TLR vs MF SLR? Which do you prefer?

[Forest_rain]

I've been going with a MF SLR recently. TLRs seem to have some advantages - lighter, more portable, cool retro appearance, simple operation. Disadvantages - fixed focal length, usually slower 3.5 aperture, less accurate focusing.

I'm sure the last point will be contentious.

Among the TLR photos I've seen, while contemplating the purchase of a TLR, I am sometimes underwhelmed. Perhaps it's the skill of the photographer. It seems it might be difficult to focus with a TLR, if you're not used to it, or have a decoupled model. The focus just doesn't seem quite as accurate, in the photos I've seen, on average, compared to MF SLR photos.

I like the idea of a TLR - easy to carry, convenient, but I have my reservations.

Perhaps one just needs to "know" one's TLR and get used to the intricacies of it.

Opinions? I'm thinking that rangefinder users might be partial to the TLR - being lighter and more portable like a rangefinder. Where do TLRs fit in in your workflow?

What about 3-element vs 4-element lenses? The difference is visible in my opinion, with the 4-element looking sharper and more detailed, but I kind of like the imperfect look of the 3-element images sometimes.

 

[markjwyatt]

You mention fixed focal length? Are you restricted to German cameras? Why not a Mamiya C series? Maybe not the lightest... I have the 55mm f4.5, 80mm F2.8, 135mm f4.5, and 180mm f4.5
All the lenses are pretty modern; 4 elements/3 groups (135mm) and up. The 55mm has 9 elements/7 groups, others are in between (80mmf2.8 5/3)


Mamiya C330f by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Takkun]

I mean, I like any and all cameras, but for my general shooting, I'm 35 RF all the way. DSLR notwitstanding for a few special needs (video/macro/long lens).

For MF, I much prefer SLRs. I've tried MF RFs and was ambivalent, and owned two TLRs—a Seagull many years back, and my grandfather's C33 I only got working last summer. I just don't particularly get along with them.

The Mamiya C series was a nice bit of kit that they made well into the 90s with some pretty unique features. Interchangable lenses, prism finders, even a little tripod gizmo for parallax correction.

I like WLFs, but those aren't necessarily unique to TLRs, and most MF SLRs come standard. Obviously most TLRs are stuck with one single lens, but the Mamiya is a notable exception. Other than that, things that I particularly miss with TLRs:

a—DOF preview. I like shooting people with MF, and with the limited DOF of a 80mm lens, that's something I really miss but don't necessarily with small format.

b—interchangeable backs. That's one of the big benefits going to MF in the first place; before I shot a lot of digital, it was nice carrying one camera + multiple backs for Velvia/Delta 100/Tri-X.

c—very minor, but I like having the option of a coupled, metered prism finder. I keep a spot/incident meter with me most of the time, but sometimes you just don't want to bother. Some people are really good at guessing exposure. Back in photo school, I did terribly at that. I also can't estimate distances or weight or any other measurement to save my life.

Probably the best thing I appreciate about them: using contrast filters on the taking lens without it affecting the VF.

All that said, TLRs really are unique, and I enjoy using the C33 as a 'fun' camera. They're just not my go-to. Currently using a Fuji GX680 (which I don't recommend handholding), and looking to replace my recently departed Bronica SQ.

 

[charjohncarter]

I certainly get slowed down by my many MF cameras. I have SLR 6x7, RF 6x9 (and 6x7), TLRs 6x6, and 3 or 4 Folders all 6x6. The folders are the easiest to walk around with for me but they have these tiny view finder and except for one I have cold shoe rangefinder. Still it is work to get them to the point of pushing the shutter button. The 6x7 has an onboard meter which is nice as it weighs a ton. The TLRs are hard for me to focus (vision), the RF is the easiest to focus (mine is bulky). The folders are portable but not a spontaneous camera. You will have to choose for yourself, but the negatives from any of them are great.

 

[narsuitus]

I have used both and love them both.

The Yashica Mat TLR was the first serious medium format camera I used. It was the standard issue wedding camera at the studio where I worked. I shot a lot of wedding with it but bought Mamiya TLR cameras (C3, C22, and C220) when I started shooting weddings on my own. Loved the 80, 55, and 180mm interchangeable lenses.

When I stopped shooting weddings, I switched to the larger Mamiya RB67 SLR with 90, 50, and 180mm lenses. Love the larger image size and the interchangeable backs but do not like the louder operational noise.

By the way, I also use Fuji 6x7 and 6x9cm medium format rangefinders with fixed 90mm and 65mm lenses.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Deja vu, all over again.
Phil Forrest

 

[oftheherd]

You seem to have an unlimited budget. I envy you. Just teasing. You can see most of us here have had a long and varied journey through many different types of cameras.

So you might want to look into the Mamiya Super Press 23. It is RF but has interchangable backs including ground glass, several lenses and 6x7 or 6x9 film backs, bellows back, and extention tubes. A little heavy but so are some of the other MF camera already mentioned.

I await with bated breath to see what you finally end up with. 😛

 

[DownUnder]

My three Rolleiflexes and my Rolleicord are my cerebral cameras. I slow down when I use them and I also find I get more 'keepers' than with my faster-shooting 35mm SLRs and rangefinders.

On the other hand my images are also more 'static'. As a retired architect, I tend to shoot more buildings and site images anyway, subjects that for the greater part resist the urge to get up and run away from me.

My TLRs are also easier for me to use on a tripod. Not that I would want to lug around a 'pod sturdy enough to hold a Mamiya Cwhatever, but a Rolleiflex T or a 'cord Vb can be used with smaller tripods. In fact I have two old (1930s) Kodak collapsible tripods with ball heads that are both easily ported about with my backpack and strong enough to support one of my TLRs.

Of the MF SLRs the only ones I've ever owned were several (far too many) Hasselblads. I had lusted after a 'blad for many years and finally bought into the brand in the early 2000s when I finally had the disposable cash (rather, a bank credit card with a huge spending limit). After buying a 501CM and two ELs I realized the ergonomics of these otherwise fine machines didn't really suit me, and in the case of the ELs they made enough noise to startle (and in some cases annoy) people when I used them for on-site architectural shoots.

The 'blads sat on a shelf at home for years until I retired and had the time to dispose of them to good owners, a process not unlike trying to find homes for unwanted kittens or puppies. I made money on the 501 and a 500CM I bought cheaply from a friend, but lost a bundle on selling the ELs.

The only other MF SLR I've ever used was one of those huge Mamiya RBs owned by a client and used for studio shots in the '80s when I was a PR journalist. It weighed as much as and handled like an old Graflex 5x7 Home Portrait, an ancient SLR of which the less said the better. I hated that tank (the Mamiya) from day one but the images from it were way above excellent.

So as some would say, horses for courses. We live and we learn, and what I've learned is, for this lifetime, i will stay with my Rollei TLRs. Which I love, for the record.

Deja vu, all over again.

Yes It's all a bit like debating which was the better car, the Model T Ford or the Baker Electric.

 

[CMur12]

For 35mm, SLRs are my tools of choice. I think they are wonderful!

For medium format, however, I find the moving mirror of an SLR and its momentum to be entirely excessive. Whenever I handle a medium format SLR, I am put off by the unnecessary complexity of it.

For medium format, my favorite cameras are TLRs. I like their rugged, vibrationless simplicity. I like square composition. I like the two-eyed viewing through a waist-level finder, where I tend to be more sensitive to lines and alignments than I am with eye-level finders. With a medium format SLR, I would be using mirror lock-up a fair amount. With a TLR, I occasionally resort to a parallax corrector (Minolta Paradjuster or Mamiya Paramender).

I have always been able to achieve accurate focus with a TLR.

I have Rolleiflexes, too, but my favorite TLRs are Minolta Autocords and the Mamiya C330f.

I don't normally photograph objects in motion, so the TLR doesn't limit me. Like ozmoose, I especially like to use it on a tripod, looking down into the waist-level finder, with both hands free to man the controls of camera and tripod. My tripod isn't especially lightweight, so it doesn't make much difference whether I have a Mamiya or a lighter fixed-lens TLR mounted to it.

I also prefer RFs to SLRs for medium format.

- Murray

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Can’t say I’ve noticed much difference either way focussing my 6x6 SLR (500cm) and 6x6 TLR (Autocord). Both have the challenges that come with a waist-level finder, but they’re about as accurate as each other.

I’m curious if this assumption is only based on the samples you’ve seen online?

 

[astrosecret]

I find the pentax 6 x 7 really does a superior job of keeping the negative flat. i think mirror slap with this camera is mostly over exaggerated but i've only used it for a little bit, i really like it. the weight of the camera mitigates the mirror slap by absorbing the impact. there are a couple leaf shutter lenses for this camera-- i have the 90mm leaf shutter version. no mirror slap then. my TLRs are easier to grab and go quickly--small, non-interchangeble lenses, not much to think about in terms of accessories to utilize. but composing and focusing the image takes a little longer.

the hassys are brilliant ergonomically. nothing really comes close in my experience with the ease of use and handheld quality. however because the body is small it is more susceptible to shake in my experience and the way the transport works does not keep a nice flat negative like rollei or pentax. the unflatness of film in hassy backs is what drove me away from them and mamiya rz's as well--i much prefer the mamiya 6s and 7s for the tack sharp, no shake, flatter negative

 

[Shab]

I love using both: TLR & SLR.

I use the C220 with 80mm and 65mm. For me the 80mm has too modern character. So, when I want something more "creamy" look I take my Bronica EC with the Nikkor-P 75mm 2.8... what a lovely lens!

TLRs are sweet, silent, intime... I love using them but my best 6x6 portraits are made with the Bronica EC.

 

[Bill Clark]

TLR is quiet when firing the shutter.
With a TLR you always see what you’re photographing because of the separate viewing lens.
With Rollei no changing of lenses. With Mamiya TLR lenses can be changed.

With my Hasselblads, I consider them to be a studio camera. More choices as many changes can be made as you start with the body then build it as you need.

 

[Godfrey]

My first serious camera was my mother's Argus C3. My second serious camera was my grandfather's 1949 Rolleiflex Automat. I loved that Rolleiflex, and it inspired a long fascination and delight with TLRs. Over the years, I had three more Rolleiflexes, a Yashicamat 124G, and a Mamiya C220. I made many many photographs with them and loved working the square format and WL finder.

But I always wanted wider and longer lenses, and the Mamiya C220 simply became too heavy and unwieldy with the longer/wider lenses, never mind the costs involved (which were certainly even greater for the wide or tele Rolleiflex cameras) and the issues of parallax and focusing accuracy. So I started to hanker for a 6x6 SLR: The Rolleiflex SL66 came available about then ... a gorgeous piece of kit... My rat uncle bought a complete four-lens SL66 kit (and drove me crazy a decade later when he sold it without even asking if I might want to buy it...!) that I got to use a few times. I had tested the waters with a Mamiya 1000S 645 kit, which was good but not 6x6 of course, and was enticed by the Bronica 645 and Pentax 645 a bit later. Actually had the Pentax some years later: Again, a nice camera, but not 6x6...

When I did go in, it was for a used Hasselblad 500CM Classic Edition (commemorating the Apollo program) and a 903SWC, both bought at reasonable prices and with trades of existing equipment. (The Rollei SLX/6000 series cameras were both out of my league financially and I was leery of all those electronics, reports of issues were all over the place then.) And I fell in love with the elegant and sometime almost crude simplicity of the Hasselblad V system.

I sold out of the Hasselblads in the middle '00s to direct the money I had there into more financially important goals (I was running my small photo business from 2004 to 2010 and needed to surf the wave of appropriate quality digital kit). But I missed the Hasselblads, and particularly the SWC. So when money and Time collided fortuitously, I bought back into Hasselblad V in the 2012-2013 time period.

And it sat, because too much of my work and experience was now geared almost entirely around digital capture and image processing which made better photos for me. And having it all sit really bothered me because I really like using these crusty old steam powered relics... 🙂 But I couldn't sell it and kept hoping for a digital back that I liked that wouldn't cost me more than my car.

And now you know why when the Hasselblad 907x Special Edition was announced in July of 2019, I had an order in to the dealer within three days. The 907x itself with the XCD 21mm lens is a fitting replacement for my SWC of days past; the CFVII 50c back fitted to my 500CM bodies brings the bodies forward from 1975 to the present day and makes them something I take out and use on a regular basis. 😀

IN answer to the TLR vs SLR question, if you're the kind of shooter who lives quite happily with just the one lens (of whatever type) and enjoys the WL finder shooting experience, the TLR is quieter, simpler, and easier to live with. But if you want/need more versatility in your camera (focal length differences, close up focusing, etc), then you need an SLR or EVF camera.

Neither has much relation to an RF camera IMO since they're both the ground glass focusing experience. If you want a medium format RF camera, that's a whole different line of thinking... 🙂

G

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Forest, I'v used a bunch over the years. Like Bill, I think of the Hasselblad as a studio camera. My 4x5 field camera weighs less than either the RB67 or the Pentax 67, both of which i used. I could never get sharp negatives (even tripod mounted) with longer lenses on the Pentax. Handheld, nice negs, but really.....it's a kettlebell. The C330 has versatility, but i prefer the size & handling of the Rolleiflex. Rangefinders?...... the Mamiya 6 which i used for 5 years was a treat....but for the reliance on electronics.

 

[aizan]

TLRs don’t focus less accurately than SLRs, so I’m guessing your impression is influenced by the photos you’ve looked at.

I use TLRs on trips where I only need a normal lens, casual portraits, and general photography. The SLR comes out when I need telephotos and wides, formal portraits, and landscapes that need ND grad filters. I don’t have any preference because of that variety.

If you’re doing fewer kinds of things, and you have to choose one type of camera to do it, that’s when preferences apply.

 

[KM-25]

I have used Hasselblad V system cameras my entire career and I don't do studio work. But I do own and have tried to like my Rollei but it is just too fiddly for me in how it works and I don't like the parallax errors layered framing compared to my Hasselblad. I am also finding that as my eyes age, the VF of the Rollei is lacking quite a bit of viewing comfort compared to my Blads which most have correction diopters in them.

So I am likely going to sell the Rollei and just stick to what works and that is Hasselblad.

 

[KenR]

I had the Mamiya C330 with a couple of lenses and loved the results that I got with the camera. However, it was just so heavy and ungainly to carry that I sold it and bought a Mamiya 6. Much lighter and easier to carry. At the time it wasn’t crazy expensive like it is now (one of the few cameras that I could sell for a profit). The results with the two systems are equivalent IMHO.

 

[Rayt]

For street the TLR is a better choice because it is noiseless and the focusing is fast. For all other situation where an arsenal of focal lengths are useful then SLR of course.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Pentax 67 vibration schmibration! The Pentax 67 is what we used to take these shots...
https://cdn.britannica.com/34/94834-050-16DB7EEB/USS-Carl-Vinson-aircraft-carrier-US-Navy-2005.jpg

...while hanging out of an SH-60 back when I was in the Navy, and those cameras were older than most of the ships in the battlegroup, so I'm sure they were used on past helos like the SH-3 which weren't as "smooth". Perhaps the mirror canceled out the vibration from the airframe...
Phil Forrest