TLR's serious or nostalgic?

adrian_freire

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
66
Location
coruña, gali
Format
Multi Format
I own a yashica-mat 124g and I love it. I bought it for 165 euros in a local shop and is one of the best deals I ever made. I use it for street shooting, portraits, landscapes... I feel really comfortable viewing the image in a big square and I thik it helps me to compose in a different way than when I use slr or rangefinder. And the funny side of the camer is the the people reacts different when I use the tlr (at least here where I live) , they are not so shy or agressive, I dont know way but I love it.
 

adrian_freire

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
66
Location
coruña, gali
Format
Multi Format
You can usually attach a wide, tele or macro lens in the front of the camera so you can use different focal lengths with few stuff.
 

gchpaco

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
98
Format
Medium Format
TLRs are exceptionally versatile cameras; handheld, tripod, good for a lot of things. The position you traditionally handhold them at seems easier to be stable than up at your eye. The only limitation is a fixed lens (not the C330, which is a lot bigger and has interchangable lenses). While I have an SLR that is my "main camera", I still enjoy using the TLR a lot and it's certainly serious enough.
 

Charles Webb

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
1,723
Location
Colorfull, C
Format
Multi Format
For What it is worth, I have used Rollei, Mamia, Pentax a great deal, The rollei made the best negatives I have ever made, I went then to several Hasselblads and have never gotten the same quality negatives that I did with the Rollei. I still have the Hasselblads and a lots of lenses, but they in no way will compete with negatives I get from the Pentax 6x7. The results I am speaking of here are the results I personally have been able to achieve not here say or maybe. I have the negatives to back up my comments.

My Rollei negs are the sharpest I have ever made, My hasselblad negatives made with several different bodys and lenses(still own three) are very good, but not comparable with the Rollie or Pentax.

I owned several RB67's and liked the way they handled, but never was able to make l'st class negatives with them. The mirror slap in the Pentax
while being hand held during weddings etc. has never been a problem for me. I supposed I have hand held it for years, since I didn't know any better.

My Rolleiflexs three of them packed snugly in their Halliburton case deserted me for someone else off of the carousel at LAX . I have never replaced them.

My comments here are in no way a slap or slam at the products that have not performed for me to my expectations, I simply have related my experience using them for a lot of years makeing negatives with them.
I personally do not like the square format, but often have used it to aid in
telling my picture story. I much prefer a horizontal rectangle, but would not argue/debate one over the other.
 

rjs003

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
269
Location
Port Richey, Fl.
Format
Large Format
A TLR thread without my two cents, no way. I have three Yashica TLRs and when not shooting with my large format, it is the TLR that get used. Can't beat the quality of the glass and the feels of a real camera in your hands is something else. I do shoot a lot from a tripod, but that has more to do with my style of slow down photography then the camera's hand holding qualities. So for a low cost way into medium format, a good quality TLR is probably the best way to go.
 

Mongo

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
960
Location
Pittsburgh,
Format
Multi Format
One possibility: Find yourself an old Yashica-D with the Yashinon lens. (Make sure it's the Yashinon...the Yashica-D was available with a different lens that's not as good.) You'll get the camera for a song, and the negatives are amazing. I paid about US$70 for mine in like-new condition, and the negatives rival anything else I've shot in medium format (which covers quite a number of systems, including rangefinders and SLRs).

I love the fact that TLRs allow hand-holding of much slower shutter speeds than SLRs and even rangefinders (cradling the camera with two hands at waist level is a steadier position for me than holding the camera against my face). The ground glass image is plenty bright enough, and the camera doesn't move a bit when I fire the shutter.

TLRs aren't perfect for everything (no camera is), but they're a great way to get large, razor-sharp negatives from a small, inexpensive camera.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
I have acquired a Yashica D recently, and though it won't beat the Rolleis (argh! damn you, you shrewd buyers!!) it's an endless source of pleasure to shoot with. Its relative "oddity," when compared to a SLR, is something that builds bonds with your material. Provided that the quality is there, you won't regret it. Avoid the consumer-grade ones like old Kodak TLR Brownies, or cheap Agfa/Ansco, they usually don't have more than point-and-shoot quality (unless that's what you're looking for).

You absolutely want to find one that's been CLA'd recently; I found that many used dealers sell absolute crap at 150$+ just because it's a branded TLR.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Just to corroborate my last sayings: Henry's sells a 'Mat-124G for $US 275, with the following warning: "This camera is in excellent shape with the exception of the optics in the taking lens; there's fungus; will require professional cleaning. Also the back light seals are deteriorating and will require replacement. "

Oh, it's a piece of crap and the optics is ruined, but it's in excellent shape, you know?
 

bobfowler

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,441
Location
New Jersey,
Format
Multi Format

I hate to say this, but I bought my first Mat124G brand spankin' new (with case) in 1975 for $99.00 at Ann & Hope in Danvers, Massachusetts...

According to the online inflation calculator, those $99.00 1975 dollars would be $370.82 today!

OK, none of that really matters...
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format


Hm.. yeah, but yours actually WORKS, I suppose
 

bobfowler

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,441
Location
New Jersey,
Format
Multi Format
mhv said:
Hm.. yeah, but yours actually WORKS, I suppose
Click to expand...

A minor detail...
 

PB001

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Durham, Engl
Format
Multi Format
TLR....heaven!

If you've got the chance to get a Rollie or Mamiya or any of the decnet makes for a decent price I'd take his arm off! They may be nostalgic from a techi point of view, but that's only from one point of view....usually techi heads who can't work cameras unless they're fully automatic.

Photojournalists used TLR's professionally, accuratly and speedily for dozens of years before the 35mm was invented and for years afterward. With a little dedication they're fantastic cameras to use. I've used them in the past but haven't got access to one now, but if one came my way I'd snap it up. Once you've got your head round them and their querks you'll be in paradise!

I would say they're not just nostalgic, they're a serious piece of kit for anyone serious about photography!

Paul Berry
 

Nicole

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
2,562
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Format
Multi Format



Bob, WOW, I really looove that image. It speaks to me in many ways!!! Wish I had a table, pans and books like that!!!
Also could you explain to me what a TLR is and why it's different for ie. a Hasselblad 501c/m?
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,549
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I still shoot book covers and the past several years most of my sells were taken with a Yachica 124, and D. A twin lens reflex has 2 lens a viewing lens over a taking lens. A Hasselbald is a single lens reflex and has mirror. No mirror, lighter, rugged, easy to hand hold, and very quite. Because of the waist level viewing a TLR is great for shooting pets and children. I have used both Mamyia and Koncia TLR in the past and wish I had never sold the Konica. My D is about beaten to death, I gluded a series 5 filter adapter to the taking lens mount, dropped it 20 feet off a trail, and it still works. My D is one camera I will take anywhere any time and not give a second thought about trashing it.

Paul
 

bobfowler

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,441
Location
New Jersey,
Format
Multi Format
Nicole Boenig-McGrade said:
Bob, WOW, I really looove that image. It speaks to me in many ways!!! Wish I had a table, pans and books like that!!!
Also could you explain to me what a TLR is and why it's different for ie. a Hasselblad 501c/m?
Click to expand...

Thanks! That was taken in the room where Daniel Boone was born. It's a wonderful park near Birdsboro, Pennsylvania.

Jonathan beat me to answering your question about TLR's vs SLR's...
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
But the advantage of an SLR is that you see what the lens sees. With a TLR there is a potential problem of parallax error at close distances, so even TLRs that use some sort of parallax correction can't focus as close as an SLR--essentially the same problem a rangefinder camera has.
 

David H. Bebbington

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
Not quite true - a Mamiya TLR will focus to life size with its standard lens, and totally free of parallax with a Paramender device which raises the taking lens to the level of the viewing lens before a picture is taken. A Rollei TLR with genuine Rollei #2 close-up lenses (including the fat image-shifting lens for the camera viewing lens) will focus to 20 cm, again free of parallax.

What no one has mentioned yet is the HUGE advantage of TLRs for portraiture - you can view the subject AT the moment of exposure and know instantly whether you have got a good shot or the subject has blinked!

I think TLRs were the victims of fashion - they looked a bit old-fashioned and clunky. Paradoxically, the SLRs which replaced them became so heavy and bulky that it was then necessary to develop rollfilm rangefinder cameras for hand-holding, and even they weren't as light and compact as a Rollei TLR.
 

Mongo

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
960
Location
Pittsburgh,
Format
Multi Format
Nicole Boenig-McGrade said:
I want one!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, Nicole, you do.

I bought my Yashica-D on a lark...the price was too good to pass up. But now that I've had it for a while, I find that it's filled a hole in my shooting that nothing else can quite fill. Large, sharp negatives with little or no set-up, all happening so quietly that nobody notices. To do this previously I had to "shoot from the hip" with a rangefinder or with a Crown Graphic. Neither of those were terribly good ways to work.

(Of course, one can "shoot from the hip" with a medium format SLR...but after the first shot everyone knows what you're up to.)
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
4,089
Location
fairfield co
Format
Large Format
Go Ricoh!

I love my Ricoh TLR that I paid about $100 several years ago. And yes it does free me up from the tripod and all that. Load up some APX100 or Acros and you're in for quite a treat. I love just walking around NYC with it. Extremely liberating!
Regards, Peter
 

joeyk49

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
1,325
Location
New Jersey,
Format
Multi Format
Nicole: You've gotta get one!

I picked up not one, but two Yashicas, pretty much on a lark. I wanted to get into MF but wasn't about to spend the kind of money that a 'blad commands (even used).

I picked up a 124G on ebay for about $80.00. It arrived in pretty decent condition, except that the light meter housing flopped around on it. Thanks to a terrific fellow APUGer, thats no longer a problem. I picked up a "D" (whose shutter release I like better), just because...

My family looks at me cross-eyed, whenever I drag out the 124 at get togethers, but I'm hooked; it takes great photos! I'm still getting used to the waist level finder. It shows the opposite image, right to left, from what you actually see. But, once you get past it and work on composing the shot, it all works out fine.
 

PB001

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Durham, Engl
Format
Multi Format
Get one...you better believe it!

Nicole Boenig-McGrade said:
I want one!!!!!
Click to expand...

Hi Nicole,

I hope the some day soon you spot one for a decent price? If I had loads of money I'd buy two or three and send you one across, they an awsome piece of kit. I have a beat up old Lubitel which was a Russian very cheap end of the market TLR, but it was great for learning the principles on. If you can find one around they useually come in well under the £30 mark. Like I say they're not fantastic in quality but the give you a good working knowledge of the principles & techniques of TLR shooting.

I hope you find something...you'll definitly not regret it!

Paul Berry
 

David H. Bebbington

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
Must disagree here - the Lubitel was part of a KGB plot to drive imperialist warmongers and running dogs of capitalism crazy. It has a peculiar viewfinder copied from an old Voigtländer camera called a Brilliant which was a non-focusing viewfinder. The Lubitel viewfinder has had a very small and dim center spot added, which is the only part you can use for focusing, and is excruciatingly difficult to use. Buy a Lubitel and I guarantee you will throw it away in disgust and be put off TLRs for life.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
I'd also recommend staying away from the Lubitel and it's Chinese comrade, the Seagull. If you're looking for a decent TLR that's not too expensive, try a Minolta Autocord or Yashicamat.

"Lubitel" in Russian means "amateur." It wasn't part of a KGB plot exactly (I know you're being toungue-in-cheek, David), but it was part of a state campaign to encourage amateurism in the arts, in opposition to the decadent bourgeois elitism and rootless cosmopolitanism that we're all familiar with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…