GSW690III vs. GW690III
OK, I'm thinking about picking up one of these cameras; however, I'm having some mental issues on field of view - wide vs. "normal". I'm thinking it'll get more use for landscapes, for which the wide would likely be more useful. But I also do a lot of candids and for that the 90mm might be more useful. I understand the GSW has a great lens - is the GW's just as good in terms of sharpness and contrast?
You really need to get both cameras.
Also consider the GW670III instead of the GW690III.
I have the GW670 II and GSW690 III and they make for a great combo. I carried them around the Rocky Mtn National Park this past August and they served me quite well. I will be making prints from the 12 rolls sometime late Jan or February.
I will be back out in Estes Park sometime in late July and will probably be lugging that combo around again.
I had both a GW670III and GSW690III at the same time. They make a great pair though if I did it again I'd get 690s for both. I later sold the GW as I got a Mamiya 7. But I kept the GSW. If I could only have one , esp. for landscapes, the GSW would be my choice. It works ok for candids/environmental portraits too, and the neg is so huge cropping is no problem if need be. Stopped-down, the GSW holds it's own sharpness-wise with the Mamiya 7 lenses, I think.
I used a GW670III last year in Ladakh. Worked out fine both form portraits and landscapes. Tthe body and lens are the same as the GW690III. When I wanted a wide shot, I made 2 photos and stitched them in photoshop.
Some of those photos can be seen here:
Frank, I think I like your idea. Most of my landscapes could be stitched together, regardless, so it might be better to go with the GW690iii.
Thanks to all for your thoughtful replies.
I got a GW690iii the day before yesterday. Shot one roll at work(I'm a university staff photographer) covering a commencement ceremony a couple hours after I got it, no chance to process yet. Going to shoot some Rollei Retro 80s today and run it tonight if time and house duties allow.
I struggled with the decision between the 65 and 90. Got the 90 mainly because it's a 3.5 instead of a 5.6.
Holy thread resurrection! :laugh: I have both cameras, but I opted to get the older II series as I liked the look better, the only semi-important trade off was the press to release spools. Plus it was a great deal cheaper. I slapped on two hotshoe bubble levels, a pair of eyecups, and optech weight reducing straps. The cameras are tough, I banged around the gw690 for a good month straight over the summer on vacation, shot every day with it putting a good 100+ rolls through it. The negatives you get are just stunning. Both focal lengths are great, and I would recommend to get either one, or both ideally.
Originally Posted by DCphotos
Enjoy your camera! and be prepared to burn though film =]
I would tend to suggest a standard lens over the wide angle just because I find it more useful. Even with landscapes I often find that I prefer the fov of the standard over a wide. I've observed something in my own photographic composition. When using a wider lens my thoughts often center on "getting it all in". Get the whole mountain in, get the whole rock formation in, get the whole building in... etc. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but when I use a standard focal length lens I am forced to pick and choose what to omit and what to include. That requires more thought and it feels like it is good for me and my photos.
If you have to buy both of these Texas Leicas and lug them around I guess you should ask yourself about the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7.