Lens comparison VL 667, Rolleiflex Planar 2,8, Yashinon 3,5

[lshofstra]

Got the 667 a couple of weeks ago. Tend to go for medium format more and more and got a decent price for some stuff I traded in. Anyway, I have a couple of other camera's which are medium format 6x6 and decided to do an non-comprehensive comparison. Subject: Newspaper front page, smallest print 1,4mm, next smallest 1,8mm. Distance 1.3 meters - I guestimated that the smallest print would be illegible at this distance and it's simply where my tripod wound up in front of the couch. I took four shots, at 3,5-5,6-8-16. I wanted no more than four because three times four makes twelve, and I shot them all on the same film (Acros 100, because of it's fine grain and no worries about reprocity failure, times ranged from 1/8 to 4 sec).
Result judged on a light box with loupe 10x, also wearing reading glasses. Sorry, scans not available - I gave up on scanning in favour of the darkroom and the scanner is somewhere in storage.
Here what it looked like with the loupe:
Rolleiflex E2, Planar 2,8:
At 3,5 unable to read the 1,8mm text.
At the 5,6 1,8mm partly legible.
At 8 1,8mm legible, 1,4mm not legible.
At 16 both texts legible.
(I found this al little surprising as I would expect some deterioration at 16, unless focussing was inaccurate. However, I have previously tested for this and the focussing screen seemed accurate).
Yashica 24, Yashinon 3,5:
At 3,5 1,8 text partly legible, slightly better than the Rolleiflex at 5,6...
At 5,6 1,8 text legible, 1,4 text partly
At 8 and 16 both texts legible.
(No surprise really, I've always found this one to be stingingly sharp. At the 40 euro's it cost me the word undervalued springs to mind)

VL 667: Both text legible at 3,5. Slightly better definition at 5,6, again slightly better at 8. At 16 it's hard to tell the difference with 8, it either equal or slightly less.

So... The 667 already has a reputation for sharpness and I'd say rightly so. No problem using it wide open. The Rolleiflex is less sharp than I would have expected. Not going up for sale though - it sometimes produces a kind of threedimensional look I immensely like. Which is just to say, I do realize it's not all about sharpness...

[Leigh Youdale]

Thanks for the information. I currently have a Bessa III on loan for about another ten days. I too am running a (fairly subjective) comparison with my Rolleiflex Planar 2.8 and have just sent four rolls of Kodak Portra colour film to the lab for processing, scanning and printing.
I'm not sure what to expect as far as results are concerned but your observations seem to indicate it might be a tight race. I haven't made the same sequence of apertures as you did, preferring instead to let the Bessa meter do its "thing" but I did take duplicate shots with both cameras on the first film, so inspection on a light box with a loupe might show if there's any discernable difference.
I expect to get the negs and prints back next week now, so once I've had a look at them I'll post my impressions too.

[valdas]

This is interesting. I would expect Rolleiflex to do better. I have two 3.5F late version cameras (both with planar) and they are very sharp... not that I did any tests vs VL 667 (which I don't have), but I did some tests vs Mamiya sekor 80mm lens for Mamiya TLR. Planar was slightly better.

[Krosya]

I'd check your Rollei. They should perform better than that.

As far as Bessa 667 goes - I haven't tried one and probably never will, because there are 3 things I dont like about it:
1. PRICE - C'mon, it should be much cheaper.
2. Lens is too slow for my taste - I dont see why they couldnt make it 2.8!
3. It's just too big! I understand - to fit 6x6 plus 6x7 it may need to be this size. But I think if Cosina made it to be just 6x6 and much smaller - it would be awsome!

I love folders and I think its a fine camera, just could be cheaper, faster and smaller - I think it would sell far more peices that way. But since they didnt - I'll stick to my old trusty Weltur.

[lshofstra]

Ok, I'll have to retest the Rolleiflex. A bit of (off-topic) history: It had a brighter screen installed and focussing was way off after that, so I sent I back for adjustment. Retested it and it seemed fine. That test was done at another distance though.
As for Krosya's reply: Thanks for responding, but my interest was mainly in lens performance, so I skipped other considerations (which have been discussed in other threads anyway). FWIW, I actually like it's size, not it's price, slow lens no problem as the shutter is virtually vibrationfree which means being able to go down to longer times handheld.

[lshofstra]

Leigh,

Any info on the subject yet? I'd be interested to hear from you....

Regards, Bert

[Debusti Paolo]

I'd check your Rollei. They should perform better than that.

As far as Bessa 667 goes - I haven't tried one and probably never will, because there are 3 things I dont like about it:
1. PRICE - C'mon, it should be much cheaper.
2. Lens is too slow for my taste - I dont see why they couldnt make it 2.8!
3. It's just too big! I understand - to fit 6x6 plus 6x7 it may need to be this size. But I think if Cosina made it to be just 6x6 and much smaller - it would be awsome!

I love folders and I think its a fine camera, just could be cheaper, faster and smaller - I think it would sell far more peices that way. But since they didnt - I'll stick to my old trusty Weltur.
I agree with you!!!!!!!!!http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Leigh Youdale]

Leigh,

Any info on the subject yet? I'd be interested to hear from you....

Regards, Bert

I did post an early result in the other thread - "Travelling Bessa Update" in which the Rollei seemed to come out in front. I'm expecting a swag of prints and scans back today so there might be more news tomorrow.

[Leigh Youdale]

Leigh,

Any info on the subject yet? I'd be interested to hear from you....

Regards, Bert

See the reply I just posted on the "Aussie Bessa" thread.
Shock horror! The Bessa wins overall!

[lshofstra]

Thanks Leigh, I've just had a look at your reply. As your results are compatible with mine (btw, I did shoot B&W, controlled lighting), I'm growing convinced that the Bessa's lens is more than a match for the Planar (of which I happen to have the same one as yours, 2.8 on Rollei E2)
Regards, Bert

[Don Hutton]

i dont comment much oon this camera as i wouldnt mind winning one, i do have a lot of thoughts and tests on it though, i've put more film through this than the little house in the war had GI's through :rolleyes: :D
1)price---nuff said, pretty obvious eh

2)i do think for an 80mm, modern lens it could/should be faster to, at the moment there is little to complain about, its incrediably constraty, sharp and unremarkable

3) it is without a doubt one of the very biggest ever folders made (if not the biggest) that i can think of. what might get close to it!? just from memory (understanding i cant possibly remember every camera ever made) i have to think there is a few from the very early days in the 1920's that were as long (some kodak etc) or in some cases longer but that was at the inception of folder cameras, they all got smaller as the years went by. of course all theae old camera were either 6x9 or larger old formats

to be fair though the extra height has to at least in part be contributed to the more modern type viewfinder, it is large which has to add height. length can be attributed ..to what? saying 6x7 doesnt really cut it as a reasonable excuse (weak design and 6x9 can be made smaller), it nice enough but if the engineers had considered asking people familar with folding camera design they may of acheived something much more compact, enquireing minds will never know! i'd certainly have a few ideas to contribute..depth is mostly due the whatever focusing set up is called on the B3, i'm not familiar with the terms but its not helcoid, some sort of space inefficient slide barrel mount..i could live with that though...the depth and width could easily be improved imo..

if you dont care about having the 'best' viewfinder ever made it could be very short size indeed...just a concept/idea...i actually had trouble seeing the B3 patch under some light conditions, some camera from pre-war under the same conditions (e.g weltur but not limited to that) continued to work under difficult lighting when the B3 patch could no longer be seen at all..the only solution was to give up or guestimateFooty season must be over or else you'd be whining about that instead...

I own one and, IMO, it's a great camera - I haven't shot that much with it - maybe 20 rolls or so (of course probably nothing like the 100s of rolls you've shot through one... but I'm deliberate about what I do with a camera). It's the sharpest MF optic I have ever tested (95lp/mm on center with Rollei ATP) and has a great balance to the out of focus areas too; which a lot of other very sharp optics do not have (like the Mamiya 7). It's frankly in a league of it's own compared to any MF folder ever made. Compared to every other new MF camera I have ever bought, I think it's pretty inexpensive. Then again, it's a tool for making photographs - not a piece of gear to complain about.

[Jamie123]

3) it is without a doubt one of the very biggest ever folders made (if not the biggest) that i can think of. what might get close to it!? just from memory (understanding i cant possibly remember every camera ever made) i have to think there is a few from the very early days in the 1920's that were as long (some kodak etc) or in some cases longer but that was at the inception of folder cameras, they all got smaller as the years went by. of course all theae old camera were either 6x9 or larger old formats

to be fair though the extra height has to at least in part be contributed to the more modern type viewfinder, it is large which has to add height. length can be attributed ..to what? saying 6x7 doesnt really cut it as a reasonable excuse (weak design and 6x9 can be made smaller), it nice enough but if the engineers had considered asking people familar with folding camera design they may of acheived something much more compact, enquireing minds will never know! i'd certainly have a few ideas to contribute..depth is mostly due the whatever focusing set up is called on the B3, i'm not familiar with the terms but its not helcoid, some sort of space inefficient slide barrel mount..i could live with that though...the depth and width could easily be improved imo..


The Polaroid folders (like the Polaroid 900) might've been the same size :)
I'm actually not sure if I'd like the camera to be much smaller as this would make for a worse grip. I think from a design point of view it's pretty evenly balanced so I wouldn't call it weak.

[Jamie123]

Footy season must be over or else you'd be whining about that instead...

I own one and, IMO, it's a great camera - I haven't shot that much with it - maybe 20 rolls or so (of course probably nothing like the 100s of rolls you've shot through one... but I'm deliberate about what I do with a camera). It's the sharpest MF optic I have ever tested (95lp/mm on center with Rollei ATP) and has a great balance to the out of focus areas too; which a lot of other very sharp optics do not have (like the Mamiya 7). It's frankly in a league of it's own compared to any MF folder ever made. Compared to every other new MF camera I have ever bought, I think it's pretty inexpensive. Then again, it's a tool for making photographs - not a piece of gear to complain about.

I have one, too, and I love it but that's no reason to attack chippy for critisizing on some aspects he doesn't like. Like you said, it's just a tool for making photographs he commented on - not a member of your family. No need to get personal and condescending.

It is true, though, that as far as *new* MF cameras go it's not that expensive. People seem to forget that MF film cameras were expensive before digital came along and the market was flooded with cheap used gear.

[Jamie123]

i think it can be more complicated than what we are suggesting Jamie, to make it smaller doesnt mean it automatically has to be a worse grip..i wish you could handle a few old cam i have and i am sure you would agree that smaller can mean better grip (controversially i could tell you that the B2 is easier to handle than the B3 in respects to holding/grip because it has more to hold on to, because the door open the other side!)...ergonomics are of course nowadays a subject that requires a degree-go figure-many of the old folders were designed by people in the feild

, did they have computers back in the 1920-30's or did they simply try em out and felt what ..hmm felt good? either way i assure you that many of the old folder are far more comfy/ergonomic to use, even though they are smaller, you may have to take my word on that,,,the foremost benefits the B3 has is its AE mode (if you want it) and viewfinder and several smaller benefits after that...all of these can be taken into account to offset the disadvantage of ergonomics or size the camera has ,and then you end up with an ideal camera...just pragmatic is all

I don't think you need a computer to take ergonomics into consideration and I don't think they did any less "field testing" with the Bessa III than they did with any old folders back in the day. Sure, aesthetics probably played some part in the design but frankly I'm thankful for that. It's much less 'pragmatic' than the Mamiya 7 but also much nicer to look at. Of course you could say that this doesn't matter but to me it does. I want to be able to take the camera with me when I go out to meet some friends for coffee and don't want to have an ugly beast like the Mamiya hanging from my neck.
(Btw, I speak harshly about the Mamiya's looks here but I do think it's an awesome camera and I'd love to have one.)

Anyways, the good thing (among many other) about actually owning a Bessa III is that in situations like these I can take it out and have another look at it. Honestly, I don't know how it could've been much smaller. You say that the fact that it's 6x7 is no excuse for the size because there are 6x9 cameras of smaller size. However, it's not just 6x7, it's also 6x6 and the switch for the mechanism that changes framelines, frame counter and frame opening needs some space, too. Did I mention that it actually has a frame counter? :) Also, I'm a tall guy (1.90m) with somewhat big hands and for me the size is perfect.

And yes, if you're ready to compromise and a few things you could make a very compact medium format camera. The Holga is a very compact medium format camera. I'm sure it would be easy to make a camera the size of a Holga with a better lens and scale focusing. Make the MF equivalent of a Rollei 35. Personally, I wouldn't pay even $500 for such a camera.

[Leigh Youdale]

Ummmm - there are those who actually know what they're talking about and those who don't. Chippy happens to be one of the former. I have owned a Bessa I (two of them actually) and one each of Perkeo I and II and so have some realistic basis for comparison based on 6x9 and 6x6 folders. The Bessa III is bulky by comparison and appears to be unnecessarily so from a design point of view. And yes, with the door opening to the right it doesn't have a large grip area for right handed photographers. But it has enough.
The offsets in use as a camera (which is what it's all about after all) are the coupled rangefinder, superior viewfinder, coupled meter with AE and (especially) the lens.
I'm looking at it purely from the view of a tool to use for MF and I assess it as being better than other options. As for being an armchair design expert - I can safely leave that to others.

[oftheherd]

I have to agree with Chippy and others that a folder doesn't need to be big or ugly or expensive. If you look at a Zeiss 6x9 you will see a camera long enough for the 6x9, but fairly thin, and quite light, but with a good lens. I wouldn't maybe call it beautiful, but it sure isn't ugly. (By the way, I don't think the VL is ugly for that matter, nor are many cameras either pretty or ugly IMHO) That said, I like the looks of my Weltas better, and the Mamiya Six is kind of neat.

As to cost, the things like film pressure plates, film transport, bellows, spring open doors, and auto exposure, are all things that are well established in the industry. No real amount of R&D required for that. Not for RF systems either.

Mind you, I don't expect them to give their camera away (but it they do I want to be first in line). I just think that a lot of things today, this camera included, are based more on what the manufacturer thinks the market will bear, rather than what would be a price that would ensure enough sales for decent ROI.

I may be wrong. Maybe no matter the cost, they wouldn't sell al lot. But I am just not inclined to believe that. It won't sell like a digital P&S perhaps, but at a good price, it would sell well.

I should caveat that by saying I wouldn't be likely to buy even a cheaper one. I have more than enough folders, two of which are RF, and I can judge distance well. I have several decent light meters. I also have a Super Press 23 so I have MF with interchangeable lenses.

Oh well, enough rambling. Off to consider how to test all my folders without spending a fortune on film. :D

[Jamie123]

when you start talking rubbish like holgas's etc its shows you have strange perspective on what should be a reasonable discussion..taking it all a bit too personal, which is apt to happen because once you have forked oput considerable dollars on a camera such as this its then difficult for many people to be objective and admit any short comming it might have..frankly i dont care, may be because i dont get 'that' attached to them or or i simply see them for what they regardless if i have paid money for them

Fact number one is, whether you care or like to admit is that MANY older folders ARE more comfy and smaller..its as simple as that, a fact, no dark nights, no lies its just the way it is...that leads me to think that indeed someone did not feild test this camera as it should have been re it ergonomics and comfort, it could and should be improved..if there is some other reason why this wasnt made correctly then so be it, i am simply offering a theory

atheistic s i think it does fine with, no complaints from me mostly, i agree the M7 is somewhat ugly!!!! ultimately a very practicle camera though....

to you and me i think we agree the B3 is nicer to look at...but i am not confident in your asumtion that friends over a morning coffee arnt scared the hell out of when a beast like this opens up in front of them, (people freak the hell out!!! LOL it amazes and scares em haha) not to mention the people on the table next to you...come on , you know if you have done this you end up with a bunch of people either ducking for cover or so interested that your coffeee goes cold telling em all about the dam camera!!! :D

I wasn't "talking rubbish like Holga". I took the Holga as an example for a very small and compact medium format camera because I happen to have one sitting on my table (I got it as a gift). My point was that you could make a medium format camera of this size without all the bells and whistles but with a great lens and you'd have a very compact MF camera. Many of the old folders are exactly that. A nice compact camera with a decent lens and no bells and whistles. That's perfectly fine. However, if I'm going to shell out money for a newly produced camera I'd like some of these bells and whilstles (like a meter, AE and a frame counter).

Of course I know that many old folders are smaller and maybe even more comfortable. I actually don't think that the Bessa III is incredibly comfortable to hold at all but IMO the problem isn't that it's too big. I think the problem is that the door is a bit too bulky.
Believe me, I'm very objective when it comes to this camera and will not sugarcoat anything I don't like about it. I will also admit that I did not buy this camera solely out of practical reason. This camera is for my personal stuff, so I want to have fun using it. For work I have to use digital whether I like it or not.

What I meant with my example of taking the camera out when meeting friends for coffee was that I can take this camera with me and when I don't use it just have it hanging from my arm (folded) without anyone noticing it much. With a Mamiya 7 you always have this ugly bulky camera with you.

[Jamie123]

Ummmm - there are those who actually know what they're talking about and those who don't. Chippy happens to be one of the former.

Which one are you?

I have owned a Bessa I (two of them actually) and one each of Perkeo I and II and so have some realistic basis for comparison based on 6x9 and 6x6 folders. The Bessa III is bulky by comparison and appears to be unnecessarily so from a design point of view. And yes, with the door opening to the right it doesn't have a large grip area for right handed photographers. But it has enough.

I have no idea what is and what isn't necessary regarding the Bessa III's design. Until I see an exploded view of one I can't comment further on that. All I'm saying is that it's silly to say the Bessa III could be smaller if they left away some of the main features (great finder, frame counter, AE). That's basically saying the Bessa III could be as small as the Bessa II if they made the III exactly like the II.

As for being an armchair design expert - I can safely leave that to others.

Like chippy? But I thought that he knew what he was talking about??

[Steve M.]

You're right, it isn't all about sharpness. The 3D look and the bokeh of a Planar are worth a heck of a lot more than sharpness. My Contax G Zeiss lenses were really sharp, but to my mind they were a poor second to a Leica lens because of the way the Leica rendered images. Talk about 3D!

I suspect that stopping a MF lens all the way down doesn't cause un-sharpness like a 35mm lens (or as much un-harpness) because even stopped all the way down the aperture opening is pretty large. Look at a LF lens sometime that's stopped down to F32. The opening is huge compared to a 35mm lens.

I like MF too because Tri-X can get a little grainy if development isn't spot on. My MF folders shoot Tri-X w/ a smoothness that is beautiful to behold.

[Leigh Youdale]

.....but i am not confident in your asumtion that friends over a morning coffee arnt scared the hell out of when a beast like this opens up in front of them, (people freak the hell out!!! LOL it amazes and scares em haha) not to mention the people on the table next to you...come on , you know if you have done this you end up with a bunch of people either ducking for cover or so interested that your coffeee goes cold telling em all about the dam camera!!! :D

An interesting aside and when I was testing the B3 against the Rollei it became apparent that one of the Rolleiflex advantages was a more subtle operation. The first photo is one I took with the Bessa and, having to aim and focus by guesswork, then put it on a chair and fire the shutter I produced a rather poor shot - both composition and focus.
By contrast, the next day with the Rolleiflex I got the second shot simply by putting it on the table next to my coffee cup, aimed at 90 degrees to the direction I was facing, focused and fired. (The white blur in the bottom of the frame is the edge of my table).

[Jamie123]

at any rate there has been a few posts or PM's of support for my alternative posts, including you jamie, so i would like to acknowledged that, i do appreciate it, not expected but much appreciated..makes me feel like a human LOL

just let me posit an entirely different angle of view to you though Jamie, you are an owner of said nice camera or you are and have been for the past 10 years!!!!

can i ask, is this the sort of camera (you have to try and think outside the square here) that uses 120 film with all its added expenses to use as a very easy point and shoot camera? every week for the next 10 years?! have you a realistic idea what its going to cost? perhaps a couple of thousand a year? (not having a go just wondering what your thoughts are) one or five films a week, processing costs?


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]

I suspect that stopping a MF lens all the way down doesn't cause un-sharpness like a 35mm lens (or as much un-harpness) because even stopped all the way down the aperture opening is pretty large. Look at a LF lens sometime that's stopped down to F32. The opening is huge compared to a 35mm lens.


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]

All I'm saying is that it's silly to say the Bessa III could be smaller if they left away some of the main features

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]

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

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]

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!

[Leigh Youdale]

Finally, I expect the Bessa to do better because it has multi-coating. This improves contrast and gives the impression of higher acuity.

Well it certainly did that!

Why not test the Bessa against the mamiya 7SII and a rolleiflex FX or GX? Give it some real competition!

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]

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!



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/index.cfm/site/Fotomuseum/pageid/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]

.........
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!!!!)
:p

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]

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:p...however, i still think it holds true that, generally, in most situations MF isnt the camera of choice for candids. if 'someone' (a blank sheet/no idea) walked into a shop that 'had all cameras' and asked for a camera to take candids with, they would walk out with a 35mm...i also agree with you about noticeable differences between small and MF, even enlarging to 8x10 , but ya know, as many homes that i have walked into I rarely see candid shots enlarged, hanging on the wall, more deliberate shots yes.

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]

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]

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/

[Emile de Leon]

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.

[thegman]

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!

[ianstamatic]

And while Canon/Nikon and the rest make very low profits and losses on consumer DSLRs,


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!

$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.