TLR recommendations

If you are wondering about whether the 120 filrm format is for you, why not try one of the older folding viewfinder cameras. They are much cheaper than a TLR (my Zeiss Nettar cost $25 plus shipping on ebay) and they have the advantages of being more portable and easier to hand hold. After using the Nettar for a while, I found liked medium format so much that I bought a Minolta Autocord TLR. The autocord is great, but I still use the Nettar because I can just slip it into a pocket when I go out for a walk.
 
koniczech,

Here are my 2 cents (opinion) for what it's worth.

-Is using a TLR a lot more conspicuous/time consuming for the shots?
Compared to 4x5 view cameras, no, they are lightening fast. Compared to 35, other than reloading more often I found them about the same. Now, I am trying to compare apples to apples. A non metered body to a non metered body. Most 35s have built in meters so that makes things faster for some. I do not shoot a lot of shots, just my style, so changing film is not a big deal. There are older TLRs that you have to wind the film, cock the shutter, and stuff but newer ones are much more integrated so all you do is wind and shoot. If you go with an older one where you have to cock the shutter they can be a bit slower.

-Is the film and developing cost much higher than with 35?
A roll of film for developing is about the same around here. From a self developing perspective you can fit two rolls of 36 into the same space as a single roll of 120 or 220. Not sure about 220 reels but I'm pretty sure they are out there. With larger negatives you can scan them on a flat bed and while the quality may not be as great as a professional lab it's much better than a 35 on them.

-and is it hard to find places that develop the film
I never did but then I'm not shooting it right now.

-do you recommend TLRs for re-starting film users?
Heck yes. A recent Yashica or Minolta would be my recommendation for a low cost place to start. Mamiyas are great but too big if you are not using them professionally. Rollies have wonderful glass but prices are higher and I think you will find the glass on either the Yashica or Minolta to be fine, at least to start with.

-is it worth getting a TLR if I am not too frequently shooting
Yes yes yes yes yes. One of the best things is that the roll only has 12 frames on it. This allows you to see your work much quicker than if it was a 36. Again, I do not shoot a lot of film (my style) so this can be important.

The price of film might cause you to think about your shots more. To look at them and decided, do you want to sped $X on the frame. I'm more of a sniper than a machine gunner. I look at what is going on, I figure out the shot I like, the peak of action if you will and then expose the film. Six frames per second through a motor and hoping for a good one is not me.

There are lots of techniques that allow for a TLR to be as fast as you want them to be. They are much easier to use shooting over a crowd and low to the ground (without your entire body getting wet). You do have some parallax issues with very close up but that's just experience. You can hold a TLR at waist level focus and shoot someone and they will never know what you did (most of the time).

While I'm not sure, I think TLRs have been holding their value a bit better than 35s have been. Not sure if that's because of their limited numbers or if it's because the market is smaller.

Hope this helps.

B2 (;->
 
I've been taking pictures as a hobby since 1978, with SLR, point-and-shoot, and DSLR cameras.

This last January, I bought a Rolleiflex 2.8E, and it was the first time I'd even held one.

Yesterday, I went to a lake to take sunset pictures. I set the Rolleiflex on a tripod, close to the ground near some flowers, aimed to look out over the shoreline and the lake. The sun and some reddish clouds were just over the water, and flowers were blowing in the breeze at the bottom of the frame. The image that appeared on the ground glass finder was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen in my life. It was absolutely stunningly beautiful. There was a warm yellow glow from the sun lighting up the interior of the viewfinder hood. The blues in the sky, the greens on the shore, and yellow of the sun looked better than real life. You just can't see an image that way with a rangefinder, DSLR, SLR or a point-and-shoot camera. So, while the picture that I took probably cannot show what I saw in the viewfinder, the sight that I did see was an experience I'll never forget.

On a scale of 1-10 for fun, I'd rate that a 10.

So, to answer your questions:
-Is using a TLR a lot more conspicuous/time consuming for the shots? (It depends.)
-Is the film and developing cost much higher than with 35? (A little.)
-and is it hard to find places that develop the film (We have two places in my city that do.)
-do you recommend TLRs for re-starting film users? (Yes, absolutely.)
-is it worth getting a TLR if I am not too frequently shooting (Yes, absolutely.)
 
I love my Yashica 124G. It was the camera that got me back to film and developing my own negatives. I have personally found it to be better for taking pictures with people around, because you're not holding something up to your face people seem to care less about it.

Of course, once you're bitten, it's tough to leave it at one nice working camera... :) I still use my 124G, had a C330 which took great pics but was too big for me, and am considering a Rolleiflex. It's too bad there aren't more options from the 1970s and 1980s.
 
For those who think TLR's are not comfortable to use, find a grip that has a square base, like this one:

4452642717_8f7903c380_o.jpg


It goes a long way to relieve your hands ergonomically, and I don't need a dangling neck-strap.
The grip above cost me $3 at a garage sale.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why people say TLRs are uncomfortable to shoot or use. It's all what you are used to. For me it makes absolutely no difference if a TLR or a SLR hangs around my neck. The great thing with a TLR is that people are not always aware that you take a photo.
What I am VERY used to is the absolutely outstanding image quality my Rolleicord delivers. You can carry thousands of $$ 35mm gear and my Rolleicord beats even the best 35mm gear in image quality.

Also, why should a TLR not be good for a beginner or somebody that gets back into film?
If you live in a city and you have a lab developing 120 film, go for it.
My advice is, get yourself a Rolleicord Va or Vb, upgrade it with a brighter screen and enjoy a new experience in photo quality. The Rolleicords are inexpensive, have outstanding built quality, fantastic Scheider Xenar lenses, rock solid and bullet-proof mechanics and the Rolleicord Va and Vb have features that even the more expensive Rolleiflexes don't have. If you have ever used a Rollei and felt the quality, you won't touch a Yashica TLR, especially since the Rolleicord's are comparable in price.
 
Will (shadowfox) and Roger Hicks are both right. I recall the days when 120 was the commonest size and 35mm was praised for its great depth of field, and only last week I showed someone a whole plate print of a photo of one of my grandfathers, taken and made in 1963 or so. The Rolleicord that I had used then was used again some years ago, after sitting idle for two decades, when a friend of a friend, a sculptor, asked me to take photos of her work to be made into murals.

Three considerations guide me: practicality, expense, acceptable results.
 
archeophoto said:
I have no idea why people say TLRs are uncomfortable to shoot or use. It's all what you are used to. For me it makes absolutely no difference if a TLR or a SLR hangs around my neck. The great thing with a TLR is that people are not always aware that you take a photo.
What I am VERY used to is the absolutely outstanding image quality my Rolleicord delivers. You can carry thousands of $$ 35mm gear and my Rolleicord beats even the best 35mm gear in image quality.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Because we find them so?

I've no doubt you can get used to them. But my feeling is that I've given them a fair try, and see no reason to keep on trying.

As soon as you get into the 'bigger format = better [technical] quality' debate, 6x7cm starts to look really good, and I find the cameras easier to use too: I own or have owned 'baby' Linhofs, Graflex XL, Alpa (accepting backs up to 6x9cm) and a Polaroid 600SE with 6x9 and 6x7 rollfilm backs via an adapter. And if you're in no hurry, 5x7 inch is nice...

As Mukul says, Three considerations guide me: practicality, expense, acceptable results. For me, Leicas are the perfect balance for the vast majority of my photography, even though the biggest camera I own is 12x15 inch. It comes back to the 'quality plateau', the level at which further improvements in technical quality become irrelevant for the sort of thing you are shooting.

A few of my vintage Pentax-fit lenses are below that standard for me -- I'm used to more sharpness and contrast -- but even then, they're great for portraiture and the camera (an SV that I was given) is above the quality threshold; I just prefer the handling of Leicas. I prefer them in the same way that I don't like the handling of TLRs.

Oh: and @ Shadowfox. Yes, I've tried them. For me, they're worse than the unadorned camera, making an already bulky camera even bulkier and worse-handling.

I don't expect many people to agree with me: I know my view is unusual. But the OP needs to know that not everyone loves TLRs, just in case he turns out to be one of them.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I get on really well with my Autocord, great lens, good for colour and black and white, and I find the focussing mechanism very natural in a way no other TLR has been to me.

In general though I use the Leica mostly; but the Autocord is seeing a lot of use. There's a lot of examples on Flickr but these were taken with an Autocord:









Click to enlarge any. For me the Autocord is plenty good enough.

Vicky
 
The first serious MF I had was the Yashica MAT 124 G. I loved it for the big negative. I didn't mind the larger camera size (compared to 35mm) as I loved that big negative. It didn't occur to me that I was often using only a 645 portion of the negative. After it was stolen and replaced by the Super Press 23, I was happier with the 6x7 negative. I later got a Rolleiflex, but it was never as much fun. I don't know if it was just the 6x7 negative that I like so much more, or the fact that the Rolleiflex was heavier than the Yashica, and didn't have a built in meter.

Bottom line is that I no longer like 6x6 as much, nor TLR as much. But I haven't completely given up on either. I am just more likely to grab a 6x7 or 6x9 than 6x6 unless I specifically want 6x6, then it will often be a folder.

I mention that for the OP for the same reason that Mr. Hicks mentions it. You may find you aren't so thrilled with TLR when/if you get one. Unless you are sure it is TLR, try another before you give up. If you like the big negatives, consider alternatives, of which there are many.
 
Put me in the camp that loves them. I have a Rolleiflex that I simply love to use. I also have a Yashica A ( a very early one ). It's also fun to use, but the image quality of the Rollei is much better.

I do agree with Roger that tlr's are not for everyone, though. The best way to find out if they're for you is to borrow one, or buy a cheap one ( like the Yashica A - D ) and find out for yourself. I don't think that you'll be turned off from tlr's if you shoot a cheap one - it'll just wet your appetite for a better one.
 
No camera is for everyone.

I had fewer choices when starting out, I was happy with a Kodak Signet 50 because I could adjust it, though it has no RF. I got a 6x9 Busch Pressman and shot sheet film, the school camera was a Speed Graphic, and I traded a bicycle for that exact camera.

Coming from these, I got a used ($125, coming and going) 3.5 Rollei, and it was faster, easier, had a huge screen to compose on, and I used it enough to not have to look at anything for adjustment.

I know Roger's Leicas are the same for him, he probably knows the f stops from sound.
;-), and I shot weddings, journalism, sports, portraits, scenics, -- everything with the Rollei. I came to find it a fast and intuitive platform, and I still never got over the attention I would pay to the Viewfinder image before I shot, especially with the Rollei Leather Hood. OK, for sports or action I would preset and use the sports finder.

Point is, I really was familiar with it so that I could use it comfortably, it took time.

Do I essentially shoot with RF's now-- sure, but I arrived here by way of the above mentioned gear, a lot of SLR's, MF and 35mm, Nikon RF's and a IIIc Sharkskin that I just ended up with, and for what I want to shoot for myself, people, places and street, it is convenient and gives me results I am looking for-- a good 12x16 print.

That said, I still have my Rolleis, and really like the looking down reflex viewing and composition for certain situations. Also, the tonality of the best MF is not entirely matched by the best 35mm.

I do not feel that a foray in to any style of camera is without value, and perhaps you want to taste more than a few flavors of ice cream, even if you end up liking vanilla, there is a reason it is the most popular flavor in the world, but they still make the others. ;-)

Regards, John
 
My first MF camera was a Mamiya C300 with an 80mm lens. Because of its different aspect ratio, the larger negative, the "built in" macro capability, and because I didn't run out and buy larger photographic paper, it really changed the look of pictures I could produce in short order. I understand those, such as Roger, who feel that they have hit their sweet spot with a 35mm negative -- and I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with anyone who has settled on the right tools for herself or himself. But different things happen with film when you routinely enlarge it less--skin on the human form looks more skin-like, textures are more tactile-seeming. You are pushing the medium less towards the limits of what can be recorded and your "reward" is a bigger canvas with which to work. Great cameras and lenses may be had for a song these days, compared to what they cost new. These are, in many cases, the discarded tools of professionals, cameras which produced a generation's finest quality images -- if that MF look is what you are after. Were they larger and heavier? Yes. Were the lenses slower? Generally, yes. Were many of them impractical to hand-hold? Yes, although I had a Mamiya RB67 out this weekend and was shooting portraits handheld in the shade at f:8; 1/250, which I can't wait to develop (damn, that camera is a lovely beast). Impractical for travel? Unless you have your own Sherpa or a bevvy of devoted assistants, yes. Yes, yes, yes to all of these disadvantages. But worth trying? Also yes. Emphatically yes.
 
Shadowfox, I can't imagine how you focus the camera with that side-grip attached...

With a Mamiya, I get it, but not a Rolleicord with the focus midway up the same side as the grip.

PS, Roger, I appreciate your contribution to the thread...and if someone's looking for a bigger negative with a camera that handles differently, there are a lot of options. I, on the other hand, felt a TLR was "right" from the time I picked it up. (But if anyone wants to find me a cheap Mamiya 6 outfit, I'd be his best friend forever...)
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom