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

OP
OP

Mike Evangelist

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
134
Location
Twin Cities,
Format
Medium Format
Tony-S said:
You don't know what "monster" is until you shoot a Mamiya Press camera.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,219
Location
Cambridge MA
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,444
Location
pawtucket rh
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,106
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Tony-S said:
You don't know what "monster" is until you shoot a Mamiya Press camera.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
61
Location
brit in sout
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,444
Location
pawtucket rh
Format
Multi Format

Good for you! Enjoy it.
 

jmccl@yahoo.com

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
111
Location
South of Salt Lake City
Format
Multi Format
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?
 

Mainecoonmaniac

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,297
Format
Multi Format
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.

 

Klainmeister

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
1,504
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
1,504
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Format
Medium Format

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?
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,106
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Klainmeister said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,448
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
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

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,219
Location
Cambridge MA
Format
Medium Format
Mike Evangelist said:
No. (I bought mine from this seller: kwm55 and it arrived three days after I purchased. Smooth as could be.)
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,444
Location
pawtucket rh
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

f/16

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
375
Location
Houston, TX
Format
Multi Format
Nice. I want one
 

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…