gliderbee
Well-known
Ok,
I have (among way too many other cameras ...) those two 6x9 RF-folders:
- Agfa Record III with Solinar lens (4,5/105), Synchro Compur shutter (AR)
- Voightlander Bessa II with Color Heliar lens (3,5/105), Compur-Rapid shutter (VB)
They both had a CLA and are in perfect technical condition, all times working, self shutter working, rangefinder working, collimation fine.
-The Solinar lens has perfect glass, the Heliar has some very faint cleaning spots (you really have to look for them)
- The AR is lighter, with a simpler (and imo hence more fail-safe) build, while the VB is more complicated
- The VB is a DOF scale, but no prevention of double exposure, the AR has sort of a scale on the right knob, but I don't understand how to use it, and can prevent double exposure.
- the AR seems ergonomically better thought out: the rangefinder can be used with the right index finger and you use the same finger to press the shutter; with the VB, you have to use left index and thumb for the rangefinder, and left finger for the shutter; it feels a bit more clumsy.
- the springs of the backplate of the AR feel a bit stronger, but those of the VB seem fine.
- the way the red window at the back can be shut is easier to use with the AR.
Very minor points:
- the AR has a accessory shoe, the VB has not
- the VB has more "status" then the AR, hence I can get more from it when selling it then the AR.
Both cameras produce fine pics. I didn't print any yet, but I doubt I'll see much difference.
Which one would you keep in this situation ? I'm an eternal doubter
.
Thanks,
Stefan.
I have (among way too many other cameras ...) those two 6x9 RF-folders:
- Agfa Record III with Solinar lens (4,5/105), Synchro Compur shutter (AR)
- Voightlander Bessa II with Color Heliar lens (3,5/105), Compur-Rapid shutter (VB)
They both had a CLA and are in perfect technical condition, all times working, self shutter working, rangefinder working, collimation fine.
-The Solinar lens has perfect glass, the Heliar has some very faint cleaning spots (you really have to look for them)
- The AR is lighter, with a simpler (and imo hence more fail-safe) build, while the VB is more complicated
- The VB is a DOF scale, but no prevention of double exposure, the AR has sort of a scale on the right knob, but I don't understand how to use it, and can prevent double exposure.
- the AR seems ergonomically better thought out: the rangefinder can be used with the right index finger and you use the same finger to press the shutter; with the VB, you have to use left index and thumb for the rangefinder, and left finger for the shutter; it feels a bit more clumsy.
- the springs of the backplate of the AR feel a bit stronger, but those of the VB seem fine.
- the way the red window at the back can be shut is easier to use with the AR.
Very minor points:
- the AR has a accessory shoe, the VB has not
- the VB has more "status" then the AR, hence I can get more from it when selling it then the AR.
Both cameras produce fine pics. I didn't print any yet, but I doubt I'll see much difference.
Which one would you keep in this situation ? I'm an eternal doubter
.Thanks,
Stefan.
bfffer
Established
sorry for what i sad...
FrankS
Registered User
See, that's what happens to threads like this. They become offers to buy and sell.
gliderbee
Well-known
That was not my intention and I understand your concern, but it seems to me the question is legitimate ... Maybe somebody has arguments in favour of one or the other camera, and then I'd like to hear them .. Should I rephrase the question ?
joeswe
Well-known
Stefan,
I also own both cameras in almost identical configuration (the Bessa is equipped with a Synchro-compur shutter, and I only have it for a couple of weeks now) and I agree with your observations and would add the following: My AR is a bit of a dog at close distances, where the Bessa produces nice results for me. This is to be expected from the different designs (front cell focusing vs. unit focusing).
I have not done any "scientific" comparison between both lenses at infinity, but my impression is that both are quite sharp (maybe with an edge for the AR?). The AR is more practical to use for sure. I have no problem stuffing the AR in a backpack when going for a longer hike, but I would hesitate to do that with the Bessa (because of the higher value and the more delicate construction of the Bessa). My Bessa is in much more collectable condition than my AR and so the Bessa appears more to be a camera for the casual stroll in the city or the neighborhood.
If I was in your position I would base my decision on the criterion which camera is put to use more regularly and which suits my shooting style best. I you don't know yet, spend more time with both cameras to find out. If I was in the position that I would absolutely need to sell one of the two cameras at the moment, it would be the Bessa.
John
NB
The DOF scale on the AR is used in the way that you turn the outer disc with the aperture numbers so that the aperture number in use lines up with the distance that is set on the lens. Then the two "bars" right and left of the aperture number indicate the DOF range on the distance scale. For example, if you set f8 at 4m it indicates DOF from 3 to 6 m. This is very optimistic and works only for smaller enlargements. For more realistic numbers it is better to use the next smaller aperture number on the DOF scale (e.g. if you set f8 on the lens, use f5.6 on the DOF scale)
I also own both cameras in almost identical configuration (the Bessa is equipped with a Synchro-compur shutter, and I only have it for a couple of weeks now) and I agree with your observations and would add the following: My AR is a bit of a dog at close distances, where the Bessa produces nice results for me. This is to be expected from the different designs (front cell focusing vs. unit focusing).
I have not done any "scientific" comparison between both lenses at infinity, but my impression is that both are quite sharp (maybe with an edge for the AR?). The AR is more practical to use for sure. I have no problem stuffing the AR in a backpack when going for a longer hike, but I would hesitate to do that with the Bessa (because of the higher value and the more delicate construction of the Bessa). My Bessa is in much more collectable condition than my AR and so the Bessa appears more to be a camera for the casual stroll in the city or the neighborhood.
If I was in your position I would base my decision on the criterion which camera is put to use more regularly and which suits my shooting style best. I you don't know yet, spend more time with both cameras to find out. If I was in the position that I would absolutely need to sell one of the two cameras at the moment, it would be the Bessa.
John
NB
The DOF scale on the AR is used in the way that you turn the outer disc with the aperture numbers so that the aperture number in use lines up with the distance that is set on the lens. Then the two "bars" right and left of the aperture number indicate the DOF range on the distance scale. For example, if you set f8 at 4m it indicates DOF from 3 to 6 m. This is very optimistic and works only for smaller enlargements. For more realistic numbers it is better to use the next smaller aperture number on the DOF scale (e.g. if you set f8 on the lens, use f5.6 on the DOF scale)
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
And what's exactly wrong with that, Frank?
That's what happen in the real world too.
Trade happens when two parties agree. Not just one.
FrankS
Registered User
When RFF was much smaller there was no classifieds section and this was how it was done, but we're much bigger and the owner of this site wishes to keep buying and selling out of the discussion forums.
gliderbee
Well-known
John,
Thanks for the info about the DOF scale; as for the one to keep, I also tend to keep the Agfa right now, but I'll take your advice and shoot them both some more.
Stefan.
Thanks for the info about the DOF scale; as for the one to keep, I also tend to keep the Agfa right now, but I'll take your advice and shoot them both some more.
Stefan.