finding out about TLR's...

I never understood the attraction of TLR's. Only way to find out is using one I guess so I got myself a Mamiya C220 with the 65/3.5 lens. It isn't in mint

condition, rather well used but everything seems to work. Have to check the shutter times and replace a few light seals that became sticky. Belows

looked fine, that was my main check. Compared to the price of Rollei's this was cheap enough to take a gamble.

 

Off now reading the manual.

Don't forget about the seals under the focusing screen, can cause slight focussing error.

This spot has a lot of information on Mamiya TLR cameras:

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq-1.html

Here is the Table of Contents:

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq-contents.html

I had a pair many decades ago with 50 80 135 180 250 lenses.

 

A Rollie lens puts them to shame.

<p align="justify">

<TT>I never understood the attraction of TLR's</i></TT>

<br>It's good to find out what the attraction of a TLR to yourself, as I believe that everyone has his/her own reason to be attracted to TLR and work with it.<br>

<br>Speaking for myself, the attraction of such an old camera-type that has been for ages on the market is the feeling of having a piece of history in my handpalms dated when life was so simple and the photographers were creative. No one complained about not having the latest electronic gadgets when the photographic result was less succesful. People then just learned what photography was (and is) by plunging into the harsh practical use of such a camera. No frills, no nothing. Just understanding the matter. Film was expensive (and still is compared to digital workflow), so one had to manage to get the best picture in just one or two shots. This slowing down effect appers to be a good method of learning to see, to look around, to recognise the photographic moments, to compose and to train the best timing etc. etc. And to be honest, photography - either it's done with the nowadays modern gear or old dinosaur like a TLR - has still the same elements and ingredients in order to create a succesful or less-succesful image. Yes, I'm still learning, even at this age :-)<br>

 

<br>Good luck with your exploration on TLR.</p>

The big attraction to me in a TLR is the waist level finder.

 

With a rangefinder camera, I'm looking more or less directly at the subject, and taking the picture is sort of like aiming a gun, point it in the right direction and fire. The impression I have is of a direct view of the scene, not of the photograph that will result.

 

With an eye level SLR it's a bit more image-oriented, I can see where the edges of the image will be with some precision, and get an idea of depth of field; but I'm still sort of 'aiming' the camera and in most cases the image is covered all over with focus aids or blinking lights or needles and numbers.

 

But with the TLR, I'm not even looking toward the subject: I'm looking down at my image. Being laterally reversed is actually a benefit, as it further detaches me from the noise and activity of the scene around me and forces me to adjust the camera in terms of the composition on the screen, not on the stuff going on around me.

 

Obviously this is not a benefit for every photo: it works a lot better on a country lane than at a high school basketball game. But in cases where the composition of the image is more important than the journalistic content (and, of course, where you don't need a powerful tele or wide angle lens), the TLR will yield a much higher percentage of keepers.

I'll take a look at the seals under the screen, hadn't tought about those. The glass needed a cleaning

I have read the relevant parts of the G.A. Patterson site, there I also found the links to the manual.

 

''A Rollie lens puts them to shame.''

 

I can only hope it because if they didn't for that price...

Once you get a small TLR like the Yashicamats, cheap n light, compared to the Mamiya tanks, you'll be hooked for life. Surprisingly enough the Yashies have very good lenses on em.

 

The Mamiyas otoh are very sharp n very relaiabe. It's a truely professional camera. Nice thing is the assortment of lenses still at a low price these days. The build quality is unbeatable. The simplicity of the camera is so beautiful as well.

 

Yeah, Rollie keeps it's reputaion but that's all it is. I repair cameras and see their guts, nothing special about Rolies from any other TLR that can justify the price. Lenses aren't any different than any other German or well made Jap lens in it's class.

 

I know I'll get alot of heat for this, but anyone chalenging the difference in quality, has to back it up with not their subjective observations or something they heard. Show me the autopsy results! It's still a dark box to hold n advance film with a lens on the front. The person holding it is has more effect on the pictures than the camera does. Better cameras don't make better photographers.

''The person holding it is has more effect on the pictures than the camera does. Better cameras don't make better photographers.''

 

How true, even a Holga is a better camera then I'm a photographer...

The Tlr's are great informal portrait cameras. Look at all the photos taken with a TLR in the Time exposure page in Popular Photography. They are less noisy than a SLR. And, at medium to long distance shots, just as accurate in showing the image that will be photograph. They can be used handhold at slower shutter speeds. And, the groundglass viewing puts the image in a sort of 2 dimensional view. As, the photo will be.The Mamiyas, have more lens verstatility than the Rolleis. And as such have a better value for the dollar.I agree with Paul Ron about the Rollei vs Mamiya. Buying a Rollei, a person has to spend alot just to get one lens and a name.

The Mamiya TLR's were the wedding standard in the bad old days (1960-1970's). I can recall old time shooters having two

around their

necks, each with a Metz strobe! And then there were those single brackets that held two cameras!

 

 

Stopped down they will give any other 6x6 SLR or TLR's optics a good run for the

money.

A TLR is the only camera that is the best of both an SLR and a rangefinder. It is like an SLR because you are viewing

through a lens that is matched to the taking lens. Yet it is like a rangefinder because there is no mirror to flap and the

shutter can synch at all speeds and is very quiet. So it is the best of both worlds. The only design like that.

The Mamiya TLR lenses are every bit as good as the Rolleis. I've had them both. The Mamiyas are heavy & awkward & require cocking the shutter before you shoot (except the 330), The Rolleis are lighter, ergonomic, & built to last forever. The Yashicas are good too but not built as well as the Rolleis.

 

Everyone should experience a TLR. It's in some ways, the most natural & relaxed way of shooting.

'...require cocking the shutter before you shoot...'

 

What camera will shoot w/o cocking the shutter?

I first bought a Rollei (35E) and now added a Ricohflex VII. Very small and light, simple mechanics and a amzing sharp Anastigmat lens (80/3.5). Bought it for ~ 90 $ ...

This thread inspired me to go fetch my C330 out of the cabinet... I'm not sure if the 220 uses the same lens sets as the 330, but if it does check out the 80mm 2.8. Dang that thing is sharp. Also, don't you love the close focus ability of the bellows setup? The 330's exposure comp/parallax adjustment needle thingy in the viewfinder is just an excellent design. Also, the ground glass on the thing makes my 5D's viewfinder look like a squinty piece of junk. As I handle it this thing is just calling me to go downtown and shoot a roll of Neopan. Too bad I have to go to work...<div></div>

This thread just pushes me closer to buying one of these TLRs. I wish I had one now. GRRR.

From what I remember the lenses are compatible with the C330, there is only one exception and it is the other way round. I would love the parallax indicator, but that is what makes the differnce between the C220 and C330. So close up work is harder with the C220. But close up work isn't my intention.

 

Ground glass is OK but I miss something like a split prism as I find it difficult to judge correctness of focus. Certainly when held at waist level, then I don't see it with or without glasses.

 

I appreciate the lack of noise of the shutter, but why the film advance makes a lot more noise is something I don't get.

I've had the C330 and the C330F. Now, I have the C220. All of the lenses are compatible with any of the series.The C330's are self cooking. The C220's are not. For close focusing, they are best used on a tripod with the paramender.

That should be self cocking.

Johan,if your film advance is very noisy, it might need repaired. It should have a very light rachet noise. I bought mine

at a low cost. The bottom was missing some screws and the film winding knob was missing some parts. So,I called

Mamiya and they sent some replacemt parts.

My winding knob has the rachet sound going in reverse. But, it won't move forward untill I take a picture.

Here is something not often mentioned about TLR's...

 

They are now conversation pieces. I meet interesting people all the time, just by walking about with my Mamiya C22. I've met young people that have no clue what the "brick" is around my neck, and former press photographers that know what it is. I've been told stories by those photographers (while they could barely contain their smile) of events well before my time. I never get those reactions with a SLR of any type.

 

Show a kid the ground glass and wait for the look of awe...

 

They are magical little boxes. :)

One other item about cameras like the TLR's, being manual, they put the thinking back in photography. Which is one thing that so many modern day cameras lack. Being autoeverything.

I like shooting infrared in a TLR. The filter is so opaque I'd see nothing through a SLR but the TLR viewfinder stays bright and clear.