Comparing Fuji/Voigtlander GF670 to 667W

<p>I’m new to medium format and am taking a close look at the Fuji GF670 (aka Voigtlander 667) and 667W. Here in the US, the 667W seems to only be available as a Voigtlander product.</p>

<p>I am looking at these cameras because I like the idea of buying a medium format camera new and they have a built-in meter. I also want something compact, hassle free, and easy to use.</p>

<p>I have been shooting 35mm film exclusively for the past 6 months and have made my own prints in a darkroom. I no longer have access to the darkroom, so I am scanning the negatives (or transparencies) and having prints made digitally.</p>

<p>The medium format camera will complement a Nikon FM3a that I use with a 50mm f2 lens pretty much permanently attached. I usually shoot Tri-X but I am experimenting with Provia 100F and TMAX 100.</p>

<p>My goal with medium format is to learn more about the zone system, obtain higher-quality large prints, and try something new.</p>

<p>Here are my questions:</p>

<p>Would the 670 would be more versatile given its normal focal length, as opposed to always having to take wide shots with the 667W?</p>

<p>The 667W is appealing because the lens does not need to be folded out. Is this a hassle with the 670? It seems like it would be a pain to unfold it (and then install a filter) when you want to take a picture.</p>

<p>Is it awkward to leave the lens of the 670 unfolded over the course of a day, such as when traveling? The folding lens seems like the biggest drawback to the 670. It also looks kinda weird and I wonder if I would feel self conscious walking around with such a conspicuously unusual camera around my neck.</p>

<p>The 670 is about $1,500 cheaper than the 667W ($1,650 vs. $3,000 at B&H). Although I could see myself spending $3K for the right camera, it is quite a lot more to spring for the wide version given the 670 is half the price.</p>

<p>Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks in advance.</p>

I use the GF670 and love it. However, I would never consider leaving it open - for one thing, there is no lens cap (the folded body serves

that purpose). In addition, the bellow and struts appear too delicate for continual exposure. That's not a problem for my style of shooting

- landscapes, tripod, waiting for the right light, but might be an obstacle if you're used to a faster pace.

<p>Thanks for the comment Tom. Glad to hear you like the 670. Do you often use filters or do you just leave the lens uncovered after unfolding it? If you use filters, is it a hassle to take them on and off? Am I right that the filter size is 58mm?</p>

<p>Also wondering how the focal length has worked out for you--versatile enough for a variety of situations, or are your landscapes focused on specific types of images for which a standard lens is ideal?</p>

<p>Also, just curious, do you have it set to 6x6 or 6x7? That will be another new question for me as obviously 35mm doesn't offer that option.</p>

<p>1. It would be a hassle to attach and remove filters - you can't close the camera with a filter attached. I solved that problem by getting the ridiculously overpriced lens hood and attaching a 40.5mm red filter (the only one I use for b&w). The whole thing easily clips on to the lens when needed. (Filter is not 58mm.)<br>

2. The focal length is perfect for me about 75% of the time. When I need wider I use a Fuji GSW690III (no meter) and when I need longer use 35mm.<br>

3. I've been shooting 6x7 for the 6 months I've had the camera but will try 6x6 on my next roll. 6x6 would give you 2 more shots on a 120 roll.<br>

If I won the lottery I would probably immediately purchase the wide version of the camera (since I don't play the lottery I guess that won't happen).</p>

<p>I own both the normal and wide versions - and despite my assumption that I'd be using the wide more than the normal (based on my appx. 3 to 1 use of a 28mm over a 50mm on my Leicas) I find myself using the normal slightly more than the wide. The 80 has proved to be such a versatile and effective focal length for the way I use and see with this camera. That this camera folds to wonderful compactness is also a bonus!</p>

<p>As for the folding bellows mechanism and its associated "mechano-electrics," I've thus far had no problems with repeatedly folding/unfolding - as my tendency is to keep the bellows protected unless I'm actually photographing. The act of unfolding is not at all awkward...and indeed less awkward (and less time consuming) than removing a lens cap - in that a cap needs to be safely and dryly stowed.</p>

<p>As for filter use...I, too, have the attachable shade/filter holder, and keep it threaded with a medium orange filter. This attachment stores perfectly in a hard, pop-open ring (jewelry) case - which is sized perfectly to hold the attachment under slight tension vis a vis the slight interference fit between the hood's spring-loaded attachment tabs and the inside of the ring case. This ensures that nothing moves or rattles while stored for transport. My suggestion, if you purchase the GF-670, is to go ahead purchase the filter holder and head to your local jewelers to try a few cases!</p>

<p>What I will not recommend is the ever-ready ("never-ready!) case for the GF-670. I own this also...and while it does offer a degree of protection, I find it exceedingly difficult to use this in any sort of dynamic fashion. Specifically, I find the act of removing it from and replacing it onto the camera to be very tedious and time consuming. </p>

<p>I do highly recommend both of these cameras. Several years ago, I purchased these cameras and a Mamiya 7II with two lenses (50mm and 80mm) - and tested each against the other exhaustively, and while the 7II is indeed a wonderful camera with great lenses, I found the Fuji/Voigtlanders to be more applicable to my way of working/seeing ("seeing" because the GF's/GFW's viewfinders are stunningly close to those on my Leica M6's, while that on the 7II was, to my eye at least, a far cry from this). I also do quite a bit of photographing in winter, and it gets pretty cold up here in northern Vermont! At any rate, these cameras tuck away quite well under my jacket - and are ready for shooting very quickly, without stumbling around with changing lenses, etc.</p>

<p>I would say that about half my use of these cameras sees them tripod mounted (some of this with ND filters to facilitate long exposures), and half hand-held with reliably sharp photos accessible down to 1/30th sec, and some down to about 1/8th sec. Extraordinarily smooth shutter release and virtually vibrationless and quiet shutter helps to make this possible. </p>

<p>My two remaining wishes are that Fuji/Voigtlander would offer a close up attachment for the 80mm, and introduce an even wider version of this camera - perhaps with a 40mm lens. I'd then carry all three of these around in a heartbeat!</p>

<p>About the only reservation I might have in cementing my above recommendation, at least in response to your full posting, is the aspect of learning the zone system. While a working knowledge and application of zone system technique is always recommended with any camera - it is only when you have access to the ability to treat each negative separately at the points of exposure and development that you will realize its full benefits. This can be difficult with a roll film camera, where a wide range of subject/luminance ranges might be recorded on a single roll of film. A good workaround for this with medium format would be to consider a system which features interchangeable film backs - such as that offered by the Hasselblad or Mamiya RB/RZ systems.</p>

<p>Hope this helps....and good luck!</p>

 

<p>John, thanks for the helpful and informative post. I appreciate your thoughts. A few follow ups:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>My instinct is that I too will find the GF670’s 80mm lens useful for a larger variety of situations than the 50mm lens on the GFW. The GF’s product description on B&H says that it’s equivalent to a 40mm focal length in 35mm format if you shoot 6x7. This seems like it could be a sweet spot between 35mm and 50mm (speaking in 35mm format terms). It’s just wide enough that you can get close, but not so wide that it’s hard to compose without including too much in the frame. Does that sound right to you? </li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>If I understand the physics correctly, format size does not affect depth of field. Does that mean that the depth of field on the 80mm lens on the GF670 will be what I would see with an 80mm lens on 35mm format?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>With the camera’s top shutter speed of only 1/500, have you found it necessary to use an ND filter when shooting during the day? If so, how many stops would you suggest?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>6x7 vs 6x6. My guess is that I would prefer 6x7 for two reasons. One, you can always crop down. Two, the ratio of 6x7 is much closer to the ratio of an 8x10 or 11x14 print, which makes it easier to compose with an eye toward the ratio of the printed image. Any thoughts on this? I am reading an Ansel Adams book and he prefers square formats because they provide the freedom to compose vertically or horizontally. Also, I recall reading somewhere that 6x7 negatives are more cumbersome to store because they don’t fit into sheets as nicely as 6x6 negatives?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>I don’t have previous experience with rangefinders. I trust this is not a big deal and I can adjust to using either of these cameras?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>What’s your take on the build quality on the GF670? I know it’s not going to be a Leica M, but for $1,600 I would hope to get something well-made.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>The hood is not cheap at about $90. If I am using more than one filter (e.g. yellow, dark red, ND on occasion) is the hood enough of a convenience that I would want one for each filter? That would be pricey.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li> Is the hood metal or plastic?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>When you refer to the case, are you talking about the one that looks like a leather pouch? The reviews on B&H suggest that it’s a tight fight for the GF670.</li>

</ul>

<p>I understand your point that the zone system is most effectively utilized when you can apply it on a negative-by-negative basis. That said, shooting 10 frames on a 120 roll is a lot fewer than 36 frames on a 35mm roll. I am hoping that I can at least experiment with the zone system if my 120 rolls are taken in similar lighting conditions. My photo instructor in a recent class used this approach himself and had excellent results.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your helpful insights.</p>

<p>I have a Fuji GF670W on long term loan from Fujifilm UK. I have to say I am very impressed with this camera, the viewfinder is the best of any rangefinder camera I have used, much better than the Mamiya 7(ii) I used for several years and the Leica MP and Fuji GSW690iii which I still use. The GF670W is considerably smaller than the GSW690iii and is compact enough to fit in a jacket pocket. The 55mm EBC Fujinon lens is as sharp as one would expect from Fuji. The lens is remarkably compact and integrates well with the subtle curves of the camera body, controls are minimal, intuitive and nothing sticks out or gets in the way. <br>

It's an attractive but purposeful design, refreshingly free of unnecessary levers, buttons or knobs. All that is needed to control the camera is right at your fingertips and the dual format option is a nice touch Slightly more than 1/4 turn of the focus ring will take you from closest focus to infinity, the shutter release is threaded for a cable and the lens takes 58mm filters. Overall, if you are certain you can live with a fixed moderate wide angle lens, the GF670W is difficult to fault. It would be my definite choice over the Mamiya 7(ii) with 50mm lens because it is better made, lighter, ergonomically superior, more portable and does not need an evf.<br>

I would advise anyone considering either the GF670 or GF670W to try both before making a decision. The 80mm folding lens of the GF670 does not appeal to me. Having to remove filters before folding the lens away is a 'retro' step too far to be practical imo, but it might appeal to others or the angle of view of the longer lens might be important enough to negate any handling quirks.<br>

Either way, both variants produce top quality images in either 6x6 or 6x7 format and both are lighter, more compact and subjectively better travel camera choices than most medium format film alternatives.<br>

On the face of it they are expensive, but if you are seriously considering the option of a Fuji/Bessa GF670/W then you are likely to be a photographer who knows what you want and unlikely to regret the purchase or sell it on soon after.</p>

 

<p>Will - to answer your specific questions:<br>

- Re the 80mm focal length for 6x7...yes, i concur with this - that this indeed represents, to me, a sweet spot for this format. Kind of took me by surprise, but its true.</p>

<p>- Depth of field is somewhat subjective...and also partly dependent on a combination of the resolution capacity of your chosen film, degree of final enlargement, and average viewing distance from this enlargement. Furthermore...while it would be one thing to make a direct equation between 35mm and 6x7 and apply this generally to apparent depth of field, I find that in practice this is not altogether accurate. In purely practical terms...i would say that the useful depth of field for a given focal length in 6x7 would rest somewhere between that of the exact focal length and the "equivalent" focal length values. In other words, in the case of the 80mm lens, my useful medium format depth of field might, for a given aperture/focus distance/film type, equate to that of a 55mm lens on 35mm film, whereas the "equivalent" focal length would equal approximately 40mm, versus the exact value of 80mm for 35mm film. Having said this...you will get a variety of opinions from others I'm sure.</p>

<p>- I almost never find the 1/500th maximum shutter speed limiting...even in bright daylight conditions. But do understand that I tend to shoot landscapes with my MF cameras...and generally lean towards maximizing depth of field. And while an observable degree of diffraction limited resolution might exist in theory...I find that this is generally not noticeable in practice with the 80mm lens stopped all the way down to f/22, and the 55mm lens stopped down to f/16 - this with the use of t-max 400 film, developed in Pyrocat HD and enlarged to 16X20. I mostly use either one or two ND filters...a 3 stop and a 6 stop respectively, either singly or in combination - and then almost always at minimum apertures (f/22) in the quest of long exposures with moving subjects such as flowing water - in such cases a slight amount of diffraction limited resolution adds an appropriate degree of impressionism.</p>

<p>- In the spirit of full disclosure - I would actually prefer a 6x8 format over either a 6x7 or 6x9...regardless that 6x7 translates more directly to an 8x10 print, and regardless that 6x9 equates directly with 35mm in proportion. And while I deeply respect and admire Ansel Adams and all that he has given to photography...I do admit to some disappointment that he saw the square fomat as offering such horizontal/vertical "convenience." Personally, when i see square, I shoot square, and regardless of format I always aspire to print out to the edges of the frame in question. As for the GF's capacity to go either 6x6 or 6x7...I would find this much more useful if I could switch from one to the other mid-roll. <br>

...and yes - 6x7's are a pain to store in sleeves, at least for those that will contact print directly onto 8x10 paper and store in standard archival boxes. 6x8's, on the other hand, would be perfect!</p>

<p>- I've been using both rangefinder and reflex cameras, as well as view cameras, for over forty years...and each has its purpose. More recently, I tend to use rangefinder and view cameras about equally, and reflexed almost never. But more specific to rangefinder use - there is a bit of a learning curve here...in that one needs to be able to intuit visual outcomes, which takes a bit of practice...with the potential of providing a unique sense of intimacy and immediacy with your subject. Simply put - I feel that with a rangefinder I'm looking through a window instead of an "optical system," which in turn helps the camera to "get out of the way" while photographing. </p>

<p>- As for build quality...while I've been spoiled by that of various Leicas over the years - I find the Fuji/Voigtlander's to be fully on par with, and perhaps slightly ahead of, the Mamiya 7II's, and at least equal to what current prices would reflect.</p>

<p>- As for the lenshade/filter holder, I'd recommend that you purchase one of these, and thread this with your most frequently used filter - keeping in mind that for other filters you can simply use the 58mm threaded lens receptacle, with the understanding that you will need to remove the filter in question prior to collapsing the (standard, 80mm lens) camera. I've heard some reference to being able to collapse this camera with certain thin-mount filters in place...but do not know this as fact.</p>

<p>- The hood material itself appears to be plastic...while the inner mounting ring/filter ring is metal.</p>

<p>- Yes....as the B+H reviews reflect - the case is very tight, and I find it difficult to use while photographing.</p>

<p>John, thanks very much for the detailed and thoughtful reply. It's appreciated and always nice when the internet lends itself to a positive and constructive conversation, rather than a degeneration into name-calling and idiotic comments.</p>

<p>Thanks to Steve as well for sharing your thoughts on the wide version.</p>

<p>I would love to have both the regular and wide versions of this camera--they would complement each other nicely, and the price would not be too far off(?) from buying a body from another medium format system and then separate wide and normal lenses. I hate the hassle of changing lenses while out shooting, which is one of the reasons I am attracted to these two cameras in the first place.</p>

<p>I can't get both now and am leaning toward the GF670 despite its folding lens. It's considerably cheaper and the focal length is more in sync with the 50mm lens that I use exclusively on my Nikon. I have been sticking with the 50mm lens as a learning experiment based on the idea that forcing myself to work within this constraint will help me think harder about composition and visualization before shooting away thoughtlessly.</p>

<p>It'll be a month or so before I make a decision, but it has been very helpful to hear everyone's thoughts. I'll let you guys know how this plays out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My goal with medium format is to learn more about the zone system, obtain higher-quality large prints, and try something new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Will, the two cameras you are considering are no doubt suitable. If you can live with a handheld reflected + incident light meter and accept a somewhat larger, but not terribly heavy and an easily handheld camera, another interesting choice appears. It is the discontinued (about 10 years ago or less) Fuji Professional GSW 690 III, probably available in mint or near mint condition for $700 to $900. With a 6 x 9 cm (approx.) frame size and excellent (Fuji electron beam coated) 65mm lens (which is equivalent to a roughly 28mm field of view in 35mm), it delivers a nice size negative for higher quality prints. I love my small, responsive and not expensive Gossen Luna Pro digital exposure meter. If I were to practice zone system photography, the 8 exposures would probably suit that (by changing film to alter exposure-development variations) and I would use a meter like my Minolta F spotmeter. Of course, the zone system is most suitable with single exposure film (LF camera) or cameras with interchangeable film backs, but many, myself included, do not have or wish that option.</p>

<p>Finally, the nice thing about the 6 x 9 size is that one can mentally (or with add on viewfinder) crop down to 6 x 7 or 4.5 x 6 (or other sizes) and use the 65 mm lens in a function as a more normal focal length than the wide angle that is the case with 6 x 9 exposures. You can retain the high quality of the MF negative. I have used both the GSW 690 and GW 670 Fujis and can attest to their ruggedness under normal use.</p>

<p>A new question comes to mind: does the Fuji change viewfinder framelines when you switch between 6x6 and 6x7 format?</p>

<p>Yes...the frame lines change - by turning a coin-slotted fixture next to the film gate, prior to loading film. </p>

<p>If I do not use the lens hood on the GF670, can I use a 58-52 step-down ring to attach 52mm filters? Considering the lens hood requires 40.5mm filters, you'd think that I could use my 52mm filters without cutting into the frame.</p>

<p>And likewise with the wide version of this camera--can I use a 58-52 step-down ring for that same purpose?</p>

<p>This would be useful as my filters are all 52mm and I would rather not buy new ones.</p>