Talk me into /out of a Texas Leica

[chuckroast]

I must disagree. The 75 mm f/5.6 and 100 mm f/2.8 are nothing but excellent, the latter can compete or even surpase the Fujinon 90 mm. The 50 mm f/6.3 is a very sharp and distorsion free Biogon design but extremely prone to flares even with the hood on.

My main problem with Mamiya Super 23 was the poor rangefinder and viewfinder. The rangefinder is not accurate enough for 6x9 and the viewfinder has developed too much haze with time. Also the abscence of any interlocks in the body (except the coupled rangefinder) resulted in an uncomfortable handheld use for me. The body is pretty much just a metallic box, like LF bodies.

On the other hand, Fuji GW690 is very well built and straightfoward to use (at least II and III versions). You are shooting after having it a couple of seconds in you hands

Interesting. I'd only ever used the Press 90mm and 100mm lenses so my sample size was too small, I guess.

The viewfinder is easily cleaned. You just remove the top housing and carefully wipe down the various optical surfaces with a clean microfiber cloth. (The fluffy kind, not the finely woven kind that seems to ship with everything from China these days.)

The lack of interlocking never much bothered me. To this day, though, I have to remember to cock the shutter every time.

I find the viewfinder adequate, but more often than not, it doesn't much matter. I have a G adapter on my and used it with a Graflex ground glass back to shoot 2x3 sheet film. That's the most accurate viewfinder I own

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thanks, Alex.
Let everyone enjoy their cameras - the expensive ones, too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fuji lenses had their own internal evolution. But anyone who thinks they were behind German manufacturers is misinformed. Not only do they excel in the professional video category, but we large format photographers discovered that they made some of the very best LF lenses, and were distinctly ahead at one point in time.

In this case, where the conversation revolves around MF rangefinders, I find the M7 versus the fixed lens later Fuji's a rather ridiculous debate. Maybe the M7 lenses do have a gnat's eyelash better correction than the fixed lens 90 on the Fuji. But with the Fuji, the greater film area of the 6x9 more than makes up for that; and besides, you're mainly film limited in resolution anyway, not lens limited. How much overkill do you really need?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Chuckroast - the finest microfiber lens cloths I've found are the 3M dimpled kind. I looked at one under a microscope a month ago, and they're a completely different concept from the usual simply woven kind. They have two outer layers with a special inner core.

 

[MattKing]

As a layman, do I understand correctly that these cameras made up for the, say, ok-ish lenses by having that huge 6x9 format?

With respect to all the professional and commercial cameras discussed in this thread, the relative differences in absolute quality of the lenses are so small as to be mostly discountable.
Some of the lenses offer different qualities, which may or may not be worth taking into account when deciding on choosing a camera system for oneself.

 

[chuckroast]

Chuckroast - the finest microfiber lens cloths I've found are the 3M dimpled kind. I looked at one under a microscope a month ago, and they're a completely different concept from the usual simply woven kind. They have two outer layers with a special inner core.

Do you have a link or other reference to the ones you use?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's the 3M 9021 series. They come in 6-pks, 10 pks, and 20 pks. Even Amazon offers them.

 

[chuckroast]

With respect to all the professional and commercial cameras discussed in this thread, the relative differences in absolute quality of the lenses are so small as to be mostly discountable.
Some of the lenses offer different qualities, which may or may not be worth taking into account when deciding on choosing a camera system for oneself.

+100 AND you won't really see the differences in any real way until you make larger prints.

I have a 1945 uncoated 50mm f/3.5 Elmar for a Leica and a (probably) mid-1930s Zeiss Jena uncoated 10.5cm f/4.5 on a 2x3 folder I own. Although the lack of coating can make these lenses flarey - which is kind of an interesting aesthetic in its own right - you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between these and modern primes at any reasonable magnification.

Sure, modern lenses have better coating, but the basic design of these lenses has not changed all that much in modern primes. The Elmar is a a Cooke triplet and the Zeiss is a Tessar. Stopped down, they make pretty great images. Obviously, the lack of coating means you have to pay attention to preserve contrast in certain lighting situations.

 

[chuckroast]

It's the 3M 9021 series. They come in 6-pks, 10 pks, and 20 pks. Even Amazon offers them.

They seem to be strangely unavailable at all my usual spots (Zoro, Target, Walmart ...) Amazon did have them but only in 10 packs. Thanks for the tip!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd be more concerned about any lack or loss of precision in the folding scissor mechanism itself. That has allegedly come into play even with some of the recent expensive Fuji GF folders.

The highest performance I ever got out of roll film was by using 6X9 roll film backs on my 4x5 in conjunction with modern Fuji A and Nikkor M lenses, plus Efke R25 film, which had a very long scale of tonality, and not just a high detail capacity. In terms of color shots, that same kind of door opened up with the advent of Ektar 100 film - a game changer for me, especially when making 20X24 inch prints from med format shots.

 

[chuckroast]

I'd be more concerned about any lack or loss of precision in the folding scissor mechanism itself. That has allegedly come into play even with some of the recent expensive Fuji GF folders.

My folder is an old Zeiss Maxomar with pullout bellows and a rack and pinion focusing system. But since it only takes sheet film, the precision of the mechanism isn't an issue

The highest performance I ever got out of roll film was by using 6X9 roll film backs on my 4x5 in conjunction with modern Fuji A and Nikkor M lenses, plus Efke R25 film, which had a very long scale of tonality, and not just a high detail capacity. In terms of color shots, that same kind of door opened up with the advent of Ektar 100 film - a game changer for me, especially when making 20X24 inch prints from med format shots.

I've got one of those back adapters which I've never used seriously, but I have to say, the best I've ever seen rollfilm do is on a Hasselblad.

 

[Paul Howell]

As a layman, do I understand correctly that these cameras made up for the, say, ok-ish lenses by having that huge 6x9 format?

I think the majority of the lens are better than just ok, the 150 I have is the weakest performer. Mamiya made a mulitback that can be masked for 6X4.5, 6X6 and 6X9, if lens were only OK then they would they make a 6 X4.5 back which is 1/2 of the 6X9 width wise. Mamiya lens for the C330, 6.45, 6X7 are all excellent. Fuji lens are as good, as are Konica, and Topcon. The Fuji rangefinder is an excellent camera, so are the others, just a matter preferences, availability, and price. The Graphic XL was made in the U.S, used Zeiss lens, backs included 6X9, the lens were great but the bodies made by Graphic were of poor quality. The U.S Air Force bought the X.L system as at the time in the early 70s preference was given to American made goods. The Air Force had to get permission to buy Konica. The version was made in the Netherlands, not sure if the quality improved.

 

[RezaLoghme]

So basically the whole lens discussions are somewhat obsolete, after a certain cutoff point in age and quality?

 

[bags27]

So basically the whole lens discussions are somewhat obsolete, after a certain cutoff point in age and quality?

Age is not necessarily a factor in quality or preference. A lot of folks like older glass precisely because of its "flaws." I prefer older, LTM mount, Leica glass to my new(est) high-contrast, multicoated Leica glass. OTOH, I tend to pursuit precision and sharpness on my Mamiya 7 (and combining my film with my preferred developer, Pyrocat HD).

Think of glass as paintbrushes. They put different paint on canvases. They're not better or worse, except how the individual artist employs them to create their own individual visions.

 

[Paul Howell]

So basically the whole lens discussions are somewhat obsolete, after a certain cutoff point in age and quality?

What you do get with the more modern cameras is better coating. Fuji has one of the best coating, along with the last version of the Mamiya 4.5, 6X7 and 6 and 7s, if I shot a lot of color I would consider one of the later versions. I no longer shoot color film so my old MF gear including Kowa Sl66 and Yashica TLR are just fine for my needs.

 

[chuckroast]

So basically the whole lens discussions are somewhat obsolete, after a certain cutoff point in age and quality?

I think there are clear evolution in lens development over the past 100+ years. But the primes from the 1930s on were pretty stout. They got really good when first coating, and later, multicoating was added.

But, as others have pointed out here repeatedly, this is about a difference in look, not just sharpness. Some lenses give you a lower contrast, some are clinically sharp. Some flare more. But that doesn't mean that they are absolutely better or worse. It's all about how you want to express the image. That's why I ended up keep three different 50mm lenses for my Leicas - they have fundamentally different style in how they image.

Here's another example. Everyone pretty much agrees that Hasselblad lenses are top tier. For for most practical shooting situations, you'd be hard pressed to see an enormous difference between an old C lens and the most recent CFi in the same focal length. I've actually shot with both the 40mm Distagon in both variations and the difference was slight under real world shooting situations. Sure, the modern FLE is better, but it's not night and day. If I hadn't had all my Hassy stuff stolen and replaced by insurance, I'd still be shooting on my old lenses.

There are some lenses that are widely and properly reviled as garbage. The Nikkor 43-86 zoom leaps to mind. But zooms are the one area where modern lenses really are generally much better than their old cousins.

In my direct and repeated experience, if the lenses are even decent, let alone top tier, the size of the negative will have a lot more to do with tonality and sharpess. But as we all have said - repeatedly - there is a lot more to a great image than sharpness and tonality. Some of the most important and memorable images in all photographic history had neither...

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are a lot of variables. People will spend a ton of money on a camera lens, but then go cheap on the enlarging lens. Or they will just shoot for web purposes. I have quite different expectations because I often mix prints from med format with those from 4x5 and 8x10. And people do get nose up to even my large prints - none of that alleged "normal viewing distance" nonsense. The combined advantages of more modern lenses and improved films does make a real difference in that case.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Age is not necessarily a factor in quality or preference. A lot of folks like older glass precisely because of its "flaws." I prefer older, LTM mount, Leica glass to my new(est) high-contrast, multicoated Leica glass. OTOH, I tend to pursuit precision and sharpness on my Mamiya 7 (and combining my film with my preferred developer, Pyrocat HD).

Think of glass as paintbrushes. They put different paint on canvases. They're not better or worse, except how the individual artist employs them to create their own individual visions.

by age i mean "after a certain threshold of quality and technology", e.g. Tessar level

 

[chuckroast]

@RezaLoghme

Here is a picture from the Viet Nam war. It's not sharp, it's badly exposed, it's generally technically a lousy image.

Is this a good picture:

https://textimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/amgovtpol/section_21/32a578c477c5e6e93f8a8e1c7c690ab4.jpg

 

[BrianShaw]

Fuji lenses had their own internal evolution. But anyone who thinks they were behind German manufacturers is misinformed. Not only do they excel in the professional video category, but we large format photographers discovered that they made some of the very best LF lenses, and were distinctly ahead at one point in time.

In this case, where the conversation revolves around MF rangefinders, I find the M7 versus the fixed lens later Fuji's a rather ridiculous debate. Maybe the M7 lenses do have a gnat's eyelash better correction than the fixed lens 90 on the Fuji. But with the Fuji, the greater film area of the 6x9 more than makes up for that; and besides, you're mainly film limited in resolution anyway, not lens limited. How much overkill do you really need?

Preach…

 

[RezaLoghme]

So are the perceived quality differences between lenses just a giantic Bilderberg marketing ploy?

 

[DREW WILEY]

What kind of wisecrack question is that? I even have multiple versions of the same focal lengths of enlarging lenses due to somewhat different rendering characteristics. And in color photography in particular, certain designs combined with certain coatings can spell out a quite different outcome from a more ordinary lens, all of this being independent of the usual question about resolution. All these are simply tools toward a particular end. For example, there are many types of wood chisels, and each has a somewhat different purpose, even though they all might be comparably sharpened.

Quality itself has different connotations. For some, it's the bragging rights to the most expensive product. For me, involving a lifetime of hard outdoor usage, quality is primarily about reliability, as well as functionality in bad weather. And in that case, a humble Neanderthal camera with an effective club in its hand makes a lot more sense than a high-cost Maestro camera with its fancy coat and tails.

 

[chuckroast]

So are the perceived quality differences between lenses just a giantic Bilderberg marketing ploy?

I think we may now be beyond Beating A Dead Horse and have entered LUDHB - Looking Up A Dead Horse's Bottom

 

[GregY]

So are the perceived quality differences between lenses just a giantic Bilderberg marketing ploy?

I'd say so...possibly. In the end the question is about the quality of image (i mean the photograph). For example I love the character of the Tessar lens, from the 20" x20" prints from my Rolleiflex T, to the 14" Commercial Ektar used by Y Karsh. For others seeking a different look a Apo-Sironar S might be the answer. Lens character is one of the choices....choosing the tool to get the result you want.....but sharpness alone doesn't make one lens better than another....

 

[Paul Howell]

Past 50 years lens design is mostly done by computer, the first generation Vivitar Series 1, to current lens are much better than a Tessar lens. Fuji makes lens for the Hasselblad H models. Of course every maker is going to market it's own brand. Maybe 15 years likely longer, I used the last of my Microfiche film to test all of my 50mm lens for 35mm cameras. Pentax, K and M42, Petri, Minolta MD, Sigma SA, Miranda, Konica, Yashica and a few more. Using my sons old high school microscope and a test chart I found all could resolve Tmax 100 at F8. Konica was the best, the 50 1.7 is sharp wide to F 16, and resolved well over 200 LPM. But that is irrelevant, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 it is as sharp as it needs to be. MF, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 what more do you need. Then contrast and color, it comes down to the coating.

What camera better fits your needs and personality. This weekend I am going to shoot a few rolls through my Mamiya Universal, Foma 400, all I need is a lens that can resolve 95 LPM.