Leigh Youdale
Well-known
First Impressions:-
The camera arrived well packed in it’s own little Pelican case from Mainline Photographics. Considering it has already been through the hands of the major part of the 20 or so participating photographers, each having it to use for two weeks, it’s in mint condition. It’s probably had more use in the last few months than I would give it in years, so it gets a tick from me for quality of finish and construction.
It’s a bit bigger than I expected. People who earlier wrote that it’s ‘pocketable’ in a jacket or coat must dress more substantially than here in the Antipodes and there’s no coat I possess that would accommodate it! Without doubt I’d want a modest sized Crumpler bag or similar to protect and carry it when not in use.
It’s a bit bigger than I expected and larger than my old Bessa I 6x9 folder. Certainly a lot bigger than my old Perkeo II folder which had the f2.8 lens and must surely have been one of the most compact 6x6 cameras ever made. That one was certainly pocketable. Nevertheless, the great viewfinder, split-image focusing and integrated metering makes the Bessa II a much easier and quicker camera to use.
It feels heavy – substantial – in the hand but the impression is a bit misleading. It weighs in at 1049g with strap and battery but no film. By contrast my Rolleiflex f2.8 Planar weighs 1303g without film. Quite a difference but the Rolleiflex, appearing to be more compact, really doesn’t feel any different in weight when you pick it up unless you have one camera in each hand to compare. I guess 250g isn’t that much really.
Loading was easy – standard 120 folder practice but also exactly as set out in the instruction manual. I had read reports that some had had a problem with the finished film unwinding as it was being taken from the camera. The tension spring that holds the roll appears to have little effect, but on testing with a full roll of film there was a deceptively larger amount of tension there than appeared to be the case just from visual inspection. I’m sure as long as you keep some finger pressure on the rolled film whilst removing the spool there won’t be a problem.
In the hand, the Bessa III feels large compared to the Rolleiflex. Of course, you’re viewing the Rolleiflex from directly above which is its smallest footprint and viewing the Bessa from the angle which shows its greatest dimensions but there’s no getting away from the fact that the Bessa feels larger. Maybe I’ll get used to it in use. I took some comparative photos of the two cameras side by side, closed and open which might indicate the relative size of each.
So far so good. The tactile response in actual use will be something to experience and a comparison between the results from both cameras using the same film stock will also be interesting. I’ll post something again after I get the prints and scans back but that’s likely to be a month down the track due to other commitments.
The camera arrived well packed in it’s own little Pelican case from Mainline Photographics. Considering it has already been through the hands of the major part of the 20 or so participating photographers, each having it to use for two weeks, it’s in mint condition. It’s probably had more use in the last few months than I would give it in years, so it gets a tick from me for quality of finish and construction.
It’s a bit bigger than I expected. People who earlier wrote that it’s ‘pocketable’ in a jacket or coat must dress more substantially than here in the Antipodes and there’s no coat I possess that would accommodate it! Without doubt I’d want a modest sized Crumpler bag or similar to protect and carry it when not in use.
It’s a bit bigger than I expected and larger than my old Bessa I 6x9 folder. Certainly a lot bigger than my old Perkeo II folder which had the f2.8 lens and must surely have been one of the most compact 6x6 cameras ever made. That one was certainly pocketable. Nevertheless, the great viewfinder, split-image focusing and integrated metering makes the Bessa II a much easier and quicker camera to use.
It feels heavy – substantial – in the hand but the impression is a bit misleading. It weighs in at 1049g with strap and battery but no film. By contrast my Rolleiflex f2.8 Planar weighs 1303g without film. Quite a difference but the Rolleiflex, appearing to be more compact, really doesn’t feel any different in weight when you pick it up unless you have one camera in each hand to compare. I guess 250g isn’t that much really.
Loading was easy – standard 120 folder practice but also exactly as set out in the instruction manual. I had read reports that some had had a problem with the finished film unwinding as it was being taken from the camera. The tension spring that holds the roll appears to have little effect, but on testing with a full roll of film there was a deceptively larger amount of tension there than appeared to be the case just from visual inspection. I’m sure as long as you keep some finger pressure on the rolled film whilst removing the spool there won’t be a problem.
In the hand, the Bessa III feels large compared to the Rolleiflex. Of course, you’re viewing the Rolleiflex from directly above which is its smallest footprint and viewing the Bessa from the angle which shows its greatest dimensions but there’s no getting away from the fact that the Bessa feels larger. Maybe I’ll get used to it in use. I took some comparative photos of the two cameras side by side, closed and open which might indicate the relative size of each.
So far so good. The tactile response in actual use will be something to experience and a comparison between the results from both cameras using the same film stock will also be interesting. I’ll post something again after I get the prints and scans back but that’s likely to be a month down the track due to other commitments.
Last edited:
