Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,448   Online: 834
      
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,956
    While the Yashicas are nice cameras they are really not in the same league as the Mamiyas or the Rolleis. My prints from Yashicas were never as sharp as I wished.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Perhaps ungainly is a better word. The C33 weighs 6 pounds. Swap out the 80 mm lens and add the 180 mm one and the grip and you're around 10 lbs. Try walking about for more than a few minutes with this weight around your neck. A wonderful camera when used on a tripod. I tend to think of TLRs in terms of contemplative photography where there is no time constraint.
    That reminds me of my old Mamiya RZ67 and why I sold it.

  3. #63
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,599
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    That is the weight with the 80mm lens. The 80 mm lens alone weighs 12 ounces. the 180 mm lens with shade is close to 2 pounds. The 180 plus shade extends 5 inches from the camera body. A formidable piece of equipment.
    A C330 body with 55mm, 80mm and 180mm lenses together is just over 6 pounds (2830 grams). If you use the older C33 body, it is about 2/3 of a pound heavier.

    A C330 body with 80mm lens is 1830 grams - about 4 pounds.

    The simpler C220 body is about 2/3 of a pound lighter.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #64
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    Images
    4
    Both my Rollei and Yashica are very sharp from about 5.6 to 11. That is if I do my part. I seem to have the devil's own time getting my Yashica focused really well, but when I do it gives some very nice images. My Rollei, which has an upgraded focus screen, is a little bit easier to get focused correctly, but I still struggle sometimes. For me, these TLRs are slower to work with because of my eyes.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,956
    A C330 body with 80mm lens is 1830 grams - about 4 pounds.
    According to the site I checked the C33 with 80 mm lens weighs 2040 grams. I must have fat fingered the keyboard when I converted to pounds. Thanks for the correction. Still at 6 pounds the 180 mm ensemble is more than my neck can tolerate for more than a few minutes at a time.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 05-12-2013 at 12:44 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: QUOTE
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,956
    The porroprism available for the C series makes focusing a lot easier.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #67
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,437
    Images
    214
    Right now, I have a Rolleiflex 3.5f, a Lubitel, and a Ricohflex. I once owned a C220, and have used Yashicamats, which were borrowed. I like the way they all made me view a scene. Something about looking down while seeing forward makes my eye/brain connection work a little differently, if that makes sense (much like an inverted image on ground glass). I also like the square format, as the equal sides adds "tension" to an image, whereas rectangular images have a degree of directionality. A square image will pull the viewer's eye to the edges evenly.

    TLRs are slower to work with than 35mm, but I consider that a plus. Loading the cameras take a bit more time... Having fewer exposures makes us more circumspect in what we choose to shoot... The larger negative is a joy to print...

    As an aside, I think the move to a larger format also has benefits when returning to 35mm. The slower, more thoughtful way of shooting will improve one's 35mm working methods.

  8. #68
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,006
    I pretty much routinely use the magnifier and hold the camera up with it to my eye when I need to focus critically and don't have any problems with that. YMMV.

    I'd think a prism on a TLR would give up something, somehow. It's not, I think, that the perspective from waist level is that different, it's more that the right angle viewing adds an element of abstraction that seems to aid composition to me. YMMV, maturally. Of course WLFs are available for other types of cameras though they really only make sense to me with a square format.

  9. #69
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,458
    For me the only drawback is loading the film on the field. Otherwise, I rather enjoy the TLR for composition(big screen if not brighter), the square(Scared geometry has give an another meaning) format, slow nature of working, etc...
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  10. #70
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    602
    Gerald wrote (and I comment between his lines)

    o Except for the Mamiya C series lack of interchangeable focal length lenses.
    There exist the Mutars for Rollei cameras. I have both of them and they work fine with my Flex 3,5F.

    o Clunky in rapidly changing light conditions having to transfer light meter info to camera.
    The light meter of the Flexes is easy to use and gives a valid exposure /stop combination in a second.

    o Except for the Mamiya C series and some Rolleis the lens resolution is not all that great. Avoid those cameras with 3 element taking lenses.
    The Planars of the Flexes ar really good lenses. The come close to 100 lp/mm in the center and around 60-70 in the corners.

    o Film loading is slower than 35 mm.
    That is true if you use an automatic camera like a Canon 33. If you use an older 35 mm camera, the Flex loads not much slower.

    o Parallax problems.
    Rollei cameras have a genial parralax correction. Even with acessory lenses the problem is solved.

    o Square format.
    That is not a con, that is a pro ;-)

    o More prone to film transport problems.
    I used more than 1000 films in my Rolleiflex and had only once the problem that the camera did not find the start of the film.

    o Harder to focus particularly in low light.
    The bright screens of the more modern Flexes / Cords (and Seagulls too) make focussing easy, even in low light.

    o Leaf shutters need servicing more often.
    I bought a ~40 year old Flex which works still fine. It got never a CLA. Do you really think that more modern camera still live after that period of time? At least the light sealing materials dissolves.

    o Overall somewhat less robust in design than 35 mm cameras. Too many points where dust can enter.
    I did not use my Flex in a sand storm, but I dont't see any problems with dust.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin