Hasselblad user considering a FUJI GW690 Vs MAMIYA 7 ?

After ditching film for digital a few years ago, I have slowly gone back to film, at least for serious fine art work. I have been

shooting with a Hasselblad 501CM which I like. I am enjoying the square format. I have been thinking about going for

something a little more portable. Part of me wants to just embrace the Hassy and resist the never ending urge to buy more

gear. Thats one of the reasons I abandoned digital. Every 3 months a new and improved model makes your $5000.00

camera yesterdays news. Well, not quite, but you get the point.

 

So I was thinking about maybe picking up a Mamiya 6 or 6 or going for the less expensive Fuji GW690. I rarely swap lenses

by the way, and prefer to stay around a normal focal length (50mm in 35mm terms).

 

Any thoughts?

<p>What do you shoot mainly?<br>

Will you miss the versatility of an slr? ? ?</p>

 

<p>As a Hasselblad owner, I think the GW690 is great. The viewfinder means it's a whole different way of looking at the subject and you have a nominal extra 3cm of horizontal negative to play with. I used a GW690 III quite a lot some years ago and if it wasn't for my need to have interchangeable lenses I'd be tempted to swap, or at least add one.</p>

<p>Hello Jon.<br>

My own story is not too different. I started with digital and quickly went to film for my serious work. I was still new to photography at the time and felt that digital was not helping me learn what I wanted to learn about photography so I switch to film. Film has been a great teacher, I've never looked back.<br>

On the subject of cameras I have many but my favourite is my Mamiya 7II... its so easy to carry anywhere, really outstanding lenses and so simple to operate. I like a camera that just gets out of the way and lets me be the photographer. The Mamiya 6 is also brilliant, better I'm told by others but I've never tried it.<br>

In film cameras I also have a Horseman SW612. I like it also but don't use as much. I do prefer 6x7 as a format and the Mamiya is much easier to carry. Im a landscape photographer hassle free carrying is the way to go for me :) I don't know the FUJI GW690 at all. At the end of the day it gets down to functional needs and personal likes.<br>

Lovely to 'chat'. I'll look up your web site / blog and say hi there too. ( assuming u have a site? )<br>

Cheers Steve</p>

Steve I was originally a film shooter then went digital because thats what the camera companies said we needed to do.

Now I'm back to film.

I think digital is convenient, not better.

People are lazy and want convenience.

I dont mind shooting less but doing quality.

 

On my Hasselblad I have the 80, the 150 and the 50. I use the 80mm 95% of the time. In face, if it were the only lens I

had I would be fine. Once in a blue moon I will use the 150, and I never use the 50.

 

The Mamiya 6/7 is supposed to be a wonderful camera. I never owned one. They are pricey, even from the Hong Kong

dealers on eBay.

 

By the way, the only digital camera I own now is my iPhone.

Jon, I've owned all the cameras you've discussed. The Fuji and Mamiya 6 cameras are out of production and are getting

more problematic to have repaired. I currently shoot Mamiya 7II's. The 65mm f/4.0 lens is my favorite, as it's pattern fills

the whole viewfinder, and is a little wider than the 80mm.

<p>If you shoot b/w, I will go with Mamiya 7. Fuji has a tad more contrast than I prefer.</p>

<p>Mmmmm, I don't know if I'd make that trade. To me, a Blad and 80 mm lens are very portable--really, about as much so as either of the two cameras you're looking at in my own opinion.<br>

<br />I had a Fuji GW690II. It produced truly excellent images, but was a bit large and unwieldy for what it was: a rangefinder, the purpose of which generally is for quick and spontaneous shooting. Not only that, but getting only eight shots on a roll of 120 (the 16 on 220 was nice, though--if you shoot colour and can still find 220 film and get it processed in your area; it really killed me when Ilford stopped making 220 B&W) slowed things down, too. And the shutter made a metallic clang when fired which sounded to my ears like a manhole cover being dropped!</p>

<p>Because of the above, and the fact that I hadn't been able to bring my 4x5 enlarger over to London with me from the States and so couldn't print the negs (I now have an Epson V750, which would indeed be lovely with 6x9 film) I eventually traded mine and a bit of cash for a Leica M3 and a lens, which gives me everything a rangefinder should be about, minus of course the ability to print/scan as large with the kind of quality 6x9 gives you.</p>

<p>If you've got the cash to pick up one of the two cameras, go for it and see how it suits you. If you find you don't like it--or the Blad suits you just as well in the end--you'll no doubt get back pretty much what you paid for them if you decide they weren't worth the investment.</p>

Bernard; very good synopsis! Yes I think its probably more gear envy on my part then necessity. As photogs, we all have

that unending thirst for more gear. Its hard to resist sometimes. I like the blad, I like the square. So Im not really sure why

I am thinking about picking up another medium format camera. Sometimes I look at rectangular format images and think it

would be nice to have that. I also think that at times the Blad doesnt make much sense for me since that 80mm lens is

almost permamently mounted to it. But then again, there is somethign magical aboout that camera, and that Zeiss piece

of glass would be hard t duplicate with anything from Japan.

 

I find it interesting that you say the Blad is just as portable as the Fuji! I never held th eFuji, but in the photos it looks so

much smaller. I can see the Fiji around someones neck but I cant see the Blad that way.

 

I know a few fine art photographers who work with Hasselblad systems and also have something like a Rollie or Yashica-

Mat as a more portable solution to compliment the Blad. I never did care for TLR's though.

 

35mm is a great portable solution, yes. Your right about the problem of big prints though. I also use the V750 to scan my

negs, and it doesnt do well for 35mm imo. But with 35mm you can send it to a mail order place like NorthCoast and I think

its around $20.00 a roll for prints and scans. Not bad when you factor in that its 36 scans something like .60 a scan.

 

Maybe I should just satisify me thirst for more gear by picking up a second Hassy body. A beater that I could take around

town. It would be nice to pick up a newer version of the 80mm lens. Im using the CF T version but I hear the last one is

even better :)

Jon, the GW690 is a great camera that

I enjoyed using but eventually sold. It

has a few things I didn't like.

 

The first is size. It truly is a huge

camera. It's classical "camera"

proportions disguise that fact in photos

of the GW690. But in person it looks

like a 35mm rangefinder that has been

inflated to almost clownlike size.

 

The second is the characteristics of the

lens. It was very sharp, but I also found

it very contrasty, and didn't like the out-

of-focus rendering.

 

I ended up moving to the Fuji GS645s.

It's much smaller in the hand, offers a

convenient light meter, and I like the

645 format. (My primary system is

Bronica ETR.)

Hi, Jon. I guess I should define what I mean by portable. You *can* hang a Fuji from your neck (which I really wouldn't do

with a Blad). Whether you'd *want* to or not is debatable - as David says, they're really frickin' large.

 

I never walk around with a camera round my neck (even my M3, which I have on a wrist strap). I prefer something I could

stick in a reasonably small Tamrac/Lowepro/etc. bag and pull out quickly when needed. A Hasselblad seems to fit that

bill, especially with a single (80mm) lens. I dont own one myself (yet, but that will likely be my next big-ticket item) but a

mate of mine regularly tools about with a battered Domke J-series bag with the same three lenses you have plus a small

flash kit.

Fuji GW 690 is an amazing camera.......sometimes known as the "Texas Leica"

I used it one time as a back up on a wedding. Great format for shooting groups and easy to focus in low light. Maybe a little too large for carry around candids.

<p>Jon: As a user of all the cameras mentioned, I would keep the Hassy and add either the Mamiya 7 or the Fuji, for the rectangular neg. The Hasselblad gives you the versatility of close ups, portraits, and the ability to go from color to B/W with extra backs and of course, the Zeiss lens have a look all their own (not better, just different). Cameras are like paint brushes. Different ones can inspire you to do different things. Sometimes our work/vision becomes stagnant, and we feel a new tool/thing will help break the cycle. I think most of us get infected with the, "new stuff virus", but I really regret looking back at some of my best negs and realizing that I got rid of a great camera.....</p>

<p>I agree with Phil. The desire for a new camera is not always a bad thing, it can open up new creative doors. If you are happy with the Hasselblad, there is no reason to just buy something new, but if you feel like it, it doesn't mean you have failed as a photographer! I also use a Hasselblad and a Mamiya 7II, and in the past I had a Fuji G690 (the older interchangeable lens version). As everyone has said, the Fujis are not small! They are not light either, but not very heavy in comparison to cameras with their negative size. Personally, I think the Mamiya 7 is the best combination of portability and quality. The lenses are great, the camera is well designed ergonomically, and having a meter built in is a great advantage. In terms of pure sharpness and freedom from distortion, it also has the best lenses and it is clearly the quietest camera. That said, for portraiture or telephoto work, the Hasselblad is miles better. It's also hard to replicate the look of some of the nicest Hasselblad lenses...the Mamiya lenses are all f/4 or slower, and the closest focus is 1m (and 1.8m for the 150/4.5). In my own work, I tend to grab the mamiya as a travel or landscape camera, while the Hasselblad is used for work with people, in the studio, or when I want more reach in landscapes. The Mamiya is a great camera to bring along and have with you to capture something that might happen, while the Hasselblad is better when I set out with a particular objective in mind already. The Mamiya is more reactive, the Hasselblad more contemplative. But that's just me! <br /> P.S. Here is a picture of a Fuji G690 next to a Leica...gives you a better sense of scale:<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/leica-vs-fuji.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Per others, I assumed you'd keep the Hasselblad stuff. The Mamiya 6 and 7 variants can do relatively close work, but you're using cumbersome attachments that require metheodical shooting.</p><div></div>

Aieeee! Stuart, next to that Leica, the Fuji looks like Camerazilla, lol. They are great cameras, but stealthy they are not.

 

Still, I'm thinking about getting another one - although I think the GSW will be more my style.

i agree about the superb image quality, especially skin tones on the Zeiss lenses that are paired on the Hassy's. Is there

any other MF bodies that use Zeiss? I know in 35mm it would be the contax line, which is no slouch either. I almost

picked up a contax T3 after seeing the marvleous images that that little camera produces.

<p>Vaudeville joke-</p>

<p>Comedian 1: How's your wife?</p>

<p>Comedian 2: Compared to what?</p>

<p>The Fuji 690 variant cameras are huge compared to Leica M cameras, but are sleek compared to most other 6x9 cameras.</p>

 

<p> I'd stick with the 500 series if it isn't broken. The size of the RFs you mention not a problem ( I shoot Pentax 67 with hoods and the wood grip - occasionally hanging on a strap around my neck) but I'm no RF fan and the output from the Blad can be wonderful.</p>

<p>Though I find no artistic advantages with the cameras mentioned over the Blad the one business advantage I would offer about the Fuji GW is with its fixed lens it can go anywhere that interchangeable lens bodies are disallowed and still have the large transparencies or negatives.</p>

<p><strong>I would love to have a Blad or a Mamiya 7 if nothing but for the interchangeable lenses; however, one advantage for me was the lower cost of the Fuji. I was able to buy two Fuji rangefinders (6x7cm with normal lens and 6x9cm with wide-angle lens) for less than the Blad or Mamiya equivalent.</strong></p>

<p><br /><strong><a href=" </div>

<p>I find TLRs the most portable and stealthy of the medium format cameras I've used - too bad you don't like them. They're unobtrusive, hang well around a neck and can be carried in a large-ish hand. Shooting through the chimney finder is often not noticed by others, and the shutter so quiet no-one notices. The Mamiya 7 just screams "huge camera" (although shutter just about as quiet), particularly since you need to bring it up to eye level.</p>

<p>I've been looking at similar cameras in recent months. While the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders produce excellent results and are generally loved by their owners the drawbacks for me are the size (after all, what's the point of a rangefinder if its that big?) and the 6x9 format. Personally I enjoy 6x6 and 6x7 much more. So the cameras that really get my attention these days are the Fuji GF670 (and possibly the 670W) and the Mamiya 6 (and maybe the 7). <br>

The really attractive thing about the Fuji is the option of going 6x6 or 6x7. And I love the portability of the standard version with the collapsing bellows.<br>

On the other hand the Mamiya 6 (and the pricier 7) are incredibly compact as well and give you the option of exchangeable lenses. <br>

In the mean time I have recently picked up the Fuji GS645 and am really enjoying it even though it is only 6x4.5.<br>

Having said all of that, if I were you I would definitely hang onto the Hassy regardless of what other cameras you buy.</p>

The Fuji 670 and 690 cameras are basically the same cameras and lenses- same size, same weight, different image size.

<blockquote>

<p>“The Fuji 670 and 690 cameras are basically the same cameras and lenses- same size, same weight, different image size.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true if you are talking about the 90mm normal lens versions.<br>

However, the 690 also has a 65mm wide-angle version.</p>

Uh huh, I've owned one of each of the 690s.