Is the Fuji Quickchange more of the same?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
Robert White UL webpage shows the Fuji Quickchange. It is claimed that the design overcomes the problems of jamming associated with the Graphmatic. It accepts standard 4 x 5 films, not Quickload or Readyload. I would appreciate any comments you have about this accessory. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- David (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 2001
On the plus side, it's extremely quick and easy to use and is lighter and far less bulky than the equivalent number of film holders. It's also a piece of cake to reload - I can unload, clean and reload the Quickchange cartridge a lot quicker than 4xDDS.
On the downside, it isn't as reliable as I'd hoped - on my first day's shooting in Jordan recently it jammed (with the slide out) on the 6th shot; thereby wasting the previous five exposures as well as the remaining sheets. Although that was the only jam during a five week trip across the deserts of Jordan and Syria, I also found that maybe 20% of the shots I took using the Quickchange showed some light- leakage at one end, ranging from the slight to the very, very bad.
The flip-side is that I was able to carry far more film in my back- pak than would otherwise have been possible.
Great device in theory but I'm not convinced Fuji have got their market strategy right yet. The cartridges are way too expensive to use the as disposables (as they intended) but not yet reliable enough to use as a Grafmatic-style reloader.
On the other hand it's probably safer than using an old Grafmatic!
-- Stuart Whatling (email@example.com), December 17, 2001.
I have been using the Fuji Quickchange extensively over the past three weeks, and have loaded and reloaded some of the cartridges 8 or more times. They work similarly to the Grafmatics, except that they are a binary system of holder and cartridge. The cartridges hold 8 sheets of film. These are much lighter and efficient than the Grafmatics, which I had used before. The biggest advantage, besides weight, is that they can be fully disassembled and dusted.
They are not fool-proof, and jams will occur. They are easy to fix or prevent. The film must be properly seated in the septum; there is a dimple in the flange of the septum toward the open end, the film must be behind this dimple. If the film easily slides past the dimple the film may dislodge and jam. Take a knife and carfully press in the dimple. Jams will also occur due to a lack of proper tension in the springs of the holder. When the film is shuttled back into the cartridge a set of four springs are suppose to hold the film down. If they do not the film ends up at an angle and jams in the shuttle mechanism. Very carefully bend the two springs on either side closest to the hinge. After I did this on both (yes both) holders I have not experienced another jam!
I have not experienced any light leaks. The dark slide must be reinserted before exposing, or the film will be fogged (similar to the Grafmatics). They are thicker than the Grafmatics, and Ron Wisner had to modify the back of my camera slightly to accomodate them. They will fit into a Linhof MT with no problem.
I think these holders and cartridges are great - far better than Grafmatics. I ordered my first holder and cartridge from RH White, and there after through Jeff at Badger Graphic (not a commercial plug - just that it was easier, faster, and about the same price as importing from England). I liked them so much that I ordered enough to load film for an entire week before I leave home for a trip.
-- Mike Rosenberg (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 2001.