• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

image quality vs camera price (given the same lens)

piero2019

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
28
Location
Paris, France
Format
35mm
Given an imaginary perfect lens (or a zeiss otus...) will my IQ vary according to the camera I use?

My goal is obtaining maximum IQ, in particular maximum sharpness, while using the least expensive camera
In more practical terms...Nikon F6 vs Nikon F80, with a very good lens (otus or similar, which I can easily rent, while a film camera I must buy).

The idea is that the F80 will have (much) higher build tolerances, and since focus happens on a plane that is supposed to be exactly where the film plane is, the "exactly" on the F80 maybe is (much) less "exact" than on the F6, causing a degradation in sharpness.

So on the same line of thought, maybe a Leica has such low build tolerances that its images will be even sharper than both Nikons.
Is this a thing or not?
 
  • nmp
  • Deleted
  • Reason: redundant
The Contax bodies that offered a vacuum holder for the film ensured the flattest possible film, and therefore the largest potential for corner to corner sharpness.
The difference was small, but measurable.
Other than that, no real difference, assuming that any of your suggested bodies or anything similar are in excellent condition and adjusted properly.
Exposure systems and viewing systems do vary, so that can factor into the question about how well the camera is set.
 
So basically you guys are saying that camera construction techniques of the 90s/00s (when these cameras were made ) was at a point where an F80 had the same tolerances than an F6?
 
Not.

Imperfect alignment to the film plane would be unlikely to be an issue unless using a very wide aperture while photographing a flat subject with a lens that has a very flat field of focus.

If you want the sharpest pictures, then your technique is probably more important than camera tolerances. (Tripod, shutter release, preventing flare, etc.)

About the only camera-specific effect that I can think of that might possibly affect sharpness would be if the shutter / mirror movement were to cause enough vibration to introduce canera shake.
 
Shoot more and spend less time on futile question: This is the only way to get better pictures.
 

Oh no Matt - that would be a fine conclusion - but why we'd seen just 2 models of Contax with that vacoom technology? Or did Contax produce a third model? From planarety of films each micrometer is important!
But if the impact of Contax's inovation was messurable - why Nikon and Canon and all others
did not sign contract for use Contax patent? (doubt a bit Contax has patent...)

I am a bit sure about the planarety my Pentax K1000 did provide at this time Contax came up -
was quite good!
This technology would made real sence for 120 format (without magazine)!
But the Zeiss lenses Contax provide does make a difference to a 90 bucks Pentax - yep?

with regards
 
piero2019 said:
So given good technique, it's best to invest in the lens than the camera?
Click to expand...
The difference between tight mechanical tolerance and one not so much isn't very great but with a better camera you have other factors that may or may not help you getting better quality images. Metering system is one. If you don't use it still shutter accuracy is another factor. And also shutter curtain evenness is still another. Mirror, focusing screen positioning accuracy could affect your focusing.
 
With SLRs the placement of the viewing screen needs to be precisely at the same distance as the film plane. If using auto focus the AF sensors need to be precisely placed at the same distance. I imagine, but don't know, that the F6 was built to a higher tolerance than the F80. But I know there was quite a bit of variance in even the high end DSLRs.

With manual focus cameras being able to choose the correct focus screen is also going to help significantly. Interchangeable screens are found on more expensive cameras. The metering systems also got more sophisticated as you went up in price. The F6 likely metered more accurately in a wider range of conditions compared to the F80.

Finally I have and N80 (US F80) and it's not holding up as well as the F100 I also have (built around the same time). So you do get better durability with more expensive Nikons. That might mean it stays aligned longer, though in my case it just means one has a cracked trim ring (though the F100 has sticky grips I need to look into fixing).
 
piero2019 said:
...
So on the same line of thought, maybe a Leica has such low build tolerances that its images will be even sharper than both Nikons.
...
Click to expand...

I think you meant high or minimal tolerances for Leica.

After selection of lens, type of camera, techniques to minimize vibration, etc., then there's the question of a film to reveal that sharpness (doesn't Adox CMS 20 easily exceed the best digital sensors?).

I used to chase sharpness and now I have some large cityscape and landscape prints on my wall demonstrating it (thank you, Hasselblad and Zeiss). But now I follow the philosophy in my signature below; it's more enjoyable and rewarding - at least to me. However, follow what interests you have and enjoy the journey.
 
Last edited:
Dali said:
Shoot more and spend less time on futile question: This is the only way to get better pictures.
Click to expand...

BINGO !!
you can easily get excessively eye bleedingly sharp High IQ images. I do this with a 38 year old Pentax K1000 and stock Ashai 50/2 lens that together had an original purchase price $129 and I got as my first 35mm camera in 1980. Best way to get excessively sharp High IQ images is to know your gear backwards and forwards use a sturdy tripod, have good image taking, processing and printing technique. Far too many people believe gear is a silver bullet when there is no such thing..
 
Last edited:
Yes but what you would need is a lens up to 2000,- bucks!
The difference from bad reputation of film in comparison to digital is the insuficience of any
scanning technology to get all information out of the negs.!
Btw : Ink jet printing has additional restrictions!
So - what you realy need to have a basis for comparison is a croped darkroom (optical)print
from best workflow! There the lens have to be at sweetspot and from 2000,- up to 3500,- bucks
class = Rosenstock!

with regards
 
Barry Thornton in his book the Edge of Darkness demonstrates how to check to see if the actual focusing of a lens matches the focusing seen on the focusing screen. In the example he provided his Pentax LX was spot on while a MZ just off. A few years ago I built the same rig he used and found that my Sigma SA9 was spot on, my Pentax SF1N was off. I have not checked my newer Minolta bodies, some day I guess I ought to. The point is some models are very good, others off just a bit. Will not show in most circumstances, but for very critical work it may make a difference. I changed the focusing screen on the SF1N with a DIY split screen screen from a salvaged Miranda EE , the replacement screen is spot on. As the LX and MZ were at the time the top of line bodies offered by Pentax at the time it does not seem to be a issues with price.

In terms of lens quality, if a lens can resolve at 200LMM which is roughly the resolving power of TMax100 then it is sharp enough, well maybe if you plan on shooting microfish film. What seems to matter is that the best lens are as good wide open as they are at F16.

Some folks are not fans, but if your game is sharpness then I recommend reading Edge of Darkness.
 
It's possible that a more expensive body will give you less sharp of images. A lot of the more expensive bodies have to option to change the viewfinder and focusing screen. If the focusing screen was replaced and not properly shimmed, it could be slightly off and what looks sharp in the viewfinder may not be sharp in the film. It shouldn't effect autofocus, but could effect manual focus. Cheaper camera bodies usually don't have replaceable focusing screens. Most name brand cameras with their original focusing screen will be shimmed to the proper distance at the factory. And most pros who buy these expensive bodies and had the focusing screen replaced will usually either do a good job of shimming it properly themselves, or send it out to someone who can. So it's not likely to be an issue you'll ever face. But it is one tiny vote for using a cheaper camera body.

Personally, I like the Nikon N2000 (split prism manual) and N8008s (autofocus). They're light, cheap, have auto and manual modes, take regular batteries, and have motorized film advances. They'll take as sharp of a photo as anything else, and if they ever break, you can buy another one for a fraction of the price as it would cost to have a more expensive model repaired. Can you buy a better body? Definitely! But you won't find a better bang for your buck in the Nikon line. And less money on camera bodies means more money for film and lenses, which is where you want to be spending your money anyway.
 
I always get a kick out of these "maximum IQ" posts. Chasing after maximum sharpness when so, so many things matter more than taking sharpness to the nth degree.

But, that said, tell us what tripod you plan to use as that will have more impact than minor variations in camera bodies.
 
My Canon L lenses are better on more advanced Canon SLR, because my favorite Canon SLR has plastic lens mount.
 
The fastest way to higher IQ is a format larger than 35mm, all things being equal. Shoot 4x5. I can’t focus on the grain when enlarging TMax100 because I can’t see it.
But... as other posters have noted, sharpness doesn’t make great photographs. I have no complaints with my fairly ancient Spotmatic and Takumar. It’s the eye behind the camera that counts.
 
Which camera produces best image quality is something digital photographers typically like to argue endlessly about, as there are hardwired digital sensors and processors involved. In film photography, you don't really have that issue.
 
Let me state : I bought two Nikon F80s! The F80 have some features (nearly ) of the F100!
And one of course can regard the F100 as a kind of F5/F6 "light version" - some of you folks
will protest soon - I know!
But piero2019 I can tell you this "very very " light" Nikon can give you the most value for the
much less money - in comparison with a Zeiss (Nikon mount) you can have your
"budged Sladge Hammer"!

with regards

PS : But the plastic....that isn't fine! My cameraback of first Nikon is broken!
Guess F100 has same plastic closure mechanism of camera back??????
 
piero2019 said:
So given good technique, it's best to invest in the lens than the camera?
Click to expand...

That was my thinking when I purchased my brand new Contax 139 back in the 80's. I bought it for the Zeiss lenses.

Of course good technique is way more important. Artistic vision is even more important. The best technique and best lens quality can't make a boring image look good.

The best place to put your money in is film. The more you shoot the better you get.
 
That was my thinking when I purchased my brand new Contax 139 back in the 80's. I bought it for the Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I did. I sold my X-700 and all my Minolta gear for that body and the 50/1.7 T*. Both owners of the lab I worked at shot Leica and going Contax was the cheapest way to get close to that. Actually I could have gone with a Yashica body and been a little cheaper. I certainly wouldn't have to be replacing the body wrap on the Contax as most everyone has done.

I fully agree, there are too many variables with chasing that maximum sharpness "rabbit down the rabbit hole". Once you start you will always be doing it. Some of my most favorite images from great photographers in the past weren't that sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register