From a TLR to another 120 camera... SLR vs Folders?

Sanders McNew said:
Ernst, I just rejoined the DBWTP group, after a life of wet darkroom work
-- I have much to learn from you over there.

Regards,

Sanders
Click to expand...

There is a lot to learn for me too on the DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Paul Roark and several others that contribute their wisdom there.

Another group to mention:
QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
 
Redseele said:
I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I will anyway... hopefully someone will help me.

Right now I have a Yashica Mat TLR. It is in perfect shape, the light meter works (!!!) and it's quite beautiful. That being said, whilst I love the 120 format and how I am slowed down by the TLR, I think there's something I don't like about this type of camera. I cannot quite put my finger on it to be sincere...

That being said, I still want to be able to shoot 120 (or 220), be it in 6x6 or larger format (6x7, 6x9...). So I've been researching a bit and found out that I could give a Bronica SQ a go or other 120 SLR. Obviously, I would love to have a Hasselblad but right now I'm not willing to spend that much. My budget is about $250. However, I only recently started looking into the possibility of a folder 120 camera. These cameras look seriously cool and seem to be closer to the experience i have from shooting my M3 (handheld light meter required even), but I really wonder how come there's nowhere near as many of them being popular in the last 30 years.

So, can anyone please help understand what are the pros and cons of 120 SLRs vs Folders? Do you think that the experience of shooting one of these cameras would be quite different from shooting the Yashica Mat TLR I already have (and that I would probably have to sell to get another 120 camera)?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I very much like my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B 120 folder(6x6). The coupled rangefinder is fast to use, even if the viewfinder is tiny. That, and the fact that you only get 11 exp. on a 120 roll are the drawbacks. But if you're used to an M3 (like I am) you'll get the hang of ZI right away. I'm sure they're available in your price range.
-Chuck
 
Sanders McNew said:
Not some: All. A TLR is a precise instrument, with lenses mounted into
a machined box and standard with fine tolerance for variation. Even a middling
TLR will outperform 90+ percent of the folders out there -- at least, if you
consider "performance" to mean ability to resolve an MTF chart.

Why? Several reasons:

(1) Even a well-designed folder moves its lens standard in and out on a
scissors-type set of arms (or other mechanism) that puts the lens out in
the general vicinity of where the optimal focal plane resides. Even when it
was new, even the best folder could not hit the right place reliably -- at least,
not to the exacting tolerance of the TLRs.

(2) These cameras are many decades old now. The folding mechanisms
are frail and subject to knocks and bends that make (1) worse.

(3) Most folders use lenses that focus by moving the front lens cell only.
It's not an optimal way to focus a lens and that affects performance as well.

That's not to say that folders aren't worth the effort. I have a few and they
are fun. My wife built her reputation on Agfa Record folders. If you are
shooting at f/8 it doesn't matter. And MTF charts are not the be-all and
end-all of photography. (It they were, I wouldn't be shooting a Rolleicord
II with a Triotar, or a Brownie.)

But it is wrong to suggest that a folder can keep up with a TLR in terms of
optical resolution. The original poster seemed to care about whether he could
improve on the resolution of his Yashica. The answer is "probably not" in
general, and "almost certainly not" with respect to folders.
Click to expand...

I think you are painting with the same broad brush you accuse me of. I am not for folders to the exclusion of everything else. And I will have to admit I haven't done side by side tests. If you have compared many folders against TLR and found the TLRs outdo any folders, good for you.

I have only shot 4 TRL; Yashica MAT 124 G, Rolleiflex (with Schneider-Kruesnaught f/3.5 lens), Welta Reflekta, and Welta Perfekta. I loved the Yashica, found the Reflekta OK, and kind of liked the Perfekta. I could never find any love for the Rolleiflex. I have used several folders and liked them all (except the poor working Mosdva). But that is just me. And as I said, I haven't done side by side tests, so the fact that I liked them and thought they gave me good photos is my evaluation only. All my folders except the Moskva clicked into place well. Perfect? Well, I don't carry a square with me, but my eyes are still pretty good.

I am glad you are happy with your TLR. As I said, I really loved my Yashica and took a lot of photos with it, so I understand how some people really love them.
 
I've done a few comparisons between a number of my cameras,first was my YashicaMat (80mm) vs Bronica ETR (75mm) both loaded with Provia 100F,both at f8 and then f11 and on tripods and cable releases at the same shutter speeds,neither myself or my wife could see a difference with an 8x loupe on the light table. Next was the same film etc,with my Mockba-5 and Mamiya7 with 80mm lens. Actually this was kinda surprising, there were many easily seen improvements with the Mamiya,but by themselves, the Mockba slides were really pretty good !! In other words , I'd be driving a nice small used car and taking
more pictures with my Mockba-5 instead of walking around with my Mamiya kit. Damn this GAS !
Peter
 
oftheherd said:
I think you are painting with the same broad brush you accuse me of. I am not for folders to the exclusion of everything else. And I will have to admit I haven't done side by side tests. If you have compared many folders against TLR and found the TLRs outdo any folders, good for you.

I have only shot 4 TRL; Yashica MAT 124 G, Rolleiflex (with Schneider-Kruesnaught f/3.5 lens), Welta Reflekta, and Welta Perfekta. I loved the Yashica, found the Reflekta OK, and kind of liked the Perfekta. I could never find any love for the Rolleiflex. I have used several folders and liked them all (except the poor working Mosdva). But that is just me. And as I said, I haven't done side by side tests, so the fact that I liked them and thought they gave me good photos is my evaluation only. All my folders except the Moskva clicked into place well. Perfect? Well, I don't carry a square with me, but my eyes are still pretty good.

I am glad you are happy with your TLR. As I said, I really loved my Yashica and took a lot of photos with it, so I understand how some people really love them.
Click to expand...

I did not accuse you of anything. I said that there are important
design deficiencies in the folders that make them inferior optically
to TLRs. (And to most other cameras.) This is not my opinion. It
has nothing to do with you. It is a fact of their design, both in the
camera body and (for most folders) in the way the lenses focus.

I also said that optics are but one consideration, abeit one the OP
seemed to care about. As Ernst said, how the shooter is printing
and presenting the photos make a big difference in whether the
optics matter. For my own purposes, I welcome optical irregularity.
I will never own a Summilux; a Summar is my lens. Because in the
brave new world of digital imaging, perfect fidelity of optical resolution
is BORING. (That one was an opinion, by the way.)

It doesn't take anything away from folders to recognize their limits.
To repay your condescension: I'm glad you enjoy yours. I enjoy
mine too.
 
(3) Most folders use lenses that focus by moving the front lens cell only.
It's not an optimal way to focus a lens and that affects performance as well.

This quote (from Sanders's post 58) is something I've wondered about. Just how does this work, anyway? I always thought that you're effectively changing the focal length of the lens with front cell focusing. Does it only work with triplet designs (or modified triplet, e.g. Tessar)?

I agree with him that a TLR is a more precision instrument than a folder, purely based on its design. But I have certainly seen some very fine results from folders, often with very modest lenses.
 
And then there's the Iskra's which have an uncanny knack of getting a sharp image on the film , nor should I forget those Kodak Retinas. Not large folders like Ikontas or Mockbas, but folders none the less. I guess I'd call them overachievers! Peter
 
Sanders McNew said:
I did not accuse you of anything. I said that there are important
design deficiencies in the folders that make them inferior optically
to TLRs. (And to most other cameras.) This is not my opinion. It
has nothing to do with you. It is a fact of their design, both in the
camera body and (for most folders) in the way the lenses focus.

I also said that optics are but one consideration, abeit one the OP
seemed to care about. As Ernst said, how the shooter is printing
and presenting the photos make a big difference in whether the
optics matter. For my own purposes, I welcome optical irregularity.
I will never own a Summilux; a Summar is my lens. Because in the
brave new world of digital imaging, perfect fidelity of optical resolution
is BORING. (That one was an opinion, by the way.)

It doesn't take anything away from folders to recognize their limits.
To repay your condescension: I'm glad you enjoy yours. I enjoy
mine too.
Click to expand...

My apologies if I have offended you. Especially with the choice of the word accuse. It was not meant in a strong or confrontational way. But if you understood it that way, I chose poor wording.

As to condescension, perhaps I used poor wording again. At least my choice of words seems to have offended you, for which again, I apologize. But for the life of me, I don't see condescension there. I most assuredly didn't intend any. I truely did love using my Yashica MAT 124 G, and I enjoy using my Perfekta from time to time. I also understand not everyone likes the same type of camera (there wouldn't be as much choice otherwise), and I don't think any better or worse of anyone for their choice of camera to use.
 
Moto-Uno said:
And then there's the Iskra's which have an uncanny knack of getting a sharp image on the film , nor should I forget those Kodak Retinas. Not large folders like Ikontas or Mockbas, but folders none the less. I guess I'd call them overachievers! Peter
Click to expand...

I've never used any of those cameras. But I have used the Welti and Weltini by Welta. I think they are in the same class as Retinas. I used a Welti for years. I still have one and also Weltinis. I just seldom use them. They tend to be a little heavy for their size. Are the Retinas the same?
 
The Retina 111c that I have is noticeably heavier than my nice solid Minolta Hi-Matic E if that gives some idea, however the Retina certainly feels good in the hand and I'm of the belief that extra mass doesn't detract from being able to hold it still for extended exposures. I have one or two in my gallery that were shot at 1/15 and enlarged well.
Regards,Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom