bench marking my Bessa I (Vaskar lens)

[pellicle]

Hi

its hardly a scientific 'test' but I thought I'd get some idea of how well my bessa might work as a replacement for my 4x5 camera on trips. This is not the forum for discussing digital, but I used a 10D as my 'bench mark'

I've put it up here for those interested

feedback and hints welcome

 

[ntenny]

Interesting stuff; thanks for posting it. I think you're right that there's a motion-blur problem; also, I'm not convinced that what you're seeing from the Bessa is limited by the camera rather than the scanner. (Think about degree of enlargeability and the dpi of the scanner...)

-NT

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Hi

its hardly a scientific 'test' but I thought I'd get some idea of how well my bessa might work as a replacement for my 4x5 camera on trips. This is not the forum for discussing digital, but I used a 10D as my 'bench mark'

I've put it up here for those interested

feedback and hints welcome

The Vaskar is a Triplet and it is not fair to compare it with a 4x5 with a modern lens mounted.

It is also not fair to compare the 105mm Vaskar with the modern 5 component, 5 element Fujinon 90mm on the Fuji GW690.

I have a Fuji GW690 and it does very well indeed when compared with my 4x5 (with a modern lens mounted).

Also, when tripod mounted, my Bessa-II (with 105mm Color Skopar) produces excellent negatives.

 

[ntenny]

The Vaskar is a Triplet and it is not fair to compare it with a 4x5 with a modern lens mounted.

It is if you're trying to decide which one of the two to use, right? Well, maybe "fair" isn't the right word, but there wouldn't be much point in the OP trying to decide whether to use a camera he doesn't have.

-NT

 

[sanking]

Hi

its hardly a scientific 'test' but I thought I'd get some idea of how well my bessa might work as a replacement for my 4x5 camera on trips. This is not the forum for discussing digital, but I used a 10D as my 'bench mark'

I've put it up here for those interested

feedback and hints welcome

How did you focus the Bessa?

My experience is that 6X9 folders with long lenses (105mm -110mm) do not do well at all in comparisons where the objects are fairly close. Might be more interesting to do a comparison of a landscape scene.

Sandy King

 

[pellicle]

Hi

How did you focus the Bessa?

I kind of cheated. I made up a ground glass, and with the camera on a stool similar to the one holding the ruler brought everything into as sharp focus as I could (using a x10 loupe attached to the GG).

I then measured this distance, loaded film into the camera and positioned the camera again using the tape measure (you'll spot the tape measure on the floor from where I put it down after I used it).

My experience is that 6X9 folders with long lenses (105mm -110mm) do not do well at all in comparisons where the objects are fairly close. Might be more interesting to do a comparison of a landscape scene.

I also subsequently did that (of course . This image

was taken out walking around my neighborhood. Its taken at f8 and shows clearly the very restricted DoF available.

I'm not sure if the problem (not doing well at close distance which I tried to asses in my published test) is the lenses or the inability to accurately choose focus. Something like 30 years ago (when I was a school kid) I was doing macro pictures with ruler measurements and an old Aries Viscount 35mm camera with quite good outcomes.

Anyway, I feel that the major issues with this camera are

• difficulty of tripod mounting due to base shape and mount position
• accuracy of focus
• optimistic DoF markings for 'zone focusing' (leading to soft images)
• camera shake induced by the dreadful shutter mechanism

but as a LF user I don't find the camera all that challenging to use, on the contrary its almost laughably simple and quick to use

 

[pellicle]

Tom

The Vaskar is a Triplet and it is not fair to compare it with a 4x5 with a modern lens mounted.

true, but I'm not trying to suggest that its a competition. Pitting me against a professional cross country skier would not be fair either and we'd know from the start who would win.

but in the absence of anything to go by I wanted to know if the lens was good bad or middlin based on some benchmark. From there I can decide if its worth my while using it or not.

I have a Fuji GW690 and it does very well indeed when compared with my 4x5 (with a modern lens mounted).

that's what I've heard. I almost went that way (instead of 4x5) but the versatility of the 4x5 system won me over the simplicity of use and exposure numbers of exposures possible with roll film.

Also, when tripod mounted, my Bessa-II (with 105mm Color Skopar) produces excellent negatives.

I'd be very keen to know how you think it stacks up against the GW690? Both are rangefinder cameras both are 6x9 and have similar angles of view. I'm particularly interested in how well (accurately) they compare in focus and shutter accuracy. Good examples are selling for 2/3 the cost of a Fuji.

I'm not a camera collector I'm a photographer, so use is more important to me than "collectability" or resale value.

Thanks

 

[elekm]

I've been using a Super Ikonta 6x9 with a Tessar (mid-1930s), and it gives incredible photos whether they be landscape or up close.

Take a look here. This was the first roll after restoration, but I've shot plenty of film with this camera, and I've also been very impressed with the results.

As well, I've shot with a zone-focus Ikonta 6x9 (also with a Tessar) and have always been impressed with its sharp lens.

Is the lens on your camera clean? That also can contribute to soft photos. As well, it should be collimated and mounted to a tripod, if possible. Also, you can only squeeze so much performance out of a triplet.

 

[pellicle]

I've added another page comparing images on my blog here

it seems that one can indeed squeeze a lot out of this camera. I wonder if the Helia lensed II version would go close to a Fuji GW690?