Which is better and why?

Rolleiflex automat 6x6 model k4a 75mm Schneider Xenar 3.5 heidosmat 2.8 or Yashica 24 TLR camera with telephoto lens.

<p>Are you kidding me? Rolleiflex.</p>

<p>Charlotte - a little independent research on your part would quickly reveal that the Yashica taking lens is basically a copy of the Rolleiflex design, but not up to its performance standards particularly at wider apertures (but very good from about f8-f16). As far as accessory items which fit over the taking lenses lenses (accessory lenses, hoods, filters), they are interchangeable as both cameras use the bayonet 1 mount. Also, the Rolleiflex construction is deemed to be a little sturdier than the Yashica, and if repairs are needed there are more masters for the Rolleilfex than the Yashica. If you are comparing the two in exactly the same condition...the Rolleiflex wins by a small margin, but if there is too great a price differential the equation may change. The Yashicas are well constructed and deliver good results...I've owned both and when everything is in working order, properly cleaned and lubricated, both are a joy to use.</p>

<p>Timed out with initial response</p>

<p>The Xenar lens is one of the best of its type (4-element Tessar type). The Yashinon lens on the Yashica 24 is of similar type and close to similar performance (some Yashica models have the cheaper Yashikor, IIRC a 3-element type). Mechanically the Rolleiflex is regarded as having better build quality and will probably be in better shape, even though it is older than the Yashica. The telephoto lens is likely to be a telephoto attachment, since both cameras have fixed lenses. The attachment is not of great use - you will need to stop the main lens down to get acceptable sharpness, which will almost certainly be worse than that of the main lens alone.<br>

@Kayam: The OP is not kidding, she's asking an honest question. Weren't you ever a newbie, or were you born knowing everything?</p>

<p>Not a whole lot to add to this. I've owned Rolleiflexes like the one described. I've not owned a Yashica 24, but I have owned a 124G and I currently own a 124.</p>

<p>I agree with Stephen and David. The Rolleiflex is a better built camera and has a better lens. But not by wide margins. If you take good care of the Yashica, it will still be working when you hand it down to your grandkids (assuming this is a long ways off, of course). As for image quality, lemme tell ya, yes, that Schneider gets the nod, but the Yashinon is so good that you'll feel like you're splitting hairs, trying to tell the difference between the two. Yashica Mats are incredibly good picture takers. It's just that they aren't perceived as being quite as sturdy and quite as incredible picture takers as the Rollei Automat is.</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/queenmary1.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="893" /><br>

<em>Yashinon lens, Fujichrome 100</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/caldwellkoipond1.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="880" /></em><br>

<em>Schneider Xenar lens, Fujichrome 100</em></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Weren't you ever a newbie, or were you born knowing everything?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're right David. To the OP - sorry I typed that out hurriedly and didn't intend to be condescending. I do think the Rollei is a better choice, for the reasons others noted above, but especially because of that Xenar lens which is superb.</p>

<p>I really don't know why there is such a bugaboo about lenses. The Xenar and the Yashinon are all the same design: a copy of the Zeiss Tessar, a 4 element asymmetrical design from 1902. Schneider was producing better quality by the 1950's. Yashica lenses came from Tomioka which is well regarded quality wise. The real question is about the cameras. All cameras wear out or need servicing periodically. From my own experience and opinion the Rollei is a good camera and well made. The Yashica is a good camera but built a little cheaper. Personally, I have had Yashica 24s that jammed because a metal post in the winding mechanism rips free because it is stamped in place, not held by screws.</p>

<p>Aside from all that, why doesn't someone mention the Yashica 24 only uses 220 film which is nearly obsolete?</p>

<p><em>why doesn't someone mention the Yashica 24 only uses 220 film which is nearly obsolete?</em><br /> Opinions vary ...<br /> http://mylinuxisp.com/~jdbaker/photography/Yashica24/ ;-)<br>

and here definitely maybe:<br>

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/yashica/yashica_24/yashica_24.htm</p>

<p>I am currently making very large prints for exhibition in art galleries of photos taken in the 1960s with a 3.5 Rolleiflex and in the 1970s with a Yashicamat. Both cameras produce fine negatives without grain, very sharp, up to 16x20 inches and beyond.I stopped using the Rolleiflex because it literally fell apart with hard but not abusive usage. I still have my Yashicamat and it still works. I loved both cameras and don't think you would go wrong with either.</p>

<p>I had a 124G and the Yashinon lens was excellent. My problem was with the mechanical build of the camera. After getting it repaired several times I traded it for something else. Its replacement was a meterless Minolta Autocord. The lens on the Autocord wasn't any better but the camera was made with more metal and less plastic. I wouldn't mind finding the model before the 124G. Today most of my 6X6 picture taking is done with Bronica SQ-As. The 80/2.8 S and PS lenses are both quite good so if an image is not sharp, it isn't due to the lens. My other TLRs include a gray Yashica 44, a Yashica A and a Yashica 635. The Yashikor lens on the 635 is very good if stopped down a little. Even the A, with its lens stopped down, can give some expensive 35mm equipment a run for the money when comparing 8X10s. </p>

<p>I'm a collector and user of vintage cameras and do have a 1951 Rolleiflex MX. It's likely one of the best cameras ever made. It's been my favorite to do "street" shooting with. Very sharp, solid, and quick to use.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The difference between the two is in the construction quality. Put any crank-wind Yashica next to any crank-wind Rollei, and wind away. The Rollei sounds like a precision instrument and the Yashica will sound like a child's Jack-in-the-Box. And sometimes you'll find a Rollei for much less than a Yashica (the 124G seems to have acheived cult status).</p>

<p>Hi Charlotte -</p>

<p>Forgive me if I come across as rude, but your question is a funny one. Its got a good bit of tech speak in it (indicating that you have some prior knowledge of the subject), but the two things you're asking to compare aren't even the same thing. It's like I went to a guitar player's forum and asked, with no preamble, "Which is better a left-handed Les Paul copy with a Bigsby or a Yamaha Pacifica?"</p>

<p>I'd suggest a somewhat more thoughtful question in the future, or maybe let us know your intended use or what "better" means. I have to admit I spent more time puzzling over your question than intending to answer it. </p>

<p>I also notice that you just joined photo.net just yesterday.</p>

<p>Regardless, welcome, and all the best, and good luck with your project. </p>

<p>Kevin, I'd have to strongly disagree with your take. The OP listed some tech info as if it were something she copied down and then just regurgitated. I think this person is a newbie and came here for help. Hopefully she's finding some.</p>

<p>Oh and by the way, I'm a guitarist, and I must say the example you gave is the most absurd comparsion that I've come across. One of your examples is extremely uncommon and would likely have to come out of Gibson's Custom Shop and the other is a rather obscure but excellent instrument. A better comparison would be between an Epiphone copy of a Les Paul and the real thing. The Epiphone being the Yashica and the real Les Paul being the Rollei. Or maybe the Yashica being a relatively inexpensive, Japanese-made copy of the Les Paul, like the old Tokai lawsuit Les Paul copies. Now doesn't that make a LOT more sense? You might want to leave the 124G out of the comparisons, though, because used market interest is still so high on those cameras that sometimes you can buy a "user" Rollei Automat for less.</p>

<p>A couple of people have commented on Yashica build quality and they reference the 124G, which in my opinion was the cheapest, plastickiest, tackiest camera they <em>ever</em> produced. I owned one, but I babied it and when I sold it about six years after I bought it, it still looked brand new. But being aware of its generally cheap feel, when I finally got around to buying another TLR, I deliberately chose the Mat 124, and not the 124G. The Mat 124 has all the same benefits of the 124G, but none of the drawbacks that I know of. It is a robustly made camera and it sounds like a fine watch when you wind the crank, by the way. I've had my 124 apart before. Internally most of the moving parts are stamped, but they are not at all flimsy and they fit together well.</p>

<p>So, my advice: sit tight and wait until a clean Mat 124 comes along. You'll likely save a bundle over the Automat and the quality difference between the photos from the two cameras will be insignificant.</p>

I've never seen or heard of a Yamaha Pacifica to come out of Gibson's Custom Shop. (A left handed Les Paul copy fitted with a Bigsby made by whoever builds Yamaha Pacifica branded guitars would be quite possible.)<br>The "other" being said to be "rather obscure but excellent" can't be the Pacifica, because that one is neither. So that other must be a left handed Les Paul copy...<br>So a Yamaha Pacifica made by Gibson's Custom Shop? Really?<br>;-)<br><br>Tom,<br>That both the Rollei's and the Yashica's lens are Tessar types does not mean they are the same design. Just the same design idea. There can be huge differences in quality between one Tessar type lens and another.

<p>You won't go wrong with either but as many others have said the Rollei is the obvious choice. Another mentioned condition of the cameras; of course and this must be considered. <br>

I have quite a few Yashica TLRs and I most recently received the deluxe model; Rolleiflex-T model. The difference is noticeable when erecting the hood. I suspect the resuts might be hard to to differ or arguably different. If all things being the same... Take the Rollei.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>In the Sixties, I believe<em> Readers Digest</em> voted (even among jewelers tools) the Rolleiflex TLR camera as the number one man made precision instrument.</p>

<p>Working largely with the internal mechanism of the cameras in question; I have the opinion that as with a Leica M lens vs. a Japanese made Zeiss ZM lens, the IQ performance is close, but<strong> choice of materials</strong> is where the true difference lies.<br /> (Casings, rings, gears, pinions and screws, all heavy & hardened)<br /> Add to the mix tight tolerance machining and polished surfaces, and you have a Rolleiflex TLR...</p>

<p>Considering what's been stated and among the most well known, the order of overall<strong> TLR</strong> quality rates:</p>

<ol>

<li>Rolleiflex</li>

<li>Ikoflex</li>

<li>Mamiya</li>

<li>Minolta</li>

<li>Yashica</li>

</ol><div></div>

<p>I see many are talking 124G while the subject cameras was a model 24. To clarify for the original poster, Yashica made the Yashica Mat then introduced similar cameras like the model 12 (for 120 film) and the 24 (for 220 film). Afterwards merging the two models to produce the 124 which could take both sizes of film. The later "upgrade" was the 124G whose only difference was the electrical contacts for the meter were gold (G) plated and the finish had less chrome. Big deal.</p>

<p>Many of the people buying 124G cameras do so believing the 124G to be the ultimate upgrade of the series when, in fact, it is no better than the plain 124, the 12, or the original Yashica Mat. Actually, the 124G was made more cheaply than its predecessors and has a very hollow tinny feel to it that makes the user wonder if the film advance is going to quit with the next turn or not. Additionally, Yashica built the model 124G until the dies wore out then, unknown to most, they contracted production out to Seagull. If anyone follows serial numbers they may notice an abrupt change in the number sequence of a newer 124G from an older one.</p>

<p>As for lens design, a 4 element Tessar design is a 4 element Tessar design. A lens is a mathematical formula. If it varies it no longer adds up. The amount of precision an optics firm takes in producing the lens as in tolerances, etc., is another thing. You may expect an Elmar from Leitz to be made to higher tolerances than a Minolta Rokkor on an Autocord or a Schneider Xenar on a Rolleiflex however they are all 4 element Tessar copies.</p>

<p>In any case, answering the original question, the Rolleiflex is better than the Yashica 24 because the Yashica 24 was built to use 220 film only (and it says so inside the back door).</p>

If it varies, Tom, it may still add up, and be another lens, despite being the same basic design idea.<br>The differences between the many different Tessar-type lenses is not in production tolerances. The "mathematical formula", as you put it, is different (too).

<p>The best Yashicas IMO are the older plain "mats" with the yashinon lens. Fit and finish on them are beautiful. 124's and g's are a step down for me. </p>

<p>When my father bought me my first "good" camera in 1957 we considered three different cameras at the old Peerless store in Manhattan--a Hexacon (a Peerless-branded Pentacon/Contax D) an Olympus 35S, and the original Yashicamat. The salesman warned us away from the Yashicamat because he said it was unreliable. I ended up with the Olympus--I'm amazed that the salesman warned us away from the Yashica because of reliability problems and not the Hexacon (which I disliked the extra step of stopping down the pre-set lens) but the Yashicamats didn't have a great reputation when they were new.</p>

<p>And Charlotte has moved on... without even a "thank you"... typical fly-by</p>

<p>Yes poor Charlotte.. we probably freaked her out.. or she has no idea what joy we have incessantly discussing such merits... <br /><br />Charlotte? <br /><br />Are you there? <br /><br />Did you get the Rollei? Do please post back ....and even better pics of and from said.. joyful beast!! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well--she did classify herself as "XX"--very mysterious...:-)<br>

Paul</p>