Yes, price alone will probably eliminate Rolleiflex models from my list, but I was also under the impression that the Rolleicords are lighter?A rolleiflex may be just outside your budget, a rolleicord may work, not sure how bright the viewfinder is compared to a flex or to a C220. Then there is the Yashica 124 or late model D with 4 element taking lens. I have both, the screens are bright enough for me, both have a 2.8 viewing lens a bit brighter than the 3.5 found on most flex and cords. Compared to a Kowa SL66 the 124 light and easy to use. Other option is Minolta TLR. Many favor the Minolta as having a lens a good as a Zeiss.
While photographing a still life at three ft. I had some unpleasant suprises. I could be pretty sure where the top of my frame would be, but something at the bottom of the frame, which I did not see in the viewfinder, ended up on the negative. Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane. With the camera angled down for my still life, I could get the framing right (approximately), but it was harder to compensate for the change in focus. Mamiya makes something called a Paramender which would probably solve the problem, but I've never used one.TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.
Agreed. For me, there are two elements to 120 film that works. The tonality thing. And the slowness. Sounds perverse in ways, but it's how shooting works well for me.Yes, do not underestimate 135 format. So many cameras + good to very good lenses + accessories etc.,
Nikon & Canon
Olympus & Pentax
...
Agreed. For me, there are two elements to 120 film that works. The tonality thing. And the slowness. Sounds perverse in ways, but it's how shooting works well for me.
Again looking at the OP's images, this is in the realm of the flâneur of Baudrillard and Benjamin. A nimble camera works well for this style of shooting. If 35mm film and cameras gives him what he wants, no reason to not go with it! Maybe another day, maybe another type of shooting, will have him try medium format again.
TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.
Oh, I know. I used a Rolleiflex for street work for a decade or more, and it it is still my main camera.DD, Apart from things that don't move, I've also used a Rolleiflex in Paris. Heck Doisneau did! It's a beautiful and different way to work. You just stand there, seemingly looking down at your feet until things of interest line up on the ground glass...& then press the button. & for closer work Rolleinars have been magic for me.
TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.
While photographing a still life at three ft. I had some unpleasant suprises. I could be pretty sure where the top of my frame would be, but something at the bottom of the frame, which I did not see in the viewfinder, ended up on the negative. Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane. With the camera angled down for my still life, I could get the framing right (approximately), but it was harder to compensate for the change in focus. Mamiya makes something called a Paramender which would probably solve the problem, but I've never used one.
Compared to a SLR, working close with a TLR introduces too much guess work for me.
I found that one way to make my C330f setup feel far lighter to lug around is to lug around an RB67 with prism viewfinder and a few lenses for a bit. Or a pair of them to avoid swapping lenses for an event if I'm feeling foolish.
The C330 feels far lighter when I then switch back to it...
Oh, I know. I used a Rolleiflex for street work for a decade or more, and it it is still my main camera.
I actually have a similar style, and with people it's at most environmental portraits so the drawbacks of a Rangefinder are less pronounced. My rationale for medium format was the same: If I plan so much on shooting, 35mm is a small format with too long rolls for that and MF just fit that idea of more careful shooting. It is also good for the keeper rate.When shooting b&w, I tend to walk about and look for photographs in small towns, some urban areas, public parks and gardens, and some nature trails. I don't really know what "street" means, but I don't think that is what I do. Very few people, no portraits. Here is a link to much of the b&w I've shot in the past few years: https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography (there is a little color/digital on that page which you can ignore).
Back in 2019 I imagined the medium format camera would replace my 35mm for this kind of walkabout. But now, my plan is to return to my lovely little 35mm SLRs, but maybe have a medium format camera handy for a few selected shots. Therefore, it must be small and light because it will be part of a two camera kit.
The more I think about it, I am beginning to think there may not be even one.
This comment was the first that I saw when opening the thread, to which I chuckled "ha, no!" but actually, it can be so. As you might find, 35mm has very well developed and mature equipment whereas medium format did not have the boon of options later on. I base this in eg. medium format rangefinders. The "modern" models are few. As you see with the folders, the development stopped at Tessar type lenses and not much automation.Yes, do not underestimate 135 format. So many cameras + good to very good lenses + accessories etc.,
Nikon & Canon
Olympus & Pentax
...
The school semester is coming to an end, and today I am returning the Mamiya C220 TLR back to the university Photo department. Two (of many) things I learned this past semester are:
a. I like those big 6x6cm negatives, and,
b. I don't like TLR cameras.
Yes. Tessar for landscape and Triotar for portraits (contrast could lag but in terms of beauty the old uncorrected lens are my choice)My main camera is the Fuji GW690 and last year I got a Super Ikonta IV (same as the III, with an annoying EVS interlock and now dead meter). It was my one and only, and still main, medium format camera. There are of course drawbacks and a comically large camera but it is very doable and I just came back from a month trip to Asia with it and shot a generous amount of film doing so.
I actually have a similar style, and with people it's at most environmental portraits so the drawbacks of a Rangefinder are less pronounced. My rationale for medium format was the same: If I plan so much on shooting, 35mm is a small format with too long rolls for that and MF just fit that idea of more careful shooting. It is also good for the keeper rate.
This comment was the first that I saw when opening the thread, to which I chuckled "ha, no!" but actually, it can be so. As you might find, 35mm has very well developed and mature equipment whereas medium format did not have the boon of options later on. I base this in eg. medium format rangefinders. The "modern" models are few. As you see with the folders, the development stopped at Tessar type lenses and not much automation.
So a T-grain slow film with a good camera+lens can match a Medium format of this type, roughly. Another thing is the beauty and tonality of the medium format negatives, 120 film as a format, and the camera factor that is more varied.
A vote for the Super Ikonta with Tessar, I have one, is that compared to the Modern Fujinon of course it is not as technically good. But folders are very fun to shoot and you might as well start with some simple and cheap option such a Nettar well stopped down in good light before investing for an expensive medium format.
Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane.
Rolleicord. Minolta Autocord. Very close in size and weight to each other (the Autocord being slightly heavier). The Autocord has a lever wind that cocks the shutter at the same time. The Rolleicord has the wind and shutter cocking as two separate operations.I have not researched the various TLRs. Can anyone say which of the commonly available options would be the lightest/smallest?
Everything is a compromise, no need to write off medium format entirelyIn spite of my dislike for the Mamiya C220, I do wonder if I might be able to live with a late model Rolleicord? True, it would still suffer from #2, 3 and 4, but if it was significantly smaller and lighter than the C220, and if the ground glass were significantly brighter, then maybe I could accept the rest? I've never seen, much less held a Rolleicord, but I've seen some comparison photos that make the Rolleicord look much smaller than the C220. I do like the idea of a Rolleicord, but how often does reality match our fantasies?
Or maybe I need to accept the fact that I am just not a medium format kind of guy?
late model Rolleicord Va or Vb, not lighter than a Rolleiflex but a lot cheaper.
Very much lighter than a Rolleiflex. I have both.
Yes. Rolleicord Va is way lighter than any flex.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?