Voigtlander Bessa III - structural doubts

[ondebanks]

<p>I see two problems with this newly released camera...and I'm not even referring to pricing.</p>

<p>(1) It fills the gap left by the Plaubel Makina 67; they are similar in so many ways; this is good. Where the Bessa is significantly better is that its metering includes AE. Where it is significantly worse is that its lens is only f3.5 - why couldn't they match the Makina's f2.8? That's a big disappointment. However, that's not the main problem, and at least buyers know about it in advance...</p>

<p>What they might not know is:</p>

<p>(2) Voigtlander's own publicity pictures show that the door-and-struts system DOES NOT maintain the lens panel parallel to the body! Look at this high-res picture - the tilt of the lens panel and all the lens control rings is visually obvious:</p>

<p>http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/gfx/Bessa_III_Top_MBP2897.jpg/$file/Bessa_III_Top_MBP2897.jpg</p>

<p>Because everything else in the image is absolutely "square", from the non-convergent lines of the body to the absolute perpendicularity of the main strut, I do not believe that this tilt can be attributed to a tilt in the system used to take this image. I do believe that is is in the Bessa lens panel itself.</p>

<p>Get your ruler out, and measure off the screen. There's about a 3% difference between the lens-body distance at the left of the lens panel and at the right of the panel. Seen from the lens' perspective, it's the film plane which is tilted. Seriously, this would be disastrous for performance in many scenarios such as infinity/distance scenes.</p>

<p>The Makina design was better in this regard - it used crossed struts (tongs) to brace the lens panel at two widely spaced points. Another plus to the Makina was that it is focused by a knob on the body - there is a minimum of manhandling the lens; whereas with the Bessa you will be twisting the front of the lens to focus, which will stress the struts and possibly exacerbate the lens tilt problem.</p>

<p>Has anyone bought one? Have you noticed an issue with the parallelism of the lens and body? Try shooting wide open at infinity.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>My Makina's shutter was quite clunky (noisy) and the life of its exposure meter was limited and hard to repair (limited DOI company service centres at the time). Otherwise a great camera, that met a too-early demise. Perhpas DOI, essentially a fim processing group, did not have enough staying power. Cosina has also added and dropped lens series and cameras, perhaps as a function of the market. Perhaps it would be better if Fujifilm was building a part of the camera, like their recently discontinued 670, 680 and 690s.</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>If you look at my response in <a href="00Sp4S">this</a> thread you'll find that I brought up the parallelism issue and also the issue that running a bunch of wires or a flex-PCB from body to lens isn't going to be very reliable over the long haul. This is particularly true of a folder such as the Bessa III.</p>

<p>The interesting thing is that there seem to be no technical reviews of this camera. While I am interested in purchasing it, I don't really want to be a beta tester for it.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>".....the issue that running a bunch of wires or a flex-PCB from body to lens isn't going to be very reliable over the long haul...."</p>

<p>As the owner of several unrepairable pocket computers that rely on a flexible electrical connection (in this case between case and screen) I can share this concern.</p>

<p>For a while, of course, spare parts will (I suppose) be available, but Cosina have a high rate of product discontinuances leading me to expect problems in the future.</p>

[paulh]

<p>Judging by the shots I've seen from people who've actually used the camera (see APUG and Rangefinderforum) I think your fears are misplaced. There are quite a few examples of pictures shot with the lens wide open. I can't recall anyone mentioning build problems.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>I've noticed this (apparent non parallelism) from this photo also...and when I click the "enlarge" button, I can scroll down and notice that the front body plane is perfectly aligned with the edge of the photo. Then I scroll up and indeed, the entire front standard seems to be canted. </p>

<p>I'd been very tempted to not chime in...knowing (ask me how!) that "misplaced" (baseless) feedback on these forums can be totally, unjustifiably brutal for anyone attempting to bring a new product to market...no matter how truly innovative and wonderful this product might be. (...and looking at this photo - do I see signs of wear on various screw heads, etc., possibly indicating previous adjustment attempts? See how "brutal" I can be?) </p>

<p>So, I suppose I should apologize for my assumptions based on this one photo - but the lens plane does truly appear to be askew, and if this is actually true - well, then, this is simply inexcusable...no matter that this amount misalignment might still be slight enough to be compensated by DOF even at large openings. Having said this, I'd think that a truly small (much less visible) amount of misalignment would be perfectly acceptable - but the amount indicated by the photo is not, simply because it is so visible. The manufacturer should know that this is just the kind of "defect" that the forum audience is so primed to react to.</p>

<p>Having said the above (and while part of me is thinking that a Mamiya 7 is looking better all the time, despite what to me seems an untenable progression of focal length choices), I still hold hope for the Fuji/Cosina - for the idea of encompassing all of its features into such a portable package is so compelling. I, for one, would be very happy if I knew that the lens plane could be easily adjusted, and would hold this adjustment for a reasonable amount of time (one year of average to heavy use, five years for light use) before needing further adjustment...and that very basic (visual) adjustments could be made in the field by the user. I'd be perfectly happy if the manufacturer would just come out and state this...on the assumption that this design/concept is inherently less stable over time and with use.</p>

<p>But if the manufacturer wants us to believe that this iteration of an old concept is indeed "new and improved" enough to offer a level of precision equal to the attributes of what I'm guessing is a very capable lens, then a lead photo of this new product should at least support this possibility.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Vijay and John,</p>

<p>I'm very glad to learn that I am not the only one to have noticed this lens plane tilt problem (and thanks for the link to your remarks back in March, Vijay - I genuinely had not seen that thread; sometimes months go by when I don't have time to peruse photo.net). In fact I just found another "noticer" here:<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936176&postcount=6<br>

- I think they should get the credit for being the first to voice this concern (11-20-2008).</p>

<p>If it's true that there is still a lack of proper technical reviews of the Bessa III in the public domain, that is curious.</p>

<p>P C,</p>

<p>It is good to hear that the early adopters seem to be getting good results with the Bessa III, but I still have my concerns. It depends on what they're shooting, and what apertures they use. With many subjects - such as a centred portrait at a few metres subject distance - a 2 mm variation of the focal plane depth won't be visible. But with other subjects, it will show up - and for my own favourite use of medium format cameras (astrophotography), it would fail utterly. I've given up on some otherwise great MF camera designs because they couldn't keep the film flat enough, and we are talking < 0.5mm variations here.</p>

<p>For example, all the pictures look fine in this user's review - but that could be because none of the subjects are particularly sensitive to plane tilt:<br>

http://mainlinephoto.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/bessa-iii-review-by-ed-dale/</p>

<p>And all the shots here have great dof, indicating a small aperture; again this would hide any problem:<br>

http://www.japanexposures.com/2009/06/25/fujifilm-gf670-professional-goes-monsoon/</p>

<p>I hope that all these pictures are working out because the production cameras are somehow maintaining parallelism better than the press release version. Perhaps they all leave the production line in good alignment, but the PR sample suffered from subsequent handling damage? But then you just replace one worry with another, about fragility. Maybe the user-adjustable lens plane that John calls for is the answer.</p>

<p>I get the impression that Cosina Voigtlander/Fuji took the decision to design the lens support in this way, not for any sound engineering reasons, but because of a pointless attempt to portray a lineage with the old Bessa II, and perhaps also because there is currently a vogue for converted Polaroid 110 folders in this style. I say "pointless" because we all know that modern Voigtlander is Japanese Cosina, and has no true lineage with the original German Voigtlander, bar leasing the rights to the brandname. Cosina should have had the courage of their own excellent Japanese design expertise to just go and engineer a superior modern product, instead of trying to ape less than optimal designs of 60 years ago. Or perhaps I am being unfair on the Bessa II (I've never handled one) - maybe it was better executed than the III.</p>

<p>Anyway, contrast all that with another Japanese maker of MF rangefinders, Mamiya. Their 1940s Mamiya 6 has almost no engineering in common with their 1990s Mamiya 6 - the former was evidently a great camera in its day, but the latter is a far better camera, which took full advantage of what the photographic technology world had learnt in the 50 years since.</p>

<p> </p>

[clark_yerrington]

<p>cosina voigtlander is making some mighty fine leica M mount lenses for 35mm rangefinders, eh? they have a new 50mm f1.1 that looks very good.<br />but this MF rangefinder folder is a stange one... i look at the fixed lens, the bellows and struts... and think, it's got to be more of a 'tribute' piece, in homage to the original than any kind of attempt to up the ante. seems almost anti-innovative.</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>Actually Ray, that design for lens support isn't inherently unstable. Large format cameras such as the Linhof Technika and the Graflex Super/Crown Graphics use(d) it, and it is common enough in wooden field cameras. The problem with older medium format folders such as the Bessa I/II is that the struts and other structural elements were made with less rigid materials, presumably to save weight. These are less than ideal at holding the lens in a fixed plane because eventually they bend.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you harden the struts you risk breakage, so there is a compromise: use a softer material but make a C section of it so it is light, won't normally bend and won't break either. Ebony chooses to use titanium as an alternative material that bends rather than breaks but is normally very rigid.</p>

<p>In any case, for this camera to be any good at all, the structural issues have to be addressed and resolved successfully. Even if they are, the concern for flex-PCBs remain - as John Stockdale pointed out and as is my experience as well, flexible PCBs or flexible wires eventually break, and who knows if parts will be around long enough to keep the camera in good order. If you think about it, the point of failure of these connections will be where the front door meets the body, since that is the point of repeated stress on them. This means that a relatively full disassembly will be required to replace those wires, should they break. Not a pleasant prospect.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt that the lens standard will have any user adjustability - this would be complex to say the least, especially since there will always be the potential to throw the rangefinder out of alignment.</p>

<p>A part of me is hoping that my fears are misplaced - I have always loved MF folders, and am sorely tempted by this camera, but I'd rather have some technical reviews before I plunk down the cash. I can't find any - most are the "this is a user test in the field with no technical information" kind, and I'm not impressed with any of them, or with the images. Come on - these "reviews" seem to want me to infer things like lens sharpness from a 600x800 pixel jpeg? Can't someone put in just a little bit of rigor in their reviews?</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Vijay,</p>

<p>I agree completely with you, except for one thing:<br>

"Large format cameras such as the Linhof Technika and the Graflex Super/Crown Graphics use(d) it, and it is common enough in wooden field cameras."</p>

<p>Ah, but that is not really the same design. I know folding LF cameras well enough (although I prefer the stability of a good monorail, like my Toyo 45G), but there are two (actually two and a half!) big differences between them and the Bessa III:<br>

(1) The front standard is inherently user-adjustable on all of them - for deliberate tilt/shift/swing of the lens.<br>

(2) The orientation of the camera. In normal use the Bessa is held with the door opened sideways; but in all these LF cameras the 'door' opens downwards, with the weight of the lens etc bearing down on it, and the balancing forces of downwards gravity and upwards tension in the support struts maintain the default lens plane where it should be. The sideways-opening Bessa unfortunately does not have gravity lending a hand...looking at the PR images, I do not see any mechanism to provide this sort of balancing tension in the lens panel.<br>

The "half" difference is that with the exception of handheld rangefinder use, which is possible with some of the LF press cameras, users will see an actual (ground glass) view of the plane of focus before they take the shot...and if they don't like what they see, they can adjust it per the movements in (1). No such chance to pre-appraise the image plane with the Bessa. Obviously, there isn't meant to be - that would go counter to the whole raison d'etre of a pocketable lightweight handheld rangefinder - but it does put the onus on the design to deliver on the user's trust that everything is as it should be.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Clark:<br>

"it's got to be more of a 'tribute' piece, in homage to the original than any kind of attempt to up the ante."</p>

<p>You put it more succinctly than I could!</p>

[h._p.]

<blockquote>

<p>Or perhaps I am being unfair on the Bessa II (I've never handled one) - maybe it was better executed than the III.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've got a Bessa RF, built in the 'thirties and well used. It still takes sharp images across the entire 6x9 frame.</p>

[sal_santamaura]

<p>John Layton wrote:</p>

<p>"...I'd been very tempted to not chime in...knowing (ask me how!) that "misplaced" (baseless) feedback on these forums can be totally, unjustifiably brutal for anyone attempting to bring a new product to market...no matter how truly innovative and wonderful this product might be...."</p>

<p>OK John, how? ;-)</p>

<p>Seriously, what is the status of your L-45A? Do you have any new estimate when it might be available?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[j.p._dahl_n]

<p>Now, it's just a PHOTO of the camera. I've bougt several folders that on the photos looked that they had worse parallelism than this one, but turned out that they had perfect parallelism when I finally got them. Take photos of your folders and do some measuring. Taking photos of a 3D object isn't as exact as scanning a 2D paper.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>I'm of the same frame of mind as H.P. My Bessa II w/ Color Heliar lens is sharp, and it's sharp corner to corner. Let's face it, they don't make cameras like they used to, or much else for that matter. From what I've seen of the few Bessa III sample photos people have posted, the lens alignment isn't an issue. The issue is that you have to pay so much money for something that frankly can't take pictures as well as the original, albeit it can take them in two formats and it has a meter. But still, you pay a ton of money and get a sort of retro/wannabe classic that's badged by Cosina, or you can buy an original Voigtlander that can outshoot it for a fraction of the cost.</p>

<p>This is a camera aimed squarely at the well heeled camera dilettante. I just don't see the fun of it. I need a camera that takes the best photos, not a status symbol.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>I also own a Bessa II with Heliar, and while it is a very nice camera, I would welcome a larger, more "Leica like" (I'm a Leica user also) rangefinder/viewfinder, as well as the built in metering - allowing for a compactable and yet quickly responsive "one piece" package. And while the Heliar is a wonderful lens in its own right with some unique attributes, I'd be hard pressed to believe that the lens on the Bessa III would not offer some measurable (and visible) improvements over the Heliar. I'm a little sad that this new camera is not a 6X9 as is the Bessa II, as the longer format offers a distinctly different compliment to the square of my Rollei TLR, and I can carry both cameras in a very small case. I do have a sense that this longer format might present challenges of film plane flatness when trying to squeeze everything into such a compact case, which means inevitably smaller rollers than might otherwise be indicated. But this is only conjecture.</p>

<p>And Sal...yes - the L-45A is (once again) in production, and in the best possible hands for this - but right now I cannot say exactly when the first run will be complete. A very long story behind this - one which I may share at some point (perhaps sooner than later)...but for now, to be honest, I've been keeping somewhat of a low profile until I can say for absolute certainty when this first run will be ready. I disappointed quite a few people with earlier promises of delivery and I do not want to disappoint anyone again if I can help it. All I can share for now is that yes - this project is moving forward. I can also share that after the first run is complete, additional runs will be much more timely and predictable. I have not updated my website in ages, but will do this (and make a general announcement) as the first run is completed. Sorry I cannot yet say more...and thanks for your interest! </p>

[ondebanks]

<p>John, this L-45A talk intrigued me, so I found your website. Awesome field camera! A tad out of my price range to be honest, but I know there is a well-heeled market for top-end large format; Linhof and others are still going strong. I wish you every success with it!</p>

[josh_ormsby]

<p>So, let me see if I understand this thread.</p>

<p>Ten (+/-) people who have never touched this camera in person, are casting doubt on it's quality because of an image posted online?</p>

<p>Here are a couple of opinions that come from first hand users.</p>

<p>

<p>http://mainlinephoto.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/bessa-iii-review-by-ed-dale/</p>

<p>http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77988</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be a pest or insult anyone, I just dislike speculation.</p>

<p>Josh</p>

[jenny_jaques]

<p>I can't help feeling the visual out-of-whack thing, isn't some sort of optical illusion. I certainly do <em>not</em> believe that a state-of-the-art, Japanese design team would allow such a perceptible "flaw" go unnoticed and let it run.<br>

Thanks for those links Josh. Very informative.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Hello everyone. I am very late to this party but have a question I would like to ask this obviousyl very experienced group. Like many of you, I have switched from film to digital. With the M9, the reasons to carrying around a M6 is less compelling. At the same time, I have finally decided that my GX617 days are over; i am just sick and tired of lugging that thing around despite the wonderful results I get from the camera. So I will be selling my GX617 w/ 90mm + 180mm. However, I don't want to surrender film completely, and woudl like to hold on to one medium format camera (ok, two; I have a C/M 500 Hasseblad that I don't really use anymore but I cannot sell that one because it was handed to me by my father). So, I was thinking that my GSW690 III will be my "the one" medium format camera. However, in a continuous effort to lighten my load, (which includes dumping my DSLRs in favor of the Leica M9 for landscape shots), I admit the Bessa III is looking very attractive. I know the optical quality of the GSW690 III and prefer its mechanical features. However, I can't resist the Besa III's compact size. My question is to anyone who has compared the two, I would appreciate any feedback on the Besa III v. GSW690 III. Of course I am aware of the price difference, but that aside, any feedback would be appreciated. If you have done a controlled optical test of the image quality from these two cameras that be especially appreciated. Thank you!</p>

[frank_doering]

<p>Measurements in Photoshop confirm that the front and back of the camera body in the picture are parallel to within at least 0.1 degrees, while the lens standard is slanted by 1.2 degrees. Perspective foreshortening cannot explain the 1.2 degree slant (unless the camera body is thicker on the left than on the right, which is unlikely). The slant would introduce significant and obvious fosusing errors. If focus is set at 5m, the plane of sharp focus for a 6x7" frame would slant from 3.23m on the left to 11.31m on the right; for focus at 2m, it would slant from 1.67m on the left to 2.57m on the right; at infinity focus and anything but the smallest apertures, the distant horizon would be out of focus on both sides. This sort of thing should be obvious in the images. <br /> <br /> The evidence from flickr is inconclusive. I found only very few images in which I can discern with some confidence the orientation of the plane of sharp focus. Where it appears slanted, it goes in the opposite of the predicted direction (warning: large files):<br /> <br /> <a href=" 1</a> : the large background tree is sharpest by far in the top left corner; so the POSF slants away in that direction.<br /> <br /> <a href=" 2</a> : the plane of sharp focus as traced through the leaves on the ground is closer on the right than on the left)<br /> <br /> <a href=" 3</a> : the curb to my eye tracks the plane of sharp focus, which would imply good parallelism)<br /> <br /> This may be a case where the absence of evidence turns out, on closer analysis, to be evidence of absence. I have the feeling that if the camera showed on average anything like a 1.2 degree deviation from parallelism, then this would show up in lots of scans on the web. <br /> <br /> Enough speculation. Could some owners of the camera chime in, preferably with careful measurements of the camera as well as comments? Does the lens click into place and perhaps failed to do so in the promo picture?</p>

[rtugwell]

<p>

<p>I have one. I've measured the plane of the lens front with respect to the camera body (best I can do). I did this by holding a rigid flat object on the front of the lens (a lens board) and using a pair of calipers to compare distances to the camera body. I couldn't really find any difference, but I don't know how many microns people want to work to. The mechanism, like the rest of the camera feels very securely engineered. More so than my old Hasselblad 501 I have to say which feels like a Landrover compared to a Bentley.<br>

 

<p>As for wear and tear on flexible cables, well maybe, but at least it comes with a 3 year guarantee.<br>

 

<p>I can't be certain, but I suspect a lot of folk, like myself, will buy this camera for it's portability, a hand held camera with the advantage of MF negatives, fast composition and focusing. I won't be using it in a laboratory but if anyone can suggest a field test that they would like me to do, I will certainly oblige. Although how I will manage to line up the film plane with my intended plane of focus while hand holding it, I'm not sure.<br>

 

<p>By the way, it's worth it just to look through the viewfinder - best I've ever seen and I've looked through a lot.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[frank_doering]

<p>Thanks, Richard. This is very helpful and reassuring. If your camera were out of whack anywhere near as much as the one in the official pictures appears to be, your measurements would have shown it because there we are talking about millimeters, not micrometers.</p>

[frank_doering]

<p>As for testing, the easiest thing would be to go into open terrain with a detail-rich foreground (say, a corn field at his time of year), focus at the most distant object and shoot wide open. If there is significant lack of parallelism, one should be able to discern an asymmetric pattern of sharp focus (not just a the kind of symmetric falloff towards the edges that would be expected at a large f-stop). In particular, there would be foreground stuff equidistant from the camera that's significantly sharper on one side than on the other. A line of leafless trees on the horizon should also give a good indication of any left-right slant in the plane of focus.</p>

[a_b87]

<p>this may be a biased opionion, but a guy who develops optical instruments for big industrail customers here in germany for more than 20 years and also runs a camera repair shop has told me that all voiglaenders were "cheap & very primitive constructions", if you have a chance to look inside any voigtlaender camera and compare it to other makers. voigtl lenses, on the other hand, were excellent constructions.<br>

but he never opened a Bessa 667 and could not comment on that specific modell.<br>

so may be the Bessa 667 is just another cheaply built, expensively labelled instrument. and no one is able to tell at the moment, I am afraid, because the camera has not been around for a longer while yet.<br>

what interests me: how will this camera work in the long run? after a while, is the below still looking like it would stay light tight for the next 10 years? any singns of a possible misalignment of the range finder system?<br>

any comments of actual users are very welcomed here!<br>

i would be happy to pay even that big money for this camera, if I were sure it is a professional and reliable tool. but somehow I have an impression it will probably break down in 3 or 4 years and the repair is going to be very expensive and after another 3 years or so there is going to be no spare parts available.<br>

but I agree, that as a small, single piece solution the camera has very much appeal... :-)</p>