More news - "Fujifilm GF670 Folding"

sitemistic said:
I've never used a folder in MF, but I do have a few MF cameras which I don't use much anymore because I don't make large prints that would show there advantage. Do those who still shoot medium format regularly still make large prints?
Click to expand...

I used to think this way, until I saw a lot (maybe too much :p ) MF photos online in which I can see the definite difference compared to 35mm.

I agree that not all MF photos are this way, but there are a lot that are.
 
kuzano said:
But getting back to the camera at hand. I am pleased to pursue a fixed lens folder. However, I have seen some references to the lens focal length in these posts that I think are a bit optimistic on the wide angle side. The normal (50mm equivalent) lens on my G690bl is 100m. The lens on this folder is a normal prime length between 45 to 50mm equivalent. Not the 35mm wide angle equivalent that I have seen posted for the GF670 by various posters.
Click to expand...

80mm on 6x7 (56x70) = 58.3 deg diagonal fov
39mm on 35mm (24x36) = 58 deg diagonal fov

So...looks like 39mm to me.
 
Yes, I was going to guess about a 40mm equivalent. A very versatile focal length.

Now, if they can come up with an integral lens hood that can stay on the camera when it's folded up.... But I won't be a pig about this.
 
Stepping back or forward changes the perspektive.
Changing lenses or zooming without moving only changes how much more or less you see in the frame.
 
Seems to me the 80mm focal length and 6x7 format are sensible compromises by Fuji, 'cause 6x9 might be too much for many, and 40mm equivalent focal length is again just a good compromise. I took around a 40mm pancake on my Konica T3 I just got from an RFF member all weekend, and it really is versatile. At this point I'm just praying to the sweet Lord at Fuji that they price this thing well under $1,000 so I can afford to buy one!
 
sitemistic said:
Do those who still shoot medium format regularly still make large prints?
Click to expand...

I never print bigger than 10x12" and shoot mostly 6x7. Enough very good photographers and critics tell me they can see the difference. I know I can but I'm not unbiased since I know what is MF and what is 35mm.

I photograph strangers, never on a tripod, always using iso 400 film. Real 35mm RF territory. But I shoot with a Mamiya 7 because of the way the prints look.
 
Comparing my Mamiya 7 prints to those of the Leica is a hard task for me. I've spent a lot of money on Leica gear because it's portable, quiet, unassuming etc. If I shoot 100ISO transparency scan on a dedicated neg scanner then print at 8x12" and compare them to photo's from the Mamiya 7 taken on 400ISO at the same size, I can see a difference but it isn't breath taking. Part of the problem is I can't afford to buy a Nikon 9000ED scanner and am only using a V700 for Medium format. If I pay an arm and leg to get them pro scanned I see a big difference. The tonal range, grain etc is clearly better on MF. But is the extra hassle worth it in this day and age? Depends on the individual. The Mamiya kit cost me about 1/4th as much as my Leica outfit but value has to be measured in areas other than solely IQ.
 
It also depends on your output.

If you print big, you want a big negative.

If you normally print 8x10", then 35mm is fine.
 
sitemistic said:
Yeah, I guess that's the thing I'm having trouble getting my mind around these days. So many people online are using large and medium format film cameras primarily to produce 800 pixel 72 dpi prints to show their friends.
Click to expand...

True, and I guess I belong to this generation (always thought I'd like it more in the "good ol'days" :D )

Having said that, I submit that the superior tonality and details preserved with the big negatives *could be* visible even in 800pix 72 dpi online images, for certain images, this one for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91744974@N00/1806386962/
(I've asked the owner of the picture that it's ok to refer to this work)

When I saw that picture, I didn't know that it's from an MF, but I have a hunch that it takes a bigger negative to capture that much details and renders the shallow DOF at the same time.
 
From Fujifilm USA:

"We wish to inform you that the new portable medium-format film camera
displayed at the recent PMA 2008 Show is a prototype and currently not
available. At this point in time, there is no additional information
on the technical specifications, pricing, or release date for this
prototype. "

http://davidbram.blogspot.com/
 
david b said:
It also depends on your output.

If you print big, you want a big negative.

If you normally print 8x10", then 35mm is fine.
Click to expand...
Well.... "fine" for what? For a lot of situations & subjects, yes, it is "fine". But I can tell the difference between a very good print from a carefully made 35mm negative and a very good print from a carefully made 4x5 negative. 6x7 would show a difference as well, of course.

I like the idea of street photography (alluded to by Bob Michaels) with a medium format (or larger!) camera. I'm not saying it's the same as with a Leica/RF, or that I'd even do a lot of it. But if I had a MF RF, or an RF attached to my Toyo, I would certainly give it a go!
 
I think fuji have missed a trick here. Here goes :
1) New MF camera, light weight but sturdy - check.
2) Modern, non rfrofocus designed lens - check.
3) Rangefinder -check
4) Fixed lens -humm
5) Any other competition in modern MF rangefinder 67 format -yep -should have gone for 6*9:)
 
Fuji hasn't missed anything because the camera has not been made yet.

Everyone keeps bitching about a fixed lens and I find it very funny.

Get over it.

Let's wait and see what they do.

Then we can bitch about it.
 
david b said:
Everyone keeps bitching about a fixed lens and I find it very funny.
Click to expand...

I don't see why anyone would complain about it. The problem with interchangeable lens rangefinders is - they're friggin' HUGE. GREAT pics but the cameras are cumbersome. I have a Kiev 60 and an Iskra. Guess which one gets way more use? The Iskra that I can keep folded and walk around with!

I'm not interested in this camera because my Iskra has a rangefinder and a film counter. It has an excellent lens, and I think I prefer the older lens designs over the hypersharp modern ones, and I'm very pleased with the results. However, I'm thrilled that Fuji plans to put this into production. A new 120 folder! In 2009!
 
I've been told that the Japanese magazine "asahi camera" is reporting the GF670 will be available by the end of the year.

I cannot find anything to confirm this. Can anyone help?
 
Hope they give the option to mask to 645 but I bet they won't to keep costs down :(
I'm not a fan of 6x7 and neither is my Coolscan :(
 
I simply don't understand why they didn't go gun-ho with this idea make the world's first digital folder with an enlarged, 6x7-sized Fujifilm S5 Pro sensor.

Get on with it, Fuji! If I want to use a medium-format film folder I have hundreds of vintage cameras to choose from and shoot with.

And if my vintage folder needs adjustment I have lots of experienced people to call on.
 
this camera looks like the perfect yashica GSN.
Bigger film area, no battery problem, no servicing problem, no age problem, more control over exposure.
Bravo, Fuji.
Yeah, the price is tricky. We can all cheer but will we also pay for it?
 
About the lens:
We are in 2008. Plenty of 80/3.5 type lens designs are done. Such a lens can be made very cheaply even if well above the "uncoated Tessar" category.
The look is retro, but i am SURE Fuji won't stick a 100 years old lens on it.
Maybe will offer a "limited edition" single coated option for the weird "enthousiasts":)

The inscriptions "EBC" and such can still be very different on the end product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom