Image quality of Fuji 4.5x6 vs 6x9 cameras?
William F. Robinson
I have a Fuji GS645W - the one with the 45mm lens, no rangefinder but
with a light meter. It produces superb transparencies. My question is to
anyone who might have tested them against the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders ---
Is it worth it to move up to the Fuji 6x9 equivalent of my 4.5x6 camera:
the GSW690III - the one with the 65mm lens? I shoot landscapes and
buildings in the landscape, so detail and texture (i.e., low contrast
resolution) is paramount. Will doubling the film area make any great
improvement to what is already a great image - due to Fuji's rangefinder
optics?
Thanks in advance,
William F. Robinson
robi...@rareamericana.com
Tom
In article <35732665...@rareamericana.com>, "William F. Robinson"
<robi...@rareamericana.com> wrote:
What a great question! I say this because I am contemplating the reverse
move. Moving from a GSW690 to one of Fuji's new 645's. How much of a
loss in enlargement quality will I lose going from a 6X9 neg to a 6X4.5?
I never go larger than 20"X30" prints. I know its a stupid move to give
up negative size. Its just that these new Fuji cameras have some really
cool features. I would love to be able to print the exposure I use onto
the negative!
Thanks for any answers.
tom
CWood 7000
Because the height of the frame is almost the same the thing that is really
changing is the aspect ratio of the frame. 6x9 is closer to a panorama format
while 645 is more like a 35mm aspect ratio. I can tell some difference
visually between my Pentax 645n and my Pentax 67. I use them for slightly
different purposes.
Aside from the fact the Fujis are rangefinders, you might want to have a look
at the Pentax 645n. It also prints data at the frame edge , has autofocus,
etc., plus the advantage of two zoooms and an entire range of interchangeable
lenses. It strikes me as a more serious way to do 645 vs the Fuji which seems
to be more P&S oriented.
T Loizeaux
When you double the size of your film image you don't really double the
resolution or sharpness. The grain size is cut in half, but the gain in
sharpness is less than the increased area.
The bigger factors that will determine image quality increase are the
quality of the lenses, the changes in depth of field (due to the longer
focal length) the slower shutter speed if a slower lens is used, etc.
6 x 9 is a great format, but you'll probably have to use smaller
aperatures and a tripod more often for high quality results.
Tom
T Loizeaux
CWood 7000 wrote:
>
> Because the height of the frame is almost the same the thing that is really changing is the aspect ratio of the frame. 6x9 is closer to a panorama format while 645 is more like a 35mm aspect ratio.
I'm afraid these statements are not correct.
The height of the frame does change between these 2 formats...unless you
turn the 645 into a vertical while leaving the 6x9 a horizontal.
The 35mm format is the most "panoramic" format of these three formats;
35mm (24x36mm) has a 1.5:1 ratio - The 6x9 (56x82mm) has a 1.46:1 ratio
- and the 645 (56x42mm) has a ratio of 1.33:1, the most square of these
three formats.
Tom
David Garth
I own a Fuji GA645 and a 670III. I am a fine art photographer who shoots
nature landscapes wit lots of depth.
Questions about quality differences are difficult to answer because the
difference in results are very subtle.
First, the lenses in these Fuji rangefinder cameras are spectacular.
Nothing compares to them for sharpness and contrast. NOTHING! Their
images have a certain magical quality about them that is difficult to
explain.
Second, the Fuji 645s are serious cameras, not to be confused with point
and shoots. Yes, they are easy to use. But how many point and shoots
have focus confirmation, manual focus when needed, manual exposure when
needed, exposure compensation,complete info printed on film, etc, etc,
etc.
Now to the issue at hand. Can a very picky person (me) tell the
difference between side by side prints made iso100 negatives from the
two cameras? Not usually in 8x10s, sometimes with 11x14s, almost always
with 16x20s and larger. But this doesn't mean that the 645 prints are
not really beautiful and sharp in their own right. Sometimes it depends
on the specific picture and film. Depth of field, diffraction
limitations, film choice, and scene contrast, all interplay differently.
Sometimes the advantage goes to 645, but more often to 67. But, for
these results, a tripod is needed. Hand held the differences are even
harder to discern
(I also shoot 4x5; the lens and back tilt allow better depth of field
control, so often an 11x14 in a side by side with either medium format
looks better, but not always.)
Dave Garth
David Garth
Gary Helfrich
David Garth <dga...@slochamber.org> wrote:
: First, the lenses in these Fuji rangefinder cameras are spectacular.
: Nothing compares to them for sharpness and contrast. NOTHING! Their
: images have a certain magical quality about them that is difficult to
: explain.
You might want to try a Fuji lens on your 4x5.
Gary Helfrich
CWood 7000
The new Pentax 645n has all of the operational attributes (focus confirmation,
exposure and bracketing compensation, autofocus or manual, preprogrammed or
manual modes, data imprinting, fast motordrive, matrix, center weighted of 1%
spot meter built in) plus interchangeable lenses from 35mm to over 400mm.
Charles R. Hohenstein
In article <199806022239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cwoo...@aol.com (CWood 7000) wrote:
> Because the height of the frame is almost the same the thing that is really
> changing is the aspect ratio of the frame. 6x9 is closer to a panorama format
> while 645 is more like a 35mm aspect ratio.
Unless I am mistaken, 6x9 is exactly the same aspect ratio as 35 mm (24x36).
AColdSpoon
>Aside from the fact the Fujis are rangefinders, you might want to have a look
>at the Pentax 645n. It also prints data at the frame edge , has autofocus,
>etc., plus the advantage of two zoooms and an entire range of interchangeable
>lenses. It strikes me as a more serious way to do 645 vs the Fuji which
>seems
>to be more P&S oriented.
Anyone who would compare a small rangefinder to an SLR just doesn't get it.
First of all rangefinders can be built with better optics as they can sit
closer to the film plane. Secondly, a rangefinder's lack of mirror swing
permits shooting at much slower speeds, allowing one to do more available light
and handheld work. Thirdly, a range finder can be carried in a jacket pocket.
Lastly, I have shot with both cameras and would never do the Fuji optics the
injustice of comparing them to other Japanese optics. Quite honestly, when it
comes to shooting colour chromes (especialy Fuji Film), I tend to choose my
Fujis over my Zeiss lenses. Anyone who argues this point just hasn't spent
enough time with Fuji optics, so don't bother flaming me, I won't listen. BTW,
the Fuji rangefinders can be used on full manual, and there are still many mint
condition Manual FujiGS645 Folders floating around, and the Auto Focus model
now comes in a Zoom version. Some people just don't get that SLRs and
Rangefinders are so different they are barely worth comparing.
Most importanly I will never miss hearing a loud "CLANK" when an SLR shutter
fires, not being able to see where my flash hit and with what intensity, and
not knowing if my subject blinked. These are reasons enough for the use of a
rangefinder, auto focus or not.
Jonathan Fells
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:08:40 -0400, "William F. Robinson"
<robi...@rareamericana.com> wrote:
>I have a Fuji GS645W - the one with the 45mm lens, no rangefinder but
>with a light meter. It produces superb transparencies. My question is to
>anyone who might have tested them against the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders ---
>Is it worth it to move up to the Fuji 6x9 equivalent of my 4.5x6 camera:
>the GSW690III - the one with the 65mm lens? I shoot landscapes and
>buildings in the landscape, so detail and texture (i.e., low contrast
>resolution) is paramount. Will doubling the film area make any great
>improvement to what is already a great image - due to Fuji's rangefinder
>optics?
>Thanks in advance,
>William F. Robinson
>robi...@rareamericana.com
>
I am very excited about the new Fuji 645 with zoom lens (and
autofocus). Can anyone advise me how does the image quality compare
with a prime lens ? Would I be satisfied with image quality, compared
with my YashicaMat 124G. Mostly landscapes and portraits, B+W 10x8
prints, looking for S/H 6x6 projector then will be taking
transparencies.
Thanks,
Jonathan Fells
--
Jonathan Fells
David Garth
EugeneC173 wrote:
> David,
>
> Granted the Fuji's are good, I have had many of them, but great, no. Try a
> Mamiya 7 sometime and some Zeiss lenses particularly a 38 Biogon.
>
Gene:
Maybe I did overstate. I did have a Hasselblad Zeiss 50mm, and it didn't
wow me the way my Fujis do. A good friend has a Mamiya 7 with an 80mm
lens. Even he prefers the image quality of my Fuji 90mm on my 6x7. The
resolution of these is about equal (both great) but the Fuji has a
subjective edge, at least to me. On the other hand, his camera seems to
be built with greater precision.
Dave
EugeneC173
>First, the lenses in these Fuji rangefinder cameras are spectacular.
>Nothing compares to them for sharpness and contrast. NOTHING
David,
Joseph Albert
In article <chohenste-030...@ts02-sb-29.skyenet.net>,
Charles R. Hohenstein <choh...@skyenet.net> wrote:
>> Because the height of the frame is almost the same the thing that is really
>> changing is the aspect ratio of the frame. 6x9 is closer to a panorama format
>> while 645 is more like a 35mm aspect ratio.
>
>Unless I am mistaken, 6x9 is exactly the same aspect ratio as 35 mm (24x36).
you aren't mistaken. 35mm and 6x9 are both 2:3 aspect ratios, and
645 and 6x7 are both close to 4:5, sometimes called ideal format.
j. albert
Joseph Albert
In article <199806032057...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
AColdSpoon <acold...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anyone who would compare a small rangefinder to an SLR just doesn't get it.
>Lastly, I have shot with both cameras and would never do the Fuji optics the
>injustice of comparing them to other Japanese optics. Quite honestly, when it
>comes to shooting colour chromes (especialy Fuji Film), I tend to choose my
>Fujis over my Zeiss lenses. Anyone who argues this point just hasn't spent
>enough time with Fuji optics, so don't bother flaming me, I won't listen. BTW,
That was my experience comparing a Fuji GS-645S to Rolleiflex 2.8E Xenotar,
that the Fuji was slightly more color saturated, but a very slight difference.
I suspect a multicoated Xenotar would be the equal of the Fuji lens.
However, I sold the Fuji GS-645S I had (and kept hte Rollei TLR!!) because
I found the rangefinder to be a little lame. the superimposed image was too
dim to focus well on low contrast subjects. I found a Rollei TLR with ground
glass upgraded to the modern focusing screen Rollei makes for an SL-66 to be
easier to focus than a Fuji 645 rangefinder. The Fuji 6x7 and 6x9 are better
in this regard. The Fuji rangefinders are also way too loud for my taste,
with a loud ka-chunk when the shutter is depressed.
But seriously folks, it isn't important to worry to much about whether
Fuji, Zeiss, or Pentax medium format lenses are best. They are all
superb, and whether your get stellar or pedestrian images will depend
on other factors.
j. albert
T Loizeaux
35mm is 24x36 (1.5:1 ratio)
6x9 is 56x82 (1.46:1 ratio)
Tom
Dirk J. Bakker
Hmmm...
35mm 24/12 = 2 by 36/12 = 3 2:3,
6x9 6/3 = 2 by 9/3 = 3 2:3.
ok?
Dirk
Joseph Albert
In article <357B7C...@mindspring.com>,
Tom was being more nitpicky than that. 120 roll film is in fact 56mm wide.
however, there is no standard width of a 6x9 frame-- depends on the camera.
Many are 56mm x 84mm which again is 2:3. But even 56x82 is, for all
practical photographic purposes, roughly 2:3. 2mm out of 84mm is less than
most 35mm SLRs crop away by having a less than 100% viewfinder.
Pick nits if you must, but for all practical purposes, the formats
fit the following categories:
"Ideal" format: 645, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10
Square format: 6x6, superslide
2:3 aspect ratio: 35mm, 6x9
J. Albert
Joseph Albert
In article <3576952a...@linux.compd.com>,
Jonathan Fells <j...@mhs.compd.XXX-NO-SPAM-XXX.com> wrote:
>I am very excited about the new Fuji 645 with zoom lens (and
>autofocus). Can anyone advise me how does the image quality compare
>with a prime lens ? Would I be satisfied with image quality, compared
>with my YashicaMat 124G. Mostly landscapes and portraits, B+W 10x8
>prints, looking for S/H 6x6 projector then will be taking
>transparencies.
Although the camera has yet to hit the shelves of the photo dealers,
I've already shot thousands of rolls of film with one and thus can render
the definitive opinion on the optical quality of the lens. After that,
there won't be any need to investigate it further because we all know
that any opinion of optical quality of a lens that is posted to a rec.photo.*
newsgroup is definitive.
Sorry for the sarcasm. folks-- there is only one way to tell if some piece
of camera equipment that looks good on paper is going to meet your needs,
and that is to try it out for yourself.
Given the modest zoom range that isn't even a 2x range (55-90mm)
it seems that Fuji was trying to maintain optical quality at the expense
of zoom range. If what you are after is a lightweight camera, it isn't
clear that the Fuji will be enough lighter than a Mamiya 6 + 50mm + 75mm,
or even Mamiya C220 + 55mm + 80mm to justify the $1800 price tag.
A C220F + WLF + 55mm + 80mm is 4lbs 2oz. What I heard is that the Fuji 55-90
camera is just over 3lbs. I'd be more inclined to go with a Mamiya 6 and
50mm + 75mm if you want to spend alot for a compact camera since you can
add a 150mm telephoto later. But I'm partial to being able to view an
image on a ground glass with both eyes, rather than squinting through a
viewfinder with one eye.
My biggest concern with the camera is that Fuji will come out with a
50-150mm or similar zoom range camera next year and push the value of
the used 55-90mm ones through the floor.
j. albert
Michael Liczbanski
Dirk J. Bakker wrote in message <357B7C...@mindspring.com>...
>Hmmm...
>
>35mm 24/12 = 2 by 36/12 = 3 2:3,
>
>6x9 6/3 = 2 by 9/3 = 3 2:3.
>
>ok?
>
>Dirk
FWIW
Not really...
The frame (image) size of 6x9 is 56x82mm, which gives a 1:1.46 aspect ratio,
not the 1:1.5 aspect ratio of 24x36mm. Negligible in practice, though.
T Loizeaux
Dirk J. Bakker wrote:
>
> T Loizeaux wrote:
> >
> > 35mm is 24x36 (1.5:1 ratio)
> > 6x9 is 56x82 (1.46:1 ratio)
> >
> > Tom
>
>
> 35mm 24/12 = 2 by 36/12 = 3 2:3,
>
> 6x9 6/3 = 2 by 9/3 = 3 2:3.
>
> ok?
>
> Dirk
6x9 is not really 60mm x 90mm, hence the difference in ratio.
Tom
T Loizeaux
>
> ...Pick nits if you must, but for all practical purposes, the formats fit the following categories:
>
> "Ideal" format: 645, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10
> Square format: 6x6, superslide
> 2:3 aspect ratio: 35mm, 6x9
>
> J. Albert
I agree. That is why I use the 6x9 format...it prints to a ratio similar
to 35mm work.
Tom