Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by yellowballoon, Sep 7, 2007.
Retro photographic list 127 black and white film.
4x4 on 120 was indeed done by a mask. 645 is not, though. I have several adaptors for a number of my Rolleis, and they all work pretty well. I have a 2.8E that I mostly shoot 35mm on - the 80mm lens is good for portraits - and a T that is mostly used for 645 - the 75mm lens is pretty effective for the format, and actually shorter than the 80mm standard lens for my Mamiya M645.
For 127 film go see www.retrophotographic.co.uk
Yellowballoon- tell us a couple of things. What do you plan to shoot? Portrait, landscape, macro, reportage? Do you wet-print, and if so what is the maximum film size your existing enlarger will handle? Do you scan- if so, same question aboutyour scanner. Do you like square format, or blunt oblongs, or stretched images.
There are several competing formats, and once committed changing horses gets hard. Having some clear ideas about what you like before spending your cash will help.
My first (and only )one was the Lubitel 2, basic, did the job, but the fall off at the corners was horrible, the centre of the image was nice and sharp though.
The Seagull TLR's are probably best avoided because quality control seems to be very variable. On ebay you can pick up models like the Yashica D for under £40 (well I did), so it's worth starting with something like that to see how you get on with this camera type. Like most TLR's, that takes 120 film.
Though I like the small TLR's that take 127 film, I find they are not as easy to hold steady as the much heavier 120 types. Also as has been said, the film is much more difficult to obtain, tends to be more expensive than 120, and is only available in a very few emulsion choices. If you want someone else to process it, that can be a problem and if you intend to print it yourself you might have difficulty in getting the right size negative carrier. And scanning 127 negs might present difficulties as no-one seems to make any kind of carrier especially for them.
My wife swears by TLRs, I tend to swear at them. As others have said, they are an aquired taste and I never have got it, but they might suit what you want to do. My wife uses a Mamiya C330 and you might like the "junior" version: the C220. Unlike most TLRs, they have a wide selection of (mostly excellent) interchangeable lenses and you should get a good one easily for your budget.
My experience with the Mamiya TLRs is that they negate the advantages of the TLR design without the flexibility of an SLR design - they're big, heavy, clumsy and have a fairly limited range of lenses really. Still, they do suit some people.
Some of them, yes, but not all - the Mamiyas still give you the uninterrupted view that is one of the benefits of a TLR over an SLR. Also, I'd say that whilst the body is admittedly bigger by far than that of a normal TLR, the lenses are generally very much smaller and lighter than the 6x6 SLR equivalents. So whilst there certainly is a roundabout, there are also some swings.
Yes, I should've qualified that by saying "some of the advantages". I'll make it plainer - for me, one of the great joys of TLR photography is the ability to use medium format handheld; I find that extremely difficult with the Mamiyas because of their bulk. Shame, because it's a very nice system in many ways, and I'm actually rather a Mamiya fan, even if I only have two Mamiya systems.
I've got three!
I've three cameras (briefly had four), though. And I also have Mamiya lenses for another manufacturer's system...
I agree. I use a Mamiya 7II rangefinder myself, which is small, light, very hand-holdable and uses the (to me anyway) nicer 6 x 7 format, but it is not within the OP's budget.
For a beginner may I suggest a Rolleiflex 2.8E for around 200-250 GBP. The main factor of this camera,is that you can have it with either the 2.8 Carl Zeiss Planar or the Schneider-Kreuaznach Xenotar. And it's less complicated to use
and to repair,than the later F model.
I love my 330, not had it that long, but I find I can handhold it down to about 1/30 sec, though I do prefer to go faster if I can. It's heavy, but not backbreaking, I've been able to lug it up a few lakeland fells without injury. They're also very reasonably priced at the moment too.
Separate names with a comma.