File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have a question, /p/.

What is the point of a TLR? I understand the whole "viewfinder doesn't black out" thing, but why a TLR over a rangefinder? Or a rangefinder over a TLR, for that matter?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTDCamera ModelC960Z,D460ZCamera Softwarev874u-74Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created0000:00:00 00:00:00Exposure Time1/23 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating250Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width242Image Height516Compression SettingHQMacro ModeNormal
>> Anonymous
>>52242
Oh, wow, EXIF.

I got this photograph off a Wikipedia article.
>> Anonymous
well, for the technical aspects they are usually medium format 120/220 6x6. the focus is backwards in the veiwing screen.

i dont really understand what you mean by "tlr over a rangerfinder". both are just different types of cameras, many format and so on.

anyway here are the pros:cheap for 6x6 mediumformat, small, lite and can procuce very sharp crisp well exposed pictures, again depending on type, make, lense. can be very strong not much to break inside.

cons. bad depth of field, metering on those that have it is either broke or just shit. its square format, good for some things bad for others.
>> Anonymous
>>52252
Well, among other advantages over an SLR, rangefinders don't black out when you press the shutter. Neither do TLRs.

I was asking why and in what situations someone would use a TLR over a rangefinder in the same format, and vice versa.
>> Anonymous
>>52256

its all just personal preferance. tlrs arnt great to shoot from while holding by hand. it works ok at high shutter speeds but it can be crappy to hold.

i dont see why you think blacking out is such a problem? at most shutter speeds you wont even notice and if you do need a long exposure you would frame it up befor hand.
>> Anonymous
>>52258
I don't, but that is an advantage rangefinders and TLRs have over SLRs.

I would prefer they didn't, but they do, so oh well.

I was curious as to why someone looking for a non-TTL, non-blacking out, view would prefer one type over the other.
>> ac
>>52260
Why would someone prefer a black camera over a silver one? Or a Nikon over a Canon? It's just personal preference.

Well, I think that a Rangefinder would be a bit easier to use, and a TLR a lot cheaper (based on the prices I've seen for a Mamiya 6 or 7 vs. a Mamiya C220 or C330, f'rinstance). So it all sort of evens out.
>> Anonymous
Before pentaprismed SLRs became popular, you pretty much chose between focusing systems. Rangefinders have that overlapping thing, which is accurate but you don't get to see DOF. TLRs, with their ground glass + magnifier, show out of focus areas as they are on the picture, but reverse everything and aren't quite as accurate.

TLRs were also cheaper than interchangable lens rangefinder systems of the time, as far as I know.
>> ac
>>52535
What are you talking about?

What a retard.
>> Anonymous
two lens is an older style that was cheaper to make. no one makes them anymore.
>> Anonymous
The main thing I've heard in favour of TLRs is the lack of a great big mirror clacking about when you fire the shutter; tidy for when you want to do some ninja shooting. Plus they have this whole indy cred thing ("Old tech? That's so indy! Sleep with me!"). Might be fun to play with if you got one given to you; for my part, I wouldn't go out of my way to get one.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>52564
http://shop.lomography.com/seagull/
There's actually at least one company still making 'em.
>> Anonymous
>>52577
Now, is this camera actually a real camera or more Lomo shit?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>52578
I think it's actually a real camera.
>> Anonymous
>>52579
I dunno, for the prices it looks like a toy, but its appearance says it's a real camera.

I'm not buying one any time soon, regardless.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>52581
As has been a conclusion of this discussion, TLRs are pretty cheap to make. Especially a TLR that doesn't have interchangeable lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>52537

oh dear ac you really should just keep yourself to yourself.>>52535knows exactly what they are talking about and if you had used any tlr or knew anything about the technological history of photography then you would too.

>>52578
>>52581

no dont buy one its made of cheap plastic and has a crappy lense. its just a cheap copy of a yashica mat124g. dont touch it, its lomo shit.

look on ebay for yashica tlrs. they are a lot cheaper and are very solid all metal bodies. there are many different types but the yashica mat, mat 124/124g and the 635 are all very good.
>> Anonymous
>>52581

just had a look on ebay and you can pic up a "yashica D" in excelent condition for about $40.

there are a few minor/major differences between all the yashica bodies. some the winding lever is locked to the shutter so its hard to double expose if your into that sort of thing.

on another note the yashica mat 124matG ia vastly overpriced when sold on ebay. look fopr the mat or the 124 mat insted. the metering in most tlrs is awful.
>> Anonymous
Heh... I wasn't looking to buy either a rangefinder or a TLR ATM. I was just curious.
>> Anonymous
>>52590

well you got your answer.
>> Anonymous
>>52586
>if your into that sort of thing.

ooh, kinky
>> Anonymous
>>52596
lol
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>52583
>oh dear ac you really should just keep yourself to yourself
Yeah, I'm trying to keep myself to myself now.

(By which I mean, that wasn't my self. That was some jackass pretending to be me for a larf, forcing me to get my tripfag on)

If you'll look at the other replies I have in this thread, you'll see that I was saying basically the same thing that>>52535was.

Also, pic related, I own a TLR.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:03 18:48:35Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-716898080Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>52583
Your heart's in the right place, but you're full of shit too :)

Seagull is a decently reputable-ish company out of China, which produced pretty decent copies of Agfa (?) folding rangefinders and generic TLRs, as well as license copies of Minolta manual SLRs. They're not perfect, but if you can pick up one used they work great.

Don't buy them from Lomography, of course. That's definitely a ripoff. But Seagull itself is a fine company, if not the best quality.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>52642
On the subject of TLRs...

Hay /p/, check out what I just did. Not this picture, but the 120 roll of Velvia I just exposed. Hopefully it will be filled with Win rather than Loss, but I had to sunny-16 the whole roll because I was too lazy to pull out my digital to act as a light meter for me, so it could go either way.

Gonna go find out of my local camera shop can E6 process rolls of 120 after work tonight.
>> Anonymous
>>52984

do you bracket much? ive had mixed results with the yashica 635 but was really pleased with how most of the 12 shots turned out(no metering). ive got used to certian cameras and situations to the point that i dont need to meter.

metering isnt always accurite, its just a set of equations and some shit, a guide if you will.

>>52972
no sorry wise guy the results speak for themself. sorry if you spent your money on one but man, many other solid tlrs can be bought for a lot less and they have a decent lens and have a good reputation. how can it equate in your head that they are decent when much better cameras can be bought for a lot less?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53003
On film, I don't bracket at all. I'll sometimes bracket with my digital if I really think the shot's good enough to bother making sure I've got it perfectly. But with film, I pretty much just trust my instincts and wide exposure latitude to carry the day, since I'm too cheap to pay for multiple frames of the same thing.

When I'm feeling less lazy, I take the shot or two with my PowerShot A95 first to check the metering. Which requires me to do math in my head a lot, since the A95 mins out at f/8.0 and something crazy like 1/2000th whereas the Yashica goes all the way to f/22 but only 1/300th of a second.
>> Anonymous
>>53014

dude i couldnt be fucked with that. i just spray and pray. lol
>> Anonymous
>>53025

i couldnt be fucked with that. deliberation makes the picture feel like you had something to do with it besides pressing the shutter.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53029
Heh. Even when I do the quote-unquote-spray-and-pray method with my TLR, there's still a hell of a lot of deliberation involved. Ever focus and frame with a TLR? Not so much with the easy-to-do. Really makes you appreciate the SLR way of doing things.
>> Anonymous
>>53035

oh yeah, ive got a yashica 635 and a mat 124g. im just talking about the metering and my judgement for the shutter fstop...etc.

i totally agree. the square format needs to be framed well to get the most out of the composition.
>> thefamilyman
     File :-(, x)
>>53072
i use a lovely little Kodalux light meter that attaches itself to the flash shoe on my Lomo 166B and Graflex 22-400 TLR's. for years i used the sunny 16 rule, but light meters take the guess work out.
>> Anonymous
>>53076

how much do you trust old meters? do they stand the test of time or do the eventually just die, like the photosensitive cell burns out or something.

ive got a cheap seconic meter thats digital. its just when you get 4 or 5 meters together and set them up the same its quite funny how drastic the different readings can be.
>> Anonymous
sorry i meant "sekonic"
>> thefamilyman
>>53082
i trust my kodalux well, seems to hit the mark everytime
>> Anonymous
So TLR's are cheap to make? Lol guess none of you have heard of rolleiflex :P

They made their TLR's up until I think a few years ago. . . you can still buy them new at b&h for $4.7K

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303163-USA/Rollei_66607_Rolleiflex_4_0_FW_Medium.html
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53112
High quality costs more no matter what the format. Go price a brand-new Leica M7 with a good-quality wideangle lens. Then imagine how much Leica would charge for a similar camera if they made it big enough to take 120. ;)

But in general, a TLR is a much less complicated system than a rangefinder, and much *much* less complicated than an SLR. Especially when you throw the rigors of medium-format into the mix.