Making sense of my first TLR

[Xiong Chiamiov]

Which model of a Mamiya TLR did you hold? Because my experience has been that they're very comfortable and work well held in either hand, especially when using the waist level finder.

I own a C330. Part of the problem may be that I have the 180mm lens - the center of gravity is firmly in front of the body, and with no grip it's particularly hard to prevent from tipping forward. And of course that gets worse as the bellows extends.

Is that why people buy TLR's? Because few of them are very light in my experience and the good ones usually price competitively with other MF cameras of similar age and quality. A good Rolleiflex can cost more than a basic Hasselblad with lens, and I think we know which is more versatile and has better accuracy of composition. Now the Rolleiflex can be remarkably light for a TLR depending on the model, I'll give you that, but most TLR's?

I wasn't talking about "the good ones". See for instance https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/wiki/cheapmediumformat. When people ask about dipping a toe into medium format for a hundred or ish dollars, we basically always recommend old folders and TLRs; to get into the SLRs you need to move up a notch or two in budget.

 

[MattKing]

I own a C330. Part of the problem may be that I have the 180mm lens - the center of gravity is firmly in front of the body, and with no grip it's particularly hard to prevent from tipping forward. And of course that gets worse as the bellows extends.

You need one of the left hand trigger grips that are made by Mamiya for both the C330 and the RB67.
And strong wrists.

 

[RLangham]

I own a C330. Part of the problem may be that I have the 180mm lens - the center of gravity is firmly in front of the body, and with no grip it's particularly hard to prevent from tipping forward. And of course that gets worse as the bellows extends.



I wasn't talking about "the good ones". See for instance https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/wiki/cheapmediumformat. When people ask about dipping a toe into medium format for a hundred or ish dollars, we basically always recommend old folders and TLRs; to get into the SLRs you need to move up a notch or two in budget.

Alright, sure but light? I suppose the Yashicamat 124g is light with all that plastic (heavier than some Rolleiflexes) but most TLR'S I've encountered had solid metal frames that made them quite substantial. The Yashica D is not light, and the geared-lens American TLR'S I had before it were both very large and heavy.

 

[Bob L]

Hi all, thanks for all the continued advice. I've been trying to get in touch with Igor (email/phone) and he's been radio silent for some time, and now the eBay listing is gone. I'm assuming it's been sold.

If that's so, I could either get a 3.5f Planar from him for 1k (the upper end of my budget) or I have found a 3.5e Xenotar that's in beautiful condition and CLA'ed for 800. Any recommendation? I know the Planar/Xenotar debate is a continued one. I'll just be relieved when I can stop the hunt!

 

[jeffbennett]

After having a dozen or more Rolleis, I would say that condition is more important than the model, particularly when you are dealing with the E and F versions with the Planar or Xenotar lenses. The other thing I have learned is that even Rolleis in very good cosmetic condition usually need a CLA unless they have been serviced in the last few years.

On that basis, the 3.5E sounds like a nice choice. If really in top condition with a good CLA, the price is very fair. You may find you want to change the focus screen if the 3.5E has the original, as many of the older screens were pretty dark, particularly in the corners.

 

[Bob L]

That's good to hear. Finally got in touch with Igor and he said the F had to get a new meter and is 1295, which is too rich for my blood. I do feel like I'll also be wondering what the Planar is like, but oh well, just glad to get shooting.

Outside the removable finder, what am I missing from not getting an F? It all seems negligible from what I've read.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Outside the removable finder, what am I missing from not getting an F? It all seems negligible from what I've read.

The later E model- E3, and maybe the E2? I am not certain?- are built on the same frame as the F. They are Fs without the meter coupling. Earlier Es are darn close to the Fs internally.

Earlier Es are as good as Fs. By the time Rollei developed the Automat model in the late 1930s, the core camera stayed the same. Focus rails changed a bit, the way you set actual lens focus changed slightly.... I mean, the mechanics had some design elements finessed, but these were fine tunings, not significant changes. And they added things- the EV system, the meter, the meter coupling, etc. But these were all 'add-ons' to the mechanical core. You can strip out all the extra toys and be back to a 1930s Automat in most ways.

If the extras are important to you, get them. Interchangeable finders (although prisms are about it and usually in bad shape), meter (60 year old Selenium cells, oh boy), meter coupling... When people say the most important thing is condition, this is why- the core camera and lens are what you want, the extras are, well, needed or not depending.

 

[jeffbennett]

That's good to hear. Finally got in touch with Igor and he said the F had to get a new meter and is 1295, which is too rich for my blood. I do feel like I'll also be wondering what the Planar is like, but oh well, just glad to get shooting.

Outside the removable finder, what am I missing from not getting an F? It all seems negligible from what I've read.

From a user standpoint, the other main difference (besides removable hood) is that the meter on the F is a single range coupled version. The E metered version has an uncoupled meter from which you read the EV value and transfer to the aperture and shutter setting. The meter has a high and low sensitivity range. I will also note that many of the Es came without the meter. IMO the latter are preferable, as any good hand-held meter will be better for general use than the older selenium meters, many of which have cells that no longer give reliable results.

The one other difference worth mentioning is that the later 3.5Fs (type 3 and 4) generally have the 6-element Planar or Xenotar lens as opposed to the 5-element versions on the 3.5F Type 1 or 2 as well as the 3.5Es. The 6-element versions seem to command a bit higher price in the market, but IME the differences are minimal. Ultimately the most important thing for getting the great sharpness and resolution that a Rollei is capable of is making sure the taking and viewing lenses are properly aligned/collimation. That is where the CLA comes in.

 

[Bob L]

Thanks for everyone's input, it has been a long journey but finally have a 3.5E1. Bought a CLA'ed (by Pro Camera in Charlottesville) 3.5F from a reputable dealer, shutter/aperture wheels would barely turn, light meter not working, sent it back for more CLA, told it was "broken beyond repair" (??) and so I was left with some Rollei accessories and no Rollei.

Thankfully I now have the 3.5E Planar CLA'ed by Harry Fleanor with a Maxwell screen for the same cost, which is a huge plus in my book

If anyone could be so kind as to answer a couple of novice questions, it would be much appreciated.

-I've read the manual, and I still don't understand the high/low EV scale and how that translates to setting my exposure. I match the needle, and then I know I want a EV of 9 let's say, and so I will just have to know what shutter speed/aperture combo is equivalent and set it to that? I know it's slower than a handheld meter, but I'd still like to understand it.

-Bought a third party hood that looks machined well, but I can't get it to lock and don't want to force it. The seller said "it should be tight on first use" but I don't want to mess up the mount. How likely is that to happen?

Excited to get shooting! Thanks all.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

From a user standpoint, the other main difference (besides removable hood) is that the meter on the F is a single range coupled version. The E metered version has an uncoupled meter from which you read the EV value and transfer to the aperture and shutter setting. The meter has a high and low sensitivity range. I will also note that many of the Es came without the meter. IMO the latter are preferable, as any good hand-held meter will be better for general use than the older selenium meters, many of which have cells that no longer give reliable results.

I had both a 3.5E and 3.5F with selenium meters, and, amazing, they worked well and were linear when I sold both cameras about 2010 (stupid decision, of course). I hope the current owners are enjoying their Rolleiflexes! I replaced one of them with a 3.5E without meter, which is fine as I use a hand-held meter. Once upon a time, Rollei sold Gossen retrofit meter kits for the E bodies, but they disappeared decades ago. Rollei also sold replacement plastic meter covers for both E and F focus knobs (also unobtanium).

3.5F with dual scale focus knob and working light meter. 5-element Planar lens. The one I should have never sold....

 

[Dan Daniel]

-Bought a third party hood that looks machined well, but I can't get it to lock and don't want to force it. The seller said "it should be tight on first use" but I don't want to mess up the mount. How likely is that to happen?

Excited to get shooting! Thanks all.

Someone can correct me, but I think that the distance between lenses changed from the early 3.5 Es to the later 3.5Es and the Fs. Somehow remember 42mm to 45mm??? Anyway, there is a chance that the hood that you have works fine on an F or later E. As you try to turn it, see if the interference is from the upper lens bayonet ring getting in the way?

I had a hood where I needed to grind away in that area. A dremel took care of it.

 

[macfred]

Someone can correct me, but I think that the distance between lenses changed from the early 3.5 Es to the later 3.5Es and the Fs. Somehow remember 42mm to 45mm??? Anyway, there is a chance that the hood that you have works fine on an F or later E. As you try to turn it, see if the interference is from the upper lens bayonet ring getting in the way?

I had a hood where I needed to grind away in that area. A dremel took care of it.

AFAIK early E series 42mm - late E and F series 45mm distance

 

[Maris]

The one place where the Mamiya TLR system triumphs over the Rollei is if you want to do mild wide angle work. A Mamiya TLR with the 55mm lens can be had for about one tenth the price of the spectacularly expensive Rolleiwide. I've tested them and the image quality is good from both.

 

[Bob L]

Someone can correct me, but I think that the distance between lenses changed from the early 3.5 Es to the later 3.5Es and the Fs. Somehow remember 42mm to 45mm??? Anyway, there is a chance that the hood that you have works fine on an F or later E. As you try to turn it, see if the interference is from the upper lens bayonet ring getting in the way?

I had a hood where I needed to grind away in that area. A dremel took care of it.

It looks as if there is a groove that the top bayonet fits into. I just don't want to really crank it, as I feel an original hood wouldn't take that kind of force.