The new Fuji Folder - a few thoughts

[david b]

Let's start with the basics.

The camera in question is only a prototype at this point in time. Fuji is currently showing it off at all of the major photography shows with it's introduction at the PMA. The GF670 as it is currently named, has caused a humongous stir in all of the major online forums, including (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and RFF as well as dpreview where several of the digital folks there say this will be their "film" camera of choice. This is terrific news.

So, with that out of the way, let me add a few thoughts and wishes for the camera.

First, I really hope that Fuji makes this camera. No matter what format, just make the camera.

Format:
6x7 is a nice format but 6x8 or even 6x9 is better and here are a few reasons why:
Some people feel 6x7 is too close to 6x6, which is too close to square. Okay not a big deal. The big deal for me is that you cannot fit ten 6x7 negatives on a sheet of 8x10 paper to make contact prints. You can only fit 9, meaning there is always an orphan. This makes me crazy. 6x7 makes 10 negatives. 6x8 would produce 9 negatives and 6x9 would produce 8 negatives. Both of these fit onto a sheet of 8x10 paper and most importantly into a 8x10 negative sleeve like the PrintFile 120-4HB. To me, the 6x8 format is ideal. But I would be happy to get any new camera.

Price:
There is a ton of speculation about the price. Price of course limits who can and who will buy the camera. I am thinking the camera will be around $1500 US. This would be the buy/don't buy point for me. Some folks are thinking $1000 and some think even cheaper. Somehow, I do not think it will be cheaper than $1000. The latest and last film camera from Nikon is the F6. It sells at B&H in NYC for $1800 and they currently have a used one for $1299. The F6 is a techno marvel with lots of bells and whistles and sophisticated metering. The GF670 is and would be relatively simple with center weighted metering and not much more. Of course the built in lens would be top notch as all Fuji glass is but the rest of the camera is of rather simple construction. So if the price is $1000, I think this camera will do extremely well. As the price decreases, sales will get better. At $1000, I would buy two, one in chrome and one in black. At $1500, I think most folks might wait out the used market to see what happens. At $1500, I would only buy one.

Lens(es):
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a regular lens and Wide angle lens? If the normal is going to be an 80mm, as seen in the photos, wouldn't a 55mm lens be wonderful? I sure think so, and again, if the price is around the $1000 mark, I think more than a few folks would buy one of each, just like the Leica guys who carry two bodies with different lenses.

Accessories:
What I would like to see is a complete kit. A really nice bag to carry the camera, a small light meter, a filter or two, and 10 rolls of Fuji Acros 100. Add to that, the availability of a simple, light weight flash and this would be the ultimate travel kit. Imagine going through the airport with that set-up. As for pricing, maybe $100 for the bag and $149 for the flash. So if the camera was, let's say $1249, the entire kit minus film would be $1500. That would totally rock. And we all know that the profit margin in accessories is giant.

I think Fuji definitely hit a nerve and got people really excited with the possibility of this camera. I truly hope they make it. And if they don't, maybe Zeiss or Bessa / Voigtlander will come up with one.

(also posted on my blog)

 

[keithwms]

I have a few really quick comments. There is a fundamental limitation in the folder design, namely ultimate stability of the lens mount and perpendicularity of the lens axis to the film plane. [The easy way to counteract these issues is, of course, to stop down. But quite a few people do like to work wide open with fast glass on rangefinders, as a matter of practice. Relative to SLRs, RFs are their most impressive wide angled and wide open, I would say!]

Now, this stability issue is somewhat less of a problem with a smaller, squarer format; I can imagine that a 6x9 folder might well have excellent 100 lp/mm glass but still be unable to get the corners sharp just because it's really hard to make the folding lens mount rigid enough while still keeping the weight down and adhering to the broad goals of the folder design. Seriously, to do it right, we're talking titanium mount or something. $$$. That's my suspicion.

Another thing is falloff, and the size of the lens that is required to cover the format. The folder design's main advantage, relative to non-folders, is that it is light and compact. So it seems to me that going to 6x9 sort of shoots the folder concept in its own foot. I worry that covering 9cm is a good deal harder than covering 7cm, especially if one is asking for f/4 or faster. If Fuji really wants to make a splash, they'll give us 3.5 or faster. A central complaint about the mamiyas is the slow speed of the lenses and thus inability to throw a background out of focus at a distance that is reasonably attainable with the focusing system.

My final point is that I think modern b&w films and chromes are so good that 6x6 or 6x7 can actually challenge 4x5 in certain circumstances, so although I agree that I'd prefer to have 6x8 exposure or so, I'm not so sure that it matters in the end whether one simply crops to the desired ratio. The folder design is not going to deliver superduper total reslution figures across 6x9 anyway, you need a more rigid, fixed chassis for that. N.b. I'm not dogging folders, and I do love that design, I am just saying that they should be used for their strength: portability.

So, I'd say keep it small and fast and simple. I'd honestly rather have a palm-sized 6x7 than a 6x9 that won't go in my pocket.

 

[DaveOttawa]

6x7 is a nice format but 6x8 or even 6x9 is better and here are a few reasons why:

Personally I'd prefer 6x6 because I don't want to be rotating a folder for portraits vs landscapes.

Re price, my guess is it will only be possible to make this at the sort of prices suggested (1000-1500USD) if the design and tooling already exists, at least for the most part. Since they cannot expect to sell too many of these (I would think, realistically, a few thousand) my guess is it would be entirely unprofitable to design the parts and assembly tooling from scratch.
Remember to sell for 1000USD the BOM cost must be 25%(?) of that, so 250USD for all the metal and glass.
As I say all this is entirely guesswork on my part but I suspect this design already exists in some form, maybe in China, and Fuji are leveraging it for their new camera. Which is good, BTW.

Dave.

 

[Ole]

... So, I'd say keep it small and fast and simple. I'd honestly rather have a palm-sized 6x7 than a 6x9 that won't go in my pocket.

Now I have 645 folders, 6x6 folders, 6x9 folders, and something that might one day become a 6x12 folder but is now just a heap of disassociated junk (but with a nice 80mm WA Aplanat in there somewhere).

645's and 6x6es are easily pocketable. 6x9s are more difficult, and 6x8 i think would be just about as bad. So I would buy a 6x7, but possibly not a larger one.

So now we just wait for the price?

 

[zenrhino]

I think for me a large part of the appeal of this camera is the fact that it's new. It'll have a warranty, a service infrastructure and won't be all worn out by the time it gets to me. I don't mind spending good money on camera gear, but I want some backup for my money at this point.

Having said that, I much prefer 6x7 to 6x9 (I'm just not fond of the 3:2 ratio) and I prefer rangefinders to SLR's. I'm just hoping it has a nice fast lens (f/3.5 at the bare minimum) and a bright rangefinder patch.

 

[PVia]

6x7 would be great for me.

I love 6x7 because it's not perfectly square (which I also love) and carries that slight extra weighting in the 7cm direction, just enough to ground you shooting vert or horiz...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

If there was an option to use 6x6 with a mask and a little switch for the frame counter, I would be over my head, and jump on it like a wild beast. Why? Because my enlarger stops at 6x6... That said, does anyone has a Vivitar VI 6x7 conversion kit for sale? I might just change my mind about 6x7

 

[walter23]

I just want it to be $500. That's my upper limit.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I also like 6x7 for film flatness and compactness reasons. I use glassine sleeves rather than neg file pages.

I wouldn't be particularly interested in a kit of the sort described. I've got a light meter, cases, can buy the filters I need, and don't shoot Acros. Maybe they might offer a kit aimed at collectors with a wooden presentation box and such.

I do hope it would take normal filters and can close with a filter in place. This is a downside of most of the classic folders--they don't fold with a filter mounted and often use slip-on filters that weren't so uncommon in their day, but can be difficult to find now.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I would prefer 6x6 or 6x9 but I will take it in whatever format it comes.

 

[David Brown]

The big deal for me is that you cannot fit ten 6x7 negatives on a sheet of 8x10 paper to make contact prints. You can only fit 9, meaning there is always an orphan. This makes me crazy.

... and most importantly into a 8x10 negative sleeve like the PrintFile 120-4HB.

PrintFile makes a neg sleeve for 6x7. Admittedly, it's a compromise, because it would actually hold 12 frames, and one only has ten. Still, it's better than the orphan situation. And, they fit on an 8.5x11 sheet, which Ilford sells in RC.

This is not "convenient" since you have to have special paper for contacts, and so it's a bit more expense, but it works fine. I just don't feel that choosing an aspect ratio based on which negative sleeves fit is the over-riding criteria. YMMV

 

[Mick Fagan]

I myself am really interested in this camera and hope it comes to the market at an affordable price.

In my opinion the 6x7 format is the biggest format supported by the majority of enlargers around the world.

I know that a lot of enlargers stop at 6x6 and that is a problem for people with those, but I have never seen a 6x8 enlarger and 6x9 enlargers are quite rare, except on 4x5 enlargers.

6x7 is possibly the best format size, to accommodate the majority of enthusiasts enlargers. Besides like 4x5, it enlarges perfectly onto 8x10" paper.

Mick.

 

[firecracker]

I know that a lot of enlargers stop at 6x6 and that is a problem for people with those, but I have never seen a 6x8 enlarger and 6x9 enlargers are quite rare, except on 4x5 enlargers.

Fuji was making a series of 6x9 enlargers mostly sold in the Japanese market until last year. The last model, OEMed by LPL is the one I have.

In old days, there were "professional" Fuji 690 RF cameras that would go with those "professional" 6x9 enlargers to substitute 4x5 cameras and enlargers. I heard they were the must-have kits for most small photo studios and photo stores throughout the country.

So, I thought the new film camera would've been naturally 6x9. But then there was the unpopular 6x8 and the expensive half-Hassy 645 also. So, I guess it really doesn't matter which format(s) to match at this point...

 

[Tom Stanworth]

...

My final point is that I think modern b&w films and chromes are so good that 6x6 or 6x7 can actually challenge 4x5 in certain circumstances,

You can always shoot those same films in 5x4.....

I agree that tri X on 5x4 can be challenged by Acros in 6x7 in terms of grain etc, but you can shoot acros in 5x4 too! And 10x8!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I agree on 6x8 as the format though. It amazes me that this one has not hit it big as it is the same almost as 645 which I find very pleasant. Less boxy than 6x7 and less elongated that 6x9/35mm. Perfectly balanced.

Rgds

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mick-

Maybe they never reached popularity in Australia, but over here the Beseler 23C are extremely common, and they are built to handle up to 6x9. In addition to 6x9 format negatives in 120, there were all those thousands upon thousands of 6x9 and 6x12-ish box/folder cameras that shot 620 film that Kodak churned out over the years. So the format is not nearly as odd as you make it out to be, and enlargers for it abound, at least here in the US.

 

[argus]

6x7 is not so bad at all.
In case you are one of those people who crop 6x6 negatives, it is even more interesting.
You will lose less of the negative using the 6x7 format.

G

 

[keithwms]

You can always shoot those same films in 5x4.....

I agree that tri X on 5x4 can be challenged by Acros in 6x7 in terms of grain etc, but you can shoot acros in 5x4 too! And 10x8!

Sure, and I do, but there is much to be said for a pocketable RF that can actually deliver credible big enlargements.

Anyway, I tend to shoot chromes in smaller formats and then I get far more detail per grain than I typically could ever want and the contrast range is just about right for me without any fuss. I also have played with enlarging MF chromes to LF b&w film <gasp> and to my pleasant surprise it works very, very well in many cases. One of my favourite experiments was enlarging a highly cropped Fuji 64T chrome to 5x7 tmax... the enlargement was conservative enough that the tmax controlled the grain in the contact print. And if one wants, the chromes also drumscan spectacularly well....

I suspect that the arguments about format size and grain were fixed in people's minds long before the modern superduper chromes and staining developers etc. and certain other unmentionable but very powerful scanning/processing technological advances.

 

[david b]

well, how about the a rare Fuji 6x9 enlarger ?

it's on ebay

 

[Iskra 2]

Keep it pocketable and quick/easy to use (6x6). New/low cost/light weight materials are available which can minimize film flatness issues (not perfectly, but good enough). MANUAL film advance (lower cost)!! A meter as good and simple as the one in my Yashica Electro 35, which implies an electronic shutter like the Electro (keep the masses happy). I like my Iskra 2 lens (hard to beat an old tessar) and some Fuji Astia. Regards.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

How does a folder accommodate interchangeable lenses?

Here is an invitation to others, to explain how a folding mechanism could accommodate different focal length lenses, presumably having differing back focal lengths. Thanks.

 

[Chazzy]

I think that 6x7 format is just about right. If there is enough demand, they could also make a 6x9 folder--but I doubt that they can support both format options. Under no circumstances would I want it, if the format were 6x6. The world already has too many cameras that make square negatives.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Here is an invitation to others, to explain how a folding mechanism could accommodate different focal length lenses, presumably having differing back focal lengths. Thanks.

Folders do not have interchangeable lenses.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Here is an invitation to others, to explain how a folding mechanism could accommodate different focal length lenses, presumably having differing back focal lengths. Thanks.

Why not? A longer-than-usual bellows would serve for long lenses; recessing, or? for shorter.

The problem would be in coupling a rangefinder.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you want a MF folding camera with interchangeable lenses, the solution is something like a 2x3" Graphic or Technika, but these are bulkier cameras than the compact fixed-lens folders.