T3D Re: "Good and "Bad" Equipment

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Maxey wrote:
> >>It pains them when I mention that my $40 Lubitels
> >>(Russian plastic Medium Format TLRs with glass lenses) can produce
> >>much better prints than any 35mm camera.
> 
> That comment will take a whole boat load of proof. I am hearing a
> whole boat load, but it is not exactly proof that's in the boat. I
> will emphatically state that a cheap medium format camera will not
> produce better results than my M3, M4 or M5. I have shown this over
> and over in the work I have done over the years. I use slow film,
> expert processing and a tripod. You will have to prove your
> statement.
> 

Yes but if I also use slow film, expert processing (I can't exactly
take 120 film to a one hour lab at the corner drug store) and a tripod
my negatives will come out sharp enough that I can produce very large
prints that the Leica can not match.  The advantage is not having to
enlarge as much to get the bigger print.

Maybe producing very large prints isn't part of your specifications
for choosing a camera.  That's perfectly valid.  Everyone should pick
their own reasons for choosing specific equipment.  If you don't want
color prints bigger than say 11x14 then the Leica (or just about any
other non-point & shoot 35mm camera) is likely to produce prints as
good as a MF camera.  But your reasons for picking a particular piece
of equipment can not make that equipment superior to my equipment if
our criteria are different.  A Leica is definitely inferior to a
Lubitel if price is an important criteria.  Of course maybe you have a
source for $40 Leicas.  :)

By the way, just to clear things up, Lubitels are cheap plastic
cameras, but they have fairly nice glass lenses (and the Russians can
produce very nice optics).  What gives them a bad reputation is the
complete lack of quality control (I don't hide the fact that I got
lucky in getting two randomly picked cameras that work well), and that
the body might have some problems (mostly light leaks).

> I also occasionally use a cheap 120. a Yashica TLR. Granted, it is
> superior to the Lubitel. I compare this camera with my Leica and the
> Leica is the clear winner. No contest.
> 

I also have a Yashicamat 124G, which I got after the Lubitels in a
moment of weakness (I had to have a "real" MF camera).  It is a much
better camera than the Lubitels (for its purpose).  But it would not
have met my criteria for the application that I got the Lubitels for.

> Common since will tell you that professional photographers would
> stop buying top quality equipment and go with the cheap equipment
> made of plastic if the results were better. Why should I buy a
> Leicaflex and a Leoica lens if a 40.00 camera will give me better
> images? I would not because I prize sharpness and contrast above all
> else. If i could get this with a Russian made camera, I certainly
> would rather spend 40.00 than thousands. Everyone else would, too.
> 

A professional photographer (try defining that!) is looking at a
different application than I am.  A professional's equipment must
work, and work consistantly, every time (probably the best definition
of a professional photographer).  Although I would be unhappy with
equipment that failed (and I have had "professional quality" equipment
fail on trips where I couldn't get it repaired or replaced), I could
live with it.  A professional pays for build quality and reliability.

> Your comment is hard for me to understand. However, that being said,
> I regularly use my Bessa Rangefinders and I have friends who use
> good quality 35mm equipment and I kick them all over the place. My
> Bessa is capable of producing better images than the vast majority
> of 35MM cameras out there.  So there you are.
> 

That's my point.  I'm not saying that a $40 Lubitel always produces
better results than a multi-thousand dollar Nikon or Leica.  I have
plenty of unmounted stereo pairs and unprinted negatives.  I'm saying
that for certain applications it is possible to produce better
results.

One of those applications is cheap stereo.  I never would have gotten
into stereo photography if I had to buy a pair of Yashicamats (or
Rolleiflexes, or Hasselblads, etc.), it would have been too expensive.
And at the time I didn't know about the Sputnik (a MF stereo camera
made by the same factory in the 1960's).  But I could afford a pair of
Lubitels and a flash bracket.  For my application (take an easy to
use, inexpensive, larger than 35mm camera on an international trip (my
honeymoon)) the Lubitel was perfect.  The camera that I used most
often at the time (a Toyo 4x5 metal folding camera) did not meet my
criteria (it was too bulky to take on an international flight, and too
much trouble to use on a trip that was intended to be low stress where
photography was not the main purpose of the trip) even though it was
capable of producing much better negatives.  The Lubitel was so good
that before I left I realized that I could buy two of them and try
stereo photography.  I wound up with a system that is lighter and
cheaper than a Realist (although a bit more bulky) and produces very
good MF stereo pairs.  Is it perfect?  No, but it fulfills its goals
better than any of the alternatives.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"


------------------------------