Why TLRs?

[chi_siu1]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

After reading some posts about TLRs here led me to think why? I'm quite new to MF and chose Hasselblad because it's easier to use. Maybe there are advantages in TLRs that I don't know of. I always thought the composition is harder due to two glass, things look upside down and not many body can interchange lenses. Although I do think the TLRs are beautiful.</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Historically, the TLRs have been much less expensive than SLRs of the same format. Many pros used them for wedding photography and other uses where they wanted a quiet camera that produced a good-sized negative and was easy to use; the bright viewfinder compared to most SLRs also appealed to many of us.</p>

<p>Now that prices are more competitive, I have a good Hasselblad outfit, but I still keep an old Rolleicord around for fun!</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Chi, the images are reversed on a Hasselblad as well, unless you have a prism finder (which, you could get on some TLRs). I like TLRs because they are usually quite rugged, easy to use, and intimate to use and compose with. They also carry very nicely on the shoulder. I'm going to stop there because I'll want to buy another one if I keep going.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>I'm the same as Vick - Hassy for primary MF with Rolliecord as backup (formerly it was my primary camera). He covered the benefits so I won't repeat. <br>

Composition is the same between SLR and TLR IF using waist-level viewer. The image is laterally reversed (left=right; right = left) not upside down. It is only by adding a pentaprism that everything is not reversed. Pentaprism can be added to most TLRs also. So composing can be the same. composing on GG, however, isn't difficult. It just takes a little time to get used to the lateral reversal.<br>

I agree with you that TLRs are beautiful.</p>

[chi_siu1]

<p>I didn't know there are prism finder, now I really want to try a TLR.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>There's also a gadget called a "paramender", that you mount on the triopd to deal with that "two lens" problem you mentioned. You can compose a product, still life, copy, or macro shot, and the paramender raises the camera until the "taking lens" is where you had the "viewing lens", eliminating parallax (the "para" im paramender).</p>

<p> </p>

[bueh]

<p>TLRs and prism finders are an awkward combination.I have a pentamirror for my C33 and focusing is much, much more difficult than with a WLF. WLFs are better because of the higher magnification and brighter image. You will get used to it in no time.</p>

<p>I agree that TLRs are not that useful today with much better and more versatile SLR and modern rangefinder systems available. However, their simplicity, relatively low costs and proven design makes them inviting to beginners. And there are many websites from collectors and classic camera aficionados about their awesomeness, which skews the picture somewhat. I rather choose my RZ67 for serious medium format photography. This SLR is one hell of a tool. Not a sexy tool, but a very effective one.</p>

[jmg1911]

<p>I love my Hasselblad, but I can hold a Rollei 2 steps slower.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>The Rolleiflex is the Mercedes Benz of TLR for quality build and design but it has the problem of non interchangeable lenses. To get interchangeable lenses you have to get the Mamiya C system. </p>

<p>A strong point for the TLR is that it is like a range finder in that you don't need a mirror to slap out of the way during the exposure like an SLR, and yet it is like an SLR in that you are focusing through a lens onto a focus screen. It focuses and feels like an SLR in that way. So it is sort of the best of both combined. The problem with a range finder is that the image you are composing with feels and looks nothing like the view from the taking lens. That is solved by using a matched lens in a TLR. The Rolleiflex has auto correction for the difference in view between taking and viewing lens. The Mamiya must use the Paramendor to correct the difference.</p>

<p>If you are happy to be confined to using just one lens, there is nothing better than the Rolleiflex except for the other little problem of not being able to load up several film backs. You must load the camera as you go one roll at a time. </p>

<p>TLRs are still a viable camera type as is made obvious by all the old Rolleis and Mamiyas still in action and being bought everyday on ebay. The failure of the new Rolleis (one of which I own) is that they are too expensive to compete with their own used market... Due to how well they have been made for decades.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Because they are:<br>

1. quiet<br>

2. lightweight<br>

3. one of the cheapest ways to experiment with MF<br>

4. very high optical quality for the money<br>

5. quaint<br>

6. and fun to use</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Agree with the above. But, I saw a Mamiya C330F body in -Ex condition on Keh for $254.00. A RB67 S-D body in EX. condition is $144.00. A TLR, you can put a filter on the taking lens, while the viewing lens is without. (makes it easier than having to look through a dark filter. As, would be the practice in using a SLR. But, it does make it more difficult when using a polarizer.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Another point: if you are into street photography, you can compose and take a shot without most people even noticing. Most people associate taking a photo with holding the camera to the eye or near the head; looking down into a waist level finder doesn't fit this conception. Heck, many people won't recognize a TLR as a camera! Coupled with a quiet shutter and no mirror slap, this can give you quite an advantage.</p>

<p>People who claim it's hard to handle TLRs haven't spent time using them,</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Internet error message caused for a double post to result.</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

<p>I don't know if TLR's are "hard" to handle but the idea of shooting head and shoulders portraits from the belly or chest level doesn't work for me. It's always looking up at the subject.</p>

<p>Ditto for landscapes, street photography and other stuff, while sometimes it's right to shoot below eye level, it doesn't sound right to be always shooting from waist or chest level.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>That's really a function of what kind of finder you're using, not the TLR itself. You'd probably be using a tripod for portrait work and landscapes, which makes it a moot point. In practice, shooting from mid-chest height (I'm 5' 11") hasn't been an issue.</p>

<p>What's the difference between chest height and eye level, one or two feet? That's a very minor change of perspective unless you're right up on your subject. Now if you're trying to do a head shot with an 80mm "normal" lens from stomach height, I can see where that would be awkward. I'd suggest an 80mm probably isn't the best choice of lenses for that kind of shot though. Yes, a fixed lens TLR would be sub-optimal for that.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Like Mike Earussi said: lightweight. Lightweight is key if you are a backpacker, or even if you go for long day hikes.</p>

<p>My standard backpacking kit is now becoming my Rolleicord Vb, together with a couple of filters, a meter, and a monopod or light tripod. I am mostly a normal lens kind of guy, and, for landscape, I really like the rendition the Schneider Xenar gives me at f/11 or f/16.</p>

<p>I use other medium format cameras, including an RZ67 with superb lenses, but the Rolleicord goes places that the heavier cameras don't get to.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>The difference between eye level and waist level is very small when shooting distant subjects. So, agree with Douglas on that point.</p>

[tomscott]

<p>Unless I'm missing something, "waist level finder" doesn't mean you have to shoot at waist level. I shoot with my Yashica-Mat at eye level or very close to eye level sometimes, especially when using the magnifying glass for critical focus. And as Jack said when shooting distant subjects it makes very little difference anyway, and you would presumably be shooting at infinity focus setting so critical focus is not an issue.</p>

[Andrew in Austin]

<p>For non-critical framing - you have the option of using the sport finder, provided that you prefocus the camera.<br>

<br /> When doing group portraits there is nothing like a waist level finder. - I generally set up the camera on a tripod and utilize a cable release to activate the shutter. - The set up enables me to directly interact with the subjects, with an occasional glance downward to see if the camera has moved on the tripod after each exposure.</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

1. Many tlr's have fixed 75mm lenses.

 

 

2. If you use a reflex finder, might as well not use a tlr. You've just lost the compactness advantage.

 

 

3. One foot perspective difference is a lot when doing a H&S portrait.

[BernardMiller]

<p>I've got an RB 67, and even though I use it for most of my medium-format studio photography, I still keep my C330 and a few lenses lying around. I was gonna sell 'em, but I found that they are still very useful in certain applications:</p>

<ol><li>As others have said, no mirror slap. So TLRs can be hand-held at slower shutter speeds.

<li>Street photography--they are a bit less obtrusive and much lighter, so you can get the quality of a large negative combined with (nearly) the rapidity of use and (relative) inconspicuousness of a 35 mm rangefinder.

<li>Sometimes I like composing in the square, especially if I'm doing a CD cover or something, and the TLR helps the process.

<li>The most important reason, though, for me is coupled with the lack of a mirror: I can see the subject at the moment of exposure. I shoot a lot of dancers and do plenty of other shots of people in motion (even in the studio). When I use the TLR, I can see exactly what position the person was in when I tripped the shutter--particularly when I use flash. So I have a very good idea if I got the shot I wanted, and there's no delay while the mirror is flipping up, which often screws things up!</ol>

[paul_miller10]

<p>No mirror flip blackout, particularly when shooting with flash. Lightweight, more discrete.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"In practice, shooting from mid-chest height (I'm 5' 11") hasn't been an issue."</p>

<p>Try standing in a hole and photographing from there... it isn't quite the same experience for those of us who aren't that tall. :) I recently added two accessories to my "kit": a prism to supplement the WLF and a step-stool.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"In practice, shooting from mid-chest height (I'm 5' 11") hasn't been an issue."</p>

<p>Try standing in a hole and photographing from there... it isn't quite the same experience for those of us who aren't that tall. :) I recently added two accessories to my "kit": a prism to supplement the WLF and a step-stool.</p>

[dg1]

<p>For me the simplicity of the system is appealing. It's just a box, and inside one can see exactly how it works. And I think the mirror reversed image is actually quite an aid in composition because it creates a certain level of abstraction that I found helped me judge things somewhat more objectively. ( I wish digitals had a function to flip the orientation around ) That and being at a distance and you are looking at a picture on the ground glass. I have a friend who would often just take out his Rollei and look around with it without taking any photos because he enjoyed the view. </p>