Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 937
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
The majority of those answering last week's poll said that they would be interested in buying a Fuji GF670 Folding - 68% of you.
So let's get an idea of how much you would be prepared to pay for one. I'll alert the camera's project engineer to this post so he can see what you all think.
Maybe, just maybe, we'll get one to test by the end of the year.
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
JDCB
Bench Free Zone
Reged: 15/05/2006
Posts: 1236
Loc: On the Edge of the Fens
|
|
I'm a "Yes" to £650, but with the qualification that I'd like a 60mm lens for that price. £500 is probably the most I could persuade myself to pay for an 80mm "standard". Of course, I'd promise to keep filling the thing with Velvia and Provia, so Fuji would have a continuing income stream after the initial purchase... 
Thanks for the additional poll, Damien.
James
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Looks like it will be priced at £799.99 then. 
The only danger with a poll of this sort is that it might turn into a Dutch auction.
Maybe Fuji could sweeten the pill by selling the camera with vouchers for (say) £75 worth of Fuji film and/or processing?
There could also be competitions and on-line galleries for users of the camera (used with Fuji film of course).
As for lenses, I would prefer something slightly wider than 'standard'. Say the equivalent of a 35 mm lens (on a 35 mm camera) would suit me, although I would like to play with something wider.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Wheelu
journeyman
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 62
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
Too much at £650 I fear. 
I could buy a vintage camera and have it serviced for considerably less. I don't need a built in meter, but I would like the big negatives with the small overall proportions that the folder would provide. Needs to be sub £500 to stand any chance.
--------------------
My Flickr Site
|
Tacitus
History
Reged: 17/01/2006
Posts: 871
|
|
Yes, I like the idea of £xx worth of free film (let's say £100), and so should Fuji. The real cost to them would be very small, but of considerable value to the camera buyer. It would probably also have the effect of gettting the camera into widespread use, and the images 'published', quite quickly - a marketing bonus for Fuji in respect to camera and film sales.
I'll also reiterate earlier views that a semi-wide angle lens is far more attractive nowadays than an 80mm, but that this should not compromise image quality at the corners.
I am assuming that the "black and silver finished top plate" (AP Informer) is all metal and not plastic. I would not pay even £350 for a plastic camera.
The viewfinder needs to be of good size and clarity, etc - not a squinty little hole. Many older potential customers have 'funny' eyesight - consideration of a (screw-in) diopter correction lens may be required. (Accessory hot-shoe finders are excellent aids on many direct view cameras and could also be considered).
Screw fitting for filters at a standard size, plus a decent hood (preferably rectangular) are an absolute necessity. Standard cable release too.
Please send me a prototype for testing ..... Thank you.
.T.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15125
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Too much at £650 I fear.
I could buy a vintage camera and have it serviced for considerably less.
Certainly, but I'm not sure you could get anything that would compare with the sort of image quality this one is likely* to deliver. Most vintage roll-film folders suffered from poor film flatness problems, and had at best only single coated Tessar-type lenses (uncoated, prior to about the mid-1940s) - respectable enough at 'standard' focal length, but unlikely to match what we can almost certainly expect from a modern multicoated six-element Fujinon.
The only 'vintage' camera that I can immediately think of that would probably be genuinely comparable would be the Plaubel Makina 67, which I think generally goes for a lot more than £650.
* - I'm speculating, obviously, but this type of camera is not new in the modern photographic era (cf. the Plaubel Makina I mentioned, or Fuji's own past record in both rigid and folding medium format rangefinders), and Fuji's abilities in the optical department are also a known quantity. there seems no reason not to expect excellent image quality, almost certainly surpassing what is typically achieved by vintage folders.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36453
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I would completely agree with that. You're not going to get a compact 6x7 of anything like the same quality for that money. What you could get these days is a secondhand Pentax 67 with both 55mm and 105mm lenses, but that's nowhere near as easy to carry. I also see that it's possible to get a Mamiya 7 with standard lens within the budget, too - one has sold this very morning on ebay for just £495.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15125
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Indeed - there are plenty of cheap enough options for a 67 camera with good optics, but it's the sheer pocketability of this one that gives it its appeal. The Mamiya 6 is another possible alternative, albeit a smaller frame, but even that isn't quite slim enough to just slip into a coat pocket. In the end the Plaubel is the only one I can think of that's really comparable. Now that did have a wide option - the 67W, which IIRC had a 55mm Nikkor. Not sure how good it would have been in the corners though unless very well stopped down - I wouldn't want to bet my house on it.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4003
Loc: London
|
|
I voted "no" on all three accounts. I think that this camera is aimed at the advanced enthusiast and that the main problem will be to convince them that they need this camera.
I've been a member of a camera club since the end of 2004 and when I started, I was the odd one out. I had already gone digital. Come 2008, most of us have and the most often heard comment is "I won't go back to film" and many darkrooms have been dismantled. To get photographers to go back to film and make another huge investment will be extremely difficult. I feel that in order to make this camera work commercially, the price will have to be significantly under 500 pounds. Luckily, I own a scanner capable of working with medium and large format film. However, most will not and getting professional scans (and I'm not even talking about prints) done might just prove too expensive for most. Maybe this is something Fuji should offer in connection with the camera.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr
|
IvorETower
Little Buttercup
Reged: 15/11/2006
Posts: 1630
Loc: Camberley, Surrey
|
|
Sorry but for me there is no way I would pay "even" £650 for this camera. It's hard enough to justify spending a few hundred a year on keeping my existing dSLR hobby fed on new lenses, accessories etc, let alone fork out for another format
|
nspur
enthusiast
Reged: 20/07/2005
Posts: 264
Loc: Derbyshire
|
|
I'm fairly tempted to add MF to my kit but 6x6 not 6x7 and I would go for a s/h Bronica SQ so no to all three.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15125
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
I think the point of the poll was with regard to people who would be interested in buying the camera. Obviously if it's not something you want at all then participating merely clouds the issue.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2043
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
I think that we will have to be convinced by quality. In particular I am concerned by the lens. I understand that the prototype had an f3.5 and this rings an alarm bell; is it a crude triplet? For £650 I would expect a lens that is at least as good as that on a Zeiss Super Ikonta plus modern coatings. I suspect that a very simple Tessar design (4 elements in 3 groups, for 6 by 7), fully optimised and with modern coatings would give a good run for its money any modern complex design for 'C' size after taking into account the reduced enlargement required for final presentation.
For me, scanning the 6 by 7 negatives would also present a problem since I scan with a 35mm Superscan 5000. I would not be bothered about processing the negatives, indeed I processed some Delta 400 only a few days ago after an interval of some years. I found it very nostalgic and very satisfying. Nothing, however would get me to set up a wet darkroom for printing again.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36453
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I have absolutely no idea why you would think that an f3.5 lens means it would be a "crude triplet". The finest lens I have ever used for medium format is 6 elements and f3.5, for instance. If it were a Tessar to cover 6x7, I would be astonished if it were faster than f3.5 anyway. To keep the bulk down, even a more complex design simply isn't going to be any faster and allow for the folding design of the camera.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4251
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I have absolutely no idea why you would think that an f3.5 lens means it would be a "crude triplet".
Indeed. Were the lenses for the Bronica RF645 - none of which were faster than f/4 - "crude triplets"?
When roll film folding cameras were fashionable (say 50 years ago) even the fastest films were about the same speed as the slowest available today. So we don't need lenses to be as fast as we once did. Neither is a particularly fast lens needed to get a strong selective focus effect on a medium format camera.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9164
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Sadly it looks like the price may well put me out of the running - much as I'd like one. I can't honestly see such a camera being my main kit and even £650 is a tad much for something that's likely only to be of peripheral use.
Guess I'll just have to get my old Nettar out...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Tacitus
History
Reged: 17/01/2006
Posts: 871
|
|
Quote:
I could buy a vintage camera and have it serviced for considerably less.
I'd been looking into that myself, but the only realistic folder option (for me) has been a 6x6 Super Isolette with a Solinar, etc, or a (rare) late model 6x7 Super Ikonta with coated Tessar. Good S/Isolettes usually cost anywhere between £100 and £200 and the Super Ikontas easily cost as much as £300 today. Servicing both would be around £70-ish. Other high quality compact folding cameras exist, but are more difficult to find in really good condition, and many break easily.
While an Isolette is fairly compact, the big Ikontas and Super Ikontas aren't. They are second-hand 50~60~ year old cameras capable of the best results available in their class and time. Both have rather good, single-coated very well-corrected lenses, evolved from the original formulation patented in 1902, but capable of excellent results (except for corners) from f8 onwards.
In comparison, results from a modern multicoated lens in a comparable price range - even a re-formulated "very simple" Tessar - will invariably be quite significantly better and the cameras more generally suitable for life in the digital age. Ikontas cost a small fortune when new - hopefully a new Fuji 67 will be much cheaper, comparatively. Older cameras are analogous to 1950's cars - great for a Sunday afternoon drive, great fun, 'loveable old workhorses', etc, but handling and performance is outclassed by anything made today.
But it's "horses for courses" as they say.
.T.
Footnote:
Quote:
I think the point of the poll was with regard to people who would be interested in buying the camera. Obviously if it's not something you want at all then participating merely clouds the issue.
Yes, yes, yes!
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2870
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
This subject has rather aroused my curiosity, so I had a look at the Mamiya 7 which seems to fit a similar bill.
Bodies are available for £350 or so from Ffordes and MXV, which made me quite enthusiastic – that was until I saw the prices of lenses!
It's a shame I can't use the lenses from my Mamiya 645, but it does kind of suggest that the Fuji folder is likely to cost at least £800 and probably more.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
FujiSigmaNolta
veteran
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 1313
|
|
I wouldn't actually. I would rather a second hand Bronica (I have just seen a Pentax 6x7 with a lens for that) or even another Kiev with some lenses and the rest on film (Fujifilm).
If I am doing MF I am bringing me arsenal.
--------------------
Regards,
FujiSigmaNolta
My Flickr mess
My Blog
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
But the big downside of MF is bulk and weight, especially if you are considering a Bronny or a Pentax 6x7. This new folder should give all the traditional advantages that the Zeiss Ikonta and Ensign folders had of excellent MF quality in a compact and portable body. I wouldn't dream of taking a Bronny abroad on holiday but I might consider a nice compact folder.
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
(aka David Steel and owner of The Gallery)
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
