Why TLRs?

[chris_waller]

<p>They're kind of quaint and eccentric. I get into more conversations with strangers when using my TLRs than with any other camera.</p>

[mike_atwell]

<p>One of the things I likle about a TLR is the fixed nature of the lens on my Rolleicord/Rolleiflex. Since I don't have the ability to change lenses, it forces me to "see" or envision in a more methodical way. Also, it makes me move to find the best vantage point, rather than lens changes. The TLR forces a structure on me that challenges my creativity.<br>

I also like the square format.</p>

[osfania]

<p>The Mamiya C330 is nice and I believe it has interchangeable lenses, too.</p>

[dan_stegal]

<p>Aside from the chronic neck pain of looking down all the time into the viewfinder, the perspective is a little different than with an eye level photo. I'm 5' 8" ish and the photos had a different look. The wonderful thing about waist level viewfinders is that, when you put them on a low tripod (don't extend <em>anything</em> on the tripod), it makes it much easier to compose the shot. the bad part - the neck and knee pain for having everything that low! The waist level viewfinder isn't my ideal form factor, but it does have its strengths.</p>

<p>They are wonderful people cameras. As someone alluded to above, I think Doug, having a camera at your waist isn't as "threatening" as having one at eye level. It's like a big necklace. (I must make a note. Start buying broken TLRs and start a fad for kids wearing TLRs as a "statement" It sure is better than tatoos and piercings! At least a camera won't make you look like a peice of trash. )</p>

[osfania]

<p>I bought a junk Yashica TLR for $5 at a swap meet and submerged it into my fresh water aquarium. You should hear the comments I get! (I made sure to take out the batteries first so that they didn't leach into the water.) The top cover is open and the fish like to hide in there when they are spawning.</p>

[doug elick]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember going to Olan Mills as a kid for the family portrait. For a long time, they used C330s mounted on a very robust, tall tripod. There was always a wooden step-stool in the room for the "less statuesque" photographer.</p>

<p>As for head and shoulder shots, I wouldn't use a "normal" lens unless I wanted my subject's nose to look big. Perspective should be a moot point. If you can live with a fixed lens, most medium format TLRs are a great. The C series Mamiyas are there if you want a TLR and interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert gordon]

<p>To see what a TLR is capable of in the hands of skilled photographers, check out the work of Imogene Cunningham and Irving Penn. Both were masterful portrait photographers who used Rollei TLRs.</p>

[tomsheridan]

<p>Like many correspondents here, I find my Yashica Mat 24 a soft-spoken (and oh-so-diplomatic) companion for street photography. What hasn't been mentioned, is that I can turn the camera upside down and shoot <em>over</em> a crowd. 220 film also comes in handy.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>1. The weight. I tried shooting with a Hassleblad a few times, but I could not manage it for long. I have tendinitis in my thumbs, so my hands are weak. With my Rollei TLR, I can shoot comfortably, and I can carry it around on long hikes. It's a great companion camera because it has physically compact accessories. The temptation with my SLR is to take all the lenses I own with me, because I never know what I might find. With the Rollei, I cannot do that and I have to shoot what I want with what I've got. It forces me to change my artistic direction a bit and to travel light. It is often my camera of choice for airplane trips because it's so compact.</p>

<p>2. Leaf shutter. It gives me a quiet camera, and my sync speed for studio lights = my highest shutter speed. My cousin's kids are trained with Palovian dedication to pose whenever they hear a shutter click. It's almost creepy. With my leaf shutter and the camera in my lap, I get day-in-the-life photos I would not otherwise get. If I am in the studio with lights, hey, I can set my camera to 1/500 - no lag times.</p>

<p>3. Square format is cool.</p>

<p>4. Nostalgia and recycling factors. The Rollei TLR is built like a fine swiss watch. I love mine. I am nostalgic, I admit, but there is something that feels right about using a 72 year old camera. It still does a great job, old or not. I changed out the viewscreen removing the original glass grid for a plastic Fresnel, and had the whole thing cleaned & serviced, and it works like a champ. The original owner sent it to Rollei decades ago. They put in the PC cord connection (optional in 1937) so I can use all kinds of lighting. Everything just works, all the time. The action gets a little stiff in the cold sometimes, but that's about all.</p>

<p>I think the waist level finder is a plus sometimes but it is a problem for those of us who are less statuesque (I'm 5'4"). I also need a stepstool for tripod focussing. For casual portraits of adults, I focus, use a smaller aperture (f8 or more), and then lift the camera up to my face or my subject's eye level to take the shot. Otherwise, they are all "gut" shots and nobody wants those! My problem wtih the TLR is mostly to do with parallax. Someone above said Rollei automatically compensates for parallax - uh, when did that start? My 1937 automat sure doesn't do it. I like to do a lot of close-up photography, using my Rollinars, and the TLR just isn't the right tool for it after a certain close distance. In the situation where I wanted to do MF macro work, I'd have to either find one of these para-correctors, use a different camera, or do trigonometry for every shot (no thanks!). That's where the strengths of the SLR begin, for me.</p>

[igor_smirnoff]

<p>I use my Rolleiflex to shoot infrared film. You can use filters of any density, it makes no difference for composing. Try that on a SRL!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

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

<p>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) between the flim rails of my Nikon FM2, and had a blast, seeing visible light through the finder, but getting IR on the infrared flim.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>I was one of those people who said they could never get used to the backwards image of a TLR. It took me about 30 seconds to get used to my Rolleiflex's ground glass image. If you get one w/ grid lines you will be very happy, as it makes composing the shots much easier. </p>

[philip_roberts1]

<p>If you can live with only one focal length lens, a TLR is the most rewarding way to shot MF. I left film a little while ago to go digital, but if I ever go back I will bankrupt myself for a Rollei FX 2.8. It has to be the best picture taking machine ever. No vibration, no viewfinder blackout, waist level composition forces you to compose the whole frame in a way that squinting down an SLR prism never does, and the lenses are the sharpest, most contrasty and completely stunning I have ever seen. You cradle it close to your torso, the most stable place to hold a camera, you squeeze the shutter release gently, you hear the whisper of the leaf shutter, and the shot is in the bag. In case you hadn't guessed - I'm in love.</p>

[jun_cordero]

<p>My first TLR is an early Voightlander, and totally got interested in these type of cameras, now I have a bunch (which includes a Mamiya C330, Rolleicord, Yashicamat, Ricoh Diacord, Weltaflex, Kodak, Lubitel 2, Seagull) partly because I'm more of a tinkerer than a photographer.</p>

<p>As mentioned in the posts above these cameras are great for portraits and for street shooting. Also, people tend to be more accomodating when you are using these cameras as they think their photos are being taken with a 'proper' old-fashioned camera.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry much about the reversed image on the viewfinder as you will get used to it. As for the parallax error the Mamiya has an indicator as to what part of the image will be correctly in the frame, the others you figure out as you use them. Do note that viewfinders on some cameras are brighter than others, but you can replace the glass on some.</p>

<p>The Mamiya has interchangeable lenses, but you can also put supplementary lenses on the Rolleicord (wide-angle and tele). Most do not come with a built-in meter, except for the Ricoh.</p>

<p>I have spent quite a bit for my collection and the wife is continually dropping hints that I should get rid of the cameras and recover the costs (as we have a baby coming - first one) but I am trying to hang on to these 'babies' as long as I can. Or maybe I can just keep one, but which one? hmmmm.....</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I have 2 TLR's. One is the Yashicamat-124g, the other is a Rolleiflex with the F/3.5 Tessar.<br>

One of them normally goes out with a dslr, along with a handheld spotmeter if i am intending to do landscapes. Use it for "formalistic" black & white.<br>

Still fun, and useful.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In the 1930's TLR was a radical camera; it was used for shooting sports; used by younger folks with better eyes than old folks.</p>

<p> Today folks with poor eyes have to use a wazoo screen and still often have focus issues with static objects due to mismatched lenses; Kilroy ruined the old TLR and you bought it off of Ebay!.</p>

<p>Many folks will have issues with a WL finder or parallax; thats the way your brain is wired.</p>

<p>Here I used a TLR and also an Exakta VX to shoot sports in High School in the 1950's. I used a Rollei IV in college to make ends meet; all with the stock screens.</p>

<p><br />Today the typical TLR user is older; with poor eyes; it is probably not understandable today how a TLR was the staple for shooting sports long ago.</p>

<p>TLR's were marketed for shooting sports in the late 1930's thru 1950's; just like Canon and Nikon today hawk dslrs for action stuff.</p>

<p>With time all the old tricks about using a TLR to shoot sports gets lost; plus users get older; plus older users are in a DOS world and cannot do more than one task; or accept change as much. late 1930's and 1940's Pop Photo magazines were riddled with sports shots with TLR's and how to articles about TLR usage too.<br>

<br />In shooting portraits a TLR places less stress on the subject; the WL winder of a TLR or even Blad means one is not aiming a gun.</p>

<p>Look at cell phones; an older person has to but on reading glasses and fumbles around writting a text message; a teenager can text without looking at the keys; or can text will skating backwards at a rollerrink while weaving thru a mess of teenieboppers.<br>

<br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-517.jpg?t=1236342495" alt="" width="367" height="945" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-516.jpg?t=1236342716" alt="" width="298" height="395" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Even up to the mid 1980's one could buy Kodak Royal-X in 120; a real asa 1250 film; fast for sports usage. Thus in the 1970's here I used Royal-X with hockey and a E3 TLR. ie a different era; few helmets; some rinks had no hockey glass; few lawsuite either. Note focus is on the Ranger chap; abit off of the puck. This was shote between F2.8 and F4; at either 1/125 or 1/250. Alot of grain too!:)</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-452.jpg?t=1236343730" alt="" width="849" height="726" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-453.jpg?t=1236343896" alt="" width="384" height="1090" /></p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Here's mine. . .</p><div></div>

[d_purdy]

<p>Wow, That Royal X looks like it was good stuff at 1250. I am not sure the TMZ or Delta 3200 is any improvement. </p>

[doug elick]

<blockquote>

<p>Kelly Flanigan said: Today the typical TLR user is older; with poor eyes; it is probably not understandable today how a TLR was the staple for shooting sports long ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. You have this image that TLR users are old, blind fogies? My eyes are fine and I'm 35. I've had a TLR since my 20's.</p>

<p>It's easy to shoot sports with most TLRs once you understand how to prefocus and preset your exposure settings instead of relying on electronics. Most of them have a built in <em>sports finder</em> ....you might guess what the purpose is.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>TLRs, of course, existed long before Heidecke made them small.<br />The reason TLRs existed was that SLRs of that era were woefully slow to use (remember that they used large formats, i.e. large mirrors, and that the mirror would have to be moved up, and back again, by hand). The other alternative, view(finder) cameras, were also slow. So they cobbled two cameras together: a viewing camera on top of a taking camera. Works great, but not the ideal camera.<br>

<br />And the reason why Rollei TLRs were advertised as sports cameras was that, compared to what else you could get then, they were exactly that: small, and easy to handle, while still producing good results (MF was then considered small, or even miniature format. These small cameras offered the same advantages that later made the 35 mm SLR as popular as it is known to be).<br />Not because they were TLRs.</p>

<p>"Sports" finder is a fancy name for a frame finder. The thing non-SLR cameras (think Graflex) all used. I think the Rollei TLRs have them because it was more or less expected, and because the alternative (the waist leve finder) was impractical for fast moving subjects.<br />The pentaprism eye level finders soon put an end to that. Sports photographers very rarely areseen with a frame finder on top of their Canon SLRs. So it's not that, because frame finders are better to use than the waist level finder, they are the thing sports photographers crave for. ;-)</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>A lot of people feel that the WLF is important to use with a TLR due to the enjoyment factor of looking down at the image on the screen and due to the weight of a prism. For myself however I find the prism on my Rolleiflexes essential and virtually never use a WLF. If it wasn't for the prism on my rolleis I wouldn't use them. I don't find the weight to be too much or the balance to be uncomfortable or problematic. I really like the fact that I can orient the camera in different ways to use it with a prism on. I can hold sideways like binoculars, which is great for shooting looking down and actually is very comfortable at any time, I can hold the camera upside down with the taking lens a few inches above my eye level, which actually comes in handy on occasion. Especially if you are doing very close work with the Rolleinars it is helpful to reorient the camera according to subject needs.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>I gave my son a Seagull TLR and when he went to college a lot of kids thought it was very cool. He sold it to a friend who was quite enthusiastic about using it. It had a cachet among college kids which surprised me. </p>

[d_purdy]

<p>There are a lot of horror stories with the Seagull not working when brand new or breaking after a couple rolls. I bought one around 1990 to see if I liked working with a TLR and it worked fine and I loved using it. I decided to get a Rollei and gave the Seagull to a friend and he liked it too.</p>

[mskovacs]

<p>For the short people standing in holes, here's a piece of advice.<br>

Compose with the camera upsidedown over your head. If you have a strap, you can steady it by looping it under your chin.</p>