Voigtländer Bessa III Pricing Confirmed

#1 Antony Shepherd

Aargh! I was hoping for something more affordable. Maybe in a few years off ebay...

4:59 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#2 Ramses

Yeah, bit pricey compared to Mamiya 7II. However...looks gorgeous and ideal to use as a left eyed shooter.

5:06 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#3 AH

Why? Why a film camera?

5:07 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#4 Ramses

@ AH: it's really impolite (and pointless) to ask people why they have a particular fetish

6:23 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#5 Fazal Majid

FWIW, the GF670 massively exceeded expectations, leading to production problems at Fuji (I know, my preorder was delayed).

As for why, find me a 100-megapixel MF DSLR for $2400...

7:01 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#6 tina

Loves this site!
Nature

8:34 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#7 Tim

<Why? Why a film camera?>

Because, contrary to prevailing beliefs, there's still a hell of a lot of people shoot film. Is that surprising? There are still a few people who make daguerrotypes.

Whether this camera is, in real terms, anything more than a collector's toy we shall see. The quoted price is not exactly competitive against good quality second-hand gear.

9:03 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#8 Thomas

<sarcastic on> Now that's something new after all this digital stuff.<sarcastic off> What a useless vintage camera...

11:22 pm - Friday, March 20, 2009

#9 shooter

At that price, I'm not giving up my Mamiya 6 or my Agfa Super Isolette anytime soon....

5:11 am - Saturday, March 21, 2009

#10 d.winton

holy crap. do. want. Also, your site overhaul looks ab-fab.

2:53 pm - Sunday, March 22, 2009

#11 rob

Geez! They forgot to put a CCD in!

I am in photography for almost 40 years, so obviously, I've been using film cameras most of that time, but enough already... Why are there still people who insist on using an inferior technology? Are they just too lazy to learn a thing or two about digital photography, or are they so ultra-conservative that they do not want to learn?

You may take this as a rhetoric question and not answer it, although I predict there will be a lot of hurt feelings... Weep, weep...

10:32 pm - Tuesday, March 24, 2009

#12 t.jonsson

That's a fantastic camera! Wow!

12:40 am - Wednesday, March 25, 2009

#13 ND

Rob,

As much as you would like to claim film photography as a technical liability, have you ever considered the limitations of your own imagination?

I don't feel bad saying that straight; so far you've conceived of film photographers as an emotionally fragile, lazy bunch who are so paralyzed by their own conservatism that they're incapable of learning anything new.

While an admittedly small, unscientific sample, most photographers I know who still shoot film also shoot digital both professionally and personally (myself included). The two different media can provide two very different aesthetics.

If you disagree with that on the basis of an argument of facts or aesthetic, I would love to have that conversation. Don't just insult and bluster and act like that counts as a reasonable argument.


Nate

12:54 am - Wednesday, March 25, 2009

#14 rob

Hey, ND,

No, I wouldn't argue with you or anybody else. It's just a matter of the personal choice. Whether it is based on merit, prejudice, predisposition, laziness, or anything else, I don't give a damn. I have better things to waste my time on than argue about film vs. digital...

So, you may have totally valid reasons to use film for your purposes. I don't. And rapidly rising quantity of professionals (currently, about about 90%) don't, either. Not to mention masses, who buy into digital at about 100%.

BTW, my imagination is fine and it gets better when it is not limited by all the shortcomings that come with traditional film methods. I have used film for almost four decades and I couldn't achieve even a decent fraction of results I am getting now with the digital technology.

That concludes my participation in this discussion.

8:34 pm - Wednesday, March 25, 2009

#15 ND

Rob,

Fair enough. Do what works for you; it'd be stupid not to.

My concern was only with those here insulting others about what they do with their time and interests. You hit it exactly. It's a matter of personal choice; I only go slightly further in saying that people aren't just stupid or lazy because I hold a mildly different (frankly rather technical, specialist) opinion about the tools that are used.

And nobody particularly wants to see a rehash of film vs. digital technical data. We definitely agree there.

(I suppose that would conclude my participation, too. No offense intended, Rob; apologies are in order if I get too heated about these things.)

9:29 pm - Wednesday, March 25, 2009

#16 Ray

It's way too expensive. Count me out of the running to buy one! Whoever priced this camera do not live in the real world!

1:54 pm - Thursday, April 2, 2009

#17 Chris George

I was really looking forward to buying and using this camera but quite frankly the pricing is far too much for what I was hoping to be announced. I cannot justify spending so much on a film camera especially as a new Nikon D3x at 24Mega Pixels only costs £4500.
I'm just going to use a Crown Graphic 4x5 for the project that I would have bought this camera for. Shame because it looks so nice and I'm sure the lens will be very good. But I'm afraid it's not priced as a serious professional tool but at the prosperous camera collector instead.

4:06 pm - Saturday, April 4, 2009

#18 Carlo

Why a film camera? Because there are no 48 megapixel digital cameras that cost $2000.00 or less. Besides real photographers shoot film computer weenies shoot digital.

1:20 am - Tuesday, April 7, 2009

#19 Chris George

I shoot film and also digital on a daily basis both large format and medium format. There is absolutely no way that 6x7 film comes anywhere close to 48 megapixel digital. I love film - I love the tonal qualities and the fact that the images directly out of the camera have beautiful colour and I don't need to spend hours and hours getting them to look right on the computer. But asserting that medium format film comes anywhere close to a 48 megapixel digital is just complete nonsense. 'Real Photographers' don't give a sh%t what medium they shoot on - they just care about the final images!

4:32 am - Tuesday, April 7, 2009

#20 rob

Apparently, there's still a lot of people (mostly those who still shoot film) who think megapixels are what counts most for picture quality. You are mistaken, people. Educate yourself and don't fear the digital reality...

7:39 pm - Tuesday, April 7, 2009

#21 Chris George

Couldn't agree with you more Rob - images count not megapixels. However in my experience images straight out of a film camera are more beautiful and require far less post production than images straight out of a digi. This is the primary reason why many superb photographers still use film, for example http://www.fredericlagrange.com/ produces beautiful images but I'm sure that his images out of an old 6x7 Pentax are nowhere near as sharp as someone else who is using a 12 Mexapixel Digital; but they are going to be more beautiful straight out of the camera of that I'm certain.

5:03 am - Wednesday, April 8, 2009

#22 jeremy

There are a lot of heated words here, for no good reason.

The thread was ok until someone questioned why anyone would want a film camera. Why was that person taken seriously?

This is a thread discussing not just any old film camera but one which is a real specialist piece of equipment for a niche part of the market. Some comments here are akin to questioning why anyone would want an acoustic guitar on a folk music thread!

The fact is that there is no digital camera which is equivalent to this one which combines portability with resolving power.

As regards the megapixel thing, to be fair, it is an important part of camera spec just as sensor size is when it comes to resolving power for enlarged prints. Just the same as different films produce different results.

For the record, I've made scans of MF transparencies producing file sizes of 1.7Gb, yes Giga bytes. That is a big file for one image. Seems pretty good value compared to a Phase One P65+ digital back.

10:19 pm - Tuesday, May 12, 2009

#23 menno.k

c'ant wait to get this one..
portable, inside pocket 6x7!
a snapshooter with mid format quality
word! i prefer grain to pixels


.

10:38 am - Thursday, May 21, 2009