Talk me into /out of a Texas Leica

[Kodachromeguy]

- I have ready many reviews and none is really enthusiastic about the lenses,

This is rather odd. I have never read any complaints about the lenses of the fixed lens models II and III. The 90mm ƒ/3.5 is a 5-element EBC (meaning super multi-coated) optic. Mine, on the GW690II that I bought in 1992, is higher contrast than my Rolleiflex Xenotar, although (from what I can tell) similar resolution. I have no experience with the interchangeable lenses on the first 690 model.

Here are some examples with Panatomic-X film:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/10/photographing-cotton-compress-of.html

 

[qqphot]

I like my GL690 purely because it was very cheap, already in bad condition, and I don't need to worry about it. It's very easy to disassemble and clean out and it doesn't fall out of alignment very much. Also my eyesight has gone to crap and with cameras with focusing screens like hasselblad, rolleiflex, etc now I'm always putting on and taking off my glasses, which is annoying; with the rangefinder at least I can just focus and (roughly) compose.

 

[Radost]

the III has a cheap panoramic adapter that is amazing. way better than XPAN

 

[MARTIE]

They're absolutely awesome camera's.

But like all machines, the results will be wholly dependent on the operator.

 

[loccdor]

I loved my Fuji GW690. I had an early model. Great viewfinder. Best 6x9 lens I've ever used. But I was only able to put 30 rolls through it before the shutter froze up from grease on the blades. And no one seems to know how to fix them anymore, a recommended camera repair man has kept mine for over a year now.

 

[guangong]

I have been under the impression that the TL was meant to take group pictures for members of Japanese bus tours. Candid photography was not considered. Correct me if wrong about this.

 

[Don_ih]

@Dan Fromm -- you beat me to it. The "Texas Leica" is a Graflex rangefinder - the Combat Graphic.

Notably because it looks like a Leica.

It's understandable that people would think the Fuji G690 would be the Texas Leica, though. There are waaaaaay more of those.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

I own one of these - a GW690II (I prefer that over the III) - and you're right, it's not elegant. It may be Texas size, but it's sure not Leica feel. However, it's quite well built and handles nicely for the form factor.

And those negatives, oh those negatives. Forget what you've read about film flatness or optics, this thing produces stunning images of wondrous detail. For example, this was shot on the Kenai river in Alaska last summer:

I own many different kinds of cameras in a variety of formats and nothing else short of a 4x5 comes close to what this camera can do (and that includes the Hasselblad, but that's an entirely different experience). Well nothing, unless you count my other favorite 6x9 camera, a "Baby" Speed Graphic - which has the benefit of interchangeable lenses at the cost of a lot more bulk.

It's the format. 6x9 taken with a good lens (and the Fuji lens is excellent) strikes a perfect balance of portability of equipment and negative quality. It approaches 4x5 in that regard.

If you do get one, I'd stay away from the higher shutter counts. According to the repair guy who checked mine (CameraWiz), the shutters themselves are very reliable. But a higher shutter count means lots of overall use and there is a gear in the film advance mechanism that eventually has to be replaced (he has these and does that repair, which my camera didn't need).

I got mine essentially unused a year or so ago in the original box and with all the accessories. But, I haven't used it all that much so I'm sort of toying with idea of selling it. It's not that I don't like it - I like it immensely, it's just that it doesn't get used much and I'm thinning the herd.

(I got mine essentially unused a year or so ago in the original box and with all the accessories. But, I haven't used it all that much so I'm sort of toying with idea of selling it. It's not that I don't like it - I like it immensely, it's just that it doesn't get used much and I'm thinning the herd.)

 

[Arthurwg]

As far as I can tell, the only reason to own a Texas Leica is the love of the 6x9 frame format, and lots of people don't go for that.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What you may want to consider is whether 6x9 is a format whose proportions you like.

Most paper formats fit with 6x7 better, so with 6x9 you have to decide whether you crop the negative or the paper.

If you end up cropping the negative to fit the paper, then your 6x9 is essentially a 6x7 camera. Fuji produced some 6x7 rangefinders, but they are more expensive because more desirable.

An uncropped 6x9 however is significantly different from an uncropped 6x7. The paper you crop can be used to make exposure test strips, but if you want to frame the resulting prints, it's a custom job.

 

[loccdor]

I have been under the impression that the TL was meant to take group pictures for members of Japanese bus tours. Candid photography was not considered. Correct me if wrong about this.

This is what I heard too, and why the cameras have a setting for 4 shots on a roll of 120, for the half-120 rolls that were only sold in Japan.

However, besides its size and weight, my copy had a big and clear rangefinder/viewfinder and it was no problem using it for candid photography, other than the space it took up in your bag and the noise it made.

 

[Prest_400]

If you do get one, I'd stay away from the higher shutter counts. According to the repair guy who checked mine (CameraWiz), the shutters themselves are very reliable. But a higher shutter count means lots of overall use and there is a gear in the film advance mechanism that eventually has to be replaced (he has these and does that repair, which my camera didn't need).

Wholeheartedly agree! One note against the counter, which anyways is good and smart advice, is that by having it there is a lot of focus into the 5000 actuation cycle. There isn't much discussion about shutter servicing cycles for other cameras as the Fuji GW's have.

What you may want to consider is whether 6x9 is a format whose proportions you like.

Most paper formats fit with 6x7 better, so with 6x9 you have to decide whether you crop the negative or the paper.

And another might be the frames/roll. I sometimed do think, when shooting color, that a couple (or one, if 6x8) more frames per roll would be nice.

In Europe 18x24cm is quite standard, which I found when I started darkroom printing. One neat thing about this:
If you have a larger carrier (eg 4x5" glass) and print with the edge rebates, no crop is needed. Yes, the edges are not "image" but rather hip, as many are scanning film now including the rebate and film. I started doing my workprints this way.

 

[chuckroast]

What you may want to consider is whether 6x9 is a format whose proportions you like.

Most paper formats fit with 6x7 better, so with 6x9 you have to decide whether you crop the negative or the paper.

If you end up cropping the negative to fit the paper, then your 6x9 is essentially a 6x7 camera. Fuji produced some 6x7 rangefinders, but they are more expensive because more desirable.

About 90% of the time, I am slave to the negative, not the paper aspect ratio. Assuming I have composed "properly". I print the negative edge-to-edge whatever the paper format might be.

The other 10% of the time, I am still a slave to the negative, but for purposes of cropping out what I don't want. Even then, the aspect ratio of the paper is pretty much never in mind.

An uncropped 6x9 however is significantly different from an uncropped 6x7. The paper you crop can be used to make exposure test strips, but if you want to frame the resulting prints, it's a custom job.

I find all framing somewhat of a semi custom job. I cut the mats myself to reflect the actual size of the final, mounted print.

If it goes into a frame at all, I typically use the closest standard frame size, with the mat cut to be slightly larger at the bottom than the top.

For the very rare circumstance where I want the frame aspect ratio to closely mirror the image itself, Nielsen makes very nice custom metal frame components that let's you customize the height and width of the frame to your taste. I don't know if these - or an equivalent - is available outside the US.

In general, I favor having the print surrounded by rather generous mat borders rather than closely mimicing the print size with the frame and smaller mat borders.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

For the very rare circumstance where I want the frame aspect ratio to closely mirror the image itself, Nielsen makes very nice custom metal frame components that let's you customize the height and width of the frame to your taste. I don't know if these - or an equivalent - is available outside the US.

In general, I favor having the print surrounded by rather generous mat borders rather than closely mimicing the print size with the frame and smaller mat borders.

I often bought 14x14 inch aluminum Nielsen frame pieces so that I could mount square Rolleiflex prints. The old Light Impressions company cut square mats for me.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Most paper formats fit with 6x7 better, so with 6x9 you have to decide whether you crop the negative or the paper.

If you end up cropping the negative to fit the paper, then your 6x9 is essentially a 6x7 camera.

Thank you, Michel.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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. And I mean superb. There is also a GSW super-wide series, too wide for my own taste.

Pros : Excellent hand-holdability. All Mechanical no-nonsense simplicity and reliability. Intuitive to use. And these tend to be a real bargain these days, though somewhat higher than a few years ago. Be aware of the usage counter at the bottom of the camera.

Cons : a single fixed lens (I have the P67 for tele use, which is far better at that task than any RF system). Exposures longer than 1 sec are clumsy to do, since there is no T setting, but can be done if necessary. The rangefinder is adequate, but it can get somewhat hazed up over time and potentially need internal cleaning. And you need a light meter; there is none built in.

Overall : This is now one of my favorite cameras, with a high percentage rate of keeper shots. I put black and white film in one, and color film in the other. I love the slightly extended rectangle of 6X9, with the same 2:3 proportion as 35mm film; but this means just 8 frames per 120 roll. (I also have 6X9 roll film backs for optional usage in my 4x5's).

The older GS 67 series with interchangeable lenses hardly makes sense since most of those lenses are now rare and overpriced if you can even find them, and the system itself is nearly as heavy as a Pentax 6X7. Condition issues are likely to be questionable too in cameras that old.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

Then think about a 127 (4cm x 4cm) Sawyer's Mark V tlr.

By the way, does anyone know if any of the "baby" TLTs had a 90⁰ or 45⁰ prism?

Eli

 

[Don_ih]

I dont really get its use case

It's for taking photos.



Oh, and William Eggleston has one.

Seriously, though, it uses a high-quality lens in a handheld camera that's almost-large-format in terms of negative size. It's for taking really detailed and sharp photos of your family on vacation.

 

[rduraoc]

What you may want to consider is whether 6x9 is a format whose proportions you like.

Most paper formats fit with 6x7 better, so with 6x9 you have to decide whether you crop the negative or the paper.

If you end up cropping the negative to fit the paper, then your 6x9 is essentially a 6x7 camera. Fuji produced some 6x7 rangefinders, but they are more expensive because more desirable.

An uncropped 6x9 however is significantly different from an uncropped 6x7. The paper you crop can be used to make exposure test strips, but if you want to frame the resulting prints, it's a custom job.

Well, 6x9 is exactly the same proportion as.... 24x36?

 

[RezaLoghme]

Why havent they gone all the way and made a real LF RF?

 

[Don_ih]

Why havent they gone all the way and made a real LF RF?

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

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[4season]

I have been under the impression that the TL was meant to take group pictures for members of Japanese bus tours. Candid photography was not considered. Correct me if wrong about this.

Yes to group photos, that's also why some of these cameras have settings for 4-exposure rolls of 120 film, perfect for group shots plus a backup exposure.

The cameras can certainly be used for candid and street photography too, but personally I think some of the big-film advantages are lost unless the camera is held really steady. Although not inconspicuous, IME, the sheer size of the camera seemed to amuse people!

And since no one else has mentioned it, I will: 6x9 was once a common format, even for box cameras. I suppose one big reason is that 6x9 is big enough that contact prints may suffice as final output.

 

[Don_ih]

But I disagree that a 6X7 or even 6X9 RF neg is "almost" 4X5.

I didn't say it's almost 4x5. 3x4 was also large format. It's not far from that. And of course it can't have view camera movements. But a Speed Graphic has hardly any, also.

As for print quality, a photo doesn't need to mimic a window to be good.