Rolliflex v. Zeiss Ikon v. Minolta Autocord

[marc_lieberman1]

I owned (and then sold) a Rolleiflex GX before I understood some key

limitations of medium format--like the narrower depth of field and the

importance of not tilting the camera-- and before I learned how to use

an incident light meter.

 

If I were to give it another go, I'd probably buy a less expensive TLR

without an onboard light meter. At the neighbor photo store (Trader

Jims in Culver City, CA) they have a bunch of old Rolleis, some

Mamiyas, a Minolta Autocord, and a Zeiss Ikon, all in great shape.

The Mamiyas seem unnecessarily large, although they focus really close

adn offer interchangeable lenses (two features that I don't care

about). The Minolta is very small, inexpensive, and has a really cool

focus lever, but the screen is quite dark. The Zeiss Ikon is a

mystery to me. And the Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords are storied

cameras. I'm told that all these cameras have great lenses.

 

Can anyone compare either the Zeiss Ikon or the Minolta to the

Rolleiflexes? Can the screen on the Minolta (or Zeiss Ikon) be

switched to a brighter, Maxwell-type sceen? Go ahead an post some

photos for inspiration.

 

I'm in no hurry-- too busy having a great time with my Iskra 6x6 folder.

[jeffcallen]

The Autocord's screen may brighten up quite a bit if you open the top and clean the

mirror. I have a Minolta Autocord and a Rollei 3.5E Planar. The Rollei is slightly sharper,

but not

much and I can rarely tell the negs apart when printing. Somebody put a hassleblad

focussing screen in my Rollei, it works well except in direct sunlight there's a slight flare

sometimes.

<P>

I love my iskra too!

<P>

I've also shot with a mamiya TLR, the Rollei was slightly nicer and somewhat smaller.

<P><center>

<IMG SRC="http://www.jeffcallenphoto.com/7.jpg"></center>

<P>The Autocord has a really nice glow sometimes, It's my favorite bang-for-the-buck.

[mike_elek]

Regarding the Zeiss Ikon, I assume you're referring to an Ikoflex. They came with either a Novar or a Tessar lens. Obviously, go for the Tessar. They're well made cameras, though as users go, I'd probably go for one of the others first.

 

If you're shooting at f/8 or smaller, you'll get excellent performance from a Xenar, Tessar or Planar. If you like to shoot wide open, the Planar might be best. The Xenar and Tessar tend to give round out-of-focus backgrounds -- some people like it, some don't.

 

Can't answer anything about the Minolta, other than to say that people who own these cameras say the lenses are excellent.

[vidom]

For actual shooting, I wouldn't go for an Ikoflex. Yes, it's a very nice camera; later Ikoflexes claim to fame is a fresnel viewing screen - viewing screens in TLRs don't get any brighter. Both Rolleiflexes and Autocords are mechanically a lot more reliable. You won't see much difference in performance. Only the latest Rolleiflexes have bright screens. You can have upgrades on older Rolleiflexes, but this will be more expensive than the camera itself. I'd buy the Autocord if it were significantally less expensive than the Rolleiflex.

[gib]

I wonder what people think of the Rolleicords?

[roseberry guitars]

I have a both the Autocord and Ikoflex. In fact more than one of each. The Autocords are excellent performers with great lenses (Rokkor). I think the later models with the Citizen or Optiper shutters are my favotite. The focus screens are very bright. Brighter than most of the Rolleis I have looked at. The one you are looking at must be one of the early models or the mirror (or screen) needs attention. I have an example of the first Autocord model and the mirror is fine but the screen is quite dim. It could be changed to a Maxwell, if one wanted. But after that Minolta seemed to fix things up and put in bright screens.

 

The Ikoflex's are great examples of German quality. They may not be the most beautiful designs (to some eyes) but the quality is excellent. I have the models I, Ia and IIa. All without meters and all excellent cameras. I think the fuss about the difference between the Novar and Tessar lenses is a bit overblown. In my opinion, they are both very good lenses. The Tessar may be a bit better wide open but stopped down to f8 or so I don't see any difference. I have Novar lenses in two of my Zeiss Ikon Nettar folders and the Ikoflex I. I really like the look of the photos taken with them.

 

For black/white I prefer the Ikoflex's and for color the Autocords. It must be in the lens coating but I think the Autocords have the edge here.

 

They both have quirks that you have to get used to but that's with everything.

 

Another TLR you might want to check out is the Ricoh Diacords. They have excellent optics and usually can be found for very reasonable prices. I think they are underrated as good user cameras. I have one and it can hold it's own with any of the above mentioned. I like to use it for portraits as the lens is slightly longer (80mm) and has a slightly soft quality that makes for pleasantly flattering portraits.

 

I have looked at Rolleis many many times but I don't think that, for me, the higher price reflects enough of an improvement, if any, over an Autocord or Ikoflex (or Diacord for that matter) to take the leap.

 

Just some thoughts from my experience. Hope to be of a little help.

[gene m]

My Rolleiflex 3.5 is my favorite camera.

[jorn ake]

The two cameras to consider in the Rollei line that can come close in price but have features which might improve your experience are the Rolleiflex T and the Rolleicord Vb. These often can be found in good shape around $4-500. Both have easily removed and switchable viewing screens and the T has the advantage of a 2.8 taking lens. The Vb has a 3.5. A little lower in price are the Automats or Rolleiflex MXs. I think there is a quality difference between Rolleis and other manufacturers, though I think the greater difference is mechanical and structural rather than optical. I do think that when you get into the Rolleiflex E and F 2.8 models, the negatives are pretty clearly better than the other TLRs - which is to be expected, as the E & F can easily go for two to three times as much money.

 

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/index_type.htm

[Jenifer Selwa Photography]

I loved my Autocord, and then decided to sell, and now I'm looking to get another one. Fantastic sharpness and it worked well for some weddings I did, too!<div></div>

[stephen_haynes]

Jorn Ake is mistaken about the Rolleiflex T: it has a 2.8 viewing

lens, but 3.5 taking lens. From my limited experience:

 

Rolleiflex T with 3.5 Tessar is a particularly stylish camera,

though mine is a little past its peak. I find the colour rendition on

mine (normally using Astia) especially pleasant. Ingenious EV

linkage allows both aperture and shutter speed to be set with

one lever - I like this, others don't. The one thing I dislike is the

sideways-facing shutter release, which makes it difficult to avoid

jogging the camera. It has no double-exposure facility. It doesn't

take a standard neck strap, and the dedicated ones are hard to

find.

 

Rolleicord Va with Xenar is my favourite camera - though the Vb,

with improved focusing hood (as Rolleiflex T), would no doubt be

even better. Lens is extremely sharp, but also gives lovely

Impressionistic effects in out-of-focus areas. I much prefer the

knob wind to the lever wind (which tends to rock the camera

about as you turn it), and the shutter release is exceptionally

gentle. You have to cock the shutter before firing it.

 

Minolta Autocord with 3.5 Rokkor (1961/2 model without meter)

takes brilliant pictures, with exceptionally saturated colours - you

won't need to use Velvia with this camera. I find this the easiest

of all to focus. Film advance seems fragile, though: mine was

serviced last year after seizing up completely, and is already

starting to misbehave again. Unlike Rolleis, it does not have the

parallax mask under the focusing screen; I have never felt the

lack of this.

 

All these cameras have very similar specifications - 3.5 lenses,

shutter speeds 1-500, nice bright plastic focusing screens - and

all take the same bay 1 (= bay 30) lens accessories. However,

the first version of the Va has a different screen.

 

All Rolleis have a notoriously thin back and base which can

easily be distorted - my Va was bent and straightened by a

previous owner, but focus seems to be unaffected. Autocords

appear to be more robust in this respect.

 

The only Ikoflex I have tried is a prewar model - I think it is the

1939 version of the Ikoflex I - with uncoated 3.5 Novar and

red-window film advance. Not bad, but no substitute for a Rollei

or an Autocord.

[bacsa]

Rolleicords are great. And they tend to be much cheaper than 'flexes.

[pensacolaphoto]

The large 120 format gives you the chance to capture beautiful images better than with a 35mm camera. I have used mostly Rolleiflex 2.8 models (both Planar and Xenotar), and I find them the very best out there in overall quality. Now I have added a few 3.5 models to try them out. The Rolleiflex TLRs are built like tanks and they have very sharp lenses. I think that on the long run such cameras will last longer than Autocords with professional use.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

I bought the Autocord after reading what Dante Stella said about it on his site, having owned a Rollei T and a Yashicamat. I don't like the focussing lever; couldn't/wouldn't get used to it, and it's made of some very fragile pot-metal and breaks easily. Lens didn't seem better than my old Tessar.

 

The very best buy is a Mamiya C330; lighter than the earlier models, with a self-cocking shitter. I've seen it go for as little as $120 on the Bay, with 80mm lens, which is very sharp.

[glenn_thoreson]

Huh?

[david_m]

I'm a big fan of the Zeiss Ikoflex. I have two, one with Opton-Tessar and one with Novar. Both are fantastic cameras that exude quality. I'm not a fan of the Autocords focussing, I sold mine. The Ricoh Diacord has the best focussing mechanism of any TLR - you can use it right or left-handed, its an amazing design. As far as performange goes, any TLR with a decent 4-element lens or even some of the better 3-element lenses will take photos that are indistinguisable from one another. The actual ergonomics of the camera are more important.

[david_m]

PS. I can't take anyone's opinion seriously who claims that a camera is responsible for the 'exceptionally saturated colours' he gets. That is a function of the film and processing, definitely not the camera.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Er, blush....that would be self-cocking "shutter" of course.

[tito sobrinho]

I love my Ikoflex IIa (Zeiss-Berlin Goerzwerk). The Ikoflexes are very well built and up to par with a Rolleiflex/Rolleicord concerning precision. Nice for BxW as well as for "slides". You don't need to buy an after market focusing screen; the Ikoflex has a factory instaled condenser+Fresnel screen, and very brilliant.

 

My brother used to have an Autocord but, in the same way a previous poster has experienced, the focusing lever, being made of pot metal, didn't hold up to the wear and broke. If you buy the Autocord, be very gentle as the advance gears are brass made.