I think part of my objection to it is that it really handles like a large medium format camera, like an RB67 or something else that would prefer to be on a tripod, yet the design encourages hand-holding for fast street use a-la 35mm rangefinder. It's a camera caught between two identities.
Originally Posted by Prest_400
I had no problems with the GSW690 while I owned one and traveled across the US and Asia with it. However, the idea of carrying around that camera on a *daily basis* is absurd. It is really large! Only if that were part of paying work would I ever consider that a daily camera.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
Now I don't carry my Rolleis on a daily basis when I'm at home, but I DO carry them (at least one, if not both) pretty much all day every day when I'm traveling. I looked into borrowing one of the Fuji GSWs when I took my Paris trip last year, but just stuck to the Rollei. It would barely have fit in my admittedly tidy camera bag (plenty of room for both Rolleis, two or three pro-packs of film and an iPad in the main compartment, a meter, Rolleinar close-up sets and some other odds-n-ends in the front pocket).
Originally Posted by RattyMouse
I can't agree with the idea of a Fujica 690 being unreasonably big or heavy.
I'm looking at a Norita 66 with 80/2 lens, a Canon EOS3 with 70-300 zoom, and a Nikon F5 with a 135/2DC lens attached in comparison to a Fujica 690 with 65/5.6 lens:
* F5 and EOS3 are much heavier when loaded with batteries than either MF camera.
* F5 and EOS3 are taller than 690 but the same as a Norita
* F5 is the same size front-to-back as the 690 - the Norita is shorter - EOS3 with zoom is bigger.
* 690 is widest of the 4 - the only dimension it is larger - but it gives you that 6X9 negative!
Certainly compared to a small SLR 35mm camera, the 690 is bigger, but not compared to professional 35mm film cameras or some MF cameras.
I'll take the 6X9 negative, which is a better quality image than any digital can produce. Note - I take pictures to create candidates for wall display in larger sizes.
This is why I dont understand people wanting or suggesting a Nikon F5. Ok if you are shooting 6fps for sports, but that's just where digital makes sense 99% of the time.
Originally Posted by Texsport
"If its not broken, I can't afford it."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I had one ;didn't like it and sold it.It's 90+%plastic and it shows and sounds like that too.film loading was fiddlyand film transport was so so.It's no match for a Mamiya.It's light but bulkyand has a goodresale valuebut, for a quality camera,I would look elsewhere.I'm also fond of the 6x9 formatand ended up using a 4x5 with a 6x9 back.
Originally Posted by klop
A common misconception:
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
"Plastics: the urban myth of the Fuji RF: People constantly complain that the GW and later Fuji RFs (particularly the III series are "plastic." This is nonsense. The camera has a pretty hefty metal content, demonstrating that the camera has gradually evolved from the G690 rather than being a remake of it.
(1) The III series is not light. In fact, a GSW690III weighs about the same as a GW670II, which is only about a pound lighter than a G690 with a lens. The major weight savings appears to have come with the elimination of the interchangeable lens mount. If this camera had a plastic structure, you would expect it to be a lot lighter.
(2) The external parts are in fact plastic, but the frame is still die-cast and the back is stamped metal. The lens barrel is also metal (I can see that from some pinpoint finish marks...). This was the same situation with the GA645 - people think that because it has plastic covers, it must be plastic. Of course, plastic and rounded corners makes it feel "lighter..." Erwin Puts'"haptics" in action.
(3) You can see that the attachment screw locations for the covers have not changed one whit since the G690BL - telling me that this is probably the same or similar tooling for the main casting. I would tend to doubt that enough of any one model was made to justify the tooling costs for a complex body casting. These were never cheap cameras to buy new."
I much prefer the original G and GL690 cameras, because they are metal + offer interchangeable lens. So, I may lug around a camera and 5 lenses, but I have 5 lenses and a 6X9 negative.
People have gotten used to plastic cameras now, because digital models aren't made to last past the next year's models and new innovation.
It's the reason we have so many new offerings - but they're practically disposable.
Being a dinosaur myself, I like the old style - they're made to last.
I know, it is simple the bigger format or frame.
Originally Posted by TareqPhoto
I have Hasselblad 501CM and Mamiya RZ/RB and Mamiya 7II and GSW69, Mamiya is not working yet, but when i compared the rolls out of the 4 out of 5 bodies i get this conclusion:
1. I always prefer films out from RZ/RB over Hasselblad 501CM no matter what
2. I always prefer the films out of GSW69 over Mamiya RZ/RB no matter what
3. So with the logic above, i will prefer and like the films out of GSW69III over Mamiya 7II, simply Mam7 film quality is almost same as Mamiya RZ/RB.
It is not about the quality of the body or lens, it is the negative itself, i have a friend who has a Leica Mx 35mm film camera, my films out of Hasselblad 501CM is always superior to that Leica, and i scanned some 35mm films from different cameras, none of them i liked over any of my MF films, so size of the film do matter with me, and also i am not talking about the artistic results, if one can do amazing from one format then he can do with all formats, not comparing bad 6x9 results films to a masterpiece amazing 35mm film, not fair.
OK so now that you guys made me buy a GW690II, can someone recommend a good lens cap for it? I don't think Fuji makes them anymore...