Street photography with an old Rolleiflex

[Q.G.]

I must insist that "no reason they should still exist" is a bit harsh. Now you want to take away my Rollei. Bad enough that they don't make 'em anymore; but why do you want to destroy all of them? Sounds a bit depraved to me... :munch:

To me too. But then, the idea that they should be destroyed is all yours.
There are so many things that exist without reason...
I'm fine with that, unless, until and not for as long as someone claims there is a reason.

 

[eddym]

To me too. But then, the idea that they should be destroyed is all yours.
There are so many things that exist without reason...
I'm fine with that, unless, until and not for as long as someone claims there is a reason.

You were the one who said they should not exist.

 

[Q.G.]

You were the one who said they should not exist.

And i'm not denying that, am i?

 

[Toffle]

And i'm not denying that, am i?

...

 

[michaelbsc]

Simple box cameras already had finders that showed an upright image.

And this simple finder, whether bright style or with a screen, has no viewing lens? Actually the old box cameras with two bright finders for portrait and landscape would be a Triple Lens Reflex!

Since we're on the crusade to rid the world of nonsensical things, can you please also have BlackBerry ditch the SLR mirror flap noise my phone's CCD image sensor control program sends out the speaker port several seconds before the capture routine triggers.

 

[Q.G.]

And this simple finder, whether bright style or with a screen, has no viewing lens? Actually the old box cameras with two bright finders for portrait and landscape would be a Triple Lens Reflex!

It would indeed!

Since we're on the crusade to rid the world of nonsensical things, can you please also have BlackBerry ditch the SLR mirror flap noise my phone's CCD image sensor control program sends out the speaker port several seconds before the capture routine triggers.

If it were in my powers to do so, i'd be more than happy to.

 

[Q.G.]

...

Try, just for fun, to figure out why they came up with certain camera configurations, and you'll discover things, a bit of photo history, you perhaps (judging by your troll-thingy reply) didn't know.

 

[eddym]

...

Yeah, I think you're right. We're wasting bandwidth with this one.

 

[Q.G.]

Does it hurt so bad to be told that TLRs indeed are archaic?

 

[michaelbsc]

Does it hurt so bad to be told that TLRs indeed are archaic?

Film is archaic too. Should we stop using it. Or declare that it shouldn't be just because it is archaic?

 

[AgentX]

A Hasselblad is archaic, too.

And while it's more versatile for sure than my TLRs, it still blacks out when you press the shutter button, stays blacked out until you advance a frame (IIRC; been a while since I used a 500-series, but it has no instant-return mirror to my memory) and makes a lot more noise. Thus, my TLR is a better camera for my use. I absolutely love watching the uninterrupted image as the shutter fires, and for me, the parallax is generally not an issue. And the versatility of the Hassy isn't something I need, so it's largely wasted on me.

If someone handed me a free 500c with an acute-matte screen, an 80mm or the a 60mm/100mm lens pair, a set of extension tubes, two or three backs, and maybe a 45 degree prism, I'd be ecstatic, but I'd still carry and shoot my 2.8E most of the time and only use the Hassy when I knew ahead of time I'd be doing something that warranted breaking out more gear for a specific reason.

 

[blockend]

Film is archaic too. Should we stop using it. Or declare that it shouldn't be just because it is archaic?

Quite. I've never used a 5 x 4" camera that was anything but a PIA in ergonomic terms and that's before messing around with dark slides and loading bags. An evolutionary dead end but one that seems to work.

The Mamiya TLRs have a bar that descends in the viewfinder to indicate where the top of the frame is as the bellows are cranked out. When I first used one I was surprised how close the subject had to be to create any parallax effect, as we're talking about a TLR for street work you could happily say none whatsoever.
The proof of Vivian's pudding is the shots - her Rolleiflex was a brilliant camera for the job she required it to do.

 

[Q.G.]

Film is archaic too. Should we stop using it. Or declare that it shouldn't be just because it is archaic?

No. Film is not archaic, it's old. Not the same.

The TLR design came to be to solve a problem. A problem that no longer exists. It did that at a price, something had to give.
That (both of these thingies) is why it's archaic.

SLRs (like Hasselblads) are not archaic. Nor are 4x5" view cameras. They still do what they are supposed to do, without (and that's the important bit) sacrificing anything.

Don't confuse the fact that you can use them (any camera) as they were designed to be used with not being archaic. They are two very different things.
Don't confuse ergonomics (like that of LF view cameras) with being archaic. Those two are two different things.
It's all about whether there is a reason why a camera is designed the way it is, and whether that reason still exists.

I like the type of "The Mamiya TLRs have a bar that [etc.]" argumentation. A lot.
You can only belittle problems that are real. So if anything, it confirms that there is something about these camera that both is something other cameras do not have to contend with, and is a problem.


Another question then: why would it be so hard for you to like your cameras if they are (what they indeed are) archaic?

 

[AgentX]

No. Film is not archaic, it's old. Not the same.

The TLR design came to be to solve a problem that no longer exists.

Wait, an SLR now has no mirror blackout? COOL! I'll go buy one.

(Regardless of why the design came into being, it retains certain characteristics that don't become obsolete...)

 

[dfoo]

No, it's not a "style choice".
It's why, for instance, you can't do any decent close-up or macro using TLRs.
...

Damn, I'm upset! And to think the close-ups I've been doing with my C330 don't exist.

 

[AgentX]

Damn, I'm upset! And to think the close-ups I've been doing with my C330 don't exist.

Careful, the paramender can bend the space-time continuum and collapse your negatives to a singularity, or worse, cause a universe-ending paradox Donnie Darko style.

 

[Q.G.]

Wait, an SLR now has no mirror blackout? COOL! I'll go buy one.

And that's because...?

(Regardless of why the design came into being, it retains certain characteristics that don't become obsolete...)

Yes. And others that make it archaic.

 

[Q.G.]

Damn, I'm upset! And to think the close-ups I've been doing with my C330 don't exist.

What you call close-ups and what other people call close-ups do differ enormously.

 

[Q.G.]

Careful, the paramender can bend the space-time continuum and collapse your negatives to a singularity, or worse, cause a universe-ending paradox Donnie Darko style.

A solution to a problem is nothing but a confirmation that a problem exists.
Pointing out that there is a solution to a problem is by no means of reckoning a denial or negation of the reality of a problem. Quite the contrary.

 

[AgentX]

A Hassy needs extension tubes or a diopter to make a close-up. A C330 is greatly aided by a paramender but doesn't need it. So who's better off? Depends on whether you need a camera to make close-ups, and what else you need in the camera.

I'm not the one making unsupportable arguments based on personally-applied connotations of the word "archaic." You are. It's just a silly thing to say.

 

[Q.G.]

A Hassy needs extension tubes or a diopter to make a close-up. A C330 is greatly aided by a paramender but doesn't need it. So who's better off?

The Hasselblad.
It - and other SLRs - can do what they do, with aid, but without limitations. Something a TLR quite simply cannot. Never will. Wrong design.

Depends on whether you need a camera to make close-ups, and what else you need in the camera.

Yes.
That's why another name for TLRs is "one trick pony".
If you don't need anything your camera can't do, it will be the perfect machine.
Says nothing about whether it is severely limited/limiting and/or archaic though.

I'm not the one making unsupportable arguments based on personally-applied connotations of the word "archaic." You are. It's just a silly thing to say.

I didn't introduce the word "archaic" into this thread. I just responded to someone denying that TLRs are. They are.
It's a silly thing to say that they are not.

And that's far from unsupportable. Nor a result of a personal interpretation of what "archaic" means.

 

[AgentX]

Wait, I just looked at my Rolleis and my Mamiyas and realized they're archaic as fuck. I guess you win. Sorry for being so dense.

 

[Q.G.]

Good.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I'm thinking Q.G. must have been mightily abused by a TLR as a child and suffers trauma to this day! Wow, such passion over something that is mostly mere opinion. I guess those are the things that arouse passion because objectivity usually quelches one side of an argument.

So, yesterday I go into K-Mart to buy some cheap house brand color neg film for some processing experiments. (Didn't have any, just Kodak products; found relabeled Fuji at Walgreens and CVS.) I ask the "kid" clerk, "Is this where I would find the film?" "Film. You mean, like, for cameras?" He did know where it was, but there was this aura of inability to comprehend picture taking with needing film.

Sigh.

 

[dpurdy]

Looking up archaic it seems mostly to mean antiquated and from a previous era and no longer in use. Judging by the number of Rolleis in use and selling daily on ebay for very high prices, and the fact that they are still made new today (I myself the proud owner of the newest version) I think you could easily make a case for Rolleis being very current and up to date with human use.
The TLR design still offers an advantage no other camera offers. It is through a lens viewing as well as a non mirror using camera. It is like a rangefinder with a lens for the focus window. So it is like SLR and a rangefinder combined. Range finders are still viable as are SLRs, they still fill modern needs. Of all the cameras I use, Pentax 67, 4x5, 8x10, digital and 35mm, my Rolleiflex is still usually the best camera for me, as it is for thousands of others. So it doesn't qualify as archaic yet any more than QGs Hasselblad.
Dennis