Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

dpurdy · Jun 26, 2009

k_jupiter said:
. 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.
tim in san jose

Did you just reduce a Rolleiflex to a "fidgety little camera"? Well now the optical quality from a Mamiya Cxxx won't compare to the little light weight Rollei. That said, I watched a documentary film on Paul Strand using one of those battle ax tank Mamiyas with the interchangeable mediocre optics in his old age to photograph the plants in his garden. Kind of made me want one.
Dennis
all in fun.

k_jupiter · Jun 26, 2009

dpurdy said:
Did you just reduce a Rolleiflex to a "fidgety little camera"? Well now the optical quality from a Mamiya Cxxx won't compare to the little light weight Rollei. That said, I watched a documentary film on Paul Strand using one of those battle ax tank Mamiyas with the interchangeable mediocre optics in his old age to photograph the plants in his garden. Kind of made me want one.
Dennis
all in fun.

Very much all in fun. You take a shot with your little German camera, I'll take a shot with my big Japanese camera and we show the prints to 1000 people. (+-)500 of them will pick the correct German print. Statistically speaking.

mediocre hhhhrmmmmppphhhhh!

Funny, the only Rollie I ever wanted was the 600x. Some people never get the bug. But then again I shoot an rb67 instead of a Hasselblad, a FM2 instead of a Leica M (hell, I shoot a Zorki I instead of a Leica III), a Speed Graphic instead of a Wistner, and a Deardorff instead of a Carbon whatever they call it.

Somehow I don't think my photography suffers for it.

tim in san jose

Simplicius · Jul 6, 2009

Another thing to note about TLR’s and this is only something that really hit me this weekend using one (Minolta Autocord). Is that they add a great fun dimension to Street Photography.

It is great fun to stand or sit next to a chosen subject but be facing 90 degrees away from them, and pretend you are setting up to shoot something across the road, in time they relax and forget about you as you are not ‘pointing that thing at them’ . Then twist your TLR through 90 and focus, compose and leave with a smile.

Of course on the slight downside, TLR’s are sexy looking cameras. They draw a lot of attention from people who remember them or people who wonder what they are. Again this weekend, Dublin City Centre, pass two cops shaking down a suspected drug dealer in a door way, latex gloves on, telling him turn out pockets etc, I stand 6 feet away back to the wall facing across the street and am looking sideways through TLR, composing the shot, when a passer-by wanders up between me and the cops and goes on how he hasn’t seen one of those in ages… I had to ask him to move twice before he got he was in the way. Then we had a great chat about the camera.

brian steinberger · Aug 23, 2009

I know this threads been stagnant for a while, but just read something interesting in Ansel's "The Camera." It states that the viewing lens on TLR's do not have a diaphragm so previewing depth of field obviously is impossible.

Is this true on all TLR's?

lecarp · Aug 23, 2009

brian steinberger said:
I know this threads been stagnant for a while, but just read something interesting in Ansel's "The Camera." It states that the viewing lens on TLR's do not have a diaphragm so previewing depth of field obviously is impossible.

Is this true on all TLR's?

No, the Mamiya 105mm DS has an adjustable diaphragm for depth preview.
I use one as my standard lens on the 330 instead of the 80mm.

brian steinberger · Aug 23, 2009

lecarp said:
No, the Mamiya 105mm DS has an adjustable diaphragm for depth preview.
I use one as my standard lens on the 330 instead of the 80mm.

Is this a rare exception though? Is it true that most do not?

dpurdy · Aug 23, 2009

brian steinberger said:
I know this threads been stagnant for a while, but just read something interesting in Ansel's "The Camera." It states that the viewing lens on TLR's do not have a diaphragm so previewing depth of field obviously is impossible.

Is this true on all TLR's?

I found a soft plastic lens cap that fit over my rollei viewing lens and then measured the f8 opening in the taking lens and drilled the same size hole in the plastic cap. It is actually pretty cool and works
Dennis

fotch · Aug 23, 2009

lecarp said:
No, the Mamiya 105mm DS has an adjustable diaphragm for depth preview.
I use one as my standard lens on the 330 instead of the 80mm.

Is that all the 105mm for the Mamiya or is the 105 DS another version?

MattKing · Aug 23, 2009

fotch said:
Is that all the 105mm for the Mamiya or is the 105 DS another version?

The 105 DS is the only version of the Mamiya 105mm TLR lenses that has this feature.

Matt

ic-racer · Aug 23, 2009

brian steinberger said:
Is this a rare exception though? Is it true that most do not?

Rolleiphot

AgentX · Aug 23, 2009

If DOF preview is important to you, a TLR is probably not your machine. Go SLR.

I have never (extraordinarily seldom?) missed it, and love TLRs...but if this feature is a make-or-break for you, you're broken. And there are plenty of good 6x6 SLRs out there.

Sirius Glass · Aug 23, 2009

brian steinberger said:
I know this threads been stagnant for a while, but just read something interesting in Ansel's "The Camera." It states that the viewing lens on TLR's do not have a diaphragm so previewing depth of field obviously is impossible.

Is this true on all TLR's?

lecarp's statement points out one of the few exceptions.

Steve

brian steinberger · Aug 24, 2009

AgentX said:
If DOF preview is important to you, a TLR is probably not your machine. Go SLR.

I have never (extraordinarily seldom?) missed it, and love TLRs...but if this feature is a make-or-break for you, you're broken. And there are plenty of good 6x6 SLRs out there.

It's funny that this thread has come down to this. I'd been kicking around the idea of a TLR since I posted this thread to compliment my two MF rangefinders. One of the things that I really wanted was a depth of field preview since I was missing that with the rangefinders. Funny that I didn't even think about it and it was never brought up in this discussion here by someone else.

So yes, DOF preview is a make-or-break for me, so I've decided against TLR and am now leaning towards Bronica SQ-A. Thanks everyone for all your imput! As usual you've been so helpful.

ic-racer · Aug 24, 2009

Yes, SLR would be a better choice for you, but also consider a medium format 'technical' camera (like a Horseman). You can use it hand-held as a rangefinder or on a tripod with, not only DOF preview, but movements (shift, tilt, swing, rise) as well.

cooltouch · Aug 28, 2009

The SQ-A is a great performer. It's on my list of acquisitions, as well.

Regarding DOF preview, however -- I've owned a few Rolleiflexes and a couple of Yashica Mats over the years, but it's been several years since I've used one. I don't recall now if either of these brands have hyperfocal distance scales. If they do, using the hyperfocal distance scale is a perfectly adequate substitute to DOF preview, and in my experience is often more accurate. Why? Cuz when the lens is stopped down, the viewfinder becomes dim, and focusing can become a challenge. Using a hyperfocal distance scale eliminates all this.

Best,
Michael

Q.G. · Aug 28, 2009

DOF is not just about from where to where things are sharp, but much more about how things look when they become less or more sharp when changing aperture. It changes the visual relation between different parts of you subject. It is a creative tool.
To make good use of that, there is no way round it: you do need to see what happens.

benjiboy · Aug 28, 2009

AgentX said:
If DOF preview is important to you, a TLR is probably not your machine. Go SLR.

I have never (extraordinarily seldom?) missed it, and love TLRs...but if this feature is a make-or-break for you, you're broken. And there are plenty of good 6x6 SLRs out there.

I found with my Mamiya TLRs that after using a lens for a while you develop a very good impression of the DOF you will get at each aperture, and if not there are DOF tables available for all the lenses online .

2F/2F · Aug 28, 2009

I find Mamiya TLRs to be easy to use and light enough to carry around my neck all day, even though they are not as simple or light as a Rollei. For me, most of the time their unique benefits over a Rollei outweigh anything that the Rollei has on them. I find ergonomics to be great on the models with self cocking shutters. Lots of features, and they are all easy to use. The ones with manual shutter cocking are slower and require a bit more attention. I would prefer a Rollei if all I ever used was a normal lens, and I never wanted to focus on objects closer than the minimum focusing distance of a Rollei.

Rolleiflexible · Aug 28, 2009

Q.G. said:
DOF is not just about from where to where things are sharp, but much more about how things look when they become less or more sharp when changing aperture. It changes the visual relation between different parts of you subject. It is a creative tool.
To make good use of that, there is no way round it: you do need to see what happens.

I so completely disagree with this -- it
reminds me of the refrain that digital
cameras are better because they allow
you to preview your work. Or that you
need to shoot Polaroids first to check the
light.

If you know your camera and your
materials, you will know how the image
will look off the focal plane, and how that
affects the image overall. You will see
it in your mind's eye much more clearly
than you will be able to perceive it in
the viewfinder, without need of crutches
or reassurances.

I shoot Rolleiflexes with the aperture
most often at f/5.6 or wider. Not once
have I found myself at a disadvantage
from not having a DOF preview in the
finder. A beginner who doesn't know
his camera, might be disadvantaged.
But not most readers of this forum.

AgentX · Aug 28, 2009

benjiboy said:
I found with my Mamiya TLRs that after using a lens for a while you develop a very good impression of the DOF you will get at each aperture, and if not there are DOF tables available for all the lenses online .

Well, that's also true for me, too (not that I'd break out a DoF table, but I don't need to...)

But I'm not trying to convince the original poster on whether he needs a feature or not...it's his choice and he seems to want DoF preview. There are cameras that provide it; TLRs aside from a narrow exception or two don't.

Sirius Glass · Aug 28, 2009

2F/2F said:
I would prefer a Rollei if all I ever used was a normal lens, and I never wanted to focus on objects closer than the minimum focusing distance of a Rollei.

Changeable lenses and the built in bellows are two very clear advantages over the Rolei TLRs.

Some on my frustration with the C330 was that I had the 250mm lens which requires cocking. Since I changed lenses frequently, I always had to ask myself "is the lens cocked?". That slowed things down some.

Steve

fotch · Aug 28, 2009

Q.G. said:
DOF is not just about from where to where things are sharp, but much more about how things look when they become less or more sharp when changing aperture. It changes the visual relation between different parts of you subject. It is a creative tool.
To make good use of that, there is no way round it: you do need to see what happens.

The way around it is use your experience, imagination, your brain. After all, black and white looks different than color, none of my cameras show the image in b&W so one must process this to know what it will look like in B&W.

JRJacobs · Aug 28, 2009

fotch said:
The way around it is use your experience, imagination, your brain. After all, black and white looks different than color, none of my cameras show the image in b&W so one must process this to know what it will look like in B&W.

I fully agree - I know what my shots will look like based on the aperture I select. I never use DOF Preview in my SLR cameras - it is a time consuming step I do not need. Any experienced photog knows how the DOF will be rendered for a given aperture and focal lenght. DOF markings are easily used to visualize this.

But, if the OP likes DOF preview, then TLR's are a no-go for sure.

Sirius Glass · Aug 28, 2009

JRJacobs said:
I fully agree - I know what my shots will look like based on the aperture I select. I never use DOF Preview in my SLR cameras - it is a time consuming step I do not need. Any experienced photog knows how the DOF will be rendered for a given aperture and focal lenght. DOF markings are easily used to visualize this.

But, if the OP likes DOF preview, then TLR's are a no-go for sure.

I occasionally use the DOF preview button for 35mm, but almost never for MF. I wonder why that is.

Steve

Q.G. · Aug 28, 2009

JRJacobs said:
I fully agree - I know what my shots will look like based on the aperture I select. I never use DOF Preview in my SLR cameras - it is a time consuming step I do not need. Any experienced photog knows how the DOF will be rendered for a given aperture and focal lenght. DOF markings are easily used to visualize this.

Well, (no surprise) i don't agree.

DoF markings are all very well. Experience is too.
But what things there are and where things are varies in every photograph.
How they are rendered and related to each other visually is too. Nothing can replace a preview.

I must honestly say (no criticism, mind you) that i find this rather amazing.
Exposure is much easier to get right, and even to guesstimate, yet there are numerous discussion about that, and people bracket as if their lives depend on it.

Bokeh too is a popular subject (though less than exposure).

Yet as far as the way the degree of blobiness/fuziness of different parts in the scene changes the look of the photo that is to be produced, a the-tables-say-from-here-to-there attitude is presented as what "any experienced photog" should know about and adopt.

I can't disagree more. No from-here-to-there table will tell you what the apeture does.
Aperture and focal length may be known. And you may indeed think that those and experience tell you anything. But they don't tell you very much without taking the various distances of the various bits of your scene into consideration too. It quickly gets to complex to rely on experience, and tables are no help at all.

So i think it safe to assume that what that suggests is true: you just don't care, and don't really use the aperture as a creative tool. Set it, instead, for exposure only. (Oh, and to chase that from-here-to-there mythical being called DoF.)
(But seriously too)

Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency