The Aussie Travelling Bessa III Update

Hi Leigh,

I too had the B3 do some funny electronic things, mainly weird flashing shutter speeds when it shouldn't. It was remedied by changing the battery. I haven't had the film do an incomplete rewind and I hope that yours was a one time problem. I always make sure that I put some tension on the full spool so the take up spool is wound snuggly when loading film.
 
Some shots from this camera are finally starting to show up on the internet sites. While it's always iffy to judge a lens based on web images, what I'm seeing now looks a lot better than the shots I'd seen months ago. The lens looks very sharp, and even seems to have a bit of the classic Heliar signature at times. I had originally thought this camera was a huge mistake and should be rethought, but the newer images that people are posting show it has a very good lens. Sure is a big camera though! Ah well, my Bessa II is biggish as well.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bessa%20III&w=all#page=0
 
Last edited:
Way said:
Hi Leigh,

I too had the B3 do some funny electronic things, mainly weird flashing shutter speeds when it shouldn't. It was remedied by changing the battery. I haven't had the film do an incomplete rewind and I hope that yours was a one time problem. I always make sure that I put some tension on the full spool so the take up spool is wound snuggly when loading film.
Click to expand...

I've had the shutter speeds flashing, too, and was a bit surprised that the battery was low already but then remembered that I had done a few long exposures which might have drained the battery a bit. Besides, I never expect the batteries that are shipped with the camera to last very long.
 
Last edited:
Steven,

Just wondering what you didn't like about the pictures posted a few months back?


Steve M. said:
Some shots from this camera are finally starting to show up on the internet sites. While it's always iffy to judge a lens based on web images, what I'm seeing now looks a lot better than the shots I'd seen months ago. The lens looks very sharp, and even seems to have a bit of the classic Heliar signature at times. I had originally thought this camera was a huge mistake and should be rethought, but the newer images that people are posting show it has a very good lens. Sure is a big camera though! Ah well, my Bessa II is biggish as well.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bessa%20III&w=all#page=0
Click to expand...
 
By the way, if someone's in the market for one, I just saw a used Bessa III being sold on another forum for $2100.
 
First Week.
Just a quick update after the first week. The size of the camera is no longer apparent and it's very easy to use. Apart from having to fit a new battery and my own stupidity in not winding one film on correctly there have been no problems at all. Have run some B&W through it which I'll hopefully get around to processing this week and should also have some of the colour shots back by next weekend after which I have to send the camera on to the next person on the list.
 
Two Weeks with the Bessa III

Two Weeks with the Bessa III

Summary after two weeks.

1. The apparent size of the Bessa is not a problem. One quickly gets used to it. Compared to other 6x7 cameras it’s compact. However, it’s not a pocket camera and needs a bag of some kind – doesn’t need to be huge though.
2. Loading and unloading is very straightforward and simple.
3. For an MF camera it’s pretty much useable as a point-and-shoot using AE.
4. The meter appears to be very capable even though it’s not TTL.
5. Always carry a spare battery!
6. Always wind on anti-clockwise!
7. People are curious about the camera, so there’s no need to hide it.
8. The f3.5 lens is not a drawback. With the longer focal length, the depth of field is pretty close to a f2.8/50mm lens on a 35mm camera.
9. The front element of the lens is not recessed to any extent and the use of a lens hood should be pretty much standard practice. Only problem with that is you have to remove the hood each time you want to close the camera or else carry it around open. (The hood also carries the filter if one is in use).
10. I’m undecided about the usefulness of both 6x7 and 6x6 formats. I shot 6x7 on this camera and 6x6 on the Rolleiflex. I think the formats are a bit too similar, but then I’m used to square format. You can’t change format with film in the camera so it probably gets down to personal preference. Holding it in portrait (vertical) format with 6x7 wasn’t a problem but horizontal is easier for focusing.
11. The shutter is vibrationless and almost noiseless. Remarkable!
12. Turning the focus to infinity to close the camera quickly becomes automatic.
13. If I didn’t have the Rolleiflex I’d want a Bessa III. If the image quality from B3 turns out to be better than the Rollei then maybe I’ll sell the Rollei to help finance the Bessa. When I get the prints and scans back from Horsham I’ll have the answer! ☺

I should be able to post some scans early next week.
 
Regarding DOF, I count a little bit differently.

MF to 35mm is around 1 stop and 80/3.5 to 50/2.8 is also around 1 stop, so after some use of it and looking at print of approx' the same size I'd rather compare the DOF to a 50/2 or even a 50/1.7. There's not calculation behind that but only the way I feel the gear (and my body) behaves.
 
I sold a near mint Bessa II (the 1951 model) because I found it too heavy and too big to use it without a tripod. Only shot one role of film with it. Guess the Bessa III is quite comparable looking at the pictures.

2483033942_4754a0e112.jpg
 
Bi - B3

Bi - B3

Ron (Netherlands) said:
I sold a near mint Bessa II (the 1951 model) because I found it too heavy and too big to use it without a tripod. Only shot one role of film with it. Guess the Bessa III is quite comparable looking at the pictures./QUOTE]

I had two models of the Bessa I and understand your comments. I also sold mine in the end. Basically I think you're correct except that the B3 is far easier to use with a brilliant and large viewfinder/rangefinder and an electronic shutter so you don't have to set the shutter at all on AE mode and you don't have to cock the shutter mechanism even if you're on Manual.
Click to expand...
 
The Jury is Half In

The Jury is Half In

Got back two rolls of Fuji Pro 160C today (from my local lab - not the ones I sent to Horsham Colour Lab) and after enlarging some of the scans of duplicate shots I have to say that the Rolleiflex appears to have a slight edge over the Bessa in sharpness, but that both produce quite acceptable images at normal A4 print size. The difference only becomes apparent when you compare the images side by side at actual pixel size on the screen. At commercial 6x6 and 6x8 (inch) print size you can't really discern the difference by eye until you use an 8x or 10x loupe on the prints.

I haven't tried printing them any larger at present and probably won't - there doesn't seem to be any need or point to that.

I'll wait for the films to arrive back from Horsham next week to make up my mind finally, but at this stage the Rollei is in front by a whisker (or maybe even two).
 
Leigh,

Interesting. Are there any noticeable differences between the two cameras in image contrast, rendering, bokeh etc.?
 
sircarl said:
Leigh,

Interesting. Are there any noticeable differences between the two cameras in image contrast, rendering, bokeh etc.?
Click to expand...

"Rendering" is a term I only understand in terms of meatworks and building finishes. Maybe you can give me some other words to describe what you mean.

I think the Rollei has a little more contrast, but not a lot. This was also noted by another Aussie tester I've talked to who did the same comparison and we've put it down to (maybe) the lens coating and also (maybe) the need for a hood to be used more on the Bessa due to the fairly exposed front element of the lens. I get the feeling (but without any testing) that it might be a little susceptible to light rays coming from the side.

Bokeh I'm not too sure about yet. Of these first prints I only have three or four closeup baby shots at f3.5 or f4 and the background is pleasantly soft to my eyes but the photos were taken out of doors. I'll reserve judgement on this aspect until the other films come back. Can't remember what was on them or whether any of them might show any bokeh so I'll wait until next week on that one.
 
"Rendering"? Good question. I've never seen a definition. But from discussions here on RFF, I gather it means the overall impression you get of how the lens translates an image onto film (or a sensor) -- a combination of its resolving power, micro contrast, flare (if any), bokeh, and probably other factors as well. If someone here has a more precise way of explaining it, please chime in.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Ron (Netherlands) said:
I sold a near mint Bessa II (the 1951 model) because I found it too heavy and too big to use it without a tripod. Only shot one role of film with it. Guess the Bessa III is quite comparable looking at the pictures./QUOTE]

I had two models of the Bessa I and understand your comments. I also sold mine in the end. Basically I think you're correct except that the B3 is far easier to use with a brilliant and large viewfinder/rangefinder and an electronic shutter so you don't have to set the shutter at all on AE mode and you don't have to cock the shutter mechanism even if you're on Manual.
Click to expand...

The Bessa III is very easily handholdable and not any heavier than using a DSLR with a decent weight lens, but more comfortable in shape to my hands. I often shoot handheld at insanely slow shutter speeds in almost darkness and still get very sharp results, possibly due to its completely silky and quiet shutter.
Click to expand...
 
Bokeh?

Bokeh?

Someone asked about bokeh. This isn't the greatest baby photo ever but it does give an idea of the B3 bokeh, I think.
 
Last edited:
Sharpness

Sharpness

Here are two screen shots of part of the previous beach scenes, taken from PSE Actual pixels view x 200%.
 
Last edited:
For What It's Worth and For Those Still Interested.

For What It's Worth and For Those Still Interested.

The prints of the duplicated Rollei vs Bessa comparison arrived yesterday and, after my last posting, I was a little surprised.
With both lots of negatives of identical subjects enlarged to the same magnification (8x8 or 8x10) in all but one pair of frames I'd have to say the Bessa wins in terms of sharpness, rendition and overall appearance.

Not by much though. The Rollei shots look perfectly acceptable until you put them side by side with the Bessa equivalents. The differences are subtle but detectable to the eye. I doubt they'd show up on a computer screen but in the print the difference is definitely there.

In the one pair that looks better from the Rollei I have to qualify my impression because it's clear from the shadows that the sun was partly obscured for the Rollei shot but obviously came out for the Bessa shot so the exposures are not exactly matching.

It's not enough of a difference to make me immediately rush out and sell the Rolleiflex, but it's enough to cause me to start thinking!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom