Why I decided against getting a Bessa L outfit

[Koolzakukumba]

I was ready to splash out some cash on an "L" and the 15mm and 25mm lenses but have had second thoughts. I haven't used 35mm much recently but I know from scanning in negatives taken with prime Nikkor lenses that the quality is not as good as I can get from my Minolta A2 digital. The only limitation of the A2 for me is that it only goes out to around 28mm (it's actually a bit wider than that if you consider the slightly squarer format that's available). Further complicating the issue was the fact that I would have had to sell my Mamiya Press outfit to raise the case for the Voigtlander stuff. Unlike 35mm, scanned 6x9 negatives give better digital files than the A2.

After weighing all of this up, Ive decided to expand the A2 outfit instead with the addition of Minolta's wide and tele converter lenses. An acknowledged Minolta expert here in the UK says these lenses are excellent. That effectively gives me a range of lenses from around 21mm to 300mm, all in a compact and lightweight package. The converters are also a lot cheaper than the Voigtlander and two lenses so I've persuaded myself I can keep my Mamiya Press outfit. The Press stuff might not get too much use as it's quite a weight to drag around but at least it's there if I need it.

The only thing the A2 isn't so good at is low light photography. At higher ISO speeds, the "noise" in the image shadows becomes objectionable. I've picked up a lovely little Yashica 35CC with 35mm f1.8 lens that I'll be using for black and white streets scenes at night.

Bruce

 

[bmattock]

Use what works for you, is what I say. If the A2 is the best tool for you, then better to use it and be happy. I'd disagree about the quality of the digital files versus the quality of a scanned 35mm negative, but it depends greatly on the use to which you intend to put it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I was ready to splash out some cash on an "L" and the 15mm and 25mm lenses but have had second thoughts. I haven't used 35mm much recently but I know from scanning in negatives taken with prime Nikkor lenses that the quality is not as good as I can get from my Minolta A2 digital. The only limitation of the A2 for me is that it only goes out to around 28mm (it's actually a bit wider than that if you consider the slightly squarer format that's available). Further complicating the issue was the fact that I would have had to sell my Mamiya Press outfit to raise the case for the Voigtlander stuff. Unlike 35mm, scanned 6x9 negatives give better digital files than the A2.

After weighing all of this up, Ive decided to expand the A2 outfit instead with the addition of Minolta's wide and tele converter lenses. An acknowledged Minolta expert here in the UK says these lenses are excellent. That effectively gives me a range of lenses from around 21mm to 300mm, all in a compact and lightweight package. The converters are also a lot cheaper than the Voigtlander and two lenses so I've persuaded myself I can keep my Mamiya Press outfit. The Press stuff might not get too much use as it's quite a weight to drag around but at least it's there if I need it.

The only thing the A2 isn't so good at is low light photography. At higher ISO speeds, the "noise" in the image shadows becomes objectionable. I've picked up a lovely little Yashica 35CC with 35mm f1.8 lens that I'll be using for black and white streets scenes at night.

Bruce

 

[Koolzakukumba]

,

Use what works for you, is what I say. If the A2 is the best tool for you, then better to use it and be happy. I'd disagree about the quality of the digital files versus the quality of a scanned 35mm negative, but it depends greatly on the use to which you intend to put it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,

It's maybe possible to extract higher quality files from 35mm negs. As I said, I was using Nikkor prime lenses and scanned them using an Epson 3200 scanner. I've seen a few reviews which have indicated that there is not a lot of difference between 35 scans from this scanner and those from a 35mm film scanner. Possibly , some of the newer film scanners would be an improvement.

In my opinion, the improvement would have to be fairly significant as prints from the A2 files are quite a bit better than 35mm. They seem sharper and have smoother tones (unless shot at high ISO).

I do mostly landscapes and buildings, using an Epson 2100 (2200 in the US) for output. Some of the shots from the A2 have been almost as sharp at A3 as prints from the 6x9 negs. I've always favoured black and white but, with the A2, I've printed some of the shots in colour-it's nice to have the option.

Another advantage of the digital camera, though, is the ability to immediately check a shot on the LCD panel to make sure it's OK. With the price of memory cards continuing to fall, I can also take with me the equivalent of ten rolls of 36 exposure film in a form that takes up virtually no room in a camera bag or coat pocket.

The biggest downside for me is the fact that the tactile qualities of digital cameras can't match those of good film cameras. There's nothing to beat the feel of a Leica rangefinder or Rolleiflex TLR!

Bruce

 

[Bertram2]

. I haven't used 35mm much recently but I know from scanning in negatives taken with prime Nikkor lenses that the quality is not as good as I can get from my Minolta A2 digital.
Bruce

I presume you used a flatbed to scan your 35mm negs and this can't work of course.
Technically there is a potential of about 20MP in a 35mm neg and goodfilm scanner
can show it.
That's the resolution issue only but there is still the ISO issue, the color handling, the slide issue and the question how to get decent B&W photos. I haven't seen any shot with an A2.
Last not least some screw-in converters on a zoom and a CV25mm or 15mm are two different worlds of pic quality. In general, also from reasons of weight, size and handling a A" cannot be considered as an alternative to a L + 25m.
Bertram

 

[pvdhaar]

If you are happy with your A2, then don't change. I'm very willing to believe that a matched teleconverter for the A2 will do a splendid job, although I have some doubts that a wide converter on a zoom lens will give you the same quality as a CV21mm on film. In my experience, even a multi-element wide converter on a very good prime gives only so-so results..

 

[bmattock]

The A2 has been highly praised - not least of all for the high-density EVF, which subsequent models seem to have left out - I guess it was a one-time thing only for KM.

I agree with Bertram - my KM ScanDual IV produces files that are capable of much more enlargement than my new 6.2 MP DSLR.

However, the increased speed of all-digital workflow has convinced me that if I ever shoot another wedding, for example, I'll shoot digital.

If I'm shooting a portrait in B&W, I'll use film and an SLR. If I'm shooting street scenes or a mixed bag of everything, I'll shoot a rangefinder.

The scanner I have is not the best one out there, but it is loads better than the Epson 3200 flatbed for 35mm. The quality of the scans convinces me that my lens and my film and my ability as a photographer are the various bottlenecks, not the quality of the scan. With my new DSLR, I'm not sure ultimate lens quality matters so much - the sensor can't resolve to the levels the lens is (or is not) capable of.

I mean no disrespect to film fans or digital folks - I have a foot in both worlds, and they both have advantages and disadvantages. As I said before, I don't dis your A2 - it is highly regarded and if it works well for you, then that's a good choice.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

If you are happy with your A2, then don't change. I'm very willing to believe that a matched teleconverter for the A2 will do a splendid job, although I have some doubts that a wide converter on a zoom lens will give you the same quality as a CV21mm on film. In my experience, even a multi-element wide converter on a very good prime gives only so-so results..

I am reminded that during the 1960's and 70's, all the fixed-lens rangefinders had accessory lenses for wide and tele. And people seemed to like them. And they were fine, for 4x6. I have not been that satisfied with the results when scanned, and hence, don't use them myself.

Having said that - I just finished putting together the bits and pieces of a classic Zeiss Ikon Contina III kit with accessory lenses, lens hood, accessory rangefinder, and intend to go in harm's way with it. At least my accessory lenses replace the entire front element instead of clamping on over it. I feel so superior now. LOL!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Thanks for all the input. It's great when people can discuss the relative merits of things without feeling the need to "defend" (often ungraciously) their particular preference.

The deciding factor for me in the A2+converters versus the Voigtlander outfit battle was the opinion of David Kilpatrick. He's well-known in Minolta circles in the UK but I'm not sure about further afield. He's edited a few photographer magazines and still does, I think, the Minolta magazine in the UK. I've read his magazines for years and what I always liked was his practical approach to things-whether it worked or not, rather than what was theoretically possible (it was Michael Reichmann's similar down-to-earth review of the A2 that persuaded me to buy it).

Here's what he had to say about the converters, "The Minolta one is excellent, and I have tested it well - including commercial shots. It introduces a little more distortion but on distant subjects it is no worse than the base level distortion given by many lenses. The tele is even better."

Being more than happy with results from the A2 as opposed to 35mm, that was the clincher for me. The fact that I could keep using the digital but expand it's already considerable versatility without sacrificing much in the way of quality was just too irresistable.

I suppose some people are better suited to 35mm than others and I maybe just can't handle the format. I've always been a medium format user and, maybe for that reason, I've never been entirely satisfied with my own results from 35mm. I would have loved to have been able to produce good results from the smaller format but it has never really clicked for me. I don't think a change to a better film scanner would make an appreciable difference for me. One review I read a couple of years ago showed 35mm scans from the Epson 3200 and a top (at the time) 35mm film scanner and the reviewer readily conceded that there was hardly any difference at all. In fact, the Epson was almost on a par with a professional drum scanner used in the medium format comparisons.

Some of the 35mm comparison pics are below. Here was his conclusion, "Yes, I have got the correct picture captions under each picture and yes this came as a surprise to me too. The Epson flatbed scanner has produced a superior scan than the dedicated film scanner. The colours on the Epson are also livelier and the gold on the tunic looks like gold. Look at the edges of the button and you will see the Nikon scan has started to pixelate, whilst the Epson keeps a smooth edge. Bear in mind the Epson still has more resolution up its sleeve than I have shown here, I think this is a remarkable achievement for a flatbed scanner."

Today's higher resolution film scanners might improve things but I don't think it would be dramatic. The film scanners would have a better Dmax but that's not too important to me as I'm only scanning black and white negs developed with scanning in mind.

As I've said, results from the A2, for me, are superior and when I need anything better than that, I have the 6x9 negatives, or my Rolleiflex, to fall back on. As some of you have rightly pointed out, it's about the image and not the equipment and if 35mm does it for you, all well and good.

Bruce

 

[Biber]

There is a tremendous difference between my Epson 3170 (same quality as 3200) and my Minolta SD5400. It doesn't come anywhere near the quality of a current dedicated film scanner, the ones used by photo-i in the review are quite old compared to the Epson.

Quick comparison: http://biber.ath.cx/scanners.jpg

 

[pvdhaar]

I am reminded that during the 1960's and 70's, all the fixed-lens rangefinders had accessory lenses for wide and tele. And people seemed to like them. And they were fine, for 4x6. I have not been that satisfied with the results when scanned, and hence, don't use them myself.

Having said that - I just finished putting together the bits and pieces of a classic Zeiss Ikon Contina III kit with accessory lenses, lens hood, accessory rangefinder, and intend to go in harm's way with it. At least my accessory lenses replace the entire front element instead of clamping on over it. I feel so superior now. LOL!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I had a lot of fun using a wide converter as well. The best part about it was that the close focus distance got smaller, so I could get very dramatic results w.r.t. composition.. Have fun with yours!

Oh, by the way, the converters may have been better suited for B&W than for colour work. The main problem I experienced were colour shifts off the axis.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Yes, there's quite a difference there. I'll take your word for it that you haven't applied any sharpening to the Minolta scan ;-)

The Minolta is a £500 scanner over here and to afford it I'd have to sell my Mamiya outfit and there is no way I'd be able to produce better scans from the Minolta than I could from 6x9 negs on the Epson so I suppose that's a non-starter for me.

I've attached a photograph I took in Barcelona recently which shows the quality of which the Minolta A2 is capable. There's a lot of subtle highlight detail in the photograph and deep shadows but the camera captured it all. All I had to do was keep an eye on the live histogram to make sure I was getting it all. You'll have to take my word for it but there isn't a blown highlight in the shot. Not bad for a camera that cost the same as the Minolta scanner.

Thanks for posting the comparison pics. It's interesting seeing the advances being made in scanner technology.


Cheers,
Bruce

 

[pvdhaar]

Bruce,

impressive picture! You also seem well familiarized with your A2. That should be your deciding factor to go for the A2 plus converters. Don't forget to show us the results 🙂

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Biber-loved you gallery!

Biber-loved you gallery!

Hi,

Sorry but I sent my reply before looking at your gallery. I really enjoyed your black and white stuff. I've mainly been a B+W landscape photographer but I'm trying my hand at street photography now. I can appreciate your images as I know how tough it is to get good shots on the street.

I've posted a couple of my recent efforts. These were taken in Paris where it's bit easier finding material than it is in my home city of Dundee on the east coast of Scotland!

Cheers,
Bruce