Options within Format

[chuck_bettis]

After dabbling in medium format with my Rolleicord for the past few

months, I've decided that I cannot continue life without one of the

Fuji Rangefinders. Questions of size though, still haunt me.

Certainly within the brand there is the 6x45, 6x7 and 6x9. If you

have worked with these sizes, changed from one to another, or are

otherwise opinionated, a word would be appreciated. Yes, I know

negative size is different, but what differences has the size made in

your photography. I should add that I am primarily a landscape

photographer and use Velvia and E200. Thanks....

[larry_albert]

Chuck,

 

As an owner of both 6x45 and 6x7 Fuji range finders, I will put in my opinion; almost worth .02 USD. <p>

 

 

Holding the two cameras in "normal" position, (viewfinder on top and tripod socket on the bottom), the vertical dimension is 6 (actually 54-55mm). When in this orientation think of the 6x45 as Portrait and the 6x7 or 6x9 as Landscape. (I use the landscape/portrait terms as your computer printer uses them, and not relating to photographic image content.) <p>

 

 

You said "I am primarily a landscape photographer..." <p>

 

Do you want to rotate a 6x45 camera 90 degrees for every landscape shot?? <p>

 

The 6x7 and 6x9 have the same body size. The 6x45 has a smaller body. You might like the handling and feel of one size vs the other.<p>

[michael_meyer]

i would agree with the above post. the 6x7 or 6x9 options seem like better choices. the 6x6.45 format will most likely be a pain in your patootie-- unless you shoot vertical landscapes...

 

between the 6x7 or the 6x9, since the cameras are the same size and weight, why not go for the bigger neg. that would also give you the option between the gw and the gsw versions; either the 65mm lens or the 90mm lens respectively.

 

happy shooting.

 

mnm

[patrick_drennon]

I've owned a 645Zi for over a year and love it. But.....I shoot only about 20% landscapes. I think the previous posters are steering you in the right direction. The 6X9 & 6X7's lack of internal metering will probably not bother a landscape photographer as much as the portrait layout of the 645.

 

If it was me (and it isn't) I would go for the bigger negative. I also have a 4X5 enlarger that can handle the extra 2cm. That consideration may be the most critical in this case.

[michael_heal]

<p>In general, I agree that bigger is better, especially for landscapes. However, you state that you shoot colour-reversal film, not negatives. Projectors for 645 and 6x6 are much easier to come by than projectors for 6x7 or 6x9. If you plan to project your slides, that fact may be a consideration.</p>

[steven_hupp2]

You are choosing an aspect ratio. 6x9 gives you more of a 35mm type aspect ratio. 6x7 will fit on standard paper sizes without cropping (so if you aren't printing, no big deal). The 690 can be had with the wide angle lens, which some prefer for landscape. Shooting e200 in daylight or open shade, you should be able to handhold, if that's important to you.

 

I have the 670, and love it, but landscapes are only part of what I do. I think you could do landscape with the 670, the 690, or the 690 wide, but the way most people do landscape, the 690 wide is the best candidate.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

GSW owner here, chiming in.....if you can't afford a M7 and the GW and or GSW are your choices, you must seriously consider which is your favorite or most often used focal length. I prefer "wides" and haven't touched a "normal" lens in years so the decision was easy for me. You should take some time and dig out your favorite pics and try hard to identify which focal length works best for you. I'll always opt for a bigger neg if all else is equal...so to speak. You can always crop a 6x9 to 645....it won't work the other way around.

 

pssst, try some 3200 delta.

[peter_hughes]

I don't know about other 6x4.5 cameras, but my partner uses a Bronica ETRs, which shoots horizontals, not verticals, in the un-rotated position. However, I think 6x4.5 is a bit small for serious landscape photography.

 

Personally, I have never been able to get used to any camera that does not allow me to view directly through the lens. I think that, for landscapes, I'd want to be able to preview my depth-of-field, which would leave rangefinders out of the running. My nomination would be the Pentax 6x7.

 

6x9 is a very rectangular format, similar in aspect ratio to 35mm. If you like 35mm for landscapes, you'll probably like 6x9. Otherwise, stick with 6x7--or go directly to a 4x5 view camera.

[twmeyer]

Peter has mentioned your greatest task, changing from an aerial image formed on the ground glass through the taking lens with a clearly defined frame definition (your Rollie), to a rangefinder with no DoF apparent in the finder, with an approximate image frame and (in the case of the 67 and 69) losing the lower right corner of the image to the intruding taking lens and it's shade, which to me is the big Fuji's biggest problem (not to mention a 1 meter close focus and the attendant parallax issue as with any rangefinder).

<p>

That said I believe the Fuji Range finders to be some of the best walk around cameras ever made (and the Plaubel Makinas)with incredibly sharp lenses.

<p>

The folding 6x4.5 w/75mm lens and internal LED meter (glaring ommision in the larger cameras, I think) is a great camera <i>if</i> you like rangefinder cameras and it is <i>not</i> difficult to use in landscape orientation. It is a great available light portrait camera, giving a pleasing head and shoulders crop at minimum focus and provides a nice opportunity for die hard landscape shooters to get "human" every once in a while... t

<p>

Can you rent?

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

yes, but I haven't found the lens-shade encroachment a problem, it's easy to swivel your neck and see what will fall in that area....I've also found that a scale marked polarizer and fuji's dof scale to fix all of the others but parallax. Since the camera does not focus closer than 3 ft. parallax isn't noticeable (well slightly less than 1 meter with smaller apertures....plus I've heard that you can use a close-up filter down to 1 ft without much parallax).....but if you consider the gargantuan p67 well, I'll just say that you'd be better off with a speed-graphic and a roll-back....or even best off with a cheap woodfield and rollback.

[john clark]

As a Mamiya 7ii user and Durst M670 user, I'd have to recommend

the 6x7 as I wouldn't be able to print my own 6x7 otherwise.

HOWEVER, generally, the bigger the neg the better. Have you

considered the Mamiya 7? I've yet to come across any camera

with a sharper lens - it's quite staggering! But, I hear good

things of the Fuji as well, and it's quite a bit cheaper (although

here in the UK the difference is possibly not so pronounced).

Other benefits of the M7 include the panoramic kit, removable lenses, inbuilt metering (albeit fairly basic CW), 220 capability, etc.

I also run a Bronica ETRSi, and although that film format is nice,

6x7 is the way to go!

[jeff_drew3]

There are several scholarly replies ahead of this, but I'll add an opinion as a Fuji GW670 user. I love 6x7cm format because of its "ideal format" status for printing. I can fill the frame confidently. I've used 6x9 on Horseman and 4x5's and never had a gripe. I like 6x6cm for reasons of "shoot it - then tweak it" for printing. Also I don't have to play the "portrait vs. landscape mode" game until I print it, with 6x6 (buy a used Mamiya 6?). I'm seriously offering that if money is not a big issue, and you want a RF, do the Mamiya 7. Interchangeable lenses and meter are pluses. If money is an issue, and you want a RF, do the Fuji GW670 or GSW690 series. I'm a RF guy, tho'. The "sunshade issues" and "lens in viewfinder issues", have never bothered me. I've found the Fuji 645's intriguing, but I've decided 645 is not for me. In theory, you should look at Fuji 617 panorama for serious landscape. How about Hassy Xpan as a "travel camera"? Oh, oh, the format police are sniffing the air! 'Bye.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

weeewwww......wweeeeewwwwww.....weeeeewwwww,,,,,the format police are here... the "last word" in landscape photography is the 20x24 view camera!

[alan___2]

I have a manual focus Fuji rangefinder with a 60mm lens (can't remember the designation) and although it is true that you have to turn it on its side to take landscape format shots, the design of the camera makes it the easiest to hold on its side that I have ever used. It is just as easy to hold it horizontally as vertically. How many rangefinders can you say that about? I therefore think that the vertical/horizontal thing is not a valid reason for rejecting that particular camera.

 

Using a rangefinder camera is different from an SLR: not better or worse, but different. I would say that the viewfinder of the Fuji is not as clear as Leica, Minolta 35mm rangefinders.

 

Alan

[frank_ward1]

This is obviously the best thread currently going at MF photo.net. All my favorite responders--Jeff, Tom, Peter- have added their two cents. I'll throw in mine, but I'm afraid it may be worth less than two cents.

 

I want to question the conformity issue of horizontal format equals best use of the horizon. I'm simply feeling that it is year 2000 and time to push possibilities. I shoot or have shot all formats with the exception of 6X8. I'm a little tired of trying to find the camera that best fits the world. How about just picking up that sweet little Rolleicord and chanting "this is my eyes, what do I see?"

 

Granted, the film format becomes somewhat of a cookie cutter in editing or slicing up the world. Yet, the photographer does have the ultimate say. Are you daunted by too much sky in your square format landscapes? You have choices. Tilt down and work with the foreground. Throw your hat into the sky just before exposure to fill all that negative space. I'm hoping there are creative ways of reconfiguring the image to make it both new and to make it work as a picture.

 

Too bad it is so much fun to use all these different formats. Right now I am paired down to 35, 645, 6X6, 6X7, 4X5, 8X10 plus polaroid, pinhole and plastic. Sounds like I'm a typical consumer. The photographer and old teacher of mine, Nick Nixon, uses only an 8X10 camera in horizonatal position. He says he wants to concentrate on the horizontal frame and not get distracted with the vertical variables. He makes great pictures that work. Check out any of his many books.

 

Shoot what you got. Learn what you can do with it. Certainly rent or borrow some different gear to see what other possibilities are out there. Don't start that expensive search for the perfect camera unless you have a client who is willing to pay you for it.

 

Frank

[jeff_drew3]

To Frank Ward: Welcome back! How was the trip? Frank is modest, he actually uses most of his formats, I suspect. :-) Chuck; I re-read your post and feel some sympathy. Not continuing life without a Fuji MF-RF is a real confession to being hooked! Remember that admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery, and I've been recovering for many years! :-) Since you will probably try them all, over time, just plunge in! "The water is fine!"

[frank_ward1]

As an addendum to my previous posting and a note to Jeff, I would like to make a testimonial for Fuji rangefinders.

 

I recently returned from two weeks photographing in Kosovo. I stayed at a place with no heat or electricity. In fact, there was no heat in all of Pristina with the exception of occasional wood or trash fires. I carried my 645 Zi with me outside for 16 hours a day and it sat freezing on the tripod every nite.

 

Nighttime temperatures were consistently below freezing. Daytimes were mostly below freezing. I did try to sleep with it one nite because I figured it needed warming up. I threw it out of bed after it sufficiently cooled me down. The point is that that camera kept working with only occasional gasps. 35 rolls of 220 film and I decided to change the battery out of guilt of neglecting the camera's needs. I used the flash alot because there were no electric lights and still the batteries kept on working. I just read a posting about how a hasselblad froze up in those kinds of conditions. Fuji is one tuff electronic camera. As for the occasional gasps-- once it punked out before it wound the film all the way. I lost the end of the roll. Once the zoom just said "NO" and I had to turn it off and on to get it to work again. In general, I am impressed with its performance. Next time I go, though, I am taking my Leica with the Noctilux F1.0. The fuji does not stop action by candle light. Frank

[thomas_loizeaux]

I chose the 6x9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) format because I preferred the format ratio (shape) over the more square medium formats.

To me, even 6x7 is still essentially square. 6x9 gives your eyes a little more of a "natural" roaming space. For some

landscapes I would even lobby for the 6x12 format as it is even better suited to some compositions

[mike_thompson3]

landscape.....6x9, one lens,one film,one paper....oh. and take a pencil and paper...failing that get a spaniel.