GF670W Bessa III W [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

kmallick

07-27-2011, 20:35

I just came across this camera on a eBay listing by the head butler here (http://cgi.ebay.com/New-USA-Voigtlander-Bessa-III-Wide-667-Rangefinder-/360382982080?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item53e87fe7c0). Lots of pictures in the listing. I didn't know that Voigtlander was coming out with a 6x7!

sem

07-28-2011, 22:25

Thanks very much for the link! It is a beauty, in my eyes.
Someone use the camera? Show us some pictures please.
Kind regards

tlitody

07-31-2011, 12:42

It came out just as everyone was gettiing very excited about the X100 release and seems to have been overlooked by everyone. I think RFFers are migrating to digital. Shame on them.

DrTebi

08-09-2011, 23:51

thegman

08-10-2011, 00:34

It came out just as everyone was gettiing very excited about the X100 release and seems to have been overlooked by everyone. I think RFFers are migrating to digital. Shame on them.

The even stranger thing is, that on a Range Finder Forum, there is more interest in a digital camera which is not a range finder, than a camera which *is* a range finder. But the X100 *looks* more like a range finder...

Jamie123

08-10-2011, 00:39

It came out just as everyone was gettiing very excited about the X100 release and seems to have been overlooked by everyone. I think RFFers are migrating to digital. Shame on them.

I think a lot of people got used to the prices on the second hand market and they're just not ready to pay this kind of money for a medium format rangefinder. The Bessa III was already a stretch but this one is quite a bit more expensive.

FWIW, I used to have a Bessa III and it was quite a nice camera. Viewfinder was excellent, exposure was spot on most of the times and the shutter was almost silent. In the end I sold it because I just didn't fall in love with the lens. Resolution was great but the ''bokeh'' didn't look too nice and there was some distortion at close focus distances which was bad for the kind of head and shoulder portraits I like to do.

sem

08-10-2011, 01:47

DrTebi, thanks very much for the Link, very interesting.
I think, it would have been nice if the lens was collapsible? And it is like Jamie says, I like to get a feeling for a camera, because most of the shops around don t have them.
Jeamie123, what kind of camera do use for your kind of work?
Thanks a lot
kind regards

Jamie123

08-10-2011, 03:04

Jeamie123, what kind of camera do use for your kind of work?

For medium format I used to use a Hasselblad for a long time, then sold my kit when I got a DSLR and bought the Bessa III to keep as a light weight travel camera. Now that I sold the Bessa III I'm back to a Hasselblad kit. I really love the look I get with the lenses on the Hasselblad, the only thing I'm not completely in love with is the square frame. I might still get a Mamiya 7 at some point as a travel camera.

One thing to say, though, is that I didn't dislike the Bessa III at all. I wasn't actively planning on selling it but I got a good offer on it and decided to move on to something else.

Jamie123

08-10-2011, 03:05

Also, if you want to put your hands on the camera, try one of these dealers: http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7sxeuz.html

sleepyhead

08-10-2011, 03:48

The Wide 667 looks like a nice camera (as does the Bessa III), but they are just too expensive in my opinion. For 3000 USD you could get a complete Mamiya 6 kit with 3 lenses.

But then, I'm not a big fan of 6x7 format - for those that are, I suppose these cameras are heavenly.

sem

08-10-2011, 08:07

Hi Jamie123, thanks for the Link. Might be a good idea to take one in hands.
I am not sure, what I want. Something light with diopter correction I think, my eyes are not so good this days, also thinking of a Mamiya 7 so I can have both wide and a bit tele.
Kind regards
sem

DrTebi

08-10-2011, 10:04

I have recently been in Germany and went to a couple of the "official" Voigtländer dealers. To my surprise, none of them had the Bessa III on display, they told me that it is such an unusual item, that they can only do a special order on it.

I really wanted to get it into my hands as well, since I have been trying to get a Plaubel Makina W67 for a while, but collectors prices are steep. The Bessa III W is very similar with a few "modern" advantages, in about the same price range.

By the way, the Makina's lens is collapsible, as opposed to the Bessa III W. I have the Makina 670 and love it, I find it ideal for travelling, especially when hiking--it's compact and light weight (considering it's a medium format camera), a built-in light meter that works, and a fantastic lens.

furcafe

08-10-2011, 10:13

I agree that the GF670W is too expensive for many, if not most, potential buyers, though that's understandable given the tiny market.

FYI, both the GF670/Bessa III & the GF670W are switchable between 6x6 & 6x7.

The Wide 667 looks like a nice camera (as does the Bessa III), but they are just too expensive in my opinion. For 3000 USD you could get a complete Mamiya 6 kit with 3 lenses.

But then, I'm not a big fan of 6x7 format - for those that are, I suppose these cameras are heavenly.

furcafe

08-10-2011, 10:21

Since the camera is all-Japanese, Germany's probably not the place to find it. Adorama & B&H both have the GF670 for "only" $1664. It's a mystery to me, but the Fuji version of the hood is actually cheaper than the Cosina Voigtlander version.

I have recently been in Germany and went to a couple of the "official" Voigtländer dealers. To my surprise, none of them had the Bessa III on display, they told me that it is such an unusual item, that they can only do a special order on it.

Jim Bradley

08-10-2011, 10:47

Here is a discussion on LF about the Fuji/Bessa wide started by Sandy King :
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=78597

Jim

kuzano

08-10-2011, 13:22

For medium format I used to use a Hasselblad for a long time, then sold my kit when I got a DSLR and bought the Bessa III to keep as a light weight travel camera. Now that I sold the Bessa III I'm back to a Hasselblad kit. I really love the look I get with the lenses on the Hasselblad, the only thing I'm not completely in love with is the square frame. I might still get a Mamiya 7 at some point as a travel camera.

One thing to say, though, is that I didn't dislike the Bessa III at all. I wasn't actively planning on selling it but I got a good offer on it and decided to move on to something else.

Jamie... two cameras that may replace your Hasselblad with a 6X7 frame and keep the SLR format.

Bronica GS1 is 6X7 AND I think the Zenza lenses have leaf shutter in lens.

Mamiya 67, although I suspect you know about that one.

I've always had great results with Bronica cams and Zenza lenses.

whitecat

08-10-2011, 13:29

I have had and used the 667 for months. The optics are superb and I like the build but the bellows looks a little cheap. Fantastic viewfinder which reminds me of my Zeiss 35. I use a Rolleiflex FW which is a 10. I would rate this as a 7.5.

Jamie123

08-10-2011, 13:40

Jamie... two cameras that may replace your Hasselblad with a 6X7 frame and keep the SLR format.

Bronica GS1 is 6X7 AND I think the Zenza lenses have leaf shutter in lens.

Mamiya 67, although I suspect you know about that one.

I've always had great results with Bronica cams and Zenza lenses.

For me it's really all about the lenses with the Hasselblad. I really love that smoothness in tones.

I'm sure the Bronica is a capable camera but it just never appealed to me. I did consider the Mamiya RZ67 for a while as I really like this system but it's just such a beast.
It's really not a big issue. I don't actually dislike the square format, I'm just not in love with it. I think it's great sometimes and sometimes it doesn't quite work.

hausen

08-10-2011, 15:08

I really like my Fuji GF670. Is so easy to use, packs down really small and fits in my bag with M9 + 3 lenses for travel. I really like the Fuji lens as well and also the freedom that a fixed lens gives me because I am not always second guessing myself on what to carry. Had the Mamiya 6 + 3 and I think I am happier with the Fuji. I use it more because of size and meter is certainly better. The Fuji only cost me $1650 from B&H and I think the wide option is definitely overpriced.

Tompas

08-10-2011, 15:49

I would have liked a 667 but decided to get a Pentax 67 instead and managed to find a good one with a 90mm lens for 300€. For my taste just to much of a price difference to the 2500€ or whatever a 667 costs.

Frank Version Two

08-10-2011, 16:31

I'd like to see one, I've never quite liked the Mamiya 6-7 or Fuji GW-series build quality but this would have to be pretty awesome for $3K.

Lflex

08-10-2011, 17:02

I play with this camera every time I walk by the Fuji showroom in Tokyo Midtown.
It handles very nicely and I like the wider lens and non-folding design much better than the folding version. However, with all the wonderful inexpensive used japanese MF gear around it is very difficult to justify the price.

sem

08-10-2011, 23:39

Hi Tompas,
never saw a pentax 67. Is it that heavy? Or is it more like a big DSLR to carry?
What can you tell me about Mamiya 7 and where the difference between a Mamiya 7II, is the viewfinder better and that in difference to a GF670.
A lot of questions. Thanks for your help.
Kind regards

Jamie123

08-11-2011, 10:22

The Pentax 67 is quite a beast of a camera. It does have it's appeal, though.

I think the differences between the Mamiya 7 and the 7II are minor (something like multi-exposure capability and better film advance), although I'm no expert. I think the viewfinder in the Bessa III/Gf670 is hard to beat. It's really VERY nice.

The build quality of the Bessa III/GF670 is ok but it's nothing to brag about. It's just not a rugged camera at all. I never had any problems with it, though, as I treated it with care. The wide version might be a bit more rugged as it's not a folder.

Tompas

08-11-2011, 12:05

never saw a pentax 67. Is it that heavy? Or is it more like a big DSLR to carry?

Yes, think a twice as large (D)SLR. It is heavy, but in my opinion it's not too bad: I can carry it with me all day on a wide strap over my shoulder.

The other cameras you asked about I don't know, sorry.

whitecat

08-11-2011, 12:09

The 6x7 is a beast. Think VERY large SLR. I handled one at Central Camera in Chicago about a month ago.

thegman

08-11-2011, 12:11

I found the GF670 to be built much like a Zeiss Ikon, pretty well. Of course the folder mechanism has an inherent ability to get broken. I found the build, much, much nicer than the Mamiya 7, which I never really warmed to.

The Mamiya 7 is highly usable though, and I liked the finder. It works about as much like a 35mm range finder as it's possible to make a 120 range finder. You can't go wrong with either, though if I was happy with just the 80mm lens, I'd have the GF670.

250swb

08-11-2011, 12:26

The Bessa III has gone under the radar because no professional reviewer or magazine who has tried it could reconcile the vast price against the very poor build quality (lens aside). For the same sort of money you could have a fine Mamiya 7 setup, or a Plaubel, no contest really.

Steve

Matus

08-11-2011, 12:27

I have seen the Bessa III and it indeed looks cool. I may some day get one - if I decide that I am fine with just one lens and for reason of convenience will not go back to Rolleiflex (and sell the Mamiya 6, of course). But it could really be a bit thinner.

The Wide version looks interesting too, but I really think it could have been collapsible (like Mamiya 6). The way it is done is quite bulky and compared to Mamiya 7 you can not take the lens off for transport if necessary.

I would love to try one of these though ...

DrTebi

08-11-2011, 13:02

furcafe

08-11-2011, 16:06

I use both the GF670 & Plaubel Makina 67 & 670 & would agree that the Plaubels are of higher build quality (more metal in the bodies, etc.) but the electronics are much more primitive (no autoexposure) & prone to failure (because the wiring goes through the struts & is stressed/worn down every time the camera is collapsed & opened). Also, the VF is not as bright as the more modern Bessa III/GF670. Finally, the Plaubels are only 6x7, whereas the Bessa III/GF670 can be switched to 6x6 & it's impossible to find a Plaubel for $1664 (I have no idea why anyone would pay the extra $586 for the Bessa III over the GF670). Bottom line: A trade-off like any other gear decision. If you haven't handled a GF670, I'll be in SF next week & can bring mine.

Interesting. So you believe the Plaubel is of better built quality?

RedLion

08-11-2011, 20:55

I luv my GF670 :)

http://www.eloquentimaging.com/FilmCameras/Film-Cameras/i-GggtzhJ/1/XL/P1130444-XL.jpg

Way cheaper than a new Rolleiflex!

Joe

DrTebi

08-15-2011, 01:44

I use both the GF670 & Plaubel Makina 67 & 670 & would agree that the Plaubels are of higher build quality (more metal in the bodies, etc.) but the electronics are much more primitive (no autoexposure) & prone to failure (because the wiring goes through the struts & is stressed/worn down every time the camera is collapsed & opened). Also, the VF is not as bright as the more modern Bessa III/GF670. Finally, the Plaubels are only 6x7, whereas the Bessa III/GF670 can be switched to 6x6 & it's impossible to find a Plaubel for $1664 (I have no idea why anyone would pay the extra $586 for the Bessa III over the GF670). Bottom line: A trade-off like any other gear decision. If you haven't handled a GF670, I'll be in SF next week & can bring mine.

Thank you for the info. I would really like to see the GF670, if we could arrange a meeting that would be great. I will send a PM to you.

John NYC

08-15-2011, 06:31

There are now a few GF670W pictures on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=GF670W&m=tags

Check out the "original" size of the images--very large and detailed scans.

Quite an interesting camera, reminds me of the Plaubel Makina 67W.

There seems to a be a lot of vignetting on these (even when using the 6x6 mode as these are). I would suspect that the wide version on 6x7 is even worse given these flickr pics. I'm also getting these were shot at larger apertures.

I used to own the Bessa III 667 and wide open it had quite a bit of vignetting on the 6x7 setting wide open, but it went away as you stopped down.

KenR

08-15-2011, 09:22

I bought a GSW690 from KEH a few months ago - built like a tank (and weighs as much). Lens is great - quite sharp and contrasty. Downside = weight, lack of meter and the need to change film every few minutes. But, so far seems worth it. I intend to take it hiking with me - my wife may throw it off the mountain if the film change issue becomes enough of a hindrance to our plans. (She carries a digital P&S with a 4 gig card).

sem

08-15-2011, 22:16

Hi Tompas,

thanks for your help!

Redlion your a lucky man! If you travel, is the Gf670 enough? What else do you take with you?
And to all I like this thread, more opinions please.

Kind regards

RedLion

08-15-2011, 23:28

This summer we traveled to Montreal. I took my Canon 5D mkii with the 24-105 and 16-35. Great quality picture taker, but way too heavy to carry. I then sold ALL of my DSLR and digital Leica gear. Going to get by with film cameras for local shoots, but for travel I have my Panasonic GF1. May get an NEX-7 in November.. will wait and see.

sem

08-16-2011, 00:46

Hi Redlion,

thanks, just like to know how impressive is the wide lens of the Rolleiflex, it is indeed a real beauty. I think it is the wide one?
Did you post some pic somewhere?
Thanks for your help

Jamie123

08-16-2011, 03:00

There's a review of the camera on BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/test/2075300/fujifilms-wide-angle-medium-format-gf670w

Not sure how helpful it really is, though. A lot of praise but little useful information.

sem

10-09-2011, 03:06

Thanks for all the input and help!
At the end of the day I coudn t resist and bought a makina, thought this would be a bargin, but then I have to send it to Plaubel and now it it is the normal price. But in my eyes it is a real beauty!
When I will have a bit more time, I will post some pics.
Kind regards

Jamie123

10-09-2011, 03:38

sem

10-09-2011, 19:57

wide open, near it is like every lens a bit difficult, but I like the soft and sharpness when you get the focus.
This is Trix @ 800 in diafine
Kind regards

Tom A

10-19-2011, 16:27

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6111/6261630197_99980844dd_z.jpg

I have had the 667W for a couple of weeks now. Took it for a trip to New York and Pittsburgh. It was not my main camera (Leica MP and Bessa R4M). I find it very comfortable to handle - a bit like an oversized M camera. The AE exposure system is spot on 99% of the time.
Shot is from Herald Square, N.Y. @ 4.5 and 1/15 handheld. Tmax 2-400/HC 110/1:60/12.5 min.

Tom A

10-20-2011, 16:59

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6233/6264530875_766dc37b08_z.jpg

Frank Lloyd Wrights "Falling Water" in Pennsylvania. One of the reasons I did go to the LHSA meeting in Pittsburgh this year. I had seen pictures of the building, but they really dont do it justice. In the setting it looks spectacular - though the interior is cramped to put it mildly.
Bessa 667 W with Tmax-2 400 in HC 110 1:60, 12.5 min.

Tom A

10-28-2011, 20:29

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6100/6260677399_d0edcf89cd_b.jpg

The Bessa 667W as a "street shooter camera". It works very well - the finder is incredibly bright with a very well defined focussing patch. Optical quality is high and coupled with the 120 negative - you can really see the details. OK, so you have to reload 3 times as often and it is not exactly small. Quiet enough so there is small red light by the viewfinder that flashes to tell you that you just exposed a frame. With any street noise - you can not hear the shutter - and if you cant - nobody else can.
Tmax-2 400/HC 110/1:60/ 12.5 min.

Tom A

10-28-2011, 20:35

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6052/6262304988_85a823eafd_b.jpg

I posted this as large as it will give you a chance to see the image quality - even at f4.5 it is sharp.
New York Parking is expensive - easy $16/hour!!!
Tmax-2 400/HC 110/1:60/12.5 min
This is also in 6x7 mode - 10 shots/roll!

mel

10-28-2011, 22:14

The clarity is incredible.
Always fun looking at NYC pics.
Well done.

mel

10-28-2011, 22:15

I am determined to marry this camera one day.
It would be a match made in heaven.

Tom A

11-04-2011, 15:30

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6054/6312931115_45721020c9_z.jpg

From the "Occupy Vancouver" site. I have no idea what they are protesting here!
Bessa 667W, Tmax 2-400 in Adox MQ for 8.5 min.

Tom A

11-07-2011, 13:40

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6221/6322371493_5ef7c894a0_b.jpg

Zephyr, our friends cat who lodges with us when they travel. he likes the stairs to the darkroom as he can be eyelevel with anyone passing by!
Bessa 667W at 1/30 and f4.5. Tmax 2-400 in Adox MQ for 8.5 min.

Tom A

11-22-2011, 20:03

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6385650235_aa5ce08aa8_z.jpg

Yokohama, Japan a couple of weeks ago. Took the Bessa 667W along as a "large M2". Interestingly enough, it created quite a stir among camera afficinados there. Only the Fuji Wide is sold there (and that is in chrome). Had a steady stream of people trying to read the name tag on it.
Kodak Tmax 2-400 in HC 110, 1:60, 12.5 min.

samuelphoto

01-17-2012, 17:09

Best I can tell the GF670W is not available from US dealers. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know who carries it. I have the GF670 with the 80mm lens and it is great for things like waist-up portraits and so on. I've found that friends love to have their picture taken with such a funky looking camera. Of course I offer them prints of the shots. The other thing I like about it is its portability. I travel A LOT and, if your a MF/Fuji lens nut like me, it is a real treat. So now I want to check out the W, but not at $2600 mind you.

chris00nj

01-17-2012, 18:41

Steve gandy sells them. There is a link above that still works.

I think there is a decent market for a more portable MF wide, but $3K is steep

RattyMouse

01-26-2012, 19:38

Saw this in the shops the other day. About $3300. Amazingly expensive.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7173/6748443899_bc70105dfc_b.jpg

whitecat

02-06-2012, 13:31

Definitely too expensive.

kram

02-12-2012, 09:56

Guys, consider the price of a new 55mm f4.5 lens for 6x6 or 6x7, how much new?
O.K. It could be a little cheaper, but not much.

Tom A

02-12-2012, 10:48

It is not cheap by any means - but it is a brand new camera with top-of-the line specs. Have you priced a Rolliewide lately? Or even a Hasselblad 500CM in as new condition with a 50mm lens in similar condition.
I have the 667W and find it well worth the investment. Superb optics, easy handling and the best finder in a 120 Rf ever!

kzphoto

02-24-2012, 10:34

Does the lens come off? What's that little switch above the beauty plate on the lens board?

Tom A

02-24-2012, 10:47

The lens is fixed. The switch is the on/off switch for the metering and camera functions.

paulhart

04-25-2012, 14:23

I have the 667W and find it well worth the investment. Superb optics, easy handling and the best finder in a 120 Rf ever!

I also have the 667W and agree with Tom about the finder. Big, clear, bright, free of distortion, clear frames, simple exposure info. This camera may be expensive, but it's worth the money.

celluloidprop

04-25-2012, 14:31

I do hope that Fuji starts importing the GF670W directly, as they have the GF670. That would cut the price almost in half if things follow suit.

Leigh Youdale

04-25-2012, 14:56

To Celluloidprop - I refer you to Tom's earlier post and suggest a dash of realism here. My three Rolleiflex cost $1500, $2500 and $3500. The lowest cost one is standard focal length and was practically given away from an estate sale. Half of that cost went on a CLA. The others worked well enough as received not to need that. All three cameras are over 50 years of age.
You're dreaming if you think a new 667W will come down to half the present cost under any scenario you imagine.

It is not cheap by any means - but it is a brand new camera with top-of-the line specs. Have you priced a Rolliewide lately? Or even a Hasselblad 500CM in as new condition with a 50mm lens in similar condition.
I have the 667W and find it well worth the investment. Superb optics, easy handling and the best finder in a 120 Rf ever!

celluloidprop

04-25-2012, 15:00

Ah, I misremembered Cameraquest's pricing on a Bessa III - the difference a bit more than 25% buying a GF670 via B&H. I believe the Bessa III was even more prior to Fuji importing the GF670.

In which case a GF670W via B&H will probably be ~$2250 - if, as I said, things follow suit. A healthy savings of $750 - or almost two hundred rolls of Portra.

ssmc

04-25-2012, 17:30

I do hope that Fuji starts importing the GF670W directly, as they have the GF670. That would cut the price almost in half if things follow suit.

+1 and I would get one, no sweat; since virtually all my film shooting is B&W, not being able to close the folder without removing the filter (or the filter in a hood) first was a deal-breaker for me.

Since B&H, Adorama and Badger have the folding Fuji GF670 listed for $1664, if the wide version came in at about 2k or so I think they would have a hit on their hands (though I gotta say the Bessa version in black looks sweeet...). I understand the limited production nature of the camera but I fail to see how the wider, fixed lens should command a 33% price premium over the folder.

My "fantasy" version would also be switchable to 6x4.5 which would give it an almost normal FOV and 16 shots to a roll but I know I'm only dreaming :)

Tom A

04-27-2012, 18:16

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7235/7119360881_e12045cbc6_c.jpg

The more I use the Bessa 667W - the more I like it! The lens is superb, sharp and with a nice contrast to it - not too edgy but just enough "snap" to make the negs pop. The AE works better than my brain - 99% of all shots are done with the AE - the odd one I do over-ride which is very easy and quick.
A friend gave me 5 rolls of Kodak +X 220 and I took them to Texas last week. Vancouver does not have enough light at the moment for +X!!!
We happened to get to Fredricksburg, Texas as the Texas VW Bug show was on - about 500 bugs in every shape gathered.
+X, processed in Pyrocat HD, semi stand development for 40 min (agitation at 10/20/30 min).

Tom A

04-27-2012, 18:25

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6973929458_1461e75438_c.jpg

OK, most lenses are good stopped down to f11 or f16. The Bessa 667W is razor sharp at f4.5 too!
This is Mailee at Junior's in Round Rock, Texas. 1/15s and f4.5. Tmax 2-400 in Pyrocat HD, semi stand development.

sem

04-28-2012, 00:36

Hi Tom,

I like the results! Was it handheld or do use a tripod?

Kind regards

Tom A

04-28-2012, 06:56

I rarely use a tripod - I know that sometimes I should, but when traveling it becomes yet another piece of equipment that one has to drag around. The Bessa III and 667W are so soft in the release that I can handhold it at 1/4 sec with reasonable success.
In my past I shot a lot of large format and 120 with slow films - industrial photography and I learned to hate tripods with a vengeance. Fights with airlines about the bulk of them, dragging them around on sites etc - so when I stopped doing that I decided that a/ no tripods, except for macro work and b/only black and white and c/no clients/art directors to contend with.

sem

04-28-2012, 07:04

Thanks Tom!
With the Plaubel 1/30 works with risk. Sometimes 1/15
So very impressive, very nice shot.
Kind regards

paulhart

05-27-2012, 14:13

Both are Voigtlander Bessa III 667W with FP4+, scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8151/7278551024_9dd55c1574.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/7278551024/)
2012-05-26 at 10-16-15 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/7278551024/) by Hart from Golborne (http://www.flickr.com/people/paul_hart/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7278551750_8be959a572.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/7278551750/)
2012-05-26 at 12-46-49 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/7278551750/) by Hart from Golborne (http://www.flickr.com/people/paul_hart/), on Flickr

trog

05-29-2012, 07:21

I'm so pleased with my Bessa III 667W that I'm seriously considering selling-off all my Hassey gear and adding the Bessa III folder to my MF kit.

louisb

07-19-2012, 08:17

Just been reading through this thread as I have a growing interest in the GF670W for health reasons.

I'm currently using a Hass SWC, 500CM and Fuji GW690III.

I'm also now suffering quite seriously from hip joint and back problems. I just don't know how much longer I can cope with hauling the weight of these cameras.

The GW690 is a dream of a camera when it comes to image. The results are just spectacular. But I find it a heavy beast. The SWC is also capable of fantastic results but the 6x6 perspective is somewhat limiting. It does very well for some subject but not for others.

You can see where I am coming from - if the optics on the GF670W are anywhere near as good as the 690 then I'd probably benefit from less weight and bulk but it would mean saying goodbye to the SWC.

Or should I sell the 690 and just haul around the SWC?

Any opinions?

I mainly do urban landscapes with the occasional foray into the English countryside.

LouisB

sem

08-17-2012, 23:56

Hi louis,

I once had a swc and now a plaubel 670! Like the 6x7 more, so if I where you, I would buy 670W and test it, then sell the gear I don´t need any more.
Kind regards

louisb

09-04-2012, 10:51

Sem

Thanks for the advice. Still hemming and hawing. I want both! Might sneak it in under the radar from the wife, try it and decide what I want to keep.

LouisB

sem

09-05-2012, 02:19

Sem

Thanks for the advice. Still hemming and hawing. I want both! Might sneak it in under the radar from the wife, try it and decide what I want to keep.

LouisB

I wish you good luck. My wife or my daughters always ask: Is this new?
Äh, ah..... Bad luck.
But it is the best way to get the right camera, you want to use in future.
Kind regards

louisb

01-27-2013, 01:49

This thread made me laugh. I last posted on September. It has taken me nearly four months to make my mind up!

Fuji GF670w, Kodak Portra 400, 6x7 frame - pretty much the first out of the camera.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8079/8395342198_bc3bc0cd58_b_d.jpg

thegman

01-27-2013, 02:50

Cool, classic London shot.

sem

01-30-2013, 00:28

Congratulations!

Hope you are satisfied with your new toy!

Nice shot.
Best

louisb

01-30-2013, 13:07

Congratulations!

Hope you are satisfied with your new toy!

Nice shot.
Best

So far, yes. Great in the hand and very tempting to use without a tripod or external light meter. Not that much wider than a M7 but a lot deeper. Incredibly quiet in operation, in fact alarmingly so. Super sharp lens.

Only downside is the lousy weather in the UK. Not inspired to go out and use it!

LouisB

sem

02-01-2013, 23:26

Same here. The weather is boring!

Best

Dana B.

02-03-2013, 07:30

I love "weather" for B&W, my preferred film. Overcast. Cloud banks. Mixed sun and dark skies. Or rain, shiny streets and umbrellas. Fantastic. Try shooting in Los Angeles, where it's clear and bright most months of the year. You'll look forward to your flight back to England.

louisb

02-10-2013, 09:52

A few more taken hand-held while walking around Whitechapel and Spitalfields just before sunset on a late January evening. The one on the bridge was f4.5 at about 1/30th.

GF670w, Kodak Porta 400.

http://www.louisberk.com/getdpi/whitechapel 01.jpg

http://www.louisberk.com/getdpi/whitechapel 02.jpg

http://www.louisberk.com/getdpi/whitechapel 04t.jpg

RattyMouse

02-11-2013, 19:36

Awesome shots. I want this camera!

thegman

02-12-2013, 00:41

A few more taken hand-held while walking around Whitechapel and Spitalfields just before sunset on a late January evening. The one on the bridge was f4.5 at about 1/30th.

GF670w, Kodak Porta 400.

http://www.louisberk.com/getdpi/whitechapel 04t.jpg

This last one is great, I like shots of London showing how grubby and grimy it is.

louisb

02-12-2013, 03:33

Thegman/Rattymouse - thanks for the positive comments.

Actually, I mad a bit of a mistake with the footbridge photo. I focussed on infinity and I think it would have worked better if I focussed on the foreground.

I would judge the lens to be good but so far not better and possibly slightly inferior to my 30 years old Hasselblad 50/4.

However, the major innovation is the size, weight and handling. No way can I wander the streets any longer lugging the nearly 2Kg of the Hasselblad and 50/4 but the GF670w is a breeze. And the inbuilt metering is very good indeed. No need to lug my Sekonic as well. All in all a convenient and powerful package when you consider you can use 6x6 or 6x7 negs - so much more detailed than from a 35mm rangefinder.

LouisB

thegman

02-12-2013, 03:41

hajime

03-14-2013, 13:04

....
In the end I sold it because I just didn't fall in love with the lens. Resolution was great but the ''bokeh'' didn't look too nice and there was some distortion at close focus distances which was bad for the kind of head and shoulder portraits I like to do.

Sorry for budging in like this.

I'm keen to see how much distortion (barrelling I suppose) there is on close-up (70cm) shots. Only thing holding me back to get one of these sweet things :D, so if anyone would like to share some close up portraits shot with the 667W/GF670W...