Medium format SLR vs. TLR - IQ vs. Portability

[brainmonster]

What do you all think about the image quality of TLR cameras vs. medium format SLRs? It does seem like more accurate focus can be had with the likes of Bronicas, Mamiyas, and even older cameras like Kiev 60.

That being said, these cameras are a lot bigger and heavier than TLRs. I've seen TLR shots being a mixed bag - perhaps it's difficult to focus, or some people have cameras where the focus is decoupled. But from what I've seen they are often less sharp, and often portraits have out of focus parts of a person, and the SLR images I've seen are just more exacting.

Still, TLRs are way smaller. They seem to be an easier and more convenient "everyday carry" for taking informal, casual photos. They also look really cool. You get a lot of comments on your camera and it's a good conversation piece.

What do you prefer? I'm sure it's a situation of "the right tool for the right job" but I'm interested to hear experience/input.

 

[Paul Howell]

With the pop up magnifying lens in my Yashica 124 and D, seems to be as good as the same set up in the Kowa 66. I like the Kowa when I need a wide or the tele but for easy of carry a TLR. Otherwise, no mirror slap with a TLR, the Kowa normal 85 2.8 is a little brighter in low light, the Kowa uses standard filters, the Yashica bay 1, I have an adapter for SVI, a little harder to find.

 

[PFGS]

I don't know that you can really "count" focus errors or other user errors against TLRs fairly; I've also had Bronica and Hasselblad 6x6 SLRs and I didn't find the focusing any much better or worse. Most of the times I'm struggling to focus any decent film camera, I'm in low enough light that I should be shooting digital anyway.

I've never had any problems with the image quality from my Yashica TLRs, models D and MAT. In addition to being relatively compact for 6x6, they tend to be far lighter - lighter than many of my 35mm SLRs, and for street, they seem to be distinctly non-threatening to those people who like to get upset about things. TLRs continue to be one of the cheaper MF options, too, so it's not too painful to keep one around as an option.

The downsides that have had me use 6x6 SLRs instead have had more to do with wanting different focal lengths, closer focus, or more precise composition, than image quality per se.

 

[guangong]

I use MF SLR (Hasselblad), TLR (Rollei) and RF( folders...Super Ikonta B, Makina and Fuji GF, as well as Kodak Medalist. Frankly, except for very low light situations where RF is supreme, I never noticed any difference in ease of focusing. If there is any difference, it would be more concerned and cautious regarding composition with Hassy, and more likely to make a grab shot with Rollei and Super Ikonta, but that could be from over 60 yrs experience while Fuji and Makina are more recent acquisitions.
If need long lens, of course Hasselblad is only choice. As the OP suggested, all is subjective or habit. After Hasselblad, a Bronica or Mamiya seems rather clunky. Again a subjective opinion.

 

[John Koehrer]

I doubt if there's a significant size difference if you compare them side by side in the SAME orientation, lay the tlr down
or stand the slr on end. If you compare weight, the newer Mamiya lllf is as heavy as most 6X6 slr's. Rollei, Yashica, Ricoh and most others
are all lighter than an slr. The disadvantage to the tlr is parallax when you focus closely because the viewing lens
is higher than the taking lens.

If you throw 6X7 in the mix, the GS1 has a similar form to the 6X6 cameras but everything else is much larger.

 

[MattKing]

In the last couple of group shows I've participated in, my ~ 11 x 11 - 11 x 14 prints came from a variety of cameras - SLR and TLR - and several film formats - 135, 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7.
I have no more difficulty with focus on my 6 x 6 TLR than any of my other cameras, neither now or way back when when I used the 6 x 6 TLR for colour wedding photography.

 

[runswithsizzers]

After using SLRs (in 135) for several decades, I used a medium format TLR for a semester at university. I did not have any particular trouble with focusing, but I did struggle with composition. Having the image reversed in the viewfinder really slowed me down, and not in a good way. Every one says, "You'll get used to it," but I never did. Also, the waist level finder often forced me to take the shot from a lower camera angle than I wanted. Trying to get an eye-level perspective with a waist level finder is an exercise in frustration. And if I wanted to get close to my subject, had to worry about composition errors due to parallax.

So if you have never used a TLR, you may find there are issues other than focusing that need to be considered.

 

[hashtagquack]

I think theres a tendency for some, particularly those new to tlrs, to focus without the magnifier and use it at waist level. Otherwise it may be that the focusing is done at the centre of the ground glass and then recomposed leading to the subject being slightly out of focus‍ could even be that the person may drift backwards and forwards after focusing whilst attempting to maintain their bearings with the reversed view. hard to say without seeing that person in action. In terms of ease of focusing i found them to be just as capable if not better than slrs. A lot of mechanical variables though, quality of the focus screen, mirror condition, brightness of the viewing lens, how well the viewfinder blocks stray light, alignment with viewing and taking lens, quality of the magnifying lens...

Furthermore tlrs typically only focus down to 1m so view slr images that are a tighter FOV may give the impression of a sharper image. So to answer OPs question; it depends‍

 

[Sirius Glass]

What do you all think about the image quality of TLR cameras vs. medium format SLRs? It does seem like more accurate focus can be had with the likes of Bronicas, Mamiyas, and even older cameras like Kiev 60.

That being said, these cameras are a lot bigger and heavier than TLRs. I've seen TLR shots being a mixed bag - perhaps it's difficult to focus, or some people have cameras where the focus is decoupled. But from what I've seen they are often less sharp, and often portraits have out of focus parts of a person, and the SLR images I've seen are just more exacting.

Still, TLRs are way smaller. They seem to be an easier and more convenient "everyday carry" for taking informal, casual photos. They also look really cool. You get a lot of comments on your camera and it's a good conversation piece.

What do you prefer? I'm sure it's a situation of "the right tool for the right job" but I'm interested to hear experience/input.

TLRs focus the same as 6x6 SLRs. AND a Hasselblad is lighter than many TLRs.

After using SLRs (in 135) for several decades, I used a medium format TLR for a semester at university. I did not have any particular trouble with focusing, but I did struggle with composition. Having the image reversed in the viewfinder really slowed me down, and not in a good way. Every one says, "You'll get used to it," but I never did. Also, the waist level finder often forced me to take the shot from a lower camera angle than I wanted. Trying to get an eye-level perspective with a waist level finder is an exercise in frustration. And if I wanted to get close to my subject, had to worry about composition errors due to parallax.

So if you have never used a TLR, you may find there are issues other than focusing that need to be considered.

I never got used to it. I convinced my father to get a Porroflex for his Mamiya C330 and he never took it off the camera after that. I use a 45 degree prism with my Hasselblad always.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

With older TLR's one could have focus problems if they have the darker ground glass screen, like old Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes; these were made from true glass. The later models have acrylic ground glasses and some with a split image circle which IMHO really make focussing easier.
I always preferred these 'silent' TLR's above a medium format SLR's which have mirror slap....

 

[eli griggs]

I consider my Minolta Autocord as sharp my Hasselblad with any lens in 500C/M stable, with the possible exception of the 135mm with bellows.

Since I shoot mainly b&w in these cameras, i can no comment on colour rendering, in today's slide films but the b&w shots can be the cat's meow, with either.

As to ease of use, the TLR is quick, quite and simple camera. The Hasselblad is also a simple camera, and only the weight of extra lens on an outing, and the lighting, backs, and a dozen other things that usually go along with the basic set-up makes it difficult, especially with gel and glass filters, which are huge and heavy, compared to the Bay One (bay1) filters, but when I take the Hasselblad out, I am usually able to return to the car quickly while shooting and pull out whatever lens, back, filter, etc, that I need for picture taking, though securing the kit out of public view in the van or car is sometimes problematic.

ll in all, the Autocord only requires my regular small leather bag with the extras and often another camera, while the SLR 6x6 kit is more of a planned event, even for casual shooting, which is why I hold on and use the TLR and, (when repaired) Super Ikonta B, a 6x6cm rangefinder.

I know what I'm doing with all of these cameras, and while I can do good work with a 'unadorned' camera and kit lens, i know what it is to be prepared, having done my fair share of equipment packing for shoots for professionals, too often busy thinking over the shoot and locations, to properly pack, everything they will have need of, on hand.

Carrying kit you do no understand, or just because you have it, without the ability, confidence or knowledge of when to use it to it's best capability, is what often spoils outings for many photographers, in my opinion, and mentally blocks them from getting past anything more than snap-shots.

By-the-way, this is another good reason for novices and mid-level photographers to do shoots with more experienced photographers, or workshops, by people whom actually do know how to teach good photography technique.

If you know a working professional, shooting film, you might also see about going along on shoots, in studio or elsewhere, just to see how to approach and set-up for each shot.

IMO.

Cheers

 

[warden]

Having the image reversed in the viewfinder really slowed me down, and not in a good way. Every one says, "You'll get used to it," but I never did.

I never did either. There was no accessory to fix my Yashicamat but I fixed my Hasselblad with a new viewfinder that reverses the image. But it's bulky and heavy so there are always tradeoffs.

For subjects that are not moving I do like TLRs for their lightness, simplicity and quiet operation.

 

[Bormental]

I love framing with the reversed image on my C330. It makes me slower but strangely I find the experience enjoyable. I also use the "sports finder" with the 80mm lens and for certain types of situations it's amazing.

 

[voceumana]

This is a question where the answer is unique to every individual.

For me, I find it harder to focus with a waist level finder than with a prism--but I've got so-so eyesight. I find it harder to hold a TLR stable than an SLR at eye level (regardless of type, i.e., Bronica/Hasselbald style vs Pentax 67), so any advantage with lack of mirror movement is lost by instability. But when I was young, I used a Yashica Mat 124 and got very good results.

Your results will differ.

 

[eli griggs]

I love framing with the reversed image on my C330. It makes me slower but strangely I find the experience enjoyable. I also use the "sports finder" with the 80mm lens and for certain types of situations it's amazing.

I'll point out that many painters, including myself, will turn a painting in progress upside down, often, to be able to judge if their work is true to their intent; errors just pop-up for viewing, and its a great aid in that regard.

I've found the same true of view cameras, and 'un-corrected' viewfinders, so long as the photographer is aware that the image will be the reverse of what they are seeing in the viewfinder.

 

[Cholentpot]

TLRs are more fun and wackier looking. I love using them. IQ is not really a major factor for me. I have enough IQ in my head.

 

[DWThomas]

This is a question where the answer is unique to every individual.

This is a good assessment!

This discussion got me curious:
Here's a shot of my Bronica SQ-A next to a Yashica Mat 124G oriented for a similar form factor (and closed up with no added accessories).

The SQ is a bit bulkier, but not hugely so. It's definitely heavier -- 1492g vs 1072g. The Bronica as shown has the 80mm f/2.8 PS lens mounted, so same general field of view as the Yashica. But it's a six element lens and has that extra half stop over the Yashinon 4 element f/3.5. And, of course, one has the option to swap to quite a number of other lenses with the Bronica. The Bronica also has interchangeable backs and can swap films mid-roll.

So then one has to decide -- does one care about any of those differences!

I acquired the SQ-A circa 2005 as a grand return to shooting film, especially B&W. It is still my go-to for critical, technical sorts of projects and I have acquired quite a bit of additional stuff beyond the one body, one back, WLF, and 80mm I started with. But then if you go out to shoot and take an assortment of "maybe I might want it while I'm out there" stuff, you can be talking a hefty backpack.

Later on I got the Yashica 124G, the last of their TLRs, just because I could! Slowly it has become my go-to for when I want to be serious but not be a beast of burden. That comes up particularly when traveling as part of a larger unit -- family/friends/3rd party guided tour, etc. (In between I added a 6x6 and a 6x9 folder for -- uh -- "less formal" work also.)

Another view with both closer to operating position:

Once goodies like the 110mm 1:1 macro, the prism finder, or the compendium shade start coming into play, the Bronica moves into studio work in my mind -- or at least solo auto touring.

Last year, Faire Spouse and I traveled with another couple -- a few days in Switzerland, and then onto a Rhine cruise from Basel to Amsterdam. I took the Yashica and a bunch of B&W film, plus mirrorless digi-thing (EOS M5) -- plus took quite a few with my iPhone 6s, including some short videos occasionally. In other words, I'm not proud , it's all about the right tool for the job, assuming you can define what the job is! I didn't even come close to using up the film, but I found stumbling along with a 100 people on a guided walking tour there was a fair amount of PITA factor at play (maybe I need one of those Texas Leicas or something ...

So my advice: buy one of each and play!

 

[grat]

On the other hand, put a Bronica SQ-A next to a Mamiya C33 with a 180mm lens, and the Bronica starts looking like a nice, portable camera.

 

[reddesert]

TLRs can have a bit of parallax error if you try to get right up close to a person, and if you try to focus on their eyeball and shoot wide open at minimum focus distance you might get a focus error.

TLRs are mechanically more simple while SLRs are more complex.

Many cameras (especially the TLRs and older SLRs) are 50-60 years old by now and can have parts that have gone out of adjustment. I have met a couple of TLRs where a set screw holding the viewing lens in position is loose, allowing the viewing lens to turn in its thread, which leads to focus offsets. Some previous owner probably thought their lens wasn't sharp, when it was just the focusing system needed a minor adjustment.

OTOH, SLRs can also have focus errors due to the mirror, focusing screen, etc ... there are plenty of threads about this.

It isn't as simple as one is superior to the other. Both will reward the photographer who pays attention to technique and who does a few simple tests like focus position and checking the shutter / aperture operation. Both can disappoint the person who doesn't.

 

[narsuitus]

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

I have used TLR, rangefinder, and SLR medium format cameras. I have not noticed any significant difference in image quality between 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm aspect ratios in medium format cameras. I also have not noticed any significant difference in image quality between 4x5 and 3 1/2 x 5 inch large format vs. 6x9cm medium format. On the other hand, I have noticed a significant difference in image quality between medium format and small format.

 

[JPD]

What do you all think about the image quality of TLR cameras vs. medium format SLRs? It does seem like more accurate focus can be had with the likes of Bronicas, Mamiyas, and even older cameras like Kiev 60.

Quality TLRs have matched pairs of viewing and taking lenses so both lenses have the same focal length with very small tolerances. I have seen lenses in shutters for Rolleis with their exact focal lengths written in pencil on the shutter. There are two numbers, like "75,82" and "70,98" which probably stands for the focal lenghts at infinity and at closest focus. They are matched with viewing lenses with very close numbers. Remember that with an SLR you can have focus problems too if the mirror isn't resting in the correct position, and a lens might be misadjusted. I trust the focus of my Rolleis, even wide open. No problems.

The only Rolleis I find difficult to focus are the pre-war Rolleiflex Standard cameras, because the focusing gear is so low that I have to turn the focusing knob back and forth many times before finding the correct focus. And the screen is dark on these cameras. The Rolleiflex Automat from 1937 and newer models are much easier to focus. They, and all Rolleicords, have built-in parallax compensation.

The Rolleinar close-up lenses have parallax compensation for the viewing lens. If you focus on a flower in the centre of the ground glass, it will be in focus and in the centre on the negative. The perspective will, of course, not be exactly as what you see on the ground glass, but you'll use your eyes as well as the ground glass for composing. Mamiya has a Paramender for parallax compensation.

 

[guangong]

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.

 

[DWThomas]

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.

Enh, again, it's situation dependent. If you're shooting across the Grand Canyon, waist level vs eye level is insignificant -- unless you're trying to use some foreground object in the composition. I often use the magnifier, either bringing the camera up to my eye, or bringing my eye down to the finder if using a tripod. (In spite of my advanced age I can still bend that far!) Again, depending on circumstances I may use the magnifier to check focus on a critical area and then use a longer view of the WLF to tweak composition.

In short, I do whatever contortions I need to do to get what I'm after, but it isn't a topic of much conscious thought.

And related -- I have both the 90º and the 45º prisms and hardly ever use them.

 

[Ariston]

What happens if you look through one WLF with another WLF? Does everything get corrected? I need to find out.

 

[DWThomas]

What happens if you look through one WLF with another WLF? Does everything get corrected? I need to find out.

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).