GW690III or something else?

[scott_mcmillan]

I need some advice on choosing a medium format camera, to be used mostly for

landscapes. My first choice so far is the Fuji GW690III, but I'm open to other

suggestions, if you guys have any. I had back surgery a couple of months ago,

so I need something fairly lightweight. I've got a 4x5 Graphic View camera, but

it's just too much for me to lug around for now. I chose the Fuji 690 because

of the large 6x9 neg size, built-in rangefinder, and lighter weight. I had also

considered one of the 6x9 folders, but I'm guessing that the Fuji is a bit more

user friendly?.... Anyway, I thought I'd ask you guys before I made my final

decision. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have.

[j_rgen_loob]

Scott

 

Just as a start . The FUJI GW690III has no interchangeable lenses .

I have the GW690III with the EBC FUJINON 3,5/90mm and it is a great camera .

The rangefinder is not as good as I expected . The little field , where you get the vertical

lines to match is very small . So I aquired an additional rangefinder from FOTOMAN , which

is a rebuilt unit from an older VOIGTLĎDER design from the years after WW2 .

The weight of that camera is about 1600 gr. and therefore only slightly heavier than a

HASSELBLAD .

I think it is a very good camera for landscape shooting , but I use it also for other

purposes .

[jerry thirsty]

The GW690s work ok for landscapes. If you are trying to maintain sharpness out to infinity using the depth of field scale, IMHO you need to use the marks corresponding to an aperture two stops larger than whatever you are actually shooting at (i.e. if shooting at f/32, use the f/16 marks instead). I don't print larger than 16x20, so I don't see much degradation from diffraction even at f/32. Will you be able to carry a tripod or monopod? At small apertures you will probably need a support of some kind.

[brad_herman1]

Scott;

 

I own a Fuji GW670III and a GSW690III. I use both for landscapes. The GW690III with the 90mm lens will give you the equivalent of a 39mm lens in 35mm format. I prefer the GSW690III with the 65mm lens for most of my landscape work as it provides you a 28mm equivalent in 35mm format.

 

I agree with JÜRGEN in that there is no perfect camera, and any camera with a fixed lens will be somewhat limiting. The Fuji RFs are rather large and a bit heavy, but I find them to be well balanced and reliable. I use a tripod for most of my landscape work.

 

You will also need a good light meter. I use a vintage Gossen Luna Pro F, which uses 'Null-Metering' for both reflected or ambient light and flash, but some of the newer Gossen or Sekonic Digital Meters are supposed to be excellent.

 

The Fuji lenses are excellent. You can also look into a Mamiya 7II as it has interchangable lenses, (and is also smaller, lighter and has a built-in meter) but it is also 2-3x the price.

 

As an FYI...Some time ago, my company hired a Professional Photographer to shoot some executive portraits for a magazine cover. They used both the GW670III and a GW690III. They scanned the negatives on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner to digitize the images and used it for the magazine cover, and also blew the images up to larger than poster size (they are at least 30x40, but they're probably larger) for display in our lobby.

 

Every time I walk by and look at these, the quality blows me away.

 

I really don't think that you can go wrong with a Fuji RF.

 

Regards;

 

Brad

[jonsjons]

you might want to look at the bronica gs-1. i love mine....it's big and heavy, but significantly lighter than similar cameras like the mamiya RB series. personally, i wouldn't want to shoot landscapes without at least 2 focal lengths - usually use a 50mm and 100mm on my gs-1. you also get interchangeable finders and backs, which is nice. you can also save a lot of money as compared to the fuji....just a thought.

[brianam]

My recent experience may help you: I just rented a Fuji GSW690III a couple weeks ago, to try before i purchased. Afterwards I decided that, while the 6x9cm neg sounded great, since 1) the usable negative is more like 6x8cm, 2) the lens isn't interchangeable, 3) it could be lighter & smaller, and 4) it doesn't come with a light meter, that I'm going with the Mamiya 7 instead.

 

I've rented the Mamiya many times before, but i didn't take to the 6x7 dimensions; I'd prefer something more rectangular. Given all of the above though, I'll take the Mamiya and a couple lenses, and if i want a different proportion I'll crop or I'll get a 6x12cm back for 4x5", or a Fotoman 612.

[rory_burns]

I have owned and used a GSW 690 III Professional w/ 65mm lens for the last couple years, mostly for landscapes. I am a printing photographer for fine art galleries.

 

1) The lens is very good, but nothing more. Don't believe the unsubstantiated hype: Mamiya 6 and 7 glass is better, period, in terms of edge and center resolution, contrast, distortion, light falloff, everything.

 

2) If you don't believe the above, test it yourself or realize the Fuji 6x9 Rangefinders were designed to take photographs of large tour groups in Japan, which is why it is a slightly "stripped" professional camera. It just happened to meet the needs of certain landscape photographers as well, (since 6 by 9 rangefinders are useful but rare)

 

3) Since you are coming from large format, realize the 65mm (28mm equivalent in 35mm) has pretty intense barrel and converging distortion depending on framing, tilt, focus distance etc. You either leave it, (more common in natural landcapes) or fix the perspective/tilt in Photoshop after a scan (for architecture work), in which case you lose a certain amount of your negative and file quality. If you are a printing photographer, this is a problem.

 

4) There is no good way to take exposures longer than 1 second due to the "T" function, but this is more of a mild annoyance than anything that can stop a photo from being made. I have plenty of sharp frames in the 2-15 second exposure range, the most annoying for this camera to work within.

 

5) It is true, the negative size in more like 58mm times 82mm than 6 by 9 CM

 

6) It doesn't have a meter, but if you come from large format and are a serious landscape photographer, you are going to be using a Zoom spot meter even if your Mamiya has one built in, I hope? The Mamiya built-in meter on the 6 I own is crap anyway, depending on the lens in use.

 

Overall this camera is one of my most widely used, but you have to work within its capabilities.

 

The other question is, do you need that much information?

 

I shoot 6 by 9 since I can't afford a Phase One back and my prints, all of them, need to be able to go mural size if needed. So this also means I shoot almost always with tripod, slow speed films.

 

But I am talking about prints starting at around 3 by 4 feet, and going bigger from there. I only ever use the best drum scanners and labs, otherwise there is no point shooting 6 by 9.

 

If you are going to just scan these on your home flatbed and make occasional prints, 6 by 9 is not necessary. Even if you have a V 750 or M1 or whatever. You need PST tubes to get the real info out of these new films. Portra 160 NC processed normal is a just insane amount of detail with my GSW. I don't think people pay enough attention to how big a leap the past couple years have been in terms of film technology optimized for scanning/digital printing.

 

Also I find Portra 160NC better than Fuji 160 S for this camera/lens combination. 160NC appears to have more acutance, which is really important with this lens.

 

My GSW has subtle light falloff in almost every frame, but I only noticed it after years when I started looking for a pattern using the "vignette" function in CS2.

 

If you are not super exacting and can afford it, and your back pain precludes you from carrying a meter, Mamiya 7 sounds good for you. But remember then you will be tempted to lug around extra lenses...

 

I chose the GSW III since it was simply the smallest camera for the biggest negative, but have grown to love it, limitations and all.

 

But you didn't mention how important tilt/shift controls are to your work. If you are good at 4x5 and understand the power of doing these corrections before the scan, maybe you should consider one of the Fuji 6x8 models that have this capability? But I have yet to use one of those, and they don't look much less bulky than your Graphic.

 

Best Regards-

[ed_sawyer]

I just bought a GSW690 III and a GS670 III in near-new condition (about 30 and 50 on the counters respectively) for a great price (about $300/ea). I have yet to try them out with film, but they look like great cameras. I have a lot of experience in 35mm and some in 4x5. Any recommendations for film besides Portra 160nc? Any recommendations for labs for film developing and printing? Most of the places local to me are crap, with the exception of one or two. (am located in NH). Eventually I will do my own printing but probably not my own C-41 or E-6. Great to find people still using these cameras, btw.

 

-Ed

[rory_burns]

Where did you get the cameras for such a great price?

[ed_sawyer]

I got them as surplus property from where I work, though it was a deal that was open to the public too. in fact there was a 2nd GS670III that sold for the same price, that someone else snagged. I have yet to try them out but hopefully soon.

[nick_fotis]

To the original poster:

 

Both the GW690III and the GSW690III are great cameras (I own both of these).

If you need wideangle for landscapes, the GSW is preferable (lens equivalent to 28mm).

 

Since both cameras are relatively light for their big film size and they use leaf shutters (= very low

vibration), a light tripod easily is usable with these rangefinders. Since both are 100% mechanical cameras and

with simple controls, these are very reliable (I haven't used both of these too intensively, to tell the truth).

 

As a rangefinder, the use of filters is a bit harder, but since you are going to use an external light meter (I

use a miniature gossen digisix), you just have to remember to add the required compensation. Gradient filters are

a bit troublesome, though.

 

Regards,

N.Fotis