charlesviper
Newbie
Hey all,
I traded in my Mamiya M645J, M6451000s, 80mm f/2.8, 210mm f/4, two metering prisms [one working, one not], for a GW690I. Everything works fine. I had the option to pay an extra US$380 to on top of the trade-in for the GW690III, but I decided not to.
I am not going to lie : this is my first RF camera, and it's the only camera that I didn't immediately pick up and understand. I'm having trouble changing the pressure plate [don't want to snap anything], the film is hard to load, it's hard to tell what's in focus and what's not, and the focusing circle is quite small -- and the minimum focusing distance of one meter is not great for closeup headshots.
Are these problems fixed in the GW690II / GW690III? Do all three have the identical image quality? If it's the same lens construction, and the same image quality, I don't feel bad. But if ease-of-use from better film changing, better image quality and easier focusing is changed in the later cameras, I might return the GW690I in favor of the later cameras.
I noticed whenever I search "GW690" on Google, I only see results for the third iteration. Is there some deep, dark secret for the camera I just purchased?
I traded in my Mamiya M645J, M6451000s, 80mm f/2.8, 210mm f/4, two metering prisms [one working, one not], for a GW690I. Everything works fine. I had the option to pay an extra US$380 to on top of the trade-in for the GW690III, but I decided not to.
I am not going to lie : this is my first RF camera, and it's the only camera that I didn't immediately pick up and understand. I'm having trouble changing the pressure plate [don't want to snap anything], the film is hard to load, it's hard to tell what's in focus and what's not, and the focusing circle is quite small -- and the minimum focusing distance of one meter is not great for closeup headshots.
Are these problems fixed in the GW690II / GW690III? Do all three have the identical image quality? If it's the same lens construction, and the same image quality, I don't feel bad. But if ease-of-use from better film changing, better image quality and easier focusing is changed in the later cameras, I might return the GW690I in favor of the later cameras.
I noticed whenever I search "GW690" on Google, I only see results for the third iteration. Is there some deep, dark secret for the camera I just purchased?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm now a couple of years in to my "RF thing" and I still find them odd to focus.
RFs are not as versitile as slrs.
What you traded for is twice the negative in a smaller camera. You gave up close focus and interchangeable lenses. And, for better or worse, you're dealing with a very different set of ergonomics.
I think you'll find that many here own rfs and slrs. Those that don't, just like to shoot the things rfs are particularly good for.
RFs are not as versitile as slrs.
What you traded for is twice the negative in a smaller camera. You gave up close focus and interchangeable lenses. And, for better or worse, you're dealing with a very different set of ergonomics.
I think you'll find that many here own rfs and slrs. Those that don't, just like to shoot the things rfs are particularly good for.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I haven't used the first version, but I've shot plenty with the second and third versions. They are fine cameras- great lenses on so-so bodies, which nonetheless will make great pictures. It sounds to me like part of your problem is just getting used to a rangefinder- they are different beasts. To judge what's going to be in focus, for instance, you have to learn how to use the DOF indicators on the lens barrel and become confident with the RF patch. You can't rely on viewfinder information, except for the RF patch- very different from SLR shooting. Yes, the pressure plate can be fiddly, but how often do you switch between 120 and 220 film? And anyway, once you get the hang of it, it becomes simple.
As for leicasniper's comment that these cameras cameras seem more suited to tripod than handheld use, I respectfully disagree; if anything, I would say just the opposite. I find RF's a little bit tricker to use on tripods, since I rarely put the subject I want to focus on dead-center where the RF patch is. 90% of the time, I focus and then move the camera to recompose. The RF patch in the Fujis aren't as bright or clear as, say, a Leica, so this becomes more an issue of experience and finesse. But for the fine lenses and big negatives, the Fujis are great. Practice with it enough for the eccentricities to become second nature, and you'll be rewarded with great pictures. Good luck!
As for leicasniper's comment that these cameras cameras seem more suited to tripod than handheld use, I respectfully disagree; if anything, I would say just the opposite. I find RF's a little bit tricker to use on tripods, since I rarely put the subject I want to focus on dead-center where the RF patch is. 90% of the time, I focus and then move the camera to recompose. The RF patch in the Fujis aren't as bright or clear as, say, a Leica, so this becomes more an issue of experience and finesse. But for the fine lenses and big negatives, the Fujis are great. Practice with it enough for the eccentricities to become second nature, and you'll be rewarded with great pictures. Good luck!
I believe all three are the same or similar in the respects you mention. I have only the III (and a couple of 645 Fujis), but I can confirm the RF patch is not sharply defined as with a Leica or Bronica RF645, yet this is typical for Fuji RFs, Nikon RFs, Zeiss Contax RFs, and virtually all the consumer-grade fixed-lens RFs of the past. I'll agree with others that you have some familiarization ahead, during which you'll be encouraged by the great quality of the results.
To turn over the pressure plate, just push it toward the arrow and lift it out.
kuzano
Veteran
Please give the camera a chance....
Please give the camera a chance....
Rangefinders are inherently different on first use. I have an even earlier G690bl, with the interchangable lens system. But essentially the same coatings and image characteristics all the way through the III series. The III is lighter, but single fixed lense. I have the option of 100mm, 65mm, and a couple of longer lengths.
Film loading more difficults. Yes, a bit. I shot a lot of Mamiya 645, early M645, and later the removable back Super and Pro. It's a bit easier to load removable film holders instead of the fixed film path on the Fuji's (both 645 and 690). The secret is in keeping pressure on the takeoff roll while spooling up the takeup roll. Film must be kept tight or it will stack up on the takeup. That's a fact that is actually addressed in some of the Fuji manuals, particularly the 645 models.
Film plate change... push it down and toward the arrow. Turn it over and re insert by pushing it down and away from the arrow. You won't break it, unless you are the Hulk and angry.
Tight head shots... less than 3 feet??? What's up with that? Are you just trying for an eye? Sorry, but a bit of a laugh. No, it's not a portrait or macro camera. But then, all the camera's of the era that I know of needed either macro glass and/or a parallax correction device for less than 3 feet. That includes 35mm, as well as medium format.
Also, don't judge the camera until you see what results you get from all that extra real estate on the negative. OTOH, don't ask the camera to do something impossible for it's feature set on the maiden roll of test film.
Should you have stepped up for the III. Well, I have used this old heavy original 690 for years, and I would, in no way step up to the overpaid prices for the III series for a lens giving identical results.
Early models like mine can be bought with regularity at prices from $400 to $500, while pristine, low count III series are still commanding $1200 to $1500 when not sold under pressure to unload.
There are a couple of good sites to explore with info on the Fuji 690.
http://www.lallement.com/pictures/
http://www.lallement.com/pictures/G690.html
http://fujirangefinder.com/folder.php?id=227
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/g690bl.html
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/gw.html
Please give the camera a chance....
Rangefinders are inherently different on first use. I have an even earlier G690bl, with the interchangable lens system. But essentially the same coatings and image characteristics all the way through the III series. The III is lighter, but single fixed lense. I have the option of 100mm, 65mm, and a couple of longer lengths.
Film loading more difficults. Yes, a bit. I shot a lot of Mamiya 645, early M645, and later the removable back Super and Pro. It's a bit easier to load removable film holders instead of the fixed film path on the Fuji's (both 645 and 690). The secret is in keeping pressure on the takeoff roll while spooling up the takeup roll. Film must be kept tight or it will stack up on the takeup. That's a fact that is actually addressed in some of the Fuji manuals, particularly the 645 models.
Film plate change... push it down and toward the arrow. Turn it over and re insert by pushing it down and away from the arrow. You won't break it, unless you are the Hulk and angry.
Tight head shots... less than 3 feet??? What's up with that? Are you just trying for an eye? Sorry, but a bit of a laugh. No, it's not a portrait or macro camera. But then, all the camera's of the era that I know of needed either macro glass and/or a parallax correction device for less than 3 feet. That includes 35mm, as well as medium format.
Also, don't judge the camera until you see what results you get from all that extra real estate on the negative. OTOH, don't ask the camera to do something impossible for it's feature set on the maiden roll of test film.
Should you have stepped up for the III. Well, I have used this old heavy original 690 for years, and I would, in no way step up to the overpaid prices for the III series for a lens giving identical results.
Early models like mine can be bought with regularity at prices from $400 to $500, while pristine, low count III series are still commanding $1200 to $1500 when not sold under pressure to unload.
There are a couple of good sites to explore with info on the Fuji 690.
http://www.lallement.com/pictures/
http://www.lallement.com/pictures/G690.html
http://fujirangefinder.com/folder.php?id=227
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/g690bl.html
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/gw.html