TLR recommendations

grainhound said:
A few comments about the Mamiya TLR system. I have a C220, C330 and 6 of the 7 lenses - the later black ones. Avoid the older chrome ones. Lesser performance, apparently, and reports are that shutter parts are non-existent.

• It’s a system. 7 lenses: 55, 65, 80, 105, 135, 180, and 250. All but the 250 are generally very well regarded. (I think a 250mm lens with a maximum aperture of f6.3 is fairly ridiculous on a TLR anyway.) There are different finders. I have a porrofinder which I only use occasionally, in good light. It is, however, light weight; the prism finder weighs much more, although it’s reportedly brighter. The chimney finder is excellent for focusing. My reading glasses can stay in my pocket, although I prefer framing with the standard finder. It is nice to have the choice.

• The focus is done via bellows, which means you can do close up and macro shots without all the apparati that other cameras require. No extra cash required. You’ll have to use a tripod and a paramender if you’re interested in those kinds of shots. There are two types of paramender: one that you crank, and one that has a lever to put the taking lens where the viewing lens was. Of course, the crank type is cheaper and easier to find than the lever type. I have a crank type, and it works well. If you can't find a paramender, the height of a 35mm film can is just right. Cheap, but awkward, even though you're using a tripod.

• I owned a Rollei 2.8E2 for a day. On its trial outing it barked, although it didn’t wag its tail. I sent it back to its kennel and got a refund. Relevant to this thread, I didn’t find it significantly lighter or smaller than the C220 with the 80mm lens mounted. It’s possible I’m a lousy judge of weight. I’m sure the Rollei lens is better than the Mamiya’s, but I’m not convinced I would see that.

• I disliked the Rollei focusing screen as much as I used to dislike the C220 screen. (The C330 screen is better.) I fixed the 220 screen problem by getting a Mamiya RB screen with a split image and having my tech at the time cut it down and replace the standard 220 screen with it. The 220 screen isn’t interchangable unless your tech can do it, or you have the skills yourself. I paid under $100 for a used screen and installation, which is half the cost of a Beattie or Maxwell screen alone. For me, the camera was much more enjoyable to use with the RB screen.

• If you’re interested in using more than one focal length, see if you can have a look at any medium format SLR with 3 or more lenses, and compare the size and weight of that system with either Mamiya and 3 or more lenses of approximately comparable focal lengths. That hurts Mamiya’s reputation as a beast.

cheers, and good luck,

Guy
Click to expand...

With the prices as low as they are, I would skip three spaces and get the C330s. I once took my C220's top off, it is shimmed with paper cut from film backing, and it will take a good technician to get it all installed and aligned, sounds as if you found one. ;-) The screens from Kiev's, if large enough, might be a very good value.

The glass prism is a lot brighter, however, if you want eye level composition, to my way of thinking, you might be better off with a Mamiya 645 system.


I found the parallax with the 220 series to be a problem, so I used a grease pencil to make a hard to miss mark on the viewfinder glass.

I think the glass is fine, but some have needed service on the shutters, not terribly expensive.

Regards, John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
-Is using a TLR a lot more conspicuous/time consuming for the shots?
> for me, a little. but it all depends on how you use it, really. you can stop it down and use hyperfocus, and have a hip heing point and shoot. personally, what pleases me the most in MF is the shallow depth of field, so I try to use the widest aperture I can most of the time. so I focus precisely for almost all the shots. it does slow me down, but I enjoy it. it makes me evaluate better the scene, and when I take my 124G I'm really NOT in a hurry, so I just take my time.

-Is the film and developing cost much higher than with 35?
> not much higher, but def higher. depending on the camera you get you can use 220 film, which will give you 24 exp. per roll. some places charge the same price for 135, 120 and 220. others charge 220 double the 120 price. 220 rolls can cost a little more than 135 rolls, but it's not a big difference.

-and is it hard to find places that develop the film
> depends on where you live, but in bigger cities there must be a handful of labs that will process MF. worst case scenario, mail the rolls to Dwayne's

-do you recommend TLRs for re-starting film users?
> depends on what they're used to and feel comfortable with, I think...

-is it worth getting a TLR if I am not too frequently shooting
> imho, yeah. you can find TLRs for low prices, and a good TLR is a fantastic picture taker.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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. . .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.


Just goes to show that we're all different, Roger. For me, TLRs have always been the most comfortable, most convenient, and easiest to handle of all camera types.

This is not at all to disagree with you, but rather to reinforce your point that the OP needs to try for himself before he buys.

Dave Jenkins
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom