First MF camera? Buying off eBay?

P. Jeffrey,<br><br>Two thingies.<br>Perspective does not depend on field of view either. An important point, since mentioning that it does suggests that a different frame size also comes with a different perspective. Which of course is not so.<br>And perspective does not depend on diffraction or lens faults. Any lens, good or bad, at any f-stop, with little or lots of diffraction, produces the same perspective.<br><br>Asher,<br><br>I totally agree that the handholding TLR vs SLR thingy is ridiculous. What is ridiculous about that are the particular claims that were made on the TLR-side of this here.<br>We can debate the sharpness issue further (and despite that you rather not worry about it, there are indeed relevant and real/"significant" points to make. People who "get out more" know that ;-) ).<br>But - as said before - it is not the main issue.<br><br>Off-topic it is not, since it was put forward to underpin claims that a TLR would be a better choice than a SLR. It may be, but not for that 'reason'.<br>But most of all, it's not off-topic because the OP asked about the 'handholdability' of TLRs. ;-)

QG, you wrote: <i>"We can debate the sharpness issue further (and despite that you rather not worry about it,

there are indeed relevant and real/"significant" points to make. People who "get out more" know that ;-) )"</i><p>

 

Can't you leave well enough alone? ;-) Please do not mis-interpret my error and misunderstanding as a reflection

that I don't get out enough, but rather that I am at times too busy to think straight. I shoot plenty and I have

been published in newspapers and magazines. I also study photographic works and approaches of many photographers,

both PJ and other artists, and I can tell you that in only a fraction of instances do these hyper-analytical

quantifications of sharpness really matter. Worry? The only worries I have are for the well-being of my family

and friends. When it comes to photography, I'd rather enjoy the art of making photographs my way, both

documentary and personal work, rather than get bogged down in relatively insignificant issues. BUT to each

his/her own, so if supreme sharpness turns you on, live long and prosper, and may the force be with you ;-)

Asher,<br><br><i>"Can't you leave well enough alone? ;-)"</i><br><br>I can. As said before, it is not an issue.

Unless someone makes it an issue. And then... then the answer is "no". ;-)<br><br>And do not get me wrong: i am

not 'against' handholding. Not

at all. And i certainly do not believe that sharpness is the begin all end all of photography. If i did, i would have

been 'through with' photography many, many years ago.<br>I'm just against false claims, and the way false claims

are used in forums like this, where people come to find good advice.<br><br>Finally, i do apologize for using

your "get out more"-thingy so often. But i couldn't leave it be, found that indeed too hard to resist. I think you would

have too! ;-)<br>So i'm glad to see that people who do not agree with you now may have his or her own instead. You

can get out too much too, you know, so...phew! Thanks! ;-)

QG: True, perspective does not technically depend on FOV, which really just sets the size of the screen onto which the scene is

projected. FOV is just about magnification, but since your screen has a size set by the format, it, too, matters, and sets what you

capture and so affects what may more loosely be called the "photographic perspective" in an artistic sense.

 

My point about referring to images formed by lenses rather than diffractionless pinholes was about how the image looks, including DOF,

shape of the entrance pupil, etc. -- it isn't just geometric perspective and magnification and so under typical circumstances,

format/focal-length matters.

 

You may now have the last word.

John:

 

Back to your question, my experience is yes, a TLR is a very good starting point to MF.

 

I often use my TLR's handheld, but I strongly recomend you to have a good tripod and to use it when you want to take pictures below 1/125.

 

I've heard that the Autocord is a fine camera but, of course, Rolleis are better and stronger. I have two and also a Yashica Mat 124G. All of them take excellent pictures, but from a mechanical point of view, the Rollei stands out, clearly.

 

If you can't afford one or if you don't want to spend what a good Rollei costs, a good Autocord seems to be a good choice, at least for me.

 

Mamiya's TLR's are also excellent cameras and have the advantage of interchangeable lenses, but they're also a lot heavier than the rest of TLR's and this could be a problem. Before buying one I suggest you to have one in your hands and see if you can deal with its weight.

 

Good luck!

All this long silly thread aside. A TLR is easier to get acceptable hand held shots from than a SLR. Anyone who thinks

differently either drinks way too much coffee or hasn't used a TLR much. Just the fact of holding the camera at waist level

puts it at a more stable place on your body. It does take experiments and practice to get good at hand holding but you will

find the TLR is better for it. All the rants to establish the opposite are motivated by a need for personal delusion.

Dennis

Many of the posts I've read state that TLR's are better for handholding because of their waist level finders.Keep in mind that SLR's also have the ability to use waist level finders, which allows them to be held against your chest/waist just as you would a TLR. Also keep in mind that it is not a law that every TLR has a waist level finder. It is not uncommon to see them with laterally corrected prisms, which you hold up to your eye as you would a 35mm SLR. I'd also like to add that, in my opinion, pressing the shutter button will cause more movement than the largest, most undampened mirrors will.

 

One more point, the mirror slap on a medium format SLR isn't an earthquake. I feel that many posters here have exaggerated the mirror slap. I have used my RB67, which is probably one of the largest MF SLR's out there, handheld down to 1/30 good results. If I really wanted to, I'm sure 1/15 would be okay, but I prefer to use my tripod.

 

Which brings me to another point about tripods. The main purpose of a tripod is not only to prevent movement and blur, but also to compose, and simply aid the shooter. When I shoot a skateboarding or rollerblading competition, my camera will never leave my tripod. This way, my pictures are always level and composed exactly as I want them, shot after shot, even when I started to get antsy a few hours into the event. Even when using my D2X, I would keep it on a tripod.

<i>"All this long silly thread aside. A TLR is easier to get acceptable hand held shots from than a SLR. Anyone who thinks differently [...]"</i><br><br>[sigh...]<br><br>Dennis,<br><br>Listen to Chris. He's a sensible man.

Sensible enough to think he can achieve printable results at 1/15th a second with an RB? wow.

 

Geuss those handheld RB shots dont get blown up that big because I have it hard to believe that they would stand up to much scrutiny.

I don't think I've ever printed a handheld shot slower 1/250, and the largest print I have made was an 8x10. I'm stuck using my school's darkroom for now, so I don't have the ability to make prints as often as I'd like. I suppose if I printed all of my shots to relatively large sizes I would have a better informed opinion. Sorry to offend.

I'm not going to get into about this hand holdability TLR vs SLR issue. But, this Mamiya TLR's being too heavy? I'm not some superman, but, back in the 70's I had a Mamiya 500DTL, found the 35 neg too small. So, I bought a C330 and 330F with the grip holder. I carried them very easily. Never found the weight to be an issue. Having the RB , C220 and Universal, I would't carry any of them without the grip holder. I carried the RB at a bike meet, and didn't find the weight to be an issue with the grip holder.But, for all day, the TLR or Universal would be easier.

Chris,

 

Sorry. Perhaps my response was a bit harsh.

 

I geuss the reason I got into medium format, back when it was exorbitantly expensive for a "system" from any

of the players, was to make large prints. Using MF SLR cameras handheld at low shutter speeds never cut it for me. Of course if you are shooting not to print large and or dont care about critical sharpness at big print sizes then my comments have no meaning. Also, its possible for stuff like Fashion that it just doesnt matter and people shoot handheld Medium Format for the tonality.. in these instances its understandable so I digress.

 

Cheers.

About TLR's weight, a Mamiya 330 weights around 1800g, my two Rolleis weights 1200g (the 2,8f weights the same than the 3,5f but this one feels more comfortable to use, more equilibrated) and the Yashica even less, about 1000g. Just to compare, my Leica IIIf weights around 600g, about the same that my Nikon N70 without lens.

 

As you may see, there is a difference. Of course, I heard about people who felt comfortable with Mamiyas TLR's or Pentaxs 67's (another big horse), but this is probably an exception, not the average rule for the average guy.

 

John ask us about a TLR camera that could be used -comfortably- to take handheld photos. IMHO, in that case, (high) weight could be a problem, not to mention that, if you travel, you have to carry the camera plus the lenses and a tripod.

 

So, don't misundertood me: I think the Mamiya is an excellent camera, surely one of the best. But it really has this disadvantage, so, if you're not a big or strong guy, you should consider this issue before buying one.

Maybe to some the Mamiya TLR is too heavy. But, I've seen in various publications of the Mamiya Medium Format cameras of the 60'-70's. That many newspapers used the Mamiya TLR exclusively.

With all the advantages that they offer, interchangeable lenses and built in bellows for close-ups. I feel that a person should at least consider them. And, about the travel part, if a person would carry a tripod for the Mamiya, then, why would they not carry one for any other camera? For the average guy. Back in the 70's when I had the 2 C330's I was 5'10"-5'11" and weighed 134 lbs. I'm not saying to buy the Mamiya TLR, As, I said, at least think about it.

Thanks for all the feedback, I didn't think I'd get this much so fast! I was a little busy the last week or so, thats why I didn't reply right away.

"I'm not saying to buy the Mamiya TLR, As, I said, at least think about it."

 

Me too Jack. In my opinion, John should seriously consider a Mamiya as his first TLR. It offers one of the best -if not the best- quality/price ratio in the market.

 

For me, the main rival of the Mamiya in this "quality/price ratio" race is the Yashica Mat 124 (not the "G" model, their predecessor): it offers good quality with a relatively low price. It have the plus that can use some Rollei gadgets like those excellent close up lenses and even offer those not so good (to say the least) Yashinon Tele and Wide Angle add on lenses ...

 

I didn't have the chance to try a Minolta Autocord, so I cannot say it's better or worst than a Yashica. I read many articles that said it's an excellent camera, but I really don't know.

 

Check this opinions John:

 

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/0007eQ

 

http://www.wctatel.com/web/crye/a-cord.htm

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/autocord.html