New to MF - help with gear

ArnaldoIlagan · May 8, 2009

Hi everyone,

First of all, thank you for welcoming me to the group.

I have been doing some gear research for the past couple of weeks and I just need some tips on what to watch out for when looking for a Medium Format camera.

Why would you choose a Twin over a Single Lens Reflex?
What is your favourite film and why?

That's it for now and I'm sure there will be more.

Thanks,
Arnaldo

Uhner · May 8, 2009

Portability, and I find TLR cameras to be better street shooters (another advantage is that I only have to worry about the lure of new large format lenses).

HP5. It expands and contracts well, has a tonality I like and enough sharpness.

Q.G. · May 8, 2009

Yes. That's it: an TLR camera is all you get. Possibly except for a light meter, there are no extra bits to carry.

And that is also the disadvantage of most TLRs (the Mamiyas are an exception): you can only use the lens that the camera comes with. And there is no proper way to do close ups, or other type of 'special' photography.
But if you do not need that (and don't mind the ever present paralax), a TLR will be an excellent choice.

My favourite films are T-Max and Portra.
T-Max (both 100 and 400), because it performs very well in every aspect, producing superb results.
Portra (160 NC) when i want colour, for the same reason.

Shangheye · May 8, 2009

Agree with all the above. I use HP5, and TXP (320) or Tri-x400 as well as Portra NC 400 or 160. I have both a Bronica and a Super Ricohflex TLR...The main difference in my opinion is on the street (if you ignore the lens issue). With a TLR you are quaint and interesting, with a Bronica or a Hassy you look like a Pro and have to work differently....and people behave differently.

I have to work very hard to keep the Super Ricohflex at home because it is so convenient.

If this is your first foray in to MF, you need to decide if you want a Square format or not, and if it is square you want, I would start with something like a TLR (I started with a Holga), since they can be found cheaply and they don't come with the expense of lenses...you can always upgrade.

Either way, you won't be disappointed and it won't be long before you want a Large Format Camera too!!

Rgds, Kal

kavandje · May 8, 2009

Huge can of worms. Here's my tuppence:

If you're starting out in MF, go with a TLR. They're great teachers, and you can get well-preserved cameras from Rollei, Yashica and Mamiya for a reasonable outlay. They make good all-rounders, and optical quality ranges from good to mind-blowingly-awesome. The Rolleis are notoriously robust, and often correspondingly expensive. I learned MF on a Yashicamat 124 with a Yashinon 80mm f/3.5, and I will never let that camera go. Needs a CLA though...

If you want to shoot in the studio or in a more controlled environment, a single lens reflex is a fine thing, but it's also a money sink bar none. Ask the Hasselblad owners.

As for favourite film: My personal favourite black and white film is Kodak Tri-X, although I really like Rollei's R3, IR400 and the Superpan 200 as well. In colour, I've only shot Fuji so far, and been happy, but I'd love to get my mitts on a few rolls of Kodak's new Ektar 100.

panastasia · May 8, 2009

Well Arnaldo, you just opened a whole kettle of worms. Get ready for many opinions and recommendations, but keep in mind that there are no cameras that will satisfy all your desires, whatever those may be.

First decide on how much you're willing to invest, it's a good time to buy used MF gear. I started with a light weight 6x8cm format view camera (only useful with a tripod), then I bought a much more expensive, and versatile, 6x7cm format system camera - very heavy gear, but I love it - it's my serious business/money maker. Finally, I recently bought a much lighter 6x4.5cm format camera for everyday use - it's closer to 35mm gear for action shots and candid photos of people. It's my opinion that if I were to have only one camera, the 6x6cm format would fit the bill - the best compromise. I don't own one of those for obvious reasons, I have that format covered already. I like them all.

My favorite all around film is Tri-X, it's very flexible and I know it well. It's easy to control.

Regards,
Paul

Ian Grant · May 8, 2009

I have both MF TLR's and SLR's, I really enjoy using my Rolleieflex (in the UK) and Yashicamat 124 (in Turkey) and the Mamiya 645's rarely get used.

If your happy to use just the standard lens then a TLR is ideal and the square format is really nice, I shoot full frame regardless ofthe format. However if you want inter-changeable lenses then go for an SLR.

My favourite film in my TLR's is Delta 400 followed by Delta 100.

Ian

ArnaldoIlagan · May 8, 2009

Thanks for all your suggestions. I'm considering all of them and weighing whether to go for twin or single. I'm just figuring out what do I want with my camera. Keep them coming.

Arnaldo

Sirius Glass · May 8, 2009

kavandje said:
If you want to shoot in the studio or in a more controlled environment, a single lens reflex is a fine thing, but it's also a money sink bar none. Ask the Hasselblad owners.

I do not entirely agree. I use a Hasselblad for street shooting and do it with much less effort that I did with a Mamiya C330. Less cumbersome; much more ergonomic. My Hasselblad 503 CX with the metered prism handles like a good 35mm camera, just a bit slower. Part of the slowness is the reason you are looking at MF, the viewfinder begs you to take time and compose.

As far as the cost statement, seemy signature.

Steve

Nick Zentena · May 8, 2009

The TLR lets you look at the image all the time. OTOH an SLR shows you what is going on.

Sirius Glass · May 8, 2009

Nick Zentena said:
The TLR lets you look at the image all the time. OTOH an SLR shows you what is going on.

One can easily use a polarize on an SLR, not so easy with a TLR.

Steve

nicefor88 · May 8, 2009

Just on the film question.
I prefer the Ektar 100, for its fine grain, natural colours. It's virtually impossible to find a single weakness.
I once overexposed it by one stop accidentally and could not see any visible damages to the pictures.

Sirius Glass · May 8, 2009

nicefor88 said:
Just on the film question.
I prefer the Ektar 100, for its fine grain, natural colours. It's virtually impossible to find a single weakness.
I once overexposed it by one stop accidentally and could not see any visible damages to the pictures.

I think that nicefor88 has a bad aim and hit the wrong thread, eh?

Steve

dougjgreen · May 8, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I do not entirely agree. I use a Hasselblad for street shooting and do it with much less effort that I did with a Mamiya C330. Less cumbersome; much more ergonomic. My Hasselblad 503 CX with the metered prism handles like a good 35mm camera, just a bit slower. Part of the slowness is the reason you are looking at MF, the viewfinder begs you to take time and compose.

As far as the cost statement, seemy signature.

Steve

The Mamiya TLRs are the exceptions to just about all the rules with TLRs. Because they have interchangeable lenses, and are FAR more bulky and obtrusive than fixed-lens TLRs, all of which are much lighter and smaller and have far superior ergonomics. Frankly, I don't like the Mamiya TLRs at all, because they are poor at the stuff that most TLRs are good at, like street shooting and fast handling. IMHO, if you want interchangeable lenses, get an SLR, not a Mamiya TLR. If you want a small, unobtrusive street shooter, get a Rolleiflex, a Yashica Mat, or a Minolta Autocord. Not a Mamiya C3xx.

Tanya. · May 8, 2009

I have been looking into trying medium format, particularly for quite some time. Only because I feel I may be able to see more emotion in my photos and give them a certain je ne sais quoi. I am picking up my newly acquired Yashicamat TLR from my local camera repair shop tomorrow and cannot wait to start shooting. What is nice about a tlr is there is one lense for viewing and one for shooting, which makes the photos better. Also, it's less intimidating to people while shooting, which may make for less poised pictures. I wanted to take this beauty on the beach, but have been advised because of the mechanisms and small openings, if sand gets in there it's doomed. If you can, try it out. You may find there is no turning back!

Q.G. · May 8, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I think that nicefor88 has a bad aim and hit the wrong thread, eh?

You just forgot about the second part of the original question.

Q.G. · May 8, 2009

Tanya. said:
What is nice about a tlr is there is one lense for viewing and one for shooting, which makes the photos better.

How?

Tanya. · May 8, 2009

In my experience with my 35 mm, there is always something more in the photo than what I can see when shooting. It can be an added bonus, or not. With the tlr, you can see the entire photo through the view finder. Another thing, if you shoot monochrome infrared, tlr has an advantage because even with a very dark filter, you could still stick it on and leave it there.

Q.G. · May 8, 2009

You can see the entire photo through all reflex camera's viewfinders, whether TLR or SLR, can't you?

Ian Grant · May 8, 2009

Q.G. said:
You can see the entire photo through all reflex camera's viewfinders, whether TLR or SLR, can't you?

Simple answer is no you can't. Viewfinders aren't that accurate but usually err on under so you get a touch more on the negative.

With TLR's it's quite different because the viewing lens is an inch or two above the taking lens so you get parallax error, some cameras allow for this but not most at the lower end of the market.

Ian

MattKing · May 8, 2009

A Mamiya C220 with 55mm, 80mm and 135mm lenses is lighter and probably smaller than a Hassleblad 500CM with 50mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses.

And if you want to shoot IR film, the TLR is much easier to use.

.

Speaking more generally, each option is different from the other, and tends to appeal to different people, for different reasons. A TLR is a good starting point because it is a relatively painless introduction - if you like working with a Yashicamat, you will have a better idea whether a Hassleblad, or Mamiya C series, or a 6x4.5 SLR would be more suitable for your needs.

Of course, you could end up succumbing to G.A.S., and end up with all of the above!

Matt

ArnaldoIlagan · May 11, 2009

Thanks everyone for your input.

If I may ask another question. Generally speaking, would the image quality of a TLR be the same as an SLR? This is of course assuming that the lenses for both are of very good quality.

Arnaldo

Sirius Glass · May 12, 2009

TLRs have a parallax offset when one moves in close to take a photograph. Some TLRs have indicators to show the top of the frame in the view finder.

SLRs do not have this problem.

TLRs that have light meters do not compensate for filters. Not a problem on SLR with built-in light meters.

Polarizers are harder to use on at TLR than an SLR.

Given the same manufacturer, same lens design, same f/stop, same focal lengths => example Zeiss lenses on Hasselblads and Rolleis, the image quality will be the same.

The lens manufactures are not all the same. Some are better than others. A lens on a particular TLR may well be better than a particular SLR with a comparable focal length lens. Then again, it may be the other way around.

Choose the camera/camera system [TLR or SLR] based on what you want to use the camera for, comfort handling, features, ...
Select the camera.
Select all the lenses you think you will buy.
Now you can repeat 2 and 3 with other cameras and lenses.

Steve

Kevin Caulfield · May 12, 2009

ArnaldoIlagan said:
Thanks for all your suggestions. I'm considering all of them and weighing whether to go for twin or single. I'm just figuring out what do I want with my camera. Keep them coming.

Arnaldo

Hey, Arnaldo. You're in Melbourne, aren't you? We're having a get-together on Saturday 23rd May. If you can get there (meet in Fed Sq at 11.00 am)and want to have a bit of a look at a Hasselblad, you're welcome to check mine out.

Q.G. · May 12, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
TLRs have a parallax offset when one moves in close to take a photograph.

The parallax is always there, always the same.

The taking lens is a certain distance below the viewing lens. The viewfinder image is shifted upwards compared to the image the lens sees.
Always by the same distance. Also at greater lens to subject distances.

But the shorter the lens to subject distance, the greater the proportion between the amount of this upward shift and the size of the field of view.
So the parallax becomes a bigger problem when one moves in close. But it is always there.

This offset also has another effect. One that the indicator cannot correct.
And that is perspective: you are not seeing the subject from the same position as the film will, so perspective is different. That too will be more apparant, more of a problem when you move in close to your subject.

Mind you, it doesn't mean TLRs are unusable. It's just something to keep in mind when using one.
(The same, by the way, holds for rangefinder cameras.)

New to MF - help with gear

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency