• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Talk me into /out of a Texas Leica


And I'm going to not use my 4x5 (I don't think) which produces amazingly sharp negs and instead shoot my Leica M5 with a Color-Skopar 21mm f/4 and frame with a "cheap" TT Artisan finder because ... it will be fun, and possibly instructive ... and maybe even actually productive ...

But now you've gone and ruined it and my Universal is calling to me ...

(I know. The very idea! Using a non-Leica lens on a Leica body is horrible form and probably a sin in 4 religions.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, keep a good eye out for any mob with torches and Leica branded staves running toward you.
 
Much of the advancement in lenses in the last few decades relates to improvements in coatings and, in particular, in zoom lenses. In addition, there have been improvements in the performance of fast lenses at their maximum apertures.
If you use one of these fixed focal length lens at an aperture two stops from wide open, good luck finding significant quallity differences from its competitors.
A lot of current work seems to be at the software and sensor end - accepting flaws in the performance of the lenses themselves, and building corrections into the camera or post processing software for those flaws.
 
Lets debunk it!!!!!!!111
 
Totally correct.
RezaLoghme said:
Lets debunk it!!!!!!!111
Click to expand...
Why, it is true.
"Sharpness" is mostly subjective. MFT, flare levels, macro and micro contrast, match-up with the capabilities of the recording medium, all get mixed into the soup.
In 40+ years I've never taken a photograph that failed due to the quality of the lens employed. Any failures were due to the operator - me - or my making poor choices about which camera and lens combinations that I used for a particular task, or for a particular result sought by me.
Sometimes a lens is better suited to a particular task.
Sometimes a lens and camera combination is easier to use in a particular situation. For example, the entire ergonomics of the Hasselblad 500 series is poorly suited to me and quite awkward for me to use.
I have had a couple of 3rd party lenses over the years that weren't very durable, and suffered from mechanical issues.
But the professional and commercial lenses themselves - while they differ in their subtle qualities, they are essentially indistinguishable with respect to their relative quality.
 
May I propose an another twist in this conversation?
While the 'item' "Texas Leica" is on, I would like to make a comment about the negative format's proportions, if you don't mind.

About 18 yers ago I stopped working on the 35mm format (24x36mm as propagated by Leica), mainly because I was professionally forced to make the transition to D***l (I had to sell my Leica's to finance that).
But I wasn't really reluctant to do so as I actually never liked the 'Leica's film' size proportions because I wasn't found of the 2 by 3 rectangle, I liked the 6x6 square more by far.

But now I recently got a 6x9cm camera and liked the rectangular proportions immediately (the same as the Texas Leica), although it's exactly the same as the 'Leica format', but just larger.

I can't figure out how that comes (besides getting older)...
 
Philippe-Georges said:
I can't figure out how that comes (besides getting older)...
Click to expand...

Or perhaps if you had used 24x26 more for work that benefitted from shallow depth of field.
In general though, stepping away from anything photographic for a while can often result in a new appreciation for it when you re-visit it.
 
Don_ih said:
Maybe what you actually didn't like about 24x36 was how small it is.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply.
The size wasn't a real 'problem' as for 80% the work, on that format, was done on reversal, whether colour slides (E-6) ore B&W reversal dev., so the images were directly delivered to to publisher, printer or graphic designer who had it scanned. I only had to select the good shot on my light table with a (10x) loupe and the size didn't bother me that much.
But still there was something...
 
Last edited:
MattKing said:
Or perhaps if you had used 24x26 more for work that benefitted from shallow depth of field.
In general though, stepping away from anything photographic for a while can often result in a new appreciation for it when you re-visit it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reaction.
I never quested a shallow depth of field, actually I schot that format most of the time at F5.6 à F8, just to work with the best aperture.
But yes, 'revisiting' can open your eyes...
 

I started with 35mm 50 years ago, left for MF and LF and brought 35mm back as one of my choices a few years ago.


The larger formats taught me things that influence how I work now with 35mm. The results are so much better than when I first tried. This combined with the immediacy and presence of the smaller format equipment is giving me choices I have never had before.
 

Chuck, I don't remember reading any other reports on the Press lenses being any less than superb. The late 100mm f/3.5 is a 1950s or 1960s computation of the Tessar design with modern coating and unit focus. It should be contrasty and excellent resolution. The Press body is rigid and the backs avoid the double curl. I don't understand.
 
I have 4 lens,2 wides and 100 are very good, the 150 I have is a bit soft wide, other wise more than fine. In terms how good does a lens need to be. With my Universal I shoot Foma 400 and Tmax 400, Tmax resolves 125 LPM Foma 400 at 95, I think all of the Press lens will resolve Tmax 400, have not tested to see if they could resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM, my guess they can. I dont have the 250, there are 2 versions one camed for the rangefinder the other scale focus, so cannot comment. All of the Mamiya MF cameras were known for quality glass, the TLR, 645, 67, and Press, even their 35mm lens were really good.
 

I will have to go back and revisit this. Perhaps I wasn't stopped down enough when I reached that conclusion.
 
I would get a GW690III and a GSW690III. I have 5 or 6 of these cameras. Always the first thing I grab. 680 is great too. I have other MF cameras, if I could only have 1 camera, and I had my darkroom, I would have a GW690III hands down no question.
Digital can displace 35mm, but doesn't hold a candle to 6x9 and large format.
 
The real conspiracy theory isn't about this lens brand name versus that, but about f-numbers. f/1.4 and f/2 have been promoted by unscrupulous propaganda that denies the true qualities and even superiority of f/5.6 and f/8. The humble apertures of f/5.6 and f/8 are great equalizers - use them and concerns like absolute resolving power, lens brand, design, and even focusing system errors and lens-to-film parallelism become less of an issue. Best of all, even an f/1.4 lens has f/5.6 as an option (you may have to look in the "hidden menu" to find it)!
 
As some time has passed, here is an update. Later in 2024, I had the chance to handle a Texas Leica at a well-known pre-owned camera dealer. And I felt like David handling Goliath's camera. No, thanks. Maybe because my point of reference, size-wise, was the V-System body?
 

I really enjoyed mine. I had the 6x9 with the 28mm equivalent (for landscapes), and pulling slide film out of the soup was like looking at brilliantly colored postcards. But I needed to cull a bit and, in the end, it was just too big, too niche. I ended up getting more than I paid for it and had 3 fun years with it. So all good. But I can really understand why someone would have even a few of these at different focal lengths. There is really elegance in their awkward simplicity.
 
Love the texas leica . I have the wide version. It’s amazing for panorama 35 as well. Great lens and shutter.
 
I had two more thoughts if I may be so bold. I was recently at Glazers camera here in Seattle, one of the sales people had a gw690II. We talked a bit, and both think the Fuji rangefinder is the lightest, easiest handling camera* for getting a 6x9 negative. *(an Anba Ikeda with a 6x9 back, or that funny little Hansa 6x9 field camera may be lighter)

My other thought is if one is used to and at ease photographing with a Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Kiev, etc (cube body camera), The bigger rangefinders likely will not do it for you. I love my Mamiya 6, and the Hasselblad I ended up with just lurks on a shelf.

having said all of that if my Mamiya becomes irreparable, I may seek out one of the Fujis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register