TLR: How to use quickly?

joachim

joachim

Convicted Ektachome user
Local time
4:00 PM
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
431
Hi,

I own a Mamiya C330f and use it mostly as a tripod camera. Typically I take my time to set it up. Focus using the magnifier which takes time and gets difficult in low light. I understand the C330f finder is not the worse. Old Rolleiflex and Rolleicord (say 50ies) can have really dim screens (no Fresnel lens).

Now, in their heydays (50ies and 60ies) TLRs were actually used for a lot of fast(ish) work, like reportage. How did photographers manage? Scale focus according to "F8 and be there"? Also how did they frame with a dim finder? I understand my C330f finder provides better shielding than the tyical 50ies and 60ies design.

Any comments?
 
This only addresses screen brightness. I have a couple of Rolleis—one with a beautifully bright Maxwell screeen, and one with an original ground glass. With a clean mirror and clean old Rollei screen, the camera with the original screen it is not far behind the Maxwell in brightness, and the focusing is grainy and positive. At lower light levels the corners of the screen vignette, but the overall screen usability is much better than I thought possible.
 
joachim said:
Hi,

I own a Mamiya C330f and use it mostly as a tripod camera. Typically I take my time to set it up. Focus using the magnifier which takes time and gets difficult in low light. I understand the C330f finder is not the worse. Old Rolleiflex and Rolleicord (say 50ies) can have really dim screens (no Fresnel lens).

Now, in their heydays (50ies and 60ies) TLRs were actually used for a lot of fast(ish) work, like reportage. How did photographers manage? Scale focus according to "F8 and be there"? Also how did they frame with a dim finder? I understand my C330f finder provides better shielding than the tyical 50ies and 60ies design.

Any comments?
Click to expand...

On my Seagull TLR which is pretty much just a rip off of a rolleiflex, there is a windown you can open in the shield around the finder which gives you framing by looking through it, essentially turning the camera into a scale focus frame finder camera.

Other than that I can imagine that with the 6x6 format they had amble opportunity to crop as the magnification needed for printing in the paper was low and the starting format is large.

//Jan
 
They most likely preset the focus...either guessing or actually checking by using the magnifier and then popped it out of the way and once the subject was where they wanted it took the shot...with a small aperture they have a better chance of the shot being in focus...with the 6x6 neg there's alot of real estate there to actually frame a good picture...
With lots of practice the one can get pretty fast with a TLR...
 
In old documentaries I saw reporters using TLR's often in combination with a flash, maybe its their way to get the f8 and a fast pic. The artsy photographers took their time.
My Rolleiflex from 1961 has a better screen then my Mamiya C220. No problem 'cause a TLR to me means to be more concentrated in taking a picture. For MF fast shooting, I use a folder camera.
 
jmcd said:
This only addresses screen brightness. I have a couple of Rolleis—one with a beautifully bright Maxwell screeen, and one with an original ground glass. With a clean mirror and clean old Rollei screen, the camera with the original screen it is not far behind the Maxwell in brightness, and the focusing is grainy and positive. At lower light levels the corners of the screen vignette, but the overall screen usability is much better than I thought possible.
Click to expand...

Hi JMCD,

thanks for you contribution. How old is the Rollei with the original screen? You seem to imply your model doesn't have a Fresnel in the screen, but I thought I ask for confirmation.

Still you flip out the magnifier to confirm focus and flip it back to frame?
 
Borghesia said:
My Rolleiflex from 1961 has a better screen then my Mamiya C220.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the answers coming thick and fast. It is the once like the above, which make me want to get the real thing. But then the ones within my budget have 75mm or 80mm lenses. My most loved Mamiya shoots are taken with the 55mm. This lens has a badly chipped finder lens, which makes matters worse, but the taking lens I am really happy with.
 
also, a lot of the photos in the past in journalism utilized flash, which lets you use a smaller aperture.

the mirror on my yashica mat 124 is bright enough to use at the waist. I've seen a Mamiya that was usable that way, too, though the extra focus length with the bellows is slower.
 
How old is the Rollei with the original screen? You seem to imply your model doesn't have a Fresnel in the screen, but I thought I ask for confirmation.
Click to expand...
The one with the original screen is from 1954—no fresnel. I rarely use the magnifier for focusing, but sometimes do in fading light.
 
From what I've read, press photographers "back in the day" tended to rely on scale focusing & the sportsfinder (snip accurately describes how you deploy it on a Rolleiflex) for fast shots w/TLRs (very similar to the techniques used w/Speed Graphics & other large format press cameras or, if they were avant garde, w/35mm RFs).
 
I can't believe all you guys have that much trouble. My Rolleiflex is, I believe, a 1949. In any case, it's old enough that only the taking lens is coated, the viewing lens being uncoated. Additionally, I'm just a few month short of 70, so my eyes are probably not as good as most of you.

In all fairness, I have taken mine apart and cleaned the lens, mirror and screen, so it should be as good as it ever was. I can snap it into focus with no problem. There is a little trick, that most of us knew years ago. That is, don't fiddle trying to slowly bring it into focus. Focus rapidly before your eyes accommodate any out of focus condition, and it will just snap in. I would suggest you find Fritz Henle's book on the Rollei. He did a lot of work with it in the 50's and explains it well.

http://www.amazon.com/Fritz-Henles-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225305795&sr=8-1
 
Last edited:
Borghesia said:
The real thing ? A Mamiya C serie and a Rolleiflex are two different beasts.
The Rolleiflex being very handy small and light and easy to use in being left with a fixed lens. The Mamiya C... being versatile having the choice of excellent lenses.
I also have the 55mm but I fell in love with the 180mm Super.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93169333@N00/2935467217/
Click to expand...

In some way they are different and in other ways they are similar. Sure the Mamiya can swap lenses. On the other hand it doesn't have the reputation and fame of the Rolleiflex. And the Mamiya is just so heavy. No way to take it up a mountain.

By the way interesting shoot. What was the aperture? My telephoto is the 135. It is smaller and lighter.
 
It's amazing to see old photos of reporters using TLRs upside down over their heads. That must have been a hell of a hard time focusing.

/T
 
joachim said:
In some way they are different and in other ways they are similar. Sure the Mamiya can swap lenses. On the other hand it doesn't have the reputation and fame of the Rolleiflex. And the Mamiya is just so heavy. No way to take it up a mountain.

By the way interesting shoot. What was the aperture? My telephoto is the 135. It is smaller and lighter.
Click to expand...

Hello Joachim, a C220 isn't that heavy, comparable with a 'flex. Its just a bit bigger, especially with the telephoto lenses. I never hold a C330, but I heard that camera is something different.
My picture is shot at f 5,6 .
 
"reportage" photographers were using smaller apertures and flash many times, i think. Probably prefocusing to a useful distance, or focusing approximately as quick as possible.
 
Borghesia said:
Hello Joachim, a C220 isn't that heavy, comparable with a 'flex. Its just a bit bigger, especially with the telephoto lenses. I never hold a C330, but I heard that camera is something different.
My picture is shot at f 5,6 .
Click to expand...

I had a C220 for a week or so about 10 years ago. I got it used and the calibration was out (all my lenses where out of focus :(). Some times I am toying with getting another one (mostly for the weight). I remember being happier with the finder on my C330f. Though it might not be more to it than the WLF on the C330f offering better shielding, in particular with the magnifier flipped up.

Thanks for the info on the aperture. Looks as if I have to give my 135 a go at a wider aperture.

Considering all the responses I got (many thanks to every one contributing) a key might be the bad condition of the finder lens of my 55/4.5. I am definitely more happy with the finder performance of my 80/2.8. I have the impression the finder works even better with my 135/4.5 (longer exit pupil).

I am also wondering about things like shifting standards between the 60ies and today. If you are not that fussy about focus because e.g. you are enlarging to something like 4x4 or 5x5 and your film is grainy to begin with, you can work the cameras faster, I can see that.
 
"Sports Finder" - plus taking advantage of flash - and learning their DOF tables by heart. For those who did or could not, I have several examples of old cameras where the previous owners taped DOF tables for that lens to the inside of the case or the back of the camera.

I have gotten lots of decent shots with a modern dSLR and wide lens by holding it over my head, aiming more-or-less at my subject (over the crowd's heads) and letting 'er rip as fast as the flash would recharge. Get a few keepers out of a string, that's good enough. I have the advantage of AF and not having to wind on after each shot, but the method is similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom