Fujifilm GF670 or Bessa III price like the Nikon D3x

[chuck_t]

<p>The Voigtlander Bessa III is price at USD2250. The Fujifilm GF670 is around USD 2400. Fujifilm is now acting like the D3x.<br />Think about it, I'm comparing apple to apple here. Let's foget the bulky Hassy or other med format, just to be fair. For that amount of money, I could get myself a mint- condition Rolleiflex 2.8F, which could be use handheld in slow shutter speed and has a much better viewfinder.<br />Moreover, for half of that amount, I could get myself a mint- condition Bessa II with Color-Heliar lens and buy bunch of films.<br />The camera is limited to 5000 on the fujifilm GF670.<br />Why on earth would someone want to buy something that is not worth collecting?<br />One last thing, the lens is nothing special and it's not a Heliar design. It is the same old japanese lenses like Nikon, "Sharp but Harsh", unlike Germany made lenses. The old Rolleiflex 2.8f is better in B&W.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>For a new camera, the price is reasonable. I don't see how they could make it for less and still make a profit. Who will buy it? Well....alot of members of this forum will. Some people like "new". And perhaps it will have collector value someday. One can't predict the future. And it is very portable, of course, which will add to its appeal.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>"Why on earth would someone want to buy something that is not worth collecting?"</p>

<p>Well...maybe to actually use this camera - maybe even add a few scratches and dents? (sorry).</p>

<p>And IMHO, the comparison to a TLR holds no water - as its a very different camera to begin with. </p>

<p>I just purchased an old Bessa II with Heliar. I have high hopes for this camera but my gut says it will never compete with the new version - too may issues...even if the older lens has its attributes. But I will do my best to give the old camera a chance.</p>

<p>Furthermore, putting all of these very practical features together in the new version - bright, sharp, relatively large (and likely accurate) coupled vf/rf - smooth, quiet shutter - built in coupled meter which offers both manual and AP auto, etc., I'm sure (I know) is an expensive undertaking for a manufacturer. Plus the new camera is, well, new...which at least implies a warranty schedule plus new parts availability, and at most some very definite design improvements.</p>

<p>Finally, having said the above, I do like older cameras - and truly hope I can clean, lube, and adjust my old Bessa so that I can be truly satisfied with both its performance and reliability - as I'd like this camera to compliment my Rolleiflex 3.5f, which I hope to never sell. But the jury is still out on this, and to the extent that I consider a camera a tool to use - and that if I find that no other tool will ultimately meet a specific need than the one which also happens to be expensive, well, I'll do what I can to acquire it. </p>

<p>ps....I truly hope the older Bessa can work out - as I feel it has much greater potential to compliment the Rolleiflex, by virtue of its being a 6X9 vs the new Bessa's 6X7. I do wish the new version could be a 6X9 for this reason, although ironically I'd need to sell the Rollei to afford it! I also think that the 6X9 format is an achilles heel for someone trying to design a compact (folding camera) roller system which purports to keep the film truly flat. But maybe they could have at least tried for 6X8? </p>

<p>This is starting to turn into a ramble (and do I ever like to ramble!) - so I'd better stop!</p>

<p> </p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>

 

<p>That's an absurd argument.<br>

1. Fuji should be applauded for bringing ANY kind of film camera to the market at this point. <br>

2. The price is probably commensurate with the engineering, production, distribution costs. I can't imagine they're trying to gouge consumers at the risk of putting off the great numbers of those who would have bought the camera if it were priced significantly lower. It's just not good business sense.<br>

3. A mint condition Rolleiflex 2.8F is still a very old, used camera. It's not "apple to apple" to compare a new camera with a 40-50 year old camera. <br>

4. No reason the Fuji/Bessa isn't just as good of a "handheld in slow shutter speed" camera as the TLR. Neither have any manner of mirror slap. <br>

5. "Much better viewfinder?" Depends on what you want in a viewfinder. Personally, i don't think a reversed viewfinder (TLR) is a positive feature. I do prefer reflex viewing, but a great many people prefer rangefinder viewing. This comment is only a matter of your personal opinion. There's no empirical fact here.<br>

6. Does a Bessa II have a meter? Again, apples to oranges. How old is it? Do you get a warranty? Does it shoot both 6x6 and 6x7?<br>

7. People buy cameras for a great many reasons, and "collecting" has nothing to do with them. And, who's to say the new Bessa/Fuji is not worth collecting? Was any camera worth collecting when it was new? It's legacy is determined much later.<br>

8. The lens seems to perform very well. Who cares if it's not a Heliar? The Rolleiflex 2.8F you referred to above does not have a Heliar either. And, the "same old Japanese lenses" are doing the vast majority of professional work. Heliars? Not so much, if any. The vast majority of high budget fashion campaigns are probably being shot with Hasselblad H cameras. Fuji-made lenses. Somehow, though, your old Heliar is superior? <br>

9. You have no idea if the 2.8F is "better" in BW. For one thing, "better" is a personal assessment. Secondly, the sample size of Bessa/Fuji images from this new camera is so small, you couldn't possibly have seen enough direct comparison images to even make that call. </p>

<p>How old are you, "Chuck?" Still get that 'rush' out of trolling, i guess.... </p>

 

</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>John,<br /> I have good news for you. I also recently purchased a Bessa II w/ Color Heliar. $399 in BGN condition from KEH. Best deal on a camera of my life. Speeds were supposed to be off and it exposes perfectly. Very sharp from edge to edge, which is saying something for 6x9. I've used a lot of lenses, including Summicrons, Rolleoflex Planars and Xenotars, Zeiss, you name it. The Color Heliar is the best of any of them and the camera is great too. It could be my only camera. Pretty sure my Bessa I 6x4.5 film mask would work as it fits perfectly but I am loath to cut a hole in the back for another red window. This sample photo doesn't show the fabled Heliar 3-D effect, but it's there on a lot of photos, and on another post of mine on the forums on the Bessa II cameras. You're in for a treat. Cheap lab CD scan. As for the Nikon/Cosina Bessa III, I would prefer to go w/ the legendary original.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>The let downs for me are double. One, the lens focal length is a bit long for much of architectural or pictorial use or even street photography, and two, the rangefinder baselength of 37mm is not very great. Considering the 0.7X viewfinder magnification, the effective baselength is only 25.9 mm.</p>

<p>For about 800$ one can get a mint or near mint 6x7 Fujifilm fixed lens (90mm f3.5) camera, and perhaps for 1500$ a mint condition Mamiya 6 RF folding lens 6x6 camera with the wider 50mm lens. Both cameras are discontinued, but not so long ago (and the Mamiya 7, though more bulky, is still in production). While I undestand the cost of bringing the new camera to market, I wish that Fuji had concentrated more on a wider lens.</p>

 

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>"The let downs for me are double."</p>

<p>Since it's 6x7, though, 80mm is a lot better than 50mm on 24x36 (it's more like a 42mm lens). And I think that the rangefinder base length won't be a problem: the lens isn't all that fast, and accuracy will be more a function of mechanical precision than the actual length. Anyway, my guess is that Fuji aren't idiots and designed a system that'll work fine.</p>

<p>My two-fold problems with it are (a) it's not 6x9 and (b) my Nikon 8000 is flaky and a new 9000 costs US$3,000 over here. Sigh.</p>

[david_zheng1]

<p>"Why on earth would someone want to buy something that is not worth collecting?"<br>

Well, different people have different idea for worthing. Some people believe if they spend money to get fun and joy, it worths to spend the money; some people believe as you only believe worth to spend their if they get good return. Aslo several hundreds or thousands money are pretty much for someone, but not big deal for some people. </p>

[james_jacocks]

<p>For this type of camera there are several issues that come to mind: portability, simplicity of operation, photographic performance (broadly and personally speaking), cost, and esthetics (I'm sure there are others). Overall the Bessa III scores quite well on my scorecard especially because it has a six element modern formulation lens, multicoated. Most of the beautiful effects of historic lenses can be duplicated or imitated in a darkroom or Photoshop. My 6x9 Master Technika will clobber it in some ways but will never be as handy or portable. A simple box camera design pushes the back side of this envelope. I tip my hat to Cosina, a firm led by a distinctively retro thinking old guy with design aptitude in depth. It's a good day in my world when a new big film design appears whether it be Rollei, Cosina, or whomever made. Anything well manufactured in small volume is likely costly. It does hurt when it's not affordable, but hurt can indicate desirability n'est-ce pas? </p><div></div>

[bernd_reinhardt]

<p>I just bought the Fuji GF670 and it is amazing. I reserved the right to return the camera to my local dealer within ten days if I don't like it, but that's not going to happen. Btw, I paid less than the $1,800 list. The viewfinder is great and the lens renders beautifully. The camera is light, simple to use, and everything feels right. It is much lighter than a Mamiya 7. I also own a Rolleiflex TLR and much prefer the Fuji. It is a brand new modern camera. I usually shoot Leicas (MP, M7, M9) and love rangefinders. I can shoot much faster with the Fuji than with the Rolleiflex and I can see my subject better. I also own a Contax 645 system, which is a little tedious for me personally, but it serves a different purpose. I'm using the 670 as a walk-around portrait and urban landscape camera that I always have with me when I travel etc. Within a week of owning it, I've shot five rolls of film, and for me it is the camera I've been looking for. A friend of mine bought it, sent it back, and now wants to buy it again. Trust me, I've thought about buying an old used Fuji 670, but it just isn't the same, and while the new GF670 comes at a premium over the old used ones, it was worth every penny to me. Some cameras just work for me, others don't. It is a very personal decision, but I am not collecting this one, I'm using it. The Rolleiflex, I'll keep because it's pretty.</p>

[james_jacocks]

<p>Hey Bernd, nice camera, no? I must admit to a bit of an addiction to folders or "spring cameras" as they are known in the orient. I have two Bessa IIs, a Bessa III, Perkeo II, and a few more of less distinction. All I know is they are fun to use, very portable, and all capable of good imaging. The Bessa III isn't too unlike the BII Skopar, but the Heliar is admittedly different. All three cameras I have are very good imagers and I can't really give one the nod over the others. The Heliar camera has that smoothness of gradation which works in some images and not in others. As to the 6 element double gauss Fuji lens on the BIII: it is a gem! I also like the 80mm focal length precisely because the other cameras all have 50-52 degree lenses. The format (56x69mm) is a good choice though I can see why some folks would like 6x9. I think that the camera is large enough as it is. It's obvious that other folks can't help waxing vituperative, probably because they can't afford a camera, but it is also plain to see that they haven't even had one in hand! Objectivity be damned, I guess. My personal opinion about the cost is that it got fairly expensive because of the anticipated limited demand. That may change soon as stocks are almost depleted. We shall see how "collectable" the camera is. I bet it becomes one of the more sought after MF cameras. For me, cost is a pretty complex concept, let alone value. If a camera makes superlative images, then it is valuable, no? Is cost really tied to production outlay? What about all the other high quality cameras? </p>