Medium Format - TLR vs SLR Question(s)

[julian_goresko]

I'm new to the world of medium-format cameras and am curious what sorts of

differences there are in using a TLR vs an SLR besides the actual shape of the

camera itself. Are TLRs better or is it just a shape preference? Thanks for

any input. I'm trying to learn as much as I can before making my first purchase...

[rustys pics]

10 Years ago I grappled with this question and bought a Hasselblad 501c. A gorgeous camera. About a year later I came into possesion of a Rolleiflex 2.8E TLR. Since then I've used the Rollei about three times as often as the Hasselblad. It's smaller, lighter, quicker to load and produces images just as sharp. If I were more inclined to studio use, the Hasselblad would get more use. I do have a 50mm Distagon for the 501c, which is great. Only disadvantage to the TLR is not changing lenses.

[brucecahn]

With a TLR there is no vibration from a mirror moving away, so the results may be better. An SLR is easier to use hand held, at least the 6x6's. It usually takes different lenses, viewfinders and backs, and in many ways is more convenient. Personally I prefer a Rollei TLR over any other 120.

[vrankin]

The TLR has continuous viewing, since the viewing and taking lenses are separate. Waist level viewing can be either an advantage or disadvantage, depending on your subject. I remember doing weddings many years ago strictly with TLRs. It was difficult on closer shots with tall people not to be "looking up their noses." If you can find a TLR with a pentaprism attachment (called a porrofinder), such as the Mamiya C330 or C220 you can work around that, but it does add to the expense and weight.

 

The other problem with a TLR is parallax... the difference between the vantage points of viewing and taking lenses. There are workarounds for this, including the Paramender, I think made by Mamiya, that cranks the taking lens up to the position of the viewing lens for the shot.

 

Some older Medium Format SLRs with the advantage of looking through the taking lens were also cumbersome, needing mirrors to be manually cocked back after firing, etc. What really got popular in the seventies was the faster, smaller, lighter 6 X 4.5 centimeter SLRs, such as the Mamiya 645. This departure from the square format also made moving to standard 4 X 5" or 8 X 10" photos easier. (You need to be careful with the square format to leave enough room for the cropping to standard rectangular sized prints.

 

These old cameras can be fun. The large negatives (compared to 35mm) are nice in the darkroom as well.

[jimmy_jack_jam_flam]

i use and love my rb 67 pro s. it is big and heavy, but so am i so it is not too bad for me. i simply lve it. the benefits are a large selection of great lenses in many fcal lengths and changable backs.

 

i have used a mamiya TLR also. i found it to be a good shooter also. it was not that much lighter, but it is lighter and feels a bit smaller do to being tall and thin. while they do not have changable backs, they do accept both 120 and 220 film.

 

you will get great results fom either camera type. i am very pleased with my RB. i have taken it traveling to many foriegn coutries for years and am very glad i had it.

[Ed_Ingold]

Better? It depends on your needs. If you have difficulty making decisions about which lens to use (or like to travel light), a TLR is the way to go ;-) Once you see the quality of pictures you get with a TLR, you'll start wondering "What if I had other lenses?".

 

A Rolleiflex TLR is a work of art, a real gem and a pleasure to use. However, I would use it with the magnifier pressed to my eye, or with the sports finder (open frame) most of the time, for a more favorable viewpoint of my subjects. A left-hand grip is very useful in this position, and helps stabilize the camera. An 80mm lens is too short (IMO) and the focusing distance too long (about 3.5 feet) for portraits. The aperture control is barely accurate to 1/2 stop - this camera grew up when B&W ruled and was professionally dead by 1964.

 

An SLR offers interchangeable lenses, interchangeable backs (you can't rewind and reuse 120 film in the field), and precise framing. You can take very high quality closeups using extension tubes. While MF SLRs are used less in competition with high quality DSLRs, they are nonetheless still in relatively common use by professionals and amateurs alike. If your budget will stand it, there are a variety of digital backs compatible with Hasselblads (in particular) and others.

 

In all, the Hasselblad is much more useful to me than the Rollei, for its precision and suitability to a more measured and leisurely style of photography. The Rollei is better suited to street photography than an Hasselblad, but a DSLR, SLR or Leica is better yet so the Rollei stays home.

[joobass]

It is a question of prefferance. I own both the Rolleiflex camera and the hassy. each has it ups and downs against each other, but they both take excellent pictures I perffer Rollei, slightly over the hassy, but I'm not saying they are better than hassy. Read this thread carefully and think carefully and make your choice.

[joe tarrant]

It all comes down to how you like to hold the camera and what you think of square format. If you like looking down into a big square view-finder and square output isn't a problem, a TLR should be fine. If you like taking your photos on the fly, the SLR shape is better - assuming you meant SLRs like the Pentax 67, which mimic 35mm cameras.

[david_henderson]

Whilst the type of photograph you want to take is significant, the points made above that

 

"An SLR offers interchangeable lenses, interchangeable backs (you can't rewind and reuse 120 film in the field), and precise framing"

 

are extremely powerful and useful by comparison with any unique advantages a TLR brings along. In fact I'm tempted to say that the slr can do everything the tlr can do, albeit a few things not quite so well; but the reverse is just not the case. If you are - as a new MF photographer- as yet unsure what you will use medium format for, then you'll keep more doors open with a slr outfit than with a tlr. Personally I find that nearly all the MF photographers working over the last thirty years whose work I like have used an slr. Which is not to say that you should, but their choice does tend to rule out any material performance disadvantages.

[bob_the_builder1]

I have both a Rollei TLR and Hasselblad with lenses and whilst the TLR is very nice and I use

it often the image quality from my Hasselblad lenses is better, or at least I prefer it, which

amounts to the same thing for me.

[bohdan_pryszlak]

I owned a Mamiya C330 for a number of years - great camera. The difference between this camera and an SLR are numerous. An SLR like the Hasselblad for instance, has the ability to accept different backs - this is priceless as far as flexibility goes. Secondly, a Hasselblad has superior lenses - do some research on the internet and compare mtf charts. The Hasselblad 80mm Planar beats any TLR lens out there - on top of it all, the difference in sharpness is obvious in any image larger than 8x10 - not just opinion but obvious to any layman. However, a TLR can still render a really sharp photo and as far as "hand-hold ability" the TLR with its leaf shutter "taking lens" as well as an upper "viewing lens" wins hands down in the following: at the moment the shutter is tripped you get <B>no mirror blackout!<B> So if someone blinks you can see it happen and retake the shot right away. Now if only Zeiss made a TLR . . .

[sebastien_lallement]

<i> Now if only Zeiss made a TLR . . . </i> <br>

 

There is the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2kdo2n"> Contaflex </a> , <br>

 

the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2qcmh5"> Ikoflex </a> , <br>

 

...and the rare <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2pvplc"> Tengoflex </a> . <br>

 

Cheers,<br>

 

Sebastien

[rustys pics]

"The other problem with a TLR is parallax... "

 

All modern (since at least 1939) Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras have built in parallax

correction. It's only an issue if you get the close up lenses, and even then Rollei makes a lens

for parallax correction too.

 

It's a tough decision, but try to handle both types of cameras and see which suits you. Any

modern TLR with a coated lens is perfectly capable of handling color film as well.

[kevinteo]

Don't forget the convenience of a TLR when shooting monochrome infrared. Even with a very

dark filter, you could still stick it on and leave it there.

[bigrue]

Julian, I bought my Mamiya C220 in the late 80s and I have never had any major problems with it. The one advantages I like is the large negative and the shutters synch at all speeds. I have enlarge my prints as big as 20x24 with no noticeable loss in shapness but Ido shoot on a tripod. Good sucess.

[q.g._de_bakker]

</b>Back to normal now?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Oh, wait! Bohdan 'closed' his opening bold-tage with another opening tag. So perhaps </b>now?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ah...!<br><br>People, when using HTML-tags, check them before posting.