TLR and Printing

[edward_feltman]

I am considdering buying an old twin lens reflex camera. I have been

using 35mm to date and am looking forward to upgrading to a larger

neg for sharpness. Of course I am on a budget, and therefore have

been looking at the lower end of the price scale. From what I have

been able to gather so farI seem to be zeroing in on the Minolta

Autocord line. Is this of a reliable enough build quality? Lens

sharpness? It looks as if $90-150 is the price range. Can anyone

confirm that? Finaly, though I know I will need to find a differnt

negative carrier for my old Vivitar enlarger, will I also need a

different lens? I use a 50mm for my 35mm work.

[jimh]

Yes, you'll need a lens around 80 mm or so.

[art_haykin]

The Autocords were great cameras, both optically and mechanically, and several models were made. Be SURE to check it out THOROUGHLY before buying, and have recourse back to theseller. Repairs would be costly, and fairly hard to find.As mentioned, you'll need an enlarging lense roughly equivalent to the taking lens, or a 75 to 80mm, and a 6x6 negcarrier. If your enlarger model has adjustable condensers, that will have to be taken into account. Get an owner's manual also.

[s_mccutcheon]

Check out this web site:

 

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/cameras.html

 

The creator of the site has amassed a wealth of information about varous MF cameras, including Minolta, Yashica, and Rollei TLRs. Each brand/model appears to have its own pitfalls (focus levers, winding mech., lens flare, etc.). I found the above site very useful in weighing the pros and cons of the different models. I ended up with a YashicaMat 124, but I'm sure I'd be just as happy with a clean Autocord---after all, size (of the negative) is everything, isn't it? One more bit of advice - I'd try to buy from a reputable source with a decent return policy just in case you find a problem after running a couple of rolls through it.

[johnelstad]

I'd just like to get a quick plug in for the Autocord. I bought mine about a year ago in near mint condition for under $200 on eBay. The seller was reputable and provided lots of good photos. Anyway, I've been absolutely delighted with the camera. The images are very sharp and the camera is actually a lot of fun to use. I like the contrast with my high-tech 35mm system. Although it took a little time to get used to doing everything manually (as well as seeing everything reversed left-right in the viewfinder), now everything feels quite natural.

 

Regarding build quality, almost everything's metal and my camera has stood up very well to a fair amount of international travel and less than ideal conditions.

 

Anyway, one thing you should know about buying an Autocord is that the serial number is key to determining what you're getting. There's a great web page that has the breakdown: http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/a-cord.htm.

 

I'd suggest getting one from at least the late 50's as the earlier viewfinders are supposedly pretty dark. Mine's from 1961 and very bright.

 

If you decide to get one and have any questions just drop me a line.

[djphoto]

The only way to get a better TLR than an Autocord is to pay hundreds more for a Rolleiflex.

[nolan woodbury]

This is in response to the response contributed by Art Haykin regarding the difficulty and expense of Autocord repairs. Art, I have sent nearly a dozen working, and non-working TLR's (mostly Autocord's) to Paul Ebel and Mark Hama over the last 2-3 years, and not once was the cost overly difficult to justify, or hard to get. A variety of problems have been tackled, from broken focus levers, jammed film winds, loose or wobbly lens standards, crunched flash sync ports, ect etc. In fact, these two gentlemen offer such outstanding service and great prices that I routinely send all of my new TLR purchases to them for at least a CLA.

[art_haykin]

Nolan: certainly glad to hear about Autocord repairs, and I shall amemd any future responses accordingly.

[edward_feltman]

John,

 

Thanks for the info. I am quite excited and looking forward to recieving my camera. I found a good site, albeit basic providing rudimentary instrucitons for clasic cameras: http://www.mediakyoto.com/camerashopper/cla_came_e/index_e.html very simple stuff but helpfull. I will continue to check out the archives here also. Thanks!

[roger_michel]

if you have already plunked your nickels down for the autocord, you can stop reading now. you have bought a fine camera, suitable for almost any task in gen'l photography and especially good for portraits. however, if you are still at the thinkin' about buyin' stage, consider well the mamiya TLRs. these should be on anybody's list of the top 25 classic (i.e. mechanical) cameras. the only full line, standard production interchangeable lens tlr, the mamiya is a solid beast that is far more flexible than most other tlrs. it's easy to find lens sets from 45mm to 250mm (and there are even longer teles out there, but rare). the build quality is superb and the lenses, especially the later MC versions, are truly superb. mamiya has always made great glass. to have all the virtues of a tlr -- quiet operation, WYSIWYG viewing (well, almost), instant release with no mirror delay, no mirror vibration, ground glass viewing, use filters without viewing through them, etc, etc -- AND have the ability to change lenses -- it's almost too much to ask!!! anyway, think about it. i saw a pristine mamiyaflex (the original, no frills but all steel) with the standard 80mm in my local shop (new england photo in arlington, mass.) you can probably talk ara down to 150. it's a steal. otherwise, they turn up at every camera show/swap meet and there are tons listed in s-bug. good luck. you are embarking on a fun trip.

[mark_hubbard]

Thank you, Roger, for plugging my favorite medium format system camera, the Mamiya TLRs.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the most current lenses that were offered in the Seiko shutter before Mamiya took the system out of production were the 55mm f4.5, the 65mm f3.5, the 80mm f2.8S, the 105mm f3.5DS (which has an iris in the viewing lens so as to be able to preview "D"epth of field), the 135mm f4.5, the 180mm Super f4.5, and the 250mm f6.3. If any were made that were wider or longer than those listed, I am not aware of them.

 

Other 120 film alternatives, suggested to me by another forum member some years ago, are the Voigtlander Bessa I and Perkeo II. The Perkeo II, if you can find it in clean condition with good glass and sound bellows, is an exceptionally small (if heavy) medium format camera that really does fit in a jacket pocket. (It folds up into a tidy little rectangle of metal and black leather.) It takes 2-1/4 square pictures, like the Rollei and Minolta.

 

The Bessa I with the Color Skopar lens sells for much less than the highly prized Bessa II with the same lens, and they both take pictures in the 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 format. While the "viewfinders" on the old Voigtlanders are virtually worthless for anything but the most rudimentary framing, the glorious large negs and chromes they produce are still stunning.

 

For those of us who bought our YashicaMat 124G's for $149 brand new in the 1970s, today's prices for medium format cameras seem completely out of hand. $500 for a used film-back? $2600 for a lens? No wonder young people think they can't effectively break in to medium format photography. Happily, some of the old cameras are as good as ever and offer an opportunity to explore the format without having to take out a second mortgage.

 

I'm sure you'll enjoy your Autocord, and perhaps it will be just your first of many medium format cameras.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark Hubbard

[edward_feltman]

Roger,

 

What a shame! I took a good look at a couple of Mamiya's at our local cameral shop and realy liked them. I took them off of my list because they were all in the $400+ range. If I could have picked one up for as little as $150, that would have been my choice!

[mediumformat]

I bought a mint Mamiya C220 with standard 80mm black lens for $270 last year from my local pro shop. That's more than you would pay on EBay but I had the camera and could try it out for 10 days with the option of full money back return if I did not like it. Well, I love it and it has been a fantastic camera--I agree that the Mamiya lenses are superb.

 

I also bought an Autocord "export" version (about 1958 vintage) from a guy on Ebay who did not know much about cameras. The glass was spotless, so I figured it was worth the $62 I paid for it. I then sent the camera to Mark Hama for CLA. The total was $95 for CLA. So for about $150 I got an extremely nice Autocord. If you are patient and do some research you can find some deals, but Ebay can be a roll of the dice.

 

I don't have any pics uploaded from the Autocord, but I have many from the Mamiya. See Jeffrey Goggin's portfolio for examples of what the Autocords are capable of.

 

I would not trade either of these cameras for anything. Good luck!

[mediumformat]

The Mamiyas and Autocords have very different handling styles -- which one I prefer depends on the intended use.

 

The Mamiya is heavy compared to the Autocord. The Mamiya feels like a really well-designed tool that will last forever. I prefer the Mamiya for shooting with the tripod -- it just seems right, although I do shoot handheld with it successfully, just get a good sturdy strap that you can pull against to keep the camera steady. The great feature of the Mamiya is the built in bellows, allowing for focusing to 12" with the 80mm lens. There are also loads of accessories for the Mamiyas that are easy to find, including the lenses.

 

The Autocord is smaller and lighter, and easier to carry around your neck. Its body is just like a Rolleicord's (and Bob Shell says the same metal bodies may have been used). The helicoid focusing is quick and easy to use. The Fresel screens in the Autocords are noticeably brighter than the Mamiya screen on my C220. The 75mm Rokkor lens on the Autocord is based on the Zeiss Tessar, and is outstanding.

 

Overall I love both cameras. I wouldn't hesitate to buy other versions of either. There's no better way to dive into medium format, and expand your skills with manual picture taking. Once you see the beautiful square transparencies, you may be tempted to sell the 35mm gear. BTW, using an external handheld light meter is the best way to choose exposure settings.

[doug elick]

Have you considered a Rolleicord? Though the 'Cord doesn't have a lens that's as sharp wide open as a full fledged Planar or Xenotar wearing 'Flex, the Tessar and Xenar they sport are still gems. When stopped down properly,they produce images nearly indestinguishable from their big brother and are generally sharper than the Mamiya 80mm at ANY aperture.

 

The first MF camera I purchased was a 1950's Rolleicord IV, for $114 (only a couple of years ago). While the C330 is a great camera in it's own rite (I own one), it is and never will live up to the Rollei. The Rollei TLRs, weather they be simple 'Cords or pricey Rolleiflex 2.8F's, are a joy to use; mine still gets regular use even though the C330 can be more versatile.

 

Don't get me wrong, my C330 is a real workhorse and it's interchangable lenses are a great boon, but I'd hardly recommend it as a first MF camera. The C330, with it's integrated film transport/shutter cocking system can be troublesome (as the gears age) and can be costly to repair. Aside from this, it's big and bulky; it is not a camera you want to hang from your neck.

 

The Rolleicord IV or V, on the other hand, is a small, simple lightweight camera. It sports a fine lens and because it lacks a complicated film trasport/shutter mechanism, is robust. Though any 'Cord you find will be old, it's every bit the precision instrument the much more expensive Rolleiflex is. If you find one in good working condition, you can be reletively sure it will continue to function well for a good long time. On the downside, repairs are not cheap if you have a failure, but at least parts are available for most of them, unlike the AutoCords.

 

If you're taken in by the C330's multiple lens selection, I would suggest you look at it's cousin, the C220. The C220 takes the same lenses the 330 does, but it lacks the shutter autocock (you have to wind and cock seperately) and can only accept rolls of 120 film (C330's can use both 120 and 220). Though it's simpler, it's generally more reliable because of this and is also smaller and lighter. Plus, if you kill a lens or shutter, you can just replace them, rather than having them repaired, unlike the the Rolleis and Autocords.

 

To put it simply, the C330 is a Tractor Trailer, the C220 is a dump truck and the Rolleicord is a small Mercedes.

 

When looking at any old camera, inspect the lens carefully for cleaning scratches and fungus; both of which will look like a haze or fog if you look a diffuse light source through the lens (with the shutter open). Also, the shutter on many of these cameras is slow because of their age and the deterioration of lubricants.

 

As for the enlager, I have a Vivitar E-33, but I I don't use it for MF work with the 50mm (I have the 6x6 carrier) because there's a very pronounced light fall off at the image's edge. You can't get full frame (6x6) images exposed evenly with this lens. Instead, I use an old Federal 240 with a glass carrier and proper lens, which performs admirably considering it's cost me $10.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Douglas M. Elick

[jomar_haktorson]

Just want to say that the C220 takes 220film in the same way as C330. It's easy to change by turning the film pressure plate 90 degrees

 

Jomar Haktorson

[doug elick]

"Just want to say that the C220 takes 220film in the same way as C330. It's easy to change by turning the film pressure plate 90 degrees "

 

Perhaps I'm thinking of a C22 or Mamiyaflex? I could have sworn the C220 only took 120.

 

Mea Culpa

 

D. Elick

[jomar_haktorson]

I checked Graham Patterson's site. Early C22 models could only take 120 film. Later models had both options