Minolta Autocords: Why Are They So Underrated?

I recently purchased a Minolta Autocord (nonmetered) in nearly mint

condition with a case in the same condition for $170 on eBay.

 

If I had purchased a Rolleiflex with a similar 4 element lens (Tessar

or Xenar) it would have cost at least $400 in the same condition

without a good case.

 

A Yashica 124G (with case, maybe) goes from $300 to $400..."cult"

camera!

 

I have owned 3 Autocords, many Yashicas, and many Rolleis (even those

with big name 2.8 lenses).

 

I find the Autocord Rokkor lens to be far superior to anything that

I've used among all of the above, even the 2.8 Rolleis.

 

Any thoughts why these Minolta cameras sit in the "back of the TLR

bus?"

Ssshhhhh...

 

You're going to drive up the prices.

 

Moderator! Please delete this thread ASAP.

Darron, you're totally correct. Make this vanish immediately!

I'm not so sure that's true. I rememeber when the Autocords came out, and they (and the Yashica 124) were called "ThePoor Man's Rolleiflex." I cannot recall ever hearing that camera badmouthed.

I know that TLR's can produce superb results, but they seem to have nearly all the disadvantages of a reflex camera except the mirror slap without any of the advantages. I mean; they charm you with the compact size; but frustrate you with awkward handling and a laterally inversed dim finder image. Hence your desire to upgrade the focussing screen. If you use them on a tripod, then these problems are largely irrelevant, but for handheld use give me a rangefinder anyday. Were it not for the film handling even a 5x4" with a rangefinder and a sportsfinder i.e. Linhof Technica seems more ergonomic to me.

Well, it looks like Todd has several of these cameras. I can see why he wants to drive the prices up. :-)

I suspect it's because the camera was made by Minolta, not Canon or Nikon. For as long as I've been involved with photography, Minolta has always been considered a second-tier camera maker, this despite the fact that they've produced some very, very good products (and a few real clunkers, too, but then again, hasn't every camera maker?)

 

When I bought my first Autocord roughly three years ago, I couldn't understand why photographers weren't out praising their performance from the rooftops. I must've heard "it's nice but not a Rollei" at least twenty times since then and even went so far as to buy a 3.5F last summer so I could finally see what I'd been missing.

 

Well, as it turned out, not very much at all and the Rollei has now found a new home. In fact, I'm so enamored with the quality of the Autocord's lens, I've largely stopped shooting with my view cameras unless I absolutely need to use movements since I can't achieve the same "look" with any other lens that I've tried. I've also found I can use an Autocord fairly effectively as a P&S by adding a Minolta Power Grip 1 flash bracket and 320x flash unit to the camera ... it does take practice, of course, and it won't fit in any pockets that I've got but in the end, it's only the results that matter, not any inconvenience I may have suffered in achieving them.

 

I realize I should probably keep my mouth shut but as I already own four Autocords and have no plans to buy any more or sell the ones I have, it doesn't matter to me whether they go up in value or down.

I remember when I was in high school, the camera of my dreams was the then new Autocord CdS-III. The price was too high and I was still happy with the much more affordable Yashica Mat-124. Not the (IHMO, ugly) G model, but the previous cosmetic version with no gold and narrow chrome highlights. Only recently did I refurbish an Autocord for a friend, and shot some film with it. The lens is, as everyone says, surperb. Though my old Yashica made some very nice 16x20s, it didn't have the crispness of the Autocord. On the downside, the ergonomics of the Autocord leave something to be desired. The viewing screen is much dimmer than I remember the Yashica as being, and the focusing levers are prone to breaking off. Practice with a TLR is everything. I remember shooting sports and other things by prefocusing and using the straight-thru finder window with great success (still have the negs to prove it). After 30 years of 35mm, it now seems like the most awkward thing imaginable. Personally, I find the reversed and relocated screen helps me visualize what the print will look like far better than an SLR or RF. It's easier to work with composition and notice small distractions that tend to be missed with 35mm for some reason.

Todd, I agree with you that the Autocord is under-appreciated, however I don't find it to be "far superior" in terms of image quality...at least, not over other front line shooters I have purchased and used from Rolleiflex, Yashica, or Kalloflex.

 

That said, it definitely _is_ underrated when the conversation turns to what a good choice of TLR would be for the photographer looking to get into medium format inexpensively, or someone looking for a compact unit. I do however, have a few thoughts as to why this might be. First of all, the Autocord had a shorter production run than either Yashica or Rolleiflex, although Rollei dwarfs everyone in this regard. The Autocord was produced (roughly) between 1956 to 1965, with some units remaining on camera store shelves until the mid-70's. Where these leftovers, or did Minolta continue to produce small batches? I don't know. Yashica produced TLR's from the early/mid 50's (the first YashicaMat, one of which I have) until the early 80's. The casual photographer might assume the Yashica or Rollei "better" because there are simply more of them. This would be wrong.

 

I have used my Autocords professionally for a few years now, with publishers and art directors usually very happy with the images I submit. I doesn't really bother me that Yashica or Rollei is more popular, or generally sell for higher numbers. What really bothers me is when I see somebody "rate" these cameras in terms of their image quality. #1 Rollei, #2 Minolta, #3 Yashica, etc. Because of the ages of these units, it is impossible to give that type of information and be positive that it is accurate. Several years ago, I conducted a 'seat of the pants" comparison of the different TLR's I had found and generally, the images from the Autocord(s) were more pleasing: richer contrast, better color rendition with "punchier" films, and sharpness rivaled only by Kalloflex or Rolleiflex. Then again, the superior film flatness (no mistaking this) of the Autocord might have more to do with the image quality then we give it credit for.

 

I hope the Autocord remains affordable, so that young MF photographers or anyone looking to get into a compact camera can find and purchase one easily. The astronomical prices of some top-line Rollei models can drive the budding shooter away...for them -perhaps- there is the Autocord. Let the rest believe what they wish. Those who know this camera, use it and enjoy it, know better.

I appreciate the many, informative responses this question produced.

 

I am not a collector, though I have owned and played with many different kinds of vintage cameras over the past 30 years.

 

I will retire from teaching this June, and I am going through my equipment to determine what I want to keep and what I want to sell. My goal is to keep my future photography simple, managable, and enjoyable. I am also going to quit my side wedding business, but may do some paid family portraits...thus, the need to keep at least one MF camera.

 

The Minolta Autocord may be a camera I would want to keep and use. Your thoughts on this have been very helpful.

 

Regarding "What's best?" I think is an unanwerable question. A few years ago I owned a Rollei D f/2.8 Planar and experienced the worst flare problems ever, even with a hood. I sold it within one week. Perhaps it was that particular lens. I have never had any such problems with the f/3.5 Tessar/Xenar, Yashikor/Yashinon, or Rokkor lenses.

 

I think that a person who wants a very good medium format camera at a very good price, that has an excellent lens and a sturdy build would do well to consider an Autocord.

They are certainly not underrated here at photo.net. If you search the archives, the Autocord has been recomended countless times as one of the most affordable and desireable MF cameras, and there are dozens of posters who own them.

The Rokkor enlarging lenses are no slouches either.

 

Oh shoot.

Todd, the tabloid paper newsletter called "Photoshopper" did a multipage detailed article on the collectible and usable Autocords in last couple years. Wish I had saved it for you. Bottom line was that the camera was a real sleeper, every bit as good or better than the other Japanes Rollei lookalikes. It could be a case of Minolta never marketing it via their distributors as well. Also likely, the production possibly stopped before the Yashicamat... Enjoy your new camera. Hey, how many does that make now, and did you add it to your home inventory-) Aloha, Gerry

I have committed a crime.

 

I have not used my Autocord for many, many years. My grandfather gave it to me as I as learning to take pictures. He was a pro in the 30's thru 50's, and the bug skipped my dad as he was tired of developing and printing by hand. Also I think the non-paid staff position did not suit him to well.

 

I am very grateful to my grandfather for the photographers heritage that he passed to me. He started me on a simple little Kodak 44 instamatic, moved me thru a Canon rangefinder 35 to a Yashica TL Electro-X and the Autocord. I have since inhiereted a Mamiya/sekor 1000DTL of his. All, thankfully are still in great working order. The Autocord is no. 186965, as old as me, but in better shape. It has the light value meter, and the seikosha-mx lens.

 

I am now starting to use a Olympus E20N, which I love, but I plan on going back to the Minolta Autocord for groups. I remmember as a kid that it took beautiful outdoors shots, some of my favorites.

 

My crime is that it has not been used for so long. I plan on changing my ways.

The Yashicas, Rolleis, and to some extent the Mamiya Cs, had a longer market life than the Minoltas and other twins. Out of sight - out of mind.

Hi All -

 

This is my kind of thread!

 

I must admit that among my TLRs I have a Rolleiflex T that I am rather fond of, and I would love to have a 2.8 or 3.5 F. Nevertheless, my favorites by a slim margin are the Autocords.

 

I should also add that I have great admiration for the Tessar and Tessar-type lenses. I'm inclined to believe that they are underrated, also. I have known other photographers who have had Planar/Xenotar-equipped Rolleis when they purchased an Autocord, only to be astounded by the optical performance of the Autocord.

 

I have a 1958 issue of Modern Photography that did an article on the Rolleiflexes and Rolleicord of the time. The editors opined that one chose a particular model Rolleiflex or 'Cord for the handling and convenience features, not for any significant difference in optical performance between the Planars/Xenotars and the Xenar (there was no model with a Tessar, at that time). They went on to say that, in order for one to detect any difference in performance between the Xenar lens and its upmarket siblings, one would have to take a photo at f/3.5 and enlarge it to mural size.

 

I haven't made such a comparison, myself, but I have communicated with photographers who have claimed that their Autocords rendered images of the same quality as their Planar/Xenotar-equipped Rolleis. Needless to say, it has always pleased me to hear this.

 

My guess as to the early demise of the Autocord:

The last Autocord models, the III and the CdS-III, were introduced in 1966, as near as I can tell. I don't know how long they were actually in production. Around the same time, Minolta introduced the SR-T 101 35mm SLR, which was a very advanced SLR for the time (CLC and full-aperture metering, etc). The new SLR was very well received, and I think Minolta quickly shifted their emphasis to the newer technology and its more promising market.

Like Jeffrey said, because it's a Minolta. They did so much for the consumer that they pretty much got slammed by consumers and advanced users despite their many contributions to the market. For example, the Autocord took the basic Rollei design and actually improved it by reversing the film direction. In a Rollei, the film starts out underneath the camera, then bends around the bottom edge into the film chamber. So if you leave the film long enough, the film that's waiting "on deck" will warp, causing possible focus problems when you wind the frame and shoot it. By reversing this, Minolta eliminated the problem. Rollei still hasn't changed their design.

 

Another good example: Minolta brought autofocus to the market. In 1983, they sold the X-600, a variant of their existing manual focus line that had focus confirming sensors. This was testing the waters for the Maxxum 7000's release the following year. Finally got one of these test cameras; it's harder than most since only 10,000 were sold, and those only in Japan.

 

I don't have an Autocord, but I do have a great deal of Minolta 35mm manual focus equipment, and personally I like the fact that they get slammed. Kept my costs down when purchasing equipment, and I always liked the look on people's faces when, after they saw my work and commented that I must have a great camera, I tell them, yes, it's a Minolta X-570.

A few more thoughts:

 

1. As Christian mentioned, the film positioning is ideal. Both the Autocord and the Mamiya C series allows the film to feed without a severe bend. The film bending on Hassy, Bronica, and Mamiya 645 units is extreme. The mamiya C is too heavy for me to carry around all day.

 

2. The Autocord and Mamiya C cameras also allow an easier film back opening than do Rollei or Yashicas. You don't need to remove the camera from the flash bracket to open the film back. Mamiya is the the easiest to open on a bracket. It can be done with an Autocord, but you need to support the camera carefully.

 

3. I've tried using Rolleiflex cameras for wedding and portraiture and trying to focus with a flash bracket attached is nearly impossible. I prefer the Autocord focusing with a bracket, or the Rolleicord and early Yashica right hand focusing.

 

4. Any comments/thoughts regarding my experience with severe flare using Rollei 2.8 lenses, but not so bad with 3.5 lenses on any of these cameras (never had any problems with the Rokkor)?

 

5. Again, anyone reading this who wants to play with MF, an Autocord is a very inexpensive, quality way to go, for a solid, well built camera, in my opinion.

Very interesting thread.

 

I have an old Rolleiflex T and I very happy with the results but I can't compare with the Autocord. I have a question for you, autocord-maniacs ;-) Which is the size of the Autocord's filter?. It is bay 1 as in Rolleiflex T? If yes, you are making me thing of buying one as a backup!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it's the same...

Hello, Todd,

The best thread of the month!

I like it for thruth. For me in the back of the bus there is a group of old good and very good TLRs with unknowned names like Semflex, Rollop, Microflex...You don't know but you'll know.

And Weltaflex, Flexaret, Flexora, Photina, Wirgin where are you?

Merci, Todd

Michel

Autocords are underrated partly because they are branded Minolta and partly because they are TLRs. I remember my first SRT101! It had nice glass, but I was younger, more impressionable, and allowed others to talk me into other brands. Since then, I've owned several different Minolta products - all performed as advertised. The various Rokkor lenses were excellent, and are mostly underrated. Marketing rules in many places! I've often wondered if Minolta would offer another MF system? FWIW: It really hurt to sell my Autocords and then buy them back years later. Sentimentality you know . . .

I visited Osaka, Japan back in November.

 

 

After reading so many praises for Autocord in this forum, and actually borrowed one briefly, I planned to purchase one in Japan.

 

 

I was shocked to see the Autocord appreciated in price, as compare to two years ago when I visited the same stores. And in deflationary Japan. As I have a Rolleiflex already, I changed my plan, and purchased an inexpensive Konica IIIa instead.

 

 

Buy Konica III before it appreciate in price too. It is a gem.

Recently I walked around St Michaels, MD shooting fall colors. One day I used my Rolleiflex and the next day my Autocord. Three different times while using my Rollei I was approached by other photographers shooting 35Ms and asked about the Rollei, how I liked it, etc. Not one person stopped me to talk about the Autocord. Conclusion: The Rollei is perceived to be the best TLR by most people and offers a prestigious image. In my view the are equal in capability and quality of production. My used Autocord cost less than half of my used Rolleiflex. Richard DeYoung

BOY! Do I ever like this thread! In my careless youth, I owned two Rolleis. I got the T overseas, and new in the box. It had a short, curly hair between the elements of the taking lens. I don't even want to think about what it was or how it got there. I succumbed for many years to the siren song of the 35mm slr, with excellent and pleasurable results. I supported my family with a 35 for a good while. Now , I want to get a tlr, and am considering--you got it, Rollei, Yashica, and Mamiya 330c. Now , I have one more to consider--the Minlota Autocord. At my time of life, I look forward to simplifying my existence. Although I dearly love my Nikon autofocus, programmable camera, I want to get a good Med. format camera, and eventually, a Crown Graphic for large format. I never did like the big view cameras, even less after I dropped my teacher's Linhof view, because he hadn't attatched it properly to the tripod. Very embarrassing! He said "undergraduate swine, fetch my camera!" My mother didn't raise any dumb kids,(although I am a photographer)and wanting a good grade, I said "Yes, boss!" Anyhow, good thread, with lots of good information, even if I did find it a bit late. CC