patrick_drennon

Chin, I don't know if this will help but I have had a GX680III for

about 9 months and I use the tilts and shifts alot. I've shot LF

(Sinar F) for about 15 years and had some problems with the

speed even with practice. For ME the 680 is alot faster due to the

image brightness and position. I find using the 90 degree finder

or waste level makes composition, focus check and DOF

insurance much faster, but that may be due to some inherent

weakness in my LF technique. The 680 is easy, intuitive and

flexible (not as much as my LF though concerning movements).

Mine does the same thing, always has (since '98). Works great

though. It's probably just calibrating.

Comparing the GX680III to an LF is as much a stretch as

comparing an Arcbody to the Fuji. I've used LF for 15 yrs.+ (Sinar

F) and there is no way to compare its flexibility and use to the Fuji

unless you're trying to choose between the two where

application would create a clear winner.

 

The Fuji is no bigger or heavier than my Sinar. Both are tripod

dependant, the Fuji CAN be used with a strap off of a tripod, the

Sinar can't (I do realize the Linhoff will work handheld). But all

cameras of that size with movements are better on than off of a

tripod.

 

The Fuji is MUCH faster to use. The ability to see an upright

image, focus, shoot with motordrivrn convenience makes it very

well suited to studio and some other types of commercial

photography. The pros that use it (a number that seems to grow

every day) do so because it reduces cost. They can use fewer

assistants and produce more images at less cost to the

customer. If production is a consideration, the Fuji will win that

battle easily.

 

As concerns movements, The 80/20 rule applys very well here.

The Fuji's movements will handle AT LEAST 80% of all the

needs fo control. That, coupled with the speed and ease of use

is helping it gain in popularity. It will not do what a monorail will,

but neither will a field type LF camera (though a field MF is more

flexible than the Fuji).

 

Last of all is image quality, my Fujinon 210 f/5.6 on my Sinar

produces gorgeous 4X5 images, if you cut out a 6X8cm portion

of that negative the GX680 lens is slightly better (based on a

studio shot comparison). The image quality of the Fuji is nothing

short of amazing to me. The camera is state of the art in every

way as applies to emulsion film cameras. I was designed to be

very functional and efficient in a photographic production

environment and will tend to be a bit off-putting to purists. It does

tend to try to be all things to all people and the result, although

excellent, is not perfect.

 

Sorry for rambling but I felt this (please note) OPINION might

contibute to the discussion.

You bring up an interesting oddity in the system that I had to have

explained before I bought one. I still don't understand the point of

installing an OTF metering system just to let you know you've

screwed up. I admit I've liked the feature but it hasn't been

particularly useful (so far I've already been pretty sure I screwed

up).

 

For the poster's information, the only way I know of to get

metering in the camera is to obtain the auto finder. It is a fairly

unsophisticated center weighted meter and I don't personally

know anyone who has ever obtained one (and quite expensive).

Tremendous system and unparalleled optics.

Good point George. I hadn't thought of the significance a

condenser would have. Mine has a dichroic head on it so it's

diffusion w/ interchangeable mixing boxes. I haven't dealt with a

condenser in many years and didn't consider that in my post.

C-700 has a fairly short column. I use an 80mm f/4 Rodenstock

APO Rodagon-N. I have no softness or distortion at all at edges

@ 20X24 equivalent w/ an Omega DVXL. An El-Nikkor 80 f/4

should be in your price range w/ a carrier and I don't think you'd

notice any difference at all, they're great lenses for the money.

Thomas, interesting post. Useful thought process. I use a P67 handheld frequently and have been both satisfied and disappointed. When disappointed it was the photographer, not the camera. Physics will always enter in to performance.

 

Jeff, GREAT shot. Sooooo difficult to communicate movement and a static subject in the same shot. I love photographs that make me want to take a third or fourth look and have me question....how did he do that? I have no idea what the critic does or doesn't know about photography or 'communication' but a successful photograph is one that generates a visual interest and this one is unusually successful.

Sounds bizarre, I've had my Zi since October '98 and there is no

sign of dust at all. I hope it's not indicative of some sort of broken

seal.

In my experience, Jeff is dead on correct. In answer to your other

question, yes, a good 4X5 enlaeger in good to excellent condition that

costs $2000+ new can be had for $400-$600 but not much less. Most of

the equipment cheaper than that is either impossible to allign (kiss

of death for an enlarger) or limited to 120 formats. My recommendation

would be to wait and find a DV-XL instead of a DII, you'll quickly

appreciate the longer column and the used, good condition prices

aren't drastically higher. Don't be surprised if your lens cost makes

your eyes bug out a little too. Good luck and have fun

I've got a 645 (18 years old) with a Cds prism, I've been lucky not to

have separation so far. The ones I've seen with separation do not

affect focus accuracy but are also not reparable.... Mamiya doesn't

service the prisms any long

I've had a 645Zi since October '98 and love the camera. DO NOT mistake it for a do-all type of camera. It makes rare AF mistakes (for me 3 or 4 shots out of 60 rolls of film) but the AF has saved me many times that number in allowing me to use it fast. The zoom is limited but tack sharp, that is likely why it is limited. It's a great little camera and a good value but if you expect too much out of it you will, in my opinion, be disappointed. I personally have heard nothing about broadening the zoom.

Vivitar VI is occasioally for sale on e-bay and is a condenser enlarger w/ a very good color head.

I've had intermittant problems with my NPC back for my Pentax. The rollers will pop out for cleaning (sometimes dirty rollers will be the problem). Most of the time that I've had trouble its been due to old film. The adhesives don't release as design and everything fouls up. A fresh pack of film has solved it.

Robert,

 

I have a 645Zi and use Kodak film in it about 50% of the time. The ONLY function that will not work is the automatic film speed reader. It works only with Fuji film, Kodak film doesn't possess the barcode. The film speed is very easy to set manually, just follow the instructions. All other functions are retained and the camera is a great tool. Load it and have a blast.

I use a grid type Intenscreen on a GX680III. It gains you 1 1/2 to 2 stops of brightness. I find it to be great in low light situations. It is a simple and quick change for the user, no repairman required.

Sorry guys, it's a GX680III not a II. Didn't hit enough I's and did a poor job of proofing.

Received a new GX680 (w/ a 100 f/4) before Christmas 2000. I've now

put several rolls of Velvia and T-Max 100 through it and wanted to

give first impressions. I plan on providing more detailed evaluation

on lens performance vs. Pentax at a later date.

 

1. Size- this is the most frequently mentioned drawback to the

system. It's a HUGE camera but quite well designed to be used

handheld with the neck strap. Wouldn't recommend it for extended

length of time and it is MUCH better on a tripod or camera stand but

I've taken several shots in the studio at low angles handheld with

great success.

 

2. Movements- likely the only justifiable reason for the purchase of

this camera (aside from digital back options at a later date). I've

used a Sinar 'F' for 17 years and I admit this camera does not have

the breadth of flexibility in movements but it does satisfy the 80/20

rule in that it will cover more than 80% of the needs I'll ever have.

One note here: The standard bellows that comes with the camera is

mostly useless for movements unless the object is quite close to the

camera. I don't even use that bellows any more and just leave the

standard wide angle bellows on it all the time.

 

Design- very intuitive and well executed. Camera feel is solid and

back removal and replacement is flawless. Polaroid back isn't

phenominal but is workable. Placement of controls is easy to get used

to and reflects an attempt to cover a wide range of needs in an

elegant and simple fashion. Didn't buy a prism or automatic finder.

Long time users of the system felt it to be a waste of money. At this

point I'd have to agree, may change my mind later but I've had a

prism finder on every camera I've owned (except view of course) and

expected to miss this feature, I have not to date.

 

Image- Literally the best I've ever seen. I say this without having

tested it with the Air Force charts. I don't think I'll ever wish

that I'd shot it on 4X5.

 

More to come.

Don't forget the DV. I use a 17 year old DV-XL w/ a dichroic head that I bought new (in 1983) for almost double what I've seen them being auctioned used. They have a longer column and are easier to keep in adjustment than the venerable old D-2. This is NOT a knock on the D-2, they are, I agree, the standard. But I've seen a couple of DV's in near new condition w/ dichroic heads being sold for less than a $1,000, IMHO a great value.

The first person I would contact on this issue is a guy named Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@emji.net). He has extensive experience with that medium and has a wide base to draw from in trial and error with various developer techniques.

I forgot to mention one thing that might make an impact to others but wouldn't make a purchase difference to me. The P67II has a MUCH brighter focussing screen. The P67's was (and is now) acceptable but I will admit it is nice to view an image that is at least 1-2 stops brighter.

I have both a P67 & P67II. I value both cameras and still use both. The P67II is, in my opinion, a significant improvement. The matrix or spot metering choices are the most significant additions. I've not had the problems with shutter induced blurring so often reported (with either camera). If you like the P67 and don't need the metering advancements I'm not sure you would be impressed with the difference.

Very interesting topic. I think you'll find that the term 'Medium Format' is a relatively new one in the perspective of photography in general. Prior to Kodak's introduction of the Instamatic in the late 60's the most common consumer cameras were what we call medium format (120 and 620 roll film). The 'medium format' nomenclature is likely even younger than that, dating to when the 35mm took off in popularity with the introduction of affordable, user friendly SLRs (Canon AE-1, Olympus OM-1 & OM-2, etc.). The consumer switch to 35mm set these roll-film cameras apart, rendering them temporarily as undesireable. The limits of the negative size became quickly apparent hence the distinction between 35mm, medium and large formats. The tiny Instamatic formats have now been deemed unacceptable (the cycle of 'what's hot' is often so strange). But your history is more likely to be about roll film cameras as opposed to medium format itself.

Andrew,

 

I, personally, don't care. I love this forum (as well as the others in photo.net) the format has never affected me.

I have both 6X4.5 & 6X7 cameras. When I know I'll want 16X20 prints, I'll ALWAYS use the 6X7. No exceptions, not that 16X20's from 6X4.5 negs are bad, just that the prints from 6X7 are (to me) clearly better. That doesn't mean I will not use 6X4.5 negs to make 16X20 prints, I just won't plan it that way.

 

That said, if I were without an MF system, and I KNEW I was going to be producing 16X20's, I would consider buying a camera only in 6X7, 6X8 or 6X9 format. (all the above IMHO).

Peter,

 

<p>

 

Joachim was right. The biggest reason for the lens size is having to

project the image circle with the mirror box clearance in the body.

This does not exist in RF or TLR cameras where the rear, correcting

element is only millimeters from the film plane. LF lenses get HUGE

when large image circles are required at long focal lengths (read

large rear element to film plane distances), and that includes fairly

slow lenses. Front element sizes (in mm) should consistently be focal

length (in mm) divided by maximum aperture, that's due to physical

realities.