TLRs are odd, klunky beasts.

[Phil_F_NM]

Originally Posted by thegman

they're built like Leicas and work just as well.

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

[Rob-F]

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.

[gns]

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.

[S.H.]

"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.

[digitalintrigue]

Some TLRs are odd, klunky beasts. Some 35mm cameras are odd clunky beasts too.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by S.H.

"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.

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

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by John Roberts

I think that I know the answer to this!
It's because all the best photographs by the world's best photographers have been taken with a Leica or a Rollei. Haven't they?

Yes and Hasselblad of course.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Nick,

Have you ever wondered why the price differential exists?

Cheers,

R.

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.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by S.H.

"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.

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.

[KoNickon]

Originally Posted by gns

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.

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?).

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by NaChase

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?

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.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

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?).

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.

[gns]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

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?).

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.

[nikon_sam]

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...

[Spanik]

I just think the waste-level, shaded viewfinder would be a lot more usable outdoors than what we get now.

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.

[shadowfox]

TLRs are odd indeed.
It's odd that anyone would come up with the design (two lenses?? what a waste of resource).
It's odd that they even work. But they do work, beautiful 6x6 frames say they do work, very well.
Second, you feel odd when using it the first few times. But then it grows on you, then you don't even correct the mirror when post processing

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by gns

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.

+1 on that. A digital TLR would be sóóóóó cool

[gns]

Originally Posted by Spanik

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.

Thanks. Usage errors were my downfall as a grade school student. Even though I no the difference, they still haunt me sometimes when I rush.

[dabick42]

Among TLRs, I've only ever owned and used Rolleis.
Along with the Nikon F and the Leica M3 ( which I also own and frequently use ), Rolleis have justifiably earned their ''icon'' status as one of the world's most beautifully made and reliable cameras.
Anyone who finds them unacceptably odd or quirky after a short acquaintance ( say 48 hours ) isn't trying hard enough to understand the allure of a legend.... (!)

[NaChase]

Haha. I meant "odd and klunky" in an endearing sense. They are undoubtedly cool cameras, and I wanted one for a while. The Mamiya appealed to me because of the bellows and close focusing, and the Ikoflex looks so cool and seems a little off beat given the lack of information about it online. I have shot a few rolls of Acros, I will post some shots when I develop them.

[film nut]

The only TLR I have is a SuperRicohflex and I really like it. It seems small when compared to some of the others. The hardest thing was getting a routine for advancing the film to avoid double exposures. I guess you can get used to what ever you have.. If you only have one and use it alot, you can get pretty efficient with it.

MIke

[Sanders McNew]

Originally Posted by NaChase

A Rolleiflex would have been awesome, but I can buy a dozen Zeiss Favorits or C330s for the price of one.

But why would you want a dozen second-rate cameras?

[Dave Jenkins]

Different strokes, obviously! I've always found the TLR to be the easiest, most enjoyable to handle of any camera body type.

[clayne]

Most TLRs are incredibly straight-forward.

Advance, cock the shutter if necessary, focus, click. Pretty much the same as any other manual focus camera.

[NaChase]

Originally Posted by Sanders McNew

But why would you want a dozen second-rate cameras?

All of my cameras are better at taking pictures than I am. I bet my $40 Hi-Matic could blow away anything I can do with my Leicas, if only put in hands more capable than my own. Plus I like these cameras, the Favorit is the prettier one, but there is something to be said about something that was engineered entirely for function over form (the Mamiya).