Fuji GF670 demo model on Photokina

Andrew Sowerby said:
It's interesting that you can switch between the 6x6 and 67 formats. That'll certainly increase the number of potential buyers. I would have been satisfied with 67, but there are lots of square folks out there.

Also, the "667" model number is a fun by-product of the multiple formats. Almost evil, but not quite ...
Click to expand...

Makes a difference to me, though I think I would have bought it either way. I haven't yet fallen in love with 6x7, but I do love 6x6. Best of both worlds here.
 
Krosya said:
"If it is the clear rectangle in the rangefinder illumination window it is a lot less = 38 mm approx"

I think thats it though. Looks like every other RF Cosina and Fuji make. Round window - could it be a light meter? Sort of like in a small CV hot shoe meter?
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm a bit concerned about that. 38mm is not much. The Makina 67 featured 63mm. Whether thats the effective baselenght I don't know though. Will the 38mm be acurate enough?
Kind regards
 
Ernst Dinkla said:
Measuring it up in the pictures and finding a piece in the pictures with a known size. You may guess what the last is.

Ernst Dinkla
Click to expand...

I would guess the flash shoe. I tried that method and got approx. 35mm rf base length, perhaps from a different photo. My guess is that there is a 2x magnifier to put the effective base length at around 70mm, which would be more typical of a MF rangefinder. For comparison, the base length on my Linhof 2x3" Tech V is about 74mm.
 
David Goldfarb said:
I would guess the flash shoe. I tried that method and got approx. 35mm rf base length, perhaps from a different photo. My guess is that there is a 2x magnifier to put the effective base length at around 70mm, which would be more typical of a MF rangefinder. For comparison, the base length on my Linhof 2x3" Tech V is about 74mm.
Click to expand...

Correct, that what I used too on more pictures. 38 mm give or take 1. We all know what the construction of a Linhof means in accuracy. The Technica 70 had more than 90mm as its rangefinder base. A 6x7 folder camera of another class. The 35mm Bessas have the 35,5-37 mm base, are more rigid than the GF670 and the highest magnification is 1.5 for the T model. 2x on a folder construction is stretching it a bit thin I think but that's my opinion.

Ernst Dinkla
 
It all depends on the accuracy of the system and the robustness of the system. Keep in mind that this is a 6x6/6x7 camera.

An Agfa Isolette III has a rangefinder base of 32mm, and we never hear about the rangefinder of those cameras being inaccurate once they've been calibrated.

It's 58mm for the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B 532/16.

It's 45mm on the Zeiss Ikon Mess Ikonta 524/16 and Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III and IV.

I say: Let's wait and see.

However, I'll qualify that by saying that we're talking about Cosina, and this has been the Achilles' heel of their rangefinder cameras.

Once and for all, Cosina needs to invest some R&D to develop a more robust rangefinder that leaves the factory in calibration and arrives in the customer's hands still in calibration.
 
Last edited:
ZeissFan said:
It all depends on the accuracy of the system and the robustness of the system. Keep in mind that this is a 6x6/6x7 camera.

An Agfa Isolette III has a rangefinder base of 32mm, and we never hear about the rangefinder of those cameras being inaccurate once they've been calibrated.

It's 58mm for the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B 532/16.

It's 45mm on the Zeiss Ikon Mess Ikonta 524/16 and Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III and IV.

I say: Let's wait and see.

However, I'll qualify that by saying that we're talking about Cosina, and this has been the Achilles' heel of their rangefinder cameras.

Once and for all, Cosina needs to invest some R&D to develop a more robust rangefinder that leaves the factory in calibration and arrives in the customer's hands still in calibration.
Click to expand...


Isn't that a mix of coupled and uncoupled rangefinders you mention here ? The coupling in the user's hands so to say.


Ernst Dinkla
 
Ernst Dinkla said:
Isn't that a mix of coupled and uncoupled rangefinders you mention here ? The coupling in the user's hands so to say.


Ernst Dinkla
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. And if you think about it, that leaves even more room for error. And aside from user error (forgetting to change the focus), the rangefnders on these cameras have proved to be accurate.

Again, I think everyone should wait and see how the camera performs before passing judgment and not jump to any conclusions.
 
I just got mine and it back-focuses like nobody's business.

Oh wait...that's my 5D. Isn't this FredMiranda.com?

I'm so confused.......
 
aizan said:
why worry about something truly bizarre happening when there's nothing that warrants concern?
Click to expand...
Here's something to warrant concern about rangefinder base length: Bronica RF645. While the medium format film camera market has suffered from digital in general, RF645's inability to accurately focus its longer lens likely resulted in earlier demise of that system than would have otherwise been the case.
 
aizan said:
the gf670 doesn't have a long lens. wides don't put much stress on a rangefinder system...
Click to expand...
"Long" and "wide" are terms used in relation to a camera's image diagonal. Rangefinder accuracy requirements are related to a lens' focal length.

I own two RF645s; neither one has terrific rangefinder accuracy, even with the 65mm "normal" lens. An 80mm lens places greater demands on a rangefinder than does a 65mm. Please don't misinterpret; I have very much wanted the Fuji/Bessa to happen and planned to order one. It's just that, given this rangefinder baselength question, I'll be holding off until after some production model test reports (that specifically address the matter) come out.
 
i haven't heard many complaints from bessa r2 (25.16mm) users about not being able to focus their 75/2.5 heliars.

i just don't really expect an engineer to make such an obvious technical mistake.
 
A friend of mine who went to Photokina says they were surprised that nobody has mentioned the new mini Fuji/Cosina hotshoe introduced on the GF670/667.

Apparently the hotshoe is about 65% of the regular size as flashes have got much smaller over the years.

There will be an adaptor mini > regular size.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
A friend of mine who went to Photokina says they were surprised that nobody has mentioned the new mini Fuji/Cosina hotshoe introduced on the GF670/667.

Apparently the hotshoe is about 65% of the regular size as flashes have got much smaller over the years.

There will be an adaptor mini > regular size.
Click to expand...

A nice observation. With the Polaroid Pathfinders you actually could make that mistake. Their flash shoe size is 20 mm wide.

Ernst Dinkla
 
I handled the Bessa III. You select the format with the back open (a coin-slotted turn-button) and the corresponding brightlines are selected. The shutter is electronic (separate window, not ttl) with aperture priority.

Didn't check the accessory shoe, though.

Cheers,

R.
 
bmattock said:
Fujifilm releases folding camera details

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...lding_camera_details_news_268910.html?aff=rss
Click to expand...


There are more details in the hand copied text somewhere in the middle of this thread. That text has gone on a worldwide tour on blogs it seems.

To add a bit more detail, I tried to estimate the outer dimensions. Not only for the price you will need deep pockets, it will be approximately 170 mm wide, 105 mm high and 58 mm deep when folded. The lugs and eye cup not measured. None of my 6x6 and 6x9 folders are as deep and wide as this 6x7 is. It is as high as the Iskra which is necessary with a viewfinder window that big. I wonder how deep the Bessa II is of which it borrowed the arched folder lid, less in my estimation.

Ernst Dinkla
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom