[tuco]

Checking out a film/developer combo on a scene I've photographed before.

Fuji GSW690III, Fujinon 65mm, 400TMY, D-23

[tuco]

No Trespassing

GSW690III, 400TMY, D-23

[goddo31]

Wow, that's billions of micro seconds ago.

Looks like you've been using both thhe Fuji GW and GSW recently. Do you have any thoughts on how they compare?
I sold my GSW690II a few months back, and kind of miss it. If I was to get another I was thinking of trying the GW rather than GSW.
I guess this is really just a subjective thing about the obvious differences in focal length. However being an owner of both, I'm wondering if you have any other insight...

---------- Post added 06-05-20 at 10:19 AM ----------

500CM, 80/2.8, FP4+ in ID11 1+1

[tuco]

...Looks like you've been using both the Fuji GW and GSW recently. Do you have any thoughts on how they compare?

Yes, both cameras fit in a small day pack. The cameras are identical except for the focal lengths of course (65mm and 90mm). I find a lot of shots with the 65mm focal length. At f16 you get a lot DOF for a 6x9 format and that is important for many of my pictures.

The 90mm is more of a challenge to get really near and far DOF. And with 100 film and low light stopping down to f22 with color filters to get DOF can mean using the crapy T-mode the camera has (no bulb) or just too slow of a shutter speed for motion. To get deep DOF with the 90mm on my 6x17 camera, for example, I often have to stop down to f32. But of course there are times when I need a longer focal length and the GW will help with that.

[goddo31]

Yes, both cameras fit in a small day pack. The cameras are identical except for the focal lengths of course (65mm and 90mm). I find a lot of shots with the 65mm focal length. At f16 you get a lot DOF for a 6x9 format and that is important for many of my pictures.

The 90mm is more of a challenge to get really near and far DOF. And with 100 film and low light stopping down to f22 with color filters to get DOF can mean using the crapy T-mode the camera has (no bulb) or just too slow of a shutter speed for motion. To get deep DOF with the 90mm on my 6x17 camera, for example, I often have to stop down to f32. But of course there are times when I need a longer focal length and the GW will help with that.

Thanks tuco, you raise a good point about the depth of field; I tend to think about the focal lengh difference as in field of view and forget about how important depth of field is with these 6x9s.
I think my main issue with the GSW was that it's too wide for me. I used to enjoy using wide angles but these days feel much more comfortable with normal-ish lenses.

[tuco]

Thanks tuco, you raise a good point about the depth of field; I tend to think about the focal lengh difference as in field of view and forget about how important depth of field is with these 6x9s.
I think my main issue with the GSW was that it's too wide for me. I used to enjoy using wide angles but these days feel much more comfortable with normal-ish lenses.

Yeah, it's all about finding a rhythm and to me focal length is a lot like format. When I take my 500C/M out, for instance, I keep an eye out for square compositions and it affects what pictures I will take to some degree much like taking only a wide vs normal focal length.

When I use my 500C/M, I typically carry a 50 or 60mm plus a 100mm and two film backs. I like that setup a lot. Two focal lengths and two different film types if I want, sweet. When I use that combo, it's typically two-thirds of my pictures are with the 50/60mm and the remaining with the 100mm. That kind of says what type of pictures catch my eye.

[degral]

Pentax MX, SMC 50mm f/1.4, Kodak Tri-X

Attached Images

 

[goddo31]

Yeah, it's all about finding a rhythm and to me focal length is a lot like format. When I take my 500C/M out, for instance, I keep an eye out for square compositions and it affects what pictures I will take to some degree much like taking only a wide vs normal focal length.

When I use my 500C/M, I typically carry a 50 or 60mm plus a 100mm and two film backs. I like that setup a lot. Two focal lengths and two different film types if I want, sweet. When I use that combo, it's typically two-thirds of my pictures are with the 50/60mm and the remaining with the 100mm. That kind of says what type of pictures catch my eye.

Interesting. I almost exclusively use the 80mm with the 500CM, with two film backs like you describe.
I did get the 150/4 a while back but seem to return the 80mm most of the time. I'd quite like to get the 60mm to try out too though.

Ok better post a photo to keep things going. This was an immaculate Mercedes from the 30s (I think).

500CM, 80/2.8, Ilford FP4+ in ID-11 1+1

[tuco]

60mm to try out too though.

I dig those old car pictures.


The Zeiss CB T* 60/3.5 is a really good lens. Optically as good as the CFi 60/3.5. They made three CB lenses (budget lenses). A 160, 80 and 60mm. Of the three lenses, the CB 60/3.5 is optically the same as a CFi lens with a CFi housing too but missing a housing feature of the CFi version. And when I purchased mine in excellent condition, it was less than half the price of the CFi version both because it was a 'budget' lens and not a very popular focal length for System V cameras. But a quick check and I see some CB 60mm prices much, much higher than when I purchased mine.

Last year I posted this using the Zeiss CB 60mm + 10mm ext tube while trying out RPX 100 in Rodinal.

[johnha]

Ok better post a photo to keep things going. This was an immaculate Mercedes from the 30s (I think).

Fantastic composition, very sharp with very good control of all the reflections.

---------- Post added 06-10-20 at 07:39 AM ----------

Last year I posted this using the Zeiss CB 60mm + 10mm ext tube while trying out RPX 100 in Rodinal.

Amazing composition of something very ordinary, fabulous.

Back in the day I went for Bronica SQ as 'blad lens prices were well over my budget. My most used lens is the 65mm.

I looked at a G690 a few years ago, but decided a couple more lenses for my P67 were a better option, kind if regret not buying it now though (not that I regret the lenses I bought!).

[goddo31]

I dig those old car pictures.

Thank you
Yes, I remember you mentioning the CB T* 60/3.5. That's the one I would like to get; sadly the cost is a bit prohibitive at the moment.
Although being Zeiss lenses it will likely always be expensive!

Fantastic composition, very sharp with very good control of all the reflections.[COLOR="Silver"]

I looked at a G690 a few years ago, but decided a couple more lenses for my P67 were a better option, kind if regret not buying it now though (not that I regret the lenses I bought!).

Cheers. A P67 and lenses are good too, and a bit more affordable than the Zeiss lenses for V series.

I'll have to find the photo I took of the front of that last car..

[tuco]

Amazing composition of something very ordinary, fabulous.
..
I looked at a G690 a few years ago, but decided a couple more lenses for my P67 were a better option, kind if regret not buying it now though (not that I regret the lenses I bought!).

Thanks. Good used medium format gear is getting really expensive and harder to find. Twice now I've tried getting a Fuji 645. Both had problems but advertised as working and the last one I paid top dollar for, a GS645 - a folder, but it had a underlying shutter problem not very noticeable unless you took it out for actual picture taking. And I haven't been able to return that one.

[PhilRich]

Hi, I'm getting back into film photography along with digital. In viewing the pictures posted here, many are displaying excellent detail. What are you using to scan the pictures? I'd like to hear from you. My old epson 4870 pro just isn't producing satisfactory results. I'm primarally using a Pentax 67 with a variety of lens.

Thanks, Phil

[goddo31]

Thanks. Good used medium format gear is getting really expensive and harder to find. Twice now I've tried getting a Fuji 645. Both had problems but advertised as working and the last one I paid top dollar for, a GS645 - a folder, but it had a underlying shutter problem not very noticeable unless you took it out for actual picture taking. And I haven't been able to return that one.

That's a real pity that you weren't able to return the second faulty one. Is it worth getting it fixed?

Hi, I'm getting back into film photography along with digital. In viewing the pictures posted here, many are displaying excellent detail. What are you using to scan the pictures? I'd like to hear from you. My old epson 4870 pro just isn't producing satisfactory results. I'm primarally using a Pentax 67 with a variety of lens.

Thanks, Phil

There's a lot of different scanners in use by members here and different approaches. Some also get scans done by a lab.
I haven't seen much "dslr scans" posted here, however that is another method which many people find works for them.

I personally use the Epson V700. It can be a bit fiddly to get good results. My biggest frustration when scanning is getting the film to lay flat and to get the focus right.

[tuco]

Is it worth getting it fixed?

Yes it's worth fixing but finding the parts is the problem. I took it to a camera repair shop but he said without parts he can't fix it. I might have to find a second camera with the needed parts.