Talk me into /out of a Texas Leica

[DREW WILEY]

For group shots, the wider semi-panoramic 6x9 aspect simply made sense. But despite being marketed for that use, it was soon discovered just how versatile these cameras really are. I can actually shoot one hand held at lower shutter speeds than my Nikon (although I do use a tripod whenever realistic). And for me at least, the "Texas Leica" is a miniature system - the most compact lightweight camera I ordinarily work with. The Nikon gets far less use. And I object to it being called "plasticky" - it has a solid all-metal housing, even in the II and III versions. Only the lens shade seems funky.

If you want to catch peoples attention, shoot 8x10 or larger. One day a teenage girl with her mom came up to me and asked to look under my dark cloth. I obliged. After noticing that the image is upside-down, the girl asked me how the image gets inverted (presumably electronically). I told her all that needs to be done is hang the picture upside down, and then it will be rightside-up.

 

[Don_ih]

At any rate, a Fuji 6x9 is less of a awkward box than a Mamiya Press, although the latter can actually be used as a view camera (if you find enough spare parts).

 

[Paul Howell]

So if I understand all of this correctly, it is a bit of a loveable oddball camera, with the main "plus" being the 6x9 almost-large-format negatives but wrapped in a slightly oversized 35mm-SLR-type body instead of a prohibition era one with bellows and Dick Tracy flashbulbs. While the pure facts doent really speak in favour of this camera over high-end MFs of the same era, it has some cult following like a Minox 35 on stereoids.

I still want one, although I dont really get its use case.

I have Mamiya press and universal, no Fuji, but I also have a Graphic Speed without a rangefinder and Bushman Press with Rangefinder in 2/1/4 by 3 1/4 (very close to 6X9) with cut film backs. Compared to the Universal lighter, some movement, not much but some front tilt and on the Bushman swing. Lens are very good, I have a Topcon 101 with is a 5 element lens, good coating. Using the ground glass on the standard cut sheet back I can use most 6X9 lens on a Bush or Graphic lens board. The Graphic is made of wood the lightest of the 2. There are Graphics with backs that allow for cut sheet film or roll backs. With the rangefinder I can hand hold the Bushman. I also have a Speed and a Crown Graphics in 4X5. These were my two hiking LF cameras for the past 60 years, just getting a bit too heavy so I moved down in size. With Tmax 400 and 100 I can go up to 16X20 or 20X24 with no issues. I only use a view camera when I am close the road and need a lot of movement. With cut film I can shoot traditional zone. The biggest downside for me is the cost of film, a box of 31/4 by 3 1/4 is the same as a box of 4X5, Foma is the most available, although I can order from ILford when they take special orders. Then are times that a Mamiya Press works best.

 

[bags27]

I have the GSW690 III 6x9 with the wide 65mm (I'm a landscape photographer). I've had it for a long time, and, since I use my Mamiya 7 and especially my Blad 500 c/m so much, I've been thinking of selling for a tidy profit. But I just can't seem to part with it. That tells me I need to keep it.

Yes, pulling the negatives out of the soup is amazing: it's like viewing postcards (especially with transparencies: incredible!)

My lens is plenty sharp.

Because it's entirely manual and it was cheap-to-me, I prefer it in inclement weather (though of course not serious rain).

The one minor downside is the rangefinder is small and not very bright. Doesn't bother me: focus almost always at infinity.

It works great and produces negatives of great detail. What's not to like?

 

[qqphot]

All "technical" 4x5's also had a rangefinder option. The most popular were the Linhof Technika and it's little cousin, the Horseman FA. But there were other brands too.

But I disagree that a 6X7 or even 6X9 RF neg is "almost" 4X5. It depends on the degree of enlargement. With today's excellent fine-grained films, yes, you might get a compellingly similar 16X20 print, provided you don't need view camera movements to attain that. But once you move into 20X24 inch or bigger print territory there is simply no way for a chihuahua to pretend it's a German shepherd. Medium format is inherently a compromise between more spontaneous usage and more film real estate, size wise.

it's not "almost" 4x5, but it's close to half the area, I guess, which is still a lot.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sheet film offers a lot of advantages during enlargement. It's thicker, stiffer, and more dimensionally stable. But sheet film is slower to shoot. I was out on the coast a couple days ago - absolutely beautiful - but I had to wait over 40 minutes for a mere 1/15 sec break in the wind for a single 4x5 shot with a 300mm lens. I had the 6X9 Texas Leica along too, and easily bagged a few nice shots with that.

Ironically, for one of those 6X9 shots, I put a deep blue 47 filter on the lens to actually slow the exposure down to 1 sec, allowing the swirling grasses just to do their thing, while a lovely white driftwood log in the middle of the scene stayed perfectly stationary. Sometimes you just can't fight the wind, and have to work with it. Then an otter popped up out of the water in the foreground and ran across the sand. A nice day indeed.

 

[Chuck1]

These fuji texas leicas have a built in mask(the knob 16,8 or4 exp) or are they separate snap in masks?

 

[RezaLoghme]

If you want to catch peoples attention, shoot 8x10 or larger. One day a teenage girl with her mom came up to me and asked to look under my dark cloth. I obliged. After noticing that the image is upside-down, the girl asked me how the image gets inverted (presumably electronically). I told her all that needs to be done is hang the picture upside down, and then it will be rightside-up.

Yeah, modern times and all

 

[GregY]

it's not "almost" 4x5, but it's close to half the area, I guess, which is still a lot.

Closer to 1/3rd. 6x7cm is 6.7 sq".... 6x9 is 8.4 sq"...... compared to 20 sq" for 4x5.

 

[chuckroast]

In the med format department, I own both a GW690 II, GW690 III, as well as a full Pentax 6X7 system. The differences between the II and III are minor, and both have the options of 6X7, 6X8, and 6X9 formats, all with the same superb 90mm lens.

That's news to me. My GW690II only as options for 120, 220, and half roll 120, all at 6x9. How are you getting 6x7 and 6x8 out of that camera?

 

[chuckroast]

At any rate, a Fuji 6x9 is less of a awkward box than a Mamiya Press, although the latter can actually be used as a view camera (if you find enough spare parts).

The Super 23 has limited movements in the back that enabled very basic view camera corrections. The Universal does not. I don't know about the original Press.

I own a Universal with a late model black 100m f/3.5 and I shot a lot with a Super 23 when I was a PA back in the times of the dinosaurs. The large negative is the saving grace of these cameras because the optics are OK, but not spectacular. They were,
after all, designed for news photography. The 90mm f/3.5 EBC Fujinon on the GW690 is a considerably sharper lens in my direct observation.

 

[chuckroast]

They have. Speed Graphics with a Kalart rangefinder. Used by photojournalists for decades.

Yep. Available in 4x5 and 2x3 variants (and maybe even a 3x4 but I don't recall).

I have both. They're really great to shoot with.

 

[abruzzi]

That's news to me. My GW690II only as options for 120, 220, and half roll 120, all at 6x9. How are you getting 6x7 and 6x8 out of that camera?

I thinkk Drew meant that there was a 6x9 version (GW690) a 6x8 version (GW680), and a 6x7 version (GW670). All of them are fixed at the size it was designed for, but there were variants designed for different size.

I ended up with the GL690. I have all the focal lengths except the 50mm (there are 2 100mm lenses--one with an AE meter--and 2 65mm--one ƒ5.6 and the other ƒ8). Contra Drew, they really werent that expensive, however, none of the lenses I bought had the view finder. the 100 and 150 have frame lines in the viewfinder. The 65mm and 180mm are close enough to 35mm viewfinder that I was able to get usable finders for them. The 50mm lens is very rare, and I'm not a huge wide shooter, so the 65 suffices for me.

 

[chuckroast]

I thinkk Drew meant that there was a 6x9 version (GW690) a 6x8 version (GW680), and a 6x7 version (GW670). All of them are fixed at the size it was designed for, but there were variants designed for different size.

I ended up with the GL690. I have all the focal lengths except the 50mm (there are 2 100mm lenses--one with an AE meter--and 2 65mm--one ƒ5.6 and the other ƒ8). Contra Drew, they really werent that expensive, however, none of the lenses I bought had the view finder. the 100 and 150 have frame lines in the viewfinder. The 65mm and 180mm are close enough to 35mm viewfinder that I was able to get usable finders for them. The 50mm lens is very rare, and I'm not a huge wide shooter, so the 65 suffices for me.

Ah, OK, that makes sense. I scrambled to go look at my 690II to see if I had overlooked some buttons

 

[GregY]

Ah, OK, that makes sense. I scrambled to go look at my 690II to see if I had overlooked some buttons

That's exactly it Chuck. I've had most of them. The 6x8 really hit a sweet spot for me. The 6x7 used to be the cheapest and now it's flipped. Not so long ago they were all $500 or less.

 

[MattKing]

These fuji texas leicas have a built in mask(the knob 16,8 or4 exp) or are they separate snap in masks?

No - those represent the number of exposures you could get with 220 film, 120 film, or the special half-length 120 film that was apparently available in Japan at one time.

 

[halfaman]

I mentioned before that I had a Fuji GW690 III, but also a Mamiya Super 23 until I realized that 6x9 is not for me.

It was far more comfortable to shot with the Fuji than with the Mamiya. Better finder, better rangefinder, better ergonomics, simpler and easier operation (film advance coupled with shutter cock), lighter weight... I can see myself again down the road with some kind of Fuji GW or GSW in any of the available formats (6x7, 6x8, 6x9) but not again with a Mamiya Press.

 

[reddesert]

The Super 23 has limited movements in the back that enabled very basic view camera corrections. The Universal does not. I don't know about the original Press.

I own a Universal with a late model black 100m f/3.5 and I shot a lot with a Super 23 when I was a PA back in the times of the dinosaurs. The large negative is the saving grace of these cameras because the optics are OK, but not spectacular. They were,
after all, designed for news photography. The 90mm f/3.5 EBC Fujinon on the GW690 is a considerably sharper lens in my direct observation.

The original Mamiya Press came in: a "Press" or "Press Deluxe"? version with the rear movements (which are similar to the back of a Linhof Technika), and a version without, which is labeled "Standard."

To use the movements, you need a ground glass back (not too hard to find, although if you wanted to use cut film holders with it, they are non-standard), and if you want to focus at infinity or not-close-up, the 90mm or 100mm lens that has a retractable barrel. It's not a quick process of course.

Like almost all cameras, and especially because we are talking about originally-professional equipment, these large rangefinders can be used for good results. The question is what kind of photography one wants to do with it.

 

[Radost]

New Adapter Kit for Fujifilm 690 6x9 Camera 120 to 135 Medium Format Film Photo | eBay

Product Feature We will do our best to resolve problems for you.

www.ebay.com

 

[eli griggs]

Yep. Available in 4x5 and 2x3 variants (and maybe even a 3x4 but I don't recall).

I have both. They're really great to shoot with.

Yes, a 3.25" x 4.25" Speed Graphic pre-anniversary model.

I just received one and I'm looking for film holders, but like good press cameras, the lenses are interchangable, from those of those used by the Press, to the Darlings of the large format photography Super Stars!

It folds up easily, the focal shutter is a joy, with barrel lenses, when adjusted correctly, giving 1/1000s and the leaf shutters of the many, many LF lenses in working shutters.

No doubt it's heavier than that little roll film camera and you'll have to fool with holders, etc, but the lenses will be better and more plentiful and you can move from Colour to B&W films in one frame increments.

The rangefinder, 'sports' finder and the glass viewfinder and ground glass panel and the ease of mounting gel colour contrast filters, inside the body, to the lens board all contribute to film and paper negatives or film slides that will make the Texas Leica look pale in comparison and be well worth the bother and weight.

IMO.

By the way, my only 6 cm x 9 cm is a pinhole, though I hope to one day to find the coupled rangefinder, a Super Ikonta 6x9, to be big brother to my 532/16 6x6 folder, another Super Ikonta.

Cheers

 

[Don_ih]

@chuckroast - I have a 3x4 Speed Graphic. I like that size negative - probably because I don't make big enlargements, anyway.

I have a Mamiya 23. The bellows between the back and front makes it a bit like a view camera, albeit one that seems to be falling apart. It probably can get enough movement for most landscape photography, but nothing like a monorail 4x5. I've never attempted to use that feature, since I'd need the ground-glass attachment. It's one of those cameras that, in spite of being able to produce fairly good negatives, I never use. (As in, I think I've put 4 rolls through it.)

 

[RezaLoghme]

That's exactly it Chuck. I've had most of them. The 6x8 really hit a sweet spot for me. The 6x7 used to be the cheapest and now it's flipped. Not so long ago they were all $500 or less.
View attachment 371192

Hmmmm form factor....would someone actually want to own this, it it were a 35mm point and shoot?

 

[RezaLoghme]

The original Mamiya Pres

Like almost all cameras, and especially because we are talking about originally-professional equipment, these large rangefinders can be used for good results. The question is what kind of photography one wants to do with it.

Yes that is something I never got - MF RF, bigger than 35mm RF, so less practical in street, smaller than LF so less whatever for large enlargements, not modular so not as flexible as MF systems.

I still dont get the special use case, it seems all other options are better suited to their specific case.
I guess the point of a Texas Leica is just to play with a f-ing huge camera from 1970s. Which has an attraction in its own right. Like a pre-oil-crisis 8.2. Caddy.

Have any notable photographers used the TL?

 

[Don_ih]

Have any notable photographers used the TL?

William Eggleston has one.

Undoubtedly, lots and lots of notable photographers used Fuji medium format rangefinders at some point. They generally don't label their prints with the camera used,

 

[warden]

Yes that is something I never got - MF RF, bigger than 35mm RF, so less practical in street, smaller than LF so less whatever for large enlargements, not modular so not as flexible as MF systems.

It seems to me you don’t really need to be talked out of a Texas Leica. You’re doing a fine job all by yourself!

Have any notable photographers used the TL?

I guess you’d need to define notable, but Robert Adams did at least one project with one. But maybe he hated the camera because it was less whatever for large enlargements, or cursed it for its lack of flexibility, etc etc. He used a Hasselblad for a while but moved on to others.