What's Wrong With the Fuji 690 Series?

[JChrome]

Has anyone ever adjusted the rangefinder themselves? Google doesn't seem to be returning any results. I am also surprised by this because I would think that adjusting the rangefinder is a common thing to do. I've found articles on how to fix really odd problems with Pentax 67's. I guess I'll just have to write one 🙂

Perhaps another negative of the camera... because they're not so popular in the states, there are few resources for how to service them. And another consequence of this is that there are loads of myths about them that are unverified - the most popular of which is the whole 'the counter makes too much noise' myth.

 

[JChrome]

Another thing why I fear they aren't that popular is that Fuji isn't as sexy as Leica or Hasselblad. There isn't a myth around them. Hasselbald went to the moon, Fuji was used by busoperators. Leica invented the rangefander and 135 format, Fuji is a japanese copy.

Partly because import was small volume and the japanese economic boom was in those days regarded as a threat to the western economy.

This is all good stuff to mentally chew on.

Much of it makes sense. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex and Leica have a rich history and used that to their marketing advantage. But then, Pentax wasn't well known for anything special and they sold plenty of 67's. The same goes for Mamiya with their Press.

Also, in regards to the fear about the Japanese economic boom and our citizens fueling it, I would imagine this had less to do with it. People bought Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus cameras in droves.

My current speculation is just poor marketing/distribution in the US.

 

[Spanik]

All those that complain about the counter/shutter making too much noise should use a Kiev 60 for a week 😀

 

[Moto-Uno]

^ Or any of the old Bronica S models. I've found videos dedicated solely to this.
Peter

 

[Prest_400]

Has anyone ever adjusted the rangefinder themselves? Google doesn't seem to be returning any results. I am also surprised by this because I would think that adjusting the rangefinder is a common thing to do. I've found articles on how to fix really odd problems with Pentax 67's. I guess I'll just have to write one 🙂

Perhaps another negative of the camera... because they're not so popular in the states, there are few resources for how to service them. And another consequence of this is that there are loads of myths about them that are unverified - the most popular of which is the whole 'the counter makes too much noise' myth.

Agreed on that.
My GW690III has a slight horizontal deviation in the RF (only infinity but it's accurate on closer distances though) and it marks infinity on the f8 marker.
The most I've been able to see into this topic was a thread in a french forum about the GW690s in which a forumer posted a photo and description of the innards in the top plate/RF assembly:
http://35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34492

I haven't found any english site talking about RF adjustment on these cameras. I do recall reading some opinions about the VF alignment robustness though (this forumer does make a point about it).

 

[JChrome]

Agreed on that.
My GW690III has a slight horizontal deviation in the RF (only infinity but it's accurate on closer distances though) and it marks infinity on the f8 marker.
The most I've been able to see into this topic was a thread in a french forum about the GW690s in which a forumer posted a photo and description of the innards in the top plate/RF assembly:
http://35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34492

I haven't found any english site talking about RF adjustment on these cameras. I do recall reading some opinions about the VF alignment robustness though (this forumer does make a point about it).

So helpful thanks!

Just to bring that into this thread:

Here's what Google Translate shows:
"For against internally there is a metal frame on which the target is screwed. I controlled the rangefinder is all good, and this rangefinder design should not be able to shift it easily mark 1: wedge prism, it was he who shifts the image in mechanical connection with the focus ring . The prism slides on the rail, it is a very robust design Rep 2: Vertical adjustment screw range finder, the mirror is fixed Rep 3: Locking screw adjustment Horizontal Rep 4: eccentric screw adjustment Horizontal Rep 5: Mask frames parallax Rep 6: collimating tube of the center spot crosses the mirror that reflects the image frames (item 7) Rep 8: separating the two prisms"

I'll post my findings soon.

 

[Spanik]

Knew I had seen that somewhere... Now just hope that the older versions are similar.

 

[sevo]

Knew I had seen that somewhere... Now just hope that the older versions are similar.

No, they are not - the II and earlier have a completely different rangefinder mechanism.

 

[Texsport]

The combination of the Fujica 690 + AE 100/3.5 and the Auto Up, close up attachment makes a rapid shooting, bokeh monster, close focus portrait camera out of the Fujis.

The AE 100/3.5 is especially useful with child subjects, who don't remain in one pose very long.

I use it somewhat interchangeably with the Norita 66 + 80/2 - depending on framing and subject.


Texsport

 

[JChrome]

Hey Gang -
Anyone have a service manual for the Fuji GL690?

I need to adjust the RF. I found the vertical adjustment (little silver screw behind the mirror on the lower right hand side). Now I just need the horizontal adjustment. The black screw in front and the the left of the RF patch mirror is not budging..

Will poke around some more...

 

[JChrome]

Good news everyone!

The horizontal alignment for the RF patch was located on the front. Notice the screw towards the bottom, in between the two rusted screws

Easy peasy. You need a *tiny* flathead to get to it. But she's working well now.

 

[JChrome]

I wrote a long post about how to clean the viewfinder windows and adjust the RF alignment.

Here's the blog post.

This is really very simple. Don't hesitate to do this yourself. Cleaning the viewfinder windows made a large difference and things are looking good!

 

[Dante_Stella]

A lot of what is on the market are hard-use cameras from Japan.

Parts are rarely an issue with these cameras.

Why don't people shoot them? It's $3 a shot (film+dev) if you use commercial processing and almost a buck a click developing it yourself.

Dante

 

[Spanik]

Compared to other hobbies that can be considered cheap. My problem is getting film that is worth shooting. So far the only one I care for is Provia 400x. I still have some but at 8 shots a roll I prefer to use it in other cameras.

 

[JChrome]

Parts are rarely an issue with these cameras.

Why don't people shoot them? It's $3 a shot (film+dev) if you use commercial processing and almost a buck a click developing it yourself.

Dante

It's a fair statement. I also agree with Spanik though. Expensive is a relative term.

And no one will really care about the numbers, but let's assume we did try and figure out the price per shot. You'd have to include the initial outlay of cash for the body and the lens.

The break even point between a Gw690 mkIII (I paid $400 for mine with shipping) and an M3 with some sort of glass (that costs $1200 total) is around 600 shots. Beyond that, you're paying more for the Medium Format of course, but not by too much.

Disclaimer: I know there are a lot of assumptions in here. Let me know if I've missed something. I am calculating a roll of film to be $8 along with $5 for dev. These are my local prices. I also do my own scanning.

Here's a public spreadsheet that I created which you can play with. You can change the number of shots and it will show the total cost and cost per shot.

I made it have 10,000 shots in its current form. By 10,000 shots, the total expense of the M3 comes to about $5,000 and the total for the GW690 is $16,000.

 

[Spanik]

10000 shots is a lot for the average amateur. And doing 10000 shots in 6x9...wow. But 500 is reasonable in a year. It's about what I take all formats confounded (6x17, 6x9, 6x6 and 6x4.5).

Somehow you automatically adjust that cost. I never take 6x9 like I do 6x6 or 6x4.5. The larger the format the more you slow down and the less you take. And at the same time the more you (I do at least) enjoy the results.

 

[JChrome]

10000 shots is a lot for the average amateur. And doing 10000 shots in 6x9...wow. But 500 is reasonable in a year. It's about what I take all formats confounded (6x17, 6x9, 6x6 and 6x4.5).

Somehow you automatically adjust that cost. I never take 6x9 like I do 6x6 or 6x4.5. The larger the format the more you slow down and the less you take. And at the same time the more you (I do at least) enjoy the results.

Well put. I probably shoot 1000 MF shots per year. Mainly because this is the only thing I shoot. I rarely pickup my Nikon F3.

As I understand it, Cal shoots 150 rolls per month 🙂

 

[Calzone]

Well put. I probably shoot 1000 MF shots per year. Mainly because this is the only thing I shoot. I rarely pickup my Nikon F3.

As I understand it, Cal shoots 150 rolls per month 🙂

Jeremy,

I did that for one summer (150 rolls average per month) before I bought my Monochrom. That average was unsustainable, but around 100 rolls (120 and 135) was pretty steady for many years when Acros in 120 was under $3.00 a roll, and I could get rebranded Acros in 135 for $1.89 a roll from Freestyle that was short dated.

Today at higher prices I can no longer shoot like I use to, but I am very glad that I did. I don't want to do the math an give myself a headache but I have mucho negatives to print when I get priced out of NYC.

I currently have about 80 rolls that need development in my fridge right now (mostly 120).

Been shooting less film now that I own my Monochrom and a D3X.

Cal

 

[Texsport]

If you compare the cost and quality of a 12"X18" enlargement, or the areas of film actually exposed by 6X9 vs 35mm, the comparison heavily favors 6X9.

Texsport

 

[Calzone]

If you compare the cost and quality of a 12"X18" enlargement, or the areas of film actually exposed by 6X9 vs 35mm, the comparison heavily favors 6X9.

Texsport

Texsport,

Someone who shoots large format looked at some of my 6x9 negatives shot with my Fuji and said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5." I took this as a great compliment to my technic, the IQ, and the tonality I was able to capture. This was using a light table and an 8x loupe.

In just area the 6x9 is 6.5 times the space and a lot more happens there. 12x18 isn't that big a print, but I understand the 35mm negative will display some limits on IQ and tonality at that enlargment.

I wonder if you have a really clean highly detailed 6x9 negative and print it at a modest 12x18 that the detail might look/approach the look of a larger negative. I guess I'm wondering about print size that would be appropreate for say an exhibition print.

Thanks in advance.

Cal