Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,550   Posts: 1,544,752   Online: 968
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,365
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
    I own a GW690III and am quite pleased with it. Simple and selfcontained RF that shoots 6x9 negs.
    It is one of the few options of modern 120RF with a larger MF (6x6+) without breaking the bank.
    People compare it to the Mamiya 7 but it is unfair as the M7 has a much higher market price. For a M7 kit you could get 2 Fujis or just spend the differential on film and gear!
    I got it for a good price so I am ok about the peculiarities the camera has.


    The points you mention are a very objective observation. Whether it breaks the likeness of the user depends of the particular person.

    I find particularly amusing the size issue and how different groups perceive it. Some (think LF users) are very pleased because it is like a P&S. Others (35mm people) say it is brutally huge.

    Ergonomics wise, initially I gripped my left hand as I do with 35mm cameras, but it was awkward... Until I found a way of holding it which is quite comfortable and fits well. I don't know how to describe it in written word however.

    I haven't used it yet around much people but it does take a lot of attention. Practicality of the size limits mobility indeed.
    I saw an ad of the Fuji where it was described as a "portable large format" camera, quite adequate definition.

    Hopefully this next week I get to do a day trip with some friends so I can burn the loaded Portra. And I have found a nice bandolier bag that seems it will go well for carrying it on this kind of ocasion.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,953
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    but I found it to be unsatisfying ergonomically to use, and too big to carry around practically on a daily basis.
    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.

  3. #23
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,365
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    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.
    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).

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    24
    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.

    Texsport

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    St Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Texsport View Post
    I can't agree with the idea of a Fujica 690 being unreasonably big or heavy.


    * 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.
    Texsport
    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.
    "If its not broken, I can't afford it."

  6. #26
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,540
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by klop View Post
    I Think I Want A Fuji 690, which model I have no idea. The 6x9 format I am very interested in. I am using a Horseman 985 right now but its ponderous when carrying around. From what I have read on the internet the Mamiya Press wasn't well made. I am concerned about service and repairs. Should I be convinced "Go for it or No for it" and Why? Opinions Please....
    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.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #27
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,984
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    I had one ;didn't like it and sold it.It's 90+%plastic
    A common misconception:

    "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."


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

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    24
    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.

    Texsport

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ajman - U.A.E.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by TareqPhoto View Post
    I have GSW690III and i love it, it is almost my favorite RF film camera i have, even i may prefer it over my Mamiya 7II.
    I know, it is simple the bigger format or frame.

    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.

  10. #30
    ggervais's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Great White North
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    309
    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...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin