First photos after 50 years in its case

[River Dog]

I bought a Bessa II today through the classifieds for £200 ($330). It's in great cosmetic condition. It belonged to the seller's father-in-law, who was a bit of a photographer, but passed away in 1983. The camera has not been used since 1961.

It will need some attention of course, but I thought it would be fun to run some film without cleaning it or anything - just load it and go. The b/w roll was first and you can probably see things easing up a little (focus and shutter) by the time I am through the colour roll.

Isn't photography quite magical sometimes?

All at ISO 100, 1/100 secs. f3.5-f5

 

[oftheherd]

Nice photos. That camera is always well spoken of here in RFF. The lens looks really sharp.

 

[kuzano]

Wow!!!

Wow!!!

SCORE!!!!

Great buy. If you keep exercising the shutter/aperture you may avoid a CLA altogether. It's obviously light tight as demonstrated by the bright daylight pics with no signs of light leaks. The rangefinder looks to be accurate.

If it turns out you really get hooked on MF 6X9, and if you sell this camera, that sale will be one of those deals you will always regret. Read that text over the church doorway... great lens.

Others who know what you have are somewhat green with envy at this point. It's a keeper.

Unless you photoshopped those images a lot, and if the meter settings - shutter speed - aperture - ASA were shot as indicated, I see nothing in those pictures indicating the need for service.

Now let me tell you my take on CLA's on these old camera's. If it ain't broke.... DON'T FIX IT! Certainly, don't CLA it, just because you think you'll be expanding it's life span. I've seen unnecessary CLA's turn a fine camera into a problem camera. Just don't do it, unless you encounter issues.

 

[River Dog]

>>If it ain't broke.... DON'T FIX IT!

Thanks, I wasn't going to send it off for a CLA, can't afford it anyway - just some of my own love and attention which is pretty minor stuff to be honest. So I agree with you 100%, my Rolleiflex has eased up and although a bit bashed about, it performs like it's brand new.

p.s. that church shot was the first shot.

 

[River Dog]

Unless you photoshopped those images a lot, and if the meter settings - shutter speed - aperture - ASA were shot as indicated, I see nothing in those pictures indicating the need for service.

The first roll were a tad overexposed, so turned them down in Photoshop. I put this down to a sticky shutter as the problem was not apparent in the colour shots, which have had very little adjustment in PS.

I'll gently exercise the controls manually before I try another roll. Thanks for the invaluable advice - as always.

 

[f16sunshine]

Congrats RD! Which lens does your camera have. I'm guessing the Skopar by one of the color pics. BTW they all look great .

 

[River Dog]

Congrats RD! Which lens does your camera have. I'm guessing the Skopar by one of the color pics. BTW they all look great .

Yep, give the man a cigar. They were just some quick test shots so no biggies in the creative department.

It's not as sharp as my Rolleiflex Planar but then it is kind of wearing in again, after all these years doing nothing. I hope to see improvements in the coming weeks.

It is so portable, a 6x9 that slips into my jacket pocket. That's just crazy.

 

[citizen99]

Congratulations on a stunning bargain 🙂.

 

[River Dog]

Well, after some exercising, a bit of cleaning and a couple more rolls of film I have concluded that it is in need of some adjustment beyond my capabilties. The focus is a little off, it is not sharp across the negative - falling off on one side, even at f11 and higher. The shutter speeds are slow, especially at the longer exposures and generally, it is not doing itself justice.

I have a quote from Newton Ellis in Liverpool for a CLA that is very reasonable, so I will be sending it away very soon. I'll report back in due course. So far, it is a camera I would like to keep but I need to see some improvements in exposure and focus or it will go on eBay.

 

[ZeissFan]

If it's not sharp across the negative, that's an indication that the lens isn't parallel to the film plane.

One of two possibilities:

- The camera was dropped at some point, knocking the lens out parallel. If the camera was dropped onto a carpeted floor, for example, you might not see physical damage.

- The lens yoke has some play in it or has been bent.

Whichever it is, shooting at a small aperture could be enough to compensate for this.

Good camera, and good work with the camera.

 

[River Dog]

That is my thinking, and I read that they also are prone to uneven pressure on the backplate - the springs are not great, apparently. So that is at least three possibilities. Worth a service to figure it out, I think.

You might be able to see what I mean in this shot. This was at f11 and I focussed on the log at the top middle. The focus is not that sharp and falls off to the left.

 

[shadowfox]

Good for you!
I had a Bessa RF + Heliar once, killer details for landscape shots.