Fuji GW690II

[z a n e]

I just recently traded one of my cameras for this medium format beast. Anyone on here have any experience using one of these? How does the II compare to the III?

 

[gzinsel]

I don't the two, but own the three. my understanding the lens is the same. the body is slightly different. ah. . . . . other than that its a straight manual camera, set the aperture, set the shutter, point to what you want to photograph.ah. . . . on the three, i like the front exposure button, don't know if its on two, enjoy my camera, don't use it as much as id like. best on a tripod. ah. . . . . I don't like the bing from making an exposure but I can live with that, with the nice size negs,

 

[LMNOP]

No complaints, I own the II and I believe it is the worlds greatest camera. Simplicity in its finest form on the gw690 series. The III may have had a built in level or something but the glass is the same and it's really no different on the negative. The mark ii is beautiful, I can never get enough of shooting this thing. I guess using it with a tripod is better but no more so than any other medium format shooter. I mostly shoot it hand held, even as low as 1/30 for indoor portraits. It is best for landscapes and urban exploration in my experience but when you do a portrait, if framed correctly and focused sharp, you get something extremely cinematic with lovely context. Some of my best work has been shot on this camera, I am shopping for a backup so I can shoot this thing all the time.

 

[z a n e]

that's what I want to hear! on paper, this thing seems like the perfect camera for me.
-Fully mechanical
-Rangefinder
-Huge 6x9 negative w loads of detail
-relatively portable

Im really hoping this will be the camera I use the most!

 

[whlogan]

I have a II and is a truly super camera in all respects. Big great negatives. I did a trip to Glacier with the trusty 4x5 amd my two GW690's one a III and the II. It turned out I shot them way more than the 4x5 and got negatives that are just as good as 4x5's! Lots of detail and plenty of contrast. Now I still use these guys a lot. As I get older I find they are easier to set up and way easier to use than a 4x5.....good choice, friend!

Logan

 

[dpurdy]

I am curious about the camera too. My questions are: Is the Range finder easy to use and is it accurate? Is the reportedly high contrast lens overly so? Is it manageable with proper film processing?

Dennis

 

[gzinsel]

my rangefinder is accurate, I have not heard of vertical or horizontal "drift", but I guess that could happen. it is a rangefinder. the contrast is not overly contrast, but it is a 1/2 grade to full 1 grade more in contrast compared to my Canon LTM lenses. its just a different rendering. when compared to my zeiss ikon 6x9, its even more so. but the rendition of zeiss is more poetic, while the rendering of fuji is just tack sharp.

 

[LMNOP]

SUPER accurate, as far as my experience goes.

Contrast, to me, is an avantage. Here are a few recent shots from my II:

 

[angusparkengusparker]

I am curious about the camera too. My questions are: Is the Range finder easy to use and is it accurate? Is the reportedly high contrast lens overly so? Is it manageable with proper film processing?

Dennis

Rangefinder is great - easy to focus. Lens is razor sharp and the leaf shutter easy to use. Great cameras. Get the normal and wide versions and you are good to go!

 

[teejay]

Yeah I have the III - very nice camera - relatively portable for MF - recommended.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/teejay-liverpool/18241407926

https://www.flickr.com/photos/teejay-liverpool/20212905751

 

[Prest_400]

SUPER accurate, as far as my experience goes.

Contrast, to me, is an avantage. Here are a few recent shots from my II:

Patrick, been seeing your work with it since you appeared around here (and in a couple other places such as IG). You do great with the Fujis (and the RZ)! Was that handheld with Portra 400-800? When I'm going back home I think that I'll use it much more though more tripod oriented.

Because I'm a few months for student exchange, and left it at home together with the tripod. Sometimes I do regret.

Mine is slightly out of whack horizontally at infinity; seemingly non-linearly, as it is accurate for closer distances (3m-1m).
The lens is great, some people complain that it's not THAT sharp -compared to Mamiya 7 & Hasselblad level-. I guess because it relates more to a LF than a MF-35mm lens) but to my capability it's exceedingly good.

And shooting Portra-400H rating at lower EI, scanning at a lab with wedding photography clientelle, the contrast and colors go soft and pastel.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In my limited use of the camera, I found the pluses were what most folks here are saying- big negative, easy to focus. There were some downsides and some quirks. The biggest quirk, to me, is using shutter speeds longer than 1 second. To do so, you have to put the shutter on B, no big deal, but you have to re-trigger the shutter by changing the shutter speed to close it. The downsides, to me, are the bulk (this is not a compact camera by any stretch of the imagination), the limited close-focus (I think it's something like 4 feet, which is not a big deal when shooting landscapes, but is a problem when trying to do portraits and/or architectural details), and the sound of the shutter. It's high-pitched and metallic, and surprisingly loud for a leaf shutter. Granted it's no RB67 with the Ker-PHLOP! its mirror makes when you shoot.

I found the lens to be bitingly sharp, almost too sharp, and VERY contrasty, with a color rendition that was not pleasing to me. It was not the camera for me, but it certainly will work very well for other folks.

 

[menesesmo]

Hi I just purchased this camera and have been unable to find where to set the film ISO…if no setting is needed then what film ISO rating should I use it with?

 

[macfred]

Hi I just purchased this camera and have been unable to find where to set the film ISO…if no setting is needed then what film ISO rating should I use it with?

No exposure meter in the camera - no ISO setting required ... Set the film ISO on the exposure meter you attend to use with your FUJI.

 

[250swb]

I am curious about the camera too. My questions are: Is the Range finder easy to use and is it accurate? Is the reportedly high contrast lens overly so? Is it manageable with proper film processing?

Dennis

The rangefinder is accurate and it's easy to use. Saying the lens is 'high contrast' is a puzzle, it does have excellent micro contrast (definition of detail) but it doesn't blow highlights and underexpose shadows, it's the photographer who does that with poor technique, and then blames the camera. In addition the shutter sound isn't as bad as people like to make out, put the camera on a tripod with a cable release and not next to your ear and the sound will hardly be noticeable, so it also won't be noisy to people you may be photographing.

Steve

 

[dpurdy]

I do have a hard time understanding the high contrast lens concept. The Fuji 690 does have a reportedly high contrast lens. But if I run a test to find zone 1 exposure and Zone 8 processing time I would think the contrast would be normal.

 

[nbagno]

Love love love my III for all the reasons listed here. There are some cons IMO.
Difficult to use filters because of the stupid lens hood design.
Sometimes the lens hood is difficult to slide, gets cockeyed.
Lens hood visible when composing.
That's about it!


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[gzinsel]

From my "general" assessment in regards to the contrast. When you look at the print made from the fujinon 6x9 III from a distance, giving yourself the general once over. it is or has more contrast than say the exact same photograph made with my Canon P. Now.now . . . . Hold on. . . . I know you can't compare 35 and 120, but to get my 35mm print looking like the Fujinon, I have to print with a 1/2 /1 grade higher, even though I developed both of them in the same tank for the same time, If you step away from the two you will notice the difference, Now I have never compared against a rodenstock N or S or Schneider, If you compare it with the old folders its no contest. While the camera is not a miracle drug, It was Way, WAY better than my Horseman 105mm from my VHR. You see the lens itself , in its' "corrected" for. . . . better contrast. It has nothing to do with place and fall of the zone system. it's the lens ability to distinguish, resolve, separate, etc. . . . tones.

 

[LMNOP]

Patrick, been seeing your work with it since you appeared around here (and in a couple other places such as IG). You do great with the Fujis (and the RZ)! Was that handheld with Portra 400-800? When I'm going back home I think that I'll use it much more though more tripod oriented.

Because I'm a few months for student exchange, and left it at home together with the tripod. Sometimes I do regret.

Mine is slightly out of whack horizontally at infinity; seemingly non-linearly, as it is accurate for closer distances (3m-1m).
The lens is great, some people complain that it's not THAT sharp -compared to Mamiya 7 & Hasselblad level-. I guess because it relates more to a LF than a MF-35mm lens) but to my capability it's exceedingly good.

And shooting Portra-400H rating at lower EI, scanning at a lab with wedding photography clientelle, the contrast and colors go soft and pastel.

Thanks for following my work! I shot the portrait with portra 400, and yes, handheld for sure, at 1/60 I believe. That is the lowest I'll go, usually for portraits in low light. I've only done long exposures on the tripod, which I do quite frequently as a matter of fact, but just today I snapped a quick portrait in pretty low lighting, the GW can handle it!

 

[LMNOP]

In my limited use of the camera, I found the pluses were what most folks here are saying- big negative, easy to focus. There were some downsides and some quirks. The biggest quirk, to me, is using shutter speeds longer than 1 second. To do so, you have to put the shutter on B, no big deal, but you have to re-trigger the shutter by changing the shutter speed to close it. The downsides, to me, are the bulk (this is not a compact camera by any stretch of the imagination), the limited close-focus (I think it's something like 4 feet, which is not a big deal when shooting landscapes, but is a problem when trying to do portraits and/or architectural details), and the sound of the shutter. It's high-pitched and metallic, and surprisingly loud for a leaf shutter. Granted it's no RB67 with the Ker-PHLOP! its mirror makes when you shoot.

I found the lens to be bitingly sharp, almost too sharp, and VERY contrasty, with a color rendition that was not pleasing to me. It was not the camera for me, but it certainly will work very well for other folks.

I agree, these quirks people speak of are so superficial, its insane. I was all worried about an "ugly" shutter sound, or a weird T mode for long exposures, but I instantly got used to it and just said 'Hell yeah' to these quirks. The limited close focus can be annoying, but thats why I shoot my RZ so often. To give the OP an example of a minimum focusing distance, this is pretty much it, if you can picture me sitting directly across a small café table. I'd be surprised if that was a full four feet, but its still not ideal for certain portraits.

 

[papagene]

I have been photographing with the Fuji cameras for quite a while and I love them. I have a GW670 II and GSW690 III and the differences are minuscule, superficial at best. As to the lens quality, superb, resulting negs are easy to print.
These two cameras accompany me on hikes on the trails of Rocky Mtn National Park and they satisfy my photographic needs.

 

[menesesmo]

Thank you macfred. I'd like to get a polarizing filter for it and I hear some cameras require a circular & some others a linear type. Do you have an idea as to what type is best for this all manual camera?
Thank you!

 

[macfred]

Thank you macfred. I'd like to get a polarizing filter for it and I hear some cameras require a circular & some others a linear type. Do you have an idea as to what type is best for this all manual camera?
Thank you!

You can go with a linear polarizer - but ...
when you are using a rangefinder camera, you are NOT looking through the lens.
You can't see the polarizers effect through your rangefinder window when attaching the filter on the lens.
There are several discussions out on the web how to use polarizers on rangefinder cameras.

https://www.google.de/search?client...&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=CYETVtGtKumg8weL9KL4BQ
--

Don't forget to add the filter's factor (usually about 1 to 1.5 stops) to your exposure meter.

 

[CropDusterMan]

I have used this camera for years...when I was Martin Schoellers assistant, we had a bunch of them we'd use for double
page spreads...look up his 2003 Outside Magazine shoot we did in Nepal on "Tigers of the Snow"....lots of great images
shot on the Fuji 6x9 (90mm). We also had one converted to a polaroid back for proofing lighting and for shooting Polaroid
665.

Have fun with it, it's a Texas Leica.

Jason

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have a GSW III and I have no real complaints. The lens is razor sharp and it's the simplest camera I own. I think an old fashioned meter in the range finder window would be dandy.