The obligatory GF670 thread

[Peter Evans]

A look at recent changes to Camerapedia took me to the Camerapedia article on the GF670, of which I hadn't previously heard.

I can't think of all that much to say that hasn't already been said, so I'll spare you. But one thing struck me: rebollo_fr's comment that the front standard resembled that of the Bessa II. Yes it does. And despite Antjam's amusing comment on the allegations of wobbly design, I've a hunch that there's some truth to it.

I hope that the GF670 comes out; but if it doesn't I wonder if it's possible to have a Compur shutter added to an Autorange 820.

[Abbazz]

Thanks, Peter, I was waiting for someone to bring forward the topic of this exciting new camera.

The first thing I thought when I saw the picture of the new Fuji folder was that the front standard reminded me of my Voigtländer Bessa RF. I see it as a good omen, because I regard the Bessa RF as one of the finest 6x9 folders ever made (much better than the bulky Ensign Autorange in my humble opinion).

Now, one question remains: what was Fuji thinking when it designed this new camera for the unappealing 6x7 format? Except for the interesting but delicate Plaubel Makina 67 (which is not a folder stricto sensu, as it is in fact a klapp camera), all the classic folding cameras created for rectangular format on 120 film have been of the 6x9 kind. Can you imagine a 6x7 Super-Ikonta? Absolute nonsense!

The Fuji GM670 and GW670 cameras sell more difficultly and for less money on the second hand market than their 6x9 counterparts. Why did Fuji chose the way of an inferior, out of fashion format?

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Peter Evans]

I'm glad to hear that the Bessa works well. Your opinion of the Autorange is a minority one. (As for me, I don't know: I've never tried either.)

Of course everyone's entitled to an opinion on what the best 120 format is, but yours surprises me. Yes of course, all the classic folders for 120 were for 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9; and no, a 6x7 Super Ikonta is unimaginable. But if anything that makes the new design more interesting (if perhaps less desirable). Clearly there is (or has recently been) a demand for 6x7: consider the monster Asahi and Mamiya SLRs and the Mamiya 7. I think the Mamiya Press and Koni-Omega had 6x7 options too, but I know little of those. And then there's the Koni-Omega.

Why 6x9? Obviously some people (e.g. you) like it. But I think it's survived partly by inertia. I guess a lot of 6x9 photos are cropped to something more like 6x7. (And as for 24x36, there was a Japanese attempt to change this, famously defeated by US bullying.)

The Fuji GM670 and GW670 cameras sell more difficultly and for less money on the second hand market than their 6x9 counterparts.

If you're going to have a whopping, heavy beast like this, with fixed external dimensions and weight, it does seem a waste to limit it. But what if the bodies too had been of different widths (and weights)? I think the 6x7 versions would then have sold better.

To me, yes, 6x7 is a bit squarish, and 6x9 is a bit longish. A good compromise would be 6x8. But perhaps that would be a hard sell outside Japan.

Format and aspect ratio aside, I wonder why the camera has knob wind. Film transport aside, the film consumption means that this hardly seems a camera for fast work -- but you could say the same about the G690 (etc.), and they have lever wind. Is the knob a matter of making it look like a Bessa (silly), or might there be some fragility that could be endangered by a lever (alarming)?

Well, it's all a bit "academic". By guess, not worth the electrons it's written on, is that Fuji will sell two thousand of these as a "limited edition" for 250,000 yen or so a pop. And at that price, I'll get by without one.

[Abbazz]

I'm glad to hear that the Bessa works well. Your opinion of the Autorange is a minority one. (As for me, I don't know: I've never tried either.)

The Autorange is not a bad camera but it's very big and heavy for a folder. And I find the famous Ross X-Press lens not better than a Zeiss Tessar, which means it has good quality but it's not a superlative lens.

Of course everyone's entitled to an opinion on what the best 120 format is, but yours surprises me. Yes of course, all the classic folders for 120 were for 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9; and no, a 6x7 Super Ikonta is unimaginable. But if anything that makes the new design more interesting (if perhaps less desirable). Clearly there is (or has recently been) a demand for 6x7: consider the monster Asahi and Mamiya SLRs and the Mamiya 7. I think the Mamiya Press and Koni-Omega had 6x7 options too, but I know little of those. And then there's the Koni-Omega.

Sorry, I like to be a little provocative. As you have guessed, I dislike the 6x7 format, which I find too square without being really square. I see it like a compromise between 6x6 and 6x9 designed for people who cannot choose between both formats.

Of course a 6x7 Super Ikonta is unimaginable, if only because 6x7 was not yet popular at the time Zeiss produced the last Super Ikonta. I think the first constructor to launch a 6x7 camera were the Simmon brothers in 1953 with their Omega 120 military camera for aerial photography. Their purpose was to achieve the same aspect ratio as 4x5in. aerial cameras which they were trying to replace with their new creation. The later civilian version of the Omega 120 was quite successful, so other camera makers began to show some interest towards the new format. Linhof's marketing department then coined the phrase "ideal format" to use in its advertising campaigns and everybody began to adopt the motto.

At the time 6x7 was at the peak of its popularity, it made sense to switch from 6x9 to 6x7 for practical reasons, if not for artistic reasons. Most pictures were printed on paper which format was homothetic to the 6x7 negative (4x5in., 8x10in.). Enlargers for 6x7 negatives were more common and cheaper than enlargers for 6x9. Professional photographers preferred to shoot 6x7 slides that had the same aspect ratio as the most prestigious magazines of that time. Even photographers wanting to do slide shows had 6x7 projectors available, while there were none for 6x9 format.

But now? Most photographers have adopted a hybrid workflow with digital scanning, post processing and printing of their analog negatives. The good old enlargers are littering the landfills. The prestigious news magazines have been downsized and have now a more rectangular format. Any scanner that can do 6x7 will also easily scan 6x9 negatives. The most common paper sizes for digital printing are 10x15cm (4x6in.), or the normalized ISO sizes (A4, A3, etc.), which are all very close to the aspect ratio of the 6x9 frame. Video projection of scanned images has replaced the slide shows of yore. The much touted "advantages" of 6x7 format have completely vanished.

So people are now free to choose the format they like the best for artistic reasons, and not because they have to. I guess we are starting to see a 6x9 renaissance, like the rangefinder renaissance we have witnessed since the beginning of the new Millenium.

Why 6x9? Obviously some people (e.g. you) like it. But I think it's survived partly by inertia. I guess a lot of 6x9 photos are cropped to something more like 6x7. (And as for 24x36, there was a Japanese attempt to change this, famously defeated by US bullying.)

That's right, Nikon tried to impose the 24x32mm format and then 24x34mm on its first rangefinder cameras in order to offer a frame aspect ratio close to 8x10 paper, but it quickly reverted to the whole 24x36mm frame. I don't think the US were ever big fans of the 24x36 format. Of course, Kodak didn't want to cope with multiple formats in its processing labs, but globally the US always have shown some preference for more square formats. For large format negatives and printing paper, Europe was using the more elongated 9x13cm or 13x18cm (5x7"), while the US had the 4x5in. and 8x10in. series. When Kodak tried to launch new film formats, it always chose some rather squarish dimensions (except for its swan song, the multi-format APS): 13x17mm for the 110, 28mmx28mm for the 126, 8x11mm for the Disc.

If you're going to have a whopping, heavy beast like this, with fixed external dimensions and weight, it does seem a waste to limit it. But what if the bodies too had been of different widths (and weights)? I think the 6x7 versions would then have sold better.

I am not quite sure. 6x9 cameras are only marginally bigger than 6x7 cameras. Furthermore, size has never been a priority for Fuji when designing its medium format cameras. The Fuji GA645zi is bigger than any of my 6x6 folders, including the Mamiya Six, which is considered as one of the bulkiest 6x6. I guess the new 6x7 Fuji will be bigger than a 6x9 Super Ikonta.

To me, yes, 6x7 is a bit squarish, and 6x9 is a bit longish. A good compromise would be 6x8. But perhaps that would be a hard sell outside Japan.

De gustibus non disputandum.

Format and aspect ratio aside, I wonder why the camera has knob wind. Film transport aside, the film consumption means that this hardly seems a camera for fast work -- but you could say the same about the G690 (etc.), and they have lever wind. Is the knob a matter of making it look like a Bessa (silly), or might there be some fragility that could be endangered by a lever (alarming)?

My guess is that's a design feature. As a folder, the camera has to be as sleek as possible when closed (think: pocketable) and a wind lever would create an unwanted protrusion.

Well, it's all a bit "academic". By guess, not worth the electrons it's written on, is that Fuji will sell two thousand of these as a "limited edition" for 250,000 yen or so a pop. And at that price, I'll get by without one.

I fear that too. But looking at the pictures, the lens is not EBC treated and it's only f/3.5, the bellows seems made of rubber, and the camera doesn't exude luxury. It would be a wise move from Fuji to sell such a camera for cheap in order to promote the sales of its (good) medium format film. With Kodak gradually stepping out of the film arena, there are some market shares to grab...

Cheers!

Sébastien

[Peter Evans]

The Autorange is not a bad camera but it's very big and heavy for a folder. And I find the famous Ross X-Press lens not better than a Zeiss Tessar, which means it has good quality but it's not a superlative lens.

Hmm. How about the Telka III then?

Furthermore, size has never been a priority for Fuji when designing its medium format cameras. The Fuji GA645zi is bigger than any of my 6x6 folders, including the Mamiya Six, which is considered as one of the bulkiest 6x6.

And that's without mentioning the GX680. . . .

But looking at the pictures, the lens is not EBC treated and it's only f/3.5, the bellows seems made of rubber, and the camera doesn't exude luxury. It would be a wise move from Fuji to sell such a camera for cheap in order to promote the sales of its (good) medium format film. With Kodak gradually stepping out of the film arena, there are some market shares to grab...

The lens isn't claimed to be EBC treated, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I'd assume that either it would be multicoated or (like Cosina) they'd try to turn the single-coating into a retro "feature" of some kind. I'd be more interested in the design of the lens hood. And its price, too. It ought to be very well designed (of course); but, as this is a folder, it ought to be designed to go on and off easily. This in turn would probably mean that it would fall off rather easily. So I'd want to buy a couple of spares. But I wouldn't want to buy spares at what even Cosina charges these days for its ritzier hoods.

To me, 2.8 vs 3.5 is hardly an issue. But I'd want to know that the lens performed well wide open -- not "well" in lines-per-millimetre, measurbating terms; just commonsensical "well" -- as well as excellently stopped down.

Can't bellows be made out of that nasty stuff used for some envelopes, the stuff that looks not unlike paper but can't be torn? It has little resistance to scissors but otherwise it seems sturdy.

As for film sales, we should be thanking "Lomographic" or whoever it is that sells Holgas.

[Peter Evans]

I have a Telka III with the Sagittar 95/3.5 lens and shall do a web page about it.

Excellent news! As you may have noticed, I've been away for some time. It was only a couple of days ago that I noticed the Rittreck/Optika page. Amazement at the page was quickly followed by amazement that you (and not only you) are actually using one: without knowing anything about them, I'd assumed that they'd have lots of parts to go wrong. Next you'll be telling me you're using a Makiflex.

There is one difference that I forgot to mention about these lenses: they are both unit focusing lenses, thus having better correction of all the aberrations over the whole focusing range, while the Super-Ikonta's Tessar is a front focusing lens tuned for infinity shooting, thus having worse performance when used wide open at close range.

But of course! The design of the Tessar has always puzzled me. I'm used to unit-focusing folders: Pearl, Mine Six, (old) Mamiya Six, etc. Even my oldest camera (and oldest 6x9), an Inos II, is unit-focusing.

http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/

Wonderful! I just don't know what all those strange lenses are. (Wot no Fujinons, Simlars, Hexanons, Skopars, etc.?)

[Abbazz]

Next you'll be telling me you're using a Makiflex.

Sorry, 6x9 it ain't.

Wonderful! I just don't know what all those strange lenses are. (Wot no Fujinons, Simlars, Hexanons, Skopars, etc.?)

You can easily adapt the lenshoods provided for those marvelous all-plastic Sigma lenses to your oversized, out-of-fashion, old manual lenses by applying the rule of three.

Cheers!

Sébastien

[Peter Evans]

The camera gets an inconspicuous photo and micro-write-up on p. 169 of the "May" issue of Asahi Camera. We're told it will be put on sale by the end of the year.

[Abbazz]

Thanks for the good news, Peter. I was a bit scared the camera had turned into vaporware after the PMA announcement.

Cheers!

Sebastien

[aoresteen]

Anyone know what size filter it takes? I didn't see it listed but I might have missed it.

I would MUCH prefer s 6x9 version! I can crop a 6x9 to 6x7 but taking a 6x7 to 6x9 is much harder.

[Peter Evans]

I suppose I'm the last person to have heard of this, but apparently the Fujifilm [why couldn't they call it Fuji?] GF670 with Fujinon in Japan will be the Bessa III with Heliar outside Japan. Thus the resemblance to the Bessa II is I suppose not coincidental at all.

I don't know what all this means, really. Branding works in mysterious ways, I suppose to allow for brand preferences which work in mysterious ways, because a lot of people are profoundly silly. But it's rather good in that Cosina/Voigtlaender is associated with low prices, and thus this new toy too might be cheap, er sorry I mean inexpensive.

Meanwhile I wonder what Fujifilm is doing. Recently I had to buy a -- dare I say it hereabouts? -- digital camera. Aside from its inexcusable lack of an accessory shoe, I'd come to like my Fujifilm F11 hugely more than both (a) any digital camera I'd used earlier and (b) I'd expected to. (Indeed on the day I bought it, I felt so queasy that I also bought a Fujica Six. I must admit that only a single roll of film has ever gone through the latter.) Well, Fuji makes a DSLR that I've reason to believe is very good if you're after a DSLR. As for all its other offerings. they're slippery little things, with virtually no manual control, that seem designed to look good in ads and show windows. Of course a huge percentage of other manufacturers' digicams are like this, but Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Ricoh also make compact and reasonably affordable cameras that have grips, manual controls, and accessory shoes. (I got a Ricoh.)

[Peter Evans]

The "March" issues of the popular Japanese magazines say that the camera is, or is about to be, released. Price is "open", but guesstimated to be over 200,000 yen. Ah, thanks but no thanks. Still, it has a switch to choose between 6x7 and 6x6, and all in all seems a splendid toy for those with deep pockets.

[Abbazz]

The "March" issues of the popular Japanese magazines say that the camera is, or is about to be, released. Price is "open", but guesstimated to be over 200,000 yen. Ah, thanks but no thanks. Still, it has a switch to choose between 6x7 and 6x6, and all in all seems a splendid toy for those with deep pockets.

Too bad it's not 6x9, Peter. I would have sold some old stuff to finance the purchase of the new camera...

BTW, it's already on Yodobashi and Map Camera's websites:

http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/product/100000001001085682/index.html

http://www.mapcamera.com/sho/search.php?MODE=M_VIEW&ACT=A_DETAIL&map_code=reserve0009132&class=01

Cheers!

Sebastien