david b

I can't directly help with the marketing, but can I suggest that Hebridies (sic) gets spelt correctly on the calender, as it isn't in your post or on your website! It is spelt HEBRIDES...

I use a Fuji 6 x 9 rangefinder and consider it almost ideal. I've never used a M7 but imagime it would be very suitable also.

This doesn't directly answer your question, but I have a Fuji GW690III with the 90mm lens. The official DOF scale is wildly optimistic by my standards of acceptable sharpness. I'd forget it if I were you, and focus precisely on the one main subject part of the scene, etc.

Hyperfocal focussing especially give poor results to my eyes, and I know there are a lot of others who agree with me, not only the Fuji people but also Mamiya 7 users etc.

Just a cautionary note...

I second the recommendation for the GW690III, I bought one used a year ago and it is fantastic. The lack of interchangeable lens means I work harder for the shot, producing better thought out photographs. I shoot only landscape on Velvia & Provia 100F. Then later buy the GSW690III - thats what I'm going to do!

Well, I was certain that the W =wide and SW = superwide. Rather an exageration on both fronts, as they are the equivalent of 39mm and 28mm respectively in 35mm terms...

I'll support the idea of a 180mm etc etc version, if you'll all back me up on a 45mm landscape ultra wide!!! :) Dave.

A GTW would be intersting, as the W stands for wide :) I'd like to see either a 55 or even 45mm lens, perhaps a GEW690? EW=extra wide...

I don't know, but I am aware that only the GW670III and GW690III (both with 90/3.5 lens) are listed on Fuji's website. There is now no mention of the GSW690III with 65/5.6 lens. I'd be interested in knowing for sure, as I have the GW690III, and have been thinking about one day getting the GSW...

I'd be interested to hear how you get on, Todd. Might you post an update when film developed?

Both are excellent optically. I have the Fuji and love it.

I took the lens hood of my Fuji and use the Hi-Tech 100 filters, including the ND grads. Whilst these are a little hit 'n' miss, by using a soft transition grad with the Fuji, and holding the filter holder up to blank sky etc, I have good success without resorting to the screw in filters that David Henderson refers to above. Admittedly, they are a surer way of using a grad, but less flexible as you are of course restricted to the gradation being in the middle.

I second the advice to try robert white. I've used them, service and prices excellent.

Optically the Fujis are superb. I've never used an M7 but their lens reputation is equally first class.

To use a pol filter, get say a heliopan one with the numbers on the ring.

Any other questions, email me.

Cut the weight problem completely - I'd take Fuji rangefinder(s), much lighter and bigger film area (6x9). Otherwise I agree with previous poster.

I like your site, John, it is well laid out, easy to use and clear. I would not have used the front page shot of clouds over the sun myself, given the other (better imho) pictures in your gallery of pictures.

 

I am fron England, not the US, but even so, do you think it is possibly a little patronising to tell people what and where Scotland is?

Was there an article about you in one of the UK photo rags recently? I seem to remember the name?

 

Best wishes,

Every 1/2 stop across the whole aperture range.

why would an amateur who will want to blow up a relatively small number of prints larger than 8 X 10 want to bother with a MF camera?

 

Well, I am an amateur, and I want to 'blow up' all my prints to at least 12x10 or 16x12. The quality is far far better than 35mm in this specific situation, all other things being equal.

Well, the answer to a direct comparison is: "I don't know" as I have no experience at all of the Moskva. But I do own a Fuji GW690III and can confirm it has a very good lens. I imagine (as you do too, according to the comments in your post) that the Fuji will be sharper and contrastier as it is a modern multicoated lens. Is the Moskva lens coated singly, or even at all?

 

I think with respect, that the answer depends on how bad (if it is bad at all of course!) the Moskva is, rather than how good the Fuji is.

Many people rate the Fuji as "up there" with Zeiss and Mamiya lenses, and I can see why having used one...

 

Private email me if you want any more info about my experiences with the GW690III or search the archives.

Thanks for the responses! I'm sorry but have no means of scanning the 6x9 transparency (or any other transparency for that matter), or I'd have uploaded a sample to illustrate.

 

I found that focussing 1/3 or 2/3 into the scene gave soft infinity, in fact anything other than focus at infinity gave some apparent fractional degradation at the far point (i.e. "infinity").

 

The DOF with a 90mm lens will be a fair bit less than the 40mm of course...

 

I have also previously seem the site refered to above, and I guess my findings bear this out. I also avoid smaller apertures than f/22 (f/16 ideally) due to diffraction issues.

 

Get it all right and the Fuji 90mm is so sharp you could shave with it.

Following on from this theme, especially due to recent threads from

Leica and Mamiya 7 users, I am posting updated experiences with my

Fuji GW690iii. Obviously all three systems have outstandingly good

lenses.

 

Yes, I now have a thorough understanding of the theory. Yes, I

realise lens calibrations are an approximation based on an assumption

with certain criteria which are not always valid in every set of

shooting/display conditions.

 

When I started using the Fuji, I sometimes used hyperfocal-focussing

technique, assuming it would give the max DOF in landscapes from near

foreground to infinity.

 

Doing this, the infinity was always slightly but obviously soft

(heavy tripod used, Fuji Velvia film). Then I tried setting a

hyperfocal focussing point some two stops lower (i.e. focussing for

f/11 if using f/22 set aperture), still soft, albeit less so. Still

much worse to my eyes than focussing on infinity.

 

Two points come out of this:

 

Only actually focussing at infinity gave truly sharp transparencies,

and any extent of hyperfocal focussing gave less than optimum

sharpness. How many people realise this, I wonder?

 

The most interesting point, though, is that subjectively - to me and

a few others at least � is that if the infinity is totally sharp,

then even if the nearest point (which obviously is not quite as sharp

as if the hyperfocal distance had been set) appears to be sharper

overall. Perhaps the brain compensates for the near foreground if the

expected infinity sharpness is present?

 

Any other thoughts?

I have experienced exactly this problem, albeit not on an M7 but with a similar camera in many respects, the Fuji GW690. Using the hyperfocal scale results in soft immediate foreground and soft infinity. I think the lens quality is not quite as good at smaller apertures than f16 and a half, so really I an restricted to hyperfocal focussing at not more than f11, at best. This tends to limit d.o.f. a fair bit.

I can't see how you could reliably set 1/3 stop increments on the GW690III. You might just get the aperture ring half way between clicks, which would give you 1/4 stops, but as I say I wouldn't want to rely on this.

The camera I have has T but not B. Still a great machine.

I have this camera, bought in excellent used condition 3 months ago. Shutter is adjustable in whole stops as you might expect, and aperture adjustable in half stop click positions across the whole range. So the answer to your question is YES, in half stops.

The lens, by the way, is of very good quality indeed. I have only put 10 rolls of fine grain chrome film through mine, but they include the best landscapes I have ever made. I am delighted with it.

In my opinion it is the best compromise between image size, lens quality and cost available currently in the UK.

Enjoy it and let me know what you think!

David.

Brief test of Fuji GW690III 90mm lens

 

After reading advice on Photo.net, I bought a mint used Fuji

GW690III, that�s the one with the 90mm f/3.5 lens. Rather than

irritate everyone with the �I�ve just bought this camera, what do all

the rest of you think of the lens?� type of question, I�ve tested it

myself.

 

I put it on a big Gitzo tripod, and shot a sheet of newspaper taped

to a wall, 2m away. Lighting was natural daylight. I made exposures

at apertures in �full� stops, i.e. f/32, f/22, f/16 etc down to f/4,

and then f/3.5. Film was Velvia.

 

I think there is very slight, only just perceptible, vignetting at

f/4 and f/3.5, but not at f5.6 or wider. The overall contrast and

sharpness are excellent, with even the smallest news print appearing

very sharp.

 

I cannot see any fall off in quality, even at the edges or corners at

tiny apertures. Is this the experience of other GW690 users? I was

prepared to accept that the lens might be softer at f/32 and f/22

than perhaps in the mid range.

 

Any comments on this?

Stefan, I recently bought a Gitzo tripod and head for my newly acquired Fuji 6x9, which I use for landscapes. I find the series 3 Gitzo (one up the range from the one you mention) superb. Mine is the 1320. I appreciate I'm using a rangefinder not an slr, but I have used slrs in the past and consider the larger Gitzo tripods to be ideal, you'll not be dissapointed with either build quality or stability. BTW, I got the low profile 3 way head.

 

David.

Thank you, good advice. I recently bought an excellent used GW690iii, but have bought the heliopan pol filter with reference numbers on the outer ring. I'm not knocking what you suggest but find that being careful to GENTLY screw the polariser on results in it coming off easily, every time. This was tested in sub zero temperatures recently.

 

Whilst writing, I got some velvia transparencies back from the lab recently, and the quality is awesome when this camera is used in conjunction with a heavy Gitzo tripod. Thanks to Ellis V and the other people who recommended this camera when I asked about it (actually the GSW, but I decided the GW more suited to my style, at least initially) on this forum a couple of months ago.

 

My own view for grads - masking tape on the hood and guesswork!?

 

Thanks, David.

Thank you to everyone who took the trouble to help me out here.

 

I acknowlege Ellis' point about filter stacking as an undesirable compromise...Are Heliopan filters available readily in the UK? If I'm putting good money into such a good lens, it seems a waste to use mediocre filters...

 

Thanks again.

I am considering buying a Fuji GSW690III as this seem ideal for the

type of landscape work that I want to do.

I have read a lot about the Fuji rangefinders in general on this

(excellent) site, but still seek information/opinions on these points:

 

(1) Given the reasonably wide lens, is composition where substantial

close foreground detail is included a problem with the rangefinder? I

am used to SLRs both 35mm and MF, though I understand you still get

over 90% in the finder. Is paralax a significant issue with

foreground interest, say 3 or 4 metres away?

 

(2)I am a little concerned about talk concerning vignetting with

filters. I assume if filters don't protude beyond the hood, then

vignetting cannot (or shouldn't) occur? Can you use one filter on top

of another (eg polariser plus 81A?) or do you need special slim

filters (which I believe don't have a thread on the outer edge of the

filter?).

 

(3) I appreciate the 5000 shots and then service rule, but what in

general is the mechanical reliability/build quality like in long term

demanding use like?

 

Thank you in advance.