New to MF - help with gear

[srs5694]

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.

Sirius Glass has posted some of the big points in favor of SLRs, but omitted the points favoring TLRs. In the interests of balancing the discussion, allow me to post points from the opposite side:

• SLRs can suffer from mirror slap, in which the mirror moving sets up vibrations in the camera. Some SLRs have mirror lock-up, which eliminates this problem, but it's only useful when the camera is mounted on a tripod and the subject isn't moving around.
• The viewfinder going black when the photo is taken can be a problem in some situations. (You'd be more likely to notice your subject blinking if you photograph while using the viewfinder with a TLR, for instance.)
• Dense filters (ND filters, say) can make an SLR's viewfinder virtually useless. This isn't an issue with TLRs.

There are also design issues that are correlated with camera type, but they aren't universally true. For instance, my impression is that most (maybe all) TLRs have leaf shutters, whereas most (but definitely not all) SLRs have focal-plane shutters. Each shutter type has its advantages and disadvantages. Also, few TLRs have interchangeable lenses (only the Mamiya C-series, AFAIK), whereas interchangeable lenses are common on SLRs.

Ultimately, you'll have to balance the advantages and disadvantages of each camera type against your intended uses and your personal preferences. For instance, an SLR has a big advantage for macro use; but something with a leaf shutter might be preferable if you want to use fill flash in daylight.

 

[Q.G.]

• SLRs can suffer from mirror slap, in which the mirror moving sets up vibrations in the camera. Some SLRs have mirror lock-up, which eliminates this problem, but it's only useful when the camera is mounted on a tripod and the subject isn't moving around.

I know i'm a bore, but ...
When not using your camera on a tripod, mirror slap is the least of your worries.

So it doesn't matter that mirror pre-release is only useful when the camera is on a tripod, because it is only useful when the camera is on a tripod. No "but",

 

[Sirius Glass]

SLRs can suffer from mirror slap, in which the mirror moving sets up vibrations in the camera. Some SLRs have mirror lock-up, which eliminates this problem, but it's only useful when the camera is mounted on a tripod and the subject isn't moving around.

This is a not problem. It is an urban legend. Please see my posting of a Hasselblad sitting on a table with a coin balanced on its edge while the exposure was taken. It is on U-tube or you can do the experiment yourself, if you dare.

The rest of your posting was even handed.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

Arnaldo I am a big proponent of medium format rangefinders. There are several notables in this category:

Mamiya 6/6MF/7/7ii
Fuji GW670, GW690, GSW690...

There are also some AF cameras also worth consideration:
Fuji GA645Zi and several other 645 cameras in the Fuji family...

Consider also the folders, and perhaps the new Bessa folder.

These camera are not offscale in weight compared to 35mm gear, give you gorgeous negs that are a joy to print (and glorious chromes!), are durable and travel easily... and offer a very easy introduction to MF. They are especially powerful for landscape and scenic work... less useful for portraiture, but true weapons for travel.

P.S. RFs are also very convenient for IR.

 

[MattKing]

Whether or not mirror slap is a concern when it comes to sharpness, the mirrors and (in some cases) shutters in SLRs can make a lot of noise.

My Mamiya C cameras are incredibly quiet, whereas my Mamiya 645 SLRs are moderately noisy. And if you compare either of them to something like a Pentax 67 - now there is a camera you can really hear as it operates!

Matt

 

[dougjgreen]

My take, and I use each type:

TLRs: Smaller and lighter (except for the Mamiya interchangeable lens models), much quieter, very unobtrusive for street shooting, no mirror or shutter vibration (can typically be hand held at 1/8th - 1/15th sec) - good portrait perspective lenses, parallax issue when used for close ups. Original screens are quite dim, but much brighter modern replacement viewscreens significantly improve the ergonomics of most TLRs.

SLRs: More versatile, interchangeable lenses, focal plane and leaf shutter models available, square or rectangular formats, much the best for macro work, TTL meter finders available for most models, interchangeable film backs for most models. Larger than 6x6 formats tend to be quite bulky and heavy.

Rangefinders: Great for landscapes or weddings, some with interchangeable lenses, eye level viewing, leaf shutters have fast flash sync. Not very useable for macro work. Folding models can be quite light and portable, but tend to have some reliability issues and lack interchangeable lenses. Some models (recent Mamiya and new Fuji/Voigtlander) are very elegant and light, but also pricey. Others (older Mamiya and Koni Omega and older Fujis known as Texas Leicas) can be inexpensive for the quality, but tend to be bulky.

The fact is, there is no single Medium Format system that does everything really well. I own 6x6 TLRs, Leaf and Focal Plane SLRs in 6x6 and 6x7 formats, and Koni Omega RF systems.

 

[Sirius Glass]

dougjgreen,

Well said.

Steve

 

[elekm]

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!

You're right about a TLR being less intimidating. A big SLR with a big zoom lens draws attention to itself and to the photographer as well.

Most people are intrigued by a TLR. And also, it's quite easy to take a photo without being noticed because you're peering down into the screen and for the most part people will not be aware of when you release the shutter.

I usually opt for a smaller camera that is less visually intrusive.

Sand and cameras definitely don't mix well, because once sand gets inside the workings of a camera, it's a real mess. It sticks quickly to lubricating grease in lenses and gears and is somewhat difficult to remove.

Even so, I don't let that stop me. Just be aware of the direction of the wind and whether it's a particularly windy day, because that often carries sand with it.

 

[Q.G.]

no mirror or shutter vibration (can typically be hand held at 1/8th - 1/15th sec)

That's not quite true.
Or rather: it is quite not true.
(It really isn't.)

 

[Q.G.]

What makes some cameras less intimidating is that you do not have to raise them up to your face, point them at someone, while peering through it.
And that's the joy of waist level finders. Not a camera type thing as such.

You can do that equally well with large 6x7 SLRs. Which, by the way, present a smaller (yes: smaller) 'profile' to their 'targets' than the by force rather tall TLRs.
TLRs tend not to be much smaller, if at all, than most SLRs anyway.

The thing that does indeed make SLRs more obtrusive is (not their size, but) the fact that they make more noise.

 

[srs5694]

Whether or not mirror slap is a concern when it comes to sharpness, the mirrors and (in some cases) shutters in SLRs can make a lot of noise.

I recall once reading the advice to never use a Kiev MF camera to photograph small children because the noise of the mirror and shutter will frighten them! (That said, I disregarded this advice and got some very nice photos of my ~6-month-old niece using a Kiev 6C. She didn't seem too bothered by the noise -- but then, I was making distracting silly faces and noises of my own to get her to smile.)

no mirror or shutter vibration (can typically be hand held at 1/8th - 1/15th sec)

That's not quite true.
Or rather: it is quite not true.
(It really isn't.)

I once took a hand-held photo at 1/8s with a Fujica ST801 35mm SLR and it came out remarkably well. That was the only one, though; I consider it a lucky fluke.

 

[sanking]

I don't own any medium format SLRs at this time but over the years I have owned and used several different systems. When mirror lock-up was an option, as on late models Pentax 67 for example, I tested sharpness for mirror slap. My conclusion is that image degradation from mirror slap is a fact, not an urban myth, and manifests itself most noticeably at slow shutter speeds , less than 1/60 of second, when the camera is on a tripod. I would assume that some cameras are better than others in minimizing loss of sharpness but the ones I owned and tested showed significant loss of sharpness from mirror slap.

Today I use only rangefinder type cameras in MF and don't have to worry about loss of sharpness or the loud soud of mirror slap.


Sandy King

This is a not problem. It is an urban legend. Please see my posting of a Hasselblad sitting on a table with a coin balanced on its edge while the exposure was taken. It is on U-tube or you can do the experiment yourself, if you dare.

The rest of your posting was even handed.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree with Sandy, mirror slap is not an Urban Legend, I've found this myself with Mamiya 645 and various Bronica's and surprisingly it's worse with a tripod tahn when a cameras used hand-held.

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

I always use mirror prerelease (when possible) too. It never hurts to be on the safe side.

The bit to emphasize here is what Sandy wrote: "when the camera is on a tripod".
If not on a tripod, i.e. handheld, the whole mirror slap thing is a non-issue.

And that is worth emphasizing, because in TLR-lore, it is often told (as it was here too) that you can handhold TLRs at slower speeds because there is no moving mirror in TLRs.
That's not true at all.

 

[Ian Grant]

And that is worth emphasizing, because in TLR-lore, it is often told (as it was here too) that you can handhold TLRs at slower speeds because there is no moving mirror in TLRs.
That's not true at all.

Actually you're wrong it does still make a difference, with no mirror TLR's & Rangefinder cameras are usually slightly better than SLR's hand-held at slower shutter speeds.

With SLR's hand-held you tend to act as a damper compared to tripod use but the mirror slap still has an effect albeit less with MF cameras than with a 35mm SLR compared to a 35mm Leica M or similar rangefinder camera.

Ian

 

[sanking]

This is true. Mirror slap is a much more serious problem when the camera is on a tripod than when hand held. But the other side of the coin is that if you shoot hand held at very low shutter speeds you are likely to lose even more sharpness from camera movement than from mirror slap with the camera on a tripod. Kind of like, pick your poison.

Locking the mirror up with a MF SLR is always a good option for low shutter speeds. If you have a focal plane shutter you have to worry about that as well, but I guess that is another story.

Sandy King

I always use mirror prerelease (when possible) too. It never hurts to be on the safe side.

The bit to emphasize here is what Sandy wrote: "when the camera is on a tripod".
If not on a tripod, i.e. handheld, the whole mirror slap thing is a non-issue.

And that is worth emphasizing, because in TLR-lore, it is often told (as it was here too) that you can handhold TLRs at slower speeds because there is no moving mirror in TLRs.
That's not true at all.

 

[tom_bw]

Perhaps a simple way to narrow down your choice - if you want to shoot predominantly without a tripod, think twice about any SLR options. From what I understand, some SLR's shake like crazy. This was enough to steer me to a Mamiya 7ii over a Hasselblad...

Looking at a lot of posts, I see a lot of "if you do this then..." Perhaps the best thing to do is tell us how and what you like to shoot (again handheld vs tripod) - then it might be easier for people to help narrow down your options. Also, budget might be another significant factor.

 

[dougjgreen]

That's not quite true.
Or rather: it is quite not true.
(It really isn't.)

It's true with the good ones. I can hand hold my TLRs pretty reliably at 1/8th second, and hit or miss at 1/4th second.

BTW, I don't think it's JUST a mirror issue. I think it's even more of an issue with large focal plane shutters, These shutters create a shock vector to the body in the direction that they travel, even when the mirror is locked up - perhaps even more than the mirror. Leaf shutters don't have this issue, because they open and close in a symmetric pattern, so they do not create any directional force vector on the camera - and they also have far less inertial mass than medium format focal plane shutters do.

Tests that I've seen with the Pentax 67 show that the shutter creates more vibration than the mirror.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mirror slap in not a problem when shooting 1/(lens focal length in mm) seconds or shorter, hand held with a Hasselblad.

Steve

 

[dougjgreen]

Mirror slap in not a problem when shooting 1/(lens focal length in mm) seconds or shorter, hand held with a Hasselblad.

Steve

The point is that a leaf shutter TLR can generally beat that by 2 full stops, and a leaf shutter Rangefinder can generally beat that by at least 1 full stop.

Incidentally, I'd bet that leaf shutter Hassys are better than focal plane Hassys. You didn't mention which one you use.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The point is that a leaf shutter TLR can generally beat that by 2 full stops, and a leaf shutter Rangefinder can generally beat that by at least 1 full stop.

Incidentally, I'd bet that leaf shutter Hassys are better than focal plane Hassys. You didn't mention which one you use.

I use a Hasselblad 503CX which of course uses a leaf shutter. I have used 1/(lens focal length in mm) seconds or shorter when I have needed to. So far I have not had to go slower than that without a tripod.

I have used a Mamiyaflex C-330 handheld at slow speeds without a problem. However, I just found the fiddle factor of the C-330 just too high to be worth the problem. I was a great concept that needed some ergonomic and human factors considerations built into the design.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

The point is that a leaf shutter TLR can generally beat that by 2 full stops, and a leaf shutter Rangefinder can generally beat that by at least 1 full stop.

That's lore. A tale that does the rounds.

But it cannot be true, simply because the effect on the image of a flapping mirror is magnitudes smaller than that of your rock steady hands.

And it indeed isn't true, even though people say that they can handhold and get good results at 1/8.

The thing is (apart from that it depends very much on what "good" might mean) that you hear such claims very, very often from TLR and rangefinder users, very much less often from SLR users.
And that is, again, because it happens to be part of the TLR lore. It was once started, probably for marketing reasons, and kept itself alive.

Now if all SLR users who also like to handhold and like to boast about their rock steady aim would claim the same thing (harder to do, because they can't find a 'probable' reason why their results are that great when handholding at 1/8), you would see that the relative numbers of SLR vs TLR users making such claims would probably be a good reflection of the numbers of SLR vs TLR users.
Probably, because there is no 'physics' that would favour one type of camera over the other, in this respect. So failing another reason why TLRs would do better, what else could the outcome be?


You know what really helps steadying a camera? Weight. Or rather: mass.
My heavy EL(...)s, with prism, are much easier to hold steady than a non-motorized, much lighter C(...) with waist level finder.
So though it might sound silly, i pack a heavy motorized camera in my 'walk-about' bag. Not the much lighter non-motorized camera. It doesn't quite compensate for the lack of a tripod (not included in my 'walk-about' kit). But it really helps.

Incidentally, I'd bet that leaf shutter Hassys are better than focal plane Hassys. You didn't mention which one you use.

I use both. And though the focal plane thingies are much more 'violent', i never noticed a difference. When handholding, that is.

 

[JRJacobs]

I am impressed by anyone who can handhold ANY camera at 1/8th a second. Best I can do is 1/15th with a TLR, and that is hit and miss for me (and usually in desperation).

I would suggest that if you are constantly needing to shoot 1/8th of a second, you should be either using faster film, or using a tripod. The nice thing about using faster film in MF is that the grain is not such a big deal as it is on 35mm.

 

[dougjgreen]

I am impressed by anyone who can handhold ANY camera at 1/8th a second. Best I can do is 1/15th with a TLR, and that is hit and miss for me (and usually in desperation).

I would suggest that if you are constantly needing to shoot 1/8th of a second, you should be either using faster film, or using a tripod. The nice thing about using faster film in MF is that the grain is not such a big deal as it is on 35mm.

That's lore. A tale that does the rounds.

But it cannot be true, simply because the effect on the image of a flapping mirror is magnitudes smaller than that of your rock steady hands.

And it indeed isn't true, even though people say that they can handhold and get good results at 1/8.

The thing is (apart from that it depends very much on what "good" might mean) that you hear such claims very, very often from TLR and rangefinder users, very much less often from SLR users.

I never said I constantly needed to do it. Just that I CAN pretty reliably do it when I need to, with a TLR. And, sorry O.G. my own experience with any Medium Format SLR is that I'm consistently 2 stops worse using any Medium Format SLR. That's real world experience, not folk-lore, and at least for me, it certainly IS true. I can pretty consistently hand-hold a Yashica or Rolleiflex TLR at a good two stops slower speeds than any medium format SLR I've ever used. Part of it is the lack of camera vibration, and part of it is that the taking position of a TLR is simply much more conducive to not inducing vibration from me. It's not just the WL finder - it's the fact that they don't have backs and bodies that protrude out, so you can hold the camera with the large flat surface of it's back against your body when shooting - which, if you know how to do it, acts as a brace. The verticality of the body combined with the WL finder allow this, and no SLR combines both of these aspects.

Incidentally, I use my medium format SLRs much MORE than I use my TLRs. But there is no doubt that in the Real World, I can hand hold a TLR at two speeds slower than I can hand hold any Medium Format SLR. Not lore, not myth, actual shooting experience, from someone who uses SLRs at least 3 times as much as I use TLRs. TLRs are simply MUCH easier to hand hold at slow speeds.

With a TLR, I can nail 1/4th sec around 20% of the time, 1/8th around 75% of the time, and 1/15th around 95% of the time. With a Rollei 6006 or Mamiya RZ, I can barely get 1/30th of a second maybe 60% of the time, and 1/60th maybe 90% of the time.

 

[Q.G.]

Well, yes.
There always is a spread. No two people are the same. Nothing is clear cut. "Your mileage may vary", and all that.