TLR recommendation

[guangong]

Go for dependability. Rolleiflex! I bought mine used in 1973. Dropped from chest height to asphalt pavement...only the little screw that holds the closing catch broke. Extremely rugged and tough. In the past I considered supplementary lenses but use shoe leather instead. Rolleis are fast working, just reading about the differences between 220 and 330 was tedious. And Rolleis are also compact.
As for Minolta, had one in early 1960s. Top notch lens but focusing mechanism will go sooner or later.
Go for quality and then no need to search again.

 

[grahamp]

If you do not need interchangeable lenses, then one of the Rolleiflex-style cameras (Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, Yashicamat, Autocord, ...) might be a better choice. Smaller, and you are less tempted to carry around bits you 'might need' Once you start accumulating lenses then you really have to compare the weight with MF SLRs. With the Mamiya, the weight is in the body - the lens pairs are light.

I am less concerned about the 'L' film path in the Rollei and derived cameras than some - I don't leave partially used film in cameras for any length of time.

On balance I think the Mamiya lenses outperform the Yashinon wider than f8, certainly in the corners. But I still grab the YashicaMat as a carry around camera or as the spare camera in checked luggage.

One thing the Mamiyas can do that none of the other TLRs can, is get to nearly 1:1 magnification. Granted you will likely need a Paramender if you do a lot of closeups, but it is doable.

These are all old cameras, so the condition may be more important than anything else. If I had to pick just one camera design as my one and only, it would probably be the Rollei/YashicaMat form. Not that I wouldn't pine over the 5x4, the rangefinders, ...!

Graham

 

[rowghani]

thanks again for all the feedback guys. lots of good stuff here.

 

[pbromaghin]

I've heard before that description regarding deteriorated padding causing focusing errors in models prior to the C330s.

Did Mamiya make a design change in the C330s in this area? In the viewfinder of my C330s the padding resides above the ground glass in the fold down holder frame, where the glass itself is then pressed downward by the padding onto three rigid (and lacquer-sealed) set screws attached to the body interior.

Thus the position of the GG is adjustable (and tiltable) via those screws, and deterioration of the upper padding would be irrelevant until it reached a point that the screen could no longer be held firmly in place against the screw stops.

Since the rigid screw elevations never change, the focus can never change, provided it is correctly calibrated in the first place. The screen itself could only become loose in the frame.

When I purchased my body I replaced all of the foam, including in the viewfinder. That's when I looked at the design and realized it was possibly different. I know that the replaceable GG inserts are themselves different in the C330s from earlier models, which I've never seen. But is the foam design different as well?

If so, and the OP is considering a Mamiya TLR, this could be a significant consideration.

Ken

Yes, there was a pretty big change in the GG mount between the C33 and C330. I remember looking at exploded diagrams side-by-side, but can't remember the specifics, except that the C330 was much sophisticated engineering and made with an eye toward easier repair. The C33 uses shims, nearly microscopic washers on the tiny screws that hold the GG to the body.

 

[elcabezagrande]

I think if you want to change lenses, your options are limited to the Mamiya cameras. I don't know the differences between them because long time ago I thought they were too heavy for my needs and went with a non-interchangeable TLR. Shutter noise is not an issue; all TLRs are really quiet.

The Koni Omegaflex M also features interchangeable lenses. It is a 6x7 camera, however.


Koni Omegaflex by Mike Novak, on Flickr

 

[BrianShaw]

Well I stand corrected. Thanks. I never paid much attention to that camera, but what a beauty!

 

[Andrew Kleinfeld]

I had a Mamiya and three lenses. Only camera I ever hated. Too damned heavy and cumbersome to use.

I also had the Yashica. Quite good.

And several Rolleis. All excellent. I still have my first Rolleicord Va, which I bought in January 1959. No maintenance, still works fine, still excellent negatives. Mostly I use a Rolleiflex E, or my best, the 2.8F with 2.8 Planar. Nothing ever goes wrong, even the meter on the F still works fine. Shutter speeds are still pretty accurate. They're light enough to carry all day. Incidentally, you don't need a telephoto on a medium format camera, just enlarge a lot and crop. You have plenty of film, so imagine a half frame 35 with a superb 80 mm lens, that's what you have if you crop a whole lot. I have a Tele-Rollei, but it's not as sharp as the 80 mm's. The Rolleiflex is probably the most underpriced camera on the used market now, considering its quality.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Well I stand corrected. Thanks. I never paid much attention to that camera, but what a beauty!

Isn't it now?

I keep asking myself why these old cameras are so gorgeous to behold. I think at least in part it's because of their inside-out design philosophy.

Meaning, for example, that one first starts with a physical piece of film. Then one begins working outward by adding the stuff required to first keep it dark. Then make it focusable. The make it exposable. Then be able to aim it. Then be able to change it for a new piece. And so on.

Each step requires more things to be layered on top of whatever solved the previous problem. Eventually one makes allowances for multiple lenses, flash units, hoods, handles, film backs, and gazillions of other specialized accessories.

What you end up with is something like the Koni Omegaflex above. Or a Speed/Crown Graphic. Or a Nikon F. Or a Hasselblad. Or any view camera. A wonderous beast of a machine, where form absolutely follows function, and strange cool stuff is attached and sticking out everywhere.

Sadly, these days it's just the opposite. Designers work from the outside-in, where function follows form.

Starting with the external form, say a smartphone case, they then labor to abstract and miniaturize via software the functional attributes and behaviors of all of the devices the platform is intended to simulate. Cameras, compasses (GPS), laptops, and maybe even telephones, if they don't forget those.

Heck, online just yesterday I even saw a two-shot firearm that had been miniaturized and squeezed into a smartphone case.

Except for the weapon, they can do this because software requires very little space to contain. It's merely abstract logic expressing ideas. A few small memory chips are all that is required. Please leave the leather and polished chrome at home, as those particular attributes are no longer desired.

Everything must fit within that originally defined volume. Which, of course, results in everybody's cell phone "cameras" looking essentially identical to each other, regardless of their capabilities. Personality and coolness have been rigorously excluded as unnecessary attributes.

And just how boring is that?

Ken

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is a L-shaped handle which allows the Mamiya C cameras to be held comfortably in the left hand leaving the right to operate the shutter release and winder. If you can find one it is well worth the money. I look at these cameras as studio cameras where ultimate portability is not a factor. If you think they are too heavy and bulky then google the Gowlandflex. This Goliath uses 4x5 film and yes Gowland did use this camera handheld. Eat your Wheaties.

http://www.tlr-cameras.com/misc/Gowlandflex.htm

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If you think they are too heavy and bulky then google the Gowlandflex. The Godzilla uses 4x5 film.

http://www.tlr-cameras.com/misc/Gowlandflex.htm

AND is also an interchangeable lens camera...

:w00t: (Sean, we really need this guy back!)

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

Go for dependability. Rolleiflex! I bought mine used in 1973. Dropped from chest height to asphalt pavement...only the little screw that holds the closing catch broke. Extremely rugged and tough. In the past I considered supplementary lenses but use shoe leather instead. Rolleis are fast working, just reading about the differences between 220 and 330 was tedious. And Rolleis are also compact.
As for Minolta, had one in early 1960s. Top notch lens but focusing mechanism will go sooner or later.
Go for quality and then no need to search again.

Not that I wouldn't love to have a nice Rollei but note that "shoe leather" is not actually a substitute for interchangeable lenses for at least two reasons. First, you often CAN'T move close enough or back up far enough. And secondly, moving camera positions changes perspective, while changing lenses changes apparent near/far relations so they affect your final results quite differently.

 

[MattKing]

There is a L-shaped handle which allows the Mamiya C cameras to be held comfortably in the left hand leaving the right to operate the shutter release and winder. If you can find one it is well worth the money.

Agree, except the best versions also include a mechanical shutter release trigger on the handle.

And as they are also designed to work on the RB67, they make that camera hand-holdable as well.

Here is one of the basic ones:

 

[Roger Cole]

The Koni Omegaflex M also features interchangeable lenses. It is a 6x7 camera, however.


Koni Omegaflex by Mike Novak, on Flickr

Well I stand corrected. Thanks. I never paid much attention to that camera, but what a beauty!

+2!

Wow, a 6x7 looks-sort-of-manageable TLR! I never HEARD of this thing before. Are they rare? Expensive? Will have to look.

I was aware of the Gowlandflex but that's a freakish curiosity, an answer in search of a problem in my opinion. I can see some advantages for 4x5 portraiture but there are better, easier solutions that don't require the bulk a TLR gets when scaled up. And the best, maybe only, reason I can think of (and I'm a 4x5 shooter too) for shooting LF portraits these days, at least on conventional film (the wet platers and such of course have a great reason) for shooting large format portraits is to get some movements for sharper (or selectively more blurred) props or objects in the field for environmental portraits. A view camera gives you that, as do most technical cameras which also have (such as it is) a kind of viewfinder and don't require two lenses per focal length.

Isn't it now?

I keep asking myself why these old cameras are so gorgeous to behold. I think at least in part it's because of their inside-out design philosophy.

Meaning, for example, that one first starts with a physical piece of film. Then one begins working outward by adding the stuff required to first keep it dark. Then make it focusable. The make it exposable. Then be able to aim it. Then be able to change it for a new piece. And so on.

Each step requires more things to be layered on top of whatever solved the previous problem. Eventually one makes allowances for multiple lenses, flash units, hoods, handles, film backs, and gazillions of other specialized accessories.

What you end up with is something like the Koni Omegaflex above. Or a Speed/Crown Graphic. Or a Nikon F. Or a Hasselblad. Or any view camera. A wonderous beast of a machine, where form absolutely follows function, and strange cool stuff is attached and sticking out everywhere.

Sadly, these days it's just the opposite. Designers work from the outside-in, where function follows form.

Starting with the external form, say a smartphone case, they then labor to abstract and miniaturize via software the functional attributes and behaviors of all of the devices the platform is intended to simulate. Cameras, compasses (GPS), laptops, and maybe even telephones, if they don't forget those.

Heck, online just yesterday I even saw a two-shot firearm that had been miniaturized and squeezed into a smartphone case.

Except for the weapon, they can do this because software requires very little space to contain. It's merely abstract logic expressing ideas. A few small memory chips are all that is required. Please leave the leather and polished chrome at home, as those particular attributes are no longer needed.

Everything must fit within that originally defined volume. Which, of course, results in everybody's cell phone "cameras" looking essentially identical to each other, regardless of their capabilities. Personality and coolness have been rigorously excluded as unnecessary attributes.

And just how boring is that?

Ken

Ken that is an awesome post. I may end up just quoting that from time to time (with attribution, even link, of course!) if you don't mind.

 

[Roger Cole]

I looked up that handsome beast on eBay. Currently two for sale, one for $1400+ from Japan not in the best of condition and a package for $4800. So one of these won't replace my plans for an RB or RZ 67. But what a cool looking camera.

 

[jerrybro]

I have a Hassy and a Rolleicord. The Blad is often used on a tripod for planned or composed shots, the Cord is dangling from my neck, zone focused, with a shutter release cable hanging from it. I can do a quick look down, compose and snap before whatever I am shooting can react. People always look at it and smile, making it a nice candid shot grabber. I'd love to upgrade to a Flex, but feel little need to with the Blad setup.

As Yamaha used to say, different strokes for different floks.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have the Mamiya bracket mentioned above and never use it. The leverage just isn't right and the camera feels more difficult to hold at all, almost impossible to hold still.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm just the opposite. Instead of the Mamiya bracket, I use one of those even heavier duty Suntar flash brackets. Like this one, but with a square TLR mounting plate:

This allows me to securely handle the C330s TLR, while at the same time keeping my sweaty grubby paws off the brand new camera body. I also use it for hand-holding a 4x5 Crown Graphic with attached Graflite.

Because I'm a believer in using outdoor fill-flash, I will often mount a Sunpak 120J bare bulb unit to the flash mount shoe. Although it increases weight and bulk, it also serves to better balance the package.

While gripping with my left hand, my right hand then remains free for using an incident meter, opening/closing the TLR viewfinder, winding frames, focusing, and shutter release.

Ken

 

[Ian Grant]

I had a C3 and a C33 until part of my kit was stolen 30 years ago, lovely cameras, however I'd say get a C33 or C330 (and variants), they are nicer to use than the C3 and the C2 series. I replaced mine with M645's which suited me better at the time.

The last 10 years or so I'm back shooting with TLR's but alongside LF so my Yashicamat 124 or Rolleiflex cameras are fine. If I didn't shoot LF then I might well go for a C33/C330 system as I enjoy using TLRs.

Ian