Huck Finn
Well-known
For those who own both a Leica (or Hexar RF) & a Bessa, in what ways does the longer baseline benefit normal 28 - 50 mm photography, exclusive of wide apertures - & obviously exclusive of telephoto lenses. Thanks.
Leica vs Bessa
- Thread starter Huck Finn
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 2K
Sonnar Brian
Established
I do not have a Bessa, but I do have a Retina IIIS and variety of other short baseline cameras. Longer baselengths are not required for wide-angle and smaller aperture lenses. Telephoto lenses, wide-aperture, anything were the focus-error is not "in-the-noise" of the DOF is where the longer baseline is required. The Retina IIIS never gives a problem with its F1.9 50mm lens. The 85mm F4 is no problem. There is nothing in the Consina lens line-up that presents a problem to their line. But note that the telephoto lenses are "slow" at F3.5, the fastest 50 is F1.5, and the really fast lenses are wide-angles. Put a 85mm F2 onto a Bessa R and it might be a push-it used wide-open and close-up. Same with a 50mm F1.2.
If you do not plan on using those lenses, you are not losing anything.
If you do not plan on using those lenses, you are not losing anything.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
My limited experience with a short-base length camera like a Retina IIIS and a 135mm lens showed me that I can't handle it very well. The viewfinder image and is just too small for my eyes to focus the camera accurately enough to work within the narrow depth of field.
My personal preference is to use an SLR for focal lengths over 100mm.
It's not solely equipment limitations that will do you in. It can also be human limitations like eyesight too.
-Paul
My personal preference is to use an SLR for focal lengths over 100mm.
It's not solely equipment limitations that will do you in. It can also be human limitations like eyesight too.
-Paul
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
pshinkaw said:
And thats where nice bright framelines and patch help alot.
Todd
l.mar
Well-known
Originally posted by pshinkaw
"It's not solely equipment limitations that will do you in. It can also be human limitations like eyesight too."
-Paul
Exactly why I bought a Bessa-T with the adjustable diopter, to back up my M-3.
(In denial about needing bifocals).🙁
"It's not solely equipment limitations that will do you in. It can also be human limitations like eyesight too."
-Paul
Exactly why I bought a Bessa-T with the adjustable diopter, to back up my M-3.
(In denial about needing bifocals).🙁
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I.mar
That is another reason why I like my old screw mount Leicas. I have no trouble focussing my old 135 Hecktor but then it is a slow lens. I think that a longer baseline might be of benefit with faster teles but not wide to normal lenses.
Bob
That is another reason why I like my old screw mount Leicas. I have no trouble focussing my old 135 Hecktor but then it is a slow lens. I think that a longer baseline might be of benefit with faster teles but not wide to normal lenses.
Bob
K
kruskee
Guest
Leica vs Bessa
As a former R2 owner (I had two) and now M6 .85 owner, I have to say I notice a significant difference in focusing accuracy between the two. I found it difficult to consistently focus my 90/2.8 and 75/2.5 with the Bessa (in spite of taking great care), but now routinely work with them on the M6. I also work successfully with a 135/3.5 with the M6. Even my 50/2 wide open up close was sometimes a challenge with the Bessa. I now happily use a 50/1.4 with the Leica. BTW, my vision is fine.
The Bessa's focusing accuracy was fine with 35, 28 and 21mm lenses though.
IMHO, the rangefinder baselength of the Bessas is a major limitation for use of fast/long lenses. It was a deal-breaker for me, and I was disappointed to see it was not addressed with their (otherwise very attractive) new models. If CV would address this shortcoming, I'd be happy to save a pile of money and own their cameras again.
No sweat with the wider lenses, though.
That's my 2 cents worth.
As a former R2 owner (I had two) and now M6 .85 owner, I have to say I notice a significant difference in focusing accuracy between the two. I found it difficult to consistently focus my 90/2.8 and 75/2.5 with the Bessa (in spite of taking great care), but now routinely work with them on the M6. I also work successfully with a 135/3.5 with the M6. Even my 50/2 wide open up close was sometimes a challenge with the Bessa. I now happily use a 50/1.4 with the Leica. BTW, my vision is fine.
The Bessa's focusing accuracy was fine with 35, 28 and 21mm lenses though.
IMHO, the rangefinder baselength of the Bessas is a major limitation for use of fast/long lenses. It was a deal-breaker for me, and I was disappointed to see it was not addressed with their (otherwise very attractive) new models. If CV would address this shortcoming, I'd be happy to save a pile of money and own their cameras again.
No sweat with the wider lenses, though.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Leica vs Bessa
You are right, long and fast isn't the Bessa's cup of tea.
I am interested kruskee, how is the 35mm frameline in the .85 Leica? Is it visible with/without glasses? Just wondering because if I were to step up to a Leica I think I could do without the 28mm framelines, but I would use the 35mm framelines alot.
kruskee said:
You are right, long and fast isn't the Bessa's cup of tea.
I am interested kruskee, how is the 35mm frameline in the .85 Leica? Is it visible with/without glasses? Just wondering because if I were to step up to a Leica I think I could do without the 28mm framelines, but I would use the 35mm framelines alot.
back alley
IMAGES
Just wondering because if I were to step up to a Leica...
i knew it!!!!!!!!
joe
i knew it!!!!!!!!
joe
Really Joe, just wondering....don't you ever just want to know something just to know it?
Come on, admit it, you configured your Leica MP Ala Carte dream camera. I want to know what viewfinder to have ready for my "lottery" camera.
Come on, admit it, you configured your Leica MP Ala Carte dream camera. I want to know what viewfinder to have ready for my "lottery" camera.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I am contemplating the purchase of a Zeiss Ikon. Hence my question about the value of a longer baseline. So, I posed the same question to the folks at ZeissIkon.com. Since you guys were kind enough to share your thoughts, I'll return the favor & post the reply I received from Erland Pettersson of Hasselblad:
"The problem with a short rangefinder base line is seen in close-up range photography. The effect is that you are not REALLY sure that the best focus is where you intended to have it. Tolerances in the setting mechanism are inevitable and with the same mechanical tolerances the focus shift is larger with a short base length.
"For very short lens focal length the larger depth-of-field makes focusing not as critical. But you should be careful with the term DOF. It does not mean "acceptable" unsharpness, but what is acceptable is very much depending on how you enlarge the negative. However, with a lens of focal length 28 mm or less & apertures f/4 or smaller the focusing is not so critical. However, with a 50 mm lens at f/2 you can never exclude negative surprises with a short base length camera. A long base length makes focusing so much quicker and safer."
"The problem with a short rangefinder base line is seen in close-up range photography. The effect is that you are not REALLY sure that the best focus is where you intended to have it. Tolerances in the setting mechanism are inevitable and with the same mechanical tolerances the focus shift is larger with a short base length.
"For very short lens focal length the larger depth-of-field makes focusing not as critical. But you should be careful with the term DOF. It does not mean "acceptable" unsharpness, but what is acceptable is very much depending on how you enlarge the negative. However, with a lens of focal length 28 mm or less & apertures f/4 or smaller the focusing is not so critical. However, with a 50 mm lens at f/2 you can never exclude negative surprises with a short base length camera. A long base length makes focusing so much quicker and safer."
Huck, I was wondering if that's what you had in mind! Me too... And I'd agree that mechanical tolerances in the RF mechanism are more critical with a short baseline to maintain RF accuracy.
Earlier in this thread, I was tempted to reply that the longer baseline means that the RF spot moves more for a given change of focus distance, for increased visual accuracy... but I didn't have a moment then to check to see if this indeed was the case with cameras I have on hand.
So just now I dragged out four RF cameras with differing RF baselines to check how far the RF spot moves horizontally when going from infinity focus to 1m. My supposition was correct...
I concentrated my view upon a vertical item about 2 inches wide at a distance of about 8 feet, focusing beyond it to infinity, then closer than it to 1m, noting how much relative movement there was in the superimposed images of the item.
First I compared my Leica M2 (baseline about 2.7") and Minolta CLE (a bit less than 2"), and the M2 had more relative displacement of the doubled images. As expected, but could this simply be due to optical differences in the systems? I didn't think so, but...
I got out my Bessa-T (1.4"), and noted that there was significantly less horizontal relative displacement of the item in the focus spot, though everything was larger due to the high viewfinder magnification. I put my hands on the Kiev 4a (abt 3.6" baseline) to see what a really long baseline would do, and verified that indeed the horizontal focus displacement was far and away more than the others.
So I'm going to say that in addition to the expected accuracy improvement from the longer baseline, the user experiences stronger visual confirmation that focus is corrrect. This should make focusing faster and surer.
The effects of long baseline versus magnified short baseline are clearly different. The horizontal displacement in relation to the size of the object is much greater with the long baseline. But a magnified view of a short baseline makes everything larger, and the moving spot's movement across the viewfinder may be as large as with the long baseline.
Comparing the Bessa-T and Kiev demonstrates the consequences of the tradeoff, and I think the T suffers. The short baseline requires high viewfinder magnification to re-aquire focusing accuracy, while depending on close mechanical tolerances... and losing sight of the lens's field of coverage. The T requires a separate viewfinder for that.
The Zeiss Ikon will get focusing speed/accuracy from its long baseline, so it can afford to have lower viewfinder magnification allowing a large field of view. And the viewfinder itself is large, for a big bright view possibly rivaling the Voigtlander external viewfinders.
Sounds pretty exciting to me!
Earlier in this thread, I was tempted to reply that the longer baseline means that the RF spot moves more for a given change of focus distance, for increased visual accuracy... but I didn't have a moment then to check to see if this indeed was the case with cameras I have on hand.
So just now I dragged out four RF cameras with differing RF baselines to check how far the RF spot moves horizontally when going from infinity focus to 1m. My supposition was correct...
I concentrated my view upon a vertical item about 2 inches wide at a distance of about 8 feet, focusing beyond it to infinity, then closer than it to 1m, noting how much relative movement there was in the superimposed images of the item.
First I compared my Leica M2 (baseline about 2.7") and Minolta CLE (a bit less than 2"), and the M2 had more relative displacement of the doubled images. As expected, but could this simply be due to optical differences in the systems? I didn't think so, but...
I got out my Bessa-T (1.4"), and noted that there was significantly less horizontal relative displacement of the item in the focus spot, though everything was larger due to the high viewfinder magnification. I put my hands on the Kiev 4a (abt 3.6" baseline) to see what a really long baseline would do, and verified that indeed the horizontal focus displacement was far and away more than the others.
So I'm going to say that in addition to the expected accuracy improvement from the longer baseline, the user experiences stronger visual confirmation that focus is corrrect. This should make focusing faster and surer.
The effects of long baseline versus magnified short baseline are clearly different. The horizontal displacement in relation to the size of the object is much greater with the long baseline. But a magnified view of a short baseline makes everything larger, and the moving spot's movement across the viewfinder may be as large as with the long baseline.
Comparing the Bessa-T and Kiev demonstrates the consequences of the tradeoff, and I think the T suffers. The short baseline requires high viewfinder magnification to re-aquire focusing accuracy, while depending on close mechanical tolerances... and losing sight of the lens's field of coverage. The T requires a separate viewfinder for that.
The Zeiss Ikon will get focusing speed/accuracy from its long baseline, so it can afford to have lower viewfinder magnification allowing a large field of view. And the viewfinder itself is large, for a big bright view possibly rivaling the Voigtlander external viewfinders.
Sounds pretty exciting to me!
Huck Finn
Well-known
Very interesting post, Doug. Like you, I've been thinking about the mechanical advantages of the longer base length. Erland Pettersson's explanation re-stated some of the comments made here about close focusing & wide apertures. But he added the notion of tolerances. The base length of the ZI is 75 mm, twice the 37 mm base length of a Bessa R-2-3. So, whatever the tolerances are, if they are the same on both the ZI & any Bessa, the effect on the Bessa will be double the effect on the ZI. Certainly, this can make a difference in critical focus, as in his 5o @ f/2 example. Increased magnification will allow for more precision, but it won't change the mechanical advantage.
I agree that this is exciting. Is that a sign that there is something wrong with me? LOL
I agree that this is exciting. Is that a sign that there is something wrong with me? LOL
Huck, I think we just know good stuff when we see it... and work hard at rational justifications... 😀
What surprised me in the examination was just how useful it is to have significant horizontal displacement, in terms of the object size, when it's a bit out of focus. It means we can seem to be sloppy quick with our focusing and have it turn out not so far off as it seemed!
What surprised me in the examination was just how useful it is to have significant horizontal displacement, in terms of the object size, when it's a bit out of focus. It means we can seem to be sloppy quick with our focusing and have it turn out not so far off as it seemed!
Similar threads
- Article
