TLR recommendation

[rowghani]

HI guys, thinking of grabbing one for 6x6. Factors are price, size/weight, shutter noise, and ability to change lenses. I have 3 questions for you guys:

1) I know the Mamiya C series has interchangeable lenses. Any other TLR system have this?

2) From someone who has used both what are the main differences between the C330 and the C220?

3) anyother system you recommend based on my criteria? The yeshica 124g seem to match what i'm looking for except can't change lenses. thanks.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[BAC1967]

I think the Mamiya is your best option if you want interchangeable lenses. I have a Mamiya C3, it's a very well built camera, you may want to consider that model as well. The downside is they are big heavy cameras, I consider it a tripod camera though I have taken it on walks without a tripod. I think there is more plastic in the later models like the C330 and C220 that would make them lighter. The C220 was a cheaper version of the C330 but they all have the same lens mount. I also have a Rolleiflex and tend to grab that one quite a bit more often than the Mamiya.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not really a TLR the Konica Omegaflex is twin lens but is direct view, there is a pentaprim that sort of turns into a TRL, it is 6X7 has interchangeable backs that are shared with the Konica Rapid rangefinder. The lens are excellent. I had one in the early 70s but could never get use to it. As direct view without the pentaprims I had to look though the back rather than the top down as with a TLR, and I found it difficult use in horizontal mode. I sold it and got a C33 with I liked much better, once I got a Kowa 66 I saw no need for a TLR with interchangeable lens, but kept my Yashica Ds and 124s which I use to this day.

 

[rince]

As said by others, the Mamiyas will be most likely your best option if you need interchangeable lenses. I can only recommend to actually hold one before you pull the trigger on a purchase. They are really big and heavy. I opted for a Rolleiflex instead a year ago and I bought some add on lenses (Rolleinar) which give me all the flexibility I could wish for.

 

[R.Gould]

As others have said if you need lenses then Mamiya is the only way to go, but you really need a tripod to get the best out of it, If you want a carry about Tlr the Rollei is the way to go, either the rolleiflex or the slightly lighter cord, I have both, with a couple of the Roleiner lenses, and I find that is all I need for portraits,(The rolleinar 1 gives great tight head shots) or still life, both studio and found,
Richard

 

[pbromaghin]

I have a C33 and like it so much I bought a backup body. Sure it's a bit heavy, but it works fine on a hippy strap, and that weight gives you stability for 1 or 2 more handheld stops vs other types. The C330 and C220 are lighter but I never saw enough difference in their functionality to make a big difference in price. My advice in choosing between the C22, C33, C220 and C330 is to get the one in best mechanical condition. The image quality is in the lenses and film, the bodies just keep the dark in between them. Get the best lenses you can find.

With age, the pad between the ground glass and the body can deteriorate, causing the viewfinder to focus just beyond where the film plane is focusing. I suggest you put a roll thru it to test for this before using it - the test method is described in several threads. It is simpler to correct on the 220/330 than the 22/33. These cameras are all 30-60 years old, so expect to do a CLA on whatever body you purchase and figure that into the price.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

 

[Alan Gales]

I decided to try a Mamiya C220 with the 105mm DS 3.5 lens. I just bought it and I have loaded it with Portra but have not had the chance to shoot it so I can't tell you any real world experience yet.

From researching the internet I found this. A Rolleiflex 3.5 Tesser camera weighs right close to 2 lbs. A later 3.5 Planar camera will weigh 2 lbs 7.5 ounces. A Hasselblad 500 CM with 80mm lens, film back and waist level finder comes in at 3 lbs. 6.7 ounces. My Mamiya C220 with 105mm lens comes in at 3 lbs. 6.8 ounces weighed on my postal scale. With optional "L" flash grip attached the weight goes up to 4 lbs 1.4 ounces. The C330 weighs in at ll ounces more than the C220.

I chose the C220 over the C330 because of the lighter weight. With the C330 the camera will cock the lens shutter so it's a little faster to shoot. Macro is also a little easier hand held. Of course it doesn't matter if using a paramender on a tripod.

I chose the 105mm DS 3.5 lens as my normal lens over the faster 80mm 2.8 because it is a copy of a Heliar design. Heliar is known for great bokeh.

Just get one if you want to try it. You can always recoup most of your money back if you don't like it and decide to sell. Consider any small monetary loss a cheap rental fee.

 

[MattKing]

I've owned a C330 since the 1970s, when I used it for wedding photography.

I also owned a C220 for a few years.

They are well made cameras and are enjoyable to use.

The C220 is slightly smaller, a bit lighter, and a bit simpler, but equally capable.

While the Mamiya TLRs are larger than other TLRs, a Mamiya TLR with two or three different lenses can be one of the most compact medium format kits available.

I carry my C330, waist level and prism finders, the left hand trigger grip, 65mm and 135mm lenses, a few filters, a hand meter and some film in one of my smaller camera bags.

The left hand trigger grip (which also works with the RB67) made handheld use at weddings easy, but the camera works well with just my hands.

If you want to learn anything about Mamiya TLRs, Graham Patterson's comprehensive Mamiya TLR system summary is a must: http://www.gapatterson.org/

 

[Maris]

It is possible to change TLR focal lengths without changing lenses. Rolleiflexes did it with wide and tele Mutars. Image quality is supposed to be good with a bit of stopping down. There were wide and tele auxiliary lens sets for other TLRs that may still be findable. Here is an example done with a fisheye converter screwed onto my TLR:
Lake Doonella Overcast.
Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC III VC FB, image size 18.4 cm diameter, from a Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Seagull 4A103A twin lens reflex camera fitted with a Marexar Ultrawider auxiliary lens and #25 red filter.

 

[Alan Gales]

If you want to learn anything about Mamiya TLRs, Graham Patterson's comprehensive Mamiya TLR system summary is a must: http://www.gapatterson.org/

Thanks for posting this, Matt. I didn't run across Graham's summary when doing my research.

I see you used the 135mm for weddings. I plan on getting one of those for portraits!

 

[Kirks518]

I've owned and used both the C220 and the C330. All of the above posts are correct; you can't go wrong with either.

As for the differences between the two, I found them to be significant enough to warrant selling the C220 and keeping the C330.

Here's why:

• Bellows Exposure Compensation. The C220 requires you to look at the scale on the side of the camera to figure out the bellows exposure compensation. You have to translate the curves that correspond to the lens you're using, and where that curve points to on the scale telling you how much to compensate. In the C330, there is a red flag that appears that points to the numbered etchings (1x, 1.5x, 2x, etc) on the ground glass for the required compensation.
• Parallax Compensation. Much like the Bellows Exp Comp, on the C220 you have to look at the scale on the side, determine the exposure compensation, and then look at the (unmarked) lines on the GG, and then what is above that line is outside of the image area. On the C330, the red flag not only points to the bellows exposure compensation, but it also the line in which the area above it will be outside of the image. So in both cases (bellows exposure and parallax compensation) the C220 requires you to compose, focus, then look at the side, then re-compose, then take your shot. With the C330, it's all right there on the ground glass, so it's compose, focus, shoot. A much better way to go IMO.
• Shutter button and shutter locks. The C220 has one shutter button only, and no shutter lock. The C330 has a shutter button on the side, and another one on the front bottom. May not be really important, but it does give the shooter options. The C330 also has a sliding shutter lock that is very useful. I've accidentally wasted a few frames here and there pulling the C220 out of the bag. Has yet to happen with the C330.
• Ground Glass calibration. I had to replace the foam on both, and it was tons easier on the C330. I can't remember exactly what the issue was with the C220, but the way the C330 is designed, focus calibration doesn't change with the foam deterioration.
• Film Loading. This may not matter if you only shoot 120 or 220, but on the C220, there is an extra button you have to switch to the type of film loaded to get the correct number of frames. The C330 does this automatically.
• Weight. The C330 weighs more, but not enough (in my opinion) to warrant loosing the added features.

Those are the main differences between the two bodies, and as I said before, I found the C330 an 'easier' camera to use with the added features. The biggest for me was the parallax compensation being right there in the viewfinder. It's also a more precise indication of the parallax then the 'guesstimating' required on the C220.

Now, if you ask me about the C330, C330f, and the C330s, I'll still recommend the original C330. I don't feel the differences in those justify the added cost of the f and s over the plain C330.

Hope that helps!

 

[rowghani]

thx guys.. god i hate heavy cameras lol

anybody have experience with a yashica 124 g?

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I and a few others who are members of an Art Photography group have a show coming up in April, and most of my work there was shot using the C330. More details to follow shortly, but here is a taste:

 

[Alan Gales]

thx guys.. god i hate heavy cameras lol

anybody have experience with a yashica 124 g?

Heavy? Sure, the C220 is heavier than the Yashica TLR but it is very comparable in weight to a Hasselblad. I thought my Hasselblad feather weight after owning an RZ67.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I've also owned and used a Yashica Mat-124G since purchasing one new at the end of their production run. I still have it in beautiful condition.

Unlike the Mamiyas, the shutter is internal and thus much quieter. It's a whisper compared to the much louder metallic TING! of the Mamiya blue dot shutters.

But one of the biggest not-so-well-known issues with the 124G is that they are also known for outgassing inside the film chamber. It seems the original lubricants used in the shutter tended to outgas over time when the camera was stored unopened for long periods (many months?).

This resulted in a residual haze being deposited on the outside of the rear lens element inside the chamber. Sort of an unexpected and unappreciated internal low contrast and soft focus feature. No damage was done. The haze just needed to be cleaned off when it happened in order to restore image clarity.

Mine needed the haze removal twice before I started storing the camera in a clean and sealed brown paper (lunch) bag with the hinged door left slightly open. This allowed air to circulate, but kept dust out.

If the camera was not stored closed for long periods the problem did not arise. Apparently just opening and closing the back for normal film loading was sufficient to clear the air.

I've seen 124Gs sold cheap "for parts only" because the owners unknowingly claimed the back lens had fungus, which they described as "haze". Something to maybe keep in mind if you end up looking for one.

Ken

 

[Kirks518]

Well, since you asked....

I also own a Yashica 124G. Yup, it's light. Yup, it gives really nice images. But other than using auxiliary lenses, there is no lens alternative, and the lens is only f/3.5. While a very nice camera, compared to the Mamiya's, the Yashica is feature-poor.

The Yashica gives very nice images. The Mamiya's give great images. I also think the recent jump in pricing of the 124G is unwarranted.

 

[Paul Howell]

i have both a G and 2 4 element Ds. I like the D, wind rather then crank advance, shutter needs to be cocked but makes easy to do a double exposure.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The Yashica gives very nice images. The Mamiya's give great images.

The Yashinon lenses on 124Gs are capable of rendering outstanding images. And the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is a mere 2/3 of a stop. Not significant in normal use, as most rarely expose with a wide open lens.

However, if one is looking for another advantage of any Mamiya TLR over any Yashica (or Rolleiflex), here's one. The Mamiyas were all designed with a straight-through film feed path. The Yashicas and Rolleiflexes were not. They both incorporate tight 90-degree film path direction changes by sharply bending the film over tiny chrome roller bars.

This design choice opens the possibility of leaving a partially exposed roll of film in-camera for extended periods* where it will take a set while under tension across that roller. Then when finally wound to the next frame, if the spacing is not precisely perfect (usually it's not for any TLR as there are no film advance sprocket holes), that "bump" can negatively affect film flatness if it falls within the film gate for the next exposure.

Some users of these roller bar TLRs reportedly wind two frames (wasting the first) for critical images, just to prevent this issue. I have seen this very problem occur in my 124G after removing a partial roll that had remained inside for a couple of months. But it is impossible for it to occur in my Mamiya over any length of time.

Many here will complain mightily about the slightly larger size of the Mamiyas without realizing why they actually are larger. What one buys for the price of that slightly larger body is the uncompromised straight-through reel-to-reel film path.

It's one of the main reasons I chose a Mamiya TLR.

Ken

* ...or less. One fellow APUG member has reported testing and seeing the problem in mere minutes. As in, between frames during the normal pace of using the camera in a single session.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Minolta Autocords also have a straight-through film feed path, and are excellent cameras as well (no interchangeable lenses though, like most TLRs).

 

[Roger Cole]

I have a Yashica 124, pre G model. The G stands for Gold as that model had gold plated flash contacts. The style changed in that the G model has much more black while mine has lots of (good looking) chrome. The internals are different in the film wind and the way 12 or 24 exposures are selected.

I have not noticed the film curl issue but I have not looked for it, and that's the kind of thing that could easily be overlooked or mistaken for missed focus or such. I will check - but as soon as the roll of film that's in it is finished I plan to send it to Mark Hama here in the Atlanta area anyway. Mark just repaired my M645 Pro and though the Yashica seems to be working ok (a couple of times it didn't stop at 12 exposures when the roll was done, leading to a few blank shots - apparently it "thought" it had 220 or something though I had the pressure plate set correctly, but it hasn't done that in over a year) I figure a CLA by the go-to guy for these cameras is a good investment.

It does tend to flare when shooting into backlight. This can be improved by adding improved flocking inside as that's the issue, not the lens, but I haven't done so. It's rare that I notice it and on at least one shot it worked out well anyway.

Otherwise it's a fun little camera to shoot, produces good results, and always get smile and appreciative looks. I had it the alternative-history convention Anachrocon last month and it was widely admired. One person who saw me shoot with it and wind the film literally started and said, "holy $h1t! It's functional!"

 

[trythis]

Yashica 12 is the 124 without the ability to shoot 220 film and may be cheaper. No 220 film stocks are being made today.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... here is a taste: View attachment 153261

Wonderful image - very nice.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Yashinon lenses on 124Gs are capable of rendering outstanding images. And the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is a mere 2/3 of a stop. Not significant in normal use, as most rarely expose with a wide open lens.

However, if one is looking for another advantage of any Mamiya TLR over any Yashica (or Rolleiflex), here's one. The Mamiyas were all designed with a straight-through film feed path. The Yashicas and Rolleiflexes were not. They both incorporate tight 90-degree film path direction changes by sharply bending the film over tiny chrome roller bars.

This design choice opens the possibility of leaving a partially exposed roll of film in-camera for extended periods* where it will take a set while under tension across that roller. Then when finally wound to the next frame, if the spacing is not precisely perfect (usually it's not for any TLR as there are no film advance sprocket holes), that "bump" can negatively affect film flatness if it falls within the film gate for the next exposure.

Some users of these roller bar TLRs reportedly wind two frames (wasting the first) for critical images, just to prevent this issue. I have seen this very problem occur in my 124G after removing a partial roll that had remained inside for a couple of months. But it is impossible for it to occur in my Mamiya over any length of time.

Many here will complain mightily about the slightly larger size of the Mamiyas without realizing why they actually are larger. What one buys for the price of that slightly larger body is the uncompromised straight-through reel-to-reel film path.

It's one of the main reasons I chose a Mamiya TLR.

Ken

* ...or less. One fellow APUG member has reported testing and seeing the problem in mere minutes. As in, between frames during the normal pace of using the camera in a single session.

I can't report the same issue in any of my three Rolleiflexes (2 2.8E models and a Tele). Not saying it can't/doesn't ever happen, just never happened to me, whether it was minutes, hours, or days. I occasionally get slightly different spacing between frames, but it's very consistent, and not based on stopping points in the roll. I could see the film taking a set if a roll sat in camera for weeks, but not minutes. Unless you're shooting expired, out-of-date film that has been stored so long that it is losing flexibility.