Holy mackerel, this thing is enormous! (Fuji GSW690 III)

[Mike Evangelist]

You don't know what "monster" is until you shoot a Mamiya Press camera.

Oh, I know. I've shot Speed Graphic back in the day, so I know what it's like to hold a camera the size of a briefcase up to your head. But for that, the size of the thing was expected. Because the 690 is shaped like a typical camera, it's all the more surprising when you see it in person.

 

[Moopheus]

All right, now you've done it. I've wanted one of these Fuji rangefinders for years, but couldn't afford one. But now I have a little more money and it seems prices have soften a bit from the last time I looked, so now a GW690II is on its way to me. Damn you, APUG! Always costing me money!

 

[erikg]

There is something of a Fisher-Price My First Camera kind of look to these. I have to laugh at pictures of myself shooting these, like I came to the shoot on a tricycle. I remember the first time I saw a Pentax 6x7 I had a similar reaction. Nobody calls those Texas SLRs though. Totally worth any ribbing I might get.

 

[benjiboy]

Just use it , and get a truss for your'e hernia

 

[Vaughn]

You don't know what "monster" is until you shoot a Mamiya Press camera.

I borrowed one of those in Yosemite...fun little camera and I got some good negatives, too. It was the first time I had used an MF camera with inter-changable lenses (I started photography with a Rolleiflex). I had my 8x10 with me, but had left all my film holders at home...so a friend lent me the Mamiya with a 6x7 and a 6x9 backs.

Now when I travel with the 8x10 and/or 11x14, I make sure to 'toss in' the Rollei just in case.

 

[culturesponge]

adore our GSW690 - huge, but equally vastly capable (except slow speeds grr) ...but the trusty old Mamiya Super 23 still makes me smile

best
alex

 

[erikg]

All right, now you've done it. I've wanted one of these Fuji rangefinders for years, but couldn't afford one. But now I have a little more money and it seems prices have soften a bit from the last time I looked, so now a GW690II is on its way to me. Damn you, APUG! Always costing me money!

Good for you! Enjoy it.

 

[jmccl@yahoo.com]

GSW 690 on my wish list too

Considering acquiring one to take to Utah/Arizona canyon country next spring. Were there any import fees or customs charges getting the camera from Japan?

 

[Mike Evangelist]

Were there any import fees or customs charges getting the camera from Japan?

No. (I bought mine from this seller: kwm55 and it arrived three days after I purchased. Smooth as could be.)

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's a shot I did with my GSW690 last week. The film is Arista EDU 100. It was stand developed in HC-110 for 1hr 15mins 68 degrees, agitated for the first minute.

 

[adelorenzo]

"Texas" Leica. Doesn't like cold weather. Please wrap securely and send it to this good Texas home.

Yeah they shoot just fine at 40 below. Trust me on that one.


Sun dogs and ice fog on the Yukon River by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

 

[Klainmeister]

So big in fact that I dropped my friends down the Grand Canyon and only the filter was broken! Shutter speeds were dead on still.

 

[gone]

When I pulled mine out of it's shipping box my wife burst out laughing. Until you actually see one in the flesh it's difficult to understand the size thing. I never got past that, and sold it. If you can live w/ the size, and I really couldn't, they make nice images, although I definitely prefer German glass in MF to Japanese. The latter often is sharp as heck, but in a cold, digital sort of way. I'd probably find it fine for color slides though, not B&W film.

 

[Klainmeister]

When I pulled mine out of it's shipping box my wife burst out laughing. Until you actually see one in the flesh it's difficult to understand the size thing. I never got past that, and sold it. If you can live w/ the size, and I really couldn't, they make nice images, although I definitely prefer German glass in MF to Japanese. The latter often is sharp as heck, but in a cold, digital sort of way. I'd probably find it fine for color slides though, not B&W film.

You know, I've heard this before too. Is there any good examples of side by side to show this? I use a mix of Schneider and Fuji glass and never could tell the two apart in a print. Maybe I'm just too philistine?

 

[P C Headland]

adore our GSW690 - huge, but equally vastly capable (except slow speeds grr) ...but the trusty old Mamiya Super 23 still makes me smile

best
alex

That photo is just so wrong

 

[Vaughn]

So big in fact that I dropped my friends down the Grand Canyon and only the filter was broken! Shutter speeds were dead on still.

I think it is illegal to drop your friends down the side of the Grand Canyon. Messy, too...

 

[Prest_400]

Keep it quiet! I am stashing money so someday in the future I can get one.

I'd love to shoot Slides with it, and just watch them on their natural state of 56x82mm. However, being a student plus the uncertainety all around will keep me far enough of getting one for a while.
I think I could handle the size well enough, but not the emptiness in my pocket!

 

[Moopheus]

No. (I bought mine from this seller: kwm55 and it arrived three days after I purchased. Smooth as could be.)

I think that's the same guy I bought my RB from. Apart from the (unsurprisingly) relatively high shipping costs, my (limited) experience is that the Japanese dealers are reliable.

 

[Roger Cole]

Argh. Now this thread has me wanting one, especially once I looked up the prices and found they aren't THAT bad - either the GSW or GS. Not sure which I'd want. Not having shot 6x9 before I'm wondering if the 90mm isn't in fact "slightly wide" and of course the 65mm is wide - seems like 65 would be fairly wide on 6x9 maybe more like a 28mm on 35mm than a 35mm? Proportions are similar enough.

The diagonal of a 35mm frame is 43mm so the usual 50mm is in fact slightly longer than that. The diagonal of a 6x9 frame is 100mm so a 90mm lens is 90% of the diagonal. The equivalent on 35mm would then be 38.7. The equivalent of the 65mm on 6x9 would then be .65x43 or 27.95 meaning the 35mm equivalents for the two available Fuji 6x9s would be a 28mm for the GSW and a 39mm for the GS. Is this roughly (roughly!) correct? I took the diagonal measures from this thread, post 3:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If that's right I'd find the GS slightly too long much of the time and the GSW slightly too wide but for an all around camera would probably prefer the GS, if for no other reason than it could produce more natural looking portraits (though with 6x9 one could always back up to a more normal perspective and then crop in printing and still have a functionally large negative.)

Oh yes, does anyone have a photo of someone using one of these things so the rest of us can see just how big they are in proportion to a human?

 

[erikg]

Roger you are correct with the equivalents. I have both of these cameras, on the 65 I often use a 28mm accessory finder and that matches up well. I don't think I have any pics of myself shooting one, but it is a bit funny. Not heavy at all though, easy to carry around.

 

[Roger Cole]

I found these photos of the camera in use online. The one with the big handle monster flash is even more...monstrous:

Dead Link Removed

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4147/4841714691_b77e53959a_z.jpg

 

[Ed Bray]

I've got one for each shoulder!

 

[f/16]

Nice. I want one

 

[RattyMouse]

These monsters blow through film like there is no tomorrow. At 8 shots per roll, you will be consuming a lot of film.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's ok. Roll film is cheap.

I know that's heresy here, but it is. 36 is way, WAY too many. Rolls sit in my 35mm cameras for months sometimes. I find 12 in my 6x6 about perfect, and 15 in my 645 is ok too. I wouldn't have a problem with 8.

Besides, those of us used to 4x5 are accustomed to a buck and up every time we open the shutter (black and white, dramatically more for color.) Getting eight shots on a roll of film that costs $4-$5 is not expensive. Of course it IS if you're the machine gunning type who started with digital, or are even accustomed to shoot a couple rolls of 35mm per outing. If you shoot those same 72 shots, it's going to cost you.

Years ago there was a saying that "film is the cheapest thing in photography." It wasn't really true then and certainly isn't now. The cheapest thing in photography is a look through the viewfinder. I've probably set up the 4x5 and composed, focused, swung/tilted as needed...then decided not to pull the darkslide and expose a sheet of film, more often than I actually HAVE made the exposure. Eight shots on a roll is a tool to build discernment.