If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Rockwell is a loon
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: So what were the advantages of a TLR over meduim format cameras, I though it was price as the focusing viewing lens didn't need to be of as higher quality and could be made smaller. It did seem that TLRs in gernral were far cheaper, but then I only ever used one a seagull for a short while. I did have a practika VLC2 which I liked to use the waiste level finder option. I did hear that they were easier to hold at waiste level and caused less shake than a medium format camera but I never understood why. The TLR design is a compromise. More accurate pre-visualization of the final picture than a typical eye-level viewfinder, without the complication of an SLR. Ideally, you want to view through the lens that takes the picture, but to do so you have either a big flapping mirror - or a large format camera where you replace the film with a viewing screen. The TLR gives you a directly focusable image which, except for parallax at close distances, is exactly what the film would see. And, a well-designed TLR is almost indestructible, with very little to go wrong. I shot extensively with a TLR Rolleiflex, but at flea markets I see Yashicamats - 25+ years old, and NOT an expensive camera - that still work perfectly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Rockwell is a loon
In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote: And, a well-designed TLR is almost indestructible, with very little to go wrong. I shot extensively with a TLR Rolleiflex, but at flea markets I see Yashicamats - 25+ years old, and NOT an expensive camera - that still work perfectly. that's nothing unique to a tlr. many cameras of that era were built like a tank and work quite well. the only problem is that they use film. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Rockwell is a loon
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: And, a well-designed TLR is almost indestructible, with very little to go wrong. I shot extensively with a TLR Rolleiflex, but at flea markets I see Yashicamats - 25+ years old, and NOT an expensive camera - that still work perfectly. that's nothing unique to a tlr. many cameras of that era were built like a tank and work quite well. the only problem is that they use film. What how dare they, must have been a serious drawback for them back in the 40s-70s ;-) they had no choice for something better. now they do. in the future, they'll have even better choices. technology moves forward, even if a bunch of luddites don't want it to. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ken Rockwell is a loon | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | April 3rd 14 04:10 AM |
Q. for Ken Rockwell | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 34 | December 5th 06 07:12 PM |
Wetbacks, she might mould clever yogis, do you play them, Lame Moronic Loon. | http://peaceinspace.com | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 2nd 06 03:55 AM |