So what if Fuji... [made different versions of their folder with different lenses]

[david b]

In my recent exposure to a Fuji GSW690III, I've come to discover that this great camera came in 6 variations.

The III series of camera was available in these combinations:
6x7 with 65mm lens
6x7 with 90mm lens
6x8 with 65mm lens
6x8 with 90mm lens
6x9 with 65mm lens
6x9 with 90mm lens

All of these cameras had the same body, just different viewfinder lines and film gates.

So, I am wondering if Fuji would be able to make the new GF model, in the same combos? The prototype is shown with an 80mm lens. Could they not just make the camera slightly bigger and offer a 6x7, 6x8, and a 6x9 model, all with the 80mm lens? Sure, the larger body might not fit in a jacket pocket but it is still very portable.

Hmmm......

 

[Uncle Goose]

Is there any date of release on this folder?? I'm dying to know the price for one.

 

[Barry S]

How about a 6x17 folder? That would be something. I always thought getting one of the 6x7 versions of the G(S)W didn't make sense, since you were already lugging the same size camera. I'd be happy just to see them come out with the single camera and hopefully keep the price down. A wideangle version would be icing on the cake, but it seems unlikely they'd be coming up with four, let alone six versions. A 6x9 version that allows you to mask to 6x6 would be nice, though.

 

[PhotoJim]

Just remember that the more complexity that is added, the more expensive the camera becomes and the more of a niche the market for the camera becomes. These things always involve trade-offs.

Right now, new film cameras of any ilk are a niche market from the beginning. Making the cameras have more obscure features just refines the niche, which in a small market can be a liability.

If these complexities added 20% to the cost, would it be a good trade? I don't know. I just know that the camera will already be priced out of a lot of people's markets, and the more expensive it is, the higher the probability of that occurring.

 

[sanking]

In my recent exposure to a Fuji GSW690III, I've come to discover that this great camera came in 6 variations.

The III series of camera was available in these combinations:
6x7 with 65mm lens
6x7 with 90mm lens
6x8 with 65mm lens
6x8 with 90mm lens
6x9 with 65mm lens
6x9 with 90mm lens

All of these cameras had the same body, just different viewfinder lines and film gates.

It has come as something of a surprise to me that the film gate size on Fuji cameras of same name is different. I have owned several 6X9 models, most recently a GSW690III and a GW690III. I used these two cameras at the same time for several years and never noticed that the actual size of the film gates on the two cameras was different, 57X85mm on the GSW and 56.5 X 86.5 on the GW. Now I find out that not only were the two gates different on my cameras, but that the standard gate size of the 6X9 appears to be about 56X82mm.

Are there others out there who own Fuji GW or GSW 690 cameras with different gate sizes other than those already mentioned? I find it very odd that of all those commenting here I am the only one to have owned Fuji 690 cameras with odd gate sizes. I did a Google search and found one other reference to a Fuji 690 owner who reported a gate size of 56X84mm, but nothing else.

Sandy King

 

[Nick Zentena]

I wonder if others are making measurement errors?

Or is +/- 1mm on an 80+mm area within normal tolerance?

I could see either/both .

 

[sanking]

I wonder if others are making measurement errors?

Or is +/- 1mm on an 80+mm area within normal tolerance?

I could see either/both .

Nick,

The difference between 82mm and 86mm is huge. I don't believe anyone using a standard metric ruler could make a reading mistake of that magnitude.

Sandy King

 

[Nick Zentena]

It's four mm-) But if the Fuji standard was 84mm then the spread is +/- 2mm. Is that really too large? I could see different batches of parts causing the problem.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

About film gates...
With the Hasselblad there is a difference of about 1,5 mm in the length of the negative on the rollers side of the film back when working with different lenses.
The shorter the focal the longer the neg. and vice versa.
This is because the light rays are coming in more oblique with wide angels (Biogon) and are passing between the rollers and the film, situated at the edges of the film gate, I guess.

Philippe

 

[jp80874]

All this talk about the G(S)W series and the Mamiya 7 II got my interest stirred up about a Rangefinder. I have only used SLRs in 35mm (Nikon 8008) and 6x7 (RZ67), then on to LF. Would some of you who have used folders talk about the advantages of folder VS RF, or the other way round? Moderators, if you think this should be a new thread, please move it.

Thanks,

John Powers

 

[vdonovan]

I think the smart way for Fuji to proceed would be to release a very basic folder with a good normal lens at the lowest possible price. Lots of folks are waiting to buy that camera.

THEN, a year or two later, introduce an upgraded model for more $$$$. This is what Cosina Voigtlander is doing. Wide angle, or flexible format, or interchangeable lenses, or autofocus or something. Many buyers of the original model will upgrade. New buyers will have a chance to buy a more expensive camera. Entry-level buyers, students and first-timers, can still start with the basic model.

My vote would be for a wide angle. Here I am ready to buy a second Fuji camera and they haven't even come out with the first one!

CV's upgrade strategy also involves lenses. You buy a new body and guess what, next thing you are looking at their excellent and reasonably priced lenses and finders. You buy a cheaper CV lens and then you start lusting after the high-end. So maybe Fuji's THIRD camera will be an interchangeable lens medium format RF, with a suite of Fuji's excellent glass available to go with it.

There, I've just laid out the plan with will enable Fuji to get me to spend about $10k on their equipment over the next five years and burn about a thousand rolls of medium format film.

 

[George]

It has come as something of a surprise to me that the film gate size on Fuji cameras of same name is different. ...
Sandy King

Let's make it clearer - the cameras mentioned by the OP have not the same name. They are named GW670III, GW680III, GW690III - according to their nominal film format.
Now, what you speak about is the difference of the actual film gate size on one and the same type of the camera, here GW690III. That is surely interesting. As another poster said, were it the same camera and a different focal length, a certain difference comes from the fact that a shorter focal length lens make a little bigger film print due to the fact that the vertical film gate is a little bit offset from the film.

Anyway, in no case can it be a manufacturing tolerance - those are in order of 1/100 mm, even more in this type of industry.

 

[Lee L]

Now, what you speak about is the difference of the actual film gate size on one and the same type of the camera, here GW690III. That is surely interesting. As another poster said, were it the same camera and a different focal length, a certain difference comes from the fact that a shorter focal length lens make a little bigger film print due to the fact that the vertical film gate is a little bit offset from the film.

Anyway, in no case can it be a manufacturing tolerance - those are in order of 1/100 mm, even more in this type of industry.

I'd agree about the manufacturing tolerance being orders of magnitude tighter than a mm or two in variation. The film gate on my GW690II is a solid piece, and machining or casting wouldn't work that sloppily.

The focal length vs. negative width take is interesting. I measure a bit over 1.5 mm from the film gate the image passes through to the film rails holding the edges, and so to the film emulsion. That's enough to cause a noticeable difference in negative width between a 65mm and a 90mm lens, both at infinity. Haven't done the math yet. It also brings up the issue of film gate size vs. negative size, and which is being reported. I reported an 82mm negative width in the related thread, but measuring the gate 1.5mm in front of the film, I get 80mm.

Lee

 

[sanking]

This is going to make me look like an idiot, but my conscience would bother me if I don't fess up to to the mistake.

Briefly, my measuring instrument had an additional three millimeters on the end before the 0 mark and I failed to notice it. When I realized this I went back and measured the negatives again, and got 56.5X85mm for those made with the GSW690III, and 56.5X83mm for those made with the GW690III. The gate of the GW690III measures 56X82.

Now I am going off the find a hole to hide in.

Sandy King

 

[MattKing]

This is going to make me look like an idiot, but my conscience would bother me if I don't fess up to to the mistake.

Briefly, my measuring instrument had an additional three millimeters on the end before the 0 mark and I failed to notice it. When I realized this I went back and measured the negatives again, and got 56.5X85mm for those made with the GSW690III, and 56.5X83mm for those made with the GW690III. The gate of the GW690III measures 56X82.

Now I am going off the find a hole to hide in.

Sandy King

Just make sure that the hole is the right size Sandy

Been there, done something like that before (yes dear, I am sure the new fridge will fit), wonder if there is a tee shirt.

Matt

 

[Lee L]

This is going to make me look like an idiot, but my conscience would bother me if I don't fess up to to the mistake.

Sandy,

This is the internet. Confessing to being human is not the fashion here. And you don't look anything like an idiot from where I sit.

One of the things I learned about measuring (long ago enough to have forgotten where) was that you don't start from the end with rulers and tapes. It's best to start up the scale a bit, say at 1, 10, or 100, then subtract your starting point from the reading. This avoids manufacturing defects, loose hooks on metal tapes, and offsets between the ruler end and printed scales, etc. Of course it also leads to errors from forgetting to account for the offset you employ, and stupid math mistakes. (I've qualified for, but passed on the T-shirt.)

Interestingly, correcting your mistake makes you a bigger man than your ruler would indicate.

Lee

 

[Squidward]

In my recent exposure to a Fuji GSW690III, I've come to discover that this great camera came in 6 variations.

The III series of camera was available in these combinations:
6x7 with 65mm lens
6x7 with 90mm lens
6x8 with 65mm lens
6x8 with 90mm lens
6x9 with 65mm lens
6x9 with 90mm lens

All of these cameras had the same body, just different viewfinder lines and film gates.

So, I am wondering if Fuji would be able to make the new GF model, in the same combos? The prototype is shown with an 80mm lens. Could they not just make the camera slightly bigger and offer a 6x7, 6x8, and a 6x9 model, all with the 80mm lens? Sure, the larger body might not fit in a jacket pocket but it is still very portable.

Hmmm......

To me, this begs a question: can't Fuji make a single camera that has different interchangeable film gates for the different formats (6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X8, 6X9)? Then either include a knob that lets you adjust the film counter to compensate for the different frame sizes and reduced or increased picture counts? Even have some form of interlock system so that the camera automatically compensates for the different film gates? Combine that with interchangeable lenses and you have one camera that can do it all.

 

[George]

...
When I realized this I went back and measured the negatives again, and got 56.5X85mm for those made with the GSW690III, and 56.5X83mm for those made with the GW690III. The gate of the GW690III measures 56X82.

Now I am going off the find a hole to hide in.

Sandy King

Thanks Sandy, that explains it all - the shorter focal length gives a greater negative for the reason already mentioned. Fuji is saved from further inquires!

 

[Lee L]

To me, this begs a question: can't Fuji make a single camera that has different interchangeable film gates for the different formats (6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X8, 6X9)? Then either include a knob that lets you adjust the film counter to compensate for the different frame sizes and reduced or increased picture counts? Even have some form of interlock system so that the camera automatically compensates for the different film gates? Combine that with interchangeable lenses and you have one camera that can do it all.

Fuji did have a series of models in the late 60's and 70's that had interchangeable lenses. The prototype of the G690 (1968) had a switch for 645 at the film gate, but that wasn't in production models. The lenses were interchangeable between the 670 and 690 models, so you could either pick one aspect ratio, or buy two bodies and use whichever lenses you chose. You can read about them here: http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Fujica_G690

Lee

 

[Chazzy]

We'll be lucky if we get any kind of medium format from Fuji at all. Interchangeable lenses just aren't going to happen, and I would be surprised to see the folder offered in multiple formats. A good, simple folder in 6x7 with an excellent Fuji lens and an integrated light meter is enough to wish for.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

All this talk about the G(S)W series and the Mamiya 7 II got my interest stirred up about a Rangefinder. I have only used SLRs in 35mm (Nikon 8008) and 6x7 (RZ67), then on to LF. Would some of you who have used folders talk about the advantages of folder VS RF, or the other way round? Moderators, if you think this should be a new thread, please move it.

Thanks,

John Powers

John: The Fuji GSW690III Cameras and Mamiya 7 II cameras are fixed body cameras that incorporate lens coupled rangefinders. They are not folding cameras.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If we want interchangeable lenses and formats, we have that in cameras like the Linhof Tech 23, the comparable Horseman, baby Graphics, Gilde system, etc. The tradeoff for flexibility of this kind is more bulk and weight.

The attraction of a folder is compactness and ability to go anywhere, and a fixed lens and format are steps toward that end.

Multiple formats would be possible in the same package, for instance, at the expense of a mechanical frame counter, using multiple red windows and masks instead. You could get 645, 6x6, and 6x9 in one camera, but at the expense of the option of using 220 or with the extra bulk of a more complex mechanical frame counter, and you would need a lens that could cover 6x9.

 

[jp80874]

John: The Fuji GSW690III Cameras and Mamiya 7 II cameras are fixed body cameras that incorporate lens coupled rangefinders. They are not folding cameras.

Thank you Tom. I realized that at the time and was wondering what the advantage of a folder might have over those RFs. I have since learned that weight and size are the primary ones. I have also learned that in many 6x9 folders the film will not be flat enough for crisp B&W enlargements in the 16x20 range. This last point has people on either side of the argument. I have also found several folders with coupled range finders, and a range finder that can be attached to the flash shoe of a folder. It is an interesting field, but so far I haven't found a small light 6x7 or 6x9 to be the spontaneous balance to my more contemplative 8x10 and 7x17. If Fuji brings this prototype to market I may join many of you in the purchasing line.
John Powers

 

[mark]

I just don't see this camera ever coming out. Sorry folks. One of those I'll believe it when I see it situations.

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

Interestingly, correcting your mistake makes you a bigger man than your ruler would indicate.

Lee

Lee,

That is a very nice thing to say. I really apologize for the confusion my error in measurement may have caused. Mistakes of that magnitude are pretty much unacceptable.

Regards,

Sandy