Jamie123
Veteran
Yeah, I think we got our wires crossed at some point
I agree with lots of the objective criticism about the BIII like viewfinder flare etc.. Size was really never a problem for me, though, as it just is what it is. I saw the camera at a store before I ever really considered buying it so I never had any expectations for it being smaller.
Film and processing costs are obviously a concern nowadays but for me it's not that different from other cameras. I don't shoot more with the Bessa than I used to shoot with a Hasselblad. I don't use it as a point and shoot camera but I think it's nice that I don't have to meter every two or three frames.
And no, I never really calculated how much I spend each year for film and processing costs because if I did I'd probably sell all my film gear tomorrow and only shoot digital from now on
Jamie123
Veteran
The size of the aperture opening for a given f-stop and focal length is the same no matter what film size you use. The reason why diffraction is less of a problem with larger formats is that there's less magnification when printing.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There is no doubt it could be much smaller without leaving out any feature - the Makina 67 and Fuji GA645zi have already demonstrated how compact feature rich medium format cameras can be. And beyond that, there still is a huge amount of knowledge on miniaturization to transfer from 35mm camera designs to medium format cameras which nobody ever has implemented.
The size of the B3 obviously is the intentional result of design and market research rather than feature driven or a engineering decision - a big hulking camera is a "I shoot a bigger format" statement, while a relatively diminutive camera might not differentiate itself enough against the slew of retro style digitals currently about.
Sevo
Jamie123
Veteran
That's a valid point and it may very well be the case that they could've made the camera smaller while at the same time retaining all its functionalities. We'd have to see an exploded view of the camera or someone could volunteer to take their B3 apart (not me
) to see how much space is actually wasted but yeah, if they wanted it smaller it could probably be done one way or another.All I'm saying is that the argument that they should make the camera smaller by leaving away those functions is silly because then it would just be a different type of camera.
Since you mentioned the Makina 67, has anyone ever done a side-by-side size comparison between the Makina and the Bessa3? I must admit that I've never held or seen a Makina 67 in real life so I have no idea of how big it really is.
This picture (http://www.fotostrada.at/files/page0_blog_entry169-bild-3.png), however, looks like it's not exactly small either.
douwe
Jazz and Silver
Hi Guys,
As much as I like the concept of a folder, I don't think the test of the original poster is very informative. Not that I do not appreciate these tests, I like it!
My main concern is that the comparison isn't particularly fair. Three aspects of the comparison do not make sense to me:
Close range <---> Typical range
Unsure focusing <---> Positively sure focusing
Single-coated <---> Multi-coated optics
First and foremost, I think test shots should be taken from 3-5 meters and infinity, because that's were you would use the camera and designers have probably optimized their design accordingly.
Next, you can't test anything if you are unsure whether the focusing is correct on your camera. You don't want to measure how accurately the adjustments on you rolleiflex were done, you want to test the lenses. The Bessa III might very well be a lot sharper that the rest, but the rangefinder might be the limiting factor.
Finally, I expect the Bessa to do better because it has multi-coating. This improves contrast and gives the impression of higher acuity.
Why not test the Bessa against the mamiya 7SII and a rolleiflex FX or GX? Give it some real competition!
As much as I like the concept of a folder, I don't think the test of the original poster is very informative. Not that I do not appreciate these tests, I like it!
My main concern is that the comparison isn't particularly fair. Three aspects of the comparison do not make sense to me:
Close range <---> Typical range
Unsure focusing <---> Positively sure focusing
Single-coated <---> Multi-coated optics
First and foremost, I think test shots should be taken from 3-5 meters and infinity, because that's were you would use the camera and designers have probably optimized their design accordingly.
Next, you can't test anything if you are unsure whether the focusing is correct on your camera. You don't want to measure how accurately the adjustments on you rolleiflex were done, you want to test the lenses. The Bessa III might very well be a lot sharper that the rest, but the rangefinder might be the limiting factor.
Finally, I expect the Bessa to do better because it has multi-coating. This improves contrast and gives the impression of higher acuity.
Why not test the Bessa against the mamiya 7SII and a rolleiflex FX or GX? Give it some real competition!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
That's a great idea! There's a GX currently for sale second hand in Sydney for AUD$2495. That's close to B3 price. Just forward your contributions and I'll do the test.
But seriously, the reason I ran a comparative test was to see if it was worth considering the B3 or whether my E2/2.8 Planar Rolleiflex was a match for it. Wasn't concerned about anyone else's Rollei or any other camera model for that matter.
lshofstra
Established
Hi Douwe,
Good, a critical note!
While these little tests are ofcourse limited and maybe even flawed, my idea was that if we all publish our little tests the results will probably be reliable if they're more or less consistent.
To adress your points:
- If manufacturers optimize their camera's for the distances you have stated I have been equally unfair to all of them. Bias equally applied surely cancelles out.
- Perhaps you have missed my subsequent post on the adjustment of the Rollei. It was in fact tested for focusing accuracy on 5m and infinity. Not for this shorter distance, no. I'll have to add that later.
- My test was on the legibility of black lettering on white paper and pink paper, using 10x loupe on the negs. Rapported sharpness was therefore not an overall impression, as you would get from judging a full picture. I don't think a difference in contrast (not perceptible in the negs) giving a false impression comes into it.
Soon as I can find the time (no time soon, alas) I'll do a repeat at your suggested distance of 5m. I don't think infinity will be practical. Whenever I need constant lighting outdoors it's simply not available. Cloudy with intermittent bursts of sunlight. Ah well, we live in the same country, you know what I mean....
Regards, Bert
By the way, did you happen to visit the fotomuseum in The Hague recently? I had a look at the photography by Sally Mann and Ad van Denderen (http://www.fotomuseumdenhaag.nl/ind...27A68B25-F483-4175-D532C08E762C153D/index.cfm). For me a good reminder that there more to the game than sharpness. Van Denderen (Mamiya 7, I think): to me just pics, not very evocative. Mann (uses wooden camera of the enormous variety, forget what they're called in English): now that is something else, wow...
lshofstra
Established
.........
i am wondering if you get where i am coming from; that generally people dont need a MF camera (folder) to be able to shoot quick AE mode, if people want to shoot film away that quick as candids then they usually use 35mm...if that holds any amount of truth then the advantage of the B3 is diminished somewhat...other than to someone that doesnt mind spending heaps on 120 film (beleive me i already spend a heap!!!!)
Nope. Don't get where you're coming from at all
. Went to Malta for a week recently. AE didn't get me to fire at will. What it did do is to allow me to take some shots not just of Malta's stationary objects, but of my daughters as well. They don't have the patience to pose for too long. And before you mention 35mm again, even at 8x10 inch it hardly compares. Regard, Bert
lshofstra
Established
fair enough, its not like i dont appreciate how handy AE is, or that it made it easy for you to grab a candid shot of children with a MF camera. i am not saying i hate it on the camera either, but i did notice it made it easy to eat through the film
Agreed, as far as candid goes (I brought a Bessa 3a for that, which illustrates the point you're making). But the shots I prefer are usually posed, and while my daughters are not totally unwilling, their age (5 and 7) limits the time they have to spare for dad's camera..... So the Bessa III definitely fills a niche for me.
raid
Dad Photographer
The mirror in the Rolleiflex TLR can move,and then the focusing is off. Sharpness tests require multiple testing with adjustments being made to each camera if there is an observed problem with sharpness. My Rolleiflex TLR cameras are very sharp when used with a heavy tripod and cable release and lens hood. Only the Fuji G690BL 100mm 3.5 lens seems to be sharper than the 2.8 Planar, but it could be the 6x9 format that may give this impression.
lshofstra
Established
Ok, comments above were food for thought as well as for action. I checked focussing on my Rollei and it was spot-on. Then I retook the testpictures and they came out better than my first so it must have been me and not the Rollei that was off. Looking at the negs again (and comparing them to the Heliar) I'd say they're about equal, the Planar may in fact be slightly sharper in the centre, but is certainly softer towards the edges.
Thanks for your comments, Bert
By the way, as I have retrieved my scanner, a first photo on Flickr (can't upload here...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45810507@N08/4349985726/sizes/l/
Thanks for your comments, Bert
By the way, as I have retrieved my scanner, a first photo on Flickr (can't upload here...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45810507@N08/4349985726/sizes/l/
Last edited:
Emile de Leon
Well-known
If you really want to check resolution etc..with a Rollie..put up the best aperture setting on the B3 in comparison with a Rolliecord 4 or 5 in good condition at f8. Or the Yashinon at f11. The planars were optimised for wide open performance and good performance across the iris settings..
The lowly Rolliecord Xenar 3.5 was optimised to be absolutey superb at f8..and those Xenar lenses easily trounce the 2.8/3,5 planars there or anywhere else for that matter, I own 2 late Planar TLR 3.5's in great shape...but the Rollicord 4 I own.. kills em both... Planars get the good prices..but if you want sheer resolution...the Xenar will knock your socks off at F8.
The lowly Rolliecord Xenar 3.5 was optimised to be absolutey superb at f8..and those Xenar lenses easily trounce the 2.8/3,5 planars there or anywhere else for that matter, I own 2 late Planar TLR 3.5's in great shape...but the Rollicord 4 I own.. kills em both... Planars get the good prices..but if you want sheer resolution...the Xenar will knock your socks off at F8.
thegman
Veteran
While I think it's fair to say Fujifilm and Cosina could sell the 667/GF670 for a lot less, like has been said, they will charge what the market will bear, much like every other business.
And while Canon/Nikon and the rest make very low profits and losses on consumer DSLRs, I like the idea of film cameras like the 667 being profitable. If the 667 is very profitable, we'll see more cameras like it, maybe with the faster lens some of us want, the smaller body some of us want, maybe a 6x9 option, maybe a wide angle option.
I've never used a 667, but I'd like to, I'd also like to see cameras like it continue to be made. If we think that MF film is a comparable medium in quality to a 35mm full frame DSLR, it's dirt cheap, barely needs batteries, comes with a great lens and you can swap out the sensor for a better one any time you want. Not a bad deal!
And while Canon/Nikon and the rest make very low profits and losses on consumer DSLRs, I like the idea of film cameras like the 667 being profitable. If the 667 is very profitable, we'll see more cameras like it, maybe with the faster lens some of us want, the smaller body some of us want, maybe a 6x9 option, maybe a wide angle option.
I've never used a 667, but I'd like to, I'd also like to see cameras like it continue to be made. If we think that MF film is a comparable medium in quality to a 35mm full frame DSLR, it's dirt cheap, barely needs batteries, comes with a great lens and you can swap out the sensor for a better one any time you want. Not a bad deal!
ianstamatic
Well-known
$8,000 for a D3x is neither cheap nor selling for a loss !!!!
That part the reason why I went back to film.
Mamiya Blad Fuji MF SLR studio image quality directly competes with P-25 - P65 digi-back, or i i should say the digi backs try to compete with 100iso film as the standard for quality. That 8k DSLR is not even in the same arena. I see the point of your post and agree with the main direction. Also film has developed a lot in the last decade ! Changing back is just like changing sensor.