Fuji GX 680 III

I was considering getting one of these in place of a 4x5 field camera. I did not because it is the same weight/hassle as 4x5. Unless you are using the movements for macro/portrait work they are not very useful as the controls are incredibly limited or not available at infinity/far away focusing distances. The movements are difficult to fine tune using the WLF or prism compared to using a loupe on a 4x5 ground glass.

>>2997855
>The movements are difficult to fine tune using the WLF or prism compared to using a loupe on a 4x5 ground glass.
This is true

>movements for macro/portrait work they are not very useful as the controls are incredibly limited or not available at infinity/far away focusing distances.
This is not true. I have the standard "stiff" bellows, and they allow me full movements with the 100mm at infinity. There are soft wide angle bellows that makes this easier.

>>2997855
I would not want one of these to get rained on.
I would not want to try and find batteries for this outside of New York or Tokyo.
I wouldn't use the meter ever.
I'm sure the lenses are fucking sublime, and that when it's working, and with full suite of accessories, it's an absolute joy to shoot.
But for the money you save buying the bigger, more versatile, more portable, more durable 4x5, you can keep yourself in sheet film for a good while.

I want to reckon that it's because it had a reputation for being a big and expensive studio camera, while other MF SLRs like the Bronicas and RB/RZ enjoyed greater popularity thanks to their lower used prices.

>>2997980
>find batteries
It uses CR123 batteries. Pretty standard. Tons of them for cheap on ebay, duracell etc.

>I wouldn't use the meter ever.
only the rare expensive AE finder has metering.

>I'm sure the lenses are fucking sublime
Yes and no. Only negative I have on them is that the aperture lever feels very plasticy. It's not smooth enough to use 1/3-stops comfortably.

>4x5
Sheet vs roll. What suits one best. I like both.

>>2997980
>shoots 4x5
>too retarded to find a fucking common battery

>>2998150
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't google the precise differences between the mk1, 2 and 3 models of the camera before posting.
Because the first 2 models used bullshit proprietary Ni-Cads, instead of still actually quite uncommon Lithium cells, which I order from ebay myself, because I know you can't fucking find them anywhere.
Either way, I'm happy to stick with the miraculous film advance and exposure timing on my 6x9 Fuji's, which somehow manage to work great without the assistance of rare collectors edition electricity.

File: GX680III.jpg (143KB, 603x432px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 603x432px

You really want to know why?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	603
Image Height	432

>>2998503
holy shit

>>2998503
ok... that's big

>>2998503
Fug :DDD

>tfw the only MF setup you think you'll like is the Bronicas (and Pentax, but dat size) because you're too used to Nikon's focus and aperture ring direction
I guess I'm looking for a SQ-a or preparing to miss focus lots with a GW670?

>>2998503
>leicht und kompakt

>>3001034
There's the GS-1 if you want 6x7 without the bulk of the RB, but you lose out on the rotating back.

>>3001040
Seems harder to find than a SQa. I got one selling locally with the 80 s, 135 ps, speedgrip, WLF, prism, and hood for 650 maple dollars. I think I'll go check that out.

>>3001034
m9, trust me, you'll miss focus on mf a hell of a lot less with a rangefinder.

>>3001050
I don't get what you're saying. Compared to what? 35mm with a split prism? Or medium format rangefinder vs WLF vs prism? I can only assume the WLF has a split prism and isn't plain ground glass.

And why? I, for one, enjoy my TTL focusing. I'm saying I'll probably miss focus because I'll be shooting by reflex at first, and twisting the focus ring the wrong with using the Fuji compared to my Nikons.

>>3001066
I think he means that you'll miss your focus due to things like the inherent nature of rangefinders versus SLRs, and their fragility.

>>3001084
Well, maybe that's what he meant, but what he wrote says the opposite.

Gotta say though, having MF in a package the size of a GW670 is appealing. I wouldn't have minded a manual exposure meter built in though...

>>3001066
>>3001084
>>3001114
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
>you will miss focus less with a rangefinder
What about that is hard to interpret?
The fact of the matter is, MF glass is slow, and the ground glasses in these old reflex viewing screens are not very bright, and split prisms are quite uncommon in MF cameras. And when they are there, the effective base length of the split prism is miniscule compared to that of an actual rangefinder mechanism, and therefore inherently less accurate.
All of these things make it more difficult to achieve accurate focus.
And this is before we come to the extreme likelihood that a giant 6x6 or bigger mirror in a 40yo camera is going to be some way out of adjustment if it hasn't been serviced, and effectively making ttl focusing impossible, putting you back to scale focusing off the lense.
I'm going with the practically brand new RF being a lot more accurate.

What 4x5 a poorfag like me can get for 500 bucks?

>>3001239
A used Graflex, maybe?

>>3001427
>>3001239
No wait, Toyo 45A. No lenses or film holders though.

>>3001239
>>3001428
Or a Wista 45D

>>3001428
What lens should I get then?

File: [Elysium]Suzumiya.Haruhi.no.Yuuutsu.EP20(BD.720p.AAC)[488C18CE].mkv_snapshot_19.04_[2014.04.08_22.02.35].jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>3001432
Depends on what you like. Wide angle? Normal? Tele?

Here is a list of most 4x5 lenses. Old street prices and everything:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

>>3001122
And yet a big ol' mirror tends to be more reliable than the sometimes finnicky rangefinder mechanism. Not to mention several MF SLRs were made into the 2000s alongside RFs.

How much should I pay for one of these?

>>3001461
More than you can afford pal, Fuji.

>>3001482

But seriously, how much should I pay for a unit that comes with a 100mm lens and the AA battery pack?

>>3001490
I paid $800 for mine with 100mm, 120 back and 220 back. A bit expensive for what they can be bought for, but still ridiculously cheap for what they cost new.

The AA batterypack is $140 alone... overpriced piece of plastic. Although a nice accessory.

>>3001516
$899*

Very nice conction. Looked almost unused.

>>3001461
It's not that hard to find out dude.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=fujifilm%20gx680%20iii&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

>>3001516
Why 100mm?

it's like what on 135, 60mm?

>>3001539
46mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuji_GX680#Lenses

>>3001516

I found this set on ebay, do you think it's a good deal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/182420342636

>>3001556
Looks to be in very good condition at least. The wide angle bellows and 5m release cable are a nice addition.

IIRC the body only cost $2400 when new. It's a good deal compared to that.

>>3001427
Some dude selling a Technica 3 with a Schneider convertible 150mm for $500 here in Ausfailia.
>the real fail is that I can't afford it rn ;_;

>>3001454
You're talking out of your arse mate.

>>3001557

Should I go for it? I've been meaning to get into medium format and this looks like a solid system.

>>2998503
Holy shit! And people give the RB/RZ shit for being a behemoth.

>>3001609
Maybe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4UOvtPcl6I

>>2997855
le vintagenostalgia shit meme

wow so deep and artsy

xDDDDDDDDDDD

>>3002082
It is a really good camera, especially with movements. The only major flaws is the size and weight. And proprietary shutter release. There is probably some way to modify or glue on a regular screw shutter mount at the release button.

>>3001743
One was a pro studio camera. The other was trash.

>>3001122
I've owned 4 MF cameras, 2 SLRs (Hasselblad 500cm and a Bronica SQ-A) and 2 RFs (Mamiya 7 and Plaubel Makina 67).

The SLRs never needed servicing due to focus issues (owned the Hasselblad for 4 years, Bronica for 8). The Mamiya 7 needed a rangefinder calibration every year and the Plaubel needed one about every 18 months.

RFs are much more likely to need servicing for focus issues.