Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jean, your point of working with a TLR versus an eye-level camera is very valid. I used to work with both Hasselblad's and Rollei's as well as the Plaubel. The Bessa III, in my opinion would be more like the Plaubel, but more rugged. The Plaubel had a tendency to get twisted with the X supports and suddenly everything was out of focus. The Bessa has a solid lensboard that felt very steady. The 6x7 format never appealled to me for some reason. I would have liked to see the Bessa III as a 6x6 and switchable to 6x9. Maybe if the this version is succesful we could "lobby" for one! I am a confirmed bl/w shooter these days, so the problems with slide-mounts does not apply. I can see some Acros Fuji 100 in 120 format in my future. Even unearthed a Focomat IIc just in case. Fuji's interest in the Bessa III/Fuji 667 obviously has been as the means to promote 120/220 film sales with a new camera. I think their biggest competition is going to be the used Hasselblad market. Prices of the 500CMs and the the Zeiss lenses have dropped dramatically over the last couple of years. However, they are bulky and the shutters are getting on in age. The Bessa/Fuji folder will probably appeal to many 35mm users who want the better image quality without the attending bulk of a 'blad. Kudo's to both Cosina and Fuji for doing it - at least they are going in a direction that none of the other manufacturers are going and there is still a niche market to fill for premium 120 cameras. All the best, Tom A Hi, this fuji/cosina/voigtlander looks promising. In my view its use and handling is very different from a TLR. I may be wrong but while in small format a RF compares favourably to a SLR to get into a living scene and catch people in their ordinary occupations, in medium format it might be the other way round - the waist level finder of a TLR or Blad leaves the photographer as a human rather than the operator of a machine, while a MF RF won't be as fast and unobtrusive as a small format RF, due to reduced dept of field, slower operation... The 6x7 format is further from the 6x6 format than generally believed, as in reality, 6x6 is 54x54mm while 6x7 is 54x68mm, i.e. a width-to-height ratio 1.26 rather than the 1.166 one would think at first - which is not very far from the 1.33 APS ratio. "Six centimeters" is the width of the film, not of the picture. Anotehr very interesting feature is that 6x7 - in fact 54x68 - is AFAIK the largest format for which slide projectors are not too difficult to find. I have been lucky enough to find recently a Linhof-modified Leitz Prado, late halogen version (square box), in this format - you see I am staying on topic :-) . In fact it is a Prado Universal/6x6 with a larger condenser and a larger slide carrier, bearing both Linhof and Leitz badges.. The issue with 54x68 slides - which use 85x85mm mounts - is that glass mounts are necessary to avoid slide plop. Interested LUGgers may have a look at my article on slide plopping on my bilingual French/English web page: http://jean.louchet.free.fr/perso/projecteurs.html Glass slide mounts are available from Gepe. Hama still makes glassless 85x85/54x68 mounts but they are more suitable for sheet film. I am using three (or 2 and a half) medium format systems: -a Fuji GSW-III 6x9 (in fact something like 54x85), the 65mm is absolutely superb but the shutter sounds like a child's gadget. Weighs 1.5 kg. The idea is to scan the slides, then crop them into 54x68 for mounting and projection, -a Mamiyapress Super23 plus the excellent 50mm, and the 3.5/90 and 2.8/100, with a 6x7 back and a 6x9 back. Weighs about 3kg with the 50 or 100, a bit less with the 90. Recently got two sheet carriers to go with the ground glass back and be able to make thick slides to mount glassless, but not tried yet - next summer probably. Heavy and not very practical I guess, -a home-made 6 x 9 box (from an old cheap folding I fitted with a front mamiyapress baionet), I use it with the 50mm on hiking (only weighs 1.1 kg!) but can't remove the lens when charged. No finder, I use a bubble level instead. Pressure plate is so-so, but it gives nice landscapes anyway. Handholding of the Fuji GSW is pretty good, but it takes some space in the bag compared to a Rollei 35: http://picasaweb.google.com/jean.louchet/Cameras?authkey=t0iqdCVe9Ss#slideshow Who told the M8 was big and heavy? :-) On long mountain hiking the CLE + 21/4 Skopar + provia 100 + spare L44s is my favourite combination, with a 90/4 Elmar-C in the bag. There is not yet a solar charger for M8 batteries anyway. In this context, I find the Fuji667/Bessa-III very, very welcome. It might be comparable to the Plaubel (the "recent" 6x7 one with Nikkor glass, not the old 6x9 with its beautiful but uncoated Schneider lenses). If CVF releases a wide angle version for cheaper than a second hand PlaubelWide I wight well sell my Fuji GSW. Jean Zacamixtle 201A,Salamanca GTO, Mexico > From: "TnT Abrahamsson" <TTAbrahams@shaw.ca> > Subject: re: [Leica] Fuji camera for the hiker > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:29:41 -0800 > [...] > rangefinder similar to that of the Bessa R3, which means it is about > as good as it gets, particularly in a folding camera. The camera has > Aperture Priority and also manual over ride for exposure. Focus is > manual, on the lens mount with a clear rangefinder patch on the body's > finder. [...] > impression was that this is an impressive piece of equipment and the > design is well thought out. I had no opportunity to try it out with > film, but with a 6 element lens and Cosina/Fuji's knowledge in optical > design, it should be more than satisfactory.