image quality vs camera price (given the same lens)

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

the more money you spend,the better your images will be; a fact since 1839! and $10,000 later, I still can't prove it.

 

[Alan Gales]

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.

I originally started with a Canon AV-1 which was a display model at the store I worked at. After I learned a bit I wanted a camera that I could manually change the shutter speeds. I asked a girl at work who was known for her photography. She owned a Leica and an RB67 and recommended me buying Leitz or Zeiss glass.

I was going to buy a Yashica myself but it was at Christmas time and they had a great sale with a 139, 50/1.7 and TLA 20 flash. It was a deal that I couldn't pass up.

My body wrap disintegrated too. They told me that they could send it to Contax for a replacement of the same material so I just did without. Eventually, I found an inexpensive wrap made of different material online and recovered it myself.

Truth be told, those Canon and Minolta lenses as well as other manufacturers were pretty darn good too. They used to say if you wanted ultimate sharpness then move up in format!

 

[abruzzi]

I’m curious, looking at the question from more theoretical ground, what specific aspects of the camera design do have a direct impact on image quality. Off the top of my head these are the ones I came up with:

• Film flatness
• Focus accuracy (range finder calibration, or mirror and focus screen on an SLR)
• Mounting flange correct distance and parallel to film plane (though I’ve never heard of an issue with this except old folders with worn struts)
• Vibrations introduced by the shutter/mirror mechanism.
• Light reflections behind the lens

I left off shutter speed accuracy since thats more an issue with getting the right exposure than image quality, but it may belong on the list.

What else?

 

[grahamp]

At a secondary level, ergonomics can play a part, even with a tripod-bound camera. Ease and clarity of settings, location of controls all go to influence the stress on the operator. The operator is always the weakest link! One nice thing about the Olympus OM1/2 was that the rewind control was not on the base, so the camera could stay on the tripod during a film change. Not easy to measure quantitatively, though.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
What else?

Perhaps weight, but that aspect affects vibration, which you've already mentioned.

A subjective factor may be how easy the camera is to hold: how well it can be cradled and supported. Another factor might be how smooth or predictable the shutter release is (again a vibration / steadiness issue).

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, I thought of those as subjective factors, but they can certainly play a part.

 

[naaldvoerder]

Only body related things I can think of...
- Proper positioning of focusingscreen
- Mirror lock-up

I do own the RTS III with vacuum plate. Apparently some film stock is more curly then others. And there is a rumor that film that is positioned in the felt bit of the film cartridge for a while, is more uneven. This would be the third frame after the camera with film in it hasn't been used for a while. In combination with small depth of field the vacuum is supposed to be benificial. In practice I have never seen it proven.

 

[abruzzi]

That’s similar to the claim on 6x4.5 cameras that fit 16 shots to a roll on a tight bend film insert—if the film sits un-shot for a while, the bend is kinked into the film. Then the next shot moved that kink to the middle of the frame. The 15 shot cameras supposedly didn’t suffer from this because the moved the film a little farther, so the kink was out of frame.

 

[Eric Rose]

If you want sharp photos then get a GOOD tripod and USE it. I have used Nikon, Canon, Leica and Minolta professionally and all produced sharp images if I did my job. Within those manufacturers I used both pro level cameras and cheap ones as well. On the subject of image sharpness all were the same. Some could take a beating others couldn't.