The TLR is it under-rated

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread
Medium Format,leaf shutter(less noise than M),little weight,no flapping mirror,cheap,do not need to bring to eye(less obvious when taking photo).

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002

Answers

Can I put it in my pocket like my Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8?

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.
Agree with all except "cheap". Decent used TLR's like the Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3.5 Planars and Xenotars run from $500-$2000 (for the latest HFT GX and Expressions), and even Yashicamat 124G's are over $300 in nice condition. Plus many of them will need $150-worth of service. And they have fixed lenses. The Mamiya interchangeable-lens TLR's are the exception, but they are quite heavy and bulky and parts are getting scarce (Mamiya no longer services them). The current Seagulls from China are in the $175-$300 range but their lenses are just so-so. I have a 1963 Rollei 2.8F Planar I've had for ages, had it refurbed a few years ago and use it when the Hasselblad is too noisy, like wedding ceremonies.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 28, 2002.
The current Seagulls from China are in the $175-$300 range but their lenses are just so-so.

Maybe they have a niche market if they can improve lense quality.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

"Maybe they can have a niche market if they improve lense quality"

A billion Chinese and 5-6 camera models to choose from...some niche!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 28, 2002.

Do a Leica super quality..all those western dollars.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.
The Rolleicord is one of the most underated Rolleis. The lens is really just as good as some of the Rolleiflex TLR's. The Xenar lens is a Tessar design. You can get a Rolleicord for much cheaper than a Rolleiflex.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 2002.
The Rolleicord is one of the most underated Rolleis

I am about to buy one for £40 quid,value for money or what.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

"Maybe they have a niche market if they can improve lense quality"

If Seagull can come out with a model with 6 element f2.8 lens instead of current 4 element Tessar type lens, they can certainly gain more market shares

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 28, 2002.

Glenn Travis

A pocket should not determine your photo ability.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

>Can I put it in my pocket like my Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8?

Baby Rollei or Yasica 44. Of course! (and before they start, IT IS possible to obtain a limited range of 127 film)

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 28, 2002.

Mike Dixon have you tried a TLR for your low light photos!interested in your comments.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.
I got a great picture of Bobby Kennedy with a TLR Rolleicord by holding it upside down at arms length over the heads of the crowd and viewing the image thru the waist level finder. Sometimes I wish I had hung on to that old TLR. It made great black and white pics with Tri-X professional and great big beautiful square transparencies. Cheers!

-- Gil Pruitt (wgpinv@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.
"A billion Chinese and 5-6 camera models to choose from...some niche! "

Where do you get this misinformation from ?

FYI, even in Xian, one can purchase brand new Minox GT-S, Minox Leica IIIf and expensive black Minox AX

Minox GT-S, Leica IIIf, Minox AX sold in Xian camera store

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 28, 2002.

Minox in Xian

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 28, 2002.
Medium format TLRs are often overlooked but constitute very good photographic tools.

I have a '51 Rolleiflex 3.5MX Tessar, and have had others over the years (sold my '81 3.5F Xenotar and regret it, of course). All the Rolleis can return superb quality photographs and have sufficient support accessories to be fast enough for most sports, compact enough for travel and hiking, close-ups are a cinch with Rolleinar lenses, and they have a big enough negative to make it just fine for wedding work.

The biggest limitation of the Rollei TLR is the lack of interchangeable lenses for when that is the only way to get the results you want.

Of course, these wonderful qualities of a medium format TLR do not in any way conflict with the usefulness and versatility of a Leica M or R camera. They're just different.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 28, 2002.

"A billion Chinese and 5-6 camera models to choose from...some niche! "

FYI: In chinaphography.com site, there are price lists for Nikon, Canon, Leica, Contax, Pentax, Hassy, Mamiya..

The current market size of China is almost as big as Germany, France, UK, growing at compound annual rate of 7% per year.

Leica price list in China

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 28, 2002.

except "cheap.

My Rolli £40 pound that is cheap....you hassy people bet you wish you never had that clunky mirror.Guess what i bet my old Rolli will give sharper prints on a giant enlargement...how much did you pay!nice jewel.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Ooops OTT,take the last post with a pinch of salt.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.
Allen,

I love Rolleis and I bought one for my son to learn photography. He is now the owner of a splendid (mint!) Rolleiflex F TLR with a 2.8 Planar lens. This is a very handy camera and you can really obtain superb prints with it. But there is absolutely no way you can bit what you can obtain with an Hasselblad. I was the happy owner of a 553 ELX, five C lenses, all the extension tubes,two 120 magazines and a Polaroid back, many accessories and so on until the day some bastards stole the hard case they were in right in my house. I'm still sick when I remember that day...

But please don't bet anything in the comparative between any Rollei TLR and an Hassie... You'll lose... Not because of the lens (and it is particularly obvious when using a similar lens as the Planar 80 mm).

The reason why? Easy, it has nothing to do with lens quality. The clue is fim planeity. Rollei TLR's are notorious to have a less than perfect planeity of the rollfilm because of the specific way these fims are loaded which pecludes a perfect tension of the roll. All the medium format SLR's in current production today use a more complex, Hasselblad like, film path than the direct way used in the Rollei TLR's... This Rollei problem won't show too much when blowing the image reasonably but will immediately become obvious when giant enlargements are made... Moreover if the film is a modern fine grain one and a wide aperture used... I admit £ 40 is a very good value for money for a Rollei TLR (even if it is a 'cord) but don't expect too much of it. And don't expect to get the Hassie quality...

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 28, 2002.

I have a bunch of TLR's I've come across over the years....The Yashica is very high resolution at f11 but prone to flare...but for portraits.. wonderful.The Rolliecord with Xenar is GREAT at f8..probably the highest resolution lens ever put on a TLR.Big prints are AMAZING!3.5 Zeiss Planar is great too esp after 28,000. Just like a Leica lens. But the thing I like best are the Rollie closeup lenses...easy to use, small and convienent.Again the Rolliecord Xenar has the best resolution and color....you wont believe your eyes what a couple of hundred $$$ will get you! I also handled the latest models recently since Rollie was bought out...the physical quality has really gone down...I think the GX of a few years ago is the last of the good ones....a real shame!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 28, 2002.
As I remember it Richard Avedon shot lots of his stuff on a Rollie twin and with VERY BIG enlargments.I have had no problem cropping to 20x24 enlargements even wide open with the Rollie twin with 3.5 Planar,which BTW is better regarded than the 2.8 80mm on the Hassie.Film flatness is always an issue but.... tell that to the LF guys with a sheet of film flapping around a film holder.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 28, 2002.
Emile,

20x24 (50x60 in metric) is a huge enlargement by 35 mm standards, but not such in medium format, I was talking about wall size enlargements.

I agree with you about the Hassie Planar (by far the worst lens in Hasselblad range). Nevertheless, the film flatness question has always been considered the weak point of the Rollei TLR's. It is also evident that it won't really show at f/8 or f/11 anyway... But I won't bet on a Rollei TLR to equal an Hasselblad. Beside, Rollei TLR's were designed for a specific use which is entirely different than the one of an Hasselblad. So, unless you use them for the same purpose and with a comparable focal length the comparative between the two is something of academic interest. Without taking into account the economics of the comparative, such question would be much more relevant when comparing the result obtained with a rangefinder modern medium format camera with leaf shutter lenses and a Rollei TLR as both are made with reportage in mind.

I agree too with you about the Rolleipar for low magnification macro- photography, this one of the most cleverly designed accessory ever.

But as we both know, Allen ever likes to be provocative in the choice of its topics (no pun intented).

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 28, 2002.

I think we all can agree that we all love photography as well as our cameras! Peace.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 28, 2002.
Can I put it in my pocket like my Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8?

Can you hide your Leitz M6 in your palm or pretend to use it as a cellphone like my Ricoh GR1V? Can I pretend I'm lighting a cigarette with my GR1V like I do with my Minox 8x11? Sheesh.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.

Allen's Absolutely right on this one! Note well, he is NOT comparing Rollei to Leica. I own 2 Leicas[ M6+ M4-P} and 2 Rolleiflexs and I think they are the best cameras made in their respective class. The film flatness issue really only arises if you let the film sit in the camera like overnight: if you load and shoot several rolls in a day the film flatness is excellent! I can show you the negs to prove it. As far as I am concerned Leicas and Rolleis are the best!

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), April 28, 2002.
"The current market size of China is almost as big as Germany, France, UK, growing at compound annual rate of 7% per year."

Recent news reports reveal that China's remarkable economic growth figures are probably overstated. It is nothing like 7%, and the government can not explain how prices are falling and energy consumption is falling in the same period that they claim huge growth and have devalued their currency, thus making imports of foreign goods more expensive.

I find Fuji's 6x9 rangefinders to be underrated. not at all sexy, in fact rather clunky, but having a negative 5 times bigger than 35mm at less than half the price of a Leica and lens makes it an obvious choice for those circumstances where the bulk and slowness of the camera are not an impediment.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), April 28, 2002.

Masatoshi-san,

Actually, those Fuji rangefinders go for about half the price of a Leica body alone at http://www.robertwhite.co.uk. An extraordinary bargain, I agree, if you are looking at picture quality.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 28, 2002.

OT: According to the World Bank China ranks slightly below the UK, Germany and France, but above Italy in GDP. Of course, incomes don't have to be growing at all for anyone to make inroads in a relatively large market, such as China's. For example, I could never get a raise in my life again, but that does not mean I'll never buy anything new ever again.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 28, 2002.
i just bought a mamiya c330s. this is my third medium format camera. i paid $400 for a really minty one. using a tlr is a bit in between a slr and a rangefinder. if you manage the bulk it is a pleasure, though i can't believe that i will ever get as fast with it as with my leica. but they are not intended for quick painless photography. it is best to use them on a tripod, with careful handheld metering and lots of time. then the quality is gorgeous and will blow away any 35mm. but my back is not strong enough to carry it around all day, let alone taking it on a longer trip.



-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

There is a long long 6 page + article about Seagull 4A-107, the only other TLR still in production.

The test report is very detail, including assessment of mechanical construction and detail lens test from POP Lab for the four element 3 group taking lens

The best apertures are

It is interesting to compare the lens performance of Seagull 4A 107 vs other MF lenses: 

Seagull
F11 center 61 lpmm Excellent, corner 39 excellent 
F16 center 54 excellent, corner 39 excellent 
F22 49 excellent, corner 34 excellent 
Mamiya Sekor C  80mm f/2.8
F11 center 58 corner 46
F16 center 52 corner 46
F22 center 46 corner 46
Seagull outperforms Mamiya 645 Sekor C at center; at corners Sekor 
better.
The best is  Carl Zeiss 80mm f2.8 Planar for Hasselblad
F5.6  75  corners 47
F11   67    60
F16   67    60
F22   60    47


-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 29, 2002.
Interestign thread. I'm an enthusiastic TLR user (Rolleiflex, Mamiya, Autocord), and I doubt you can find better image quality for the dollar. Sure, TLRs can be slow to use (Rolleiflex is quite quick), but the advantages of no image blackout, no mirror slap, and flash sync at any speed make TLRs wonderful on the street or portrait studio. You can argue all day about film flatness and ultimate quality, but few people will ever enlarge an image to wall size.

Fact is, I agree with Roger Hicks that if you shoot mainly color print, not much reason to go beyond 645 format. Medium format and large format provide enhanced tonality for B&W more than anything (all other features aside).

I wouldn't trade my 'Flex or Mamiya for anything. If it works for you, use it! The photographer makes the image anyway -- technical quality may play a significant role and may not.

-- R.J. (rfox@aarp.org), April 29, 2002.

Fact is, I agree with Roger Hicks that if you shoot mainly color print, not much reason to go beyond 645 format.

Yikes! I've found just the opposite. Grain in color is unpleasant. I will always print larger in a given format with black and white. I've found 6x7 can get to 20x24 in color, but I didn't like going that large even with 6x6.

I sold my Rollei about five or six years ago. While it was good enough in black and white, the color rendition wasn't what I wanted, not sufficiently contrasty for the look I want. But I use cameras to photograph.


Manuela, Copyright 1997 Jeff Spirer


-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 29, 2002.
Before you invest in a Seagull, talk with someone who has run 40 - 50 rolls of film through one. We bought two to try as replacements for our wearing out Yashicamats for student use. Within a month, about 40- 50 rolls of film, both were useless because of total failure of wind mechanism.

-- JIm Noel (jimsphoto@cox.net), April 29, 2002.
I like my Rollei TLRs very much, and when everything is in harmony, the negatives are superb. Often, however, film flatness is indeed an issue, at least with my 3.5F w/ Planar and MXV-EVS w/Xenar.

After years of wondering why some of my pix were not as sharp as they should have been, I tested both at infinity focus on a highly detailed subject, along with a Hasselblad equipped with an 80 mm f2.8 Planar. All films were loaded just before the shoot. At wider apertures, many of the negs from both Rolleis were unsharp, and the nature of the unsharpness made clear it was caused by the film (ilford Pan F+) departing the focal plane. OTOH, all the Hasselblad pix were reliably sharp from f4. By f8-11, all look good.

From these results, I try to keep the aperture at f8 or smaller, and when light or subject require, I take several in hopes that the film has lain reseanably flat for at least one of the exposures. The Hassy is always reliable in that regard.

I don't know if my cameras are unique, but that's my experience.

-- Allen Zak (shadcat11@aol.com), April 29, 2002.

There are a many postings on Seagull at photonet, for example

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001JLv

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 02, 2002.

Links on film Flatness of Medium Format cameras:

120 220 film flatness link

Hasselblad, film flatness, and the moon landing

film curl

Film Flatness for TLR's

Medium Format (120/620) Camera / Lens Resolution Testing "1. It appears that film flatness is a serious issue with some medium format cameras. It may be that 120 film "bows" in the middle of the pressure plate for some of the cameras tested. It shows up most frequently when shooting 6x9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) format cameras and film backs and earlier Rolleis."


Note 32 The Optically Flat Glass Attachment 21/4 x 21/4" This special accessory increases the precision of the Rollei film channel to achieve plate-like flatness of the roll film. However, it requires a little care to keep it clean:



-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.
The 35 mm versus Medium format is an interesting subject. For a given sized picture say 16x20; the larger negative requires less enlargement... this gives better skin tones; less grain; and a sharper image (if the negative is sharp)... thus my latest 2 dollar pseudo TLR ; a Kodak Duaflex II 620 box camera will yield better skin tones & less grain for a 16x20 enlargement.; than a Leica/Summicron negative.....This may upset the 35mm crowd; but so be it.....My grandfathers pictures are 8x10's; they are contact prints from 8x10 negatives!.... the tonality of the photos is truely amazing...


As for TLRs; the Rolleis are cool.... the 4 element Tessars and Xenars are about the same design "tessar" type lenses...They are real sharp in the center and mid-way out too.....the far edges are ok but not up to snuff.. The Planars and Xenotars are 5 element designs that are better at the far edges of the 6x6 cm format ....Prewar Rolleis have uncoated lenses... My old "Standard" rollei has a 7.5cm F4.5 uncoated lens; which flares under direct lighting.......BUT the People Photos have a real nice Zeiss look that is cool.....

The Yashica 124g has a 4 element tessar type lens; it is good at the center and mid out; but the far edges are not up to Planar/Xenotar's quality level. After I got a good Rolleiflex with a Xenotar; I found my MF enlarging lens was not good enough! I had to buy a better lens to take advantage of the better edge sharpness of the Xenotar lens.

The mamiya C series 80mm lens is 5 elements; a mid 70's resolution test gave it "very good" ratings at F8 and F 11; at both the center and the edge....There is a single exposure plate holder for the old Mamiya TLRs too! The same magazine(modern photo1978 buying guide) rated the Hasselblad Planar 80 mm as "excellent" at F8 and F11; both at the center and the edge.... The current Hasselblad Planar has 7 elements...There are design differences between the Zeiss-Planar and the Schnieder-Xenotar for the TLR; but that is for another thread! Likewise the Zeiss-Tessar and Schneider-Xenar are close performing; but not exact!

My own personal experiences are that MF 120 or 620 film tends to curl sometime after a long time between shots....I used a couple of bricks of 10 year old Ilford Pan-F in 1991 that was stashed/frozen away since 1978... The film had alot of curl/preset which caused focusing errors sometimes when I changed location/setup/model between the same roll...... The film was a real mess to load on my Nikkor 120 reels; the curl was terrible....The old film gets a set to it when on the film's reels for decades! ; have never had this problem with old kodak film.

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.
The film curl problem was with 13 year old Ilford FP4 120 roll film

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.
Robert Monoghan has a very detailed article about film flatness of various format

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/mfbest.html

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 05, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ