bmattock
Veteran
My wife and I took today to drive up to Taos, New Mexico - of course, we took the requisite rangefinders, with my wife acting as willing sherpa and photographic model when the need arose!
The cameras (mostly new eBay finds, needing testing):
Yashica Lynx 5000. This has a nice 50mm Yashinon lens, f1.8.
Aires IIIL. Yep, another one. This one I had to take apart and repair, and the lens mount is still wiggly. Bummer.
Ricoh 500 BL. This is NOT the G, which is a nice compact rangefinder. No, this is the mighty 500-series with the full-size metal body and the bizarre trigger-wind at the bottom. I've got four of them now - two 519's, a 519M, and this 500. Had to see if the lens was as bad as Karen Nakamura says on her website. I don't think so - I like this one.
Agfa Karat IV. This is my second Agfa Karat IV. This one has the nice 2.0 Xenon lens. I had to take the top off and fix the rangefinder adjustment, never did that (successfully) before. But it seems all is well now. Nice and sharp, but suffers from horrible lens flare. Gotta get a shade for this one.
Voigtlander (Cosina) Bessa R. Took my Canon lenses - they seem a trifle less sharp than some of my others. However, I suspect that my big heavy Canon 85mm f1.9 is going to become a nice portrait lens - it's 'not sharp' in a nice way, especially wide-open.
Finally, I dug out my ancient trusy Yashica 635 TLR. Yes, I know it's not a rangefinder, but some of us were chatting about Yashinon vs Yashikor lenses here the other day, so it got me thinking about my old friend.
The Yashica 635 is different from all other TLRs, as far as I know. It came with a conversion kit that let you use a standard roll of 35mm film in it. This makes the Yashikor f3.5 3-element lens into a bit of a longer lens when used on 35mm. And since it take the middle of the normal 6x6 120 rollfilm frame, the edge-softness that the Yashikor is famous for is not present.
Can a 3-element Yashikor lens be sharp? I think so...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The cameras (mostly new eBay finds, needing testing):
Yashica Lynx 5000. This has a nice 50mm Yashinon lens, f1.8.
Aires IIIL. Yep, another one. This one I had to take apart and repair, and the lens mount is still wiggly. Bummer.
Ricoh 500 BL. This is NOT the G, which is a nice compact rangefinder. No, this is the mighty 500-series with the full-size metal body and the bizarre trigger-wind at the bottom. I've got four of them now - two 519's, a 519M, and this 500. Had to see if the lens was as bad as Karen Nakamura says on her website. I don't think so - I like this one.
Agfa Karat IV. This is my second Agfa Karat IV. This one has the nice 2.0 Xenon lens. I had to take the top off and fix the rangefinder adjustment, never did that (successfully) before. But it seems all is well now. Nice and sharp, but suffers from horrible lens flare. Gotta get a shade for this one.
Voigtlander (Cosina) Bessa R. Took my Canon lenses - they seem a trifle less sharp than some of my others. However, I suspect that my big heavy Canon 85mm f1.9 is going to become a nice portrait lens - it's 'not sharp' in a nice way, especially wide-open.
Finally, I dug out my ancient trusy Yashica 635 TLR. Yes, I know it's not a rangefinder, but some of us were chatting about Yashinon vs Yashikor lenses here the other day, so it got me thinking about my old friend.
The Yashica 635 is different from all other TLRs, as far as I know. It came with a conversion kit that let you use a standard roll of 35mm film in it. This makes the Yashikor f3.5 3-element lens into a bit of a longer lens when used on 35mm. And since it take the middle of the normal 6x6 120 rollfilm frame, the edge-softness that the Yashikor is famous for is not present.
Can a 3-element Yashikor lens be sharp? I think so...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
bill,
you seem to be the most 'on the go' guy i know.
what do you have for breakfast anyway?
i think it's great that you have energy to spare and a wife who shares your enthusiasm. is she also a photographer or just a 'willing sherpa'.
i look forward to your photo results.
joe
you seem to be the most 'on the go' guy i know.
what do you have for breakfast anyway?
i think it's great that you have energy to spare and a wife who shares your enthusiasm. is she also a photographer or just a 'willing sherpa'.
i look forward to your photo results.
joe
bmattock
Veteran
backalley photo said:
Thanks! I guess I don't really see it that way - I think I'm a lazy slug most of the time! But I've got all these cameras - I have to go out and take pictures, right?
I'm not really a big breakfast guy! Which is strange, since I'm very fat.
My wife has a camera I got for her - a Nikon 995, and she's good with it - but she is not the shutterbug that I am. But we try to combine our hobbies - she is into knitting and cross-stitching, and many of the places we visit 'just happen' to have a knitting or stitching store nearby!
Your wish is my command - here's a photo of my wife in Taos, enjoying her hobby! Camera was my newest Ricoh 500BL, film was Fuji Superia 400 (consumer grade), exposure was 1/250 @ 5.6.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Here's another shot with the Ricoh 500BL, this one is 1/125 @ f8.0.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
This is the Rio Grande Gorge, just outside of Taos, New Mexico. Camera was a Yashica Lynx 5000. Film was Kodak Gold 100, exposure was 1/125 @ f16.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Rio Puerco Bridge, just west of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Route 66 used to go over it, now it sits abandoned off to the side of I-40. One of the longest suspension bridges in New Mexico. Camera was Aires IIIL, film was Kodak Gold 100, exposure unrecorded. "Rio Puerco" means 'Pig River' literally...
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Taos Plaza, Taos New Mexico. This was taken of a second-story facade on a building in the plaza - very touristy, but I thought I'd try it anyway. Camera was my Voigtlander Bessa R, lens was circa 1953 Canon 85mm f1.9 chrome-plated monster, film was Fuji Superia 400, exposure was 1/1000 @ f8.0.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Last one!
Abandoned House, just north east of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Camera was Agfa Karat IV, (f2.0 Xenon lens), film was Kodak C-41 B&W 400 consumer film. Exposure was 1/100 @ f5.6.
Abandoned House, just north east of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Camera was Agfa Karat IV, (f2.0 Xenon lens), film was Kodak C-41 B&W 400 consumer film. Exposure was 1/100 @ f5.6.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
some nice shots there bill, thanks!
a little off topic but...how do you like your bessa r. i was looking at the r2 the other day but started to think about the r. i'm thinking if i got either one i would use it only with a 35mm lens, a one camera/lens combo only. then i thought if i did that it wouldn't matter if i had the screw mount as i wound never be changing lenses and it would not be a bother to 'screw' as opposed to 'mount' different lenses.
i've read that the r2 is more metal and 'feels' a bit more substantial.
what's your experience with the r been like.
tia,
joe
a little off topic but...how do you like your bessa r. i was looking at the r2 the other day but started to think about the r. i'm thinking if i got either one i would use it only with a 35mm lens, a one camera/lens combo only. then i thought if i did that it wouldn't matter if i had the screw mount as i wound never be changing lenses and it would not be a bother to 'screw' as opposed to 'mount' different lenses.
i've read that the r2 is more metal and 'feels' a bit more substantial.
what's your experience with the r been like.
tia,
joe
bmattock
Veteran
Joe,
I like the Bessa R just fine, thanks! I read a lot about it before dropping the dimes - and got lucky on eBay, a camera shop in Florida had a like-new R body with the accessory grip for $185 buy-it-now and I went for it. Haven't been sorry at all.
I have no problem with the body construction - feels substantial enough for me. Some of my older/heavier LTM lenses are not too well balanced on the body, but I have adopted a modified Weaver stance that works for me - but I'm a big guy, big hands. I just pretend it's an M-16 and practice my BRASS methods. Works for automatic weapons as well as cameras!
I have been having a lot of fun with lenses - I find that at the moment, I'm prefering to use a 50mm or 85/90mm lens. I may have to get the 75 CV lens at some point - 50 seems too short, 90 too long at times. 75mm should be just right (I hope).
I have a 35mm Canon f2.8, but find I don't use it much. I really tend to like to get in amongst things, so a short telephoto works really well for me. I don't plan on buying anything wider than the 35 I have now.
However, I might buy the Canon FD to LTM adapter - I have a Vivitar 19mm ultra-wide that I could use once in a while on the Bessa - no rangefinder coupling, but with a lens that wide, who cares? Everything is in focus darn near all the time anyway, and when are you going to use a 19mm NOT at infinity?
But getting back to the Bessa R body - I like it just fine. Does not feel flimsy, great viewfinder, rangefinder patch the best I've ever used - bar none. I didn't want the R2 body because I have no desire to buy m-mount lenses. Yes, I could get LTM to M adapters, but then what's the point of that when I could get a LTM body? I'm cheap, I want lenses that cost less than $100.
I had a Canon T-60 FD-mount SLR body (the one made by Cosina that everybody hated except me). It is the same camera, with the pentaprism hump cut off. I've told a few people who claim to want to know where Cosina got the body style for the Bessa series, but they've ignored me - I guess they really don't want to know that the Bessa R is really just a slightly-modified Canon T-60 made by Cosina. Maybe because everyone complained about how sucky the T-60 was - the ugly stepchild of the T-series. But believe me, it's the same camera. I could take the back off my T-60 and put it right on the Bessa, no changes.
I laughed when I saw the film indicator on the back of the Bessa and heard what people wrote about it - "nice idea" and "great concept, why didn't anyone think of this before", etc. Yeah, when the T-60 had it (circa 1985 or so), people wrote that it was a cheesy little gimmick that would probably leak light. LOL!
I gave the T-60 to my nephew for Christmas this year, or I'd post a few pictures of them side-by-side. What a riot.
Final suggestion - consider that right now, if you buy a Bessa R body cheaply enough (meaning, not at retail), and you decide you don't like it, you can easily get your money back by selling it, right? No real depreciation at the moment, so not much risk unless you drop or break it or something.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I like the Bessa R just fine, thanks! I read a lot about it before dropping the dimes - and got lucky on eBay, a camera shop in Florida had a like-new R body with the accessory grip for $185 buy-it-now and I went for it. Haven't been sorry at all.
I have no problem with the body construction - feels substantial enough for me. Some of my older/heavier LTM lenses are not too well balanced on the body, but I have adopted a modified Weaver stance that works for me - but I'm a big guy, big hands. I just pretend it's an M-16 and practice my BRASS methods. Works for automatic weapons as well as cameras!
I have been having a lot of fun with lenses - I find that at the moment, I'm prefering to use a 50mm or 85/90mm lens. I may have to get the 75 CV lens at some point - 50 seems too short, 90 too long at times. 75mm should be just right (I hope).
I have a 35mm Canon f2.8, but find I don't use it much. I really tend to like to get in amongst things, so a short telephoto works really well for me. I don't plan on buying anything wider than the 35 I have now.
However, I might buy the Canon FD to LTM adapter - I have a Vivitar 19mm ultra-wide that I could use once in a while on the Bessa - no rangefinder coupling, but with a lens that wide, who cares? Everything is in focus darn near all the time anyway, and when are you going to use a 19mm NOT at infinity?
But getting back to the Bessa R body - I like it just fine. Does not feel flimsy, great viewfinder, rangefinder patch the best I've ever used - bar none. I didn't want the R2 body because I have no desire to buy m-mount lenses. Yes, I could get LTM to M adapters, but then what's the point of that when I could get a LTM body? I'm cheap, I want lenses that cost less than $100.
I had a Canon T-60 FD-mount SLR body (the one made by Cosina that everybody hated except me). It is the same camera, with the pentaprism hump cut off. I've told a few people who claim to want to know where Cosina got the body style for the Bessa series, but they've ignored me - I guess they really don't want to know that the Bessa R is really just a slightly-modified Canon T-60 made by Cosina. Maybe because everyone complained about how sucky the T-60 was - the ugly stepchild of the T-series. But believe me, it's the same camera. I could take the back off my T-60 and put it right on the Bessa, no changes.
I laughed when I saw the film indicator on the back of the Bessa and heard what people wrote about it - "nice idea" and "great concept, why didn't anyone think of this before", etc. Yeah, when the T-60 had it (circa 1985 or so), people wrote that it was a cheesy little gimmick that would probably leak light. LOL!
I gave the T-60 to my nephew for Christmas this year, or I'd post a few pictures of them side-by-side. What a riot.
Final suggestion - consider that right now, if you buy a Bessa R body cheaply enough (meaning, not at retail), and you decide you don't like it, you can easily get your money back by selling it, right? No real depreciation at the moment, so not much risk unless you drop or break it or something.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I agree with Bill on the cheeziness factor; I have the Bessa-L which is even cheaper. Pretty much an R with the range/viewfinder missing. But it's fine with me as it works very well, light & handy. It cost about the same as a good bayonet mount adaptor, so could be considered a handy rear cap for a thread-mount lens with a light meter and a niftly place to store a roll of film!
It's no Leica-M, but then it doesn't pretend to be either.
It's no Leica-M, but then it doesn't pretend to be either.
back alley
IMAGES
thanks guys!
joe
joe
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Hey Bill, excellent photos. I liked the sharpness of the Ricoh 500BL a lot - and the colour rendering by the Aires IIIL is excellent.
Thanks for showing.
Thanks for showing.
oftheherd
Veteran
All great photos. Thanks for sharing. I especially liked the one of the abondoned house. Good job getting the inside and outside close in exposure.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Impressive stuff, Bill... You make me green with envy. All that energy and fun! Keep them coming!
taffer
void
That's true Bill, you're a really active photog! Nice work, and even better with your history comments about each place.
Yep, keep the photo trips coming !
Oscar
Yep, keep the photo trips coming !
Oscar