Fuji G/GL690 and GW690 - Same IQ?

[cptrios]

Hi all,

I am constantly tempted by one of the Fuji 690 cameras, despite their size/weight generally running counter to my preference for compact gear. The G/GL690 series has some appeal to me, since a) they're quite a bit cheaper, and b) though they're heavier, being able to remove the lens for storage/transport is a plus. I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with both, and if so, how does the lens quality of the older interchangeable cameras compare to the newer EBC models?

Thanks!

 

[Arcadia4]

Hi. You may find the links below of interest, which also lists the cameras evolution, but in summary all have decent glass so an older model should be fine or to quote for g690bl the “If you're man (or woman) enough to haul this thing around, go for it! You're never going to see better pictures.”
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/gw.html
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/gw.html
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/g690bl.html
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/gsw690iii-res.html

Its the most detailed and accurate info ive found on the fuji med format rangefinders. I can only vouch for the later gw670

 

[outwest]

I have the old one with 3 lenses. Other than than its kit bag weighing as much as a 4x5 bag, it's great.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

They have different standard lenses don't they? GL690 is a tessar-style and GW690 is a "5 elements in 5 groups" which is a really unusual design but I suspect something like a modified planar. I suspect it will be better corrected.

 

[beemermark]

Long, long time ago I had the G690 and a number of lenses, I always found the lenses to be low on contrast and rather "soft". I happily sold it. I then bought (and sold) quite a few of the different newer version 2 G models. I loved the lenses, great color, great contrast, very sharp. I was using them mostly for landscapes. Always ended up selling them I guess because of the size but if I didn't have so many 120 format cameras today I'd buy another one.

 

[Oren Grad]

In addition to Dante Stella's pages, this site is the other indispensable resource on the interchangeable-lens Fujis:

http://www.lallement.com/pictures/G690.html

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you need a selection of interchangeable lenses, good luck still finding them at reasonable pricing. On the other hand, even the later generations of GW690 design are abundant, affordable, and apt to be in better condition or even mint. But you have a fixed lens. I have both a GW690ii and GW690iii, and love them both.

 

[braxus]

I was told the G and GL versions with the removable lens, can be prone to issues, including the dark curtain when removing lenses. I ended up getting a GW690 and GSW690 cameras instead. Not the most convenient was to have two focal lengths, but I could always bring both cameras on a shoot. Even the GW cameras have issues, like the winder. Pretty basic cameras though. Not much to them, for the prices they go for now.

 

[reddesert]

I have a G690. I've never had the later fixed lens versions. The lens quality of the G690 seems fine. Once you get to film this large - 6x9 images are 2/3 the diagonal of a 4x5 negative - I don't think details of lens quality are the dominant factor any more. (Presuming the lenses are at some minimum professional standard, as opposed to say a triplet from a folding camera.) The earlier lenses are single coated and the later ones are multi coated if that concerns you.

They don't seem incredibly complicated but some of the older ones may have seen a lot of hard use. The dark curtain is a spring loaded curtain you wind shut like a roller blind - if it works, it works, although I heard that replacing a completely broken one is quite involved.

They're not difficult to hold, but are almost comically large. Partly because the lenses are in leaf shutters and the lens barrels are big. The fact that they look like a 35mm rangefinder kind of fools you. Dante Stella has a photo comparing the two, but I don't think it fully prepares you for the size.

 

[DREW WILEY]

By contrast, the GW690 series is remarkably ergonomic. Mine are easier to handhold than my Nikon. If I need something with a big selection of interchangeable lenses, I reach for my Pentax 6X7 instead.

 

[johnha]

I looked at a G690, but it was nearly as big & heavy as my P67 without a meter. I opted to spend the money on more P67 lenses instead.

I'd agree that storing a GW with the built-in lens is awkward and a reason why I looked at the G (as well as availability).

 

[halfaman]

They have different standard lenses don't they? GL690 is a tessar-style and GW690 is a "5 elements in 5 groups" which is a really unusual design but I suspect something like a modified planar. I suspect it will be better corrected.

Desing with no cemented groups is typical in Fuji "modern" LF and MF lenses. For example, Hasselbad HC 80mm f/2.8 made by Fuji is 6 elements in 6 groups.

 

[abruzzi]

I looked at a G690, but it was nearly as big & heavy as my P67 without a meter. I opted to spend the money on more P67 lenses instead.

This is exactly what talked me out of a GL690. With 100mm lens it weighs (1745g) close to my P67 with 105mm lens (1290g+628g=1918g) and for me, the P67 is a much more useful camera with one of the largest selection of lenses of any medium format camera (and many are very cheap but good lenses.)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rangefinders are inherently out of their league with longer focal length lenses. The M7 system doesn't even have a "normal" focal length option, but jumps all the way from 80mm to 150 (their only rangefinder-coupled tele), then way up to an oddball longer one which which doesn't even integrate with internal rangefinder focus at all, and seems almost useless except at infinity. So yeah, if you want an ergonomic MF camera with a wide selection of really good lenses, the P67, with its abundant affordable system components, routinely kills off the GL Fuji option for most folks. I looked at a clean lovely M7 at a very reasonable price; but frankly, for even less money, I bought a mint 300EDIF lens for my P67 - perhaps the finest MF tele ever made - PLUS an immaculately clean lens GW690ii. I'm certainly not knocking the Mamiya 7; but when it comes to bang for the buck these days, there are more realistic options. And I really do prefer the more extended rectangle of 6X9.

 

[abruzzi]

And I really do prefer the more extended rectangle of 6X9.

I agree, I really wish there was a well supported 6x9 SLR. I know a few were made, but the options are, today, few and far between.

 

[cptrios]

Woo I didn't realize there were so many responses. Thanks! I guess my takeaway is to wait until I feel like finally giving in to the GW690 bug. A Pentax 67 is definitely intriguing, though...

 

[moto-uno]

I had the pleasure of owning a GL690 with 3 lenses and I thoroughly enjoyed everything about it , but I got it in my head that I
wanted to view slides ( close to impossible with 6x9 and quite pricey with 6x7) . Also had a Mamiya 7 with a similar lens selection . Sold them all
off , don't regret it even though as mentioned they were excellent camera systems . YMMV . Peter

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll be the contrarian here and say that I found the GW690 lens (I think it was on a GW690ii) to be TOO contrasty and sharp. There were other ergonomic quirks such as the mechanism for doing long exposures (you have to change the shutter speed off of T to end the exposure) that I really didn't like. And the shutter makes a tinny noise when it fires that sounds a bit like "the machine that goes Ping!" from Monty Python's Meaning of Life. If you want compact and easy to handle, then accept the square and get a Rolleiflex. If you need interchangeable lenses and a rectangular negative, then a Mamiya RZ67 or the like is a better option. I know people love the Fuji rangefinders, but I find them to be just a bit too odd a fish for my use.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, exposures over 1 sec are a nuisance. There's no shutter noise, but the instant shutter reset "ping" (actually "poing") is nearly nothing. Just imagine you're panhandling on the street corner, and somebody is giving you a dime every time that happens. I barely notice it compared to the KER-LUNK of my Pentax 6x7, which registers at least 3.0 on the Richter scale, and knocks down every brick chimney within a 15 mile radius.

Square is for squares. Crop 6X6 to a pleasing proportion, and all you've got is 645, half the surface area of 6X9. Rollei's easy to handle? You should have told that to my brother. He had two full SL66 kits, but preferred the ergonomics of my P67 so much better that I loaned it to him for ten years. And I don't need an RZ67; my house already has a concrete foundation weighing nearly as much.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, exposures over 1 sec are a nuisance. There's no shutter noise, but the instant shutter reset "ping" (actually "poing") is nearly nothing. Just imagine you're panhandling on the street corner, and somebody is giving you a dime every time that happens. I barely notice it compared to the KER-LUNK of my Pentax 6x7, which registers at least 3.0 on the Richter scale, and knocks down every brick chimney within a 15 mile radius.

Square is for squares. Crop 6X6 to a pleasing proportion, and all you've got is 645, half the surface area of 6X9. Rollei's easy to handle? You should have told that to my brother. He had two full SL66 kits, but preferred the ergonomics of my P67 so much better that I loaned it to him for ten years. And I don't need an RZ67; my house already has a concrete foundation weighing nearly as much.

By Rolleiflex I mean Rolleiflex TLR, not the SL66. And by the ping, I don't really care what it sounds like to other people, when I have the thing in my face, I hear it and it sounds like something is on the verge of breaking. NOT confidence-building. The RZ's mirror isn't silent, by any means, but it is reasonable, and the weight is an advantage when hand-holding. I've pulled off shots pointed straight up, in interior spaces, at 1/15th of a second with the RZ and they're tack sharp.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Like I said, that's the reset sound. Those shutters are pretty durable. The roll counter on the camera itself is tailored to service intervals of over 1000 rolls - that's 8000 shots!, way more than I'll ever shoot in my remaining lifetime. If someone wants to be a machine-gunner, go digital instead. ... Rollei TLR's - ha! Thats what the yearbook staff used in my high school. Yep, they're durable, cause those kids certainly weren't kind to the gear. That's why the school bought such expensive foolproof cameras to begin with. But that's an entirely different mode of shooting.

 

[itsdoable]

Rangefinders are inherently out of their league with longer focal length lenses. The M7 system doesn't even have a "normal" focal length option, but jumps all the way from 80mm to 150 (their only rangefinder-coupled tele)....

That gap is equivalent to 40mm ~ 75mm, or 50mm ~ 90mm in 135/FF, and most systems have very little to nothing there either. The advantages of an SLR was Tele and Macro work, but it's disadvantages were the wide angle (retrofocus requirements) and f-stop limit (viewfinder brightness). One can't have everything,

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I don't understand the rationale for that gap, unless they just didn't want to engineer too many potential links in the rangefinder apparatus. But MF SLR's do give offer just about every niche you might need focal-length-wise, including many superb wide-angle lenses. Yes, they require retrofocus design more complicated to engineer than RF lenses, and end up bulkier and heavier. But I'd defy anyone to see an qualitative diminishment in a print itself in most cases. And some are going to be distinctly faster than RF equivalents, like the 75/2.8 for the P67, although not as bright perhaps as a rangefinder window, especially if a contrast filter is over the lens. Doesn't affect me, because I mostly use the P67 on tripod anyway, with an accessory magnifier. If I want easier hand-holdability and portability, yet with the drawback of just one fixed lens, I reach for my Fuji "Texas Leica". But even it I shoot primarily with a tripod. Sometimes I have both in the same pack - the P67 with a 165 tele and normal 105, and the Fuji 6X9 RF for its wider 90. Not much extra weight overall. But if it's just a shoulder bag, it's either one or the other, or else two separate bags, one over each shoulder, and the tripod carried rifle-style.

 

[reddesert]

People should use what they like and the pros and cons of rangefinders vs SLRs, etc, are true in medium format as well as 35 mm. Like tele vs wide, etc. Some of the pros and cons change weight as size changes. I have always thought, and maybe I'm wrong, that you can get away with a lighter tripod for RFs or TLRs than for SLRs.

Minor point: I think the original Fuji G690 - GL690 series doesn't have the same shutter ping or oddball T setting that is complained about on the GW690 series.

 

[moto-uno]

^ You are correct . Peter