james.liam
Well-known
I have been toying with getting one of these behemoths, although I'd prefer a Plaubel 67. Im 6'2" and have reasonably large hands. Is the size & weight tolerable/manageable/worth the expense? Is the RF patch too small for accurate use? Guess I'm several years too late to the party on these, when they were all sub-$1000 for a long time, especially the 670.
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Slightly off the mark but I did use the wide angle GSW 690 for a number of years.
The 65mm lens had a slow 5.6 aperture wide open. Although the lens performed quite well even wide open it was still slow.
Combine that with my preferred film, Agfa APX 100 @ EI 64 and preferred aperture of f/11, shutter speeds were usually slow...had to guard against camera movement more often than not.
RF accuracy was not an issue. Size and weight did not bother me at all.
The negatives were SUPERB!
Trust the 90mm performs equally...I've never heard otherwise.
The 65mm lens had a slow 5.6 aperture wide open. Although the lens performed quite well even wide open it was still slow.
Combine that with my preferred film, Agfa APX 100 @ EI 64 and preferred aperture of f/11, shutter speeds were usually slow...had to guard against camera movement more often than not.
RF accuracy was not an issue. Size and weight did not bother me at all.
The negatives were SUPERB!
Trust the 90mm performs equally...I've never heard otherwise.
aizan
Mentor
It’s a painless camera to carry around in a tote/shoulder bag for the day, wrapped up in a pouch. I wouldn’t wear it on my neck for the day like a 35mm camera, though.
The rangefinder patch is on the small side, but it’s big enough. Note that the GW has a circular patch with fuzzy edges, so you can’t do Vernier focusing. It’s bright enough to focus indoors in home lighting (EV3) if there’s something with high contrast to focus on (eyes, stripes, etc.). Good enough for using ISO 3200 film indoors and handheld.
The rangefinder patch is on the small side, but it’s big enough. Note that the GW has a circular patch with fuzzy edges, so you can’t do Vernier focusing. It’s bright enough to focus indoors in home lighting (EV3) if there’s something with high contrast to focus on (eyes, stripes, etc.). Good enough for using ISO 3200 film indoors and handheld.
OlivierAOP
medium format
I've shot a few rolls with the GW690III. Ergonomics are good for a medium format camera. Two shutter buttons and a easy-access shutter lock. Weight is about 1.5kg. Not light but manageable. Eye relief is decent if you wear eyeglasses, I get *almost* the whole frame.
RF and lenses are very good. Patch is small but bright. Can get sharp eyelids at portrait distances (but not all the time, similar hit rate with an SLR).
I've converted mine to 6x7.
RF and lenses are very good. Patch is small but bright. Can get sharp eyelids at portrait distances (but not all the time, similar hit rate with an SLR).
I've converted mine to 6x7.
neal3k
Well-known
Sounds like the Fuji would be a good fit for your large hands. I'm smaller but have walked for an hour or two; sometimes with my GSW 690III and others with even my Fuji 6 X 17, Now, that last one is really big. The 690 has been lots of fun with infrared since I found I had a large IR filter that would fit. The negatives and quality are great.
x-ray
Mentor
I owned a couple of the GSW 690 III’s and wish I’d kept one. They’re excellent cameras. They’re easy to hold, use and carry. Not too heavy at all. Fuji lenses are very high quality and are among the best. I also had a 645 folder with the normal lens and a 645 rigid body with a 60mm. Wish I had the one with the 60 back. Almost forgot I had a late electronic 645 with the zoom lens in it. Excellent.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
The 690 is a great camera with a superb lens, and handles about as well as one could hope for a camera this size. I found focusing to be easy and accurate, and, if you're an eyeglass wearer, the finder takes the somewhat standard and easily found 19mm correction diopters as made by Voigtlander, Nikon, etc. I love mine.
However... the unfortunate moniker of "Texas Leica" is very misleading. Yes, it's a rangefinder camera with the same body configuration. But no, there is nothing discrete and unobtrusive about this camera. It attracts a lot of attention; you can use that to your advantage sometimes, and I've learned to make it an asset in my shooting. Just don't think that you'll be a medium format HCB.
Then again, it's big and in-your-face, Texas style, so maybe that's where the nickname came from. A bit of New Mexican Texas-bashing here; it's a long-standing tradition in these parts!
However... the unfortunate moniker of "Texas Leica" is very misleading. Yes, it's a rangefinder camera with the same body configuration. But no, there is nothing discrete and unobtrusive about this camera. It attracts a lot of attention; you can use that to your advantage sometimes, and I've learned to make it an asset in my shooting. Just don't think that you'll be a medium format HCB.
Then again, it's big and in-your-face, Texas style, so maybe that's where the nickname came from. A bit of New Mexican Texas-bashing here; it's a long-standing tradition in these parts!
james.liam
Well-known
Anyone use the 670? Also torn between 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 negatives. Downside of the 690 is the pittance of frames.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
I prefer the 6x7 format to 6x9 (which is the same ratio as 135-format); but actually like the “short” roll that my Fuji GW690III gives - it’s all personal preference, of course.
One thing I don’t like about the camera is that it is really awkward to change shutter speed (when you extend the hood) - you need to have the fingers of a spider monkey to reach in that slot and turn the ring.
I also love the concept of a roll-counter - which is on the bottom of the camera. When I bought mine, it read 047 - so 47 rolls. The camera looked new, so I don’t think the counter rolled over.
One thing I don’t like about the camera is that it is really awkward to change shutter speed (when you extend the hood) - you need to have the fingers of a spider monkey to reach in that slot and turn the ring.
I also love the concept of a roll-counter - which is on the bottom of the camera. When I bought mine, it read 047 - so 47 rolls. The camera looked new, so I don’t think the counter rolled over.
oldwino
Well-known
Yeah, the days of cheap Plaubels is long past.
So I have owned 3 Plaubel over the course of my life. A 67, then a W67, then another 67. The lens on the 67 (and 670) is great. I wasn't enamored with the W67. The lens isn't wide enough at times, or its too wide at others...They are nice for carrying, as they fold up pretty flat. They are heavy, solidly built, but decent travel cameras. I never had a lick of trouble with any of mine, with regard to the advance and meter. Image quality is excellent. But I also just never seemed to want to shoot them...I don't know if it was the over all size, or the 6x7 format, or what. I sold them all. Bought a Rolleiflex.
I also owned a GW690II, before the Plaubel 67. Worked great, rangefinder patch isn't as nice as the Plaubel, but it works. Lens is very sharp, but also somewhat characterless. My biggest issue was that the camera just looked like a clown camera. It is big. I actually laughed out loud when I opened the box and pulled it out. I felt completely self-conscious carrying the Fuji, at all times. It may be called the "Texas Leica", but it has none of Leica's discreetness. None.
So I have owned 3 Plaubel over the course of my life. A 67, then a W67, then another 67. The lens on the 67 (and 670) is great. I wasn't enamored with the W67. The lens isn't wide enough at times, or its too wide at others...They are nice for carrying, as they fold up pretty flat. They are heavy, solidly built, but decent travel cameras. I never had a lick of trouble with any of mine, with regard to the advance and meter. Image quality is excellent. But I also just never seemed to want to shoot them...I don't know if it was the over all size, or the 6x7 format, or what. I sold them all. Bought a Rolleiflex.
I also owned a GW690II, before the Plaubel 67. Worked great, rangefinder patch isn't as nice as the Plaubel, but it works. Lens is very sharp, but also somewhat characterless. My biggest issue was that the camera just looked like a clown camera. It is big. I actually laughed out loud when I opened the box and pulled it out. I felt completely self-conscious carrying the Fuji, at all times. It may be called the "Texas Leica", but it has none of Leica's discreetness. None.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
And now for something completely different! I have, and love, a Fuji 690. But these days it mostly sits on the shelf while I use my Horseman 985. Horseman 980 First Look - YouTube It's a 6x9 press camera with a superb, parallax-corrected viewfinder with multiple framelines. Takes 6x9 or 6x7 interchangeable backs, or offers ground glass focusing with full view camera tilts and shifts. Compact, and folds to a package little bigger than the Fuji. The only down side is independent shutter cocking and film wind (it is slower than the Fuji). Price runs about the same as the Fuji, and it can often be found with the fast 105mm f/3.5 (lenses range from 65mm through at least 180mm). Worth a look if you're considering a medium format RF.
As an aside, this camera is a blast to use. People respond positively to the retro look, and that can be a big asset depending on how you work (It is for me!). Get a fedora, put a press pass in the hatband, and chomp on a big cigar for the total look. Top it off by cultivating a Bronx accent, and call everyone "Baby". You're good to go!
As an aside, this camera is a blast to use. People respond positively to the retro look, and that can be a big asset depending on how you work (It is for me!). Get a fedora, put a press pass in the hatband, and chomp on a big cigar for the total look. Top it off by cultivating a Bronx accent, and call everyone "Baby". You're good to go!
james.liam
Well-known
I've had a 670III since 2007 and like it a lot. Seems lighter than it looks, but 3.5lb. As to the roll counter, it reads in 10's, so 047 would be 470 rolls, not much use.
Note that it's important to take up the slack on the film when loading, else the take-up will not roll the film tightly, resulting later in difficult film advance and fogged edges when exposed film is removed. Put a thumb on the roll of film as you feed it onto the takeup spool.
Frank Marshman at Camera Wiz, an expert with Fuji rangefinders, said the shutter lasts hundreds of thousands of rounds, so the suggestion for service every 500 on the shot counter is flexible depending on level of future use... and these cameras are well-known for irregular frame spacing, said to check if the roller at the right of the film gate spins freely.
Note that it's important to take up the slack on the film when loading, else the take-up will not roll the film tightly, resulting later in difficult film advance and fogged edges when exposed film is removed. Put a thumb on the roll of film as you feed it onto the takeup spool.
Frank Marshman at Camera Wiz, an expert with Fuji rangefinders, said the shutter lasts hundreds of thousands of rounds, so the suggestion for service every 500 on the shot counter is flexible depending on level of future use... and these cameras are well-known for irregular frame spacing, said to check if the roller at the right of the film gate spins freely.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
No. A count of 1 means 10 shutter actuations. For 6x7 that’s 1 roll. See the page from the instruction manual below. So my count of 47 is 470 shutter actuations. Since I have 8 shots per roll on my GW690III, that’s 58 rolls. If I had a GW670 with 10 shots per roll, that would be 47 rolls. Either way, it’s 470 shutter actuations.
james.liam
Well-known
Pál_K is correct; this is the view of the bottom plate of the camera:
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Common belief is that the linkage mechanism to increment this counter is responsible for the somewhat louder than expected sound when the (leaf) shutter is released.
It’s not too loud, but it’s loud for a rangefinder camera. There’s a reason Fuji called these the GW690 Professional and not the GW690 Discreet.
It’s not too loud, but it’s loud for a rangefinder camera. There’s a reason Fuji called these the GW690 Professional and not the GW690 Discreet.
Deardorff38
Mentor
James, I've had a stack of them. (GL690, GW670ii, GW690, GW680iii, GSW690iii, GW690iii) They're robust, the lenses spectacular. The only downside is their physical size. They balance better than the Plaubels (had a few of those). The current lowest price seems to be $750. .....& compared to Mamiya 6 &7 and Plaubels they're still a bargain. The 680iii was my favourite. I think they're a fine workhorse, although these days i'm going with the smaller & more discreet Rolleiflex and Voigtlander Perkeo ii. Give on a try the results speak for themselves.
Deardorff38
Mentor
aizan
Mentor
Someone here on RFF debunked that myth. He disconnected the counter from the shutter.
Right, my error! The counter reads in 10's of *actuations*, not rolls...