TLR recommendations

[koniczech]

Hi there,

I have really been enjoying my GSN, and have heard a lot about how great the mat124 is. My questions are as follows;

-Is using a TLR a lot more conspicuous/time consuming for the shots?
-Is the film and developing cost much higher than with 35?
-and is it hard to find places that develop the film
-do you recommend TLRs for re-starting film users?
-is it worth getting a TLR if I am not too frequently shooting

thanks.
koniczech

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I had a Yashicamat 124G but sold it when I got a Rolleiflex. Same situation though.
Yes, a little more conspicuous in some situations but not so in others. However, you'll get more comments about "that old camera" with a TLR.
It is generally a more deliberate, and therefore time consuming process but with everything preset and using the sports finder frame it can still be quick. But it's not what I'd choose first for candid or street photography (although it's possible, the smaller 35mm RF's are better suited to this).
Make sure you have a "feel" of one before committing yourself - some people can't handle the left to right image reversal in the viewfinder or the square format.
I develop my own B&W. Chemical costs are about the same as for 35mm per film (not per frame). Can't vouch for CN type processing.
Can't comment on finding labs as I don't know your location - I live in Australia and CN type films are no problem to get processed here.
I'd hold off if you're just restarting. The main advantage of MF is the larger negative size and thus better image quality. (There are sometimes issues about getting a good scanning service too, unless you're already doing your own). If IQ is not an issue for you at present I'd suggest waiting until it is. A disadvantage is that most types of TLR have fixed lenses.
A TLR will give you 12 frames per film. If you're not shooting frequently and can cope with the different shooting method then it's probably going to suit you better than waiting to use up to 36 frames on a 35mm film. But there are trade-offs, some of which I've outlined above.

 

[oftheherd]

A properly working TLR can be very satifying to use. That because you get a bigger negative. A properly working Yashica MAT 124 G is great to use. It has good optics, a built in light meter, Rolleiflex like operation, and a sports finder built in as well.

There are other TLR that are also good photo tools. If you do a search of the forums, you will find threads that mention TLR such as Mamiya at the high end, and Minolta at the lower end. They will still be cameras with great optics. Welta also had some good TLR.

Some people do have trouble adjusting to things like the reversed view as mentioned above. There is also the fact that you get 12/24 photos per roll. That may be good or bad, depending on the user.

One question is whether you are intrigued by TLR or by MF in general. If MF only, there are other options. You can get SLR, RF or folders. The older folders will be less expensive.

You questioned development of film. B/W you can do yourself, even color, but that is more expensive and sometimes harder to find. I get my color done at a local camera store that does great work.

But whatever the disadvantages of MF and TLR, you may find the larger negative is worth it. If you don't develop your own film, and/or at least scan it, I don't know what advantage it would have.

 

[payasam]

A TLR -- or any camera that uses 120 film -- probably makes sense only if you plan to make prints 20" x 30". For a hobbyist, of course, practicality is not relevant.

 

[sig]

I have a ricoh diacord with light meter, I think it is the L version. Using it is lovely.

-Is using a TLR a lot more conspicuous/time consuming for the shots?
It depends what TLR you have and what you are comparing against. But in general yes.
-Is the film and developing cost much higher than with 35?
I do B&W myself. But when I checked last it was priced the same as 35 (36 shots 35mm costs the same as 12 shots 120) Perth, Australia
-and is it hard to find places that develop the film
Depends where you are, ask in the local photo shop, they will know.
-do you recommend TLRs for re-starting film users?
I love it, the view finder is like a TV. I do not think it is any better or worse than anything else. Everything is the same as on any other camera (set f-stop, shutter speed and focus)
-is it worth getting a TLR if I am not too frequently shooting
I think so, as long as you can justify the cost then why not. You should be able to get one for below 100 dollars,

However Paysam has a point when regarding 120 film. You have to change film more frequently etc and in general it is slower to use, but for me that is part of the fun.

 

[shadowfox]

A TLR -- or any camera that uses 120 film -- probably makes sense only if you plan to make prints 20" x 30". For a hobbyist, of course, practicality is not relevant.

I have to respectfully disagree, Mukul.

For one, 120 size film has the advantage of shallower DoF and higher details compared to 35mm film, which, when used artistically, produces images that are very lovely and very different.

... Even if it's only printed at 8x10 (inches).

Point in case, I just finished printing 6x6 photos from a photo-session last week. Viewers immediately commented that 8x8 print has more "depth" compared to the ones taken with full-frame DSLRs (same session).

Coincidentally, the 6x6 shots were taken with a TLR. A Ricohmatic 225.

 

[stefan_dinu]

For me, the biggest issue with TLR is the finder. From this point of view there is one excelent camera from Minolta. It is called Autocord, but not that easy to find as yashicas or even ricoh.
I use Mamyia TLR system, but is quite bulky. The most versatyle though.

 

[gliderbee]

Anybody who knows the difference between the Mamiya C220 and C330, and while we are at it, the C2-C3 and C22-C33 ?

I'm asking because I had a Lubitel once, and one of these Mamiya's (C22 or C220, don't remember anymore ...), and I'm thinking about buying another one.

Stefan.

 

[martin s]

The 330 cocks the shutters on the lenses when the film is advanced. On the 220, the shutter has to be cocked separately. Also, the 330 has a large crank for film advance, the 220 has a knob, with a small fold out crank. The 220 is lighter in weight. The 220 does not take interchangeble viewing screens, the 330 does. there are other less significant differences (IMHO). I have the 220. They take all the same lenses.


See: http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patte...aq-mamiya.html

--> http://www.apug.org/forums/forum51/29492-mamiya-c220-c330.html

Consider a Rolleiflex though, I use both a Mamiya and the Rolleiflex. The advantage of the c330 is the bellows, but you do have to compensate exposure if you go "too" close, and the camera itself is very big and pretty heavy.

Get a cheap Rollei 3.5C/E/F (whatever comes your way) and a Rolleinar 2, it's a lot smaller and a lot more convenient.

martin

 

[gliderbee]

I never had a Rollei in my hands, but they do have a good reputation afaik.

What about the Yashica Mat then ? It's generally cheaper then the Rollei ...

In a shop nearby, there's a Mamiya C330 with three lenses and a finder (lenses are 60mm, 105mm and a bigger tele (don't remember exactly) for 499 euro. It all looks and works very nice, except for the tele, where the shutter is too slow at 1 sec and 1/2 sec. It's there quite some time now, and the shopkeeper told me I could make an offer ... It's very tempting.

Stefan.

 

[rolleistef]

The Mamiyas are somewhat different. Even if the tripod/no tripod battle still is on, the weight - above 2kg - is quite of a argument to take into account, when compared to a Rollei, a Minolta or a Yashicamat (circa 1kg).
I never had any trouble using my Rolleiflex that same fast way you can use a SLR, but what is mainly to be considered is what you want your photos to look like and what you want your camera to be like. It's often much more satisfying to use a TLR as you get - thanks to the 12 exposure roll - a higher "keeper" proportion.

Overall, as you can see in the reactions, using a TLR is something really personal. Some like, some dislike, some like it quick, some like it hot. More than any other type of camera (though I have never tried a large format camera), TLRs are tools one master in a way or another, and which needs to be tried before use. In any case you can't lose money when buying and selling such cameras.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Film Choice for TLR

Film Choice for TLR

There is also the fact that you get 12/24 photos per roll. .

The larger size - 220 - with 24 shots instead of 12 is almost unobtainable now. Most manufacturers have given up on it, so don't be influenced in your choice by a camera able to accept 220 as well as 120. You'll really only have one choice of film size.

 

[martin s]

Here's a small comparison (C330 / Rolleiflex 3.5C)

 

[martin s]

And in my hand

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Koniczech,

Something to be aware of is that some people just don't get on with TLRs, no matter how excellent the results they may deliver, and no matter how quiet and unobtrusive they are. I know: I'm one of them. Those who don't get on with them tend to be more temperate in their opinions than rabid devotees, for fear of being lynched. But I've had Rolleis and several others (I still have three, a Lyubitel, a Graflex and a Semflex), and I've borrowed many more, including Mamiyas.

For me, these are awkward, inconvenient cameras. I know I'm in a small minority but it's worth knowing that you might also find yourself in it.

One other point -- disagreeing with Mukul -- is that a 3x enlargement from roll-film can give contact-print-like quality, with a fine-grain, sharp film (I like Delta 100) and the camera on a tripod. I particularly like 6x7cm enlarged to whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches, 16,8 x 21,6 cm): exactly 3x off Linhof's 56x72mm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[oftheherd]

The larger size - 220 - with 24 shots instead of 12 is almost unobtainable now. Most manufacturers have given up on it, so don't be influenced in your choice by a camera able to accept 220 as well as 120. You'll really only have one choice of film size.

That is true. It can still be found, but not in as many flavors as it used to be, and it's hard to say for how long 220 will remain available in any particular film.

 

[JohnTF]

I used a Rollei for years before I could afford a 35mm SLR, and before that a Speed and Crown Graflex.

You develop a way of working with any equipment, and found I would work as quickly as I required with practice. I photographed sports with both of these.

I even used to reload my Rollei while still on a flash bracket by releasing the back and turning he camera up, being extra careful not to torque the back or drop the film.

I found the C220 and later the C330s to offer quicker loading while photographing a job, and yes, 220 film was a great comfort while shooting an event.

Your composition and Viewfinder experience is different, with your angle of view lower. I find this difference in perspective something I want in some situations.

And, the smaller enlargement factor can yield a contact print like quality. I used to think there was an actual difference in the tonal range I could get out of MF negatives, but I could never quantify it. The film base is clearer, but no one seemed to think that had any effect on the way the negatives print.

Finally, I sometimes like the square format, and other times I did not have to worry about horizontal or vertical cropping and left that to the darkroom to decide.

The Mamiya cameras produced fine results, the 105 mm was not an expensive lens, but it is neither fish nor fowl, a length you might not use very often. I have a wider lens, 50 or 55mm? which is very good working in tight quarters, I do not think the 65 wide enough relative to the 80mm normal.

With the prices generally very low, I would try to find the C330s, the last model, and probably not too much more than the rest. The interchangeable screens were different in the C330f and C330s, I really needed the split image screen. The footage scales on the Mamiyas are not much use for zone focusing.

The Rollei is more of a street / travel camera, as it is lighter and smaller. The Yashica 124G was OK, but you should be able to find a Rollei for close to the same price with some effort.

Which reminds me, I should be selling much of what I have sitting about. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[IgalSc]

A TLR -- or any camera that uses 120 film -- probably makes sense only if you plan to make prints 20" x 30". For a hobbyist, of course, practicality is not relevant.

I have to respectfully disagree, Mukul.

For one, 120 size film has the advantage of shallower DoF and higher details compared to 35mm film, which, when used artistically, produces images that are very lovely and very different.

... Even if it's only printed at 8x10 (inches).

I would completely agree with shadowfox
I recently got my Yashica-Mat and I just enjoy shooting with it (thinking of moving to 6x6 only with film)
Not to talk about the details, the square format of TLR makes you look some different and think some more - it takes longer to focus with TLR than with RF or SLR

As for the development - as I develop my BW films myself, it makes no difference in terms of money for it. Also, it takes the same price to develop 6x6 slides and 35mm slides (which makes 120mm film to cost more - you have only 12 shots on it, not 36/24)

Regards
Igal

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear Koniczech,

.................

For me, these are awkward, inconvenient cameras. I know I'm in a small minority but it's worth knowing that you might also find yourself in it.

...................

Cheers,

R.

Ergonomics is not their strong suit, but if you use them long enough you start to not notice. I like the low shooting angle you can get with the TLR, too. I have Three TLRs: one Rollei, and two Diacord Gs. Total outlay for the three is$165.00. The Rollei I've had for a very long time, but they are giving Diacords practically away now; this from a DiacordG:

 

[ray*j*gun]

I've used a c220 for many years and with an eye level finder to supplement the waist level finder I find its perfect and a real bargin these days. Plus interchangeable lenses. I have a 60 plus the normal and they are sharp and soooo well made. I still have no trouble finding 220 film and like the extra frames for certain kinds of work. I use a wide neopreen strap and its very comfortable to carry.