My Experiences With The Bessa III So Far

[John NYC]

Here is one sample photo from my first (and only, so far) developed roll:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3394602...52334/sizes/l/

Caveat Emptor: I'm a new photographer, but following are my impressions, in no particular order.

- I bought a Hasselblad 501 system recently also, and I would not want to give that up for this camera. This camera cannot do what the Hassy with a 150mm lens on it can. Even the 80mm on the Hassy is more "creamy" and has a more large format look to it to me. However, I really like having options. I will still shoot my 35mm film cameras for this reason. Everything has a slightly different look and this is a GOOD thing.

- The out-of-focus areas on the Bessa are not as pleasing to my eye when compared to either of my Hasselblad lenses or my Nikon 85mm f/1.4D, which is a dream in that regard. I like the Bessa better stopped down than wide open.

- It is an absolutely great camera for carrying around with me all the time. I live in NYC and I just can't manage to lug the Hasselblad everywhere in my messenger bag. The Bessa fits nice and snug in a 35mm SLR neoprene body bag, which is how I protect it. I was carrying around either a digital or a Nikon FM2n before with a small lens and in many ways, the Bessa is easier to tote because it folds and becomes like a crab in its own protective shell.

- I'm not sure if my technique is bad on the focus aspect (first rangefinder I've owned) or if the camera is out of alignment from the get go. In the sample picture above, I THINK I was trying to focus on the horse foliage (difficult with the rangefinder square because there were no lines to align) but instead the light leaves just in front came out most in focus. In the picture of the ties on my flickr site, I was definitely focusing on the wooden separator, which should have been easy, however, I feel like maybe the ties just the left could be slightly more in focus. It is hard to tell because this photo came out a little flat, though the color is SPOT on with what I saw in the store. If I am right about the focus on the ties (and remembering correctly the focus on the horse), this would be weird because it would be the opposite focus misalignment as in the horse picture. So, I'm thinking it might be a user error problem. I have taken with my current roll (still in camera) a picture of some bricks at medium close range at f/5.6 that should definitely decide the focus issue. More on that later in this thread when I get those developed... which might be a while as I take in a load at a time.

- When something is in focus with this camera, it appears razor sharp. Again, view the sample shot at the largest size... the front leaves.

- People come up and talk to you sometimes while you are using this camera because it looks so cool. It elevates you from photo dork to some cool arty dude instantly, even if you are taking dorky pictures of huge chia pets and tie racks.

- The folding part of using this camera is really no bother. In fact, it is a lot faster and easier to unfold this camera than to take a lens cap on and off and put it in your pocket.

- Some people mentioned they don't like the winder on another thread. I think it is solid and nice. A couple of easy twists and you are on the next frame. Get back to infinity (which quickly became a habit), close down the front, and you're moving again. The shutter release button locks solid while the camera is closed so no fear of accidentally taking a shot in your bag.

- In general, I am very happy I bought the camera (as long as I can resolve my focus issues, i.e., is it me or the camera). With this and the Hasselblad, I feel I've got medium format film covered. My next step is large format because I've obviously gone insane with this stuff and need help.

John

Edit:

- Oh, and the meter is fantastic. Works great.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

hm.. I had several Bessas, the I and a beautful II. I got only very sharp pictures when I put them on a tripod.

[John NYC]

Originally Posted by Ron (Netherlands)

hm.. I had several Bessas, the I and a beautful II. I got only very sharp pictures when I put them on a tripod.

Check out that one leaf in front lower center. It is sharp and in focus. And this was with the lens wide open, hand held and in the early evening. I think it was 1/30th of a second. The focus issue I might be having is not about is anything in focus, but is the thing I am focussing on in focus. For now, I am chalking it up to user error, until my (yes, handheld unfortunately) test shot I took gets developed. I should take another shot on a tripod though as you suggest here just to be sure... or skip my morning coffee.

[Keith]

I agree with you about the lens ... it's sharpness can't be questioned but it doesn't have the character of a Zeiss IMO.

You can successfully hand hold this camera down to 1/4 sec if you're careful ... it's incredible. The one I used for a couple of weeks did have fairly uneven frame spacing though ... have you noticed this at all?

[John NYC]

Originally Posted by Keith

The one I used for a couple of weeks did have fairly uneven frame spacing though ... have you noticed this at all?

Forgive me as I am new to this. You mean on the negs? The lab cut my negs, so I didn't look at this aspect. If you are talking about how does the viewfinder align to what comes out on film... well, this is my first rangefinder, so I don't really have a basis for comparison. I can say that of the pictures I've taken, nothing I've not expected to be in the pictures is there and lines and angles I aligned with corners are on target angle-wise.

With my current roll, I'm shooting with the 6x6 mask turned on. The previous roll I did 6x7.

[Keith]

I guess if the lab cut your negs it's hard to tell ... I'm refering to the spacing between each exposure. I develop my own film and I noticed a substantial variation.

I found the frame lines to be very accurate though ... more so than any other rangefinder I own.

[Stephen Best]

Originally Posted by Keith

I guess if the lab cut your negs it's hard to tell ... I'm refering to the spacing between each exposure. I develop my own film and I noticed a substantial variation.

Fairly regular spacing on mine. I know from experience with my 6x12 Horseman back that 120 will slip if wound too fast so this may be moderating my winding.

[mgd711]

I've also found that on certain films the frame spacing can be quite wild. Rarely too close, more often than not the gap's between frames varies from normal to wide.

On the subject of focus, I've found the camera to be very accurate.

[Keith]

The first roll of film I developed from my Hasselblad amazed me ... consistent to within a millimeter or so ... and quite close for 120 film. In fact there would be room for another frame quite easily!

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by Keith

The first roll of film I developed from my Hasselblad amazed me ... consistent to within a millimeter or so ... and quite close for 120 film. In fact there would be room for another frame quite easily!

This may go back to the other thread in which you talked about the light and loose roll situation.

It has always been my experience that film wound on inserts, like the backs for Hasselblads, Bronica's, Mamiya's, etc, are always more precise on spacing than film wound from supply roll to a takeup roll in a clamshell closing back, ie. Fuji rangefinders, Mamiya K type backs on the Press series, all folders, and so on.

I think frame spacing variations is a function of the type of mechanism used to advance the film. Film pre-loaded on inserts seems always to be consistently tight. Film spacing wound on film transports other than inserts will become more consistent when wound with increased care for tension.

I used to think my Fuji rangefinders and Konica Press cameras were pretty sloppy on frame spacing until I changed my level of care on loading.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by kuzano

This may go back to the other thread in which you talked about the light and loose roll situation.

It has always been my experience that film wound on inserts, like the backs for Hasselblads, Bronica's, Mamiya's, etc, are always more precise on spacing than film wound from supply roll to a takeup roll in a clamshell closing back, ie. Fuji rangefinders, Mamiya K type backs on the Press series, all folders, and so on.

I think frame spacing variations is a function of the type of mechanism used to advance the film. Film pre-loaded on inserts seems always to be consistently tight. Film spacing wound on film transports other than inserts will become more consistent when wound with increased care for tension.

I used to think my Fuji rangefinders and Konica Press cameras were pretty sloppy on frame spacing until I changed my level of care on loading.

I learnt with my Bronica RF645 to put a bit of friction on the edges of the film spool while advancing to the start arrow to keep everything as taut as possible before closing the camera ... it made a difference.

The Hasselblad film backs seem almost fool proof to me and really not too hard to load compared to the Bessa style clam shell.

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by Keith

I learnt with my Bronica RF645 to put a bit of friction on the edges of the film spool while advancing to the start arrow to keep everything as taut as possible before closing the camera ... it made a difference.

The Hasselblad film backs seem almost fool proof to me and really not too hard to load compared to the Bessa style clam shell.

Inserts are far easier to load and keep the film tight than cameras on which you tension the film and close the door at the same time.
I almost feel that one should have a third arm growing out of the middle of your chest to keep tension on the film.

[wlewisiii]

I've yet to use a MF system where it wasn't true - keep a finger on the feed spool & keep it tight till it's all lined up & closed. Anything else gives you problems... At least for me, yada yada yada.

William

[Keith]

I remember reading somewhere that a lot of the folders don't do a very good job of keeping the film plane flat ... that and their rather vague method of distancing the lens from the film surface makes them a little less than perfect for critical focusing.

[Jamie123]

Actually, I have had quite a few problems with spacing on Hasselblad backs with one back even giving me overlapping frames. When this starts to happen you know it's time for a CLA which nowadays costs more than buying a new back.
Another problem with insert type film backs is that if you leave the film in the back mid-roll for a while and then wind on, you get a bend in the emulsion that sits in the middle of the frame. Granted, it's a bit of a non-issue as it's hardly ever noticeable in the end result but it's still one of the drawbacks of insert type backs.


Just got my Bessa III half an hour ago so I'm gonna go load a roll of film

[Jamie123]

A short question for users of the camera:
Is it correct, that the film advance also works when the lens is folded? I suspect this could become a little bit of an annoyance as it would lend itself to accidental advancement of the film.

[Stephen Best]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

A short question for users of the camera:
Is it correct, that the film advance also works when the lens is folded? I suspect this could become a little bit of an annoyance as it would lend itself to accidental advancement of the film.

You can advance either open or closed but it won't move on until you've exposed the frame (or the whole roll). The shutter is disabled when closed. Basically, what you'd expect.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Stephen Best

You can advance either open or closed but it won't move on until you've exposed the frame (or the whole roll). The shutter is disabled when closed. Basically, what you'd expect.

Thanks for the quick reply. I just realized this myself after I loaded the first roll. I was a bit confused as the winding is not locked when the camera is not loaded.

[Way]

Hope you enjoy and use your Bessa III as much as I have! I haven't any negative feelings about the bokeh of the lens when wide open but it probably isn't as beautifully smooth as the Hassy's 80mm at 2.8. Here's two shots showing the Bessa III wide open. Sorry for posting these again but it's just to illustrate a point about the bokeh.

[John NYC]

Originally Posted by Way

Hope you enjoy and use your Bessa III as much as I have! I haven't any negative feelings about the bokeh of the lens when wide open but it probably isn't as beautifully smooth as the Hassy's 80mm at 2.8. Here's two shots showing the Bessa III wide open. Sorry for posting these again but it's just to illustrate a point about the bokeh.

Those are nice shots. I'm not saying I don't like the bokeh, just that I'd rate the other two slightly better (Hasselblad Zeiss) and much better (Nikon 85mm f/1.4D - 35mm format). Don't want to scare anyone off from the lens quality in this regard.

Here is just one example of what the Nikon can do...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33946021@N04/3954424454/

[John NYC]

Originally Posted by Way

Hope you enjoy and use your Bessa III as much as I have! I haven't any negative feelings about the bokeh of the lens when wide open but it probably isn't as beautifully smooth as the Hassy's 80mm at 2.8. Here's two shots showing the Bessa III wide open. Sorry for posting these again but it's just to illustrate a point about the bokeh.

Compare a recent Hasselbald with same type of forward subject with distant background. In my neophyte opinion, the OOF is better on the Hasselblad.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3394602...69744/sizes/l/

I love this camera, but it definitely (for me) doesn't replace the 'blad. Does it really have to?

[JanPB]

Originally Posted by Way

Hope you enjoy and use your Bessa III as much as I have! I haven't any negative feelings about the bokeh of the lens when wide open but it probably isn't as beautifully smooth as the Hassy's 80mm at 2.8. Here's two shots showing the Bessa III wide open. Sorry for posting these again but it's just to illustrate a point about the bokeh.

Ah, NOW I understand what everyone is talking about. The background looks agitated, disquiet. Yes, definitely the out of focus areas on the Plaubel 670 are all silk in comparison. The older I get the more I'm aware the Plaubel is a work of genius.

On the other hand there is definitely a place for slightly "nervous" backgrounds.

--
Jan

[Asher Kelman]

John, Stephen and anyone else with the new Bessa III, how quiet is the shutter? Can you say it would not be heard in a classical music performance? I'm impressed with a remark that the shutter was so quiet that one isn't sure it fired! That sound promising and how true is that statement?

Thanks,

Asher

[Stephen Best]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

John, Stephen and anyone else with the new Bessa III, how quiet is the shutter?

Quieter than some of the programme fiddlers and lolly paper unwrappers that I've had to put up with over the years! I reckon you'd get away with it. It's not a sound that anyone would recognise as a shutter so if the person just in front heard it during a pause in Cage's 4'33" (joke) they probably wouldn't twig. Cameras aren't allowed at most concerts I go (or rather used to go) to though.

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Stephen Best

Quieter than some of the programme fiddlers and lolly paper unwrappers that I've had to put up with over the years! I reckon you'd get away with it. It's not a sound that anyone would recognise as a shutter so if the person just in front heard it during a pause in Cage's 4'33" (joke) they probably wouldn't twig. Cameras aren't allowed at most concerts I go (or rather used to go) to though.

Thanks, Stephen,

How would you compare the shutter sound to that of Leica's or other quiet shutters you might reference? At the moment I'm using a 5DII but have to wait between the music pieces or get them to replay at the end after the applause and the folk are leaving! Some of my work is here. I am thinking that a stealthy MF film camera might allow me to shoot during the performance. The 80mm means I'd have to do it close to the front but, that's do able.

The other issue in shooting concerts is the massive dynamic range but overall low light. The stage lights are overhead. By eye, everything looks fine. In pictures, if one doesn't use -1.5 Ev the heads, shoulders and arms vanish as they are over exposed to white out! So I guess I'd do the same with film. If the Bessa III is really quiet, it might be a great tool for music performance photography.

I appreciate any further ideas you might have.

Asher