GW670/GW690 III low resolution lenses

<p>Some years ago, when they were still being made, I bought a GW690III at what was then a fair amount of expense for me. I had heard about the tack sharp lenses and great contrast of their EBC coating. I haven't used it much, maybe 15 rolls or less. I bought it for the long term, knowing I had a 500 roll limit between overhauls. I was "saving" it for important stuff. I guess I was a bit foolish.<br>

<br />I have a once-in-a-lifetime shoot coming up and am traveling 2000 miles to take the pictures. I need to make tack sharp 30" X 40" prints, now only available digitally. I had the use of a studio today and wanted to test the rangefinder and lens distance markings to make sure they were true before I blew my one chance 2000 miles from home. I was able to use an all-black room with very precise, multi-positioned lighting, in other words, the best conditions possible for a test. Both the rangefinder and distance markings were spot on, as I tried bracketing the distance.<br>

<br />However, the lens stunk. I found contrast to be much lower than my Rolleiflex GX. As to resolution, using the USAF1951 Edmunds Scientific chart, I came up with 65.6 line pairs per millimeter and low contrast to boot. The readings were so bad that I thought I had goofed. I then went to Chris Perez's medium format lens resolution site and found he got 67 lp/mm at F5.6. 5.6 was the best F stop as resolution went down, both below and above. The difference between our results is purely mathematical; in other words, we got the exact same results. What a dismal showing for such a highly touted lens. I have another example of the camera that I bought used, which I'm going to try tomorrow and hope there is a batch-to-batch difference in the lenses. The lens resolution works out to a scanning resolution of around 3350 PPI. In ot her words, why scan through a Nikon 9000 at 4000 PPI if you can only put 3350 on the film? I guess I'm go ing to have to bring a large format camera on the plane to get enough pixels from a scan to provide a tack sharp 30 X 40 print.<br>

<br />My Rolleiflex GX, with less than optimum lighting, gives results in the 100-110 lp/mm area. It would do a little better with the studio lighting I used today. The Perez site shows the Mamiya 7/7II 80mm lens to top out at 120 lp/mm.<br>

<br />I have been anxiously awaiting availability for Fuji's new 6X7 folder. I had actually hoped to use it for this shoot. Fuji's been pretty lackadaisical about getting it on the shelves. Maybe they did me a favor and I shouldn't buy one.<br>

<br />So the question for you Fuji guys out there is: Did Mr. Perez and I get a couple of dogs? Or is this just what one can expect from Fuji medium format lenses?</p>

<p>I owned four Fuji cameras: the previous version of your 6x9, a 6x7 and the 645 and reached the same conclusion. I found color to be very acceptable, but I just couldn't get the resolution I was looking for from larger prints.</p>

<p>I was always disappointed when enlarging images to a bigger size. I also owned a 6x17 and thought the sharpness of the two lenses I owned for it to be okay, but I had to do some sharpening to get image where I think they should have been from a straight print. I shoot with Hasselblad and view cameras with 6x7 and 6x9 backs now.</p>

<p>Michael Axel....</p>

<p>Thank you for your learned answer. I looked you up on the net. I feel reassured by having someone of your extensive talents and background confirm my suspicions. Had I known, I would have bought a Mamiya 7II and would today, if I could find one locally I could test to make sure it would work. Film and film cameras in anything but 35mm are hard to come by, even in the big city I will be traveling to. Because it's a once-in-a-lifetime shot, I'm hesitant to rent a Mamiya, even if I could find one. Who knows what the last guy that used it did to the camera? </p>

<p>Again, I appreciate your answer and if I may ever be of service to you?</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>I've owned the Fuji 645W (60mm lens), the Fuji GSW690II (65mm lens) and the Fuji GX617 with a 105mm lens and have been very please with the rsults. The 645 and the 6x9 produced lovely, large black and white prints and the 6x17 is still keeping me very happy! I never tested the lenses against charts, etc but in real world use they performed as well as I wanted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who knows what the last guy that used it did to the camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you go to a wellknown rent service, such as Calumet e.g., they usually check the rented equipment after each return very well.</p>

<p>I don't really care for resolution charts but in real photography, my GW670III has not disappointed me yet. I used all kinds of f-stops, from f/4 to f/32.</p><div></div>

<p>I welded to photo's together in photoshop for this image, scanned on an Epson 4490, and in one of the poles in the background you can see the wires (on real pixelsize that is).</p><div></div>

<p>and a Fishterman from Sur, Oman.</p><div></div>

<p>Even if it is in the eye of the beholder, any Mamiya is sharper than the picture above.<br>

<img src="http://www.berlinhennig.de/photonet/_MF_0022.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>No one ever said the Fuji is shaper than a Mamiya. The Mamiya 7 is also more versatile. One final one</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thomas,</p>

<p>Generally speaking large format lenses have lower resolution than medium format lenses which generally are less than 35mm. I think the new MF lenses from Mamiya 7 and Hasselblad probably are probably on a par with good 35mm optics. A Fuji 6 x 9 effectively needs a 4x5 suitable lens, so you are noticing something that is quite well-known - but the point is you have a larger negative so at equivalent magnifications the tonal range of the larger camera is better and that is what you are going for surely?</p>

<p>So you will need to test your LF lenses to ensure that they are actually better than the Fuji - my guess is, they won't be.</p>

<p>Some good lens test info for medium and large format lenses is here:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html<br>

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</p>

<p>Oh dear, oh dear! My one is bigger/sharper/ rounder/smaller or whatever, than yours.<br>

Test it for yourself, make your own decision and ignore what everybody else says! </p>

<p>This is a really helpfully post!<br>

Does anybody still reads the initial post before he/she shoots those tremendous helpful advices?</p>

<p>Thomas, I had the same experience with that Fuji. I sold it cheaply and bought (after some test shooting) a Rolleiflex 6003. The acutance of the negatives is of a different order. I wouldn't accept the excuse that the Fuji has a larger image circle. I have plenty of 4x5" negatives that show considerably more resolution and acutance than my two binders full of Fuji negatives. I wonder what that new Fuji folding camera will be like. The question will not just be lens quality but parallelism. On the photos at the German Bessa website, it looks as if the lens standard is not parallel to the film--but that might be a perspective effect.</p>

<p>Mr/Ms Hennig, I thought that I was being helpful. If you have done sufficient testing to prove to yourself what is satisfactory to you, then you should not need to ask others what is best. I would love to have a Leica for 35mm but cannot afford one so I do the best that I can with a Nikon and I am happy with my pics. That is what matters, not that mine are better than yours! </p>

<p>I wish I had the Rollei GX! The few GW670s I had over the years offered portability and fine images. Stopping down a few clicks really helped and the lens shade was useful. The few LF Fuji lenses I owned also were fine performers. But nearly everything in photography is based on compromises. I never would have had the Fuji GW670s if I owned the Rollei GX! The older Rolleis and Rolleicords were some of my favorites and occasionally I get one out and run a roll through it reminiscing! But i am a rangefinder fan and the Fujis filled a niche!</p>

<p>Thank you, gentlepeople. Even the sarcastic response was interesting. </p>

<p>Upon further examination, I found I was using the older "purchased used" Fuji yesterday. Today I tried the better one and yes, there is a slight lens to lens difference. I brought the film home, but not the chart that has the conversion table. So, although I cannot give an accurate figure, I believe I'm going to end up with about 75 lp/mm and better contrast. Unfortunately, that still won't get me enough pixels for the prints I want to make. With 4 X 5 film, I would only need 50 lp/mm to get me enough pixels. I have an older Crown Graphic with a Schneider Xener that puts 55-60 lp/mm on Fuji 100 speed chrome. The city has a well run Chrome lab that has recently gone into scanning and printing with a Lightjet that will do a 30 X 40 print on silver halide paper. Scanning is charged by the megabyte, so price-wise, it doesn't matter whether they scan 6 X 7 at a higher resolution or 4 X 5 at a lower resolution, as long as they come out at the same megabyte. I'm after megabytes. </p>

<p>I live and learn. So much for Fuji medium format lenses. At least I'll be more willing to use the cameras, as I no longer care whether they're replaceable or not. It also saves me money. I'm sure not about to buy that new 6 X 7 folder that I was so hot for, unless it is well proven to be a winner. </p>

<p>Mr. Hennig...Calumet has a store in the north part of the county that I'm traveling to. That store advertises on the net an adequate selection of medium and large format gear for rent. However, I was there in October to pick up some of their first batch of Ektar 100 film. I asked about quite a few pieces I had thought about renting, should the proposed photo opportunity show up this year. They no longer carried anything I asked about and had no answer when I told them it showed up on their store rental list on the net. On my previous visit to that store, I had found a vast selection of film. Although I believe almost all of the film I saw then was still available, in October, they had a dismally small selection. I would never consider traveling all that way and trusting them to service needs shown on their website. So much for Calumet. </p>

<p>Mr. Doering...I have about a dozen medium format folders, and like the concept. I too noticed in the first picture I saw of the Fuji/Cosina 670, that the front standard seemed to be at an uneven angle to the film plane. Since then, I have seen a number of views, including a square on, sideways view where the lens holder does seem to be in proper alignment. Perhaps the same company that takes so long to produce an item containing only low-tech, off-the-shelf items in its construction, would also use a flawed demonstrator as a photo model. Remember this is also the company that missed out introducing it in time for Christmas and Hanukkah sales. </p>

<p>Mr. Drew...The GW670/GW680/GW690 series rangefinders indeed offered portability and images suitable for at least an 11 X 14 print. If you go to Mr. Perez's large-format site shown in a previous response, you will see some of the Fujis do pretty well, where others are just average. You'll also see he found a sample to sample variation in large format, as I found on my GW medium formats. You'll notice I included a GW680 above. In addition to the 680 with interchangeable lenses, backs, etc., there was a limited run of 6 X 8s in the rangefinder series. </p>

<p>Thanks again to the responders,</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>A; My contribution to this rather quirky thread.<br>

After a lot of use of a Fuji GW690III; and as much with a Mamiya 7, Fuji GA645 (not the 'w' (ie wide-45mm), Fuji 645Zi zoom and a Mamiya 6, they all rock for large prints, assuming (if I may do so) you use sound shooting technique - and equally sound scanning technique/nous with either a dedicated MF film scanner or, if necessary, a high res drum scan. For prints of even top-of-size range prints, I doubt you would get too many complaints from sane viewers.<br>

My keeper rate, which I rely on as a good overall measure of overall performance (and yes, it (sharpness) matters to me too, for landscape), indicates that for me, I do best with the Mamiya 7, followed by the humble Fuji GA645 (60mm f4 lens); the big Fuji I used for 'semi-panos': mountainscapes, pretty horizontal fare for the most part. The GW690, however, produced some very dense, high 'expressiveness' images, so despite the low hit rate, awkward shutter control for medium long exposures (the T problem) and less than wonderful 'per pixel' IQ... I remember it fondly for a factor I cannot measure: 'look'. Not a well crafted device, it was nonetheless well-designed, industrial in nature but effective in below 10 degree temperatures and with harsh handling.<br>

You mention prints with an quite 'broad square' aspect ratios; the best bet for you is the Mamiya 7, king of the portable rangefinders, with an AR of 0.8. The 67 format suits cameras with stellar wide angles because you are always looking to use a lot of extra horizontal space in the frame - you need good vertical image interest for 67 to maximise neg real estate usage.<br>

Some of the M7's lens are around 3.9 or so over at Photodo - serious 'good 35mm' territory. The lenses also degrade gracefully into diffraction, permitting very acceptable high DOF compositions with the 43, 50 or 65mm set. What I like about it is the combination of top of class performance (Chris H's figures are pretty revealing at mid to numerically higher f-stops), low weight, small filters, light, quiet shutter, small packaging, a classy if staid control layout, solid finish and general usability. I doubt you will find better, especially given the neg size advantages over the German gear. Damn, that little 645 Fuji is sharp.<br>

I should add that, from the overall quality of the company's products, I wish most other older Japanese photo industry companies had achieved as much as they.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>I would like to thank you for posting your information here. It is good to see correlation with other investigations (such as that done by C. M. Perez et al). I see also that you came with in reasonable limits to their own test results. I would like to discuss (if you don't mind) your take on this. I have also pondered obtaining the Fuji range finder but have wondered about some issues (size / bulk / weight). I also use 4x5 and (I admit) have some folders (6x9) as well as a number of other cameras (my friends often laugh at me for my collection of what they call "toys").</p>

<p>I wonder if the figure you are obtaining from the Fuji is not in all essence similar to what you would obtain with a 4x5? Assuming you match the width of your composition, the height will be of course different in ratio. Assuming you get 60 lp/mm from your Schneider lens there are still other factors which can influence you obtaining that on the print (focusing erros, front - rear standard vibration, tripod requirements, longer shutter duration + subject movement...). Some of these will not be an influence on the Fuji GW690. If you have 82mm width on the 120 film I wonder how significantly better will be 120mm that you would get from a typical film holder?</p>

<p>Also consider the ease of roll film transport. You will easily be able to carry with you some quantity of 120 roll (perhaps even 220 if you prefer it). To take even 20 sheets of film with you will be more expensive. You will not have the opportunity to bracket which you could take with 120.</p>

<p>I also suggest that you consider another technique, that is to make use of post exposure digital techniques such as stitching. I have made very nice panoramas with the humble Bessa RF by taking 3 exposures and using PTGui to stitch them into a single image (effectively giving me a 9 x 15 negative). After my work with my folders I decided to experiment with a 6x12 back for my 4x5 camera because I believe that focus on the ground glass is critical to take advantage of the lenses with such long focal lengths as my folders have. This has been borne out by experiments with carefully taped sections of 120 film on the rail developed individually in BTZS tubes and then examined with a laboratory Zeiss microscope at x30 (which happens to be in my partners lab). However I believe that the Fuji will profide more accuracy and automation (I have made accidental double exposures with my folders) to assist you in your task.</p>

<p>I do not travel extensively, although consider every opportunity for a photograph to be a once in a life time situation (as the light and situation is simply never the same if I go back). I understand the reticence to consider using Negative, as you seem to prefer chromes. Some of the new Fuji emulsions are quite equal to chromes (even to Provia RDP-III) but have the advantage of greater lattitude. If you are photographing in a out door situation this may be a beneficial consideration. Drum scans of negative seem not to show the pepper grain which is brought out by desktop scanners (such as the venerable Nikon 9000).</p>

<p>Lastly I hope you have a good trip, and that my thoughts have benefited you in some way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> My GSW 69 has produced tack sharp images to 16x20. Perhaps this newer version has better optics. My B&W prints from my M7 seem not significantly better. I process and print in my own darkroom. I am more impressed with the end result rather than resolution tests which can vary between lens samples. Anyway it's like everything else: you ask 10 people you may get 10 different answers. Best of luck, Tom</p>

<p>Tom . . .I also remembered a quirk with my 670s that was annoying . . .film flatness! Loading an occasional roll in a hurry, I would not quite get the film perfectly flat and had a fuzzier series of shots! D'oh! OTOH, careful loading usually rendered sharper images. Again not a problem for me with my TLRs and P67. The Rollei film path always seemed firm & flat - good design I would guess. That was also one of my favorite features of Konica T series SLRs . . . excellent film path & loading design; but I digress. Thanks for the threads here!</p>

<p>Mr. Tanaka...</p>

<p>And I thank YOU for your informational post. Many knowledgeable people have kindly shared their experience and thoughts with me here on Photonet. </p>

<p>As I hope to do a 30" X 40" print, a 4x5 film size will be under the old enlarger rule of thumb of 10:1 as a starting point. With a 6x9 I would be cropping the sides and using all of the height that I could on the slide/negative. The printer I will be hiring accepts material up to 300PPI and I want to maximize the input size which means that I need at least 9000x12000 pixels of pin sharp input. The first Fuji tested out at about 3450PPI on Provia 100F. Medium format is supposed to be 2.25 inches on the short side but the Fuji opening is just 54mm or 2.126". 2.1*3450=7245 Pixels, not enough. </p>

<p>If I figured to get 3.75" on the 4 side of 4x5, I would need a scan of only 2400PPI, well below the lens/film combo on my 4x5 lensed Crown Graphic. On the 5" side, at a usable 4.75" I would need 2526PPI, again within the film/lens ability. I just got about 65lp/mm out of the Schneider Xener at F:11 in a 6x12 roll film back test. That is about 3300PPI or plenty to do the job. The relative ranking of sharpness on the test image is reflected in my real world results. Please see the two postings below for real world comparison: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=730969">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=730969</a> <br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=882072">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=882072</a> </p>

<p>You might find some of your folder represented in one of the postings, but in real-world situations. The absolute worst was a Zeiss Tessor four element folder which has been checked for lens element placing and alignment. It was also ground-glass focused to make sure that the lens distance markings, as well as infinity, were accurate. </p>

<p>As far as the testing, all cameras were done in studio with no wind on a rock solid heavy duty tripod where all moving parts can be tightened down to prevent movement. The tripod itself weighs 50-60 pounds. The 4x5 was ground glass focused on snow glass with a 4 power additional magnifier. The rangefinders were actually being tested for rangefinder and lens distance marking accuracy, where I distance-bracketed at 10 feet. I found the rangefinder to match the distance scale on the lens, which I found to be accurate. My only surprise was the poor showing that the rangefinder lenses made. One of the downfalls of the Mamiya 7II is their rangefinder, which is prone to misalignment attributable to many different reasons. The Fuji has a reputation for hardy rangefinders. Every Fuji I have used has born out that part of its reputation. Lighting for all tests was at its best, using multiple-angled studio flashes with both soft boxes and grids to reduce reflective glare. All tests were done with the same relative placement of the lights so that lighting was not an issue, as far as camera to camera comparisons. All lenses have leaf shutters, which minimizes vibration. Camera/test chart alignment was properly squared up. I cannot use stitching, as it is a people shot. </p>

<p>As to the negative vs. positive film, unfortunately all quality negative processors/printers in that city have closed down. The one quality lab left does only chrome, with tenured employees using massive dip and dunk tanks. They are the only outfit left in town I would trust with what will be my most precious photo film with. So that limits my shoot to chrome. </p>

<p>Mr. Partridge...</p>

<p>Yes, I know most people will gladly accept much lower standards in respect to a final print than I intend to produce for this one shot. It really doesn't matter to me if all the rest of the millions of people in the world would gladly accept and probably never notice any difference. I am doing this for five individuals who are going to get the best that I can possibly do, period. Since the six of us have waited almost 55 years for this, it's only going to be done one way, quirky or not. </p>

<p>Mr. Rene...<br>

<br />The GSW690III with the 65mm lens is supposed to be super sharp, better than the 90mm. I have not used one to know. On course, I had also heard the 90mm was pretty sharp too and that has not proven out. Perhaps your GSW truly IS what it is supposed to be. </p>

<p>I had been using 35mm cameras when I bought the 690. I debated between the GW and GSW. On a 35mm zoom I prefer to have the low end at 28 rather than 35, i.e.. I'd rather have a 28-105 than a 35-135. But.. I thought being restricted to the 65mm in MF (being close to the 28 in 35mm) would be too wide with a 90mm being usable more often. Also, I got used to an old 44mm lensed 35mm camera and the 90mm looked "right" to me. I now think I made a mistake as I have used the 690 so little anyway. I would have been better off with a sharper 65mm lens. <br>

Mr. Drew...<br>

<br />My "good" GW690III had film alignment problems on the first few rolls which did produce some noticeable unsharpness probably due to film flatness. I had it adjusted. Since then I have not noticed varying sharpness across the shot. On the other hand, I have not pushed the print size up too far. An 8x12 is only a 4x enlargement which should hide many photo sins. </p>

<p>Thomas</p>

<p>may I ask, is drum scanning and RA-4 laser printing an option? If so then negative will still be a good choice. For when scanning C-41 materials I have found the rule of expose bias for shadows and hilights will fall where you can get them still yet.</p>

<p>I understand your desired print dimensions and the closness of match with the capture media is important for that.</p>

<p>Speaking of once in a life time trips, if I could have that I would like to go again to Korea but to the north, there is a fascinating mountain there which I would like to trek to. Find it on Google maps <a href="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.975827,128.012695&spn=3.977181,11.25&t=h&z=7">here</a> (it is clear in the center). I will place below an image taken by a photographer whom I do not know well of that location. It is a most inspiring volcano (it is the Fuji-san of Korea in my opinion).</p><div></div>