Have you noticed a return to the TLR?

[adam_jacobs2]

<p>I wouldn't immediately discount the possibility that people are actually buying and using these cameras. TLR's are famous for being the most cost effective entry into medium format, the cameras that we see escalating in price the most are the ones that were previously hailed as the best bargains. I can remember 5 years ago, a yashicamat in good condition was worth about $50. Now they fetch twice that. Yashica used to be a "best kept secret" style of thing, but now it is the opposite. The prices are inflated beyond reason. For the price of a Yashica 124g, you can buy a Bronica ETRSi setup. I know which I'd prefer.<br /> I live in Seattle, and I've definitely seen young people walking the streets shooting their TLR's. Mostly Seagulls and Lubitels, but still.. TLR's. Perhaps they are fashionable?<br /> I'm personally interested to try out my first vestpocket folder.. Although I hate the idea of winding my own 620, it's more attractive than buying 127 at $10/roll for B&W. Freestyle sells rebadged Fomapan at $2/roll, seems like I could spool up a halfdozen rolls and go vestpocketing...</p>

[dave_thomas8]

<p>Well I recently bought a Yashica Mat 124G, and Zeus knows, I'm a trend-setter! :-) The comments by Nee Sung ring particularly true. I also expect to occasionally use it for infrared, since IR in my Bronica SQ-A requires taking filters off and on to aim and compose. And hey, for me, photography is a hobby, and the TLR is another source of amusement.</p>

[adam_jacobs2]

<p>I do like the idea of infrared on a TLR. I shoot a lot of infrared on my SLR's, and no argument.. It is a hassle.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p> We photo teachers have a bird's eye view of what's up. I thought our film classes would shrivel with the advent of digital still and video. But that has not been true. We just have more classes. I do think young people like the "exotic" world (to them) of film as well as the funky darkroom. They grew up with video games and computers--so film is their "new" thing. Odd to us old-timers! How long this will last is hard to say. <br>

As Russ points out, the cell phone cameras (video and still)--with their vastly improved quality-may very well shove the point and shoot and DSLR right to a fringe or niche position. I just got a 8 mg camera in my cell phone! And it will take a 8 gig memory card.<br>

The destination for those pics seems to be FaceBook, Flickr or some other online sharing site; no one is interested in ink-jet prints. But students do seem to enjoy making and having the "exotic" old time black and white prints. Go Figure!</p>

[dave_s]

<p>TLRs are good cameras for backpacking. Light weight, battery independence and robustness are all strengths.</p>

<p>Having said that, I don't think I've <em>ever </em>encountered someone else using a TLR. The last time I actually saw one in use was a wedding photographer in the 1980s, using a Mamiya. I rarely even see other film shooters anymore, and I'd be surprised as heck if there is any documentable resurgence in the use of film. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I actually see TLRs in the wild, being used, these days - which wasn't true a few years ago. Mostly by college age shooters.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>Doug: you're right. I just thought I threw that in. Actually, you can do that with any format, film or digital. I used it as a disaster salvage measure when I wanted to shoot say the spire of a church and I couldn't move any further.<br>

It is interesting how the up to 20-something's find MF film exotic. The younger generation always tries to be different from the previous, and in so doing very often goes back to the generation before that, i.e. their grandfathers'. I remember doing the same thing in my youth. This is part of human nature, I think.<br>

Every generation thinks that it has improved upon the last, when in most cases they have just been different. But it is the occasional brilliance in a random generation that has taken mankind to where it is today. So we had better humour our youth.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>No worries, Nee.</p>

<p>I like the great bang for the buck of a TLR, if a person is up for learning exposure. Several of my favorite photos have been shot with Ciro-Flex and Rollei TLRs, for all the reasons already cited.</p>

<p>I'm giving serious thought to taking a TLR and a panoramic Widelux on a whitewater kayaking trip into the Grand Canyon in 2012. Reason: no battery hassles. It'll depend on what the rest of the trip does for powering electronic toys. Some trips take a fully-charged car battery, and just use that for a month. But if nobody is doing that, I'll shoot on film.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"...and I'd be surprised as heck if there is any documentable resurgence in the use of film."</em><br>

Well Dave Sims, I color you surprised after you read<a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/kodak-sees-a-very-real-resurgence-for-film/"> this</a>:) Keep in mind Wired magazine was at the forefront of the Cyber revolution, so if they report it I'd give it some weight.<em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

[dave_s]

<p>LOL, Russ, do you believe everything you read in the newspapers, too? See <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/11/kodak-claims-fi/">this</a> <em>Wired </em>article as well. The thing is, when a Kodak PR guy says 'film is doing very well', that's not the same thing as 'film is doing very well'. </p>

<p>The key word in my statement is 'documentable'. Film's still a good solution for a lot of users, but if anyone has data showing an increase in film sales, please post them. </p>

<p>Threads about film rising from the ashes come up on photo.net about once a month, but they're basically feel-good anecdotes and wishful thinking. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :>) </p>

[photo5]

<p>The Rolleiflex was a very common professional body back in the day. I have a wonderful 1949 Automat X in mint condition with the original case, cap and lens shade. It's also my second Automat X, having sold off the first one to get funds for a Bronica ETRS camera kit. Will keep this one again, it's too beautiful and too fine a camera to sell off for what little it would earn me (only paid $225 for it on ebay a couple of years ago, I paid $115 for my first one in 1990, sold for $300 in 1995).</p>

<p>There is something about the Rollei twin lens that I absolutely love. I began shooting medium format with a Rolleicord III that my uncle had purchased new in Germany while on a business trip there. He died in 1981 and my aunt gave it to me in 1988. I was immediately in love with the camera and the square format, and a couple years later bought a fine Rolleiflex with the legendary Tessar lens. It's been a love affair ever since.</p><div></div>

[chris_waller]

<p>In a discussion with one of my students the other evening, he told me that David Bailey's favourite cameras are his TLRs. Diane Arbus also used TLRs (Mamiya, I believe.) So if you are using TLRs you are in good company.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Dave, I love your "Bubble gum crisis" shot! Wonderful image with the bent lamp-post shadow looming over it.</p>

[john_calafut]

<p>TLRs are a great way to get into MF, and in my opinion they offer value beyond being a stepping stone to other MF types. My introduction to MF was with a TLR eight years ago, and now a Mamiya with a modest assortment of lenses continues to meet all the needs I have for a camera.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"The thing is, when a Kodak PR guy says 'film is doing very well', that's not the same thing as 'film is doing very well'."</em><br>

That's a fine point Dave Sims and well taken. I'm just glad you're not my Doctor. I can hear your diagnosis; "Well, the patient is alive. But not THAT alive!" LOL! Good to see a lively debate.<em><br /></em></p>

[photo5]

<p>Thanks Ray, it was one of those "Oh wow" moments when you look at the ground-glass and just realize this is the ONE. And now that I am thinking about it, I think this was in 1993 or 1994, not 1995. In the summer of 1995 I'd sold this camera for a Bronica ETRS 6x4.5 SLR. <br>

John, I went from TLR to 6x4.5 SLR, to 6x7 SLR, to 4x5 view camera, and back again to a TLR. I like the TLR the best. Wish I had too much money and could afford a mint Rolleiflex 2.8F. I nearly bought one in 1990 for $1000.00 from an ad I saw in Shutterbug. When I called the man who was selling it, I said I'd send him a check, and he decided he didn't want to sell it after all. Damn. </p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I forgot some other advantages of TLR: when you look down, most people don't realise you're taking a photograph and your chance of a real candid is greatly increased;<br>

you can turn the camera sideways and shoot the people to your left or right, but because you're looking ahead, very often they're not aware that the lens is pointing at them. This is the reason why I went for a 3.5 lens, it's much smaller, so even fewer people realise that the lens is pointing at them. All this would have been spoilt by the very loud mirror of the likes of Hassy.</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>"Well, the patient is alive. But not THAT alive!"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

LOL, don't get me wrong. I like using TLRs-- they work for me because I'm a normal-lens kind of guy. My default backpacking cameras are a Rolleicord Vb Xenar and a Flex E Planar. I'll probably take both to the desert next month-- one with XP2 Super for scanning, and the other with HP5, both exposed at 250. </p>

<p>But I think the world of still film photography is contracting. Not something I lose sleep over. I'll use whatever medium I have to.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>For sure. TLR's are for film photographers who enjoy the process of viewing the scene on ground glass and savor the "wow" moment. It's for Film photographers who love darkroom work with a big film that reminds them of 4x5 with its long scale and exquisite detail. The whole thing makes no sense to the Computer Photographers with Digital cameras, and that makes them sound so angry in their posts. <br>

Today, I"m headed out into the bright sunny skies of Norther New Mexico-- a couple of TLR's loaded with HP5, and a couple of view cameras, some 4x5 and 5x7 holders---I'll find the catch of the day!<br>

So what if it's obsolete! I'll have a good time. </p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>The whole thing makes no sense to the Computer Photographers with Digital cameras, and that makes them sound so angry in their posts. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Troll statement. Nobody's angry. Do whatever works for you.</p>

[jo_scott]

<p>Yes, I've noticed the increase in price of TLR's. And I think it's a bit more than supply and demand, because the supply is very large and the demand is not that big. You would think that they would stay cheap. But the bidding gets quite fierce for a good user Rollei or Zeiss Super Ikonta!!<br>

The price for an estate sale 1950's Rolleiflex Automat in need of a CLA has more than doubled in the past few years, up to $300+. I'm fond of the Rolleicord Art Deco's (ca 1933), which not long ago you could scoop up for $50-60. Now even worn ones go for $400-700!!<br>

And Rolleis with 2.8 and/or Planar lenses invariably approach or pass 4 figures.<br>

My take is that in this world of disposible plastic junk, people with money to spend are putting it into items of acknowledged quality and performance. However, I think it is no coincidence that the user cameras go for a lot more than the shelf queens. This is more than collection for collection sake, I think.<br>

Since last year I have begun to use these old 120 cameras with great pleasure, on a daily basis. I have many choices for cameras, but classic medium format currently meets my photographic needs.</p>

 

[gene_aker2]

<p>Jeff. You seem very specific in documenting the price-rise. I recently purchased a Perkeo II--which I am using. Not a TLR; but a nice 120 camera. I Like the craftsmanship---especially like the way it slows me down to think--really think about what I'm doing. But I miss the ground glass experience of the TLR. I regularly use the 'Cord V, and a Yashica 124, not to mention the Fuji 6x7. </p>

[MathewDH]

<p>I have only shot digital for six years. However I have had my dad's camera for several years and have just retrieved it where it was stored so I could learn it. It is a 1951-54 Rollieflex K4A with the 3.5 75mm lens. But first, I will send it out for a cla.</p>

<p>Parts wise I am going after a lens hood and stereo mount. I already picked up the panorama head. About all else I need will be the filters.</p>

<p>The big surprise was finding in the original box, four boxes of unfaded Kodachome slides. I had not known about them and they dated to 1953, the year he bought the camera. I plan on having them scanned and printed. Though most are not dated, some could be. The flag at the Empire Air Force Station is at half mast for the death of Chief Justice John Vinson on September 8, 1953.</p>

<p>For me, learning this camera will be a reconnection to my late father. Not to mention an exploration into film shooting both for black and white and color. I am looking forward to the journey.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I'm not adverse to digital: if there is a digital TLR I'll be among the first to buy. Look at all the advantages I listed for TLR, they all apply equally to the digital medium. If there is a mirrorless digital Hassy-like camera I'll buy it too, because it will have a quiet shutter and no parallex error. Just as long as they're not too expensive.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Matthew: My grandfather was a news photographer in the 1930's ; as a boy, I inherited his Speed Graphic and learned to use sheet film in the old style. Today, I have a fully restored Super Speed Graphic and use it every week. Retro Rules! You'll learn to love the Rollei, and it will improve your photography, just as the Speed Graphic improved mine.</p>