So who has ordered their M9

[Loris Medici]

...
One cool feature is that the frame lines move as you focus. I also like the ability to change to 6x6 on the fly. And I think it may have the quietest shutter I've ever heard or not heard as the case maybe.
...

nice ... parallax correction I assume?

Not only parallax correction but also the frame itself change dimension according to where you focus. (Infinity focus largest, closest focus smallest; the difference can be quite pronouced with a 80mm lens...) Therefore, it seems that Bessa III has the most accurate framelines among all rangefinder cameras.

 

[teepz]

Chris,

A fruu-fruu coffee at Starbucks can cost as much as $4.50. Or a large regular brew is over $2.00. Add a pastry and next thing you know one can easily burn a $5 bill.

Don

Ahhhh I feel like this might be the worst first post ever, especially as a Mamiya 645 shooter (who snapshoots with a QL17 and luuusssssts over Leicas) but... Starbucks!? You guys don't have a local roaster? I encourage you to see if you have other, better options.

In any event, I'm going to add my support to those who think the film vs. digital debate is absurd in its present form. I do think that there certainly is a debate, but at the same time I absolutely believe the two are capable of coexisting. I feel like it's a long tirade that I'm in no place to get into here at 1:45AM, but let's just say that I've shot and loved both film and digital, but am now shooting 100% film and processing digitally. And also, note that at the same time I've shot and loved both SLR and rangefinder - I mostly shoot SLR right now, but also shoot some stuff rangefinder. I think it just goes to show that we are lucky as photographers to still have so many amazing tools, both from today's technology and from long-lasting and well engineered "old" technology, to shoot beautiful or provocative or inspirational or whatever pictures.

There's a lot of people out there who harp that photographic equipment is all about choosing the right tool for the job. I think that they are kind of correct. I do agree that choosing the perfect tool for the job might be the best way to attack said job straight on. However, I feel that as artists, it is up to us to choose the tools that feel right for the job. And frankly, when I'm standing in front of your print, I don't give a damn.

 

[sanking]

Not only parallax correction but also the frame itself change dimension according to where you focus. (Infinity focus largest, closest focus smallest; the difference can be quite pronouced with a 80mm lens...) Therefore, it seems that Bessa III has the most accurate framelines among all rangefinder cameras.

I could not afford both the Leica M9 and the Voigtlander Bessa III 667 so decided to get the Bessa III. I hesitated since I already have a complete Mamiya 7II outfit (two bodies and five lenses) but eventually decided that it would be an ideal travel camera and would fit my needs very well. I have been told that the lens on the Bessa III is even better than the 80mm lens for the Mamiya 7II. Hope to be able to test this for myself in the next day or

Could be wrong but my intuition is that the Bessa III is a classic right out of the box and will hold its value very well for many years to come. But would love to see a Bessa III 669 with a 50mm lens.


Sandy King

 

[donbga]

I could not afford both the Leica M9 and the Voigtlander Bessa III 667 so decided to get the Bessa III. I hesitated since I already have a complete Mamiya 7II outfit (two bodies and five lenses) but eventually decided that it would be an ideal travel camera and would fit my needs very well. I have been told that the lens on the Bessa III is even better than the 80mm lens for the Mamiya 7II. Hope to be able to test this for myself in the next day or

Could be wrong but my intuition is that the Bessa III is a classic right out of the box and will hold its value very well for many years to come. But would love to see a Bessa III 669 with a 50mm lens.


Sandy King

Sandy,

I think you will be pleased with it as a travel camera. The lens on the Fuji version is indeed sharp and I beleive resolves a little better than the M7 80mm lens.

I'm sure you can compare your testing results with Fuji owners.

Don

 

[Loris Medici]

Have fun with your Bessa III Sandy! (And please share results / comparison soon...) I have the money for one right now (sold few cameras and lenses to raise funds) but I'm waiting a reply from a friend; he's a screen printers' supplier and he is going to quote price for a screen exposure unit. (NuArc MSP 2125.) I decided that a large exposure unit with vacuum frame and light integrator will be much useful to me. If he quotes a impossible price, then I will return to the original idea of purchasing the Bessa III... BTW, he also stocks Agfa SelectJet for very good prices. (One third the price for Pictorico in the States!!!) You can bet I'm very happy! Will be able to make big and sharp prints with utmost certainty, finally...

Regards,
Loris.

... decided to get the Bessa III ...

 

[sanking]

I'm sure you can compare your testing results with Fuji owners.

Don

Don,

I had assumed that the Fuji and Voigtlander versions are the same camera just with a different name. Do you have any reason to believe that one might be better/different than the other?

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Loris,

I will be sure to post my comparison results.

BTW, I agree that a good printing light should be a high priority item for anyone interested in alternative printing. A good printer with built in vacuum frame and light integrator makes printing so much more easy and enjoyable.

Sandy

 

[pschwart]

I could not afford both the Leica M9 and the Voigtlander Bessa III 667 so decided to get the Bessa III. I hesitated since I already have a complete Mamiya 7II outfit (two bodies and five lenses) but eventually decided that it would be an ideal travel camera and would fit my needs very well. I have been told that the lens on the Bessa III is even better than the 80mm lens for the Mamiya 7II. Hope to be able to test this for myself in the next day or

Could be wrong but my intuition is that the Bessa III is a classic right out of the box and will hold its value very well for many years to come. But would love to see a Bessa III 669 with a 50mm lens.


Sandy King

Why did you decide the Mamiya was not sufficient? The Bessa weighs only a few ounces less, and it's lens is fixed. They are both rangefinders, so that's a draw. I paid $400 for a nice Fuji 6x9, so I could get 6 of them for the price of a new Bessa. Granted, the Fuji weighs a lot more, but I'm guessing they are not far apart in image quality. At $2500 USD I don't think they will sell a lot of these. I'll wait and get mine used

 

[sanking]

Why did you decide the Mamiya was not sufficient? The Bessa weighs only a few ounces less, and it's lens is fixed. They are both rangefinders, so that's a draw. I paid $400 for a nice Fuji 6x9, so I could get 6 of them for the price of a new Bessa. Granted, the Fuji weighs a lot more, but I'm guessing they are not far apart in image quality. At $2500 USD I don't think they will sell a lot of these. I'll wait and get mine used

Phil,

I am not discarding the Mamiya 7II system as it is clearly more versatile than the fixed lens Bessa III. However, the Bessa III is much more compact than the Mamiya 7II with 80mm lens mounted and that is its major attraction for me, as I suspect it will be for others. I also have a Fuji GW690III and it makes great negatives, but even compared to the Mamiya 7II it takes up a lot of space.

You can already get the Bessa III used, saw one today on ebay for $1950 or so. However, I would not expect the price to go much lower than that because it is a niche type camera like the Plaubel Makina 67, which still commands a very high price used even though the design is over 20 years old and known for certain failures.

My understanding is the Cosina only made 5000 of the Bessa III cameras. That is not a lot of cameras so I expect the low production run plus the unique design qualities of the Bessa III will keep its value high for a number of years. So basically I figure to be able to use this camera for several years and eventually sell it used for a fairly high percentage of purchase price. I just sold off a number of ULF lenses and got more than 100% of purchase price on every single one of them, and I prefer to park that money in other equipment that is not likely to depreciate a lot over the years, as would for example a 22-24 mp DSLR.

Sandy

 

[pschwart]

Phil,

I am not discarding the Mamiya 7II system as it is clearly more versatile than the fixed lens Bessa III. However, the Bessa III is much more compact than the Mamiya 7II with 80mm lens mounted and that is its major attraction for me, as I suspect it will be for others. I also have a Fuji GW690III and it makes great negatives, but even compared to the Mamiya 7II it takes up a lot of space.

You can already get the Bessa III used, saw one today on ebay for $1950 or so. However, I would not expect the price to go much lower than that because it is a niche type camera like the Plaubel Makina 67, which still commands a very high price used even though the design is over 20 years old and known for certain failures.

My understanding is the Cosina only made 5000 of the Bessa III cameras. That is not a lot of cameras so I expect the low production run plus the unique design qualities of the Bessa III will keep its value high for a number of years. So basically I figure to be able to use this camera for several years and eventually sell it used for a fairly high percentage of purchase price. I just sold off a number of ULF lenses and got more than 100% of purchase price on every single one of them, and I prefer to park that money in other equipment that is not likely to depreciate a lot over the years, as would for example a 22-24 mp DSLR.

Sandy

No argument, the Fuji is a honking big camera, and weighs in around 3-1/2 lbs., so not a great travel camera. Rolleis weigh about the same; they are much more compact, but the neg is "only" 6x6. I wish the camera manfacturers would take a more enlightened view and realize that they could sell a more at a cheaper price point. To be honest, I really prefer reflex viewing for some subject matter. The Fuji rangefinder is easy to focus, but the lens intrudes into the viewing frame, and depth-of-field is a complete guess. There is no perfect camera, which is why I have a cabinets full of them.

 

[sanking]

No argument, the Fuji is a honking big camera, and weighs in around 3-1/2 lbs., so not a great travel camera. Rolleis weigh about the same; they are much more compact, but the neg is "only" 6x6. I wish the camera manfacturers would take a more enlightened view and realize that they could sell a more at a cheaper price point. To be honest, I really prefer reflex viewing for some subject matter. The Fuji rangefinder is easy to focus, but the lens intrudes into the viewing frame, and depth-of-field is a complete guess. There is no perfect camera, which is why I have a cabinets full of them.

BTW, given the fact that compact was one of the main reasons I decided to purchase the Bessa III I must admit to being somewhat disappointed that it is no smaller than it is. While the Bessa III is indeed more compact and weighs less than a Mamiyia 7II with lens, it is quite a bit larger and heavier than my 1950s vintage Bessa II 6X9 folder.

The Bessa II is 165mm long X 101mm high X 38mm thick, and it weighs 830 grams. By contrst the Bessa III is 178mm long X 109mm high X 64mm thick, and it weighs 1030 grams.

And the Bessa II with 105mm f/3.5 Color Skopar makes really nice negatives, not too far off the quality of Fuji GW690III with the lens stopped down to f/11 or f/16.

Sandy

 

[Loris Medici]

Indeed, it's not that compact but with the Bessa III you have:

1. a much better VF/RF (bigger / brighter image, parallax correction and much more accurate frame lines - in fact, the most accurate frame lines among all RF cameras, right?)
2. multi format feature
3. high precision electronic shutter, lightmeter and auto exposure
4. presumably much better wide-open performance (especially in the edges and corners. Wide-open performance is what defines a superior lens in my understanding...)

which in my view justifies +25% weight and 2x volume. (Roughly 25% elongation in all three dimensions.)

BTW, as you noted the key element in Bessa III is the fact that it can fold. If I had both, I couldn't carry the M7II and a standard lens with me all the time, at least not with the ease Bessa III would provide me. I'd still need a proper camera bag for the M7II whereas I could fit the Bessa III folded under my coat if I'd like to do so... I sold a good MF system just because it was too big for my liking. I really need a (high quality) camera which I can carry all the time, conveniently.

Regards,
Loris.

BTW, given the fact that compact was one of the main reasons I decided to purchase the Bessa III I must admit to being somewhat disappointed that it is no smaller than it is. While the Bessa III is indeed more compact and weighs less than a Mamiyia 7II with lens, it is quite a bit larger and heavier than my 1950s vintage Bessa II 6X9 folder.

The Bessa II is 165mm long X 101mm high X 38mm thick, and it weighs 830 grams. By contrst the Bessa III is 178mm long X 109mm high X 64mm thick, and it weighs 1030 grams.

And the Bessa II with 105mm f/3.5 Color Skopar makes really nice negatives, not too far off the quality of Fuji GW690III with the lens stopped down to f/11 or f/16.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

which in my view justifies +25% weight and 2x volume. (Roughly 25% elongation in all three dimensions.)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

I agree with all of your points, which is in fact why I bought the Bessa III.

BTW, I ran some comparative resolution tests today with the Bessa III 80mm f/3.5 Heliar and the Mamiya 7II with 80mm Mamiya lens.

One of the interesting aspects of the tests was that this was the first time I have done this type of testing since I had cataract surgery. Before I had a very hard time doing the very close focusing that is necessary when you shoot a resolution target at close distance. Today with my new eyes it was easy as pie.

But to the results. I made exposures with both lenses at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and f/16. Best results with both lenses was at f/5.6. Something of a wash in terms of the comparison. The Heliar lens had just a tad higher resolution in the center, but the Mamiya lens had a tad higher resolution at the corners. Both lenses give much higher resolution than any other MF lenses I have tested.

I hope to be able to get out tomorrow and make some good comparative photographs of real scenes.

Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

Thanks much for taking the trouble (and most importantly sharing results), I appreciate that very much. I'll have an eye on apug's mf cameras forum...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pellicle]

Sandy

BTW, given the fact that compact was one of the main reasons I decided to purchase the Bessa III ...
...
it is quite a bit larger and heavier than my 1950s vintage Bessa II 6X9 folder.
...

And the Bessa II with 105mm f/3.5 Color Skopar makes really nice negatives, not too far off the quality of Fuji GW690III with the lens stopped down to f/11 or f/16.

and I can report that PT Lens cleans up my Bessa I with a Vaskar lens quite a bit too ... I sold my RF with a Skopar because it simply did not exceed it.

 

[sanking]

Sandy



and I can report that PT Lens cleans up my Bessa I with a Vaskar lens quite a bit too ... I sold my RF with a Skopar because it simply did not exceed it.

What is PT, and did you do anything special to clean the Skopar lens? (like screw apart elements, etc.)

Sandy

 

[pellicle]

Sandy

What is PT, and did you do anything special to clean the Skopar lens? (like screw apart elements, etc.)

Sandy

PT Lens

works well (but not on black and white negatives

 

[sanking]

Sandy

PT Lens

works well (but not on black and white negatives

Sorry, I thought PT Lens was some kind of lens cleaner that one actually applied to the lens!!

Sandy

 

[donbga]

Don,

I had assumed that the Fuji and Voigtlander versions are the same camera just with a different name. Do you have any reason to believe that one might be better/different than the other?

Sandy

Sandy I don't really know. I'd rather not make any assumption.

Don

 

[donbga]

Sorry, I thought PT Lens was some kind of lens cleaner that one actually applied to the lens!!

Sandy

PT Lens is an interesting plugin but far from perfect. At any rate you probablly won't need it with the Bessa III.

Don

 

[RalphLambrecht]

would love to. but not being a pro,
I can't afford it, or justify its purchase.
simple as that.

Leicas are not for pros.they are for rich people to show off:cool2:

 

[OzJohn]

Leicas are not for pros.they are for rich people to show off:cool2:

So very true. No, I've not owned one but I've printed heaps of photos taken with Leicas by others and there is no difference in the image quality between Leica images and those made with any other well designed camera/glass combination. None, zip, zilch. OzJohn

 

[Pioneer]

Cool. Another thread from the dead.

I suspect that calling someone a rich show-off just because they enjoy using a Leica is a bit too general to be true. I am not even sure that the statement is useful except to identify the biases of the persons who made it.

I enjoy my M9, and I am pretty sure that other users enjoy theirs as well. It is probably the only digital camera I own that actually feels like a film camera when I'm using it. As for my net worth, it took me a little over two years of saving to afford a used one. I can't make any statements about how others bought theirs.

As for the photographs from a Leica being better or worse, that is a bit of a red herring. The photographer makes the photograph, not the camera. But I would expect better photographs to come from a camera you are comfortable with using.

 

[OzJohn]

The photographer makes the photograph, not the camera. But I would expect better photographs to come from a camera you are comfortable with using.

Couldn't agree more. Problem is that some Leica owners, more than owners of any other brand, will argue vociferously that there is an image quality or certain image characteristics that are unique to Leica. My point was that this assertion is bunkum. Great photos and poor photos are taken with Leicas and any number of other cameras. And while I understand your appreciation of your Leica and your own efforts to obtain one, Leica is unmistakably a trophy marque owned by many people who know a lot about designer brands, little about photography and even less about taking a great photograph. OzJohn

 

[Pioneer]

Leicaphilia

Agreed. Sometimes it seems to be Leica as religion, not Leica as photography. As with any religion, it is not possible to reason with fanaticism. After a short time the unwillingness to consider other viewpoints becomes pretty obvious.

Likewise, I have seen Anti-Leica as a religion. People in this camp are just as fanatic in their fervor as the Leicaphile is. For them the expense of a Leica is heresy and there is no possible reason for people to pay those prices. So, those that do enjoy using Leica equipment are classified as wealthy show offs, or at most, foolish spendthrifts. Of course, just as before, the unwillingness to believe that Leica has any real place in photography becomes pretty obvious.

For better or for worse, Leica is very polarizing for some people. For me, Leica is certainly worth owning. It is not for everyone because not everyone is interested in spending these sums for a camera that seems to be so limited. I am not a raving Leicaphile nor am I blind to the quality equipment that Leica has brought to the market for many, many years. Leica is like Pentax and Nikon. You can use lenses produced many years ago on today's whiz bang digital wonders. There aren't many left who are that committed to their long-term user base.