Bessa for landscape?

Z

zanef2.8

Established
Local time
9:00 PM
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
93
Has anybody used the Bessa for landscape photos?

My next question is, if so, have you ever used graduated neutral density filters on wide angle lenses like 15, 21 or 25 CV or Zeiss lenses?

I don't mind having to guess the amount of graduation required, but will the Cokin Z-Pro filters be large enough to cover the angle of view of the 15 and 21??

Thinking of getting a 15 or 21 and your advice will be greatly appreciated.

Would be nice if you post a landscape photo taken by Bessa also.

Thanks!
 
I've used my R with the 28mm 3.5 Skopar for landscapes, and have been happy. I don't shoot wider than 28mm, so I can't really address the rest.
 
Of course you can take landscapes with a Bessa. Here´s an example:

3027731624_1bdb4f644f_o.jpg


Given that I have only a 35 ultron I can´t help you with your question about ND-Filters.
 
Rangefinders are good at some things and not so good at others. Frankly, trying to use any sort of graduated filter (whilst theoretically possible) will prove to be a regular pain in the butt.
You won't be sure of the coverage and you won't be sure of the exposure.
Use an SLR. They're much better suited to what you propose - or just use the Bessa WA without filters.
 
of course theyre good for landscape!! most of my r3a shots are landscape and came out beautifully with fuji reala. 80% taken with 15mm and rest with 25snapshot. both very sharp glass for your money. paid 225au for mint 25mm, and $500 new for 15mm with bessa L. i'll link some flickr pics tomorrow. id be more worried about using a cokin with the 15 cause the lens hood is flower shaped and might cause some reflection through the gaps between filter and hood.
 
I think you can use every lens for landscapes. Some are more versitale, some are less. IMHO 35 mm are often - not always - better than 21 or 15mm because objects that are far away will be very, very small, often too small with an wide angle lens.
See my example.
 
I use a rangefinder for landscapes (in fact my M2 is getting used for everything now, except some telephoto work) -- yes it's Leica but hooey, the principle is same Bessa or Leica.

When you say 35mm do you mean as in film size or aspect ratio.

In answer, Yes and Yes.

I have churned out many a very very pleasing frame with 35mm film for landscape, black and white, colour and slide, and that includes with the M2. Sure resolution is not as good as MF (120) but with a tripod and an ISO 50 (Velvia or PanF) or 100 (Velvia 100/100F, Provia, E100VS/EBX, Delta 100 or FP4) I have printed 16x12's and been very happy, and I'm sure I could go further. Even with ISO 400 (Tri X and HP5+ mostly) I have printed 16x12's happily.

If you mean aspect ratio - this is a deeply personal thing. I know some whos creativity depends on an ultra wide angle (24mm and below) and others for whom life outside of 50mm is not considered. I found the 35mm focal length to be the one I naturally found comfort with. It's not that wide so as to make the extremes of your frame bow outwards but that bit wider than 50mm to make a very pleasing landscape shot. 35mm is for me my standard lens.

I use a Leica M2 and Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 and I couldn't be happier. It literally is the very best bit of picture making kit I have ever had and it's chucking out quality results all the time.

I'm also looking at getting the Lee RF75 filter system, not cheap (well compared to Cokin A/P) but it looks very usable. Not as accurate as a SLR based filter system where you will get the very best accuracy but if like me you find your self using soft ND2/4 (0.3/0.6 or 1 to 2 stop compensation) GNDs you should be fine with something like the RF75 system, it's decent from my testing and on hikes it beats toting around my C330F TLR or EOS 3 hands down - as much as I love both, toting medium format cameras for over 100 miles is not a small undertaking.

The framing isn't as pin point accurate as SLRs but even those except the EOS 1's and Nikon F5/6's (and many others) don't have 100% viewfinders, my EOS 3 is about 97% so a little cropping can even happen.

I can't say you'll enjoy it and love it as much as I do but I adore using my 35mm rangefinder for landscapes as much as I do for gig photography, family, portraits -- you name it, it does it :)
 
ZM C Biogon 21/4.5 on a Bessa T!!!
Or a ZM C Biogon 35/2.8...
The Planar 50/2 is actually a fantastic lens for landscape.
I like that example above from mora!
 
Almost all of the great mountain climbing shots and vistas are taken with 35mm film. Anything larger is just impractical for climbers. Some of these are among the greatest "landscapes" you will find anywhere. A rangefinder is as good as any 35mm camera for this, perhaps better, because of its small size. The one exception is long telephoto climbing shots, where an slr will prevail for obvious reasons.

/T
 
That 35mm shot above seems quite wide! Beautiful colour indeed

So, 15 is probably restricted with landscape shooting. It's probably too wide, like any other wide angle lenses.
 
I've used Bessa and Leicas for landscapes, check my gallery, there are lots of them.

I think RFs are great for this purpose, and have been used historically for it as well. I love the fact that I can hand-hold with reasonable resolution at normal conditions (golden minutes, @ 1/250 and up). Also, its easy to carry a larger kit around (2 bodies and 3-4 lenses), even in my motorcycle's saddlebags. My current favorite lenses for this stuff are the 28/3.5 Color Skopar and the 50/2.8 M-Elmar.

Best,

Roland.
 
I suspect that what mora means is that if you can do landscape work with a Leica or a Contax or a Rolleicord or a Hasselblad, or with any camera you care to name, you can jolly well do it with a Bessa. It's been said often enough that a camera is only a box that holds film (or plates). The lens is what counts. Lilserenity (Vicky?) and others are perfectly correct in saying that landscape does not necessarily mean a super-wide. The famed "Mountain Elmar" was actually designed to produce landscapes which looked like the view through binoculars.

Graduated ND filters work well only with level horizons. You might consider a polariser instead.
 
First of all I agree in what you said, payasam.
But in addition I mean you can use not only every camera, but also nearly every lens to take landscape pictures! If you take a picture of a mountain far, far away you could use either a big tele to take a "head-portrait" of this mountain. Or you use a very-wide-angle-lens to show the environment of this mountain, the puddle with a reflection of the mountain, a farm some kilometers in front of it...
It´s always a matter of what you like to express with a picture.


PS: Thanks for the comments concerning my picture!

PPS: I apologise for my bad english and the misunderstandings resulting from that!
 
If your primary usage for the camera is landscapes, an RF is not the best tool, but you can certainly make nice landscape photos within it's limitations.

All of the photos in the Flickr set linked below were taken with a Bessa R2A, 35mm f/2.5 PII, and a 50mm f/2 Heliar classic. I chose to carry that camera on a backpacking trip because of the small size, light weight, and sharp glass. The small size and light weight also let me get away with a much smaller tripod. I took a 1.9lb Slik Sprint Pro and it worked just fine, with some care. However, I was not able to use a split ND or a polarizer, and there are quite a few shots which would have benefited greatly from it. Because of that, I now use a small SLR kit, which barely weighs any more and allows much easier use of filters. Small manual focus SLR kits can be bought very cheaply these days.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photophore/sets/72157602213074978/

Paul
 
Mora - is that photo taken near Munich by any chance? It reminds me a lot of scenery I've seen there, but of course could be other parts of Germany.
 
You can use any camera for landscapes. I'm currently (still) working through 1000 slides from 1995 which are mostly landscape and wre shot on a Canon AE-1. I shoot landscapes with my ZI, which is practially no different from a Bessa for this purpose and with the dslrs. All can deliver pictures I like.

Any focal length can be used - again depends what you're looking to achieve. I'm probably not very adventurous as I tend to like 35 and 50 lenses, but have a bit of fun with the 15 heliar sometimes and teles on others.

35mm colour film will not give you the resolution or print size of high pixel count dslrs, but that doesn't stop you making nice pictures.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom