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

[mfogiel]

You are not saying, what you like to shoot. If you are a landscape guy, I'd stick to 6x6 and something like a Bronica you've mentioned. If you are more into portrait, you should definitely take a look at the 6x45 options - my favourite would be Pentax 645N. For street and travel a Bronica 645 or Fuji 645 would be interesting options to explore. I'd stay away from folders, which in most cases are difficult to use with any degree of reliability. Also, I don't see that much the appeal of 6x7 - if you want a big negative, go directly to 6x9 ( Fuji, Mamiya Press)

 

[oftheherd]

You are not saying, what you like to shoot. If you are a landscape guy, I'd stick to 6x6 and something like a Bronica you've mentioned. If you are more into portrait, you should definitely take a look at the 6x45 options - my favourite would be Pentax 645N. For street and travel a Bronica 645 or Fuji 645 would be interesting options to explore. I'd stay away from folders, which in most cases are difficult to use with any degree of reliability. Also, I don't see that much the appeal of 6x7 - if you want a big negative, go directly to 6x9 ( Fuji, Mamiya Press)

Sorry you have not found folders satisfying to use. I like them. I personally don't find them difficult to use with reliability. You do need one that is working properly, and was built with the idea of being used for good photos (a good lens for example, and a sturdy lens holder). Then get a work flow for that camera.

The 6x9 negative is nice, but to me, the 6x7 is quite OK too. Appeal is horses for courses I guess. But why not just go 4x5 then?

The difference between 6x6 and 645, to me at least, has more to do with the versatility of the particular camera and your own desires as to what you want to be able to do with it. If you don't need interchangeable lenses and/or backs, you have a lot more to choose from. But unless you prefer square prints as some do, then all you get from 6x6 is looser framing. Sometimes that is worth while as long as you know why you are doing it, as opposed to just being sloppy.

In the end, all you can do is read what our answers are for us, then see if you find any personal agreement with anything we say, and what camera seems to fill the gap for you.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't think there have been a lot of answers to your question of the differences between a TLR and a folder. I have owned a Yashica MAT 124 G, a Rolleiflex, a Weltaflex, and a Welta Perfekta. I also have a non-working Yashica EM. You know how a TLR works. You look down at the focusing screen unless you have built in sports finders or mirrors to look down at the ground glass. The image looking down with be reversed. Some people have difficulty working with that. Most TLR aren't too heavy, but the C330 are rather heavy.

Folders also come in all shapes and sizes. That would include drop bed folders although nobody has mentioned them yet that I recall. What most people are talking about in folders are like the Welta Weltur for example. Folders also come in RF and zone focus. Their main advantage is being able to put them up to your eye for framing. Most require separate steps in setting shutter speed, aperture, and cocking the shutter, and setting focus. No big problem, lots of cameras require that. It's just a question of figuring out the proper work flow for any particular camera you use.

Most folders, like most TLR, require you to look at a red window to advance the film. Some TLR as well as some folders will take care of film advance for you.

To me, the biggest advantage of the folders over TLR, for me, is size and weight. There are TLR that don't have particularly good lenses, and some that have great lenses. Same with folders. You need to do your homework. Same with pricing. I doubt if you do your homework on pricing, you would lose and money on a resale, if you got one you didn't like. That would be true for both TLR and folding.

Nobody has mentioned drop bed folders, and I don't think that is really where you want to go anyway. But it might be worth looking at just in case one of them would tweak you 'retro' nerve. If you think so, come back and ask about them specifically. They are a beast unto themselves. But I, and others here at RFF like them.

 

[farlymac]

Redseele, you should try the Yashica D, or 635 ( a dual format version of the D). Very solidly built, and easy to use. Not as quick to wind as the Mat models, but with the Yashinon lens version, a good performer. The Yashicor versions aren't bad either.

PF

Yashica 635 with Yashicor 3.5/80 on T-Max 100

No More Furniture by br1078phot, on Flickr

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

To me, the biggest advantage of the folders over TLR, for me, is size and weight.

For me: size, weight and a film size that can be scanned to good quality images at affordable priced scanners. At least with the MF folders we discuss here. The digital alternative that replaces that combination is in mirrorless cameras ranging from M4/3 to FF. That route asks for some yoga meditation though which you get free in the use of MF folders.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140716

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140716

The good decision is keeping the Yashica TLR.
Comparing a Leica M3 to folders,SLR,other formats is silly.
The M3 is the most accurate, smoothest,extremely fast camera system.
No modern Leica even comes close! I have the M6,used the M7,the digitals.
An accurate viewfinder, one without distracting frames.
I personally prefer NOT to use wide angles.
I hate the distortion, the excessive extra area.
The TLR is a very slow camera, take your time.
Even if you've spent 20 mins or more setting up a shot,
if it's no good abandon it!
I actually hate the standard lens on a TLR.
It is too wide. I crop all my negatives.
I like the square.
A roll in my TLR can last a year!
Good luck!

 

[Sanders McNew]

If anything, I think maybe it's the Yashica Mat model I have (EM) that doesn't quite feel right. There's something about it that feels flimsy or non polished, or maybe it feels like there are too many mechanical components in it. Of course, this also probably has to do with how my perception of cameras changed when I got my Leica M3. I have been doing some research about whether jumping into the Rolleicord line would be a step up, but apparently I read image-wise I would probably get about the same results but with the downgrade of a worse finder and the fact that I would probably have to spend more cash to CLA it (which I have already done with my Yashica Mat EM).

A Rolleicord is a good option. It has the M3's refined mechanics. Image
quality will not be noticeably better -- no film camera will visibly improve
on either camera's negatives. (The folders will never match them because
of imprecisions in the folding mechanisms.)

Buying any camera that is 50 to 80 years old involves buying a CLA along
with it -- that is a fact of life. The Rolleicord will also want a new viewscreen
but even if you spring for a Maxwell screen you can have a fresh Rolleicord
for something around $500, and it will outlive you.

Don't get hung up on the "best" Rolleicord. Even the most primitive are
joys to shoot. I have two of the earliest Rolleicords, each with Triotar lenses.
I paid less than $100 for each, and put another $400 into a Maxwell screen
and CLA. For $500, they are compact, light, and make fantastic negatives.
This, from an 80-year-old Rolleicord I:


Paris, last week. by sandersnyc, on Flickr

I wouldn't recommend the early Rolleicords to someone looking for an entry
into the line -- the III, IV and V are much easier to use, almost as light, and
offer "better" Xenar lenses. ("Better" as in improved optical performance
-- I really like the Triotar's "imperfections.") But Rolleicords with Xenars are
plentiful and inexpensive. Find one that has been treated with care over the
years, and it will repay the investment many times over.

 

[BW400CN]

An RF folder which is under your budget would be the Zeiss Ikon Mess Ikonta.


Zeiss Ikon Mess-Ikonta 524/2 von Michael Relguag auf Flickr

A cam which would be lovely to use for me if it wouldn´t be lefthanded!!!

The results from the Novar-Anastigmat 3,5 105mm are realy pleasing and the 6x9cm format is my favorite in MF.


Zeiss Ikon - Mess-Ikonta 524/2 - Ilford XP2 von Michael Relguag auf Flickr


Zeiss Ikon - Mess Ikonta 524/2 - Fuji Reala 100 von Michael Relguag auf Flickr

The RF is uncoupled but it is no problem to get the focus perfect to the point as you see.

@Sanders McNew - I miss so many of your older pics on Flickr - is there somewhere else in the Web a place to see them again or do you sell a book with them?

 

[oftheherd]

...

(The folders will never match them because
of imprecisions in the folding mechanisms.)

Buying any camera that is 50 to 80 years old involves buying a CLA along
with it -- that is a fact of life.

...

Nice photo.

I think on the first comment above I would say some folders might have that problem. I think Moskvas were more prone to that. Also any camera that hasn't been treated well could be subject to that problem. But I think most were made to exacting standards. In their day, most were for people who had money and expected to get value for that money.

Old cameras will certainly benefit from a CLA, but I think you would be surprised at how many have aged well, due to having been built well. They will need minimal help with the shutter, or a RF adjusted, and maybe with well known models, a bellows replacement. But I have some, especially Weltas, that have needed nothing more that leather glueing or replacement.

I know that may not have been your experience, in which case I am sorry for you experience. Maybe I have been lucky. I have had to clean shutters, glue or replace leather, and I have two Mamiya Six cameras that have as yet unknown shutter problems but I have had springs made to replace missing springs to return the film plane. When I can get around to it, I expect at least one working camera.

 

[citizen99]

Just adding my 'vote' to the many voices already posted, to not discount folders where it is a case of portability being a priority (I do have a TLR as well - I'm not a 'folders fanboy' to the exclusion of all else 😉 ) for daylight, landscape/townscape use. As oftheherd and others have pointed out above, it is possible to find folders in good condition (or economically restorable if you do your own CLA).

My folders are all pre-1960, and each representative of what you might expect to find within your $250 budget target (you might need to go for a variant with e.g. 4-element lens, instead of 5-element, where applicable, but that's a perfectly good lens).

A point that's just occurred to me - it's possible to get better results for some purposes with old cameras now than when they were new, simply because they can use the same modern films (at least 'mainstream' sizes like 135 and 120) as more modern cameras - the playing field is level there. Grandpa's old Brownie negatives are not the reference for comparison 😉 .

Some specimen images, all hand-held (just linked to save bandwidth, they can be seen at 'Original' size on Flickr if anybody wants to look) :-
6x9 Distant landscape - 4-element lens
6x9 Relatively near subject - 5-element lens, CRF (this is where an SLR would of have an increasing advantage the nearer you get)

 

[oftheherd]

Nice photos citizen99. I especially liked the Aussie landscape, although I would have preferrred a little less sky. But that is personal preference, not a criticism of the photo.

 

[citizen99]

Nice photos citizen99. I especially liked the Aussie landscape, although I would have preferrred a little less sky. But that is personal preference, not a criticism of the photo.

Thank you 🙂. Very fair point, normally something like 1/3 sky, 2/3 landscape would probably be better, but due to the location the foreground falls away rapidly. You've set me trying various quasi-panoramic crops; taking the far horizon as the true horizontal, I find it necessary to suppress the curve of the road altogether otherwise it gives, to me, the illusion of the bottom of the frame being on the slant.
Here's an experimental crop
let's see how that works.

 

[oftheherd]

Interesting crop citizen99. I think it is better than before, but acutally, I would have left the foreground and just cut the sky to about where you did.

Again, I do not intend to criticise, only suggest, and it is only what I think would be more pleasing, and doesn't bind anyone else.

 

[citizen99]

Interesting crop citizen99. I think it is better than before, but acutally, I would have left the foreground and just cut the sky to about where you did.

Again, I do not intend to criticise, only suggest, and it is only what I think would be more pleasing, and doesn't bind anyone else.

Thanks, this is a useful exercise for me 🙂. I'd better not digress from the thread any more after this though 😉 . Here's such a less severe crop.

 

[oftheherd]

Thanks, this is a useful exercise for me 🙂. I'd better not digress from the thread any more after this though 😉 . Here's such a less severe crop.

I like that a lot better. When I was looking at it I brought the sky down to just before where the tree at the top left starts to get vertical. But if you like this better, it does look nice. What is your preference?

 

[citizen99]

I like that a lot better. When I was looking at it I brought the sky down to just before where the tree at the top left starts to get vertical. But if you like this better, it does look nice. What is your preference?

I just tried that in PS, it 'works' but in a different way. I prefer the most recent posting as in the most recent link, for me it gives plenty of attention to the near townscape, whilst emphasising the relative emptiness of the vast continent beyond the suburbs. I certainly like it better than my original which was as it came from the camera, apart from a very small trim to correct a slight tilt from the horizontal (must get a bubble spirit level 😉 ), thank you 🙂.

 

[oftheherd]

I'm glad you are happier with it. One always has to be careful when suggesting changes, that the photographer isn't sent down a path of changing, only to return to the original and nothing but wasted time to show for the exercise. But I think it is really a better photo. I could see that haning on a wall in something about 16 or 20 inches on the horizontal.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Nice photo.

I think on the first comment above I would say some folders might have that problem. I think Moskvas were more prone to that. Also any camera that hasn't been treated well could be subject to that problem. But I think most were made to exacting standards. In their day, most were for people who had money and expected to get value for that money.

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.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

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.
(snip)
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.

Totally agree on what you wrote. On the other hand when someone asks how many pixels is optimal for photography I ask first how wide his printer is. In the case of analogue cameras I add a question on what scanner he uses. For a 6x9 folder a modest Epson scanner that covers 6x9 film format could create enough 'quality' pixels for a 13" or even a 17" wide printer. The combination of a large film format and not so big print format allows a big drop in resolution per square inch film compared to a 35mm negative from a Leica that has to be digitised. Grain issues included. The quality of the camera should not be ignored but that camera is just part of a total workflow to the print. For JPEGs loaded to this forum it is even less important 🙂

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Totally agree on what you wrote. On the other hand when someone asks how many pixels is optimal for photography I ask first how wide his printer is. In the case of analogue cameras I add a question on what scanner he uses. For a 6x9 folder a modest Epson scanner that covers 6x9 film format could create enough 'quality' pixels for a 13" or even a 17" wide printer. The combination of a large film format and not so big print format allows a big drop in resolution per square inch film compared to a 35mm negative from a Leica that has to be digitised. Grain issues included. The quality of the camera should not be ignored but that camera is just part of a total workflow to the print. For JPEGs loaded to this forum it is even less important 🙂

Truer words, never spoken. 🙂

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