About Fuji GSW690 and GX680

I haven't found the micro or local contrast of the lens to be a
problem. It might be a function of film/developer/development time
combination rather than the lens. It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.

Jytzel wrote:

Fernando wrote in message . ..


Given that film is dead , I was thinking about expanding my MF
arsenal (that already counts various PentaconSix / Kiev60 bodies,
lenses, accessories, and a good Pentax 645 system) with some larger
gear. :-)
My filmscanner reads up to 6x9cm, so I was considering either the Fuji
GSW-690 (the RF with 65/5.6 ultrawide lens) or the GX 680 bellow SLR.
I know, they're such different cameras; but before heading to one
direction, I'd like to know more about them.
Expecially the non-obvious stuff: peculiar weaknesses and/or strong
points, things to be warned about when buying used, differences
between various series, and so on. :-)

My main use would be landscape shots, with some cityscapes as well.
Portability is not my primary concern of course, or I've had ruled out
the GX 680. :-)

Come on guys, let me know! :-)

Thanks,

Fernando



I owned the Fuji GW690 but I sold it for two reasons:

1-Lack of B setting (T instead). You have to change the aperture
setting or move the film advance lever to close the shutter! not
practical.

2- Lens contrast is too harsh. It's OK for slides but micro and local
tonality is bad with negatives.

J.

I haven't found the micro or local contrast of the lens to be a
problem. It might be a function of film/developer/development time
combination rather than the lens. It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.

Jytzel wrote:

Fernando wrote in message . ..


Given that film is dead , I was thinking about expanding my MF
arsenal (that already counts various PentaconSix / Kiev60 bodies,
lenses, accessories, and a good Pentax 645 system) with some larger
gear. :-)
My filmscanner reads up to 6x9cm, so I was considering either the Fuji
GSW-690 (the RF with 65/5.6 ultrawide lens) or the GX 680 bellow SLR.
I know, they're such different cameras; but before heading to one
direction, I'd like to know more about them.
Expecially the non-obvious stuff: peculiar weaknesses and/or strong
points, things to be warned about when buying used, differences
between various series, and so on. :-)

My main use would be landscape shots, with some cityscapes as well.
Portability is not my primary concern of course, or I've had ruled out
the GX 680. :-)

Come on guys, let me know! :-)

Thanks,

Fernando



I owned the Fuji GW690 but I sold it for two reasons:

1-Lack of B setting (T instead). You have to change the aperture
setting or move the film advance lever to close the shutter! not
practical.

2- Lens contrast is too harsh. It's OK for slides but micro and local
tonality is bad with negatives.

J.

It's the normal lens that I have on my 670. The "T" setting was never a
problem for me, because I almost always use Delta or Neopan 400 in that
camera. It's great for clambering over the rocks on Maine's coast for
seascapes where it's difficult to lug my 4 X 5, and it was also really
good for street photography in Paris when I used to live there. I've
used mine handheld much more than on a tripod.

Stacey wrote:

LR Kalajainen wrote:



It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.





Given a wide angle lens used for landscapes normally wouldn't be used for
"Bokeh" type shots, I never was concerned with that. It's super sharp and
very contrasty. If one finds it's too contrasty with a certian film, they
need to just change films or develop them differently as you said. By main
beef was the "T" setting and getting bored with the angle of view. I think
the "normal" lens version would be more practical.

It's the normal lens that I have on my 670. The "T" setting was never a
problem for me, because I almost always use Delta or Neopan 400 in that
camera. It's great for clambering over the rocks on Maine's coast for
seascapes where it's difficult to lug my 4 X 5, and it was also really
good for street photography in Paris when I used to live there. I've
used mine handheld much more than on a tripod.

Stacey wrote:

LR Kalajainen wrote:



It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.





Given a wide angle lens used for landscapes normally wouldn't be used for
"Bokeh" type shots, I never was concerned with that. It's super sharp and
very contrasty. If one finds it's too contrasty with a certian film, they
need to just change films or develop them differently as you said. By main
beef was the "T" setting and getting bored with the angle of view. I think
the "normal" lens version would be more practical.

Ben Micklem wrote:


Not having shutter speeds longer than 1 sec without all this hassle does
seem like a bit of an oversight for a camera that I presume would be used
for landscape photography.



Exactly why I listed it as a "problem" with this camera.

--

Stacey

Ben Micklem wrote:


Not having shutter speeds longer than 1 sec without all this hassle does
seem like a bit of an oversight for a camera that I presume would be used
for landscape photography.



Exactly why I listed it as a "problem" with this camera.

--

Stacey

LR Kalajainen wrote:

It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.



Given a wide angle lens used for landscapes normally wouldn't be used for
"Bokeh" type shots, I never was concerned with that. It's super sharp and
very contrasty. If one finds it's too contrasty with a certian film, they
need to just change films or develop them differently as you said. By main
beef was the "T" setting and getting bored with the angle of view. I think
the "normal" lens version would be more practical.
--

Stacey

LR Kalajainen wrote:

It is a constrasty lens, and if it
has a fault, it's that it doesn't have as pleasing "bokeh" (visual
quality of the out-of-focus elements of the picture) as, say, Zeiss or
Leica lenses do, but it's comparable to other Japanese lenses.



Given a wide angle lens used for landscapes normally wouldn't be used for
"Bokeh" type shots, I never was concerned with that. It's super sharp and
very contrasty. If one finds it's too contrasty with a certian film, they
need to just change films or develop them differently as you said. By main
beef was the "T" setting and getting bored with the angle of view. I think
the "normal" lens version would be more practical.
--

Stacey

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:27:10 -0500, Stacey wrote:

The weak point a

A really stupid "B" setting, they call it "T". When you trip the shutter, it
stays open until you either move the speed ring or recock the shutter so
you basically have to use a lens cap to close the shutter.

This is a pity.
I know how T mode works, I had it on my really-really-old Kodak
folding. This means a tripod is mandatory for long exposures, while B
would have been useable with just a proper support like a flat rock.

I ended up selling mine mainly because I got bored with the angle of view. I
think the 90mm version might be more useful?

Well, I think it depends from what one shoots... I use the equivalent
of 24mm and wider very very much, while I don't happen to like
"normal" FOVs a lot.
To be honest, I'd LOVE a Mamiya 7 with that incredible 43mm lens, but
it's still so expensive! Plus I don't like the 6x7 format that
much (almost square but not really square), a matter of personal taste
of course.

Many thanks. :-)

Fernando

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:27:10 -0500, Stacey wrote:

The weak point a

A really stupid "B" setting, they call it "T". When you trip the shutter, it
stays open until you either move the speed ring or recock the shutter so
you basically have to use a lens cap to close the shutter.

This is a pity.
I know how T mode works, I had it on my really-really-old Kodak
folding. This means a tripod is mandatory for long exposures, while B
would have been useable with just a proper support like a flat rock.

I ended up selling mine mainly because I got bored with the angle of view. I
think the 90mm version might be more useful?

Well, I think it depends from what one shoots... I use the equivalent
of 24mm and wider very very much, while I don't happen to like
"normal" FOVs a lot.
To be honest, I'd LOVE a Mamiya 7 with that incredible 43mm lens, but
it's still so expensive! Plus I don't like the 6x7 format that
much (almost square but not really square), a matter of personal taste
of course.

Many thanks. :-)

Fernando