TLR Challenge: My Conclusions

It’s about a year since I set myself a challenge to use a TLR regularly over the year and shoot at least 50 rolls of film. So, while it’s time to reach some conclusions, I must admit I’m finding this difficult to write. Let me begin by thanking all of your who have posted a TLR response to my challenge, and those of you who have commented or reference my Challenge on the way.

Let’s summarise what I’ve done over the year, where I’ve failed, what I’ve found, and what I’m pleased with.

I began by using my YashicaMat 124G which I had disassembled to clean haze from the front surface of the rear lens block – after which it has been fine, both optically and mechanically. I then ventured (again) into the Rollei world and used a Rolleicord for a while, and then sold that to part-fund the purchase of a 2.8GX ‘flex which I used for the bulk of the films I shot. I have to admit I failed to shoot regularly over the year, most of the films were shot in the first six months after which I was hankering to get back to 35mm, however I have shot well over 60 120 films during the entire year.

There’s little point describing in detail what we all know already – markedly better image quality from the larger negatives compared to 35mm, superb construction of the Rolleiflexes, and other things I mentioned in earlier posts. One think that is worth repeating is that MF is a sweet spot between 35mm and large format for two reasons. First, comparison of prints I made to 16×16 size shows an obvious difference between 35mm and MF but differences between MF and LF are subtle – they are there but you have to look hard. Second, f8 on MF gives an acceptable depth of field on most shots, while on LF you’d have to go to f16 or narrower – which dramatically reduces resolution below the capabilities of medium speed film.

Some of my favourite images over the past year have been taken on a TLR, in particular Challenge #5, the featured image and the “Park” image, both in fog; also #6 featured image and “Entrance Hall”, #4 “View over the Pond”, and #3 featured image. But how many of these are dependent on square format or MF resolution? Could equally good, or better images, be taken on 35mm? And I have to say I have more images over the same period from 35mm that I like a lot. Here’s another fog shot taken near my home

Bad points I found are the following. (1) 120 film is far more often faulty than 35mm film – I’ve had faulty FP4+and Rollei Retro 80S. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky. And here’s another one (Rollei Retro 80)

(2) The bulk and awkward shape of the TLR gets on my nerves – there, I’ve said it. My right arm has been wedded to Leica Ms for over 40 years and doesn’t like this interloper. (3) Despite the much better screen on the GX compared to earlier versions focusing is less certain compared to an M camera. (4) I don’t like being a centre of attention and a TLR draws comments both good and bad and interrupts my photography. If I took portraits the answer may well be the other way round, but I don’t.

So my conclusion is that primarily for reasons of ergonomics but also not wanting to be a centre of attention I will primarily continue to use my M camera in future. I’ll keep my YashicaMat 124G (which cost about 40 Euros 10 years ago) and I will use it occasionally – along with my LF and pinhole cameras – but I cannot justify keeping the GX which I’m sure another photographer could put to much better use.

I’ll leave you with a sunset

PS: I’ll probably give the GX another six months before I decide to sell or not, so expect to see some more shots from her.

Share this post: