[34 / 5 / ?]
I've seen a lot of TLRs pop up recently. I'm not sure if it's a trend or what, don't really care, but I want to talk about them. Seems like they mostly get relegated to some kind of collectors item, or a neat oddity or toy, or something that hipster you know shoots with, but I want to talk about it as a serious camera. I mean up until the 80s really these things were considered one of the go to cameras for professional photography. I've heard some wedding photogs still use them. The better ones are sharp as fuck and built pretty solid, the normal focal lengths they come with are great for general use and portraits, they're cheap to get used online, they're medium format, they're self contained, a lot of them are purely mechanical and don't require batteries. Great image quality and ease of use. Why don't more photographers shoot with them seriously? Why is it that if you shoot film seriously or professionally it better be with a Leica or Hassleblad? These things are criminally underrated. Pic related is what I have, and it's far and away my favorite camera in my collection, film or digital.
Anonymous
The standard TLR is the Rolleiflex and it's ridiculously expensive so most people get a mamiya or another cheap TLR. I don't get one because I can't deal with the uncorrected finder and don't much care for the square format. TLRs are the subject of a lot of camera props. I think there are more pictures taken of TLRs then taken with TLRs in the digital age. This also leads to people not wanting a camera that looks like a prop and not a tool. Don't be fooled. TLRs are popular but they don't get too much attention on /p/. In my opinion they are as popular as they need should be. People will like the for the aesthetics, the square format and the waist level finder. For those same reasons other people will keep away not to mention the fixed lens (on most models) and the uncorrected finder. People who "shoot film seriously or professionally" don't just shoot Leica and Hasselblad. For example the standard film camera for weddings is the Contax 645. Leica is the film standard for street photography however.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The leering grin on that TLR will haunt my dreams.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653248 > Great image quality and ease of use. Why don't more photographers shoot with them seriously? Digital cameras happened. Modern high-end lenses happened. Modern AF happened. Modern digital image processing happened.
Also, as a lesser reason, modern tripod setups (ball heads especially) happened, too.
Anonymous
>>2653259 why not a Rolleicord?
Anonymous
Because of the annoying right-is-left uncorrected viewfinder as the other anon said
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653248 I like them, and would totally shoot one except that:
Nice ones are out of my price range.
They are very noticeable.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653428 you get used to it relatively fast
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653428 that shit is cool as fuck
also its eerrie, so you get this weird feeling everytime you look through that
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>2653465 >thinking zeiss is better than schneider top kek, xenotar is where it's at nigga
Anonymous
>>2653428 That becomes completely irrelevant after like 2 rolls.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
there are really good chinese rollicord knockoffs
Anonymous
>>2653619 How is it going from an uncorrected viewfinder like in a TLR to corrected viewfinder like an SLR and back? Is it jarring switching between two different systems? I would guess it's fine if you only use one type of viewfinder but using 2 seems to take some getting used to every time you switch.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653424 Why not a rolleiflex 3.5 which is about the same price and not a low end version?
Anonymous
I like my yashicamat 124g that I won on a whim on eBay well below market value. However, I find myself only working with patient or still subjects, because of how long it takes me to compose with the uncorrected viewfinder. I'm sure I'd bet used to it if I'd use it more.
Akrycevin !!4BKqhOYAnOv
>>2653465 >>2653467 >not having a Goerz-Dagor in your Rolleicord. In all honesty I have no idea why this camera is set up with this lens, but it's one of my favorites.
Anonymous
>>2653657 >how long it takes me to compose with the uncorrected viewfinder lmaooo its literally the same as corrected. composition works both ways, specially if youre composing square
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653683 I'm referring to the reversed-directiom adjustments one makes to level the horizon and such, not the concept of composition itself
Anonymous
>>2653677 I vaguely recall seeing one all blinged up and going for megabux on ebay that had the viewing and taking lenses swapped.
Or at least the name rings, anyway.
But I feel like you'd definitely get a better picture out of the Heidosmat than that little thing.
Akrycevin !!4BKqhOYAnOv
Quoted By:
>>2653715 The Goerz-Dagor is an incredibly sharp lens and a very good lens usually seen on large format cameras. I have no idea why it's on a Rolleicord, but it's a great camera to shoot. The only problem is its a very slow, f:9 lens, so I either shoot it with fast film or on sunny days. I usually do the latter since I like ASA 100 or slower film.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2653651 I use a TLR and an SLR and I don't have a problem switching. The way the cameras are physically operated are completely different so I think you're able to compartmentalize the differences pretty well. It's much more of a shock going from my big bright film SLR viewfinder to my little EVF on my m43, and I think it's because the basic operation of the camera is so similar.
The biggest factor in that is probably the eye-level and waist-level difference.
Anonymous
It does have two lenses. Does it take stereo photos?
Anonymous
Acquired a Mamiya TLR recently and im loving it more and more each day. Feels solid and reliable, shooting is a breeze, you can barely feel the shutter firing, so 1/15 is a reality here, also, i carry two lenses and they are small as fuck.>dat flash sync at any fuck speed i want >dat IQ >dat swag factor cant think of a single thing thats off with this camera.
Akrycevin !!4BKqhOYAnOv
>>2654437 No. a stereo camera has 3 lenses. 1 for the viewfinder and 2 for taking pictures.
Anonymous
>>2654438 this bro knows what's up. how much did you pay for it?
Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke
>>2654451 Want.
>GAS has just kicked in Anonymous
>>2654952 about $180, it has the 55 4.5 and the 80 2.8
oh ive got one drawback, no self timer.. but got a standalone one on the mail already
Akrycevin !!4BKqhOYAnOv
>>2654954 I don't have one yet, but I plan to get one for my Rollei collection at some point.
Anonymous
>>2655086 I have so many stereograph project ideas now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>buy rolleiflex in good state but with malfunctioning film advance for 300 >send it to Harry Fleenor for repair >600usd repairs fuggg
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>2655005 What model you get? $180 seems like a steal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I love TLR's, I have one Rolleicord 75mm f3.5 Xenar, it's not very practical to use on a daily basis so what kind of photography you TLoversR do with yours?