GX680 vs a 4x5

[AlbertZeroK]

I've always heard of the amazing things you can do with perspective with a view camera. But the investment into a 4x5 system is pretty substantial, by the time you go from enlarger, film, developing tools and of course the camera.

I'm wondering how a Fuji GX680 would compare to a 4x5 system? I realize the back plane is not adjustable, but I am stocked with plenty of medium format film and can handle it A-Z in my dark room. So I"m wondering what the down side of this camera vs a 4x5 would be.

 

[wildbill]

Several pounds. I've only carried one once. I own anchors which weigh less

 

[Jerevan]

A 4x5 with a rollfilm back, maybe?

 

[AlbertZeroK]

What I'm wondering is what do I miss by not having an articulating back?

I'm aware of 4x5 backs for MF film and the size of this thing.

 

[Jerevan]

Image control; depth of field and perspectives of the image.

"The shift and tilt movements make it possible to solve otherwise impossible depth-of-field problems, and to change perspective rendering, and create special effects that would be impossible with a conventional fixed-plane fixed-lens camera." as Wikipedia says.

 

[ph.otographer.com]

Yes but...

Except that the camera he's suggesting, the GX680, has Shift and Tilt movements already. He's referring to the additional controls associated with moving the film plane in the rear.

I've got a GX680, it's a great camera and I'd say a) weight ... it's a beast and b) some marginal extra degree of control that when starting out, you probably can't differentiate between.

Image control; depth of field and perspectives of the image.

"The shift and tilt movements make it possible to solve otherwise impossible depth-of-field problems, and to change perspective rendering, and create special effects that would be impossible with a conventional fixed-plane fixed-lens camera." as Wikipedia says.

 

[jp498]

I use both MF and LF, and what I like about MF is the combination of light weight, image quality, and quick operation. What I like about LF is the image quality and lens options. Can you use 150 years worth of lenses on the GX680? Do they still make new lenses for the GX680? I just bought a new lens from Reinhold Schable that he made for $61. Prior to that, I have bought a lens probably from the 1940's that's there is no modern equivalent for. If those LF things aren't interesting, then no need to pursue them.

You're not missing a ton by not having an articulating back. My speed graphics don't. I have a view camera that does, but I've only used rear rise to do the opposite of front rise. I've got portrait camera that have a movable back, but that's because they don't have a movable front.

If you like to scan, the common and inexpensive Epsons like the v700/v750 will do a nicer job with LF than MF. MF on the Epson is plenty good for web and small prints, but not as good as the more expensive Nikon 9000 scanner.

 

[Klainmeister]

Why not get a Baby Speed Graphic or a Horseman 6x9 or something of that nature that doesn't weigh as much as Hoover Dam?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A lot of 4x5 field cameras will actually weigh LESS than a GX680. And these days, with a little patience, you can find a 4x5 enlarger for next to nothing. Many 4x5 field cameras can be had for less than a GX680. Which, btw, you probably don't want because the 680 has issues with the rechargeable battery. The newer 680 II or III resolved some of the power supply issues, but then you're talking a LOT more money for the camera, at which point you can have a really nice 4x5 setup. Not that you'll ever need the ability to tie your bellows in knots, but a nice used Shen Hao or one of the later Zone VI or Wisner models will have all the movements you'll ever need and then some.

 

[ph.otographer.com]

I, II or III

I know from personal experience that the AA holder from the v.3 version of the GX680 works perfectly well in the v.1 version ... I have that setup now myself. The old rechargeables are no good ... all seem to have expired / exhausted themselves. I've read that you can fairly easily replace those using an RC car type battery shoehorned into the old case, and picked up 2 + a charger just for that, but the AA holder works so well there's no need.

A lot of 4x5 field cameras will actually weigh LESS than a GX680. And these days, with a little patience, you can find a 4x5 enlarger for next to nothing. Many 4x5 field cameras can be had for less than a GX680. Which, btw, you probably don't want because the 680 has issues with the rechargeable battery. The newer 680 II or III resolved some of the power supply issues, but then you're talking a LOT more money for the camera, at which point you can have a really nice 4x5 setup. Not that you'll ever need the ability to tie your bellows in knots, but a nice used Shen Hao or one of the later Zone VI or Wisner models will have all the movements you'll ever need and then some.

 

[ph.otographer.com]

Also, offhand, the GX680 has the following lenses: 50, 65, 80, 100, 125, 150, 180, 220, 300, and some elusive others like a zoom and a 500mm. Some of those area also specialized, like ones with soft focus effects designed into them. At either end however, 50 & 300+ you start to lose some of the flexibility you have in the middle range as far as camera movement.

 

[Ian Grant]

I thought about this 25 years ago, my then LF camreta was too heavy to use outside a studio and I looked at the Mamiya RB67 the Fuji GX680 and things like the Baby Speed Graphics but decided to buy a Wista. That's a decision I've never regretted.

Ian

 

[Frank Bunnik]

I had a GX680III. In my opinion, it is the best MF camera ever made. The lenses are just superb. I used it for landscapes which brings me to the weight of the camera. It is very heavy. Heavier even then the Linhof Master Technika I use now. It is also a very big camera. A field camera like the Technika can be folded to a relatively small package. With the GX you can not do that.

With the GX you can shoot formats up to 6x8. With a 4x5 you can shoot the same formats and more, including 6x12. A field camera is completely manual so no battery issues out in the field.

Although I really liked my GX, I am glad I bought a 4x5.

Good luck with your choice,
Frank
www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com

 

[2F/2F]

Hi,

It is not the equipment that is the big cost with 4x5. It is the cost of film and processing. Do a little research and find out about how much you will spend for a single color shot with 4x5. Is the quality you will get worth the cost? That is for each of us to decide. I will say that IME, unless you are printing quite large, medium format will provide more than enough image quality. I'd either go for the Fuji, a medium format view camera, or use medium format backs on a 4x5 (with the proper medium format lenses). If you shoot very little, or if you are selling your stuff, I'd just go with a 4x5.

 

[2F/2F]

What I'm wondering is what do I miss by not having an articulating back?

I'm aware of 4x5 backs for MF film and the size of this thing.

Not a lot. Back movements are a luxury/convenience, the effects of which can be largely duplicated if there are ample front movements. The rear of my SINAR can do any movement I want it to do, but I use the front alone for movements 90 percent of the time. I used Press cameras as field cameras a lot in the past, so I guess I just got used to it.