TLRs are odd, klunky beasts.

Not sure about clunky, the reversed image takes some getting used to especially for moving objects, but the winder on my Rollei is smooth as are the shutters–so sweet using my 'blad feels clunky! ;-)

My tips for TLR use is remember not to shoot up peoples noses from the waist, if you have a Rollei buy a Rolleinar close up (one of the big benefits of the C330 is close ups)
I think for cheap high performing cameras Rolleicord/Yashica/Autocord takes some beating.

You might like to look into a Rollei T which has a Tessar lens with most of the 'Flex DNA with regards to finders, film advance and accessories.

99293011.jpg


The little Tessar lens is no slouch either, after ƒ8 it is comaparable with Xenitar/Planar types (in my opinion)

144475677.jpg


They make good street camera's (hard not to shoot from the hip unnoticed) and people are incredibly positive when I'm out and about with it which is a double edged sword if you just want to get on and not chat :)
 
My experience of Rolleiflex is very positive, they're built like Leicas and work just as well. They're pretty small and light too. Never used a Mamiya C330, but to be honest, if don't mind carrying something that big and heavy, a Hasselblad seems a better option.

What I don't like about the Rolleiflex (or any other unusual looking camera) is the stares, sometimes people looked at my like I'd just removed my clothes. I prefer not to be noticed, so it does not suit me.
 
thegman said:
they're built like Leicas and work just as well.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Rollei TLRs are some of the finest pieces of mechanical gear ever made. I'd say they work better than Leicas. Just as precise but a bit more reliable in my opinion.

Phil Forrest
 
They can be good for street photography. You just stand sideways to the subject, with the lens pointing at them, and pretend you are adjusting something on the camera.
 
The few times I've tried them, my feeling was that I could never get used to the dim/flip-flopped viewfinder.
But much great work has been done with them, so it's just me I guess.

I've wondered why no digital cameras have been made with the same style waist-level viewing & shade as these and cameras like the Hasselblad. Seems like a good solution for viewing live LCDs outdoors.
 
"dim viewfinder" : they aren't dim with a good modern ground glass. But you are right, an original ground glass from the 50s can be hard to use when one's used to more comfortable viewfinders.
 
S.H. said:
"dim viewfinder" : they aren't dim with a good modern ground glass. But you are right, an original ground glass from the 50s can be hard to use when one's used to more comfortable viewfinders.
Click to expand...


Indeed, a modern focusing screen completely transforms an older TLR...huge, and bright, makes modern crop factor DSLR viewfinders look like tiny portholes.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Nick,

Have you ever wondered why the price differential exists?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I remember I once talked to my camera tech, who told me he had so much trouble selling a Rolleiflex, and eventually left it go for something like €300. This seems to have been before Rollei's became so fashionable in the last 5 years (in Ireland anyway). Re: quality, I own a Rolleicord which is one of the best built cameras I have every used, yet they routinely for about €200 euro here, compared to about €1000 for a Rolleiflex. Can definitely understand the sentiment as to if what you are getting extra, equals the jump in cost.
 
S.H. said:
"dim viewfinder" : they aren't dim with a good modern ground glass. But you are right, an original ground glass from the 50s can be hard to use when one's used to more comfortable viewfinders.
Click to expand...

Good, and clean ground glass makes all the difference. My VA 'Cord came with a nice, clear ground glass, my Rolleicord II did not. World of difference between the two.
 
gns said:
The few times I've tried them, my feeling was that I could never get used to the dim/flip-flopped viewfinder.
But much great work has been done with them, so it's just me I guess.

I've wondered why no digital cameras have been made with the same style waist-level viewing & shade as these and cameras like the Hasselblad. Seems like a good solution for viewing live LCDs outdoors.
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting idea. I deplore these digicams that have no optical viewfinder, only an electronic screen on the back. But if someone came out with a digital TLR, using the same dimensions as a film TLR, with a bright electronic screen in place of the ground glass that provides 100% framing, that would be very appealing indeed. With some sort of zoom lens too, and automatic parallax correction. I'm not sure what would go inside the "box" (maybe space for a really long-lasting battery, and image storage?).
 
NaChase said:
I recently acquired both a Mamiya C330 and a Zeiss Ikoflex Favorit, and while they're cool cameras, they seem to come with a steep learning curve. For all you veteran TLR shooters out there, how was your experience getting used to the weird idiosyncrasies of these cameras?
Click to expand...

Mamiya TLRs are indeed quirky, and I don't know the Zeiss Ikoflex at all. My Rolleiflexes, however, have all be a delight in use with little to disparage on the grounds of quirkiness or steep learning curve. About the most complicated thing to learn is how to load film.
 
KoNickon said:
Now that's an interesting idea. I deplore these digicams that have no optical viewfinder, only an electronic screen on the back. But if someone came out with a digital TLR, using the same dimensions as a film TLR, with a bright electronic screen in place of the ground glass that provides 100% framing, that would be very appealing indeed. With some sort of zoom lens too, and automatic parallax correction. I'm not sure what would go inside the "box" (maybe space for a really long-lasting battery, and image storage?).
Click to expand...

The Sony R1 came the closest so far with a top-mounted LCD that can lay flat on top of the body box. But no chimney shade or magnifier ... easy to create with a piece of cardboard though.

There have been a few other cameras with articulated bodies and lenses that came close. A true digital 'Flex or Hassy would be really neat.
 
KoNickon said:
Now that's an interesting idea. I deplore these digicams that have no optical viewfinder, only an electronic screen on the back. But if someone came out with a digital TLR, using the same dimensions as a film TLR, with a bright electronic screen in place of the ground glass that provides 100% framing, that would be very appealing indeed. With some sort of zoom lens too, and automatic parallax correction. I'm not sure what would go inside the "box" (maybe space for a really long-lasting battery, and image storage?).
Click to expand...

It wouldn't need 2 lenses, so no parallax problem. I just think the waste-level, shaded viewfinder would be a lot more usable outdoors than what we get now.
 
If you use it long enough it becomes just like any other camera you're used to...
I love my 124g and just bought it a set of Rolleinar 1's...
With a pocket full of Acros 100 and a light meter one could walk for hours and have an easy and light day of shooting...
 
I just think the waste-level, shaded viewfinder would be a lot more usable outdoors than what we get now.
Click to expand...

While I do agree that a lot of contemporary viewfinders are waste-level stuff, I'm not sure a waist-level viewfinder is an advance I'm waiting for. I always have to raise my C330 to the eye level in order to actually see something on it (and very often with the loupe). No chance to know if it is sharp or not otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom