Medium format SLR vs. TLR - IQ vs. Portability

[Dali]

For normal use, I would choose the TLR any time. Lighter and quieter camera, obvious to load, no shutter slap, nice conversation piece. Of course, I am a plain amateur so YMMV.

 

[weasel]

I have had, still have, and use both mf slrs and tlrs. Unless I need long/short/close lenses, interchangeable backs, I would have no reason to use an slr over a tlr.

 

[Ariston]

Sounds inconvenient! But anyway, the WLF normally mounts on top of/over the focus screen and the right-left reversal is a consequence of the reflex mirror in the body. So I expect a second WLF wouldn't change anything (other than be a PITA mechanically).

Definitely inconvenient! I meant looking through one camera with a WLF using another camera with a WLF - not for any practical reason, but just for fun. I think it will straighten everything up. I will have to use my RB on another camera so I can focus closely enough.

 

[Bormental]

Does anybody use a waist level finder at waist level? I raise this question because mention has been made that camera sits too low when using WLF. My own method is to lift camera viewfinder to eye., whether SLR or TLR. Sometimes waist level ifor more candid shots.

Yes! That's the whole point of a TLR for me Not only at waist level, I try to get even lower sometimes. My knees aren't what they used to be:

 

[DWThomas]

Definitely inconvenient! I meant looking through one camera with a WLF using another camera with a WLF - not for any practical reason, but just for fun. I think it will straighten everything up. I will have to use my RB on another camera so I can focus closely enough.

Ah -- "I see said the carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw ..." Yeah, having another lens and mirror involved should flip things back.

So I said, "Hey, a quick try to verify." Dug out my ancient Flexaret TLR which could certainly appreciate a new mirror and grabbed my 124G. Fundamentally I don't have enough arms and hands, but it appears the second camera needs to be able to focus way closer than it normally does to fill any significant amount of that second viewfinder with the image of the first. So I put the Flexaret back in the box in the closet.

Some TLRs offered a prism finder which would probably be much more useful!

 

[Vaughn]

Does anybody use a waist level finder at waist level? I raise this question because mention has been made that camera sits too low when using WLF. My own method is to lift camera viewfinder to eye., whether SLR or TLR. Sometimes waist level ifor more candid shots.

Typically my TLR will be held with its bottom just above my belly button, after being lifted up for fine focusing. Being very near-sigthed, I can bring my eye (w/o glasses) within 4 to 6 inches of the GG. Then I can lower the camera and compose fine with my glasses. I had an eye-level viewer for the 2.8 Rollei, but I traded it straight across for a waist-level finder.

I have traveled overseas and backpacked with the TLR and it has worked out well. A minimum pod is needed as I do not have to get the camera very high (even tho I am 6'3"), and fixed-lens TLRs are light and well-centered cameras. I have also tossed one in the pack with the 8x10 -- although the Rolleiflex mounted to the Ries tripod is a bit over an over-kill...but no vibrations!

 

[reddesert]

A two-mirror system like you are envisioning (basically a periscope) doesn't do what you want. It would produce a nice image of the image formed by the lens, which is upside-down and backward. This is why SLRs use a pentaprism.

 

[brainmonster]

Yes I think the WLF is unique - and unique to MF, because I've heard it doesn't work well on 35mm because the focusing screen isn't big/bright enough.

It gives you some interesting framing options.

That being said, how hard would it be to fit a prism on a Yashica TLR? I have an extra Kiev 60 prism that I'm considering experimenting with, but I'm thinking it may not be worth the effort/added weight. And the spacing on the prism seems like it might be pretty complicated. I've heard porroflex prisms have poor functionality and the Mamiya prisms are the best, but I've only seen people mounting prisms on Rolleiflexes and Mamiyas, not yashicas.

I'm also surprised that wedding photography can be done with a TLR. It seems like for weddings weight might not be as critical as depth of field, for things like portraits, and for some reason all the portraits I've seen with MF SLRs look in general better than TLRs, while TLRs seem to be better for mobility.

Also does anyone have an opinion on 3-element vs 4-element TLR lenses? Perhaps it depends on the quality/condition of the lenses in question. I've seen some great shots with 3-element lenses, but in general 4-element seem to have slightly less "nervous" bokeh, less field curvature (in focus objects seem to appear less "in focus" than they normally should be nearer to the edges), and slightly better sharpness/detail (depending on the image).

Perhaps I will need to try a 3-element and 4-element tlr and compare both. It seems like in some pictures, the uncorrected 3-element lenses show more than others, but I'm not sure why this is.

 

[Pieter12]

For years, the (Rolleiflex) TLR was used by most fashion and news photographers. I don'y think the images suffered from the camera's layout. It is the talent and skill of the photographer.

 

[MattKing]

Pentaprisms work well on TLRs, if you don't mind the weight and the slightly dimmer image:

I've taken many a casual wedding shot with that setup, a left hand bracket and (where required) a Metz 60CT flash.
With the WLF I use a shortened neckstrap which holds the camera relatively high on my chest. I can compose and rough focus without the magnifier and then flip the magnifier down, raise the camera slightly and refine the focus.
The left hand bracket makes it easy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Tessina as a twin lens twin mirror [TLTM] system. I have not yet had a parallax problem with any of my SLRs regardless of format: 35mm, 6x6 or 4"x5".

 

[Bormental]

That's a fine portrait! I now want one.

 

[MattKing]

That's a fine portrait! I now want one.

Well, the portrait was shot with my 645 Pro and the 210mm lens .
Self portraits are greatly aided if you have a self timer and a prop to focus on!

 

[Dali]

WLF has never been adopted in small format cameras not because of the quality of the GG but because 35mm cameras use a rectangular format and you cannot rotate the back.

Regarding prism vs WLF, 3 vs 4 vs 6 element lenses, you are running after a silver bullet. Like Pieter12 wrote, or you know how to use your camera or you don't. The camera is rarely the issue, it is most of the time the user lack of skill.

 

[wiltw]

WLF has never been adopted in small format cameras not because of the quality of the GG but because 35mm cameras use a rectangular format and you cannot rotate the back.

Regarding prism vs WLF, 3 vs 4 vs 6 element lenses, you are running after a silver bullet. Like Pieter12 wrote, or you know how to use your camera or you don't. The camera is rarely the issue, it is most of the time the user lack of skill.

Oh, but 35mm cameras like Exacta and Topcon Super D had waist level finders as well as higher magnification 'waist' level finders, as well as pentaprism finders. The high magnification finders were quite useful for telescope and microscope mounted cameras, and even for vertical copy work with a copy stand mounted camera.

 

[brainmonster]

WLF has never been adopted in small format cameras not because of the quality of the GG but because 35mm cameras use a rectangular format and you cannot rotate the back.

Regarding prism vs WLF, 3 vs 4 vs 6 element lenses, you are running after a silver bullet. Like Pieter12 wrote, or you know how to use your camera or you don't. The camera is rarely the issue, it is most of the time the user lack of skill.

Fair enough. I suppose you can always pay a little bit more money for something a little bit better. But all the fiddling around with different gear could just be spent taking more pictures and working well with your particular camera.

 

[brainmonster]

Oh, but 35mm cameras like Exacta and Topcon Super D had waist level finders as well as higher magnification 'waist' level finders, as well as pentaprism finders. The high magnification finders were quite useful for telescope and microscope mounted cameras, and even for vertical copy work with a copy stand mounted camera.

Really? I didn't realize that the Exakta had a magnifier but it appears that it does. I thought this was only available on models like the Ricoh TLS 401 with it's top mounted viewfinder.

Any idea how well this works using the Exakta WLF? In general I've just heard that people don't like using WLF with 35mm, but if it works, it works. I'm interested for more discreet street photography.

 

[etn]

Does anybody use a waist level finder at waist level? I raise this question because mention has been made that camera sits too low when using WLF. My own method is to lift camera viewfinder to eye., whether SLR or TLR. Sometimes waist level ifor more candid shots.

I think that a WLF offers more creative possibilities than a prism, as it makes easier to use the camera in unusual positions (close to the ground, for instance). No wonder many digital cameras have a movable display in addition to the viewfinder.

 

[Wallendo]

In my experience there is no real difference between in focusing speed or accuracy between my Yashica Mat TLR, Mamiya m645 with waist level finder, and Mamiya with pentaprism head. In fact, I rarely use the pentaprism head because it seems awkward to put a big camera right in front of my face.

I sometimes find the TLR easier to focuse because I don't have to fiddle with opening up the lens to focus and then closing it down to take the image.

 

[wiltw]

To me, the issue with waist level finder is the apparent size of the scene is so much smaller than when the screen is only inches away from the eye.

That is my impression from having a Beseler Topcon Super D with pentaprism and waist level finders. The WLF has a flip up magnifier for focus assist.

Having pentaprism and WLF on my medium format SLR (Bronica ETRSi) is more usable than the 24x36mm view of the scene on 135 format cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

WLF allow stray light and dust to be introduced to the viewing screen. That and the damned left right reversal is why my WLF remains folded away in the camera bag.

 

[wiltw]

WLF allow stray light and dust to be introduced to the viewing screen. That and the damned left right reversal is why my WLF remains folded away in the camera bag.

The stray light issue is one I had forgotten about...my Bronica's WLF has largely lived in the bag unused, too.

 

[etn]

What do you all think about the image quality of TLR cameras vs. medium format SLRs?

Ha ha,yet another "Hasselblad vs. Rollei" thread
In my experience, limited to Yashica + several Rolleis (Rolleicord, Rolleiflex E and FX) on the one hand, only Hasselblad on the other hand:

From a pure image quality, there's not much wrong either way. A multicoated Rollei FX lens is probably a tad more contrasty than a 'Cord lens but I cannot say I was ever disappointed by the pictures I got out of the older / simpler lenses (Rolleicord, Yashicamat, etc.)
There is a saying that the Hassy 80mm, being retrofocus, is not as sharp as the Rolleiflex 80mm. This might be true if you look at MTF charts, in practice I doubt that any will disappoint you. If you want to extract the last bit of resolution with your Hassy, 1) use a tripod and close your lens to f/5.6 or so, 2) use a finer grain film, 3) buy a 100mm lens. Not sure about the "best lenses" of other brands but I'm sure you can find gems too (surely lower priced than Hasselblad!)

I used a Rolleiflex extensively for over 10 years. I then acquired a Hasselblad mainly for the comfort of having different lenses, changing backs mid-roll, etc. I didn't know it at the time but the Hasselblad has a very important advantage, which I only discovered last year: I entered the age of reading glasses and suddenly, waist level finders became difficult to use. For this reason I hardly use the Rollei anymore and am switching to Hassy (with a PME45) full time - for medium format at least. I am faster with the Hassy as I ever was with the Rollei (important when traveling with wife and child) and my pics are equally good technically. (artistically is another question altogether ha ha)

TLDR: I think that image quality is not (or should not be) the main decision factor when chosing between a TLR or SLR. First factor is, like when buying a car or a house, do you feel comfortable with it? Do you want the extra features an SLR offers (mainly lenses, but also backs, prisms, etc.) vs the simplicity and lower weight of a TLR? You do not need to use all those features all the time: for instance I am now traveling 3 weeks on vacation. I took the Hassy with only the 80mm lens. I could have taken a TLR - but then I would have been hindered in its use by needing to put on my reading glasses for each picture (no thanks). Or find an ugly Rollei prism (not an option either.)

 

[Dali]

The stray light issue is one I had forgotten about...my Bronica's WLF has largely lived in the bag unused, too.

Right, stray light can be a PITA with WLF. In this matter, the prism has a clear advantage.

 

[Dali]

Oh, but 35mm cameras like Exacta and Topcon Super D had waist level finders as well as higher magnification 'waist' level finders, as well as pentaprism finders. The high magnification finders were quite useful for telescope and microscope mounted cameras, and even for vertical copy work with a copy stand mounted camera.

Proportion of 35mm SLR cameras with WLF compared to pentaprism? 1 to 1000 maybe?