What's Wrong With the Fuji 690 Series?

[JChrome]

I really am perplexed.

I just bought a great condition Fuji BL690 with 100mm and 150mm lenses for $350 including shipping from that website that shant be named.

While I think I got a steal and am excited about it, I am just so confused. I look around and see so many used Fuji's on the market there for such low prices, why don't more photographers see the value in them? At this price, it's in the same league as the Mamiya Press, Koni Omega, Minolta Autchord etc. But I hold it to a much higher standard than those.

I've been shooting with the GW690 mkIII for about a year and just traded it for the BL690 (I want longer lenses). But I adored the mkIII. A bright and usable viewfinder and such a great lens.

I had this neg wet-mounted and drum scanned and then printed and it just sings. (Below is a flatbed, crappy scan).

So here's my list of why the 690 series is so inexpensive (in order of importance).

1) People's priority is not about printing which is where the main advantage of a 6x9 negative comes from, but rather digitally sharing.
2) The production numbers of the series was very high.
3) The camera is heavy and inconvenient to shoot with.
4) Stiff competition from the Mamiya Rangefinders (even at 4x the price). People also love the jewel-like-quality of the Hasselblad 500 series.
5) Medium format is better suited for SLRs for critical focusing in a studio situation.
6) No meter. Lack of any automation.
7) Medium format is unpopular.
8) The 'ping' noise of the GW series (which is not* due to the shutter counter btw... this myth needs to die).

So, if you've shot with a 690 and didn't like it, can you give me a reason why you wouldn't want to shoot it? I'm happy with it as my every day camera, but I may just be a nut 😎

 

[awbphotog]

I really am perplexed.

I just bought a great condition Fuji BL690 with 100mm and 150mm lenses for $350 including shipping from that website that shant be named.

While I think I got a steal and am excited about it, I am just so confused. I look around and see so many used Fuji's on the market there for such low prices, why don't more photographers see the value in them? At this price, it's in the same league as the Mamiya Press, Koni Omega, Minolta Autchord etc. But I hold it to a much higher standard than those.

I've been shooting with the GW690 mkIII for about a year and just traded it for the BL690 (I want longer lenses). But I adored the mkIII. A bright and usable viewfinder and such a great lens.

I had this neg wet-mounted and drum scanned and then printed and it just sings. (Below is a flatbed, crappy scan).

So here's my list of why the 690 series is so inexpensive (in order of importance).

1) People's priority is not about printing which is where the main advantage of a 6x9 negative comes from, but rather digitally sharing.
2) The production numbers of the series was very high.
3) The camera is heavy and inconvenient to shoot with.
4) Stiff competition from the Mamiya Rangefinders (even at 4x the price). People also love the jewel-like-quality of the Hasselblad 500 series.
5) Medium format is better suited for SLRs for critical focusing in a studio situation.
6) No meter. Lack of any automation.
7) Medium format is unpopular.
8) The 'ping' noise of the GW series (which is not* due to the shutter counter btw... this myth needs to die).

So, if you've shot with a 690 and didn't like it, can you give me a reason why you wouldn't want to shoot it? I'm happy with it as my every day camera, but I may just be a nut 😎

I can't speak to why people do NOT like the camera...but I have a Fuji 690BL with 100 3.5 and it's the only camera I'll ever need. Recently serviced, always gives me excellent results. Nothing to complain about. You're not a nut, you're like me. You like what you see, and can live with the weight of the camera (which I actually adore). Keep shooting...nice frame!

 

[Dan]

From what I understand it is because Fuji no longer supports the camera. If it breaks, that's it.

 

[sevo]

Medium format equipment in general is cheap - FWIW, ALL film equipment is, except for lenses that are suitable for digital adaptation and the few objects that somehow made it into the "collectible" pool.

 

[nongfuspring]

I was quite seriously thinking about getting a copy but after handling one I realised it was just way too big and heavy for me, I'm not into 6x9 enough to make the bulk worth worthwhile.

 

[Calzone]

I own a GL690, GM670, 65/8.0, 100/3.5, and 150/5.6.

Understand that the 150/5.6 is a Sonnar and is a very hard to find lens. Kinda rare.

The IQ is mucho high. I love the 100/3.5, and the later Fuji's with a 90 are not as good for me. I perfer the look of the 100 over the 90. This lens is a Tessar that has wonderful bokeh when shot wide open and close focused.

I find that these old heavy bodies that many people do not favor are rather durable. I had mine serviced to mostly brighten the rangefinder's.

What is not to like? Perhaps the expense of only 8 shots per roll when shooting 6x9. Also know that a friend who shoots large format once said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5." I was showing some of my 6x9 negatives from my Fuji.

Cal

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The reasons I don't use one:

I was able to borrow one a while back to see how I liked it. I found that, in no particular order:
A: it was very bulky
B: that 'ping' was super annoying
C: it was TOO sharp and contrasty - I didn't like the color rendition as much as my Rollei's
D: it didn't focus close enough.
E: to do long time exposures it requires some Rube Goldberg-like machinations

The 6x9 neg is a big plus - under the right circumstances, they hold up on their own as contact prints. I think proportion-wise, though, I'd rather have 6x8. Less square than 6x7, less oblong than 6x9.

 

[JChrome]

The reasons I don't use one:

I was able to borrow one a while back to see how I liked it. I found that, in no particular order:
A: it was very bulky
B: that 'ping' was super annoying
C: it was TOO sharp and contrasty - I didn't like the color rendition as much as my Rollei's
D: it didn't focus close enough.
E: to do long time exposures it requires some Rube Goldberg-like machinations

The 6x9 neg is a big plus - under the right circumstances, they hold up on their own as contact prints. I think proportion-wise, though, I'd rather have 6x8. Less square than 6x7, less oblong than 6x9.

Both B) and E) could be taken care of by using the GL690. There's also a GM680 for 6x8.

 

[JChrome]

I find that these old heavy bodies that many people do not favor are rather durable. I had mine serviced to mostly brighten the rangefinder's.

What is not to like? Perhaps the expense of only 8 shots per roll when shooting 6x9.

Cal

Who services them to brighten the viewfinder? Do they just replace some of the glass in the viewfinder? I would be very interested in that!

Some people love the 8 shots per roll so they can change the film often. But I also like shooting 220 Portra 400 which gives me 16 and that's plenty.

 

[Scapevision]

Who services them to brighten the viewfinder? Do they just replace some of the glass in the viewfinder? I would be very interested in that!

Some people love the 8 shots per roll so they can change the film often. But I also like shooting 220 Portra 400 which gives me 16 and that's plenty.

I'm also interested in what's done with the finder, unless it's a simple open the top and clean the glass from dust 🙂

On the other hand, I have had the GW before, and I sold it due to not using it much. Reasons being: loud, not a very exciting focal length.
Now I have a G690BL and I totally love it in all respects, even with the added weight of brass. It just looks better, sounds better (can't actually tell you took a shot outside), much more rugged and the focal length is actually comfortable.

I've always opted for simple mechanical cameras, and I can see myself using this one on trips. I don't mind 6x9 and its limitations, simply because I like shooting less, but better thought through photographs.

A lot of people want more for their money, thus 6x9 isn't cost effective. They also seem to complain about weight a lot, but love their hassleblads. I hated the operational hazards of one. Go figure 🙂

 

[Calzone]

Who services them to brighten the viewfinder? Do they just replace some of the glass in the viewfinder? I would be very interested in that!

Some people love the 8 shots per roll so they can change the film often. But I also like shooting 220 Portra 400 which gives me 16 and that's plenty.

J,

I dropped off my two working bodies at Nippon Camera Clinic in NYC which for me is local. At Nippon they removed the accumulated haze and the VF'ers are noticibly brighter. They are a pro shop and the turn around was about a week. I also had them CLA my lenses and time my leaf shutters.

The GM670 really has a great VF'er that is of higher magnification than my GL690.

For me the days of shooting 220 are over. When the rumour about Tri-X 320 being discontinued happened I ran down to B&H, but someone already bought all available stock. I rushed down to Adorama and then emptied Adorama of all their Tri-X 320 in 220. I shoot a lot and wish that 220 was still available.

Cal

 

[aizan]

some more reasons:

1. 6x9 negative holders are hard to come by.
2. there's not much point in shooting 6x9 over the smaller formats...for most people.
3. the cameras are very utilitarian, so there's not much pride of ownership/sexiness or famous user/mythologizing going on.

that's coming from a gw690iii and gsw690iii user.

 

[Scapevision]

J,

I dropped off my two working bodies at Nippon Camera Clinic in NYC which for me is local. At Nippon they removed the accumulated haze and the VF'ers are noticibly brighter. They are a pro shop and the turn around was about a week. I also had them CLA my lenses and time my leaf shutters.


Cal

I actually opened it up myself, just four or five screws and unscrew the winder with some rubber grip (i used rubber glove). The glass inside is super easy to clean. Looks brand new now.

 

[sevo]

some more reasons:

1. 6x9 negative holders are hard to come by.

Every dealer I know that sells 135 archive sheets also has the 120 variety. If any, 6x7 are an issue - as far as I can make out, both varieties of oversize sheets for 6x7, which held either five strips of two, or two of three and two of two, are gone.

3. the cameras are very utilitarian, so there's not much pride of ownership/sexiness or famous user/mythologizing going on.

I think that is the key point. There is no choice of lenses (pretty much one in each length for the early system, and two fixed lenses for the later ones), accessories or anything else people here fret about. It won't even fit into any fancy camera bag...

 

[Calzone]

I actually opened it up myself, just four or five screws and unscrew the winder with some rubber grip (i used rubber glove). The glass inside is super easy to clean. Looks brand new now.

Thanks for the insider info.

The bodies are kinda bombproof except the darkslide can get tired. On my two bodies my darkslides I find to be reliable, but on an older BL690 I owned I wouldn't trust my darkslide to fully open 100%. Oh-well.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I actually feed on the notority that the old Fuji's are kinda no frills, no glamour, no vulgar cost, are unfashionable and carry no status. I like that it is a minimal approach to photography but in a supersized manner.

One clear way to make art is not to do what everyone else is doing. 6X9 for wet printing is not for eveyone and that is the point.

For 6x9 ultra wide I also shoot a Plaubel 69W Proshift. Not exactly a common camera that you see every day. 47/5.6 Schneider Super Augulon is a 21mm FOV. I have rise/fall and left/right shifts on a 120 camera. Otherwise I would own one of the Fuji ultra-wides.

Cal

 

[JChrome]

3. the cameras are very utilitarian, so there's not much pride of ownership/sexiness or famous user/mythologizing going on.

I think that is the key point. There is no choice of lenses (pretty much one in each length for the early system, and two fixed lenses for the later ones), accessories or anything else people here fret about. It won't even fit into any fancy camera bag...

Excellent point about the sexiness. I think the production numbers probably made them less sexy.

Also it's a great point about the famous user mythologizing. Leica has an innumerable number of famous adopters. Hasselblad as well. The Mamiya 7? Less so but I feel like they're out there. But the 690 series has none. I can't think of anyone.

@Sevo:
As far as lenses for the early interchangeable series, there's more than the Mamiya 6 or 7 and no one complains about them (or maybe they do I just don't know). There's no reason in talking about the fixed lens series here for reasons that are apparent. There aren't that many accessories admittedly so I'll give you that.

Also, it definitely fits into a fancy camera bag and fits much easier than most other MF systems.

In terms of price though, has it been only over the past 5-10 years that we've seen the precipitous drop?

Here's a thread which mentions that a GSW690 III will cost $1200 in 2008. That price is half of that now (or less).

 

[Prest_400]

So I thought and used the opportunity to move up medium format by getting a GW690III. I took a very long time looking around the different alternatives, so I knew the market and kind of cameras for my budget (<$400).

I got it from Japan for a price not much higher for the one you quote for the G690, quite low for a mkIII, but I saw GW690's mkI bottoming at 210-220€ a year ago!
As you say, right. A 1990s, modern 120 RF camera. No alternatives IMO!

Another point related to some you discuss about is that IIRC these cameras were mainly marketed in Japan, and the US/Europe did get some imported but without becoming caché compared to other manufacturer's cameras.
This explains to me the low prices from Japan and the lack of vendors from Europe and US selling this camera.

Long story short, perhaps the Japanese keep some of the best for them. 😀

I have to agree that I haven't used it a lot but that's not quite the camera's fault:
Weight+bulkiness, ok, BUT other MF cameras also weigh 1,5kg and much more!
And something that in a personal level irks me a bit is that I wear glasses, and those don't let me see the whole VF

 

[aizan]

Every dealer I know that sells 135 archive sheets also has the 120 variety. If any, 6x7 are an issue - as far as I can make out, both varieties of oversize sheets for 6x7, which held either five strips of two, or two of three and two of two, are gone.

sorry, i meant negative carrier.

i could also add that it's a rangefinder. the price of each shot has changed the logic so that people want to make every exposure and square mm count. the imprecision is ok if you get something in return, like compactness with the fuji gf670, or legendary sharpness with the mamiya 7. 6x7 is big enough, and the format has more cachet in art photography circles.

 

[Calzone]

sorry, i meant negative carrier.

I realized that's what you meant. Definately not so common. Still available new for my Besseler 23C though.

Cal