Considering a TLR

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

Newt_on_Swings said:
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.

I encountered at least one person that was rather incredulous that the ground glass view didn't involve a battery and electronics.

Oddly, one person who was put off in frustration by the right/left reversed view had no problems with the inverted view on the ground glass of the 4x5 and loved the big camera. I suppose being reversed is ok as long as it's also inverted, making it still correct in a sense.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

rich815 said:
Define "clunky".

Perhaps ungainly is a better word. The C33 weighs 6 pounds. Swap out the 80 mm lens and add the 180 mm one and the grip and you're around 10 lbs. Try walking about for more than a few minutes with this weight around your neck. A wonderful camera when used on a tripod. I tend to think of TLRs in terms of contemplative photography where there is no time constraint.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Oddly, one person who was put off in frustration by the right/left reversed view had no problems with the inverted view on the ground glass of the 4x5 and loved the big camera. I suppose being reversed is ok as long as it's also inverted, making it still correct in a sense.

I agree, when the image is inverted the brain is immediately cued that things are not what they seem. When the image is merely reversed one must make a continuous effert to remember that the image is reversed. This reversal is particularly annoying when trying to track a subject moving from left to right and vice versa. One tends to first move the camera in the wrong direction. The problem goes away after a period of use but returns whenever there is a period of disuse.

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

I've seen the Mamiya TLRs but never held one. I had no idea they weighed 6 pounds, presumably without the lens, or is that with the 80mm? Either way, that makes them even more different animals from Rolleis and Yashicas than I thought.

grahamp · May 12, 2013

A YashicaMat (pre 124) weighs just over 1100g. A C33 with 80mm lens is around 2170g, and the Mamiya 6 with 75mm is about 1140g. The full comparison table is at http://grahampatterson.home.comcast.net/~grahampatterson/grahamp/mfaq/m_faq-11.html#Heading141

Weight is not the whole story. TLRs are basic boxes, and balance well, especially on a neck strap at waist height. The Mamiya C series need a very different grip to handle them, and are probably not the easiest to hand hold. The mass of the camera does absorb some vibration, though. The Mamiya 6 rangefinder holds well, but the eye-level position makes handholding a little less stable.

In many ways the nice thing about a TLR (except perhaps the Mamiya C) is that you don't get tempted to carry a lot of extra bits. My closeup lens set, a couple of filters, and a lens hood live in cases on the camera strap. Add film and a lightmeter and I'm off. No need to debate about needing a long or wide lens.

Ian Grant · May 12, 2013

The C series Mamiya TLRs are built like tanks particularly the earlier ones, the last versions of the C330 were more plasticy though. I enjoyed using mine but for some of my work at the time the Mamiya 645s I replaced them with were more practical (I was using them commercially).

I prefer the weight of my Rolleiflex and Yashica, unobtrusive and easy to carry even in the extreme heat in Turkey.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

Roger Cole said:
I've seen the Mamiya TLRs but never held one. I had no idea they weighed 6 pounds, presumably without the lens, or is that with the 80mm? Either way, that makes them even more different animals from Rolleis and Yashicas than I thought.

That is the weight with the 80mm lens. The 80 mm lens alone weighs 12 ounces. the 180 mm lens with shade is close to 2 pounds. The 180 plus shade extends 5 inches from the camera body. A formidable piece of equipment.

miha · May 12, 2013

I have just weighted my C330 (early version) with a 80mm lens and it's 1,7 kg (3,7 pounds). I never use a tripod or a strap as I find the camera very easy to hold in my palm, even with the 180mm Super attached. It's my preferred camera.

Pioneer · May 12, 2013

grahamp said:
In many ways the nice thing about a TLR (except perhaps the Mamiya C) is that you don't get tempted to carry a lot of extra bits. My closeup lens set, a couple of filters, and a lens hood live in cases on the camera strap. Add film and a lightmeter and I'm off. No need to debate about needing a long or wide lens.

I do agree with this. It is the same with my folding cameras as well, and it is a very nice feeling.

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

Well yeah, that's part of why walking around being prepared to photograph while doing something else or just going for a walk with the Yashica is so much more pleasant than the Mamiya. I take a small shoulder bag that holds the camera, filters, lens hood, plenty of extra film and my Luna Pro SBC (not a small meter) and it's all still tiny, or just the loaded camera with lens hood and the meter in a (jacket) pocket. I COULD just carry the 645 with one back and lens, but even then it's much larger and heavier. Start taking the bag I keep it in with three 120 backs, the Polaroid back, several extra inserts, three lenses... the thing weighs more than my 4x5 kit with six film holders.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

While the Yashicas are nice cameras they are really not in the same league as the Mamiyas or the Rolleis. My prints from Yashicas were never as sharp as I wished.

Alan Gales · May 12, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Perhaps ungainly is a better word. The C33 weighs 6 pounds. Swap out the 80 mm lens and add the 180 mm one and the grip and you're around 10 lbs. Try walking about for more than a few minutes with this weight around your neck. A wonderful camera when used on a tripod. I tend to think of TLRs in terms of contemplative photography where there is no time constraint.

That reminds me of my old Mamiya RZ67 and why I sold it.

MattKing · May 12, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
That is the weight with the 80mm lens. The 80 mm lens alone weighs 12 ounces. the 180 mm lens with shade is close to 2 pounds. The 180 plus shade extends 5 inches from the camera body. A formidable piece of equipment.

A C330 body with 55mm, 80mm and 180mm lenses together is just over 6 pounds (2830 grams). If you use the older C33 body, it is about 2/3 of a pound heavier.

A C330 body with 80mm lens is 1830 grams - about 4 pounds.

The simpler C220 body is about 2/3 of a pound lighter.

Pioneer · May 12, 2013

Both my Rollei and Yashica are very sharp from about 5.6 to 11. That is if I do my part. I seem to have the devil's own time getting my Yashica focused really well, but when I do it gives some very nice images. My Rollei, which has an upgraded focus screen, is a little bit easier to get focused correctly, but I still struggle sometimes. For me, these TLRs are slower to work with because of my eyes.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

A C330 body with 80mm lens is 1830 grams - about 4 pounds.

According to the site I checked the C33 with 80 mm lens weighs 2040 grams. I must have fat fingered the keyboard when I converted to pounds. Thanks for the correction. Still at 6 pounds the 180 mm ensemble is more than my neck can tolerate for more than a few minutes at a time.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2013

The porroprism available for the C series makes focusing a lot easier.

eddie · May 12, 2013

Right now, I have a Rolleiflex 3.5f, a Lubitel, and a Ricohflex. I once owned a C220, and have used Yashicamats, which were borrowed. I like the way they all made me view a scene. Something about looking down while seeing forward makes my eye/brain connection work a little differently, if that makes sense (much like an inverted image on ground glass). I also like the square format, as the equal sides adds "tension" to an image, whereas rectangular images have a degree of directionality. A square image will pull the viewer's eye to the edges evenly.

TLRs are slower to work with than 35mm, but I consider that a plus. Loading the cameras take a bit more time... Having fewer exposures makes us more circumspect in what we choose to shoot... The larger negative is a joy to print...

As an aside, I think the move to a larger format also has benefits when returning to 35mm. The slower, more thoughtful way of shooting will improve one's 35mm working methods.

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

I pretty much routinely use the magnifier and hold the camera up with it to my eye when I need to focus critically and don't have any problems with that. YMMV.

I'd think a prism on a TLR would give up something, somehow. It's not, I think, that the perspective from waist level is that different, it's more that the right angle viewing adds an element of abstraction that seems to aid composition to me. YMMV, maturally. Of course WLFs are available for other types of cameras though they really only make sense to me with a square format.

baachitraka · May 12, 2013

For me the only drawback is loading the film on the field. Otherwise, I rather enjoy the TLR for composition(big screen if not brighter), the square(Scared geometry has give an another meaning) format, slow nature of working, etc...

piu58 · May 12, 2013

Gerald wrote (and I comment between his lines)

o Except for the Mamiya C series lack of interchangeable focal length lenses.
There exist the Mutars for Rollei cameras. I have both of them and they work fine with my Flex 3,5F.

o Clunky in rapidly changing light conditions having to transfer light meter info to camera.
The light meter of the Flexes is easy to use and gives a valid exposure /stop combination in a second.

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.
The Planars of the Flexes ar really good lenses. The come close to 100 lp/mm in the center and around 60-70 in the corners.

o Film loading is slower than 35 mm.
That is true if you use an automatic camera like a Canon 33. If you use an older 35 mm camera, the Flex loads not much slower.

o Parallax problems.
Rollei cameras have a genial parralax correction. Even with acessory lenses the problem is solved.

o Square format.
That is not a con, that is a pro ;-)

o More prone to film transport problems.
I used more than 1000 films in my Rolleiflex and had only once the problem that the camera did not find the start of the film.

o Harder to focus particularly in low light.
The bright screens of the more modern Flexes / Cords (and Seagulls too) make focussing easy, even in low light.

o Leaf shutters need servicing more often.
I bought a ~40 year old Flex which works still fine. It got never a CLA. Do you really think that more modern camera still live after that period of time? At least the light sealing materials dissolves.

o Overall somewhat less robust in design than 35 mm cameras. Too many points where dust can enter.
I did not use my Flex in a sand storm, but I dont't see any problems with dust.

MattKing · May 12, 2013

I have and use a prism finder for my Mamiya C330, but only sometimes.

It is a well made and useful accessory that gives me a reasonably bright, non-reversed and upright image with the camera at eye-level. For portraits on the go (think weddings) it allows me to avoid the "navel eye" view of the world.

It is reasonably compact, but quite heavy. It is much more usable than the "porro" finder that Mamiya made for their TLRs, which are large, fairly dim, and give a reversed image.

Here it is in operation, with the camera, a 135mm lens, and me!

Roger Cole · May 12, 2013

For weddings and more formal kinds of portraiture, that makes perfect sense. I can see using one when the camera is on a tripod especially.

Newt_on_Swings · May 12, 2013

Roger Cole said:
I pretty much routinely use the magnifier and hold the camera up with it to my eye when I need to focus critically and don't have any problems with that. YMMV.

This is also true for me, I like to double check with the magnifier, even sometimes when I know my DOF probably covers it. Maybe its the same reason I never use the sports finder on a TLR.

There is also the trick of holding the camera upside down above your head to get over crowds too.

Clay2 · May 12, 2013

I bought a nice Yashica Mat124 last year after being away from TLR's for about 40 years. Very happy with it. I learned

photography as a kid in the 1950's with a Kodak Brownie Reflex 127 non-synchro TLR camera. Took me way back.

Best regards,

/Clay

dotyj · May 13, 2013

Newt_on_Swings said:
This is also true for me, I like to double check with the magnifier, even sometimes when I know my DOF probably covers it. Maybe its the same reason I never use the sports finder on a TLR.

There is also the trick of holding the camera upside down above your head to get over crowds too.

There's a big reason I like TLR cameras. I'm in a wheelchair and this allows me to hold the camera up over my head and still compose and take a shot.

I'm also able to hold the camera down near ground level and get good low angle shots.

Considering a TLR

Roger Cole

Gerald C Koch

Gerald C Koch

Roger Cole

grahamp

Ian Grant

Gerald C Koch

miha

Pioneer

Roger Cole

Gerald C Koch

Alan Gales

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

Gerald C Koch

Gerald C Koch

eddie

Roger Cole

baachitraka

piu58

MattKing

Moderator

Attachments

Roger Cole

Newt_on_Swings

Clay2

dotyj

Considering a TLR

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency