Talk me into /out of a Texas Leica

[RezaLoghme]

Dont ask me why, but I have to been bitten by the Texas Leica Bug recently. I am still in recovery mode and somewhat confused:

- I have ready many reviews and none is really enthusiastic about the lenses, the build quality and the handling. A lot of apologetic "yes but" statements from the enthusiasts. Lens is not really fast and even when stopped down, there seem to be lots of better alternatives.

- The huge size of the negatives is a "plus" that is always mentioned, but how does it stack up to all the downsides? Wouldnt it be better to use a camera that has a much better lens from the beginning?

- I handled one recently, and the overall form factor and attention to detail leaves a lot of room for improvement. Even 35mm SLRs from the late 1970s feel "finer" than this beast.

So, in short, why would one choose the TL over a 6x6 MF SLR (which I own a few) or a 35mm RF of proper quality? What questions is the TL the answer for??

Still, I want one.

 

[MFstooges]

Only the larger negs which is nothing because the optics is so so and film flatness isn't good. Basically nada.
Go to Graflex Speed Graphic instead.

 

[Steven Lee]

So, in short, why would one choose the TL over a 6x6 MF SLR (which I own a few) or a 35mm RF of proper quality? What questions is the TL the answer for??

The combination of portability and the negative size. Personally, I would also add quality/reliability to that list. I have never owned one, but after years of reading about them online, they appear to be superbly reliable and well-built cameras despite the plasticy haptic feeling they create in your hands. The alternatives like the Plaubel Makina, Fuji GF670, or Mamiya 7 deliver a narrower negative and more likely to require service.

Also I find it hard to believe that the lens is "so-so". Fujinon lenses across all formats have always been in the premiere league and I see no reason why would Fuji produce a dud just for this camera?

Anyway, as you can probably tell I am a big fan of Texas Leica. But I stick to SLRs and TLRs instead, because I don't believe in rangefinder focusing concept in formats larger than 35mm.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, which of the many Texas Leicas are you asking about?

 

[rduraoc]

Complaints about the lenses are normally related to aperture (and misplaced, I'd say) and not to image quality.

 

[Paul Howell]

Of the Fuji models, which one are thinking about. All in all Fuji made very good glass, most Fuji 6X9 users seem to enjoy them. Other option is a Mamiya Press or Universal. Although no built in ttl meter, interchanaghle and backs, lens are sharp but tend to me on the slower side, can be hand held, and cost less than a Fuji.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am looking at the early ones.

Still: What questions is the TL the answer for?? The strength of a RF, say for quick action on the street, is diminished by its size, SLRs have proper image preview, Leica and HB have better lenses if reviews can be trusted.

What is it good for, compared to V series of a well maintained M6, for example?

 

[rduraoc]

I am looking at the early ones.

Still: What questions is the TL the answer for?? The strength of a RF, say for quick action on the street, is diminished by its size, SLRs have proper image preview, Leica and HB have better lenses if reviews can be trusted.

What is it good for, compared to V series of a well maintained M6, for example?

Well, lightweight (-ish) 6x9... If negative size is not an issue, Leicas will do fine.

 

[MattKing]

If you print in a darkroom, those 6x9 negatives are wonderful to work with.
I expect that if you only scan and work with the digital files, the negatives are wonderful as well - I've only one non-pinhole 6x9 camera (a Kodak Tourist) that I use sometimes, and have few scans from it, but the ones I have are quite satisfying.
The Tourist requires 620 film, and is scale focus, but it is a lot more portable than a Texas Leica, which is big enough to scare little kids!
If I was buying one, I would look for one of the relatively rare 6x8 models, because I like the 3:4 aspect ratio, and it is easy to fit an entire roll of 120 negatives in a single PrintFile negative holder page.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you print in a darkroom, those 6x9 negatives are wonderful to work with.
I expect that if you only scan and work with the digital files, the negatives are wonderful as well - I've only one non-pinhole 6x9 camera (a Kodak Tourist) that I use sometimes, and have few scans from it, but the ones I have are quite satisfying.
The Tourist requires 620 film, and is scale focus, but it is a lot more portable than a Texas Leica, which is big enough to scare little kids!
If I was buying one, I would look for one of the relatively rare 6x8 models, because I like the 3:4 aspect ratio, and it is easy to fit an entire roll of 120 negatives in a single PrintFile negative holder page.

Echoing Matt, there are a lot of excellent post WWII 6x9 cameras with superb lenses, some with coupled range-finders. Build quality is higher, cameras more robust, and last.

I'd buy a baby Linhof if I didn't already have cameras that fill the gap.

Ian

 

[halfaman]

I owned a Fuji GW690 III and all I can say are good things about it. Simple but very well made camera with very sharp lens. Big but not heavy or cumbersome, handling was vey good in my regular size hands. I sold it just because 6x9 format doesn't work for me.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I am looking at the early ones.

So you want a Graflex.

 

[reddesert]

Presumably the OP is talking about the Fuji G690 series since "the early ones" was mentioned. I think "Texas Leica" is kind of a cheesy nickname and gives misleading impressions. They aren't really the same kind of camera as Leica 35mm RFs nor would one use them the same way. The rest of this post is premised on providing information and not a "X is better than Y" argument.

The lenses are fine. I don't do the analog equivalent of pixel peeping so I won't quantify this or compare it to Hasselblads or whatever.

The type of camera that it makes most sense to compare the Fuji 690 rf to, is perhaps a Pentax 6x7. They would be suited to some similar types of photography. Obviously the Fuji, being an rf, is not suited to use with long telephotos. However, medium format RFs tend to be lighter and have fewer vibration problems than MF SLRs. I think I can get away with using a lighter tripod with a medium format RF or TLR, than a medium format SLR.

The G690 isn't plasticky at all (and I don't mind plastic), but many examples were used hard professionally. One that was used hard may appear sloppy or unreliable. I suspect the supply of good used ones has gotten harder to find in the past several years.

 

[MTGseattle]

I think the bigger question is whether you enjoy photographing with a rangefinder or not? I think the OP has another thread asking about a Leica M series.

The secondary question is whether you prefer the versatility of a "system" camera to one with fewer lenses (the early G690BL) or merely a single fixed lens.

I too have never heard anything bad about Fujinon lenses and overall image quality. Once you're into big-name, modern, multi-coated manual controlled lenses, there are not too many duds out there. The maximum aperture may be a bit slow for some situations, or may have less desirable wide-open rendition of oof areas, but those are pretty specific complaints which relate to specific shooting conditions.

Side considerations. The OP owns a Hasselblad or 2. Does the bigger rectangle negative offer anything significant to the intended output over 6x6? I know a few people scattered throughout the forums like the rectangle aspect ratio and how it scales up when enlarging vs. a square negative.

Ignoring every reply so far, If the OP simply wants to "play" and is intrigued by the Fuji rangefinders and has the budget, I say give it a whirl.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photrio is a sacred place of enabling, one comes here to be encouraged to buy more cameras and lenses. Since you placed your question here you have agreed to buy that Texas Leica, now you can just follow through and buy it plus more film to shoot.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The best way to talk you out:
"GET A HASSELBLAD INSTEAD!"

 

[Sirius Glass]

The best way to talk you out:
"GET A HASSELBLAD INSTEAD!"

In that case buy a Hasselblad V Series camera and a Hasselblad SWC too!

 

[David Brown]

... Since you placed your question here you have agreed to buy that Texas Leica, ...

Just buy the camera! If you don't like it, you can probably sell it for what you paid!

 

[RezaLoghme]

The best way to talk you out:
"GET A HASSELBLAD INSTEAD!"

That is actually a great idea!!!!!!11

 

[Paul Howell]

I am looking at the early ones.

Still: What questions is the TL the answer for?? The strength of a RF, say for quick action on the street, is diminished by its size, SLRs have proper image preview, Leica and HB have better lenses if reviews can be trusted.

What is it good for, compared to V series of a well maintained M6, for example?

The negative is much larger than a 35mm and a 3rd larger than a 6X6, using fast film say Tmax 3200 or Trix, can make very large prints, up to 24X30 is not out of the question. A Hasselblad is still repairable, extensive set of lens, and very mangable when hand held. M6, with slower film,say Tmax 100, PF4, Delta 100, prints 16X20 maybe a push, but 11X14 no problems. Unless you thinking about very large prints, or what a much fine detail as you can squeeze from a MF negative I would think about 6X6 or 6X4.5, Contex, Pentax, Mamiya. In my case I tend to shoot 6X9 rather than 4X5 when I am not going to use a lot of movement. Recently I bought a couple of 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 camera with sheet film backs and use Foma 400 so I can shoot zone in a smaller format. I only wish I could get TMax 400 in that size.

 

[4season]

When they were new, I was very fond of the big Fuji cameras (GA645, GA645zi, GSW690 III). Less-than-dazzling results with the 6x9 camera were usually due to my failure to hold it sufficiently steady, because when I did, the level of detail it could capture was a real treat.

Like the Hassy SWC, the Fuji 6x9 cameras make perfectly fine snapshot cameras, with the latter being a bit handier with it's 2-stroke lever advance. But with just 8 shots per roll of 120 film, it's easy to blaze through a roll in the blink of an eye.

 

[Prest_400]

I was in that position from 2012 to 2014 where I went for a GW690, managed to get a mkIII. At the time it was really good bang of the buck, and modern (while spartan and basic) for what it is.
It has been my one and only medium format until recently where I got a Super Ikonta. The Lens I am a bit puzzled about sometimes, and the Perez-Thalmann and some user observations place it as good but not crazy performing; but comparing to other older lenses it is very good. Fuji went for sufficiency, it's quite a good lens that makes use of the large format. I haven't had the pleasure to try and compare other systems but you would have to leave a lot of dough for better performing lenses on the large side of medium format (not 645 or 6x6)

The large negative is very nice, quasi large format or actually the smallest of the large formats. Centain blame is attributed to the camera where it rather is that 120 6x9 has certain technical limitations. Because of the 35mm enlarged form factor the camera is voluminous and looks a bit ridiculous but it is lighter than the 6x7 SLRs.

Have been perfectly happy and been used to the 40mm equivalent fixed lens. Me getting a Super Ikonta was rather a plan to have a "B" camera that can have another film loaded or even serve as backup for an upcoming trip.
And for all this years, I am finally pushing to do a long photo oriented trip with this medium format. In this day an age, medium format film does still have a beautiful character and quality.

 

[mshchem]

Get a minty GW690III.

 

[Maris]

I thought hard about it (overthought?) and got a Fuji GSW680 camera.

The 68 format fits standard photographic paper sizes better than the over-long 69 format and I get 9 frames per 120 roll.

I can hand hold the camera with Delta 3200 film in it. The high speed film permits faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures but the big negative still delivers
sharp grainless pictures at moderate enlargement ratios.

If I use fine grain film like TMX and have the camera on a tripod the negatives yield prints that mix well in a portfolio that includes 4x5 work.

The 65mm f5.6 lens is sharp sharp a couple of stops down and I can crop a good 90mm field of view out of it instead of buying a GW690 as well.

Both roll film formats, 120 and 220, work flawlessly in my GSW680.

 

[GregY]

I thought hard about it (overthought?) and got a Fuji GSW680 camera.

The 68 format fits standard photographic paper sizes better than the over-long 69 format and I get 9 frames per 120 roll.

I can hand hold the camera with Delta 3200 film in it. The high speed film permits faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures but the big negative still delivers
sharp grainless pictures at moderate enlargement ratios.

If I use fine grain film like TMX and have the camera on a tripod the negatives yield prints that mix well in a portfolio that includes 4x5 work.

The 65mm f5.6 lens is sharp sharp a couple of stops down and I can crop a good 90mm field of view out of it instead of buying a GW690 as well.

Both roll film formats, 120 and 220, work flawlessly in my GSW680.

Good on you Maris. I've have a stack of 690s.(all series. both lenses)...one 670 ...my favourite hands down is the 680 iii ! Too bad there's virtually no more 220 BW film left.