Have you noticed a return to the TLR?

[gene_aker2]

<p><strong> </strong>Have you noticed the price of TLR’s lately? Prices for these mechanical beasts have surged in recent years. Why? As more people return to film, they see Yashcia, Rolleicord, and Mamyia C’s as plausible alternative to large format and a more reliable alternative to 35mm.<br>

Just yesterday, a former student showed up with a mint Yashica Mat G. What a pretty camera! Bright ground glass viewfinder, small and light weight, and fun to use. She quickly learned to load and unload---and the only controls: aperture, shutter, and focus. No scrolling, no, menus, no shutter delay. <br>

Last December, one of my students toured Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia for a few months. I helped him locate a Yashica on ebay. Last week, he emailed me from Hong Kong where he just got his film developed.<br>

This is only anecdotal, but I am seeing a swing back to “real photography.” Not a tidal wave, of course; digi-point-and-shoot and cell phone photo will always be huge. But many people are returning to real film photography.</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>No.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Okay, Gene,</p>

<p>Why is the TLR a "more reliable alternative to 35mm?" There are millions of high quality, manual 35 mm cameras out there. Ones with "only controls: aperture, shutter and focus. No scrolling, no, menus, no shutter delay." And there are many crappy TLRs out there--old Seagull Cameras, older Kodaks, etc. Seems to me one can find good, reliable 35mm cameras and crappy 35mm cameras. One can find good, reliable TLRs, and crappy TLRs. One can find manual 35mm cameras and electronic 35mms. One can find manual TLRs and electronic TLRs.</p>

[greg_jones1]

<p>Jeez, Gene was just stating an observation about TLRs-his perception that perhaps there is an increased interest in TLRs.<br />Well, I have noticed that the price of Rolleiflex TLR's is insane. I can't say I see a tidal wave of people wanting TLRs but have noticed people selling Dad's old camera and thinking its worth a fortune. None the less, if Gene is stating that he seems to see a resurgence of interest in the old TLRs, that makes me smile. A TLR was my first camera (a Yashica D then a Yashica Mat 124 G with a fragile wind mechanism). Now I have two Rolleiflex 2.8 E2's. One with Planar, the other Xenotar so I can obsess the rest of my life about which one is better. Keeps me busy.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Yes. With the exception of some of us...ahem...older shooters...that just plain enjoy using classic 35mm cameras, the 35mm format has been under extreme pressure from the onslaught of digicams. While differences still exist between the two mediums, it's tough to justify shooting 35mm film anymore on the basis of image quality alone. I know many of my classic camera brethren will disagree with me on this but that's my opinion.</p>

<p>However medium format film photography still has the edge in bang-for-the-buck, high quality results without spending thousands. While 35mm film will be with us for some time, I think the future of film is with medium format.</p>

<p>TLR's represent an inexpensive toe hold into the MF world and, as such, have increased in popularity with MF beginners, students and young people now that prices for these fixed lens MF cameras have become so affordable. The high quality/price ratio in MF film photography has attracted a rather large audience. </p>

<p>Also, one cannot discount the "retro" appeal that seems to permeate each generation for items of the previous generation. </p>

 

[samples1]

<p>I can think of a few reasons to return to a TLR, but economy is not one of them--unless you count possible freedom batteries. Buying and processing film is getting more expensive, and film is not readily available in a pinch. Your vintage TLR will require occasional maintenance, and fewer individuals service them. On the positive side, one gets a different perspective focusing on ground glass in reverse in a different aspect ratio from 35 mm, and the negative is larger than a 35 mm. Finally, the only menus you'll need access to for operating the camera are in your brain;)</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Prices for these mechanical beasts have surged in recent years. Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Weird, you asked a question, and then you answered it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just yesterday, a former student showed up with a mint Yashica Mat G. What a pretty camera!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. The TLR may have been temperamental and awkward, it may have eliminated any chance at subject contact while the photographer contemplated his naval or the ground glass, the waist level viewpoint gave us decades of looking up bride's noses, and you can't shoot product without the paramender, a Rube Goldberg invention that makes the Leica Visoflex look sane by comparison, but by God...</p>

<p><strong>The TLR looks great on a shelf!</strong></p>

<p>Price wise, it's in line with a Royal Doulton ceramic piece, a Caithness paperweight, a Waterford candy dish, a trio of Orefors votives, or dozens of other pieces of bric-a-brac that decorators love.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I use Hasselblad now. But one of the circumstances that led me there is that I just plain wore out my 124G. They are pretty much made of pot metal, and break very easily. However, I loved the TLR configuration. It wasn't versatile, from a system perspective, but very nice to shoot with. There were issues like parallax correction, which makes it more difficult to shoot commercial product shots than an SLR. I would probably buy one if there were any makers still left. I can't remember whether anyone who owns Rollei, still makes a TLR, but the last time they did, they were something like $5k. So I guess I would be in the "no", I don't so a resurgence, though I do agree more people (perhaps those that started with digital) are bored with it, and giving film a try. I think the whole toy-camera/Lomography revolution has definitely helped film sales. </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Greg,</p>

<p>Your comment, "Jeez, Gene was just stating an observation about TLRs-his perception that perhaps there is an increased interest in TLRs," goes to the heart of why I posted what I did. If Gene would have written just that, I would have no issue with his post. But Gene didn't stop there. He went on into nonsensical land. TLR is a type of camera, they come in small, medium and even a few large format versions. Albeit, the majority of them are medium format. So why the comparison of a type of camera with different formats? Why the need to justify his presumptive choice of cameras by running down the choice of others? Why the references to "real photography?" Is he referring to film photography? Is he referring to shooting manual cameras? Is he saying that only people who shoot TLRs are doing real photography--medium format rangefinders and SLRS are somehow unreal photography? Is someone who shoots film in a Leica MP no doing real photography because it's not medium format? And again, why is a manual TLR more reliable than a comparable manual 35mm camera? Why does the format matter when it comes to reliability?</p>

<p>There are a lot of concepts in his post: 1. TLR v. other types of cameras. 2. Medium format v. 35mm v. LF. 3. Manual v. electronic cameras. 4. Digital v. film. They are just all jumbled together. A little clarity would be nice. </p>

<p> </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Oddly, I've had several people wanting to try my MF gear in the past month or so.</p>

<p>Both are digital users that would like to play with some film, but realize that 35mm film doesn't offer benefits compared to the dSLRs that they've grown used to. Medium format, on the other hand, does still have an edge over prosumer dSLRs, offering 25 megapixel images for low cost plus film and development.</p>

<p>I own 3 TLR cameras: a Rolleiflex, a Rolleicord V, and a Ciro-Flex F. All 3 are currently loaned out to friends who normally shoot digital. I don't know if that means a revival, but it is interesting.</p>

[clay2]

<p>Yes, my buddy just bought 2 YashicaMat 124G's with the extra tele and wide angle lens sets.<br>

Trying to buy one from him. He got the second just for the extra lenses, ha. I did that with a<br>

Minolta SR-T101 myself.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I just bought a very good Rolleiflex MX-EVS , with accessories , for 150 bucks right here on photonet classifieds. It has the 4 element Tesar lens, but at f8 an f11 I can't tell the difference between the Tessar(3.5) and the 5 elements planar and xenotar printed full frame at 15 inch square.. For 4 years i alternated between a 3.5 E and a Automat 4 and I sold the 3.5 E. Now I have a back up with the MX- EVS. Man the accesories cost more than 150.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>The OP has not yet responded but I think there might be a "voice to text" error. Maybe the word "reliable" should be "enlargeable". In that case it would make complete sense.</p>

[denniswms]

<p> </p>

<h1 ><br /></h1>

<p>No.</p>

 

[chris_waller]

<p>Yes, I find my TLRs (Mamiya C3/220/330) arouse considerable curiosity when I am out using them. A number of my students have asked where they can get hold of one. In our local camera retailers, as soon as a TLR hits the shelves, it's sold. I showed my students some 16x12 enlargements from 6x6 FP4 negs from my Mamiyas and they were amazed at the detail. </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Yes. I am often returning to my Roleicord.</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>I've noticed TLR prices rising. As Louis said, if people make a transition to film from digital, MF has got the wow factor. TLRs are cheap ways into medium format. Folders are cheap way as well, but many don't have a way to focus.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>More TLR Talk from Gene.<br>

Thanks to everyone who wrote and commented. I like reading and talking about film trends and experiences. First, where I’m coming from. I have been teaching film photography for the last 20 years and work with about 60 students per semester, teaching darkroom, helping them find cameras, etc.<br>

The biggest challenge for teaching film is finding 35mm cameras that work---(I don’t expect light meters to work!). That’s why I used the adjective—RELIABLE—take a sample 100 35mm cameras made before 1990—and few will continue to working an entire semester. Bummer! <br>

I really can’t say that TLR’s are more reliable; but they are more simple. And I don’t mean to imply that all these students are wanting TLR cameras. But I have noticed that many advanced students who like film and who have a renewed interest in film---look to medium format.<br>

For my own photo fun, I’m mainly a sheet film shooter---4x5 and 5x7 lots; 8x10, some. But lately I also have wondered if I could me just as satisfied with my TLR’s –Rolliecord, Fuji 6x7, Yashica. Recently, I just bought a little folder-- Perkeo II. In October, I took a black and white film jaunt for a week through Colorado—shooting the usual stuff: landscape—old buildings—etc. I kept a couple of 4x5’s in the trunk, and did shoot some sheets. But in the end, I was satisfied with the portablility of the TLR, the simplicity, and the quality. <br>

I made enlargements no bigger than 11x14. Mainly I missed the missed the perspective control of the view camera. But not that much. I plan to take the folder and a TLR to Paris for 10 days in March. <br>

I was quite interested to hear from other film photographers with similar thoughts. So, maybe there's not a "revival"; but TLR's survive in a tiny fringe corner among some film lovers. Anyway, I’m buying up 120 film every month. And have a stash of 4x5, 5x7 in the fridge!!! </p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> I am often returning to my Roleicord.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>here is a spare letter to add to my original post: 'l'</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>TLRs are a curiousity in today's street scene. That makes them more noticeable but hardly constitutes a resurgence. If you own a TLR (or practically anything else), you tend to see them everywhere. It's like learning a new word, then hearing it in everyday conversations. TLRs haven't been made in significant quantity for over 50 years. I haven't seen one used in public in over 30 years.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Firstly, I think we have to question the assumption that a surge in prices equals a surge in usage. What's probably happening is that collectors are buying at what they perceive to be a low point in the market. Those cameras, unfortunately, will never see a roll of film again. Then there's the "always wanted one of those, but could never afford one 'til now" brigade, who will probably use the camera twice and then forget about it. If price was any guide to usage, then film should be making a massive comeback.</p>

<p>Personally speaking, the entire world's stock of TLRs could disappear into a recycling plant without a trace, and I wouldn't shed a tear. To my mind it's an illogical design with all the disadvantages of a xelfer|reflex finder and none of the advantages of an SLR, such as DOF preview and interchangable lenses (that's without buying an extra shutter and second redundant lens).</p>

<p>Sure, a TLR can be lightweight, but then so can a rangefinder; the design of which makes much more sense and is equally simple to use. If only they'd fitted those old Nettars, Bessas, Baldas, etc with a decent lens!</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>The TLR looks down at the view finder, this is far less intimidating to the subject than a horizontal view finder. This makes a crucial difference to the resultant photo. This is an advantage that the likes of Mamiya 7 don't have.<br>

The TLR's shutter is very quiet, and therefore does not disturb your subject or surrounding people. This is an advantage that the likes of Hassies don't have.<br>

It is not that much bigger than a Leica M, especially compared to the new M9.<br>

It has a normal lens, which gives you the most comfortable view to the human eye, which is why most great shots are taken with the normal lens. So you're covered for most of your shooting needs.<br>

You can crop to achieve a telephoto effect, at some loss of image quality, but the film is 4 times the area of 135, which means you can crop out 3/4 of the film area and still retain the same image quality as 135.<br>

You can achieve a panorama-like view by tilting the camera 45 degrees and using the diagonal strip in the middle. Same comment as to loss of image quality applies.<br>

You can shoot over a crowd by raising it over your head and turning the view finder downwards towards you, periscope fashion. The length of the camera helps you achieve a greater height over the likes of Hassy. Plus it's quiet.<br>

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5F. I use it for street photography.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>TLR is certainly not for everyone for street shooting, but Nee Sung, you hit on the major advantages. I think TLR is mostly amateur camera for people who develop their own film and make their own prints. Another advantage is previewing through ground glass (wide open of course), as opposed to the peep-hole viewfinder. To me, it's more like a portable 4x5!</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>To Nee Sung, regarding idea of shooting diagonally and cropping, for a panoramic effect:</p>

<p>I'd never heard this trick before, and wanted to believe that it would work. I didn't have any of my TLRs handy (I'm at school as I type this), but I did have a calculator and a sketchpad. So I made a triangular sketch and used my calculator to input some numbers, and ....</p>

<p>It won't work. Yes, a 45-degree diagonal line across a 2" square negative gives a 2.8" length line. But you have to offset that line by .5" up and down, to get a neg that's 1" tall. When you do, you also shorten the diagonal image, by an inch. So you end up with a 1" x 1.8" image.</p>

<p>It's a loss. You're better off to just shoot normally, get a 2" x 2" image, and crop as desired. Sure sounded like a neat idea at the time...</p>

<p>If you wanted a negative only .5" tall, that would be different. Then the cropped image would be 2.33" x .5". But at that point, you've ended up with less film area than if you'd shot 35mm in the first place. Again, not exploiting the best thing about MF, ie, a bigger neg than 35mm.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>As a photography teacher (4 sections this semester...) my observations are based upon that sample. First off it never fails to amuse when a post like this appears, how many anti-film trolls crawl out from under their bridge.<br>

There is a small, but very REAL resurgence in film camera use. It's primarily among younger people around age 20. I asked one of my students why and his reply was "Because it's one way I can get the best quality for the least money". He scored a Yashica Lynx in perfect working condition for $6 at a resale shop. The harsh economic lessons of the last 4 years have not been lost on them. The incredible BUILD quality of cameras made from 1940 to 1980 are not lost on them either. There is indeed an upswing in TLR demand and prices. It's MORE than just the Dust Collectors since they've been swapping the same junk back and forth for decades.<br>

Now whether the TLR is the perfect photography machine depends upon your idiosyncratic way of shooting. However I think since young people are used to looking at that LCD screen at Arm's Length, the Big TLR screen at the waist is not so odd to them. In fact I posit that Digital Point and shoot cameras, and DSLRs will soon be obsolete. Not because of a resurgence in film, but because most people have a VERY good digital camera built into their Smart Phones now. I'll LMAO when those people who spent $2000+ on a big rig DSLR can't sell them for 1/4 of what they paid 4 years ago. Meanwhile I'll be using my Rolleiflex 2.8 E2 Planar and admiring it's quality.</p><div></div>