Why should I NOT buy a Fuji 680?

[frank_sheeeran]

I shoot landscapes and cityscapes with Canon 35mm tilt/shift lenses

and Velvia. I use extension tubes, etc., occasionally as well. <p>

 

Given the time I sink into this, I'd rather end up with an MF-sized

image. I'm considering getting a Fuji 680 and 80, 180, and 300mm

lenses (about 35, 70, and 135mm on a 35mm). <p>

 

My questions are many, but:

 

o I am tempted to try ordering complete docs for the entire system

to peruse before buying. Is this resonable/done?

 

o Any experience with this camera that turned anyone off?

 

o Any metering available? (With the SLR, I get incident light by

metering my hand, and don't own an accessory meter, one less gadget)

 

o how attractive is the 6x8 color slide format to stock photo buyers?

does it help stand out from a crowd of 35mm slides, and is it easier

to work with for them?

 

o is the handling of film phenomenonally easier than an LF camera?

(my main fear of LF)

 

o on test slides with the 35mm, it seemed like the lens sharpness was

more of a bottleneck to ultimate resolution than Velvia; are the

Fujinon's sharp enough to really use the extra film area? Or will

I get better grain than now, but with no better resolution?

 

o how attractive is the lens-board option for the 680? I assume this

lets me use any Schneider or Nikon LF lens I run across. Will these

be any sharper than the Fujinons? Will the bellows of the 680 allow

the full image circle of the super-wide LF lenses to be used? Since

there is probably no market for used Fuji 680 lenses, should I favor

buying board lenses more or less exclusively?

 

o what other systems should I be considering? I *think* I want

rectangular roll film with bellows. Isn't there a new Linhof that

looks more like a traditional bellows camera? Any 680 owner wish

they had the Linhof or vice versa?

 

o how heavy would a 680 body, belows, rail, and three lenses in a bag

be?

 

o is the waist-level strap they sell completely nuts, or can you

really use this camera as an 8cm Hasselblad, handheld?

 

o 6x8 loupes?

 

o 6x8 projectors?

 

o 6x8 -> Photo CD?

 

o what luck will I have getting prints made of poster size?

Cibas from RVP, etc.

 

o what films will I miss most if I switch to roll film?

 

o how many of you have an MF sitting at home, while you travel with

35mm and a tripod? What are the major regrets?

 

o how many of you have an MF sitting at home while you use an LF

system often? Should I really be considering a 4x5 system?

 

Thanks in advance for all your help. Obviously I'm floundering around

here...

 

Frank

http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera

[andrew l. booth]

So many questions...

 

<p>

 

Firstly, the Fiji is a big camera, and is expensive. Talk to a dealer -

when you're parting with this much money, it's entirely reasonable to

expect a lot of documentation. Ask if you can take one for a 'test

drive'. In the UK, I've seen them for hire at one of the larger pro

camera shops. If you can hire then do.

 

<p>

 

MF in general is attractive and easy to work with - I'm not sure

that lens sharpness will be your prime limiting factor in 35mm. In

MF you'll appreciate the greater tonality that the increased film

area gives you.

 

<p>

 

How much do you make use of shifts and tilts? Either LF or a large

bellows MF like the Fuji is going to be a serious pain to carry

around (4x5 probably lighter, although slower to use). If you require

only minimal shifts have you considered using a wider lens in

conjunction with cropping? You could then consider something like

a Mamiya 7, which would be lots more portable - you should still

end up with much larger film area and better results than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

If you really need a lot of shift and tilt, I think you've probably

picked one of the largest, most bulky solutions. Other things you

might want to consider are the Hasselblad flexible body, or a 4x5

field camera, both of which will be much lighter. LF will take

a lot longer to set up. You might want to look at MF backs for LF,

or rollfilm 'LF' cameras (there are a few smaller models available).

There are a number of other MF cameras which include shift lenses

in their systems, although usually only at one focal length. I

believe Hasselblad has a 1.4 teleconverter with built in shift

which works with a range of lenses - this may be possible. If you

like bellows, Mamiya has a shift lens for the RZ67. I can't remember

the model name (help me here folks!) but Rollei made a bellows

6x6 camera with some shift, which should be more portable than the Fuji.

 

<p>

 

Ok - a couple more quick answers:

MF to PhotoCD is doable but much more expensive than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

The waist level strap is completely nuts (probably more useful to

guard against dropping the thing as you put it on a tripod)

 

<p>

 

Buy a decent hand held meter. If you're really this serious consider

getting a good spot meter and try the zone system.

 

<p>

 

Whatever you do, try before you buy - there's a lot of great MF

gear out there, but unlike 35mm, there are few cameras which are

'all things to all people'. You will have to accept some compromises

and you can't make this decision from a spec sheet.

 

<p>

 

Have fun.

[steve_bingham]

Hello Frank,

 

<p>

 

That is the longest list of questions I have EVER seen. To answer them all reasonably would take most of my day and about 20 pages of text!!!

 

<p>

 

However, let me try a few of the basic concept questions. First the Fuji 680 is more suitable as a studio camera. It is VEEEERY bulky, heavy, and difficult to use in the field. As a landscape photographer you would soon grow to hate it - or have a very young and strong assistent. I don't know of anyone who HIKES with a Fuji 680. Just the vision of this makes me laugh. Better you should go with a 4x5 field camera and a couple of good lens. Cheaper too. Keep in mind that 4x5 work takes tremendous PATIENCE and a lot of routines - loading film holders, unloading filmholders, dusting film holders, keeping shots in order, etc.

 

<p>

 

Perhaps if I knew what your final application was I would be better able to advise you!!!!!!!!!! Advertising, editorial, hobby . . .

 

<p>

 

Yes editors love large chromes. The larger the better. Part of the reason being that they know the incredible length you went to to get them. No point and shoot. And they don't have to worry weather they will go double page.

 

<p>

 

Personally I shoot a Pentax 67 for publication. I use a 45mm wide angle for landscapes and do quite well. By using f22 and getting close to the ground I can emulate the 4x5 look. One foot to infinity in focus.

 

<p>

 

Steve

[frank_sheeeran]

Hi Andrew, Steve,

 

<p>

 

1) Thanks for your assitance!

<p>

2) Sorry that was so hard to read; I didn't realize I was to type HTML.

<p>

Weight: the GX-680 with 135mm is "only" about 2x heavier than my EOS-1N w/28-70L. I wouldn't mind carrying the 680 w/3 lenses. But,

I wouldn't be able to walk far if I ALSO had the 1N w/3-4 lenses...

<p>

SFX: I use shift on just about every shot with the 35mm TS lenses, and wish every lens I own was shift... hence the attraction to the 680. I

don't use tilt much, as it is "impossible" to focus with only a central split prism. It sure seems like this is what the 680 screen

with two focus aids is for; I assume the second can be top, side, or

bottom depending how the screen is inserted.

<p>

4x5: I realize these are lighter and (for small image circles) cheaper. But, the film/ground glass routines simply don't sound like

me. Once I lug gear to a good location, I'll burn through film (different exposures, focal lengths, framings, hor/vert) and for me this is always a race against light conditions. I definitely think

the 680 would work fast enough that I would get better shots than with a slow-working LF.

<p>

Other MF: If I were to accept a non-bellows system, I'd opt for the

Mamiya 7 over an MF SLR. The only appeal of the non-bellow MF SLRs would be 1)bigger apertures, 2)longer focal lengths, for which I'd settle for using my current EOS. I don't think the existence of a

single shift lens would make the sale for an SLR. OTOH, what is this

Hasselblad flex-body? Is it basically a smaller 680? I assume the

shift ability would be on the order of 10-15mm? If so, I'd just as soon crop 6x7. The 1.4x shifting TC sounds great, except I don't have

faith that it would render such high quality.

 

<p>

Rent: I live in Kansas most of the time, with trips to Tokyo fairly often. I've looked at the hardware there, but haven't negotiated an actual test-drive in Japan, yet. I will do that after I am sure that the 680 is one of 2-3 cameras I am really interested in.

<p>

Final Application: I'm building stock in several subjects. Until and unless I quit my day job, you'd have to call it "hobby."

<p>

Well, thanks again. Still interested in projector and loupes for 6x8.

<p>

Frank

<p>

<a href="http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera">Canon Articles</a>

[steve_bingham]

Frank,

 

<p>

 

Your Eos 1N and 28-70 2.8 zoom is a very expensive and heavy combination. At almost exactly 4 pounds it's not a lightweight. The Fuji 680 weight is 9.1 pounds of bulky and awkward weight. But that's just the beginning. Throw in a 8 lb tripod, a 2 pound ball head and you are getting close to 20 pounds. Add 2 additional lens and cases, a huge carrying case, filters, film, etc. and the weight could easly go to 30 or more pounds. This also lengthens your setup time.

 

<p>

 

This takes the FUJI 680 WAY out of the hobby range and turns photography into work. Be prepared to spend between $7,000 and $9,000 before it is all over. If you are that dedicated a photographer, than God bless you! You are part of an extremely rare breed. Also be advised that landscape photography is a very competitive field with a lot of old pros out there shooting 4x5s. If you have the talent, however, there is always room for one more. Don't quit your "day job".

Good luck and stay strong and healthy!

 

<p>

 

Steve

[p_ll_stef_nsson]

I have Fuji GX680II with 5 lenses. And use it a lot. In landscape, cityscape, fashion.....all. It4s havy. But the lenses, and what the camera can do, forgive all that. The lenses are very good. I have Leica M6 and Leica R6.2 with 15 Leica lenses and the Fuji is as good. That4s a good sign. So Buy one and be happy.

Pall

[don_carter1]

Frank,

 

<p>

 

If it gives you any comfort, after examining dozens of transparencies taken by John Haley with his GX680, I sold my Bronica GS1, my 4x5 w/Schneiders, and I am selling my Mamiya 7 and my Fuji GS645, to purchase my own Mr. Fuji, as John calls his 680. You can get a complete 3 lens, used package for under $5000 if you shop around, and are not in a hurry. Used GX's are not too common.

 

<p>

 

It only weighs 2.1 pounds more than a Mamiya RB ProSD package with the same 3 focal length lenses, 50mm, 110-130mm, 250mm, and that includes a heavy battery for the Fuji.

 

<p>

 

As for 4x5, I tried one for about 3 years out in the desert here, and found it for my tastes to be cumbersome, way to slow for the rapidly changing light of landscape shots, and very unforgiving of operator error. I guess that makes me a girley-man wimp.

 

<p>

 

On the plus side for 4x5, if you purchase LF lenses that are in the same price range as the Fuji GX680 lenses the image quality ( and I don't mean aesthetically) can be quite a bit better than what the Fuji will produce.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with the decision. I wish I had followed my instincts 4 years ago and had gone straight to the Fuji instead of doing the Pentax 67, RB ProS, Bronica GS1, M7, 4x5 Shuffle.

[mark_quandt]

Hi Don,

 

<p>

 

Several months after the "big drop" (you did unload a lot of photographic gear from the sound of it) how do you now feel? Specifically, do you regret parting with the Mamiya 7? I ask only because I've yet to see any camera produce sharpness and contrast as well as that one. Could be the rangefinder (designing lenses with rear elements right at the film plane), could be lack of a film magazine and the magazine to camera body tolerences that don't always stay the same (thus affecting film flatness consistency), could by the RF again...allowing for betting focusing (without the SLR mirror). Anyway, I too considered the Fuji 680 at one time. The weight was too much an issue. I am happy you like the Fuji 680 for your own needs, but how have the results stacked up against what you remember of the M7? What lenses did you own for the M7?

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

 

<p>

 

Mrk Quandt

[m._kary1]

First off, you may as well forget about shooting the GX680 handheld- it is possible, I have done it, but really, there's no point to it. It's not so much the weight that's a problem, although it is a problem, but the bulkiness. Also, there's quite a lot of oomph to the mirror action, even though it is damped.

 

<p>

 

The range of shift and tilt movements available becomes less and less as the bellows is retracted for focusing on distant objects. There is essentially no movement left when focused on a plane at infinity- although I recall another poster said he had no problems in that regard, and we couldn't resolve the differences in our experiences. To me, the problem compared with e.g. an LF camera is the huge size of the mirror box, which means at standard infinity focus, the bellows is scrunched up to nothing.

 

<p>

 

What you might miss compared to 35mm: 1) Kodachrome, although you mentioned Velvia; 2) depth of field and distance markings on the lenses; 3) getting more than 9 exposures per roll; 4) shutter speeds greater than 1/400 of a second; 5) high or even medium speed lenses.

What you will like, in terms of convenience: 1) big negative- no more squinting; 2) interchangeable backs; 3) close focus capability; 4) waist-level viewing; 5) revolving back.

 

<p>

 

If you really, really need the shift movements, and one shift lens isn't enough, consider 1) a Horseman VH- essentially a small 4x5 field camera using a 120 roll film back; 2) Hasselblad flexbody- essentially a bellows with movements as a Hasselblad body in between back and lens; 3) Rolleiflex SL66, a discontinued but really innovative Hasselblad-type camera with focal plane shutter and bellows with movements.

 

<p>

 

I suspect you might like the Horseman the best. Look for it at B&H's website under Large Format cameras, or at www.horsemanusa.com. Since the Horseman is Japanese you should be able to find it at a favourable price on your next trip to Tokyo.

 

<p>

 

 

You might look at a previous post about the GX680, to which several of us also replied.

[ravi_kappel]

If you want a medium format camera with tilt and shift, you really ought to take a look at these two cameras:

Linhof Technikardan 23s (http://www.linhof.net/linhof/field_tc.htm or http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/large/linhof/23s.html) and Hasselblad Arcbody (http://www.hasselblad.se/products/cameras/arcbody.html)

 

The linhof is a monorail view camera (2 1/4 x 3 1/4 in.) with almost all features you might ask for. You can use lenses with focal lenghts from 45mm to 300mm. There are dozens of good LF lenses to choose among and the second hand market is real good. The rollfilm holder for these cameras is just as simple to handle as any MF rollfilm holder. This is absolutely the most flexible solution for you.

 

The hasselblad arcbody is a quite limited system with only three lenses with short focal lengths; 35mm, 45mm, and 75mm. I haven't held it in my hands, but it looks good.

 

<p>

 

None of these two cameras can be used handheld. Their only advantage compared to a LF camera is that they are more portable.

 

<p>

 

/Ravi

[lennart_estrvm]

Buy the Fuji if you can live with the size. A good alternative is Hasselblads Arc Body, which has only three lenses yet, but more will come in the future. To your question regarding lens-quality, I can reffer to a test I read some year ago in the german Colo-Foto Magazine. Fujinon lenses were tested along with Rodenstock LF-lenses for 6x9 format. Both produced good results, but the Rodenstocks beated Fuji in every categorie.

[mark_tucker]

I've shot primarily the 680 for about six years. If I had to choose only one camera/lens for everything, it would be the 680 and the 100mm. It is heavy, but I take it everywhere on location. You just get used to it. The lenses are amazing; the accessories are amazing, and it's built like a tank. My Hasselblads (new last year) break down all the time; the 680 just keeps cranking. Flight after flight.

 

I have heard rumors of weak sync cord posts on the body, but mine have never failed.

 

Where else can you get motor drive, a giant 6x8 chrome, killer lenses, tilt/shift, close focusing, bright finder? I owned Mam645; gone in no time. Pentax 67; mirror forces you to shoot at 250 minimum. Hasselblad, next best, but no tilt/shift. Canon tilt-shift is OK, but no polaroid, and tiny little chrome. I've owned and shot them all.

 

I use the version I. The II is nice, but a weird focus lock. I guess I could get use to it. The III could be good, I just can't get my hands on one. Plus, then you'd have to buy all new accessories for the III; so many things are incompatible with version I and II.

 

See a zillion 680 images on my site:

 

http://marktucker.com/

[natures-pencil]

Some rambling thoughts on the subject ... I hope they help.

 

When I decided to start shooting medium format, after years using 35mm, I decided that the Fuji GX680 would be perfect. But I was put off by the size and weight of the thing. The size is a real shock when you first see one in the metal. Looking at the catalogue pictures doesn't prepare you for it at all.

 

After trying one, and dithering about for a few weeks looking at Pentax 67s and Fuji 690s, and Hasselblads, and Bronicas, I chickened out and bought a Mamiya 7 with 43mm and 80mm lenses instead.

 

A year and a half later I am regretting the decision. First feelings were right ... I should have gone by my instincts ... they are more trustworthy than the rational approach.

 

The Mamiya 7 is a wonderful camera with high quality lenses and quite nice to use, but I want to see exactly what the lens sees and I want tilt and shift to precisely control the image plane. (But I don't want the hassle of Large Format and the expense of 5x4 sheet film).

 

So I recently hired a GX680, with 65mm and 180mm lenses, ... and it is perfect. A carbon fibre tripod compensates a bit for the weight of the camera and in a big backpack the outfit doesn't feel an awful lot heavier than a pair of Nikon SLRs and half a dozen prime lenses. I expect I could probably get by with just the 80mm lens, which would save even more weight.

 

The real 'cost' of a system like this is not so much the extra weight and bulk as the fact that you can't possibly carry a spare body, or more than 2 or 3 lenses (and the lens range is very restricted compared to smaller formats). But in compensation you have that wonderful control of lens movements, you can use each lens in 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 formats (so each lens effectively gives you 4 focal lengths), and you can always crop a small portion of the neg to get the equivalent of a long focus lens on 35mm.

 

Putting all that aside, I actually find that if I go out to shoot landscapes with one body and one lens, and make the best use of it that I can, I come back with better pictures than when I have a huge range of focal lengths to choose from. Even when I am using 35mm gear, and am carrying focal lengths from 20mm to 300mm+ I always seem to end up taking 90% of my shots with a modest wide angle (28mm or 35mm), most of the rest with a modest telephoto (85mm or 105mm), and hardly any at all at other focal lengths. Maybe this is a serious limitation in my photographic abilities, but as Dirty Harry said " ... man's got to know his limitations".

 

Anyway, my mind is made up. As soon as I have sold my M7 outfit and a few other redundant items I shall be buying my very own GX680 outfit.

 

So if you are anything like me, and don't need many lenses, you'll probably cope with the GX680's weight and bulk, but if you work in the field, and want lots of lenses, forget it, your outfit will be just too heavy.

 

When I want light and convenient I will still have a choice of an Olympus mju, or a Leica M6, or a Nikon 35mm SLR. But when I want stunning quality and total no-compromises control with a quick and easy interface I'll use a GX680III (with just one or two carefully chosen lenses) until I am too old and decrepit to cope with it.

 

Good luck