[andrewd]

It has two horizontal scribed lines in the ground glass. You focus, look at a scale for a closeup factor and pick one of the lines (or interpolate between the scribed lines) that will represent the top of the frame based on the closeup factor. You don't get to see the bottom of the frame. With the 80mm I can focus as close about 6 inches (15cm) away from the taking lens. That close the parallax error is huge. You'll have to guess where the bottom half of the composition looks like.

The ‘parallax correction’ feature in later models is nothing more than a sliding arrow indicating the top of the frame. I am not convinced it is much better than the lines etched on the screen. You either guess whats in the bottom half of the frame or use a ‘paramender’ device on a tripod to shift the camera up so taking lens is in line with viewing lens. I doubt that I will ever do any macro work with my TLR.

[WPRESTO]

The ‘parallax correction’ feature in later models is nothing more than a sliding arrow indicating the top of the frame. I am not convinced it is much better than the lines etched on the screen. You either guess whats in the bottom half of the frame or use a ‘paramender’ device on a tripod to shift the camera up so taking lens is in line with viewing lens. I doubt that I will ever do any macro work with my TLR.

That sort of problem kept me away from TLR cameras when i first started photography in the 1950's. Rolleiflex was known to be an outstanding camera, and a Yashicamat went for less money then than they do now second hand (not allowing for inflation). For someone interested and macro and wildlife, they were a quick reject. How could you do live insects with a TLR? It would require long practice to refine a dependable method.

[stevebrot]

How could you do live insects with a TLR?

You do them them the same way as with a rangefinder camera...you don't!


Steve

[WPRESTO]

You do them them the same way as with a rangefinder camera...you don't! Steve

In the 1950's there was a common method for close-ups using a rangefinder or TLR (the heyday of the legendary Leica M3, TRL's and many roll film folding cameras such as a Super Ikonta - I had one for a short time). You made a "framing square" = a piece of wire bent to the size & shape of the FOV of the camera with a close-up lens attached. This was attached to the camera via the tripod socket in such a way that something within the wire frame was the right distance and correctly framed for a close up. Once you got used to it, framing and shooting was quick. As I went for an SLR very soon after inheriting the Super Ikonta (it came with a Zeiss-made close-up lens) I never experimented with a framing square for close-ups, but I was thinking hard about how to make one.

[stevebrot]

In the 1950's there was a common method for close-ups using a rangefinder or TLR (the heyday of the legendary Leica M3, TRL's and many roll film folding cameras such as a Super Ikonta - I had one for a short time). You made a "framing square" = a piece of wire bent to the size & shape of the FOV of the camera with a close-up lens attached.

Yes, I am acquainted with such. Some cameras (e.g. Canon P) even had parallax-corrected viewfinders. Neither helps with macros of ants.


Steve

[TwoUptons]

Yes, I am acquainted with such. Some cameras (e.g. Canon P) even had parallax-corrected viewfinders. Neither helps with macros of ants.


Steve

I have an "Auto Up Super Nooky" for my Retina that is basically a closeup filter for the lens attached to a closeup filter for the rangefinder.
It gets you closer... but it's not proper macro...
For true macro, Kodak sold something like that wireframe arrangement. There may have been something with a chart that needed a ruler, too.
I have seen them for sale occasionally, but I'll never do macro with the Retina. The K1000 obliterates it in terms of usefulness, or the H1a if I'm feeling vintage.
Polaroid did a bunch of the frame things for their cameras... my father had a close-up specific Polaroid that was nearly half a meter long.

But I had to buy the Super Nooky because of the name...

The few times I used a Mamiya C330, I really liked the parallax needle.
For portraits, you could use that to ensure you didn't cut off the head while letting the bottom of the frame fall where it may...
For a Yashicamat or a Rollei, they don't focus all that close, but the Mamiyas can get much closer... so it's more important on those, I think...
And I did like that 180mm lens. It was a neat focal length. Was there a 60mm that was well-regarded? Or am I thinking of something else?

-Eric

[Hepcat]

If you're going to do a lot of closeup work with the Mamiya C series TLRs, a Paramender is really the ONLY way to go. I shot C330s and C220s for a number of years for commercial and industrial work. They're superb image makers, but use the tools they provided for the tasks at hand. The scribed lines are fine for framing at working distances of a few feet and guessing what will be in the frame, but the Paramender takes all the guess work out.

https://skrasnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/mamiya-tlr-paramender.jpg

[stevebrot]

If you're going to do a lot of closeup work with the Mamiya C series TLRs, a Paramender is really the ONLY way to go. I shot C330s and C220s for a number of years for commercial and industrial work. They're superb image makers, but use the tools they provided for the tasks at hand. The scribed lines are fine for framing at working distances of a few feet and guessing what will be in the frame, but the Paramender takes all the guess work out.

https://skrasnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/mamiya-tlr-paramender.jpg

The Paramender is pure genius. I just read the description of how it works on camera-wiki.org. Very cool!

Mamiya C - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia


Steve

[tuco]

The Paramender is pure genius. I just read the description of how it works on camera-wiki.org. Very cool!

Yeah and there looks to be plenty of them available. I might have to pick one up. I also have extension tubes and a Makro-Planar 120mm lens (1:4.5 reproduction) lens for my Hasselblad for macro/closeup in 6x6 format.

[tuco]

Yet another picture of it.


Mamiya C3 - Stowed by tuco, on Flickr

Delta 100

[K-Three]

Yet another picture of it.

That looks to be in gorgeous condition for a 50+ year old camera,
and a nice photo of it,

[tuco]

That looks to be in gorgeous condition for a 50+ year old camera,
and a nice photo of it,

Thanks. Yes, it is in excellent condition. I still haven't taken a picture with it however.

[tuco]

I just like taking pictures of it.



Mamiya C3 by tuco, on Flickr

Delta 100

[WPRESTO]

I just like taking pictures of it.

Atop a sturdy tripod is definitely the natural habitat for that camera. I remember looking at one at Wlloughby's back in the early 60's and thinking "it would be easier to hand-hold a Speed Graphic."

[tuco]

... I remember looking at one at Wlloughby's back in the early 60's and thinking "it would be easier to hand-hold a Speed Graphic."

With my waist level finder cameras including my Pentax 67 when it's configured with the folding hood (most the time), I snug up the neck strap so the camera is chest length, bend over a little and let the camera's weight hang from my neck. My my hands only need to hold it from swaying around. It's pretty easy to get a reasonably steady shot. Another approach I do is to get on one knee, use my forearm as a monopod while it's supported on my knee.

Let's compare the Mamiya C3 to the following other gear that I have shot handhold (including the Crown Graphic). I just grabbed the cameras with the lenses they had on (nothing extreme) to weight them. So of course YMMV.


Hasselblad 500C/M:
1.5 kg/3.3 lbm of mass = 14.7 N/3.3 lbf of weight

Fuji GSW690III:
1.65 kg/3.64 lbm = 16.2 N/3.64 lbf

Mamiya C3:
1.83 kg/4.03 lbm = 17.9 N/4.03 lbf

Pentax 67 with folding hood (add 0.53 kg/1.16 lbm of mass for prism):
2.0 kg/4.4 lbm = 19.6 N/4.4 lbf

4x5 Crown Graphic:
2.4 kg/5.3 lbm = 23.5 N/5.3 lbf