Tell me more about the Fuji GW690?

I've been a LF shooter but recently sold all my 4x5 gear (yes, including filters) because I couldn't stand the mounting costs of 4x5 film anymore. Especially 4x5 Velvia 100...

So I'm pretty much set on getting the Mamiya RB67, but I ran into the Fuji GW690 later. So why should I choose the GW690 over the RB67 other than the larger film size?

1. The only time I've shot with 6x9 cameras were on a Franka Rolfix 6x9 folding camera.
2. Will be doing mostly B&W and printing in darkroom, mostly 11x14 or 16x20 largest.
3. Size, ease of use of a 35mm camera is not important to me
4. Weight matters... a little...
5. 90% shooting landscape

Also, what are the differences between the 1st version and mark ii and mark iii? Did some research on this but not a lot of info showed up...

-ZiYang
www.zylai.com

idk! i found this site though! As for the Mamiya, it is rather large, however, it is hand holdable, with great results, in my opinion! I ony used it with my Polaroid back, so i really cant give much more details!
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fujica_GW690
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Dead Link Removed
my samples, not grand, but they were hand held shots!

Americo J.Rodriguez-6 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Americo J.Rodriguez-19 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Americo J.Rodriguez-18 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Great camera. All you need to know is here:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fujica_GW690

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/gw.html

ziyanglai said:

So why should I choose the GW690 over the RB67 other than the larger film size?

1. The only time I've shot with 6x9 cameras were on a Franka Rolfix 6x9 folding camera.
2. Will be doing mostly B&W and printing in darkroom, mostly 11x14 or 16x20 largest.
3. Size, ease of use of a 35mm camera is not important to me
4. Weight matters... a little...
5. 90% shooting landscape

Click to expand...

Most of those will be answered by the regular 'rangefinder vs slr' debate. The GW690 is a rangefinder, so no viewing through the lens pretty much rules out macro, not important in landscapes. Ditto the weight, the Fuji will be a lot lighter. Fuji lenses have a very good reputation, without having used one I'm still confident that 16x20 won't be too much of a problem.

I got a GW690III but I come from 35mm rather than a larger format.
Simple MF RF with a 35mm form factor, just larger and fixed lens. It is large, but compared to the RB67 I think thay would be about similar, I have seen them but never handled one.

Dr Croubie said:

Most of those will be answered by the regular 'rangefinder vs slr' debate. The GW690 is a rangefinder, so no viewing through the lens pretty much rules out macro, not important in landscapes. Ditto the weight, the Fuji will be a lot lighter. Fuji lenses have a very good reputation, without having used one I'm still confident that 16x20 won't be too much of a problem.

Click to expand...

About the 6x9 (2:3 ratio as in 135) is that there aren't many native printig sizes without cropping. One would have guessed than in 50+ years of 35mm as a standard, printing sizes/ratios would follow suit, but not. Anyways, this is shared with standard 35mm so it is just about the consumer's choice. Some love 2:3, others not. Like square.
Might be less versatile, it is a fixed lens camera without interchangeable backs. If you want wide, you have to get the GSW with its 28mm equivalent.

I am quite happy with this camera, it is one of the more economic options for larger medium format (6x7+), and just about the single Rangefinder option for lower prices. Coming from 35mm I don't know if I'd adapt to a RB67.

One difference is, if you go for the wideangle GSW690, you'll get far better (lack of) geometric distortion and general IQ, than is achievable with SLR retrofocal wides.

Then there's the typical rf vs SLR debate.
The rf will be easier to use with colour filters, IR filters and NDs (they won't darken the vf), the SLR easier with polarizers and grad NDs (you see the result in your vf).

Using a rangefinder camera like the Fuji GW690 for landscape photography sounds a bit limiting. It might work, depending on your
shooting style, but seeing that you come from LF photography, you might want to consider that: close distance shots are difficult
(parallax error, rangefinder limitations), framing is only so so accurate (depending on the subject distance you will either have more
on the negative than in the finder or less) and as soon as you need wider DOF to include foreground
and background and want them both sharp, you will have to stop down considerably for DOF, and at the same time keep the shutter speeds up
to counter motion blur, so you end up either using fast film or a tripod sooner than later, which kind of negates the advantages of the camera.
If you use a tripod, you could as well consider using a 6x9 field camera like the Horseman VH/VHR.
It is a relatively lightweight, affordable camera, very rigid and compact when folded, which doesn't need a heavy tripod, but still
gives you all the movements that you will need for landscape photography and full DOF control.
The Horseman lenses are inexpensive and at least as good as the Fuji offerings, but of course you would also be free to use the latest APO lenses
from Schneider or Rodenstock. As you are coming from large format, this sounds like a logical step to me, because
you can stick to your accustomed workflow. There even is a 4x5 conversion back for the Horseman's, so if you feel
like shooting something bigger from time to time, it would still be possible.
The Mamiya RB is a studio camera. IMO it offers zero advantages for landscape photography compared to a field camera like the Horseman,
only disadvantages.

Can't really compare the RB to the Fuji. As said, one is SLR the other rangefinder. One takes all sorts of lenses, the other doesn't. Also, I don't know how expensive 4x5 costs are but 6x9 vs 6x7 is 2 shots per roll less, that's 5 rolls vs 4 for shooting 40 frames.

Weight? Ok, the RB is heavier but is it heavier than your 4x5 kit plus holders, etc you need to carry? Probably not. Also, I regularly carry a RB67 handhled around for shooting so don't know why people say it is a studio camera. You can even handhold it down to 1/15 with a 90mm lens, which sounds silly but it can actually be done. It is just different cameras and I can see myself owning both of these as they don't really replace each other.

My main concern would be the aspect ratio. For me the RB is a vertical camera, ie I shoot it in portrait orientation most of the time. It just works for me, I find the rectangular yet nearly square ratio for horizontal to not work as well compared to a 35mm camera. So think of that first and see how it compares to your 4x5 and final prints/images.

I have a GW680III (the odd 6x8 variant), and it's the finest travel camera ever, accompanying my 5x4", and replacing my Rolleiflex and Fuji GA645zi on travels. The 90mm EBC lens is razor sharp, the rangefinder bright, quick and decisive, and the whole camera simple, not too heavy and robust. I've been on several international adventures with it, and it's my current favourite.

Marc!

Great camera and great lens. My GW690III was my very first eBay purchase back in 1999. Try to get one to hold and maybe use first if you can. It's big and bulky and makes a thwunk sound when shot that not all people are enamored with. It's does the job and well, whether it's handling and feel is for you is the big question.

Good cameras I have the 2nd gen versions in regular and wide. They eat film pretty quickly but give very nice results. I went hiking a few weeks ago with both and they were manageable. I didn't have my tripod though as I gave my medium one away and only have my lf one and a really light one but shots were still good with faster film like portra 800.

Ditto on the recommendation of getting your hands on one before you're committed to buy it. I THOUGHT I would like the camera, but I found that the ergonomics of it didn't gel for me. Luckily, I was able to borrow it first, and was able to give it back with no loss other than a couple rolls of film. The gigantic negatives are very nice though.

Echoing what others have said: excellent lens, relatively light, easy to focus. And lovely negatives. I love my GSW690 III.

Here's a couple recent shots on Tri-X.





Full rez versions here and here.

ziyanglai said:

I've been a LF shooter but recently sold all my 4x5 gear (yes, including filters) because I couldn't stand the mounting costs of 4x5 film anymore. Especially 4x5 Velvia 100...

Click to expand...

Any reason that you didn't get 120 roll film adapters for your 4x5 and start shooting roll film this way?

One of the big differences I find when moving from camera to camera is the viewing system. It really affects how I compose, interact, etc. The 4x5 ground glass is a very specific way of composing, and the manner of shooting is very specific, i.e. slow and deliberate. A rangefinder, of any size, is a whole different game. You are not looking at a flat image. You are looking through, with a sort-of framing system of white lines. And then the Mamiya has the ground glass, but it is SMALL compared to 4x5. There are magnifiers, right angle finders, and such to overcome this.

I used a GW690 for a year or so. I first bought it as a simple 'view camera' for landscapes and such. I found that the lack of ground glass really through me off and that I wasn't really able to 'see' the image I was composing in the way I wanted. So I then used it as I would my favorite camera, a Rolleiflex TLR- slower street and urban landscape work. It was wonderful in its way- quick handling and framing, nice rangefinder, as good a framing as I need for that type of work. But for street work it was noisy as all get out, and the 8-frame thing became too cramped, so I went back to the Leica or Rollei. For urban landscape work, it was a little too sloppy since I didn't like it on a tripod but it was fun and great to carry all day, and the negatives are fantastic.

Did I mention how beautiful the negatives are from the Fuji?

The difference between II and III etc.

ziyanglai said:

Also, what are the differences between the 1st version and mark ii and mark iii? Did some research on this but not a lot of info showed up...

-ZiYang
www.zylai.com

Click to expand...

I did once owned the II version and now I own the III version.
The difference are:
1.
It is obvious that the looks are different, and the III has a bubble level, the II don't.
2.
The biggest difference between the II and the III is the rangefinder.
Although it looks the same, the III finder is the "revised" one.
That doesn't mean that III is better than II, actually the beam splitter used for the
rangefinder is gold for II and aluminum for III.
From my eyes, II is has a much clearer rangefinder patch for adjusting focus.
The downside of II is that it seem to have a tendency get vertical alignment out
on the focusing patch.
I have to send it to repair two times for this alignment problem
(I didn't give a shock to the camera!) and give up.
Now I have the III, so don't have that problem.
3.
I think that 1st version and II is mostly same mechanically but since
I didn't own the 1st version, so I am not sure.
But I bet the 1st version does not have the integrated lens hood
and the sync terminal was not located in the body side rather located on the lens.
Also 1st version does not have a shutter release lock.
4.
The III has a smoother film advance than II.
5.
Both II and III (and probably the 1st) has a loud shutter release sound for
a non SLR lens shutter camera.
It sound like "ping" when you press the shutter, but no shock (oh it is not a SLR).
Well, I don't mind it, but some may.
6.
Note that this camera is almost exclusively used in Japan for professional to take "group photographs"
in sightseeing places and Fuji knows this fact and designed this camera for this main purpose in mind.
I still see this camera used by pro in sightseeing places like Nikko taking group photographs.
This is why f=90mm (bit wide for standard lens).
7.
Lens is same for 1st, II, and III. Good lens, little performance change with aperture change.
You can use wide aperture without degrading performance.
Well this is the last MF camera made by Fuji, GF670 is not actually made by Fuji (probably Cosina).
Anyway,　I like the 6x9 format, but there is not much high performance 6x9 camera in the market.
Although I mostly use another 6x9 camera which has a very high performance optics, but
GW690 is the one of the high performance 6x9 camera that you can still get.
I do have the RB67SD but the mirror slap and film flatness problem will be apparent when you
open the aperture or use the slow shutter in my application.
You don't have those problem in GW690.
However you can't change lens.
If you want GW690, buy one that is in good condition and look out what I mentioned above.

I think the main reason to look at the "Texas Leica" cameras is for the film size. To my taste, 6x9 is the smallest size where regular contact printing makes sense; but if you expect to be enlarging to typical paper sizes, you'll be cropping out much of the extra space anyway, right?

The R*67 family, of course, are enormous monsters that will suck you into their gravity well and compress you to the density of a neutron star. But you do get really good photos of that process!

IMHO, you can safely write off the Fuji rangefinders *if*:
* you aren't carrying the camera around for a long time on the way to the shot
* you're OK with using a tripod most of the time
* you don't have the "jewel-like-miniature-contact-prints" virus
* they don't induce particularly strong GAS in you

As someone else mentioned, the GF670/Bessa III might be an interesting place to look. It's a lot more expensive than the other cameras discussed, but it's also a lot easier to carry, and has nice ergonomics from the brief time I spent fondling it.

-NT

An RB67 kit will weigh considerably more than a typical 4x5 field camera kit, and you'll still have to use it on a tripod, and will give up a lot of
the control, like movements. So just to save some film money, I don't get it, unless you're a machine-gunner who wastes a lot of film. Chrome
films in general are endangered. A fixed-lens rangefinder 6x9 is a completely different animal, and might make a nice casual travel camera. But
you're stuck with just one lens. You could have simply bought a 6x7 or 6x9 back for your 4x5.

Mike Evangelist said:

Echoing what others have said: excellent lens, relatively light, easy to focus. And lovely negatives. I love my GSW690 III.

Here's a couple recent shots on Tri-X.

Full rBeautiful ons here and here.

Click to expand...

Beautiful examples

I've heard rumors that that bellows on the GF/Bessa 67 is delicate, and having handled one, I believe it. The rangefinder is especially nice; but
for sheer rough and tumble versatility, some version of a Texas Leica would seem to be better. I happen to like the proportion of 6x9, and it
does makes a sharper print than 6x7 and even moreso than 645, because it is a somewhat bigger neg to begin with.

DREW WILEY said:

I've heard rumors that that bellows on the GF/Bessa 67 is delicate, and having handled one, I believe it. The rangefinder is especially nice; but
for sheer rough and tumble versatility, some version of a Texas Leica would seem to be better. I happen to like the proportion of 6x9, and it
does makes a sharper print than 6x7 and even moreso than 645, because it is a somewhat bigger neg to begin with.

Click to expand...

I just finished a trip over to Europe with my GF670. That's the second international journey using this camera and it handled the bumps without a problem.

I dunno man, I had one of those "Texas Leicas" in the form of a GSW690III and just did not get on with it at all, far too limiting. I guess I don't get the expensive 4x5 black and white sheet film thing either, Delta 100 is not bad at all and if you can't make images sing on that then you need a new voice.

I also vote for a 120 roll film back on a 4x5, what a great setup that is, I only use it for 6x12 but it's fab having all those movements, big ol' ground glass instead of the guess-tamatic-plastic-RF.

I shoot 6x6 in MF with a Hasselblad system and now a Mamiya 6x6 but if I were dead set on 6x7, I would skip the refrigerator sized Roast Beef-67 and go with a Mamiya 7II. You can at least swap different lenses on that, the Fuji folder and Platic-RF cams you are pretty much stuck with what you get....

I have a Fuji GW670II and a GSW690III and love using both. They have accompanied me on hikes in the Rocky Mtn National Park and are quite good landscape cameras.

papagene said:

I have a Fuji GW670II and a GSW690III and love using both. They have accompanied me on hikes in the Rocky Mtn National Park and are quite good landscape cameras.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. I took my GSW690 through Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Arches, Canyonland, Monument Valley, etc and came away with gorgeous photographs.

I'm always sentimental about these Fuji rangefinders and the GSW690 in particular because that was my very first medium format camera. I was going to take a trip to Hong Kong to visit my pen pal (now wife of 17 years) and I wanted to get a shot of the Hong Kong skyline, big enough to frame. Of course, that was easy with a camera like that, and I have that print hanging on my wall in my home, 17 years later.

When I contemplate the M7 system, it is awfully nice and light and has interchangeable lenses, but there's a horrible gap in the lenses that are available, and many of the best shots I have gotten in the past rely on a perspective in exactly that kind of lens range totally missing with the M7 system. But if you gravitate more to a wide-angle kind of view, rangefinder cameras might be appropriate. I do own the Pentax 67 system, which is nice for casual work. And I've been around expensive Rollei systems with their fancy Zeiss lenses. None of these come close to the quality I get with precise 6x9 Horseman roll film backs on a top quality 4x5 system, with top notch lenses like Fuji A's and Nikkor M's. One reason for this is simply the availability of tilts to handle the focal plane at ideal apertures. With an ordinary cameras, the only option you have for depth of field is either to use wider lenses with their inherent peculiarities, or stop way down until you sacrifice a lot of the lens performance you paid for in the first place. Of course, if you're working in a howling wind when a view camera bellows wants to behave like a kite, something integrally solid like a med format SLR can be awfully nice to have around. ... or for when you're on vacation, and you wife doesn't appreciate you futzing around under the darkcloth twenty minutes at a time. The other nice thing about a roll film back
on a full-sized 4x5, besides being able to accommodate various roll-film dimensions per se (including 6x12), is that you still have a 4x5 camera. You can shoot roll film to keep weight and budget down, but still carry a true 4x5 film holder or two, in case you stumble on something you really really want to enlarge more. Focus and movements with roll film are more fussy than with full 4x5, and you have to be
careful that any roll film holder has a truly accurate film plane and not so much weight that it tends to tug that plane out of true position when you insert it. Not all roll film holders are created equal. But not long ago I almost signed on to a long kayak trip where one of those
Texas Leicas would have been ideal.

I own the GW690iii, GSW690iii, GF670 and GF670W - they are all excellent cameras. The main difference is not lens quality it basically comes down to larger image size, more rugged body, simpler mechanics, and lower price for the GW series versus lower weight, better handholding ergonomics, and built in meter for the GF series. Aspect ratio is a personal choice. I like 6x9 for its cropability but find 6x7 fine for most situations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk