Bessa 667w/Fuji GF670W

[karl_beath]

<p>Hi Forum<br>

This camera intrigues me. Has anyone used one or owns one that can give some insight into it. Also if you know of a good review I would appreciate the link.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I don't have a copy, but no. RP 234 (June 2011) of the Fench magazine Réponses Photo ("Photo Replies"), one of two principal photography magazines there, had a preliminary test of the camera and in a recent issue (January 2012), the reviewer, J-C Bechet, praised the 55mm f4.5 lens, has decided to buy the camera (he also uses a Mamiya 6), and is taking it and the Fuji X100 on a trip to Iceland, whereupon he will discuss its use in the February issue (No. RP 239). I haven't seen reviews in the English language.</p>

<p>He finds that the lens vignettes quite a bit at f4.5, but is otherwise excellent and provides super 6x7 negatives or transparencies. I guess that the rest of the camera behaves as does the regular model with folding bellows and an 80mm lens, for which several reviews are available, to give you an idea of its pros and cons.</p>

<p>At nearly $3000, it is possible that a new or used Mamiya 7 with either a 50mm lens or the 43 mm lens might be equally attractive, but the fixed lens 667 may be more compact.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I've been intrigued as well. Folders make a lot of sense to me. I carry an old Zeiss Ikon Contessa around all the time, usually under my coat where it is protected. I could easily see doing the same with a MF folder. My problem is with the price as well, and I've considered just getting an older Zeiss MF folder.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>The following is both a review and a comparison.</p>

<p>Last fall, I purchased both of the Voightlander versions: the 667 and 667W. I then went out and broke the bank even further by purchasing a used Mamiya 7II with 50 and 80mm lenses, rationalizing that true knowledge is priceless (gasp!) Basically, I’d needed something in the realm of medium format to emulate my favorite pair of 35mm shooters: two Leica M-6’s, with 28 and 50mm lenses more or less permanently attached to each. Furthermore, I needed something reasonably lightweight and compact which could also substitute for larger format (4X5 and 5X7) cameras, in the realm of landscape photography, for those times when such compactness and light weight truly matter. </p>

<p>Within a very short amount of time, the Voigtlanders began to win out over the Mamiya 7II. The Voigtlanders viewfinders are decisively brighter, sharper, flare less, and in fact offer frame definition quite akin to that of the Leicas. In active use, the Voigtlanders, as a pair, are much quicker to employ than the 7II – as there is no changing of lenses…further complicated in the 7II by needing to make sure the shutter is wound, then taking even more time to manipulate the shutter blind. True, there is that interval required to unfold the 667 standard version – but in practice this takes hardly more time than removing a lenscap.</p>

<p>To be fair, for speed of use, I suppose I should have tested against two Mamiya 7’s, each with lenses permanently attached – but I would find the sheer bulk and weight of the two 7’s untenable. The Voigtlanders, in total, hardly require more space in my bag than the two Leicas – and on my kitchen scale the two Voigtlanders, together, outweigh the two Leicas only by a quarter of a pound. </p>

<p>Furthermore, for cold weather use here in Vermont, I’ve found that I can carry both Voigtlanders very conveniently/comfortably/unobtrusively – and well protected - under my outer parka – which also serves to keep the batteries sufficiently warm. Score this against the Mamiya 7 – which is really too bulky for this mode of carrying…to say nothing about the prospect of changing lenses in the middle of a blizzard.</p>

<p>Optically, I find that the Voigtlander lenses to be truly superb – pretty much equal to those of the Mamiya 7. This, combined with the 667/W’s astoundingly vibration free shutter and smooth release mechanism, has allowed me to photograph, for example, in relatively low light, hand held, at speeds as low as 1/8th of a second – and with the resulting negative then go right to 16X20. More importantly, I can do this with great consistency…which equates to a very high degree of confidence.</p>

<p>Yes, I do have a couple of gripes regarding the 667’s. On the wide model, I find the focus grip to be somewhat awkward for my way of shooting…and I wish that instead of the two raised tabs, there could simply be a somewhat lower knurl around the entire circumference of the focus barrel. The direction of focus is also opposite that of my Leica lenses…but this gripe is personal. On the standard 667 model, I do wish that I could leave a filter in place with the camera folded – although in practice, as I have my most used (orange) filter attached to the lens hood, and as this hood goes on and off quickly, this is no real big deal. </p>

<p>And what about the 667’s folding bellows mechanism? Yes, I suppose it does amount to an added degree of vulnerability while extended for use….but it also offers a greater degree of protection while folded. As for the potential for lens alignment issues…I suppose its fair to say that time will tell – but to me (so far) the benefits of compactness and light weight far outweigh any perceived vulnerabilities.</p>

<p>Do I miss having a film advance lever? If I were in the thick of the action with 36 frames, I would find such a lack to be very frustrating. But this rapid fire approach is simply not my style with medium format. Still, it could be argued that the often more successful “second shot” might be in jeopardy here. Perhaps…but again, my own style with medium format is a bit slower and more contemplative, generally speaking, than that with 35mm. The Voigtlanders other attributes, to me, far outweigh any perceived lack of “convenience” which might be realized with a more rapid film advance.</p>

<p>Do I miss having additional focal lengths? Not so much in the tele range. And for general wide angle use…the 55mm lens is a truly versatile focal length, very akin to my Leica’s 28mm. The 50 of the Mamiya, in 35mm terms, is much like a 24mm – which really is not to my own (personal) liking. Furthermore, I find the .7 meter minimum focus distance on the 667 W’s 55mm lens to be extremely useful. Might not seem like much of a difference between this and a one meter distance – but in actual use this difference is significant.</p>

<p>I also find the 667’s 55mm focal length to be very reasonably spaced to the 80mm. On the other hand, I’ve always found the Mamiya’s focal length spacing to be exasperating. In my view, this should be more like 40/55/80/135 (instead of 43/50/65/80/150) – but this is personal.</p>

<p>But…what about the deservedly famous Mamiya 7 43mm lens? Yes, I do miss a super wide. But again, this is personal – and having said this I feel that the 55mm would still get significantly more use than anything wider.</p>

<p>Do I miss having multiple bodies for use with different films? This is an important question. While I remain strongly in the camp of film and darkroom based photography for my black and white work, most of my color work these days is captured and processed digitally. If this were not the case, I’d be very hard pressed to be using two of each Voigtlander camera – and the Mamiya 7 would look much more attractive. Even in the realm of black and white, I might miss having multiple bodies, if it weren’t for the great quality of T-Max 400 film. While some may argue that this particular film might lack some of the “character” of the admittedly wonderful Tri-X – I’ve found that TMY offers a wonderful compromise of scale and acutance, which is truly workable and flexible with a bit of experience – and good for printing to 16X20. </p>

<p>As for the 667’s electronics…I find the light meter to be quite accurate and convenient for both aperture-preferred auto and manual use – especially while using the cameras quickly and hand-held. For more contemplative tripod use, I find myself augmenting with my Pentax 1 degree spot meter. I do find myself forgetting to switch off the 667W’s meter – and in fact that camera’s battery needs replacing as I write this, due to my forgetfulness.</p>

<p>Do I like the 667’s multi-format versatility? Somewhat…but to be truly practical for my way of seeing/photographing, it would be better if this feature could be employed (switched) on a frame by frame basis - but to have it thus would be a difficult proposition from a mechanical/design standpoint, assuming that no film would go “wasted.” </p>

<p>What else would I like to see changed/added? In my view, to achieve a true “knockout punch,” Fuji/Voigtlander needs to do two things: One, they need to come out with a third camera…a 667SW. featuring a 40mm lens – for good spacing from the 55mm. And two…(don’t laugh) they need to develop an “auto up” (closeup) accessory for the standard 667. This could be in two parts – a close up lens which would attach directly to the camera lens, plus an optical component to correct parallax and focus, which would attach to the cameras flash shoe and fold down over the existing finder. Any changes to the existing cameras would relate to my earlier comments. </p>

<p>All in all, these cameras continue to prove themselves on a daily basis, as they continue to inspire me to further my own creative process…and I would like to thank Fuji/Voigtlander for providing us with such a dynamic duo!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_layton]

<p>A couple of PS's. First, my apologies for the length of the above - probably could have said the same in half the space! </p>

<p>Second...don't get me wrong - the Mamiya 7 is a great camera...in fact a benchmark, and thus a natural and even necessary point of reference for the Fuji/Voigtlander 667's. Actually, had Mamiya designed the 7 with a collapsible mount (like the 6, which I'd earlier owned and loved), plus had a more reasonable (to me) lens spacing, plus a more Leica-like finder (brighter, sharper, less cluttered)...I may well have gone that route long ago and been a happy camper.</p>

<p>Third...the above is based on personal experience, plus on my own needs/intended uses. While I could argue, for example, that the M7's ergonomics may be a bit better than that of the folding 667's, which does take a bit more getting used to - the fact is that I have gotten used to the folding 667, and for my needs its more than fine...its great! The folding aspect more than offsets the M7's slight ergonomic advantage. While I would not want to leave this camera unfolded about my neck with other cameras banging into it...for my uses/needs with this camera I don't need to do this...so its a moot point. And for me the 667W is better ergonomically than the M7...for its smaller size, plus the fact that the finder is dedicated instead of being an accessory. All very important for me...but perhaps not for everyone.</p>

<p>There will always be compromises...no matter what. For each of us, then, its a matter of which compromises will be acceptable to us, and will best allow us to move forward</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>John, I enjoyed your review, which is likely what Karl is looking for.</p>

<p>As you raised the question of the two Mamiya RF cameras, it is even more relevant to me. As an RF nut I have gone digital for color (Leica M system) but use a Mamiya 6 and a Fuji GSW 690III each mainly for B&W film and darkroom photography. I know the Mamiya 6 is only a 6x6 camera, but I use, among its other excellent (if limited) optics, the 50mm (equivalent to about a 28mm lens on the albeit different aspect ratio 35mm standard) with 100 ISO Fujifilm Acros film and therefore get the resolution benefits of the larger film frame cameras and thereby do not regret not investing in the Mamiya 7 (except for the 43mm lens, for architecture and scenics).</p>

<p>Unless I am mistakem, the angle of field of the lens of the Fuji and its 65mm lens is not too unlike a Mamiya 6 + 50mm or the new 667 W camera. There were strong economical reasons for the Mamiya and the Fuji GSW690 choices in my case (not something of concern with the Leica system choice). For about $1400 or $1500, one can have the compact Mamiya 6-50mm in a truly mint used condition (my sources are Japan) or a similar mint GSW for about one half to two thirds that amount (the lack of a coupled exposure meter on the GSW is not a big deal, as my type of photography using it is not rapid and I can get the benefit of an accessory 5 degree spot and incident light meter. The 667W is no doubt fine, but it isn't the only kid on the block. J-C, Bechet, in his review of the 667W seemed to indicate his love for the Mamiya 6 but also possibly replacing that with the new 667W. My apologies to Karl for deviating from the 667W, and would only suggest say that the very best way to acquire such a fine camera is to get a 2 or 3 day test drive, if possible, from a reputable dealer. </p>

[karl_beath]

<p>Hi Guys<br>

Firstly thanks to John for his brilliant review, taken from his personal style of shooting. I have a pentax 67ii +55+105mm lenses, but am looking for a lighter smaller unit to backpack with. The 670w is very expensive though as much as i like the size, I am also looking at Mamiya 7ii as a less expensive option. I also like its ability to take different lenses.<br>

I want to use it with a polariser and ndg filters as most of my work is scenic. Do either of you have any experience using rf cameras for scenic photography. Not being able to see the effect of the filter must be a bit awkward? Also i do enjoy being able to take off the prism and composing my shot under a black t-shirt if i have the time to do so. I would miss this with a rf. Any others are welcome to weigh in here with their views as well.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Karl, I like RF cameras for their simpicity of operation (why it is such a good events and street photography instrument) and their lightness and compactness. The fact that my visualisation of subject matter occurs as much in my mind as it would on a groundglass is why I do not find the VF-RF camera a disadvantage that some may do.</p>

<p>My Leica and my Mamiya 6 both have swingout polarizers (the Fuji GSW does not) which enable their operation by being able to preview their effect in the VF before swinging them down in front of the lens. I once thought of adapting one to a graduated filter, to be able to preview that effect, notwithstanding the small mismatch between the VF and lens view, although this would be less at infinity setting. I may still do that if it could allow up and down movement, as it seems the only way to preview graduated filter effect with any semblance of accuracy. But it would still be cumbersome.</p>

<p>Failing that, I guess you can guesstimate the position in front of the lens of a soft graduated filter (not a hard one), but your Pentax is better equipped to do that. In B&W, I tame the bright sky a bit with a colour filter, depending upon the position and height of the sun of course.</p>

<p>Do you output your negatives or positives directly to printing, or to scanning? Colour film filter use is different than B&W in my case, and the only way I know (but to date seldom use) to tame sky versus landscape is to place my camera on a tripod, make two or three exposures at different settings, and then blend the brighter and darker areas after scanning in post exposure treatment of a digital output. </p>

[karl_beath]

<p>Hi Arthur<br>

I output to scanning and can thus do some post work. With luminosity layers and the rest of the tricks I have learnt over the recent years I can work with my images a bit, but on slide film there is less error for margin as you know. <br>

I think that with practise i would be able to correctly guesstimate where the transition should be, i also use soft grads so that is in my favour.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>I have had & used a few of the Fuji GW670 models, and they were limiting due to fixed lens and some other compromises, like no meter etc. They are not that "travel" convenient either, imho. Their form factor is bulky in some respects to today's cameras. The output was excellent and the camera/lens operation was solid & consistent. The Bessa 667 is intriguing, but the price tag is way too high for my curiosity at this time. It sounds like a fun camera to use, tho!</p>

[stefan1952]

<p>I purchased a Fuji 670W a couple of weeks ago. Firstly, I prefer the 28mm in 35mm format so I guess the 670W was a natural choice for me. Secondly, I prefer rangefinders to anything else. I am however looking for a Fuji 690, principally for the 90mm lens, and just to complement the 670W really. I have never used a MF camera before and I must say I love the simplicity and ease of use of the 670W. It looks great too.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have a copy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I don't have the real thing.</p>