Some first samples from the Fuji GF670…

THE FUJI GF670. My review of this cool camera will be up by this weekend but until then I wanted to share a couple of samples that came back today in my first roll. I shot a total of four rolls in the GF670 so far and the first roll was a test roll to make sure focus was good, and also so I could see how the cameras meter worked (wether it sucked or was decent). I had a total of 12 shots on this first roll and out of 12 shots, all 12 came out great in regards to exposure and focus! The camera is working well. Tomorrow I get my other three rolls back and I think I will have some cool shots as I did some street stuff, and yes, this camera was easy to shoot street with. Almost as easy as a Leica 🙂

As most of you know, the Fuji GF670 is a medium format FILM camera and the negatives it gives you are big and fat. Much bigger than a 35mm negative. This will give you better tones, smoother grain and that look many of use refer to as “That Medium Format Look”! Sure you can buy a digital MF camera but be prepared to pay. This brand new Fuji model goes for about $1900, and IMO that is not so bad for a compact medium format camera.

Anyway, I am not going to ramble on here as the full review will be up soon with MANY more shots, a video showing the details of the camera including loading and unloading, and a few more shots of the camera itself. I can say right now that this is one fun and easy to use camera and so far I am really enjoying it. It has been my constant companion for the past few days and right now I have my 5th roll, a roll of Tri-X, inside the camera. The samples below were shot wide open at f3.5 at about 1/30s with Ilford FP4. Also, these are scans from my local lab, not by me. Also, B&H still has this one in stock 🙂

[ad#Adsense Blog Sq Embed Image]


  1. I’ve shot weddings for years on 6×7 format. I’ve made 20×30 in prints with no visible grain. If you shoot 6×6 or 6×4.5 you have 3.5 times the area 35mm. If you shoot 6×7 format you have almost 5 times the area of 35mm. (6×6 format is square, you must crop to 6×4.5 to make prints.

    • Well, may GAS got the better of me (gear acquisition syndrome), and I picked a used Bessa III version for 1200.00; I thought the price was extremely fair. This camera’s shutter release is so quiet and motionlessness that I thought the shutter wasn’t snapping at first. I’d love to see samples of different types of film from this folder.

      I am in love with it.

  2. I love this camera! I have the all black Voigtlander version and it’s truly a take everywhere camera. It’s so incredibly quiet an easy to handle. I have been using it since April of this year and have run more rolls through it already than I expected to. [img][/img]

  3. Nice review Steve! Would love to pick up that Fuji GF670. If anyone is interested I shoot a range of Leica, Hasselblad, and Contax which you can check out on my blog.



  4. Steve – why not just a 500CM? No doubt performance is still absolutely fantastic if it was taken care of well, you can probably sell it for just as much as you paid for it, and still lower startup cost (your comment sounded like you’re hesitating 🙂 ).

    That’s the huge appeal of the Fuji, the smaller fold up size. The Hasselblad is so fun to shoot, when you bring that baby out, you’re announcing to the world that you’re there to SHOOT.

  5. I am toying with the idea of picking up a Hasselblad 501 or 503. No meter but I have always loved the build and look of them as well as the results with the 80 2.8. I am seeing whole Hasselblad 501 CM kits with body, lens, back and finder for $1700 in mint condition.

    The Fuji on the other hand is very versatile and can go anywhere. Folded up its very slim and fits right in my Domke bag next to my M. Also has the built in meter which is pretty damn accurate and the choice of 6X6 or 6X7.

    One thing is for sure, I am really liking the quality of MF film more than 35mm film and the Fuji makes it so easy to shoot MF.

  6. Very appealing, a smallish, compact medium format camera!

    @Armanius – I have a Hasselblad you can play with, but a friend from church is borrowing it right now. I’ll try to get it back from him. I even have Polaroid film and back to use it with for instant results! 🙂

  7. @Stephen the crop factor would be 450 but the compression from the long lens would stay at 300mm which is still a hell of a lot. It still acts as a 300mm lens just cropped.

  8. Steve – is it my imagination or does your wife’s face look a little narrower in the first shot (compared to the many I have seen)? If I am wrong then oh well, I really need to see the optomotrist but if not, do you think it could be the addition focal length generated by the larger negative? A friend shot a portrait of me the other day with a D90 and a 300mm 2.8 Nikkor prime lens and when I saw the picture I was very surprised as I looked quite a bit different to how I normally look. I thought I looked better than usual! lol. 300mm on a D90 is about 450mm due to the crop factor… How about that, 450mm at 2.8!

  9. Want to go crazy? Load some ILFORD PAN F 50 in there and shoot. Tones and detail are astonishing.

    I am going to walk home now and pick up my C41 from the lab as I am too lazy of late to shoot silver. Oh whats this? It is my Fuji GA645i with a roll of TRI-X in it. Hmmm I guess I’ll have to shoot more Beijing on the way to the lab.



  10. Lovely pics, Steve and Max. Interesting looks here, where mf really shows it’s stuff for doff control and tonality. The not f/0.95 seems to put out a similar rendering….to my eyes

  11. Here’s another way to think about the difference between 35mm and Medium format film: The actual grains of silver in a given film (say FP-4) are all the same size, regardless of the size they cut the film to. But, in order to make an 8×10 inch print, you have to enlarge the 35mm neg, and its grain, at least 8 times (1 inch high neg to 8 inch high print). The 6×7 neg from the Fuji (and its grain) only gets enlarged about 3.4 times. So the grain in the picture is less than half as big.
    Also, because the grains are smaller in the final print, there are lots more of them. You could think of it as about 3 times as many pixels. So fine details, and delicate gradations of tone are recorded better.

  12. Mina must love that first shot – the shallow depth of field makes it look like a Summilux shot. The background looks almost like a backdrop in a studio, given that the subject stands out so clearly in front of it (no criticism this; I like it). Beautiful portrait. When I’m lucky enough to get something like that it cheers me up for the whole weekend…

  13. @Max – Great shots!!

    @Dirk and Byrd – Thanks for the explanation!

    @Steve – Oh, I thought you got it from a drugstore, not a local pro shop! Hence the difference! But man, you are killing me with all this gear testing … now … other than still wanting to get a film M, I want a medium format camera too!!! I’m going to have to block this site from any computer I have access to … and my iPhone and iPad! 😉

  14. Here are a couple of Contax 645 shots, first one is FujiPro 400H (shot @200ISO) and second is Fuji Reala 100



  15. The reason i would shoot MF is for the color work. I like harsh 35mm with BnW. Im excited to see some vivid colours.

  16. @Armanius – Thanks! These were scanned at my local pro shop. They do a good job but the cost is $10 for a roll plus $3 for processing. So $13 for a roll of 12 images. Add the film cost of $5 and yuo are at $18 a roll, for 12 images. Of course you can process the negs yourself and then scan them yourself, but for this test I wanted to go ahead and use a lab for best results.

    @Matt – Thanks!

    @Dieter – Cool, I think you will enjoy shooting it. Let me know how it goes!

    @Dirk – Thanks!

    @Max – I see what you mean. When I look back at a 35mm scans after looking at these MF scans, the 35’s look harsh and with harder grain. Im anxious to see my other three rolls today which were Delta 400, Delta 3200 and Ektachrome 100VS.

    @Nacho – Thanks!

    @Armanius – Others have answered already but yea, its due to the size of the film/negative which is much bigger with MF.

    @Ruben – Thanks!

    @Kalye – Thanks!

  17. @Armanius : What you said it’s correct (even partially)… as you know… APS-C sensor (film) size is about 20*14mm, Full Frame (35mm) size is 36*24mm… While Medium format can be 4*5cm, 6*5cm, 6*7cm…

    The bigger film size, the more surface area you can capture the light. The rest is well explain by d!rk…

  18. Excellent images Steve. Great job! Everything looks so vivid. Makes me want to try shooting with MF.

  19. Yes, that’s basically the reason. You have more surface area to capture information. Grain is less visible and photos will look very smooth. In addition you often get very shallow depth-of-field because the focal lengths of the lenses are longer. An 80mm lens is a normal lens on most medium format cameras.

  20. Can someone explain to this film noob why would a medium format camera’s images look better than a 35mm? Is it similar to the same concept that a full frame digital sensor captures more data than an APS-C or 4/3 and so on? Thanks!

  21. The shots looks fantastic, Steve. Sometimes I find it hard looking at 35mm again after going medium format. The resolution, size, depth, tones, can’t be beaten. This is where film truly leaves digital in the dust. I mean, besides the amazing quality of the output, how much would we have to spend to get that in digi-world? $15-20K at least? I think I paid $4K for my Contax 645 with four amazing Zeiss lenses AND, I can even attach a Phase One digital back whenever they come out with a non-cropping sensor at a semi-affordable price. This Fuji looks like a winner!

  22. These are nice shots. I used a Mamiya 7II in the past and always liked the look of the files. Developing the film was easy and fun without any big requirements. Seeing this makes me want to get a used 6×7 again. Still I have a pile of unscanned film that I have to deal with before justifying any new film purchase.


  23. Cool! I did not get a chance to shoot with my Bessa III, so far. I might take it for a shooting on Friday alongside the M8.

  24. I have not used either a Mamiya 7 or GF670, and while I think the Mamiya might be better for me, with the option of wide angle lenses, the GF670 looks so portable, would probably slip into my bag pretty easy.

  25. Medium format is totally foreign to me … just like film! But the photos sure look nice!! Great detail! I wish my drug store scans were this good.

  26. Really impressive. Makes full frame (whether film or digital) look like a compact p&s! I’d love to see some color landscapes, any chance?

  27. Thanks Alexander. Yea, Im happy with the lens but cant wait to see the shots from my other rolls, one was shot at night with Delta 3200. Anyway, I have looked at the Mamiya 7 but if I were to buy a MF camera I would want one like this Fuji as it is more compact and slides right into my Domke bag when folded flat. I may end up buying this review sample 🙂

  28. Looks a that camera has a good lens on it . I love the look and DOF of mediam format. Steve if your really interested in getting a median format range finder i highly recommend looking at the mamiya 7. I would say the lens are as good as Leica’s optically.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Fujifil GF670 medium format film camera tested by Steve Huff « efix:photography

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.