Will there be a digital TLR camera?
anir...@gmail.com
models included the famous Rolleiflex, as well as Mamiya C series and
Yashica MAT124. I am not a 100% sure why this type of camera had a
niche in the past few decades. Perhaps when you take a long exposure
photos, the screen will not go blank.
My question is whether there will be a digital TLR camera made
sometime in the future. I knew that there are plastic toy camera using
the TLR concept (Holga), and the most recent one from Japan -
Blackbird http://www.superheadz.com/bbf/
The blackbird has a nice concept and artistic, but very limited specs
and using a 35mm film. I even wonder why they did not go to digital.
Perhaps the sensor cost will be too expensive to make it a "toy" or
"artistic" camera.
Is there a future of a digital TLR? or is it not practical/economical
with twin lens, and a large size sensor. Just curious!
Paul Bartram
<anir...@gmail.com> wrote
> My question is whether there will be a digital TLR camera made
> sometime in the future.
Can't really see the point of one. Viewing from the overhead position that
TLRs provided can be had with digitals with swivelling screens (or bodies,
like my Coolpix 995). As for the larger sensor required, probably beyond
current manufacturing ability with regard to cost.
In any case, who would bother with a bigger camera than normal these days?
The Rollieflex was a pretty cumbersome item to carry around from memory,
even if it was nice to actually use.
Paul
Ray Fischer
>The twin-lens Reflex camera utilized a 120 film. Some of the old
>models included the famous Rolleiflex, as well as Mamiya C series and
>Yashica MAT124. I am not a 100% sure why this type of camera had a
>niche in the past few decades. Perhaps when you take a long exposure
>photos, the screen will not go blank.
Perhaps they were a lot cheaper to make than an SLR. With no
mechanism to flip a mirror there were a lot fewer moving parts.
>My question is whether there will be a digital TLR camera made
>sometime in the future.
Nope. No need. First, the cost of a large sensor is so high that the
additional cost of a movable mirror is negligable. Second, the sensor
can provide the actual image so there's no need for a second optical
path.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Allen
a 3 inch difference in view.
Allen
George Kerby
On 6/2/09 11:40 PM, in article
4a25feab$0$9154$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net, "Paul Bartram"
Not to mention the parralex (sp?) problems involved in close subjects.
George Kerby
On 6/3/09 8:44 AM, in article _sOdnYPVkaa147vX...@giganews.com,
"Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
My C330 had a little red bar that would appear and move downward in the
viewing lens as the focal plane moved closer to the camera.
bugbear
> My C330 had a little red bar that would appear and move downward in the
> viewing lens as the focal plane moved closer to the camera.
Yes - it was a splendid attempt to overcome the normal
limitations of a TLR by brute force :-)
I mean, a TLR with interchangeable lenses? That is *not*
natural!
BugBear (with Yashica Automat that sees little use)
rkmr...@yahoo.com
Try a digital TLR....
George Kerby
On 6/3/09 9:41 AM, in article
ibKdnSeqpIotFrvX...@brightview.co.uk, "bugbear"
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
Ad the way they mounted was a little funky, as I recall. But I never had any
of the other than the 'standard' 80mm that came with it. (I think it was
80mm - like my Hassy).
Allen
Allen
Neil Ellwood
A 3 megapixel camera for 249 euros = no thanks.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
bugbear
Care to expand? Since I only used the TLR for
landscape work, it seemed to work rather
well in practice.
TLRs were a common press camara in the 50s and 60s (check out
any footage of the Beatles arriving at an airport),
and a standard wedding camera long after that, so I guess
the problems were survivable.
BugBear
Don Stauffer
Unlikely. Mfgs have learned how to make moving mirrors quite reliable
in the decades since the TLR was popular. It was a pain in some ways.
To replace lens took twice the time, 'cause you had to replace both
lenses.
The TLR was popular in days when prime lens was relatively simple
compared to today's lenses, so cost of a second lens wasn't that bad. I
don't remember a TLR with a zoom lens. What a mechanical nightmare to
get not only the focusing mechanism, but the zooming mechanism to track.
BTW, there was nothing that REQUIRED TLR to have 2-1/4 format, so one
could make a TLR with any format size.
George Kerby
On 6/4/09 9:09 AM, in article 4a27d5b7$0$89396$815e...@news.qwest.net, "Don
Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
I don't know about what TLR you had, Don. Every one that I saw, the lens had
*nothing* to do with focusing the subject. The only controls on the *lens*
was shutter speed and aperture, along with the lens cock/release and flash
sync. The body itself did the focusing.
Don Stauffer
together. That gear was actually on the lenses, though part of the
mechanism was in the body. I had two TLRs, both cheapies (one the
infamous Russian Lubitel- actually, not too bad a camera).
In neither case were the lenses removable.
George Kerby
On 6/5/09 9:11 AM, in article 4a2927b0$0$87074$815e...@news.qwest.net, "Don
Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. And never having seen that camera, I stand
corrected.
Don Stauffer
Spartaflex. Got it when I was ten or eleven (1948 or 49). Loved it- a
great camera.