Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

Matus Kalisky · Jun 21, 2009

I think that Mike is partially right. One can indeed do close portraits with TLR and a close-up attachments, but these are a bit special ones - they are taken from quite close and while they can be very nice and interesting (intimate could be the right word) and the above shot is a very nice example - they do introduce distortions that are not always wished, so to say.

The close up attachment effectively decreases the (for close portraits already rather short) focal length of the lens.

Paul Goutiere · Jun 21, 2009

brian steinberger said:
I'd like to use it more for spontaneous shots, more portraits. Close focusing is a must, I'm thinking an 80mm lens.

I have a fairly elderly Rolleiflex Automat 3.5. It's a very special camera.
Light weight, reliable, super quiet and easy to use.

Because of the reversed image in the finder and I'm switching hands a lot when using the thing handheld, I do not consider this a camera for "spontaneous" work in the sense of capturing candids of the children. (could be, but I've never tried it) Perhaps street shooting.

I think the thing may have been designed for portraits, it's so small and quiet, but I've never thought of the camera exceptional for doing close focusing as in the 55mm macro set up for my Nikon.

I have to only ask what does "spontaneous" and "close focusing" mean to you.

dpurdy · Jun 21, 2009

I think for a lot of people spontaneous is from keeping an SLR camera to the eye while exploring a subject and finding subtly changing moments or compositions with a finger on the button. A Rolleiflex is a bit more like a view camera in that a fair amount of the vision is done with the naked eye outside the camera and then attempting to put the camera in the right spot at the right time. That is only partly true for some who look down into their WLF and look for compositions, but it is much more difficult to be precisely in touch with what the WLF sees than an SLR prism.

I personally love using a Rolleiflex but always use a prism finder. What stops me from being completely spontaneous is my nature and my use of a tripod. I find close up work with the Rollei a very simple matter of putting on the right Rolleinar because I am usually not in a hurry and the 15 seconds it takes to take the Rolleinar out of my case and put it on the camera is no great frustration.

The close up portraiture with a Rollei is a lot about personal taste. Do you like to use that slight distortion creatively? I do, but when I do a portrait session I also keep a Pentax 67 with macro 135 handy.

Sanders does a good job but I think that image is with a tele and it looks like he has found some way to elevate the camera level to the models head level. With a WLF you need to either stand on a chair or have the model sit down. A prism allows you to work with your Rollei at eye level.

Dennis

pateeid · Jun 21, 2009

get rolleiflex and u will never regret!

brian steinberger · Jun 21, 2009

Good point Paul and Dennis as far as the prism finder, I would certainly want one. I guess I'm just having a hard time figuring out this close focusing thing. My rangefinder cameras focus to 1 meter, which is slightly more than 3 ft. So I'm not sure if a TLR would benefit me, unless I bought the close up adapter. I would like to take portraits like Sanders example. Maybe not as close necessarily, but similar in style.

dpurdy · Jun 21, 2009

And another consideration is that the Rolleiflex has a sharp enough lens that you can crop the image enough to create slight telephoto and closer view.

Rolleiflexible · Jun 21, 2009

Dennis is right, that I used a Tele Rolleiflex
for that portrait and that I elevate the camera
(by standing on a milk crate) when shooting
portraits in studio.

I don't like the prisms -- they make the camera
top-heavy and they darken the viewfinder. Unlike
Dennis, I find the WLF much easier and faster to use.
I also find myself much more "in touch" (as he puts
it) with my subjects with the Rolleiflex using a WLF
than with an SLR or rangefinder (or the Rolleiflex
with a prism) because there's no camera between
my face and theirs when photographing them.

RobertV · Jun 21, 2009

I am using a Yashica Mat 124G in an excelent condition. The price with accessoiries was Eur. 120 but you need to calculate a CLA + exchange of the seals too. This was Eur. 75,- for the complete CLA.
It's a good camera, also for IR photograhy but an Autocord (Minolta) or Rolleiflex can be also a good deal but they are more expensive. For the exposure meter you need a 1,35V Mercury battery or otherwise a Silveroxide battery 1,55V with adapter to 1,35V. The 1,35V Weincells have a very short lifetime of 4-6 months and are therefore a pretty expensive solution.

Greetz,

Robert

Rolleiflexible · Jun 21, 2009

brian steinberger said:
Good point Paul and Dennis as far as the prism finder, I would certainly want one. I guess I'm just having a hard time figuring out this close focusing thing. My rangefinder cameras focus to 1 meter, which is slightly more than 3 ft. So I'm not sure if a TLR would benefit me, unless I bought the close up adapter. I would like to take portraits like Sanders example. Maybe not as close necessarily, but similar in style.

As Dennis noted, I use a Tele Rolleiflex with
stacked Rolleinars for these close portraits.
But you can get nearly as close with a stock
Rolleiflex and a Rolleinar 1, without a lot of
perspective distortion. Avedon did this all
the time with his portraits of Eisenhower,
Marcel DuChamp, Oscar Levant (below) and
many others.

Paul Goutiere · Jun 21, 2009

To me the beauty of the Rolleiflex is it's simplicity. To add a prism finder and a close focus adapter would change this.

To do a more intimate style of portraiture I suspect would require a Tele Rolleiflex and collectors have insured this would be an expensive option. My Hasselblad will focus to a bit less than .9 meter with the standard 80mm lens. With a extension tube it will become much less.
I would suggest you investigate medium format SLRs, or simply learn to accept the qualities of the Rolleiflex.........and get a really nice one.

dpurdy · Jun 21, 2009

The idea that prisms are out of balance or take away simplicity should be understood as personal opinions and not facts or absolute truths. I like the balance of my camera with a prism. I find no reason to think it is less simple. I also have never before heard the opinion that a Rollei prism darkens the view like a Mamiya one does. Looking through my prism is much easier to see than a WLF and seems much brighter to me due to the lack of ambient light bouncing off the focus screen. In fact with the Maxwell screen installed and the prism it seems almost as bright as reality outside the camera.
Dennis

Rolleiflexible · Jun 21, 2009

dpurdy said:
The idea that prisms are out of balance or take away simplicity should be understood as personal opinions and not facts or absolute truths. I like the balance of my camera with a prism. I find no reason to think it is less simple.

Dennis, of course you are right. Those
are my preferences only. I tried a prism
once on a 2.8E3 with a Maxwell screen
and to me it felt clunky, and was harder
for me to focus so I reflexively (ouch)
pulled it off and never looked back.
Maybe it was the unfamiliarity of the
prism that turned me off to it.

Sirius Glass · Jun 21, 2009

The waist lever finder [WLF] versus as prism is both at personal taste and an acquired taste. I used WLFs for several years and was always bothered about the left-right reversal. I prefer the prism especially because my prism has a very accurate light meter. Any yet, I still keep the WLF in the camera bag for when I want to shoot a very low level photograph.

Steve

Chazzy · Jun 21, 2009

dpurdy said:
I personally love using a Rolleiflex but always use a prism finder. What stops me from being completely spontaneous is my nature and my use of a tripod. I find close up work with the Rollei a very simple matter of putting on the right Rolleinar because I am usually not in a hurry and the 15 seconds it takes to take the Rolleinar out of my case and put it on the camera is no great frustration.

The close up portraiture with a Rollei is a lot about personal taste. Do you like to use that slight distortion creatively? I do, but when I do a portrait session I also keep a Pentax 67 with macro 135 handy.

Sanders does a good job but I think that image is with a tele and it looks like he has found some way to elevate the camera level to the models head level. With a WLF you need to either stand on a chair or have the model sit down. A prism allows you to work with your Rollei at eye level.

Dennis

I think you're on to an important point. Taking a head shot while looking down into a waist-level finder puts the camera below the level of the subject's head, tilting up and looking up the subject's nostrils. Often a camera position slightly above the subject's head is more flattering. I hadn't thought about the simple expedient of having the subject sit downthat sounds like brilliant advice, and doesn't require the additional weight of a prism finder.

Mark Antony · Jun 22, 2009

I remember years ago when I started shooting weddings on a TLR we were warned about the 'up the nose' angle and some of the photographers carried boxes to avoid that.
I remember at the time I was influenced by the British photographer David Bailey, who during the mid-60's used Rolleiflex cameras and if you look at some of his images they are shot from lower than eye level which to me gives more dynamic and power to the subject- just look at some of his images of the young Mick Jagger or the one he shot of the Kray twins.
I personally use a Rollei T I love the way the Tessar records images, for me it has a slight softness wide open that by F8-11 tightens up both sharpness and contrast I have owned both Planar and Xenotar models too you can't go wrong really they're all good.
I think the Rollei is a fine tool, it has obvious drawbacks like the close focus which can be helped with Rolleinars I bought a couple for £10 so they are cheap enough especially in bay 1. Also the finder is laterally inverse which if your subject is moving you go the wrong way until you get used to it.
Some of my thoughts experiences here:
Rolleinars
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008_07_13_archive.html
My first impressions of the T
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008_06_22_archive.html

Great cameras
Mark

elekm · Jun 22, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
I don't understand why you say a TLR
is "not nearly as simple" as an SLR for
close-up portraits. I shoot close-ups
with Rolleiflexes all the time for my
portrait series -- I'm attaching one I
shot yesterday. An SLR would not have
made this any easier or simpler to
photograph. Explain, please?

I didn't say close-up portraits. I said close-up work.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by close-up work. And for different people, it appears that it means different things.

Close-up work could mean the minimum distance of the focusing range.

Or it could mean focusing beyond the minimum distance and working from one foot (0.3 meters) or less. And for that, a TLR isn't going to be the best or most convenient choice, especially if that's going to factor in heavily in the use of the camera.

JPD · Jun 22, 2009

Mark Antony said:
I remember years ago when I started shooting weddings on a TLR we were warned about the 'up the nose' angle and some of the photographers carried boxes to avoid that.

Another way is to use the sportsfinder. You can focus when using the sportsfinder with a Rolleiflex, which is a nice feature.

dpurdy · Jun 22, 2009

Except that the WLF on Mark Antonys T doesn't have sports finder focus. I used to use the sports finder quite a lot before I got a prism, it works well except that the framing is off and you have to learn to interpret it.
Dennis

Mark Antony · Jun 22, 2009

Yes Dennis the sports finder on the T is just an aperture, I had a Rolleicord with a mirror in the sport finder but everything is upside down- makes you giddy till you get used to it.
That said I like to shoot from a low angle sometimes...

dougjgreen · Jun 22, 2009

Chazzy said:
I think you're on to an important point. Taking a head shot while looking down into a waist-level finder puts the camera below the level of the subject's head, tilting up and looking up the subject's nostrils. Often a camera position slightly above the subject's head is more flattering. I hadn't thought about the simple expedient of having the subject sit down—that sounds like brilliant advice, and doesn't require the additional weight of a prism finder.

Waist level finders can be used at Waist level, or at shoulder level without difficulty. Generally, using them at shoulder level doesn't require any upward tilt to get a head and shoulders shot. You can also take advantage of the square format and use the camera at eye level held sideways to put the camera at eye-height if needed.

JPD · Jun 22, 2009

Mark Antony said:
Yes Dennis the sports finder on the T is just an aperture, I had a Rolleicord with a mirror in the sport finder but everything is upside down- makes you giddy till you get used to it.

True, true. But the top model post-war Rolleiflexes have both the frame-sportsfinder and the mirror. The mirror only shows a part of the center of the viewing screen, and that's enough for focusing.

There's also the Rolleimeter rangefinder that you mount on the nameplate and use through the sportsfinder.

Dead Link Removed

Mark Antony · Jun 22, 2009

JPD that's an interesting gadget! rangefinder for TLR who would have thought you never stop learning....

Q.G. · Jun 22, 2009

Yes. very ingenious. You just have to love it.
They don't come up with things like that anymore.

k_jupiter · Jun 25, 2009

So after following this thread, the reality is, if you want the very best piece of equipment for doing closeups, you get the Mamiya Cxxx, a paraminder, set up your filters, you calculate the exposure compensation, get a good tripod and go to town. If you want your focus to be more on weight because you carry it around, get one of those little fidgety cameras and carry it everywhere. I have used my C220 for 15 plus years, it goes everywhere with me, if I need it to be a studio camera, it works well at that, if I need it to be a street camera, the 65mm goes on it and hand held is no longer a problem. I don't find the weight noticeable and it certainly feels more like a real camera than my Yashica 635. I have four lens for it and it will handle any photo requirement I have run into. As far as metering? One meter fits all. Luna Pro. It handles everything from the Zorki to the Deardorff 8x10. I never have to learn another system.

Additional benefit... for the price of a German 2.8... you get a C220, all the lens you need, nice tripod, and a CLA. You are good to go.

tim in san jose

dougjgreen · Jun 26, 2009

I'm afraid if that you are going to predominantly be doing close-ups, a TLR is not the optimal instrument, an SLR is. I personally find a TLR to be better at just about anything else that can be optimally handled with a normal focal-length lens - but not close-ups.

Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency