Why TLRs?

<p>They look cool!</p>

<p>Since I bought my 1961 Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar, it's been a torrid love affair. Always a terrific topic of conversation, it's a pleasure to use, and I love the feel of the photographs. For some reason, it also gives me the air of a serious artist too. That's what the models tell me, anyway...: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=773526">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=773526 </a></p>

 

<p>Even though I have 2 4x5's, 2 medium format SLR's, a Mamiya Universal and alot of old cameras. I still have a Mamiya C220, and about 9 Yashica TLR's in 120 and 127 formats. TLR's are great cameras. They do the job well. The reverse image applies to some other cameras, too. Not, just TLR's.<br>

TLR's were great for children photographers.<br>

I liked the Royal-x.</p>

<p>I have a Rolleiflex Automat now. The black and white negatives from it are addicting. </p>

<p>love my yashicamat 124 g, bought new in 86 or so. Plain and simple, cant take the lens off, like for hiking.<br>

I had an evening of formal portraits with the future inlaws years ago, everyone was impressed with my monolight, stand, salad bowl diffuser, etc. Yes, I had the flash syc set on the flashbulb, not X, all the rolls were blank. Fairly embarassing but they think the developer used the wrong chemicals :). I made up for it shooting lots of 35mm and digital in the years since though. :) I ran a roll of Kodachrome through it in the mid 80's, wowee.</p>

<p>My first camera was my Moms TLR a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye.<br>

http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835"><em>Joseph Wisniewski</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 05, 2009; 11:08 p.m.</em></p>

<p ><em>Igor, I just press the "liveview" button and compose looking at my infrared scene, in B&W, with infrared correct focusing...</em></p>

<p ><strong>Hi Joseph,</strong></p>

<p ><strong>Yes, I know. Digital is easier - but only after you spend big bucks on the conversion.</strong></p>

<p ><em>And back in the flim days, I used to tape a carefully cut piece of Wratten 87 filter (actually, more typically the Lee polyester equivalent)</em></p>

<p ><strong>It's a great idea. On the other hand, polyester filters are poor equivalents to glass.</strong></p>

<p ><strong>In the end, you can't match the ease of use and image quality when you compare shooting a Rolleiflex and a 35mm SRL - as far as IR film is concerned.</strong></p>

<p ><strong>Another point about TLRs. In Europe, people often stop me to express their interest in the camera. (Europe is almost 100% digital now.) While I was shooting a parade in Paris some people were snapping pictures of my Rolleiflex )))</strong></p>

<p>Tough cameras too - very little protruding from them to get dented/snapped off. My C220 is a tank and I love the lens.</p>

<p>Well, I've a pair of Mamiya C220's and I love 'em. I find them easier to carry than the Hasselblad, and because they were so inexpensive, I'm more inclined to use them out in the street. I have Porofinders for both and, while the view is a bit dim with f/3.5 and slower lenses, they are quite useable. The waist level finder isn't bad either. In some ways I actually prefer it to the WL finder of the Hasselblad. The optics for these cameras are first rate, and give up little to the equivalent optics of the 'blad. Did I mention that they can be had for stupid money compared to the Zeiss glass for the 'blad? You can set yourself up quite nicely with square format medium format for a few hundred dollars, and the image quality you get over 35 mm. gear is far better. </p>

<p>With TLRs there's no mirror-slap. Not only can you shoot at a slower shutter speed, but they are almost silent, very much like rangefinders.</p>

<p>A really big fan of my C330F too.<br>

The results are just great and the square picture format does give a different way of looking at the world.<br>

They can also be a cheap roiute into the medium format game. My C330F with an 80mm and 55mm lens set me back only £120. It was a bit beat but the glass was clean and 100% mechnically sound, also 12 months warranty!<br>

I wrote three part in depth review on my blog recently:<br>

http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/mamiya-c330f-review-part-1/</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2662600151_3c9d527ec1_o.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="779" />Using IR filters on a TLR is a huge advantage. The Statue of Liberty in Paris, France. Rolleiflex + Hoya R72, Rollei 400 infrared film</p>

<p>I had a C330F in High School and college (until I needed tuition $$ and foolishly sold it). After years of lamenting that decision - I bought (on this site thank you Photo Net) both a C33 and a C220 - with 5 out of the 7 lenses available (I don't use a 55mm or 65mm). I picked up a paramender (really useful gadget for the bag) and several other goodies (including a Non-metered glass prism) for eye-level viewing (I'm 6'5" btw).<br>

My favorite encounter with the setup was several years ago at the Denver Bontanical Gardens. I took a day off in May to go photograph the flowers - I was not aware that it was school field trip day as well - so as I was taking a portrait of som poppies (Camera on Tripod - bellows extended, WLF on and open - light meter dangling from around my neck) a group of 2nd graders walked by me. A little girl suddenly exclaimed "Shush-there a photograper working here" (boy did I laugh at that) and the kids (who had never seen a TLR setup before - asked what I was taking pictures of - so I asked the teacher if I could let the kids look thru the viewfinder - and when she agreed - we had the kids line up and peek thru to see the poppies in the ground glass (I had alreay taken the picture). I hope I helped start at least 1 new shutterbug - but it was a great memory for me.<br>

I also shoot with an RB67(ProS), EOS (film and Digital) but the Mamiya TLR's are my favorites for truly " Capturing the moment."<br>

Happy shooting!</p>

<p>I replied to this thread a couple of days ago, and guess what I found in a second-hand shop in Crystal Palace, South London today:<br /> <br /> An extremely good-condition Rolleiflex T with perfectly clean Tessar 3.5 lens and in apparently excellent working trim, including the meter. The price--£65 (approximately $87 US)! The proprietor wanted 80 quid for it, but agreed to knock 15 pounds off the price in return for a nice Zenit TTL, lens & flash that a friend of my studio partner had "thoughtfully" given him, and which he had tossed in the rubbish bin. He's a young fellow, age 20, and practically has an allergic reaction when you mention film around him...nice camera, but I wasn't going to use it, either.<br /> <br /> Of course, it served a *very* useful purpose this afternoon! The gray leatherette on the Rolleiflex looks wicked, it's loads lighter than my C330, and I can't wait to get it out and run some film through it. The shop proprietor's comment was, "You don't see those turn up every day."<br /> <br /> No, indeed! And not for that price, I would hazard.<br /> <br /> I'm gonna keep my Mamiya, because it will come in handy in the studio, but I'm hoping this Rollei will serve me well out on the street. And considering what I paid for it, I'm not gonna be shy about using it out there, either!<br /> <br /> Parenthetically--you know, I've always figured that if someone tried to mug me while I was using my TLR I would either (a) hit them with the camera, as it would probably do more damage to them than to the camera (I read a thread somewhere on the internet, might have been here, where a grizzled photojournalist was relating how he did exactly that to some apparently crazed individual at an anti-war demonstration back in the 60s, and then went right on shooting; so maybe adding offensive/defensive weapon to the list of features of a TLR might be in order) or (b) explain apologetically that the camera was so old that it could only take black and white film (I've had to enlighten *several* people that you can indeed use colour film in a TLR!) and so was practically worthless to anyone except me, who was emotionally attached to it. And maybe even shed a single tear to sell the act.<br /> <br /> I can't imagine too many teenage muggers having any clue what an old Rollei is worth--and if they did, I'd try to see if I couldn't win them over to friendship instead...they would obviously be a person of perception, and far too intelligent to be engaging in a life of street robbery!</p>

<p>I'm not sure I'd thwack a mugger with a Rollei...they're lovely switch watches. However, with a C330F in hand, I'm sure one could club the peratrator and take his/her picture for evidence after administering a thorough beat down.</p>

<p>Congrats on the find. Those old TLRs have a strange magic.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Douglas Elrick said: "Those old TLRs have a strange magic." And they do. <br>

I have an old Seagull - a 4B! I bought it for $50 and the lens is wonderful and pin sharp. I still use it to get big trannies for making poster prints. It is light, easy to use, has a wonderful bright viewfinder and I love it. <br>

I also have a Hasselblad 553ELX, 3 Canon DSLRs and a Canon T90 film camera (used for long astronomical shots). The TLR stands up with the best of them.</p>

<p>Hi, I assume you already bought the camera. I just got my 124G today. After working with RB67 and M645Super and comparing those to 124G, I've to confirm the above findings that the 124G is a lot less robust (than I thought.) There are more plastic components than I expected too! The camera is nice though. I will shoot with it for a while before deciding its fate.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

A bit late to the party, but as I have posted elsewhere, I have used TLRs extensively (many Rollies and Mamiya C330s) and note one TLR was forgotten: The Koni-Omegaflex M. It needs a reverse prism viewer to be a true TLR as it works more like a view camera, but it qualifies as it has two lenses: viewing and taking. It is big and heavy, but the fact is optically the Konica Hexanars are every bit as sharp as my Zeiss/Schneider glass and better than the Mamiyas, which were very good indeed. Let me list the pros:<br>

-6x7, so you get more out of the negative, as 6x6 after cropping leaves you with a 6x4.5 usable negative<br>

-4 interchagable lenses: a 58 wide, a 90 normal and 2 teles of 135 and 180. Crazy sharp and great wide open! Absolutley the equal to Zeiss, but in a bigger package.<br>

-Interchagable backs in 120 or 220 that slams a film plate flat on the film for optimum flatness. Careful interlocks so you can't accidently ruin a shot. The backs can be a weak spot as they are somewhat complex and over time get worn. (the rest of the camera is solid aluminum: wonderfully designed, simple and indestructible)<br>

-Advancing the film cocks the shutter, flattens the film with a push-pull I find faster than a crank: this was designed for press and wedding photographers who needed speed. A well designed grip helps hold the beast, but it is heavy.<br>

-Automatic pararllax correction via a moving mask in the viefinder, set when a lensboard is fitted and the camera "Reads" which lens it it. Brilliant!<br>

When I want to travel light, I take a Rollie E2, soemtimes a wide mutar and/or a telerolleiflex: but all that together is a big, heavy package. If I plan to use a tripod, then is the versatility of the Koni for me.</p>