Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

  • Total voters
    788
Abbazz said:
I

A folder with a decent lens is far more capable than a 10MP digital SLR. The DSLR might be more convenient to use, but a good folder in capable hands will still produce better pictures.


You admit that a 14MP digital rangefinder can come close in quality to an MF film scanned, therefore acknowledging the superior quality of MF film.

I like it.

Cheers!

Abbazz
Click to expand...

The verdict on better IQ from digital cameras or MF film isn't there yet and the progress in quality: S/N, dynamic range, resolution is not happening at the film side as we both know. At the time we get the virtual MF folder presented there's a much more concrete 25 Sony FF announced and three 14 MP APS size DSLRs with HDR qualities will be available within 6 months. In all digital cases with optics that are more optimised than what is made available for analogue film these days. The Fuji folder has at best a Heliar type lens as any good Planar or Sonnar would be too heavy. There's a nice analogy in the Schneider lens catalogue, compare the Digitars with the Symmars for film, the first are just better. A good friend with a Sinar back has the right equipment to compare the Nikon 35 mm lenses, the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses, the Digitars, the Symmars on that MF back. The Digitars are the best hands down. If MF film has to beat the DSLRs announced these days it should be in an Alpa type camera with the customised Linhof film holder + 220 film for extreme flatness and a Biogon or Digitar lens to get the resolution you need. On Dynamic range you have to be careful with B&W and in color you better forget slide film. In a hybrid analogue/digital workflow the scanner should at least be a Nikon LS9000 with wet mounting or a well kept and operated drum scanner. A complete analogue workflow faces the same problems with film flatness and another optical path that is in the scanning and picture taking steps. If I write about equal outcome from MF film compared to today's digital it is with that in mind and not a Tessar, Heliar, 80 mm f3.5 on folder struts transmitting light on 6x7 frames of plain 120 roll stock.

The "I like it" is the same term I use to explain my Iskra, Bessa, Monitor, converted Polaroid 160 use. I also considered it as a nice stop gap solution between 35 mm analogue dying and digital photography coming to age. Yesterday bicycling I had my Iskra with me and a small Fuji digital compact. The Iskra loaded with Tmax that will be developed in a Jobo Autolab 1000 and scanned on a Nikon LS8000 in wet mounting then printed on a HP Z3100. There's fun in some aspects but I do not think my image quality is optimal now or will be optimised by a new MF folder. For that I trust the digital developments more and I hope that the "I like it" feeling is one day represented in a digital rangefinder that has the better image quality but at the same time offers it in a compact and uncomplicated way. I might go for a DSLR if it takes too long but I'm afraid it will not bring that feeling back.

I know I wouldn't buy the Fuji. Even if it had a 65mm lens and a 48 x 83 mm frame size to keep the film more flat and fit my LS8000 on length to get the extra square inches. Not for a lower price like 500 $ either. I might spend a total of 1500 $ hours on tinkering a camera like that but that's the other part of the fun factor. Suits old cameras better than new ones :)

Not going to spoil the fun of potential buyers anymore so this is the last of my opinions on this camera proposal.


Ernst Dinkla
 
I voted "yes" even though cost and size/weight factors will be an issue.

I like folding MF cameras for their relative simplicity and the fact that they can be folded to fit a small space. Right now I use a Certo Six and couple of Super Ikontas. All my vintage folding cameras have problems with poor viewfinders, and close focusing. The Certo Six has parallax compensation (sort of) but the Ikontas do not.

If this Fuji comes in at a cost of around $1500.00 to $2000.00. Has parallax compensation, can close focus, better viewfinder, can take some modest punishment, and is reasonably lightweight etc. I'll take it.
 
The retro styling really puts me off; on the other hand, there's no realistic alternative for a new pocketable MF (at least one that's not made out of recycled Lada dashboards).

I vote maybe, if it's cheap.
 
A fixed lens 6x7 with an 80mm, no thanks, I really find it a useless focal length.... If it were 65mm or shorter it would be a nice compact.
 
"The retro styling really puts me off."

Can you elaborate? This is what folders look like. (And I think frankly something more modern-looking wouldn't have the appeal this one seems to have.
 
I will almost certainly buy one - I have a range of 6x9 and 6x6 folders, but don't currently have a 6x7, so. The only variable is when depending upon how long it takes to save up! :)
 
KoNickon said:
"The retro styling really puts me off."

Can you elaborate? This is what folders look like. (And I think frankly something more modern-looking wouldn't have the appeal this one seems to have.
Click to expand...
But it's not - it's how they looked sixty years ago, and I for one don't see the appeal in an ersatz antique. It's not as if Fuji can't do modern design - they've shown us repeatedly that they can, and do it well.

Don't get me wrong. I like old cameras - I went out this lunchtime with a Perkeo II in my back pocket, and there's a Rolleicord Vb in my desk drawer for whenever I get bored. But I want them to look old because they are old. It hurts my soul to see a company rely on misplaced nostalgia to sell its wares, as if it has no faith that the camera can succeed on merit alone. :(

Contrast this with the Zeiss Ikon. That's a camera with clean, elegant lines, that feels no need to ape its predecessors. Imagine if CZ had put out a cod Contax IIIa instead.




I wonder what Porsche Design Studio could do with it? ;)
 
ruby.monkey said:
But it's not - it's how they looked sixty years ago, and I for one don't see the appeal in an ersatz antique. It's not as if Fuji can't do modern design - they've shown us repeatedly that they can, and do it well.

Don't get me wrong. I like old cameras - I went out this lunchtime with a Perkeo II in my back pocket, and there's a Rolleicord Vb in my desk drawer for whenever I get bored. But I want them to look old because they are old. It hurts my soul to see a company rely on misplaced nostalgia to sell its wares, as if it has no faith that the camera can succeed on merit alone. :(

Contrast this with the Zeiss Ikon. That's a camera with clean, elegant lines, that feels no need to ape its predecessors. Imagine if CZ had put out a cod Contax IIIa instead.

I wonder what Porsche Design Studio could do with it? ;)
Click to expand...

I think this has been asked before...but I'll ask again.

What would a modern folding camera look like? It seems that form follows function and this is a simple device. The lack of wind lever is certainly a retro thing, but what else should be changed so you don't think of this as just a sentimental design?
 
the lack of wind lever on this new fuji camera doesn't bother me as much as the presence of the wind lever on the rd1. : )
 
ruby.monkey said:
But it's not - it's how they looked sixty years ago, and I for one don't see the appeal in an ersatz antique. It's not as if Fuji can't do modern design - they've shown us repeatedly that they can, and do it well.

Don't get me wrong. I like old cameras - I went out this lunchtime with a Perkeo II in my back pocket, and there's a Rolleicord Vb in my desk drawer for whenever I get bored. But I want them to look old because they are old. It hurts my soul to see a company rely on misplaced nostalgia to sell its wares, as if it has no faith that the camera can succeed on merit alone. :(

Contrast this with the Zeiss Ikon. That's a camera with clean, elegant lines, that feels no need to ape its predecessors. Imagine if CZ had put out a cod Contax IIIa instead.




I wonder what Porsche Design Studio could do with it? ;)
Click to expand...

Compact camera design has progressed from early folders with bellows to telescoping lenses on P&S digitals. I'll opt for the bellows design. :) ... and I like old Porshes .:D Regards.
 
I suppose a "modern" folder might resemble Fuji's GA series, organic curves and plastic. But I rather like the appearance of the prototype, no pretense, plain and simple, it looks like what it is. The 80mm lens is just right for versatility, about like a 40mm in 35-format terms, and AE is a nice addition.
 
Why does everyone assume that this has knob wind? A 6x7 camera is a lot bigger than a 6x4.5 (I'd bet that this camera - despite its folding nature - is a lot bigger than a GA645), and there is plenty of room to secrete away a coreless motor for the drive.

I like the product; I would temper my enthusiasm with the following:

1. This will not be a small camera. If you've seen a Mamiya 7 II or a Plaubel Makina in real life, you will understand. The original Fuji GS645 was pretty chunky for a folding 6x4.5 (it felt like about 1.5 times the size of a Super Ikonta A - in all dimensions).

2. Folders have unavoidable mechanical stresses related to opening and closing. The original GS645 folder was a fantastic image maker but was easy to knock out of line in terms of lens alignment. This was an even bigger problem with the Super Ikonta C 6x9 folders (and the Moscow-5s).

3. Bellows assemblies are prone to wearing out, particularly the synthetic ones. The GS645 had a big problem with this.

4. Fuji has never made a quiet MF camera (except perhaps the Auto Electro lens-equipped GL690 or GM670).

If you like the idea of this camera, consider the GA645 series (or GA645zi), which is (going to be) smaller, tougher, more vibration proof and capable of point and shoot operation when you need it (i.e., when anyone other than you is taking the picture). And they fold just as flat as any Fuji RF has (or will). No bellows; solid metal retracting lens barrels. The lenses, by the way, are sharp as tacks. You also get AE (if you want), built-in data imprinting (incl. exposure info), and automatic loading. If you're a scanning fiend, you'll note that the frame spacing is accurate to within about 1/4mm from frame to frame.

I know people love manual focus RFs, but in the end, slavish devotion to a rangefinder spot is functionally no different from the judicious use of single-point AF. And the AF systems on the GA series are hybrid active/passive and are not fooled easily by low light. You can also zone focus, which I do most of the time with mine.
 
Ah, but the 6x7 neg, Dante! And the motors in the GA cameras are noisy! No, they won't do at all.

The idea for the new Fuji is portability. As well as size, weigthh also plays a part in portability. I had a heavy Super Ikonta B that folded but was as heavy as a brick. I certainly hope that the new Fuji does not have the added weight and complexity of a motor drive. A MF folder is not a fast handling camera for action so a motor drive would be silly, and I am not so lazy that I won't wind on my own film, even with a knob.

I sure hope you're wrong about the motor!
 
Last edited:
I agree with Tripod. Motor = weight, noise, complexity, batteries ... fine if you want the convenience, but not my cuppa.

As for retracting lens vs. bellows, point taken. But the bellows is purty! :D

And as for the AF ... This is Rangefinder Forum! :angel:
 
I voted NO simply because I already own a Fuji GL690. Why give up a superb camera and spend money on another Fuji RF camera?
 
So, let me get this straight???

So, let me get this straight???

raid said:
I voted NO simply because I already own a Fuji GL690. Why give up a superb camera and spend money on another Fuji RF camera?
Click to expand...

You are implying that you CAN have too many Fuji's?

Hmmmm...
 
tripod said:
Ah, but the 6x7 neg, Dante! And the motors in the GA cameras are noisy! No, they won't do at all.

The idea for the new Fuji is portability. As well as size, weight also plays a part in portability. I had a heavy Super Ikonta B that folded but was as heavy as a brick. I certainly hope that the new Fuji does not have the added weight and complexity of a motor drive. A MF folder is not a fast handling camera for action so a motor drive would be silly, and I am not so lazy that I won't wind on my own film, even with a knob.

I sure hope you're wrong about the motor!
Click to expand...

What is the frame of reference for portability?

This is mine. I've taken my GA to 17 countries on five continents in every season and every temperature (from 120F in Namibia down to 0F in Park City). It's easily concealed (folds flatter than an M camera and fits in a coat pocket, an outside pocket of a Domke satchel, a Crumpler digits - barely - or a plastic shopping bag). It's never been stolen (except, I believe recently by Fuji service, which has had it for a VF cleaning for 2 months now...). At 815g, it is the same (if not less) than an M8 with a 35mm/1.4 ASPH. The weight is not probably not going to be a challenge to any normal user.

[For comparison, the Super Ikontas went up to 1,100g - real porkers - especially when you consider that everything was hand-wound and meterless]

6x7 as a format is not what it used to be - in the old days it was billed as a way to squeeze two more frames out from a roll of 120 - with the idea that anything beyond a 4:5 ratio was wasted. Since 6x7 became popular with the Koni-Omegas and Mamiyas, both lenses and film have gotten an order of magnitude better. Even 24x36 digital cameras in the 12-14mp range are starting to make a play against 6x7 color.

And when you start considering the other incremental costs, 6x7 looks like less fun. The cameras are bigger, and the film has 40% less capacity than a 6x4.5 (300 shots of 6x7 - 30 rolls - is 50% larger in volume than 320 shots of 6x4.5 - and it's not an insignificant in a TSA carry on). Frequent film changes are really not fun for travel in Salvador, Bahia. And when you consider the other incremental costs (a standard negative page or 8x10 contact sheet only does 8 of ten frames; you can only gang two negs in a MF film scanner; and the enlargers are an order of magnitude bigger and more expensive than 6x6), 6x9 becomes the more attractive option (especially if you like 2:3 ratios). Against this, you have to consider that the imaging difference only hits you in the head above 8x10.

A new, expensive 6x7 might be for an amateur a rough road with very little return. For some people, especially people who like to make wet prints, it's very satisfying.

Motors are not all bad. The modern ones add very little weight to the camera (many motors weigh far less than the steel and brass geartrains used in manual wind units). And the ethos is less toward fast action than a transparent user interface (no shifting your eye to wind if you are left-eyed; no forgetting to cock the camera). On the GA, it adds some features you wouldn't really get otherwise: barcoded film, data imprinting, auto wind-on and wind-off. On something like a Hexar AF, servo motors get you a camera quieter than anything mechanical.

Noise, too, is in the ear of the beholder. I have always been suprised at how "loud" cameras don't attract any attention anymore. I think that with many digicams, the simulated "shutter" sound is very loud and flash is a universal phenomenon. This leads to desensitization of people who might notice. That said, even before "loud" motor driven cameras, it was always surprising how little attention they attracted as long as they looked like p/s units. Of course, I can report almost getting knocked off one of the spires of the Sagrada Familia by an enthusiastic Japanese gentleman who was marveling that I had a Fuji... but that was visual and not auditory.

And sometimes invisibility is more about how you dress and carry yourself than shaving a few grams, a couple of cm, or a couple of dB off a camera. I can spot most Leica users from a distance even before I can see their cameras (oddly, as I have observed, it seems they are often the only people who carry cameras around their necks).

Why do you need quick action? What if you don't like the photo-pervs who are always checking out your equipment (cue double entendre) and drawing attention?

The Fuji 6x7 folder has potential (I'll send a letter to them asking that it be made... since I already paid for the hellish enlarging/scanning infrastructure to use negatives that big), but I think people are getting unrealistic ideas about the "fun" level in general. Write in to Fuji. Wait for it to come out. See what it's like. See how it's built. See how heavy it is (prediction: 1kg+). Then go crazy!

Cheers
Dante
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom