Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

[brian steinberger]

I have a few medium format rangefinders that I adore. But I've been longing for a square camera that could do some of the things that my rangefinders cannot.

I like the idea of a twin lens reflex as I like to handhold most of my work. I've used a 6x6 SLR before and it is too big and bulky, not for me. Anyway, here is a bit of criteria.

I'd like to use it more for spontaneous shots, more portraits. Close focusing is a must, I'm thinking an 80mm lens. My rangefinders focus down to 1 meter. So anything closer than that is great. Do certain standard TLR lenses focus closer than others? I'm looking for a TRL with just something around a 75 or 80mm. I'm not going to need to change lenses. One lens will be enough for what I want it for. That leads me to weight. I do want to carry it around. Something light would be nice, but build quality is also important, so I won't fuss about a little added weight. And at last, enter "classic camera." I've always wanted to own a classic camera, and this might be a camera that I would purchase that would hold value and also be collectible.

So I'm thinking my options would be Mamiya's, Rolleiflex's, Minolta's etc. What do you guys think would be a good fit?

 

[JRJacobs]

Most TLR's come with a 75 or 80mm lens. They typically focus as close as 3 feet. For closesr work you need close up lens kits, such as the Rolleinars for the Rolleiflex (although you can get them for most types of TLR). The close up kits include a parallax-correcting lens for the viewing lens.

If you want light, simple, and one lens, then avoid the Mamiya cameras. Good single-lens TLR's to consider are Rolleiflex, Minolta Autocord, Yaschica-Mat, and Ricoh Diacord.

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Well if you're going for classic, you can't beat a Rollei! Yashicas are cheaper and still have great lenses, and if you get an older model you can still have that classic look. I love my Yashica 12, but it does have its quirks-- if you decide to go the Yashica route, make sure the film advance doesn't jam up before you buy, as this is a very common issue (or so I am told, it was true of mine anyway).

 

[dougjgreen]

I too am not a fan of the Mamiyas. I use a Rolleiflex 2.8 E and a Yashica Mat 124. Minolta Autocords and Ricohs are also excellent. Those are all both pretty small and unobtrusive, while the Mamiyas are not. and they weigh a ton - that's the sacrifice you make for interchangeable lenses.

I would definitely budget for a CLA and replacing the viewing screen on whatever you get with a modern bright screen. I use a Maxwell screen in my Yashica, and a Chinese no-name replacement screen in my Rollei. These bright modern screens make a world of difference in the useability of TLRs. The Maxwell Hi Lux screens are the best (but they cost over $150), but the cheap Chinese screens from the ebay seller redleica1, which cost around $40 are nearly as good.

Most of the TLR specialist CLA guys re-sell and install either Beattie or Maxwell screens. I had my Maxwell screen installed by Paul Ebel, and I installed my redleica1 screen myself into my Rolleiflex.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I too am not a fan of the Mamiya CXX. While they have a built in bellows which allow much shorter focusing distances, the ergonomics were not considered when it was designed. You will find it bulky and clumsy. Look at the Rolleis and the other TLRs mentioned.

Steve

 

[MattKing]

On the other hand ....

I am a fan of the Mamiya TLRs. I've owned and used a Mamiya C330 since the 1970s, doing everything from close-up work to sports, with a fair amount of wedding work in between.

I also have a Mamiya C220, which is slightly less convenient to use, but is also smaller and lighter.

They definitely are bigger and heavier than the alternatives mentioned, but if you do end up getting and using more than one lens, the advantage starts to swing the other way. Here is a link to the section in Graham Patterson's excellent Mamiya TLR reference that discusses weight:

Dead Link Removed

Most important of all, you should see if you can actually handle some of the choices. Ergonomics are incredibly important.

Matt

 

[Ian Grant]

Before mine were stolen (early 80's) I was a fan of the Mamiya C3 seriers and had 2 bodies, and 3 lenses, great camera's and excellent lenses, but I do prefer the lighter and smaller Yashicamat 124 and Rollei 3.5 that I'm using currently.

But as others have said budget for a CLA, often slow speeds are sticky & sometimes don't fire properly even on cameras in otherwise mint condition.

Ian

 

[JPD]

I would suggest a Rolleiflex with 3,5 Tessar (or Xenar) plus Rolleinar (Bayonet I) close-up lenses. High quality stuff for a nice price.

 

[Ian Grant]

Late model Yashicamat's and also Minolta Autocords are also excellent value for money and great performers, usually significantly cheaper than a Rolleiflex.

Ian

 

[mcgrattan]

A Rolleiflex won't focus close enough for tight head shots without a Rolleinar attached [those are the close-up filters with the parallax compensating prism for the viewing lens]. Other than that, they are wonderful cameras to use. Surprisingly compact and portable for the quality of image that you get, too.

 

[Marcus S]

TLR choices

I use the Rolleiflex and the Mamiya. Both are good cameras but they do have their distinct differences.
The Mamiya has bellows for close up work and exposure compensation has to be considered.
The Rolleiflex has excellent close up lenses and no exposure compensation is required.
The viewfinder is larger and brighter.
The camera is lighter, more compact and is built like a Swiss watch.
It is the camera I use most often.

Greetings from Canada

Marcus

 

[Laurent]

The 3.5 Rolleiflex has become my "All Round" camera, I carry it almost all the time with a few filters and Rolleinar 1, and this is the most convenient camera I found (along with the Yashica mat 124, which is almost identical).

 

[luvcameras]

If you are on a budget, a later model Rolleicord - see Dead Link Removed


Or if you have $ 800 or so, a Rolleiflex 3.5F - see Dead Link Removed

Dan

 

[arealitystudios]

If close focusing is important to you I would suggest a Mamiya C330. I have one and it is the primary camera I use for "serious" work. The bellows focusing allow for some very close up portrait work and it is not hard to get a feel for the composition adjustments that need to be made when focusing that close.

Yes, it is a bit bigger than a Yashica or Rollei but this does not bother me at all. I use it hand held all the time. The controls are laid out in such a way that you can get access to primary functions (focus, shutter release) in more than one spot. Having the ability to change out lenses is pretty cool as well but I typically just stick with the standard 80mm.

 

[ronlamarsh]

TLR

I use a Rolleiflex 3.5T and an ancient Rolleicord that I successfully transplanted a later xenar lens to. I have to say though that these are my carry-around camera's and I don't worry about closeup work or lens changebility. For that I have an F3, a Linhof TechIII and a cambo monorail for: also have a 5X7. I have owned and used a C330 but was never really happy with it. I love the 6X9 folders but the ergonomics and balance of them never felt good.
My rolleicord and I just came back from Alaska(business). It was the perfect camera to just stuff in my carryon and use in the area I was in with little or no trouble.

 

[mudman]

I tried a Cxx series once and it was heavy. The particular one was looking at was in bad repair, but it looked well built.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8 which might cost more but I fell in love with it and forgot about the price!

Jeff

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Mu suggestion: a Rolleicord in good shape, with new-technology viewing screen. You can buy one from Harry Fleenor at rolleirepairs.com.

 

[Darkroom317]

I am currently using using a Rolleicord Va with the original screen. The dimness can be issue in some situations.
Larry has a good suggestion with having a new screen installed. Otherwise it is a wonderful camera.
It is really easy to use and handles well. What exactly are you planning on shooting with it?

 

[Simplicius]

I have a 2 minolta autocords ... and they are fantastic imho, the image quality is top class, sharper than my nikon primes, the ergonomics are excellent, you can pick up a top class one around €200 if you are lucky.... as long as the lens is good the rest is easy. I got a bay1 to 52mm adapter that fits on snugly and doesn't block the viewing lens so I can use all my Nikon filters on it.... sweet!

I haven't got a close -up kit for them but it is a bay 1 fit so probably the rollienar kit would work.... not sure on that one.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks for the responses guys! This is what I've gathered so far, the Mamiyas focus the closest, but are the heaviest and bulkiest. The Minolta Autocord seems like a nice idea, and the Rolleiflex 3.5 version is cheaper than it's 2.8 counterpart. Staying with the Rolleiflex's, are there any significant differences between the 3.5 Tessars and the 2.8 Xenotar? Either one sharper than the other? I'm assuming both are coated modern glass, what about the glass on the Minolta Autocords?

I'm planning to shoot some environmental portraiture and spontaneous shots, as well as some still life stuff with this camera. I would ideally like a 2.8 aperture, since most of my rangefinder lenses are f/4s.

 

[brian steinberger]

Also, just remembered, which cameras have reliable in camera metering?

 

[Ian Grant]

You missed the Yashicamat's which have great lenses & meters and are far more plentiful than the Autocords.

Mines as good as my Rolleiflex optically and exposrure wise, OK it's not as solid but is worth between 1 fifth/eighthof my Rollei's value so I don't mind giving it a real hammering making images. the Rollei need kid glove treatment as it's mint (as UK APUGer's will tell you from the recent Cornwall meet).

Ian

 

[dougjgreen]

Also, just remembered, which cameras have reliable in camera metering?

There is no answer to that question - given the age of all of these, it depends upon the specific example of the camera, not the brand or model. I have a Yashica Mat 124 that has a reliable and accurate meter. I hear that's unusual.

My Rolleiflex 2.8 E3 has a broken meter. I here that's common.

Many of these TLRs never had meters - and some of those are among the best values out there - if you can use a hand held meter or sunny-16 and pretty wide latitude B&W film.

Autocords are fine cameras, but the ones with no meter are far more common than the ones with meters (and WORKING meters is another matter entirely).

By far the easiest good working TLRs to find at reasonable prices are Yashica Mat 124 and Mat 124 G, which has the identical feature set, but is newer, has different cosmetics, and a less robust film advance mechanism (the tooling for making the parts wore out over time, which was the eventual reason that Yashica discontinued the camera, despite pretty good ongoing sales).

 

[JRJacobs]

Staying with the Rolleiflex's, are there any significant differences between the 3.5 Tessars and the 2.8 Xenotar? Either one sharper than the other? I'm assuming both are coated modern glass, what about the glass on the Minolta Autocords?

I'm planning to shoot some environmental portraiture and spontaneous shots, as well as some still life stuff with this camera. I would ideally like a 2.8 aperture, since most of my rangefinder lenses are f/4s.

Tessar = 4 element lens. Very sharp when stopped down to 5.6, sharp at the center when wide open

Xenotar/Planar = 6 element lenses, both of same type design. Sharp at wide open apertures, with beautiful shallow DOF and bokeh.

Autocord = uses Tessar-type lens design. Good sharp camera, easily comparable to a Rolleiflex with a 3.5 Tessar.

If you want a f/2.8 camera, then the choice is obvious for the Rolleiflex 2.8 cameras with either a Planar or Xenotar taking lens. Be sure to get one in good condition, and not beat up.