nightfly
Well-known
I'd buy one in all black for about $2500. The simplicity and size would be worth it to me. Otherwise, I could could get a Mamiya 7 and the 65 for probably close to a $1000 less.
Fujifilm Debuts Wideangle Gf670w Film Camera
- Thread starter dadu007
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 8K
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I don't quite understand the high price.
What exactly is expensive to manufacture on that camera? is it the low volume? then it's a weird business model to follow.
Who would this camera appeal to aside from some hardcore film users (yes, some of us are in there). But what about those starry-eyed Sony NEX users? the sheer size of the body would probably gave them a heart attack 🙂
What exactly is expensive to manufacture on that camera? is it the low volume? then it's a weird business model to follow.
Who would this camera appeal to aside from some hardcore film users (yes, some of us are in there). But what about those starry-eyed Sony NEX users? the sheer size of the body would probably gave them a heart attack 🙂
nonot
Well-known
Sure it's steep considering the other options out there, but it gives me hope for the future since I never buy cameras new. I'd drop in on one if it came with a promise to reintroduce neopan 1600 🙂
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
The lens, for example. 10 elements in 8 groups.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
A lot of money for a very slow lens.
nightfly
Well-known
Medium format wide angle lenses aren't too fast. That's not really the issue, for me at least.
If they could get the price in the mid 2,000's it make sense for a certain type of user. Someone who wants a wide angle 6x7 in a relatively small size and weight compared to the competition and is willing to sacrifice lens interchangeability to get that.
The 50 and 65 for the Mamiya 7 (which seems like it's closest competition) are both big lenses. Not sure what the exact figures are but this camera looks like it would be a lot smaller, lighter package then the Mamiya with either of those lenses. I could probably live with this as my one camera as I do mostly street shooting and travel photography shoot mostly 28mm in 35.
If they could get the price in the mid 2,000's it make sense for a certain type of user. Someone who wants a wide angle 6x7 in a relatively small size and weight compared to the competition and is willing to sacrifice lens interchangeability to get that.
The 50 and 65 for the Mamiya 7 (which seems like it's closest competition) are both big lenses. Not sure what the exact figures are but this camera looks like it would be a lot smaller, lighter package then the Mamiya with either of those lenses. I could probably live with this as my one camera as I do mostly street shooting and travel photography shoot mostly 28mm in 35.
Last edited:
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
Right now, a 50/4.5 lens for the Mamiya 7 goes for about $2200 new and another $2300 for the body. And the new Fuji is probably going to be much much lower in production volumes...
The dirt-cheap used market for film cameras can make you forget how much MF cameras cost new (or, in most cases, used to cost).
The dirt-cheap used market for film cameras can make you forget how much MF cameras cost new (or, in most cases, used to cost).
John NYC
Established
I now also have a Rolleiflex 2.8F (Zeiss Planar, a wicked sharp sample), and I have been using the Bessa III extensively since Fall of 2009. I can honestly say that one does not substitute entirely for the other, if one is a picky person. The Bessa lens from f5.6 down is so incredibly sharp and contrasty that it excels at b&w landscape (or urban landscape in my case). I have not had a lot of luck with it on portraits. The ultra high contrast makes that difficult, especially on older subjects.
The Rollei, however, has such a nice smooth even and subdued contrast in comparison. Portraits come out creamy and beautiful. Polished. It can, of course, do very well with (urban/)landscape, but its lower contrast makes for more attention later in the workflow on those types of shots. The Rollei also blows away the Bessa at OOF areas, and at 2.8 can positively look 3-D, something which I have not been able to achieve on the Bessa.
I've decided to keep and use both cameras for these reasons. At first I was saying to myself, "why do I need two fixed 80mm lens MF cameras?" Now I know why... for me at least.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. But then, a lot of photographers seem to feel that they're somehow entitled to pay whatever they wish for cameras, and that a price which keeps the camera in production is 'too much'.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
I fully agree and that was the argument I made lots of times for the original Bessa III (which I've owned). However, I'm still a bit surprised by the price of this GF670W and I do find it quite steep. The GF670 is around $1700 which makes the wide version almost double the price of the standard version so that does make it quite expensive even when comparing apples to apples.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'd suggest that constantly defending manufacturers, no matter what, is not good for photographers. In a free market, like ours, buyers ARE actually entitled to pay whatever they wish, and if manufacturers won't sell at that price then THEY DON'T SELL THE THING because few will buy. I'm fascinated by all the people who go one web forums and declare that they'd pay twice as much for something that's already absurdly priced. Manufactuers must be thanking God, the Buddha, Allah, or whatever they worship that their customers are so dumb.
This is like someone walking into a car dealer and insisting that the salesman take MORE than the sticker price. For my non-USA friends, the custom here is to negotiate prices on new cars; only a complete idiot pays the price marked on the price tag, because the dealer WILL sell it for less if you're smart enough to demand it. Acting too enthusiastic makes the salesman much less likely to give you a good deal.
Jamie123
Veteran
Exactly my thoughts! I liked the Bessa a lot but since I shoot lots of portraits it just was too sharp and contrasty for me and the OOF areas weren't quite right. Coming from a Hasselblad with it's CZ lenses (probably similar to the Rollei lenses) I'm accustomed to the creamy smooth look of them.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
You're ignoring at least three inconvenient facts here.
First, the manufacturer has to charge enough to stay in business.
Second, they are still in business, so by definition, they're charging a price that enough customers find acceptable.
Third, they don't really care about people who don't buy their products, as long as there are enough people who do. Of course they want to make sure that there are as many people as possible who do, but there's always going to be an irreducible minimum who think an M9 'ought' to cost $3000 (or whatever), and the new Fuji 'ought' to cost $2,500. Unfortunately, "ought" has even less meaning than usual in this context. As the old proverb has it, "If wishes were horses, then beggars might ride."
Cheers,
R.
kzphoto
Well-known
Anyone know if this thing is going to have the same 6x6/6x7 functionality as the GF670? I like shooting squares.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
kzphoto
Well-known
Thanks for the heads up Keith! (that 35 M-hex is a jewel, btw.)
nightfly
Well-known
The reality is that if you are introducing a new film camera in 2011 to an already limited market you do have to factor in that your market competition includes cheap used cameras including your own. In some sense there is nothing exactly like it, but a Mamiya 7 is with a wide is close. And it gives you an option of changing lenses.
Fuji can price it however they like but if the original 670 is any indication, the prices are going to drop after a few months. Presumably they aren't stupid and have factored this in to their manufacturing costs and have built in a nice margin.
I'm exactly the sort of person who'd buy such a limited use camera but there is a limit to what I'd pay. We'll see what it actually comes to market at in the US and how those prices hold after 3 months.
Fuji can price it however they like but if the original 670 is any indication, the prices are going to drop after a few months. Presumably they aren't stupid and have factored this in to their manufacturing costs and have built in a nice margin.
I'm exactly the sort of person who'd buy such a limited use camera but there is a limit to what I'd pay. We'll see what it actually comes to market at in the US and how those prices hold after 3 months.
nightfly
Well-known
The other thing is that I would assume this camera's body is basically the same as the regular 670 but instead of the bellows/lens assembly, they basically slap on a fixed lens mount/lens. Yes there's probably more to it than that but probably not a whole lot more. So a lot of the manufacturing and development costs have probably already been absorbed by the 670 production.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think that they really have to factor in the used market these days any more than they had to back when there were no digital cameras around. Leica didn't lower the price of new M cameras just because there were a lot of older Ms around for less. Neither did Hasselblad or Rollei. Then again one could argue that this didn't do any of them much good.
Anways, I think even though this might not be a hot seller for them the fact that it's a film camera works to their advantage. So what if it takes them several years to sell all the cameras they produced. Being a film camera the GF670 and 670W will not become obsolete as the years go by. As long as there is film those cameras will be just as good in ten years as they are now (or even better, if film improves). The same cannot be said for digital cameras.
So over the years the GF670/Bessa cameras might prove to be a small but profitable endeavor.
The prices are quite probably going to drop a bit after a few months but it will still be too expensive for those most. People were expecting the Bessa III to come in at under $1000 new and were disappointed by hearing that it's twice as expensive. I don't think they will buy a GF670W even if it drops to $2000 which is unlikely anytime soon.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roger,
On the first point, these new GF670 series are probably not the products that keep Fuji afloat revenue-wise. I'd be surprised if this is not more of a niche product designed to create a new market.
On the second point, my thinking is this: if there are 1000 people in the world who would buy the new camera for $3000, then there will be at least 5000 people who would buy it at $1500 (for example, myself). That's a significant difference both in potential manufacturing cost-reduction and revenue.
My question to Fuji is why would you not go for the larger market which should be enough to make sure that there will be GF670 v.2 down the line. When the series became popular, then there's always the opportunity to introduce the $5000 "Elite" version with f/2 lens for example.
Leica is different than Fuji, and Fuji should be Fuji, not trying to be a Leica. Btw, I fully agree that M9 costing $7000 is just 'normal' ... for Leica.
Similar threads
