Sad Fuji News/Happy Voigtländer News -GF670 in Japan only -Bessa III elsewhere!

[Soeren]

If this is a leaf-shutter camera, TTL metering would be very difficult or so complex that you would be asking for mechanical/electronic problems at some point.

A leaf shutter is normally closed and only opens when the exposure is made. To enable TTL metering, you would need to change how a leaf shutter works so that it's open, which would require a blind at the film plane, if you wanted to read the film plane. Taking a photo would then require the leaf shutter to close, the blind to retract, the leaf shutter to make its exposure, the blind to then close and the leaf shutter to then open. These require mechanical precision on the first exposure as well as the 10,000th exposure.

Then there is the problem of reading the film plane, which is considerably larger than 35mm. Do you simply center-weight it? Spot meter?

Now I know some of you will think that you could do away with the blind and have exposure determined at the time the photo is taken. All good and fine, but then you'll never get a preview of what the exposure is, unless you add a second meter cell on the body. That would add complexity and cost.

Or, alternatively, you would need to insert a sensor in front of the leaf shutter blades, which adds complexity to the design, because you need to account for extraneous reflections from the shutter blades, as well as the extra light that comes from the sensor being located so close to the front element.

All in all, neither is a workable solution.

Much better said than I could myself.

 

[Lee L]

Aha! Use the shutter curtain as a mirror/screen!

That's exactly the kind of pleasing cunning solution I was hoping someone would reveal... I can see now why the leaf shutter in this new camera might cause a problem with that technique, though

Leica mounted the metering cell on an armature just in front of the shutter curtain that swung out of the way before the shutter fired in the M5 and CL. Light doesn't necessarily have to be well focused to be metered. The M5 and CL had spot metering. Some TTL rangefinders have curtains painted entirely or partially gray, some have a white reflective spot in the middle. The Minolta CLE had a pseudo random set of white spots for averaging. The meter cell can sit in the floor or top of the shutter box and point back at the film/shutter, just like on some SLRs.

The thing that makes TTL metering an RF simpler than an SLR is that you are always metering with the lens stopped down to working aperture, so all you need to calculate the shutter speed is film speed and the amount of light hitting the metering cell. You don't have to know the aperture or anything else about the lens, and don't need electronics coupled to the lens. With modern SLRs at minimum you have to calculate the offset from full aperture readings.

I'm not the one to ask about matrix metering. It's always seemed like a useless marketing gimmick to me for film, as I've been getting good exposures without it on narrower dynamic range transparency film for four decades. My questions about matrix metering are: How does it know if I want a low or high key exposure? Why does it think that I want the same exposure as the closest color and brightness pattern match found in a database of 2^N other photos someone else took? I can see that matrix metering might be useful for non-analog cameras so that you don't blow pixels out on the bright end when you're measuring the brightness of each pixel. But I don't see it yielding better results than a regular meter used by a photographer with experience and a brain.

Lee

 

[tim_walls]

Leica mounted the metering cell on an armature just in front of the shutter curtain that swung out of the way before the shutter fired in the M5 and CL.

That was the first solution I'd originally envisaged, but it seemed deeply inelegant. It also seems to me you replace mirror-slap with sensor-slap, which takes away one of a rangefinder's purported benefits over SLRs.

I like the using the shutter curtain as a reflector idea though, much more elegant. I wonder if fresnel lenses could be used on the curtains to focus the light onto the detector cells...

Light doesn't necessarily have to be well focused to be metered.

Well, that depends entirely on how large and how accurate your spot is, surely!

The thing that makes TTL metering an RF simpler than an SLR is that you are always metering with the lens stopped down to working aperture, so all you need to calculate the shutter speed is film speed and the amount of light hitting the metering cell. You don't have to know the aperture or anything else about the lens, and don't need electronics coupled to the lens. With modern SLRs at minimum you have to calculate the offset from full aperture readings.

I'll level with you, as a trained engineer with electronics and embedded systems experience, I'm thinking the offset-from-full-aperture part is trivial. All the other problems already outlined with metering in a rangefinder ono the other hand, less so... It seems to me the idea that TTL metering in a RF is 'simple' compared to SLRs depends very much on ignoring all the problems of the former and concentrating solely on a very minor problem of the latter.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the challenges are different...

I'm not the one to ask about matrix metering.

Not something I've ever used either - personally I use multi-point spot and nothing else - but I understand it is well used by other people, which suggests that it isn't useless.

 

[Mick Fagan]

David, I agree with you about Fuji not manufacturing any B&W 220 film, but that doesn't mean that they won't consider it for their own camera, I would have thought.

I have been quietly pleased at the information contained in this thread, it appears that the group of people who have collectively designed this camera, really thought long and hard at just what could be achieved.

The icing on the cake has to be the ability to shoot in square or rectangular format to suit either your choice of format, or the format that your enlarger may force you to accept.

There are bucket loads of 6x6 enlargers out there, especially in Europe. Anyone with a 6x6 enlarger would have thought about a 6x7 camera, but more than likely have dropped the idea.

I have noticed in my travels that certain areas of the world have a predominance of enlarger and camera types. Australia, although well endowed with various 6x6 cameras, is a very big 6x7 roll film market. The secondhand enlarger market reflects that as most enlargers I see are usually 6x7, and I'm on the lookout for enlargers, so I see what's around.

Having travelled extensively in Germany and some surrounding countries in the last 26 years, as well as visiting some photographers and their darkrooms, I noted a big difference. The majority of enlargers I encountered were either 6x6, or, to a far lesser extent, 6x9.

Sure there are now quite a few 4x5" enlargers on the market, but mostly they have come from labs, including my own.

I do think the experience Fuji have had with the X-pan, has put them in good stead for the in camera twin format arrangement.

Mick.

 

[Steve Smith]

or the format that your enlarger may force you to accept.

Whilst to some, this reasoning may sound odd, owning a 6x7 enlarger was a large factor in my decision to buy an RB67.

This new camera would suit this reasoning too!


Steve.

 

[Soeren]

David, I agree with you about Fuji not manufacturing any B&W 220 film, but that doesn't mean that they won't consider it for their own camera, I would have thought.

I have been quietly pleased at the information contained in this thread, it appears that the group of people who have collectively designed this camera, really thought long and hard at just what could be achieved.

The icing on the cake has to be the ability to shoot in square or rectangular format to suit either your choice of format, or the format that your enlarger may force you to accept.

There are bucket loads of 6x6 enlargers out there, especially in Europe. Anyone with a 6x6 enlarger would have thought about a 6x7 camera, but more than likely have dropped the idea.

I have noticed in my travels that certain areas of the world have a predominance of enlarger and camera types. Australia, although well endowed with various 6x6 cameras, is a very big 6x7 roll film market. The secondhand enlarger market reflects that as most enlargers I see are usually 6x7, and I'm on the lookout for enlargers, so I see what's around.

Having travelled extensively in Germany and some surrounding countries in the last 26 years, as well as visiting some photographers and their darkrooms, I noted a big difference. The majority of enlargers I encountered were either 6x6, or, to a far lesser extent, 6x9.

Sure there are now quite a few 4x5" enlargers on the market, but mostly they have come from labs, including my own.

So true
I got my Durst 707 by accident and though I'm now considering or ...well buying a 4X5" I have thought long and hard about it due to it's size and weight. 6X6 enlargers are floating around here by the bulk, 6X7 are rare, 6X9 even more so and 4X5" are more common than the two former but many of them are hardly practical for the average hobbyist.
Kind regards

 

[Nick Merritt]

Hmm, sounds like the topic of a doctoral dissertation: "Cultural Differences in the Predominance of Different Medium Format Rollfilm Formats: Is Europe Too Square?"

 

[biloko]

Just dreaming of this camera for 5 or 6 year ! Don't wake me up !

Anybody available in Koln to tell us what the minimal focusing distance will be ?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Most medium format rangefinder cameras focus to about 3 ft./1 m with a normal lens. I would be surprised if this were any different.

 

[keithwms]

I have contacted Voigtlander to offer an APUG discount!!!

With an APUG logo perhaps?

 

[Fintan]

Wow, the sudden addition of 66 format suddenly makes me wet my trousers in anticipation!

Well my trousers are dry but this camera is now on my radar with the mention of 6x6.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I find the speculation about ttl/otf metering for this camera amusing - folks, this is a leaf-shutter camera. To put in a focal-plane shutter of any kind would have significantly enlarged the mass and bulk of the body, and it would not have been pocket-sized anymore. You would also run into problems with flash sync speeds - at best you'd get something around 1/90th because of the shutter size.

 

[Steve Smith]

To put in a focal-plane shutter of any kind would have significantly enlarged the mass and bulk of the body.

And cost.

Let's praise it for what it is rather than wish it were slightly different. Even if it's not what you would personally want or, in my case, can currently afford, we should be pleased that it has even been considered.




Steve.

 

[argus]

So, that's a Heliar lens for us? As I was hoping, it's also 6x7cm format.
Count me in on one new fine camera then! First time in 10 years That I'll buy new camera equipment, apart from some filters and cable releases.

G

 

[Andy K]

Argus, it is dual format, 6x6 and 6x7.

 

[elekm]

I find the speculation about ttl/otf metering for this camera amusing - folks, this is a leaf-shutter camera. To put in a focal-plane shutter of any kind would have significantly enlarged the mass and bulk of the body, and it would not have been pocket-sized anymore. You would also run into problems with flash sync speeds - at best you'd get something around 1/90th because of the shutter size.

I was thinking the same thing. A focal plane shutter in this camera would require a thicker camera.

All in all, I think Fuji and Cosina have done a very nice job with this camera.

 

[DBP]

I'm hard pressed to think of something bad to say about the design, which looks very well thought out. I suspect that the decision to go with a dual format design was influenced to some degree by the issues people have printing 6x7, possibly even those concerns expressed here.

Does anyone know the weight yet? I find I leave the Mamiya Six (folder) and Mockva 5 at home in favor of a Bessa I or Speedex because, while the size is similar, the weight is not. I'm hoping this will be lighter than the Mockva.

 

[eddym]

I'm not the one to ask about matrix metering. It's always seemed like a useless marketing gimmick to me for film, as I've been getting good exposures without it on narrower dynamic range transparency film for four decades. My questions about matrix metering are: How does it know if I want a low or high key exposure? Why does it think that I want the same exposure as the closest color and brightness pattern match found in a database of 2^N other photos someone else took? I can see that matrix metering might be useful for non-analog cameras so that you don't blow pixels out on the bright end when you're measuring the brightness of each pixel. But I don't see it yielding better results than a regular meter used by a photographer with experience and a brain.

Lee

I'm glad to hear that someone besides myself feels that way. What I always tell students is that no matter how "good' or complex a camera's metering system is, it still has no idea what you are taking a picture of. A spot meter and a (human) brain will beat any matrix system every time.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Well I would guess it will be heavier than your Moskwa 5 as there will be also electronics and batteries inside. I still do hope that it will be lighter than my Rolleiflex T.

Actually - is there any hint when could be this camera available?

 

[John W]

A spot meter and a (human) brain will beat any matrix system every time.

I've been thinking that it would be an interesting camera design to simply build a non-TTL spot meter into the body with a readout and spot-targeting indicator in the viewfinder. For an RF, this could be a simple mark along with the brightlines. If we're getting fancy, allow the metering cell to be switched to incident -- ala a pared-down version of dual reflective/incident meters such as the Sekonic L-308. Aperture/shutter priority + exposure compensation + exposure lock driven directly off of such a metering system would rock.

It seems that with TTL metering (or any non-spot reflective metering) one is constantly having to guesstimate to nail down proper exposure, all while fighting our eyes' tendencies towards light adaptation. But then I'm relatively new to photography... so perhaps I'll find TTL metering less annoying in a few years.

 

[jd callow]

I'm happy to see this camera come out, but it misses the mark for me. I think the 6x6 option is great and preferable to 6x7; folders are great; the price is just a tad north of what I think would make it really popular (just under 1k is where I think the sweet spot would be), but it is not priced out of bounds. The show stopper for me is the lens focal length. I'd much prefer a 65mm or 50mm. I just can't get excited about normal focal lengths -- i'd kill for 6x9 folder with a rf coupled 80mm...

 

[Removed Account]

That's funny JD, I would have preferred a longer than normal focal length. Still, if I can afford this camera I'll give some good, hard thinking towards picking one up.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Meanwhile Stephen Gandy has had a chat with Mr. K., will take pre-orders, and confirms that the meter is not TTL...

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64253

 

[bnstein]

Well I would guess it will be heavier than your Moskwa 5 as there will be also electronics and batteries inside. I still do hope that it will be lighter than my Rolleiflex T.

My 0.02: my Moskva is just a tad under 1kg, mostly being very solid metal and a bit of glass. I'd guess electronics and battery weight (prob only a button cell) plus Japanese engineering >>> russian engineering.

 

[biloko]

First time in 10 years That I'll buy new camera equipment, apart from some filters and cable releases.

You won't be alone in that case. Last time it was in 84 (Canon F1 New) and I also got the feeling to reach what I expected for a long time!