difference between TLR and SLR

[Scott Edwards]

One of the things about Mamiya TLR's that doesn't get mentioned much is their ability to be fine tuned. Without messing around with the optics, you can adjust the distance between the ground glass and the focal plane, and also the angle of the mirror to arrive at the quintessential optimum clarity. I have two TLR bodies and dedicate one for my 55mm and 80mm lenses and the other for my 180 super, with each body tuned differently for their given lenses.
Here's another bonus; loading film while the camera is on the tripod. And still another, bellows focusing which enables extreme close ups with all but the telephoto lenses.

I'll never need or want any other medium format camera. I have flirted with the Rollei SL66, but I the C220 has given me everything I have ever asked from it.

 

[Nick Zentena]

It depends on your definition of affordable.

$50.-75.00 for a TLR was a lot more palatable to me than the $250.+ for a used SLR (you're talking new) when I was looking to get into MF. Especially if I wasn't sure that I would take to the format.

The problem is those $50 rarely have added lenses or any of the other features. If a person wants those then the SLRs tend to be cheaper.

 

[Soeren]

My serious entry to MF was the Mat124. I wanted to see if MF was for me, did I like the negsize and the square, did I like to use the WF and the handling of the camera and last how did I perform with those negs and the glasscarrier in the darkroom. I don't regret it though the mat is almost exclusively used with IR-film since I met my Zenzei (Bronica).
Reason for buying the Bronica. Being used to SLR and close up photography I have a hard time getting used to not seeing precisely whats getting on the pic. I felt I needed the ability to change lens/focal lenght. I wanted a system camera.

The Yashica is lighter than the Bronica and I think a tiny bit smaller. It is very easy to use and makes great pictures. Now when I have both the drawbacks of the TLR ain't as anoying as I thought at first. A good specimen of all the recomended TLRs will take you far in MF before you need more.
Søren

 

[Rolleijoe]

Definitely Rolleiflex

my main focus is scenery/landmarks/buildings and water.

Hi there, I have several medium format cameras, but keep coming back to my Rolleiflex TLRs. I have 3, an MX, MX-EVS, and 3.5E-Planar. While the Planar has the sharpest lens of the three, and the MX, the least sharpest, it is only when you compare them you can see the difference.

Planars are becoming more expensive, but you're getting a camera that (if taken care of) can last your lifetime. There are known problems with the Mamiyas & Minoltas. But it also comes down to: you get what you pay for.

The Rolleis have the easiest to use DoF scale, and the Planar also a light meter. I use the DoF scale when focusing, but after 27 years, know how to judge an exposure, and never use a meter.

Rolleiflex TLRs are logical, quiet, dependable, and capable of closeups if you have the proper filters. For what you're saying you'll be shooting, this camera would work out fine.