledge? Because I don't buy into the Leica myth? No lens offers anything 'special' other than through subjectivity. I prefer to remain as objective as I can, and not be swayed by myths. I've used Leicas, Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, large format cams with Rodenstock, Schneider etc lenses, so I'm not without experience. So I know that Leica lenses offer nothing 'special'.

What you should be asking yourself, is how much your own subjectivity is influenced by the amount of money you've spent on stuff. People who spend a lot on things, tend not to find too many negatives in their own purchases, lest that reflect poorly on their own judgment...

A lot to parse here, but really, it's down to there being a lot of quality tools at a lot of different price points for a lot of different people. It's a great time to be a photographer. You (seem to) have "a thing" against people who purchase Leica and that's certainly fine. No, I'm not "thin-skinned", it's just interesting is all. Ultimately, it's down to what people feel comfortable spending and then owning the decision. Leica does great stuff, even "scientifically". It's a great small system camera. It costs what it costs. No one who owns one - I do - should consider themselves "a great photographer" because they own one - I don't - but I enjoy using it. I enjoy photography and I enjoy my different cameras, including Leica. Including Nikon and others. I'm not out to save the world with it or with my purchasing decisions. Just enjoy - for me - the experience.