pstevenin
Established
http://mikesimagination.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/voigtlander-bessa-3-a-mini-review/
I'm still trying to have mine....
I'm still trying to have mine....
An other Bessa III mini review.
- Thread starter pstevenin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 4K
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Good review. 🙂
Interesting you should mention the aperture ring because I actually found that a little annoying on the Bessa I used. I couldn't fault much else with the camera though ... the AE function which I generally don't use much on any camera was exceptional in the folder's case I thought. Pity they're so expensive because I believe it will penalize sales in the long run once the novelty value wears off ... and I believe it has already to some extent!
Prior to the release of the camera the forum had several busy threads just buzzing with speculation about how good it would be and how much it may cost and now that it's actually here this thread like numerous others will barely cause a ripple in a sea of dross about the M9! 🙁
Interesting you should mention the aperture ring because I actually found that a little annoying on the Bessa I used. I couldn't fault much else with the camera though ... the AE function which I generally don't use much on any camera was exceptional in the folder's case I thought. Pity they're so expensive because I believe it will penalize sales in the long run once the novelty value wears off ... and I believe it has already to some extent!
Prior to the release of the camera the forum had several busy threads just buzzing with speculation about how good it would be and how much it may cost and now that it's actually here this thread like numerous others will barely cause a ripple in a sea of dross about the M9! 🙁
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
Mine is already on the way and will hopefully get here by the end of the week 🙂
Of course I, like everyone else, would've liked it to be a bit cheaper but I don't think the price will really penalize sales. It's a limited production afterall so a lower price would only make it sell out faster but not bring them more money. Besides, compared to other new medium format equipment it's not that expensive anyway. A new Hasselblad 503cw without lens or back costs about $500 more.
There will always be a lot of people discussing the latest digital M but only a fraction of them will really buy one. OTOH, I think a lot of the people participating in Bessa III threads have one or consider buying one at some point.
btw, it baffles me how people scream "overpriced" when a $2k medium format film camera gets released but will seriously consider paying $7k for an M9. In five years the Bessa III will probably still bring around $1800 on the used market. I'd be surprised if the M9 could be sold for more than $3k five years from now.
Of course I, like everyone else, would've liked it to be a bit cheaper but I don't think the price will really penalize sales. It's a limited production afterall so a lower price would only make it sell out faster but not bring them more money. Besides, compared to other new medium format equipment it's not that expensive anyway. A new Hasselblad 503cw without lens or back costs about $500 more.
There will always be a lot of people discussing the latest digital M but only a fraction of them will really buy one. OTOH, I think a lot of the people participating in Bessa III threads have one or consider buying one at some point.
btw, it baffles me how people scream "overpriced" when a $2k medium format film camera gets released but will seriously consider paying $7k for an M9. In five years the Bessa III will probably still bring around $1800 on the used market. I'd be surprised if the M9 could be sold for more than $3k five years from now.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I agree that the reaction to the price has been extreme ... the reason I would like it to be cheaper is entirely for selfish personal reasons! 😛
The Bessa in five years should be working as the day it was bought ... the M9 maybe not and we both know which one will be cheaper to repair when something does go wrong! 😀
pstevenin
Established
I just received a lovely phone call from the retailer here and the gear should be there before end of the Week. I'll trade it for some cash and a VHR+lenses and perhaps some M WA lenses I do not use much. Expect to have some classifieds here next week. I will probably reduce leica gear to M8+35/1.2 75/2 APO and perhaps 50/1.4 pre-asph. M6-ttl already gone + a 90/2...
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
We all saw the collector's value of the Bessa III and its brother, especially after the production numbers were quoted, no question about that. For a user based on MF film it is an expensive camera. If there had been a written statement by Fuji that it will have the same film catalogue + labs in 5>10 years time as there are on the day of the camera purchase then potential users would have had one worry less. The Bessa III could have been made 5>10 years ago, the technoloy it needed was available then, the same period I started to use old MF folders in expectation of digital cameras that would offer small size, versatility and a similar image quality. They are around now in several shapes and at prices below the Bessa III and the M9 price. I wouldn't seriously consider an M8 or an M9 at that price and given the M8 flaws anyone should wait till DPreview, DxO, Colorfoto tested the M9. Collectors not included.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Jamie123
Veteran
I think too many people have this irrational fear about film dying. It may or may not happen at some point but probably not within the next 10 years and definitely not within the next 5. Too much of an industry still depends on film.
Sure, maybe the consumer labs will stop processing film but I use pro labs anyway. Maybe some emulsions will be discontinued but I try to stick with Portra for color and Delta or TMax for bw. Should they become discontinued I will find something else.
In the past five years there were no dramatical changes in the emulsion landscape except the death of Polaroid. A few tungsten films, some obscure b/w emulsions and Kodachrome were discontinued and everytime something like this happens people get nostalgic and start whining about how great this film was, even though they haven't shot a roll of it in 10 years (except Polaroid which had quite a loyal following).
By the way, I don't know what you mean by a digital in a small size with similar results. There's no compact digital that comes even remotely close to 6x7 film. The digital compacts with the biggest sensors (e.g. Leica X1) are still only APS-C and we have yet to see how the results are.
I do admit, though, that my personal reason for going with the Bessa III is closely related to digital. I recently bought a Canon 5DII which has made me leave my Hasselblad kit at home more and more often. Not because of image quality but because of it's lighter weight and ease of use. I have realized that, unless I replace the Hasselblad kit with something more portable, I will shoot less and less film. At the same time I realized that film still wins over digital for a lot of applications so I didn't want to give it up.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
The 5D II with the 24-105 is 1.7 kg. I do not find it heavy. When I have the Iskra + the Bessa I or Monitor 620 with me I have a similar weight. The 5D II does a lot more than the two combined. Not just the variation of lens angles, and all the nifty exposure/color controls. A compact folder is for me a point and shoot instrument, at most I will use a chainpod to stabilise that camera and use a relatively fast film. The IS of today's cameras isn't present in an MF folder with an 80 or 105 mm lens, even with a smooth shutter. Carrying a monopod or tripod and an MF folder is something I can not grasp. We are not writing about 8x10 landscape cameras in this thread.
On image quality I always wonder what equipment users have to reach the point where the 40 sq cm of a 6x7 frames is fully exploited, Darkroom wise, enlarger, trays etc. Digital wise, the scanner, the printer width. I have the Nikon 8000 scanner and an HP Z3200 44" available. Print 3'x3' of the Iskra scans and that kind of sizes from better MF cameras as print jobs for customers. Similar quality is possible with the 5D II, D3x. I print them too.
There is quite a difference between showing some JPEGs on the Rangefinderforum and having prints of that size next to one another.
If someone doesn't have the tools like that and will not print larger than A3+ sizes then there are plenty of digital camera solutions available that will deliver the quality needed. That do not exceed 1 kg in weight. The more compact 4/3, APS, mirrorless cameras are getting better too. It wouldn't surprise me when Cosina makes the successor to the Epson RD1. It has to as the Olys, Panas, Samsung, will give that market segment enough solutions. Even if you like to mount M lenses or Cosina's range of M and LTM.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
pstevenin
Established
It is far from being only a matter of print size.
1°) Film dynamics vs sensor dynamics and the associated choice when you scan in 16bit in the appropriated range after shooting
IMHO, M8 or D3 sensors are still far form B&W (I use the three of them)
2°) Film rendition
You can emulate b&W from digital, like high end audio simulate instrument rendition, but even if acceptable, it is still far from being identical (either for the picture or music (i'm a serious harpsichord and recorder player...)). I agree I've stopped 135 (except an oly Mju II for portability) and I am concentrating shooting film in MF which generally outshine my M8 pictures (iso 320 or 160 with either modern lenses 75/2 APO or older ones 50/1.4,...) by far even in A3+
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Okay, I'd like BOTH an M9 and a Bessa III 😀
Don't have right now a hope of getting either.
I loved using the Bessa III when I tried it, much more than any other medium format RF I've tried (the compact size factor won out for me).
Don't have right now a hope of getting either.
I loved using the Bessa III when I tried it, much more than any other medium format RF I've tried (the compact size factor won out for me).
Jamie123
Veteran
Firstly, the 5DII with a 24-105 (which I have) is, as you stated, almost twice the weight of the Bessa III and is also a bit larger (as it doesn't fold). But that's not really the point as I'm not claiming the Bessa to be much more portable than the Canon. However, calling a ~2kg camera with a large zoom lens small really begs the question what you are comparing it with.
Anyways, for me the Canon does not replace mf film. The resolution is more than enough but the DR and tonal gradations are still way better with film. On a sunny day with a contrasty scene I prefer to use film. I can shoot a backlit subject with no flash and still retain the blue color of the sky while digital gives me a white, blown out sky. There are other occasions, of course, where I prefer to use digital like e.g. in the studio or indoors when I need to go up to ISO800.
The Bessa, for me, has no collector's value at all. What it does is give me the possibility to have a fairly compact 6x7 film camera that is portable enough so that I can use it alongside my 5Dii.
btw, I use a Nikon 9000 to scan and hardly ever print. However, even web size jpegs look better if scanned with the Nikon than with an Epson 4990 (which I used before).
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
B&W dynamic range in print
B&W dynamic range in print
Do a Google with for example "B&W dynamic range in print" and read what is in practice possible with film and digital, from capture to compression in the print.
With the dynamic range of 11-13.5 available in the recent (high) resolution sensors there is hardly a difference to normal B&W film use. Where it lacks in dynamic range both processes have to take the HDR route as the one capture, special development treatment is even more obscure and hardly the practice of folder camera use. Not to mention how to compress a theoretical 20 stops adequately in an analogue print. Digital B&W printing meanwhile sets the standard on handling tone values.
And grain is noise despite its appeal.
This is going way beyond the topic of this thread. It is a discussion that had some value 5 years ago, is no longer interesting today and will be absolutely boring within the next 5 years.
I'm in this forum mainly for the rangefinder aspect, a concept that I think will keep its value within the digital era, I could be wrong on that though. Film has some advantages (and appeal) but the qualities are usually way overrated in this forum.
I've sketched here and in other threads that a choice for the Bessa III has more aspects than simply adding a camera to the existing gear, that information gives another perspective on its price. To compare it to a product like the M9 isn't making the choice wiser. May be a nice argument to convince your partner but not here.
Anyone is free to buy gadgets or luxury products but to declare the rest of the crowd as not able to make up their mind on the price is stretching it too far.
BTW, that 5D MK II could get a version of 50mm lenses mounted or a 35mm 2.0. The weight, size, price and lens angle more related to the Bessa III.
Ernst Dinkla
B&W dynamic range in print
Do a Google with for example "B&W dynamic range in print" and read what is in practice possible with film and digital, from capture to compression in the print.
With the dynamic range of 11-13.5 available in the recent (high) resolution sensors there is hardly a difference to normal B&W film use. Where it lacks in dynamic range both processes have to take the HDR route as the one capture, special development treatment is even more obscure and hardly the practice of folder camera use. Not to mention how to compress a theoretical 20 stops adequately in an analogue print. Digital B&W printing meanwhile sets the standard on handling tone values.
And grain is noise despite its appeal.
This is going way beyond the topic of this thread. It is a discussion that had some value 5 years ago, is no longer interesting today and will be absolutely boring within the next 5 years.
I'm in this forum mainly for the rangefinder aspect, a concept that I think will keep its value within the digital era, I could be wrong on that though. Film has some advantages (and appeal) but the qualities are usually way overrated in this forum.
I've sketched here and in other threads that a choice for the Bessa III has more aspects than simply adding a camera to the existing gear, that information gives another perspective on its price. To compare it to a product like the M9 isn't making the choice wiser. May be a nice argument to convince your partner but not here.
Anyone is free to buy gadgets or luxury products but to declare the rest of the crowd as not able to make up their mind on the price is stretching it too far.
BTW, that 5D MK II could get a version of 50mm lenses mounted or a 35mm 2.0. The weight, size, price and lens angle more related to the Bessa III.
Ernst Dinkla
Stephen Best
Newbie
Excuse me if I burst in on this forum, but what is it with you Ernst? You hang out on the Epson Yahoo forum (and elsewhere) telling people over and over how great your HP printer is. Now I see you're here telling people how great your Canon is. People make their own gear choices for any number of reasons and only have to justify the decision to themselves. I think the Bessa III is a great little camera. Others may make different choices ... I can live with this. I don't feel an incessant need to justify my purchases to others as you do. Is this insecurity?
Jamie123
Veteran
I shoot 95% color neg (when I shoot film) so I don't really care about googling "bw dynamic range in print".
Anyways, I'm not nostalgic about film. I don't do darkroom prints either. I scan and then bring into photoshop for processing. If the output of digital cameras was identical with a scan of film I would stop using the latter completely. In fact, if I could afford a good digital mf back I might also consider giving up film. Until then I will shoot both.
I don't know if people on this forum are overrating the advantages of film. I know I'm not. Film and processing is expensive and scanning is a huge pain.
I really don't understand what you're going on about here. Firstly, no one is even remotely comparing the Bessa to the M9 in regards to their performance. The point was that the Bessa will hold most of it's value over the next few years while the M9 will almost certainly be worth less than 50% of it's current price on the used market. Yet I see people selling every piece of their gear plus their grandmother to finance an M9 and not once question whether it may be a bit overpriced.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Stephen,
After reading your message I thought I needed to be examined by a shrink. Instead I went to my archive of the Epson Wide Format and checked the 100 messages I wrote on that list in 2009. There is a 10% of the messages that refer to the HP Z models and not all of them positive. The rest are replies to help people with Epsons based on my experience with them and the software to drive them. Anyone familiar with my contributions in scanner and printer forums knows that I write down cons and pros of the equipment I use and how I deal with the issues in practice.
I don't see that Canon boasting here either. It is the camera I have and use but there are similar and possibly better ones around.
But I will no spoil the party here anymore.
Ernst Dinkla
Similar threads
