File :-(, x, )
SAGE
whats everyones opinion on fuji rangfinders
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
awesome if you can fucking afford one
>> SAGE
>>298281
meh about the same price as a user cond m3
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Too goddamn big. You need a damn good reason to be shooting that to justify the weight and trouble.
>> SAGE
>>298286
the larger negitive does not justify? it cant weigh more than a average DSLR kit....
>> Anonymous
>>298286
>weight
Bullshit. They are not much different than 1 series Canon bodies. What's a "reasonable" size camera for you? Are you afraid you'll get caught doing your pantyshots.

Anyways, I think that Mamiya 7 is superior.
>> SAGE
>>298297
the Mamiya 7 is more money though, at least $200 usd more. i cant afford that, $200 buys a lot of film anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>298297
And a Canon 1 series is compact?

They're okay bodies, good finders and build, they don't get in the mental way of your shooting at all, but anything where I'm moving a lot or there isn't much room around me I wouldn't use one with a little pancake lens on it, let alone things like the 35/1.4s or 24-70s they're meant to be used with.

I've never shot with one, but probably much the same can be said about these Fujis: good build and finder, transparent controls, but huge. That's what I've heard, anyway.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>298288
>>298297
Yeah but I'd laugh at you if you bought a 1Ds for no good reason as well. The larger negative _could_ justifiy the size - but do you need to be shooting that big? How big do you normally print etc etc
>> Anonymous
>>298350
Is bawrkehbawrkehbawrkeh a good reason?
>> Anonymous
>>298350
The larger negative already shows its quality at 12x9cm prints, or 800*600 scans. It's quite obvious.

I have a GA645. The AF is a little on the slow side, but fast enough. The thing isn't heavy at all, and the grip is nice to hold. The lens is a little too wide for my taste, I had to get closer then one meter to a person to get a head shot.. Which I recently tried doing street stuff, after which I got assaulted by the person I photographed. Not going to do that again. If you're doing landscapes, then it's perfect.

>>298368
wat? You won't get really that more borkeh then any 35mm with f1/8 50mm lens..
>> SAGE
>>298384
is the ga645 the same size as the gw690III
i would expect the whole thing to be smaller.
>> Anonymous
Damn~ I want that Hexar!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>298386
GA645 - 166 x 110 x 66mm
GW690 - 189×119×123mm
It is, but then I wasn't really comparing them anyhow.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>298384
Yeah but nobody looks at an 800x600 scan from a quality 35mm setup and goes "well damn that should've been shot with 6x9" even if there is a visible difference. It's only when the extra negative size opens up completely new possibilities (like printing really frigging big) that I think it's worth it.
>> Anonymous
>Which I recently tried doing street stuff, after which I got assaulted by the person I photographed

>Not going to do that again

Wrong conclusion. That person is a dick. And you might be doing it wrong/taking too long. Never take more than 15 seconds for a shot. Makes you look like a stalker. I shoot a MF 645, so I prefocus, pre-meter, and pre-frame(in my head).

Got anything to post?
>> Anonymous
>>298427
I just don't feel comfortable doing headshots with a 60mm (35mm equiv in 35mm), as I have to get closer then 1m to him. I forgot to mention that. I was right up in his face. The few persons I tried before that just ran away, that worked better for me. It usually takes me between 5 to 10 seconds, that doesn't seem to be the problem.
I'll post some when I get the chance to develop those shots..
>> Anonymous
>>298427
True, but if that bit of difference is enough for a person to justify buying one, is purely your personal opinion I think.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>298875
Well everything I post here is my opinion. I don't expect my posts to stop anyone buying a Fuji rangefinder. Anyone who takes individual /p/ posts as gospel truth is an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>298280

I don't know much about the 35mm Fuji, not having shot one. But I've got both the GW690II and the GSW690II. The GW690 that you show is the series III which has the bubble level, and easier film changing and plastic exterior, but since I've had no problems with mine, I've never bothered getting the series III.

I use the GSW690 more than the GW690, and because of the lack of a meter, I normally stick it in my pack with a digital SLR. A Fuji GSW690II shooting black and white film will easily optically out-perform a Nikon D200, and while I haven't tested this with colour and chromes, there's no reason to expect the results to be different.

A 6x9 negative, scanned at 4800dpi will produce an image with greater than 150MP. Which isn't to say that all those pixels are useful, or wanted, but it's possible. If you get a negative scanned professionally, the results will be better.

The GSW690II can be had for between $600 and $1000 and the GW690II is between $400 and $700. That's pretty cheap for the performance you get. The cameras are also very light, and even though the shutter sounds like a toy going *clack*, you can't complain about the results.

The only problem with both the GSW and the GW is that they don't have a bulb mode, but something called a "T" mode, which opens the shutter when you depress the shutter release. You close the shutter either by advancing a frame or changing the shutter speed. For most situations, you can just put the lens cap on the camera, and then change shutter speed.

So, to summarise: I like the Fuji Rangefinder I own.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>298937
The 35mm camera there isn't a Fuji - it's a Konica Hexar RF. Nice writeup though - sounds just like my friend's experiences (I think he had the first one with a fixed lens, whichever that ws).