Is the Fuji GF670W really worth the price?

[RattyMouse]

For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad and a good selection of lenses and film backs, and still have money for coffee at $tarbucks.

I paid $3800 for my two Fuji rangefinders and still had enough left over to buy a fully equipped Fuji TX-1 system (all 3 lenses). And I still go to Starbucks 3-4 times a week.

No need to buy a Hasselblad. I didnt even consider it actually.

 

[Craig]

For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad

No thanks. I've had a Hasselblad and it didn't work for me. I have the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and I love it, it's a very different camera to a Hasselblad. Personally, for my work a square format is useless.

 

[Craig]

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is if you are a working professional making money with the tool, then the price of the tool is less of a concern when you know you will more than recoup the cost.

The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...

By the same token, Livery drivers use Cadillacs or Lincolns, not Fords. Or Mercedes or even Rolls Royce. It's a flawed analogy all the way around. There are multiple pieces to the equation - there is the monetary cost, and there is the monetary profit, and then there is the emotional profit - will I enjoy using this camera more than the other one? Will it's way of framing the world enable me to take more of the pictures I want to take, and will I feel better about those pictures when I look at them later because I enjoyed taking them? Did the camera get out of the way so I could concentrate on making pictures instead of operating the camera? Good cameras do that (get out of your way). And as someone who takes a LOT of pictures, some of them occasionally for profit, I value very highly the cameras that get out of my way, and the price of them is, within reason, not a factor in the decision to buy them. If it were an issue, I'd be using a Lubitel instead of a Rolleiflex.

 

[RattyMouse]

The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...

I was in Singapore many years ago and flagged down a taxi to get back to my hotel. I got in the car and found it was a Mercedes Benz. A very very nice one at that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's durable ... What happens when Lamborghini hits a tree?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's durable ... What happens when Lamborghini hits a tree?

What happens when anything hits a tree? It goes crunch. A more appropriate question is what happens when a Lamborghini goes 180mph vs a Ford Taurus? The Lambo stays on the road (unless you're an idiot and steer it into a tree) whereas the Taurus loses control and hits the tree 50 mph before the Lambo hits 180. And even if the Taurus could hit 180 without massive modifications, the Lambo could run at 180 a lot longer than the Taurus, because it was designed to do that from the factory. Will the Lambo need more frequent and very expensive maintenance than the Taurus in order to keep it on the road? Yes.

 

[NJH]

The cost benefit trade off point made above must be true, it explains why so many wedding photographers used Bronica or Mamiya SLR/TLR systems rather than the more expensive Hasselblad/Rollei options.

 

[film_man]

The OP didn't say he was a working professional or making any money with it. Even if you are making a living from it, it's still a sunk cost that has to be recouped before you can make a profit. If a similar tool can do the job for much less, surely a prudent businessman would ask if the more expensive tool is worth the cost? There is a reason taxi drivers use Fords, not Rolls Royces...

A GF670W costs a month's average salary in the UK or two month's minimum wage (and yes I understand that you can't spend all of it, this is just to illustrate the size we're talking about). So talking about it from a price-performance or return of investment point of view is silly. After all this is film photography, if one is skint they don't shoot film, if one is counting the beans then just use your phone and if you're a working professional the cost is just a business expenses that will be recuperated within a couple of jobs at most (unless you're a bargain basement shooter but then you wouldn't be shooting film either).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The cost benefit trade off point made above must be true, it explains why so many wedding photographers used Bronica or Mamiya SLR/TLR systems rather than the more expensive Hasselblad/Rollei options.

They were cheaper than the Hassy/Rollei cameras, certainly. But even when they were industry standard (vs. digital), they were not an order of magnitude cheaper than a Hassy or Rollei, and coming from 35mm, both tiers of medium format were equally out of reach for a long time.

 

[guangong]

For those kind of prices you could out fit yourself with a very nice Hasselblad and a good selection of lenses and film backs, and still have money for coffee at $tarbucks.

I had and still have Hasselblads for many years but still bought a new GF670 several years ago and never regretted the purchase. While I like using the Hassys they really can’t be compared with the Fuji because they are quite different cameras. I also use Super Ikonta B and Rolleiflex TLR. All are different. The Hassy does provide the option for using different focal lengths.
Must say that the Fuji viewfinder is extremely bright while parallax is corrected both vertically and horizontally.
I enjoy a good cup of coffee, so I never go to Starbucks for coffee. Interesting article in Wall Street Journal several years ago demonstrating power of marketing. Starbucks buys cheapest coffee beans available but when coffee mixed with sugar, cream, whipped cream and sprinkles by a barista (not a “counter man”) who can taste it. Can’t be taken black.

 

[RattyMouse]

I was in Fujifilm's corporate headquarters building in Tokyo some time ago visiting the museum there that has all kinds of exhibits from Fuji's history. Also on display were their current products, of which the GF670W was one of them. I held that camera in my hand and was completely blown away at how well designed it was. The fit and finish and feel in hand was simply unbelievable. The camera was priced at $2800, which was staggering at the time. I never spent more than $1200 on any camera and that was a digital camera, not a film one. Yet the feel of this camera was simply mind blowing. I went to Shinjuku and visited Yodobashi. There they had the GF670W again priced at $2800, but with many discounts available. VAT tax is refunded to foreigners. Plus, holders of Union Pay cards were entitled to a 10% discount. I could walk out the door with a GF670W for $2200. One more caveat....no warranty outside of Japan. I hemmed and hawed for about 20 mins but whipped out my Union Pay card and have this GF670W still to this day. Never once did I regret getting such an amazing camera. A year later I paired it to a GF670. I'll never part with them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh well. Some of the 8x10 lenses I use now sell for more. But I can be mean to rich car owners. I deliberately slowed down a 600K Porche, a Viper, and a Ferrari behind my old truck on a narrow mtn road for half an hour. I had a Porsche service underwriter with me, who instigated the prank. When a short passing lane finally arrived, they all roared around me about 90mph, exactly where a Highway Patrolman was attempting a U-turn. His mouth hung open, then he must have figured this was his once-in-a-career opportunity to bag a Porsche like that, which he did about ten miles further, when they got slowed down by a log truck.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...I enjoy a good cup of coffee, so I never go to Starbucks for coffee....

Exactly. If it weren't for WiFi access and people meeting on first dates, Starbucks wouldn't exist.

 

[NJH]

I know its off topic but the owners of Little Chef roadside diners here are replacing them all with Starbucks or Greggs franchises. Its acutely ironic that in a country with anti-EU sentiment our culture is being trashed bit by bit by creeping corporate America takeover. The incredibly bitter after taste from Starbucks god awful coffee the perfect epitaph.

Back on topic its a real shame that Cosina didn't make another run of these cameras. I was told verbally by one of the retailers here that they were going to do another run either Voigtlander of Fuji branded but it never happened hence the crazy secondhand values. X-Pan another case in point, way more demand than supply.

 

[film_man]

I find it funny when people complain about Starbucks. A bit like complaining that a Big Mac is not a gourmet burger.

 

[RattyMouse]

I enjoy Starbucks coffee, quite a lot and hit their stores 4-5 times a week.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I'm not sure why people complain about the cost. Pro oriented medium format cameras are really expensive, and have always been so. Heck the Nikon F6 is nearly the same cost brand new. It's expensive, and not a toy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not sure why people complain about the cost. Pro oriented medium format cameras are really expensive, and have always been so. Heck the Nikon F6 is nearly the same cost brand new. It's expensive, and not a toy.

Pro oriented medium format cameras used to be expensive, now the are much less expensive. For the cost of the top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR on can buy a Rollei 6xxx or Hasselblad with prisms, multiple backs, filters and lenses.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Pro oriented medium format cameras used to be expensive, now the are much less expensive. For the cost of the top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR on can buy a Rollei 6xxx or Hasselblad with prisms, multiple backs, filters and lenses.

You really can't compare new vs used prices. Fuji didn't build a used pair of 6x7 cameras. They built brand new ones, and frankly at the time it was comparable in price with a Mamiya 7II on the used market. A new 7II was far more expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I lived in the times that everyone, including me, bought new cameras, now I live in the post Digital Revolution period when most people buy used film camera equipment. Since I lived in both periods, I have no problem comparing the two times and their prices.

 

[L_E_Miller]

As to why? The only real reason someone waffles over the price of a camera (unless it's a specific example of a camera that is out of the normal range for that item) is that it's a fanciful purchase and not a serious tool. If you have a serious project for it and it is the right tool for the job, then the price is irrelevant (within reason...).

In business the price is never irrelevant. I shot sports for a living with an 7D and a 6D not a 1DX because my clients were happy with the results. Certainly the 1DX was a more powerful tool but there was no reason for me to spend the extra money.

 

[L_E_Miller]

I paid $1600 for my GF670. 1/6th of that is $266. You got a Texas Leica for that cheap?

As I stated in my OP, GF670s are going for nearly 2,000 USD and up currently. You can indeed get the older 690s for under 300 USD though. Just not the 670s, they are floating in the 400-900 range depending on if you want the GM or the GW/GSW

 

[sepiareverb]

The takeaway seems to be that those who have not used the cameras say no, and those that have say yes. Of course the ones who have not used the cameras should know better than anyone that you don’t want a rangefinder at all.

I would suggest a trip into Manhattan or Montreal to get one in your hand for yourself before deciding.

 

[film_man]

In business the price is never irrelevant. I shot sports for a living with an 7D and a 6D not a 1DX because my clients were happy with the results. Certainly the 1DX was a more powerful tool but there was no reason for me to spend the extra money.

In business the price may not be irrelevant, however for a healthy business to spend an extra $2000 on equipment that will be used over 2-3 years is hardly an issue, especially if you factor in tax relief, etc. I'm not saying you should go get a 1DX if you get the work done as is but I suppose what I'm talking about is if you had to get that 1DX that wouldn't really be an issue, right?