Considering a TLR

Roger Cole · May 11, 2013

Harry Fleenor is the go-to guy for Rollei, BTW, Mark Hama here in Atlanta (well, across town from me, over in Smyrna) for Yashica. I'm sure others do a good job but they are the known experts.

Mark has CLAed Yashicas on eBay frequently with a six month warranty. They aren't inexpensive but are probably fair deals for a camera he has gone over.

The above comment is spot on. I've handed mine to several friends who, after moving it around just a couple of passes back and forth, exclaimed that the right/left reversal was impossible for them to deal with. These have all been either non-photographers or those who have shot only 35mm and digital, though. It's not the best for fast moving subjects, true, but otherwise I got used to it in pretty short order.

MattKing · May 11, 2013

Bradley:

If you would like to actually try out a C330, send me a PM.

Alan Gales · May 11, 2013

Roger Cole said:
I've handed mine to several friends who, after moving it around just a couple of passes back and forth, exclaimed that the right/left reversal was impossible for them to deal with. These have all been either non-photographers or those who have shot only 35mm and digital, though. It's not the best for fast moving subjects, true, but otherwise I got used to it in pretty short order.

They sound like the same friends I have. I let them look under the dark cloth of one of my large format cameras and they can't understand how I can take a picture of something upside down on the ground glass.

Like you said, you just mess with it awhile and you get used to it. I don't even think about it any more with my Blad with waist level finder.

Now if I can just get the autofocus to work the way I want on my Nikon D300.

Ken Nadvornick · May 11, 2013

BradleyK said:
One of the few camera species I have yet to shoot with is the TLR. The few folks I know who shoot with them all mention the same virtues: the camera is quiet and unobtrusive and the 2 1/4 negatives are a joy to print. So...I am considering the purchase of one. Folks posting here seem about evenly divided between the Rolliflex and the Yashica. Any advantage in either? Thanks in advance for the feedback.

I'm a huge fan of TLRs. They are a much more contemplative way of working, which compliments my normal approach nicely. I did purchase a new Fujifilm GF670 and have had to repeatedly calm and reassure the Yashica that she isn't being dumped for a younger girl. Waist-level viewing and taking is still a completely unique experience compared to eye-level, and much preferred in candid and many other situations.

Alan Gales said:
Several years ago my daughter played in a National Fastpitch Softball Tournament. There were two women there taking team photos of all the teams with a Yashica TLR. When we received our 8x10 team photo I was completely unimpressed. The entire photo looked soft.

I assumed at the time that the Yashica TLR's had lousy lenses. I don't know. Maybe they had one with a clouded lens or they just completely missed focus.

I have not found such softness to be the case. Here's an (there was a url link here which no longer exists) highlighting lens sharpness in a Yashica. This was made using a handheld Yashica Mat-124G on an overcast day. The scan has been sharpened only enough to approximate a test print I have from the negative. I don't exactly recall, but I'd guess this was done at around f/8, or so.

Ken

Alan Gales · May 11, 2013

It looks sharp to me, Ken!

I guess they had a problem camera or missed focus. Roger's images looked great too.

jp498 · May 11, 2013

Great experiences with Yashica and Rolleiflex automat here. Simple and lightweight. Quality images. I've also got a pentax 67, but it doesn't get much use compared to the TLRs.

ggervais · May 11, 2013

Don't forget the Rolleicord...

Alan Gales · May 11, 2013

ggervais said:
Don't forget the Rolleicord...

There is a really nice looking Rolleicord in the for sale section for $320.00 including shipping and Paypal.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 11, 2013

If you go the Rolleiflex or Rolliecord route these two price guides might be helpful:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Roger Cole · May 11, 2013

I know, I've been tempted. But I have the Yashicamat and I'm spoiled by the built in fresnel and bright screen and I'd want to add one and...

Note that the seller says its a great camera he just never warmed to it. They ARE different and not everyone likes them. Those of us who do tend to become quite ardent fans though.

Alan Gales · May 11, 2013

desertratt said:
I used a Rolleiflex 3.5 professionally in the 1960s and a Yashicamat professionally in the 1970s. Both gave me fine results. This year I decided to enlarge some b&w negs from both cameras to display in art galleries. It was efirst time I spent a lot of time using both types of negs, going back and forth. I noticed that the Rollei negs were richer and deeper in quality. I doubt you would be disappointed in either.

Can you tell a difference in an 11x14" print?

Gerald C Koch · May 11, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Big, clunky and slow???

Yes, let me exapnd a bit based on using these cameras for 40 years.

Cons:

o Less flexible in their use than 35 mm and with a steeper learning curve.
o No exposure automation.
o Limited selection of shutter speeds and aperatures.
o Except for the Mamiya C series lack of interchangeable focal length lenses.
o Problematical with moving subjects.
o Clunky in rapidly changing light conditions having to transfer light meter info to camera.
o Except for the Mamiya C series and some Rolleis the lens resolution is not all that great. Avoid those cameras with 3 element taking lenses.
o Film loading is slower than 35 mm.
o Parallax problems.
o Limited choice of films compared to 35 mm.
o Square format.
o More prone to film transport problems.
o Harder to focus particularly in low light.
o Reversed image in view finder takes a bit of practice.
o Leaf shitters need servicing more often.
o Overall somewhat less robust in design than 35 mm cameras. Too many points where dust can enter.

Pros:

o TLRs are fine in the studio and for scenic aand still photography.
o Larger negative.
o Less likely to be noticed as a camera in this digital age.
o Easier to use for those wearing glasses.

As I recommended to the OP, try one of these cameras first to see it they fit your needs.

Alan Gales · May 11, 2013

You can't compare a medium format camera to a 35mm for ease of use. Of course you also can't compare a 35mm camera to a digital camera for ease of use.

Pioneer · May 11, 2013

I use a Yashica Mat 124G and the Rolleiflex K4B. They are both fine cameras with excellent lenses and I seriously doubt you will be disappointed with either camera. In my hand I think that the Rolleiflex is a tad smoother in use, but this could be an expectation based on reputation rather than reality. On the other hand I think that the Yashinon lens in the Yashica Mat is just a tad more contrasty with color film than the Tessar in the Rolleiflex, but again I would have a very hard time quantifying this.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

Alan Gales said:
You can't compare a medium format camera to a 35mm for ease of use.

Why not; this type of information is what the OP needs. I think I have been honest in my appraisal which was specific to TLRs and not to medium format in general.

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

Alan Gales said:
You can't compare a medium format camera to a 35mm for ease of use. Of course you also can't compare a 35mm camera to a digital camera for ease of use.

Yeah, much of Gerald's list applies to all MF cameras. Some are only drawbacks if they're drawbacks for YOU, like the square format - I'll happily crop a 6x6 neg to a rectangle when that works better, but I have a number of images I like square and have also cropped 645 and 35mm and 4x5 negatives to square at times.

I agree though, try and see. A decent camera of any of these makes can probably be sold for what you paid if you get a decent deal and don't like it.

Alan Gales · May 12, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Why not; this type of information is what the OP needs.

From what I gathered from the OP is that he is a multi format shooter. What that means I exactly don't know but since this is film forum I'm assuming that he shoots at least 2 film formats. If one format is 35mm then he also shoots medium format or large format or all three.

If you are talking about ease of use of a TLR, I feel we should compare it to other TLR's or at least other medium format cameras such as an SLR or a Rangefinder.

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

Well I happen to also have, and shoot with, a MF SLR, in my case a Mamiya 645 Pro with the AE prism and winder grip.

Pros relative to my Yashicamat for the 645 Pro:

Exposure Automation
Correct image viewing.
More shots per roll
Faster and easier film loading - both swapping backs (very fast and easy) and loading the inserts (somewhat easier than the Yashica though YMMV as this is subjective. Loading the Yashica is certainly not difficult but does take a minute.)
Interchangeable lenses of excellent quality
Mid roll film changes area easy with the backs
Polaroid back for proofing
Closer focusing with no parallax. I don't find parallax a problem with the Yashicamat but mainly because it just doesn't focus close enough.

Cons relative to the Yashica:

Much bigger
Much heavier
MUCH louder
Battery dependant
Smaller image area, if you print the 6x6 negatives full frame - same if you crop them to same proportions though
Much more expensive - I paid $450 for the 645 Pro, AE Prism, winder grip and 80mm 2.8N lens, which was a fair price in excellent condition. I paid $185 for the TLR. Then I had more lenses and backs and inserts to buy.

Bottom line is that the 645 is more versatile, of course, but I actually enjoy walking around and shooting with the Yashicamat more. It's unobtrusive, gets lots of smiles and favorable comments, is very quiet, and unlike the 645 Pro I never feel like I have a cinder block, or an albatross, around my neck.

Alan Gales · May 12, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
TLR's are not for everyone they are big, clunky and slow to use. Then there is the cost of film for only 12 exposures. I have several Yashicas, a Mamiya C33 with 3 lenses and a Seagull. For most of the time they sit on the shelf. I find them useful for only certain subjects. I would suggest first borrowing one to see if this format suits you.

You know Gerald I disagreed with your last post but your suggestion about borrowing a TLR is first rate. As far as being big, clunky and slow to use is of course your opinion. It means as much as say mine and Roger's opinion.

jwd722 · May 12, 2013

Check out Mark Hansen's site and especially the link "Cameras I Hate to Work On"

http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/index.html

I personally own two Rolleiflex's and two Ikoflex's, similar but different and I love them both (all 4 that is).

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

Of the several TLRs that I have the only one that I have used extensively is the C33. The others I regret buying. The overall quality of the C33 and the optics are first rate. For anyone who feels the need for a TLR I would definiately recommend the Mamiya C3 or C2 series. Now the C33 with the 180 mm lens and porroprism is clunky and weighs a ton.

Alan Gales · May 12, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Well I happen to also have, and shoot with, a MF SLR, in my case a Mamiya 645 Pro with the AE prism and winder grip.

Bottom line is that the 645 is more versatile, of course, but I actually enjoy walking around and shooting with the Yashicamat more. It's unobtrusive, gets lots of smiles and favorable comments, is very quiet, and unlike the 645 Pro I never feel like I have a cinder block, or an albatross, around my neck.

I have shot several 35mm cameras, a lot of medium format cameras, a few large format cameras and a couple digital cameras. What I have found is that you need to shoot whatever makes you happy. That's all that matters.

Ian Grant · May 12, 2013

My C3 and C33 were stolen back in the early 1980's. and I thought I'd never use a TLR again after getting two 645 cameras again mamiyas. The C33/C3 were great work-horses but heavy However after buying a Yashicamat 124 on a whim from someone on this forum about 6 years ago I've fallen back in love with them and now have 4.

I had a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 that had sat in storage for over 20 years, it was mint but malfunctioned due to lack of use, so I had that CLA'd to use in the UK, the Yashicamat stays in Turkey. More recently I picked up a n MPP Microcord - a British made Rolleicord III with a Ross Xpres lens, and a bargain priced Automat with an Opton Tessar at a flea market - this is now my main user TLR in the UK.

I haven't realy used 35mm for over a decade and mainly shoot LF anyway. The TLR's though seem to suit my way of working. We all have our own preferences and I love using them.

To me the TLR's I now own are quite light and easy to carry but offer excellent image quality and easy of use, I've found I really like the square format, which I compose and shoot to fit. 12 exposures per film isn't an issue, working with LF as well teaches you discipline and that transfers down to smaller formats. I like the back to front image on the ground glass screen, I find it helps composition.

As others suggest it's worth borrowing one to try, that's what I did over 40 years ago

Ian

Newt_on_Swings · May 12, 2013

Tlrs are pretty fun to use. Most people that see them get a real kick out of it, and are usually awed by the focusing screen. someone had called it live view once hehe. There's a learning curve for sure, especially framing moving subjects. I think you should try an inexpensive model out before plunking down a good amount and end up not liking it.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 12, 2013

Define "clunky".

Considering a TLR

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency