Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

  • Total voters
    788
There will be NO motor.. Do not fear.

There will be NO motor.. Do not fear.

tripod said:
I sure hope you're wrong about the motor!
Click to expand...
If they took the time to engrave a little arrow on the wind-on knob, wouldn't that be a little redundant (and costly) if there were a motor. Think about it! No motor... trust me. And BTW... the checks in the mail.
 
Thanks for the reply, Dante. As a B+W printer, if I'm using a 120 film camera, I'd rather have the extra cm2 of a 6x7 format than a 645 format.
 
175 people here on RFF have said they would buy this camera.
160 people on APUG have said they would buy this camera.

I guess this is a good sign.
 
david b said:
175 people here on RFF have said they would buy this camera.
160 people on APUG have said they would buy this camera.

I guess this is a good sign.
Click to expand...

Maybe someone should forward this information to the appropriate person at Fuji...
 
david b said:
175 people here on RFF have said they would buy this camera.
160 people on APUG have said they would buy this camera.

I guess this is a good sign.
Click to expand...

I wonder how people voted on both polls?
 
tripod said:
Thanks for the reply, Dante. As a B+W printer, if I'm using a 120 film camera, I'd rather have the extra cm2 of a 6x7 format than a 645 format.
Click to expand...
I agree - I find 6x7 to be the best format for me. I end up cropping much less than any other format I've used.

As for a 12 - 14 MP 35mm challenging 6x7, that would not be my experience. I have tested against Canon in that range and ther really is no contest when comparing image quality. Of course size and convenience are different discussions.

And, BTW, I don't think I'll buy the new Fuji, the Mamiya 7 is enough for me now. :)
 
gdi said:
.....

As for a 12 - 14 MP 35mm challenging 6x7, that would not be my experience. I have tested against Canon in that range and ther really is no contest when comparing image quality. Of course size and convenience are different discussions.

....
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. No contest.
 
tripod said:
As a B+W printer, if I'm using a 120 film camera, I'd rather have the extra cm2 of a 6x7 format than a 645 format.
Click to expand...

If size matters, why not 6x9, as stated by Dante: 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

The 6x9 format had fallen out of fashion because enlargers and slide projectors were not easily available. Now, hybrid processing has brought back 6x9 to the front page as the larger non panoramic format on 120 film. For those who hate cropping and wasting paper, it's interesting to note that most actual printer paper formats are nearly homothetic to the 6x9 negative: 10x15cm (4x6 in.), A4, A3, etc.

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
Abazz: All enlargers are cheap these days. You can get a Beseler or Omega 4x5 for next to nothing, free for hauling away if you're fortunate. :angel:
 
Has there ever been a 6x7 folder?

I think Fuji is doing a balancing act here. 6x9 does quite a bit to increase the size of the thing.

They could have gone 6x6 for me. In any case, if I can afford it, I'll buy it.
 
Based on the video, where there's a person for scale next to the prototype, I'd say this camera is closer in size to the 6x9 Bessa II than to the 6x6 Perkeo II, so it wouldn't take much more to make it a 6x9.

There has never been a 6x7 folder to my knowledge. 6x7 only became popular as folders were on the wane. 6x7 cameras can't use red window frame counters, because there isn't a number series on the paper backing for 6x7, and many folders use the red window.

I'd be happy with this camera in 6x7 or 6x9. The main thing for me is to have a lightweight folder that fits in a coat pocket or briefcase pocket, with better optics, film flatness, alignment, and ergonomics than the classic folders, and I suspect this camera would do that. The option of shooting 220 is a plus. Meanwhile, I use my Perkeo II (I sold my Bessa II, because the ergonomics didn't work for me, though it was a lovely camera otherwise).
 
Last edited:
David Goldfarb said:
Based on the video, where there's a person for scale next to the prototype, I'd say this camera is closer in size to the 6x9 Bessa II than to the 6x6 Perkeo II, so it wouldn't take much more to make it a 6x9.
Click to expand...

Fuji MF cameras tend to be bigger than other brands'. I bet the new GF670 is bigger than a 6x9 Super-Ikonta.

David Goldfarb said:
There has never been a 6x7 folder to my knowledge. 6x7 only became popular as folders were on the wane.
Click to expand...

Except the Plaubel Makina 67, which was not a folder stricto sensu.

David Goldfarb said:
The main thing for me is to have a lightweight folder that fits in a coat pocket or briefcase pocket
Click to expand...

That's why it has a film advance knob and not a lever. A lever would catch on your pocket.

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
I bet that if Fujifilm announces production of the 6x7 folder the queues at stores will be miles long. ;)

Frankly keen 120 and 35mm shooters alike have a lot to be grateful to Fujifilm for.

Some years back when all 120 folders could be found feet deep in garbage dumps, I managed to pick up a bunch of wonderful Voigtlanders and Zeiss Ikon Super-Ikontas and Inkotas nearly for hamburger money!

Since then I have used every one on shoots and fid them a delight to use and a fantastic surprise when the film is processed. So, now when I travel I take a Super-Ikonta IV as a backup to my XPan and Hassey 6x6. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom