Arcbody from Hasselblad vs Fuji GW680 III

[carles_pla1]

I'm thinking to buy a medium format camera that have a shift and tilt

mouvements, can somebody tell me anything to compare Arcbody from

Hasselblad with de GW680 III from Fuji? The image cercle of lenses

provided cover them de complet mouvements of the body? What sistem of

metering exoposure think you is better?

Thanks

[_____133]

One small point of correction, Carles. I understand it the Fuji GX 680 III that you're talking about. There is a rangefinder Fuji called the GW680 available and it would be awful to order one thing and then get another.

 

The Hasselblad Arcbody is history. Hasselblad dropped it from the catalogue sometime this year. That said, you may still find them at dealers. The Arcbody is NOT an SLR, unlike the Fuji GX 680 III. You would use it pretty much like a small view camera. There is a review of it at www.luminous-landscape.com .

 

According to Fuji, the 50mm lens is the only one which may run into the limits of the movements of the camera. It seems as if the other lenses are able to make full use of the movements of the camera. I have not had a chance to use this camera although an acquaintance of mine sings its praises. Check out this website for someone who uses it for professional work: www.marktucker.com .

 

I'm sorry I cannot be of more help.

[jeff_drew4]

Comparing these 2 cameras strikes me as a major project beacause they have more differences than similarities. Film Format, lenses, shutters, film backs etc. are different. If you are already vested in Hasselblad, the Arcbody would be useful. I guess the argument depends on your intended use(s). I would also consider LF with rollfilm backs or other MF technical cameras depending on your major priority.

[kevin_lackey]

A buddie of mine loves his GX680III, and wouldn't be without it. Check out some work he did with one at <a href="http://www.shootSMARTER.com"> www.shootSMARTER.com</a>

[roger_michel]

even if you are invested in 'blad (i.e. have a few blad lenses), the arcbody doesn't make much sense -- doesn't it use its own, unique lenses? the flexbody, i think, takes the standard rollei lenses. in any event, i've played with both these cameras at various shows, including a very long demonstration a couple of years ago at photoplus east. my conclusion is that these cameras are trying to be somethingthey are not. if you want LF movements, back flexibility, etc. get a nice horseman or linhof. the horseman is great value and a beautifully made system. the linhof is also stellar. both can be set up to take rollfilm backs and are available in MF and superMF formats (6x9, 6x12). and both use std. LF lenses, of which millions have been made in every conceivable focal length, speed, etc. before i bought my camera (a linhof maseter tech [whic i later sold to move to a deardorff 8x10]), i looked carefully at the fuji system. it is VERY big and HEAVY. you are limited to the fuji lenses. who knows how long fuji will continue to support it. it is pretty expensive. it has limited movements as compared to a REAL tech camera. it is limited to MF. i decided that the raison d'etre for the fuji was studio product shots (digital only?), and that was not going to be my sole subject matter. i never regretted buying the linhof -- it did everything i asked without complaint. if it could take an 8x10 neg, i would have kept it. NOW, having said ALL THAT. what i think you really NEED/WANT is a zork adapter for your 500 c/m (or for the 500 c/m you will buy). call ken hansen photo in nyc and get the scoop.

[joseph_albert]

But there really isn't much beyond size and weight that needs

comparing. if you want a camera you can take into the field,

the Fuji 6x8 SLR is a behemoth-- I think over 9 lbs with standard

lens and back. If you want a camera for studio work, the arcbody

is not all that flexible with only rear tilt.

<p>

if you want a hasselblad with tilt, the flex body is probably a

better bet since you can use hassie lenses as well as backs, whereas

the arc body has special lenses for it.

<p>

A mamiya press camera is far cheaper

if you want a medium format camera with rear tilt and swing.

an outfit with 90/3.5 or 100/3.5 lens, body, 6x7 or 6x9 back, and

ground glass back is just a few hundred bucks. the main drawback

is that the only lenses with retractable mounts needed to maintain

infinity focus when tilt/swing movements are used are the f/3.5

90mm and 100mm lenses. not all models have tilt/swing. the four that do

are Press Deluxe and Super 23 (both of which use Mamiya backs) and

Press G and Super G (both of which use Graflok rollfilm holders).

The difference between the "Press" versions and the "Super" versions

are largely in the viewfinder (the Super has more frame lines for

more focal lengths and automatic parallax correction, whereas the

Press ones have manual parallax correction). The Press ones are a little

lighter weight.

[anthony_harrison]

The expression "chalk and cheese" comes to mind: you're comparing two radically different cameras. The Arc body is tiny, beautiful, very portable and ideal for ultra-lightweight location architecture and interiors. It was grossly over-priced, so it didn't sell. The Fuji is reputedly excellent, but I've handled one and it is hugely heavy & cumbersome - not the ideal location camera. You need to decide exactly what your applications are first, because one or the other of these cameras will be completely unsuitable for you.

[bengt_rehn]

Hasselblad Flexbody is a wonderful tool if tilt movement is the main goal. Shift is quite limited, but can be useful especially with the Distagon 60/3,5. Wider lenses has to small image circle. The tilt movement are up to 28 degres and it is far more than the 12 degres that the Fuji can make. The Arcbody has far more shift movement than the Flexbody but it is a very limited system and very expensive.

[patrick_drennon]

Comparing the GX680III to an LF is as much a stretch as

comparing an Arcbody to the Fuji. I've used LF for 15 yrs.+ (Sinar

F) and there is no way to compare its flexibility and use to the Fuji

unless you're trying to choose between the two where

application would create a clear winner.

 

The Fuji is no bigger or heavier than my Sinar. Both are tripod

dependant, the Fuji CAN be used with a strap off of a tripod, the

Sinar can't (I do realize the Linhoff will work handheld). But all

cameras of that size with movements are better on than off of a

tripod.

 

The Fuji is MUCH faster to use. The ability to see an upright

image, focus, shoot with motordrivrn convenience makes it very

well suited to studio and some other types of commercial

photography. The pros that use it (a number that seems to grow

every day) do so because it reduces cost. They can use fewer

assistants and produce more images at less cost to the

customer. If production is a consideration, the Fuji will win that

battle easily.

 

As concerns movements, The 80/20 rule applys very well here.

The Fuji's movements will handle AT LEAST 80% of all the

needs fo control. That, coupled with the speed and ease of use

is helping it gain in popularity. It will not do what a monorail will,

but neither will a field type LF camera (though a field MF is more

flexible than the Fuji).

 

Last of all is image quality, my Fujinon 210 f/5.6 on my Sinar

produces gorgeous 4X5 images, if you cut out a 6X8cm portion

of that negative the GX680 lens is slightly better (based on a

studio shot comparison). The image quality of the Fuji is nothing

short of amazing to me. The camera is state of the art in every

way as applies to emulsion film cameras. I was designed to be

very functional and efficient in a photographic production

environment and will tend to be a bit off-putting to purists. It does

tend to try to be all things to all people and the result, although

excellent, is not perfect.

 

Sorry for rambling but I felt this (please note) OPINION might

contibute to the discussion.

[rick_rappaport]

Aren't you all forgetting one hugely important feature: you can actually see the subject and focus using a viewfinder without snuggling your eye up next to a groundglass on the hassy.

 

Or am I wrong? Does the flex body allow the hassy viewfinder to be used?

[squareframe]

> The Arcbody has far more shift movement than the Flexbody

 

this is an incorrect statement. the Flexbody actually has twice the shift capability of the Arcbody. the shift exceeds the image circle provided by the Zeiss lenses. the Flexbody and Arcbody accept the chimney and right-angle viewers obviating any requirement for loupe and dark cloth.

[jerry_considine]

While not exactly an answer to the question, it may be an answer to the problem. I use a Sinar 4x5 inch set and Hasselblad and have a Hasselblad adapter for on the Sinar, and also a 6x9 back for on the Sinar. This gives a combination allowing all sorts of LF and MF possibilities, with or without tilts. But of course, as many of us, I would love to own a 680. Much of the pleasure is simply using quality apparatus and that is also a need which can be catered for! So even though it will not add much to my combination, I will probably add a 680 to the collection soon!