My father had a Rollleiflex and a couple of 35 mm rangefinder cameras, which I believe he purchased during a tour of duty with the US Army in Germany around 1960. I got into photography as a teenager and loved using the Rolleiflex. It was beautifully made, with nice big (size 120) negatives that were fun to develop and print using my Omega enlarger.
Today, maybe, but historically, Rolleiflex was a camera brand that made mid and highend TLR cameras. Some even had interchangeable lenses (a block with both the viewfinder and taking lens coupled, that you could swap on the camera, to get wideangel, normal and tele shots). And some fashion and whatnot photographers still use them to take photos. As with modern film, the 120 format gives big negatives, good enough to maybe even use on billboards. But superfine for any regular posters and magazines. Funnily enough, for some time film was seen as outdated, but today, some clients seek out film photographers, and are willing to pay extra, to get Rolleiflex TLR or hasselblad SLR shots etc.
It's interesting that Sears was selling their "Tower" cameras 20 years before the Sears Tower was built. There are multiple online resources that claim that the brand was named after the Sears Tower. I think not..
Yep The "Tower" brand was used by Sears for decades before the Sears ("Willis") Tower was built (1973), However the name might have been inspired by ANOTHER Sears Tower: The Sears Merchandise Building Tower (This building, Also in Chicago dates to 1906 and is still standing). My mother worked for Sears, Roebuck & Co for her whole career. Most of the items in our home growing up were Sears brands, I Still have 2 "Tower" cameras and a "Tower" typewriter! Both are YEARS older than the Sears ("Willis") Tower. I like to think the ORGINAL tower is why the modern building was called the Sears Tower instead of the Sears Building.
A small correction - Lubitel cameras are not based on Rolleiflex at all. They are a development of Komsomolets camera (pseudo-TLR), which itself was heavily inspired by Voigtlander Brilliant pseudo-TLR. Which actually makes Lubitel a very good choice for this video, since it's roots are in pseudo-TLRs too.
Nicely done overview, you covered a lot of ground in under 10 minutes. The brownie reflex synchro could shoot 127 slides that could be projected in many 35mm projectors. My grandfather shot photos of my parent's wedding in 1952 using that camera and a flash. I scanned them a while ago and they looked pretty good.
My father brought back from West Germany a Rolleicord from a business trip around 1961. These are “medium format” creating a square negative, quite a bit larger than a 35mm. As a young man I took photos at an outdoor show of a Jaguar Auto Club and despite my limited knowledge the photos came out beautifully.
I had a Lubitel 2 when I was a teenager. I still have a couple of b&w images on contact prints from it. I had it for several years but one fine day I let the strap slip from my hand and it fell on to a hard surface. It was in it's sturdy but not rigid faux-leather case and I expected it to be undamaged. However the case had a design flaw. The case was secured to the camera by a pass-through tripod mount bolt on the bottom. This was completely rigid and struck the ground first. Even though it had only fallen a foot or two the bakelite-like case sadly broke. I believe the lenses were plastic which was at least part of the reason for the remarkably low cost. Another fine video, thanks.
During most of those thirty years that the twin-lens reflex camera dominated, while single-lens reflex cameras existed, they didn't have pentaprisms either, but instead had waist-level finders too.
About 30 years ago I visited an in law whose husband recently passed away. After dinner she took my wife and I to a large building next to her house that was filled with cameras. I learned that during her husband's lifetime he had managed to collect at least one of every camera model ever manufactured, and some prototypes and one off spy cameras as well. I spent a couple of hours in that climate controlled special preservation building enthralled by humanity's entire history of capturing the moment, and I wished that I could have met the man that accomplished this amazing feat. She offered to give me a massive aerial camera, which I appreciatively declined, stating that I didn't have room for it in my van. The truth was that I could not bring myself to alter this collection out of a sense of respect for the collector, and for the larger human accomplishment of camera design. I have questioned that decision a few times since, but I have a Brownie Hawkeye and that will suffice for me.
Some versions of the Rolleiflex used a wonderful Planar lens which produced the sharpest B&W images one could obtain in that negative size. For studio Portrait and Fashion work they allow the photographer to view the subject WHILE the shutter closes, which really helps. Many street photographers liked them because the photographer didn't have to look directly at the subject.
Quite interesting place in this category takes Olympia scamera produced under dozens of names. I think it might be the latest (perhaps?) and with most units sold (perhaps?) pseudo TLR, while not trying to fake being a TLR but an SLR.
As an antique camera collector, I probably have over a dozen of these. They often sell for 5 bucks so I’ve picked up quite a few. Three of the cameras you showed, the Kodak duo flex, the imperial, and the starflex are all part of my collection.
@@christopherd.winnan8701 I’m not really sure. I don’t really use them very often because I have a lot of other much better cameras to pick from, and despite how cheaply they are made, mechanical cameras like that don’t break unless you run them over or something. I never really thought about using 3D printing for camera repair, that’s a pretty good idea.
Very interesting! A good reminder to free my vintage cameras buried downstairs in boxes. Theres a Ricohflex TLR somewhere I inherited that brings back great memories. Thanks Gilles.
I have a small collection of pseudo TLRs, they have one big advantage over my Rolleis, there's almost nothing to go wrong and when it does it's an easy repair. The real thing needs a specialist and deep pockets.
I collect film cameras; have for 50 years. I like these faux-TLRs and have owned and put film through several. One that punches way above its weight class is the Argus Argoflex Forty. It takes 620 film. You can use 120 if you have a 620 takeup spool and clip the edges off the 120 spool ends.
Nice presentation and examples of sudo TLRs Gilles, but I missed the good old Ensign Ful-Vue, a simple but very cute little metal-pressed streamlined shaped camera made in Britain in 1946 by Barnet Ensign Ross Ltd. Legend says that after the war Sir Stafford Cripps, president of the Board of Trade proposed an exhibition called 'Britain can make it' to show the public new and futuristic products that local manufacturers could make in post war Britain and Ensign answered the call with two cameras, including the redesigned Ful-Vue.
I had a 'Brownie' that I took a ton of pictures with, My Dad was so impressed by my interest in photography, he let me use his Rollie from then om. I was 12... I just thought it was a slightly better camera and never realized, until years later, that he let me 'play' with a precision piece of photography equipment worth hundreds of dollars... So many cat and dog pictures, along with landscapes flowers and insect pics. I wish I still had them...
I have did the 120 to 620 rolls and did a roll or 2 of b/w film in Argus 75. It was okay pictures But, what I really love is I found a Argus box camera that used 120 film. Just messing around took a few really great pictures. Then I had to tell myself. People actually purchase and used these cameras new for taking pictures.
i have a Duaflex IV and Argus 75 i use interchangeably. the film is 620 which is a bit of a bear as i gotta respool or buy 120 already respooled but they're great little cameras for me to use along with the actual TLR i got (Yashika Rookie).
A video on the evolution of Kodak Brownie cameras would be wonderful. I have several Brownie cameras. I would love for Kodak to manufacture a new Brownie but updated to accept 120 film rather than their old proprietary 620 film.
I still use several TLRs as well as some 120 SLRs as well as many Rangefinders and 35mm SLRs. I prefer the look over digital but I am looking at a a top of the line Nikon 35mm as my next camera
I had a Lubitel which I didn't realize had been made in Leningrad but I knew it'd been made somewhere in the USSR.The body of the Lubitel was made out of some tough plastic . Sadly I no longer have it and it must have been lost during various house moves not that I'd be tempted to use it if I did have it!
This is probably quibbling, but I think the innovation of the TLR over the view camera relates to composition, not focusing. The problem with the view camera is once you install the plate or film you can no longer see the subject. Those little flip-up finders help with that, but since they have a different focal length than the objective lens, they have a different field of view. With the TLR, what you see in the viewfinder is (mostly) what will be exposed onto the film, up to and including when you click the shutter. I think a rangefinder camera (as the name implies) is typically much better at solving the focus problem than a TLR - they’re often brighter and are optimized for that purpose. The trade-off is in composition - what you see through the rangefinder is probably different from what’s being exposed on the film. Given that, I don’t see why a fixed-focus TLR wouldn’t be a “true” TLR.
Point of clarification - if the upper lens is just a simple “viewer” with a different focal length than the objective lens (as may be the case for some or all of these) I’d agree it’s a “pseudo-TLR” but for that reason, not because of focusing.
Very cool. I remember some of these from when I was a kid. They were cheap and simple, unlike the Peak Analog masterpieces of the time such as the Rolleiflex.
Interesting. Is the Brilliant viewfinder the defining characteristic of the pseudo TLR? I just took a good look at my Yashica 635 and it has a Brilliant viewfinder. Other than that, it's a really good camera.
Its funny that this video came up when it did. I literally just got back from shooting a roll of 120 through a Sears Tower 120 Flash (a copy of an Ising Pucky)
An all-Brownie episode could be very enjoyable. Particularly if you include the family's history pre-Kodak. Kodak didn't create the Brownie. Like many of their products, it came into the Kodak fold as a result of a corporate acquisition.
My parents had a Brownie TLR. They were not big picture takers while I was younger. Once the 126 format came out, picture taking stepped up some to special occasions, ie,vacation. Once grandkids came around, they went crazy with taking pictures. So a lot of my childhood growing up in the 60s and 70s was not recorded. Which may be a good thing. 😅
Nice. Thank you. I thought your Russian was unintelligible, and therefore clear. Actually it was probably well done. My first camera was a hand me down from Mom, A Kodak number 1. I had lots of fun with it. Dad ran a print shop with full offset and letterpress, and cameras for enlarging and reduction.
Focus is a function of the distance between the object and the lens and the lens and the film plane (so the distance from the lens to the point used to focus needs to account for that). Clear glass is mostly just allowing the light rays to pass through it and everything will look distorted but sort of clear because your eyes are processing the light rays directly through the lense and mirror, while having ground glass at the focal plane equivalent to the film focal plane gives a targeting point and casts an image onto the glass itself showing the image that is in the light at the exact axial plane where the image as the film would see it (i.e., at that very particular slice in space)... I dont know if that helps explain?
i got a few old cameras a box reloadable camera, a vest pocket instamatic with pull out bellows, a point and shoot 620 8 to roll takes beautiful pic , brownie, then i went to sla 35 mm and automatic 35 worked for GAF and the buyouts to qualix when it was the stupid joint venture kodak maid co was ok untill raders took over fuqua corm and destroued the co so bad kodac threw the partnership out and got it back to profitability when digital kille the film and processing business today except for 35 mm i can not get any of the old ones developed unless a co does hand developing, but i do hit a occasional in store which is disapeering can i get disk negitives printed then i get deer in headlights ?????? whats a disk
Normally I really enjoy your content. But it is really disappointing to see you exploiting the asinine neologism "pseudo TLR". There is nothing pseudo about these cameras. Brilliant reflex finders were very common. I would hazard to guess that the majority of cameras ever made had Brilliant finders. Especially the large ones you show on these box cameras are big, bright and a real joy to use. No one was tricked or fooled into thinking box cameras were "real TLRs".
another correction for you - the Lubitel was just a soviet stolen original from Czechoslovakia (developed by Meopta) called FLEXARET. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexaret
My father had a Rollleiflex and a couple of 35 mm rangefinder cameras, which I believe he purchased during a tour of duty with the US Army in Germany around 1960. I got into photography as a teenager and loved using the Rolleiflex. It was beautifully made, with nice big (size 120) negatives that were fun to develop and print using my Omega enlarger.
Isn't a rollieflex that thing that infomercial sell that poops out tubes of eggs.
Today, maybe, but historically, Rolleiflex was a camera brand that made mid and highend TLR cameras.
Some even had interchangeable lenses (a block with both the viewfinder and taking lens coupled, that you could swap on the camera, to get wideangel, normal and tele shots).
And some fashion and whatnot photographers still use them to take photos. As with modern film, the 120 format gives big negatives, good enough to maybe even use on billboards. But superfine for any regular posters and magazines.
Funnily enough, for some time film was seen as outdated, but today, some clients seek out film photographers, and are willing to pay extra, to get Rolleiflex TLR or hasselblad SLR shots etc.
It's interesting that Sears was selling their "Tower" cameras 20 years before the Sears Tower was built. There are multiple online resources that claim that the brand was named after the Sears Tower. I think not..
Yep The "Tower" brand was used by Sears for decades before the Sears ("Willis") Tower was built (1973), However the name might have been inspired by ANOTHER Sears Tower: The Sears Merchandise Building Tower (This building, Also in Chicago dates to 1906 and is still standing). My mother worked for Sears, Roebuck & Co for her whole career. Most of the items in our home growing up were Sears brands, I Still have 2 "Tower" cameras and a "Tower" typewriter! Both are YEARS older than the Sears ("Willis") Tower. I like to think the ORGINAL tower is why the modern building was called the Sears Tower instead of the Sears Building.
A small correction - Lubitel cameras are not based on Rolleiflex at all. They are a development of Komsomolets camera (pseudo-TLR), which itself was heavily inspired by Voigtlander Brilliant pseudo-TLR. Which actually makes Lubitel a very good choice for this video, since it's roots are in pseudo-TLRs too.
Nicely done overview, you covered a lot of ground in under 10 minutes.
The brownie reflex synchro could shoot 127 slides that could be projected in many 35mm projectors. My grandfather shot photos of my parent's wedding in 1952 using that camera and a flash. I scanned them a while ago and they looked pretty good.
My father brought back from West Germany a Rolleicord from a business trip around 1961. These are “medium format” creating a square negative, quite a bit larger than a 35mm. As a young man I took photos at an outdoor show of a Jaguar Auto Club and despite my limited knowledge the photos came out beautifully.
I had a Lubitel 2 when I was a teenager. I still have a couple of b&w images on contact prints from it. I had it for several years but one fine day I let the strap slip from my hand and it fell on to a hard surface. It was in it's sturdy but not rigid faux-leather case and I expected it to be undamaged. However the case had a design flaw. The case was secured to the camera by a pass-through tripod mount bolt on the bottom. This was completely rigid and struck the ground first. Even though it had only fallen a foot or two the bakelite-like case sadly broke. I believe the lenses were plastic which was at least part of the reason for the remarkably low cost. Another fine video, thanks.
During most of those thirty years that the twin-lens reflex camera dominated, while single-lens reflex cameras existed, they didn't have pentaprisms either, but instead had waist-level finders too.
Very cool! Looking forward to the Brownie vid!
As a Brownie (And other Kodak camera) collector, I'm looking forward to that too! (I have all the Kodaks he showed here!)
About 30 years ago I visited an in law whose husband recently passed away. After dinner she took my wife and I to a large building next to her house that was filled with cameras. I learned that during her husband's lifetime he had managed to collect at least one of every camera model ever manufactured, and some prototypes and one off spy cameras as well. I spent a couple of hours in that climate controlled special preservation building enthralled by humanity's entire history of capturing the moment, and I wished that I could have met the man that accomplished this amazing feat. She offered to give me a massive aerial camera, which I appreciatively declined, stating that I didn't have room for it in my van. The truth was that I could not bring myself to alter this collection out of a sense of respect for the collector, and for the larger human accomplishment of camera design. I have questioned that decision a few times since, but I have a Brownie Hawkeye and that will suffice for me.
Some versions of the Rolleiflex used a wonderful Planar lens which produced the sharpest B&W images one could obtain in that negative size. For studio Portrait and Fashion work they allow the photographer to view the subject WHILE the shutter closes, which really helps. Many street photographers liked them because the photographer didn't have to look directly at the subject.
Yes, and the shutter was very quiet, not the clunk of SLR.
The Schneider Xenotar was equal in quality to the Zeiss Planar. Both quality German optics.
4:05 Shoutout to Vivian Maier, one of the great New York documentarians.
Quite interesting place in this category takes Olympia scamera produced under dozens of names. I think it might be the latest (perhaps?) and with most units sold (perhaps?) pseudo TLR, while not trying to fake being a TLR but an SLR.
As an antique camera collector, I probably have over a dozen of these. They often sell for 5 bucks so I’ve picked up quite a few. Three of the cameras you showed, the Kodak duo flex, the imperial, and the starflex are all part of my collection.
Please could you let us know which parts need replacing the most often, so that we can design some 3d printed spares?
@@christopherd.winnan8701 I’m not really sure. I don’t really use them very often because I have a lot of other much better cameras to pick from, and despite how cheaply they are made, mechanical cameras like that don’t break unless you run them over or something. I never really thought about using 3D printing for camera repair, that’s a pretty good idea.
I've got 2 of those, and the Argus Super 75 that was my grandfathers.
Simplicity of design is a technology of its own.
Mechanical parsimony was a virtue of a great engineer back then.
"Natasha! Get my Brownie!"
"The cookie?"
"The camera!"
This channel is full of insights.
Very interesting! A good reminder to free my vintage cameras buried downstairs in boxes. Theres a Ricohflex TLR somewhere I inherited that brings back great memories. Thanks Gilles.
I've shot with a couple of those, but most recently with a Duaflex IV. Looking forward to hearing your views on the Brownie range of cameras.
I have a small collection of pseudo TLRs, they have one big advantage over my Rolleis, there's almost nothing to go wrong and when it does it's an easy repair. The real thing needs a specialist and deep pockets.
I collect film cameras; have for 50 years. I like these faux-TLRs and have owned and put film through several. One that punches way above its weight class is the Argus Argoflex Forty. It takes 620 film. You can use 120 if you have a 620 takeup spool and clip the edges off the 120 spool ends.
Nice presentation and examples of sudo TLRs Gilles, but I missed the good old Ensign Ful-Vue, a simple but very cute little metal-pressed streamlined shaped camera made in Britain in 1946 by Barnet Ensign Ross Ltd. Legend says that after the war Sir Stafford Cripps, president of the Board of Trade proposed an exhibition called 'Britain can make it' to show the public new and futuristic products that local manufacturers could make in post war Britain and Ensign answered the call with two cameras, including the redesigned Ful-Vue.
My local auction house (Toovey’s) recently sold a collection of every model of Ful-Vue, in every colour!
I had a 'Brownie' that I took a ton of pictures with, My Dad was so impressed by my interest in photography, he let me use his Rollie from then om. I was 12... I just thought it was a slightly better camera and never realized, until years later, that he let me 'play' with a precision piece of photography equipment worth hundreds of dollars... So many cat and dog pictures, along with landscapes flowers and insect pics. I wish I still had them...
Great, thank you. Very fascinating and educational.
I have a few modern Lomos from the mid '00s! Definitely toys rather than serious cameras but they are a lot of fun.
I have did the 120 to 620 rolls and did a roll or 2 of b/w film in Argus 75. It was okay pictures But, what I really love is I found a Argus box camera that used 120 film. Just messing around took a few really great pictures. Then I had to tell myself. People actually purchase and used these cameras new for taking pictures.
i have a Duaflex IV and Argus 75 i use interchangeably. the film is 620 which is a bit of a bear as i gotta respool or buy 120 already respooled but they're great little cameras for me to use along with the actual TLR i got (Yashika Rookie).
I have an Argus 75 with flash and case. Including 10 of 12 flash bulbs. There's even film in the camera half exposed.
Interesting, insightful and entertaining as usual.
My dad started me on something like this back in the 70s.
He wouldn't let me touch the Hasselblad.
Your accents are brilliant as well - we want shorts in russian, german, & french please.
Who cares if this episode is tech lite. It is still interesting and informative on these cameras.
was is good about these type of cameras is that you have a big view finder.no squinting thru a tiny one like the ones on SLR's.
A video on the evolution of Kodak Brownie cameras would be wonderful. I have several Brownie cameras. I would love for Kodak to manufacture a new Brownie but updated to accept 120 film rather than their old proprietary 620 film.
I still use several TLRs as well as some 120 SLRs as well as many Rangefinders and 35mm SLRs. I prefer the look over digital but I am looking at a a top of the line Nikon 35mm as my next camera
I used to own an Argus just like the one on your desk in this video.
I remember some of those from the old days. I had a Kodak 116 folding camera mom let me use.
Thank You for reminiscence seance.
I had a Lubitel which I didn't realize had been made in Leningrad but I knew it'd been made somewhere in the USSR.The body of the Lubitel was made out of some tough plastic . Sadly I no longer have it and it must have been lost during various house moves not that I'd be tempted to use it if I did have it!
Interesting overview! 👍
I have an Argoflex Seventy-five by Argus. It seems to be the exact same as the Argus Seventy-five but maybe a different model year or something?
This is probably quibbling, but I think the innovation of the TLR over the view camera relates to composition, not focusing. The problem with the view camera is once you install the plate or film you can no longer see the subject. Those little flip-up finders help with that, but since they have a different focal length than the objective lens, they have a different field of view. With the TLR, what you see in the viewfinder is (mostly) what will be exposed onto the film, up to and including when you click the shutter. I think a rangefinder camera (as the name implies) is typically much better at solving the focus problem than a TLR - they’re often brighter and are optimized for that purpose. The trade-off is in composition - what you see through the rangefinder is probably different from what’s being exposed on the film. Given that, I don’t see why a fixed-focus TLR wouldn’t be a “true” TLR.
Point of clarification - if the upper lens is just a simple “viewer” with a different focal length than the objective lens (as may be the case for some or all of these) I’d agree it’s a “pseudo-TLR” but for that reason, not because of focusing.
The world is your scoop with PRESS in your hatband and toting a Reporter.
Very cool. I remember some of these from when I was a kid. They were cheap and simple, unlike the Peak Analog masterpieces of the time such as the Rolleiflex.
As a Russian re: pronunciation: you did better than most!
Great fun Gilles. I enjoy these cameras as engineering solutions, but I’ll quite happily stay with the conveniences of modern digital cameras.
We had one of those Argus pseudo-TLRs when I was growing up, as well as several better cameras.
And the crowd goes wild!!! 🎉
Interesting. Is the Brilliant viewfinder the defining characteristic of the pseudo TLR? I just took a good look at my Yashica 635 and it has a Brilliant viewfinder. Other than that, it's a really good camera.
Its funny that this video came up when it did. I literally just got back from shooting a roll of 120 through a Sears Tower 120 Flash (a copy of an Ising Pucky)
i had 1 of these with the geared lenses, i'll have to find it!
I have a couple of those in my collection, a Kodak Duofex II and a plastic "Ilfoflex"
great content as usual ! thanks
Good show! 👍👍
Please could you let us know which parts need replacing the most often, so that we can design some 3d printed spares?
An all-Brownie episode could be very enjoyable. Particularly if you include the family's history pre-Kodak. Kodak didn't create the Brownie. Like many of their products, it came into the Kodak fold as a result of a corporate acquisition.
Please make a video about the Ihagee Exakta line of cameras, they're the first successful 35mm slr cameras on earth with a very interesting backstory
Mom had an Argus Seventy Five.. she took some good pictures with it..
My parents had a Brownie TLR. They were not big picture takers while I was younger. Once the 126 format came out, picture taking stepped up some to special occasions, ie,vacation. Once grandkids came around, they went crazy with taking pictures. So a lot of my childhood growing up in the 60s and 70s was not recorded. Which may be a good thing. 😅
Fantastic thanks.
That was a quick snapshot!😀😀
great video !
Nice. Thank you. I thought your Russian was unintelligible, and therefore clear. Actually it was probably well done. My first camera was a hand me down from Mom, A Kodak number 1. I had lots of fun with it. Dad ran a print shop with full offset and letterpress, and cameras for enlarging and reduction.
Why does ground glass provide a more accurate focusing?
Focus is a function of the distance between the object and the lens and the lens and the film plane (so the distance from the lens to the point used to focus needs to account for that). Clear glass is mostly just allowing the light rays to pass through it and everything will look distorted but sort of clear because your eyes are processing the light rays directly through the lense and mirror, while having ground glass at the focal plane equivalent to the film focal plane gives a targeting point and casts an image onto the glass itself showing the image that is in the light at the exact axial plane where the image as the film would see it (i.e., at that very particular slice in space)... I dont know if that helps explain?
i got a few old cameras a box reloadable camera, a vest pocket instamatic with pull out bellows, a point and shoot 620 8 to roll takes beautiful pic , brownie, then i went to sla 35 mm and automatic 35 worked for GAF and the buyouts to qualix when it was the stupid joint venture kodak maid co was ok untill raders took over fuqua corm and destroued the co so bad kodac threw the partnership out and got it back to profitability when digital kille the film and processing business
today except for 35 mm i can not get any of the old ones developed unless a co does hand developing, but i do hit a occasional in store which is disapeering can i get disk negitives printed then i get deer in headlights ?????? whats a disk
No camera is too obscura for you, is there?
I own that Lubitel 🙂😉
i have a lubitel 2 i loaded for the first time it today
Good morning!
its 11:00 at night
@@hughsgarbagetrucks
It's oh 9 hundred hours
Normally I really enjoy your content. But it is really disappointing to see you exploiting the asinine neologism "pseudo TLR". There is nothing pseudo about these cameras. Brilliant reflex finders were very common. I would hazard to guess that the majority of cameras ever made had Brilliant finders. Especially the large ones you show on these box cameras are big, bright and a real joy to use. No one was tricked or fooled into thinking box cameras were "real TLRs".
another correction for you - the Lubitel was just a soviet stolen original from Czechoslovakia (developed by Meopta) called FLEXARET. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexaret