nolan woodbury

The two cameras.

David F. Stein: "...all else being equal the Ricoh is the only non-Rollei TLR to have an internal baffling equal to the Rolleiflex".

 

Hmm. I have my nose in these things all the time, so this statement piqued my interest. I don't have a Diacord handy (packed at home) but I do have a Rollei MX Type-II and a Kalloflex, so I popped the backs and looked inside.

 

If anything, the Kallo has a *more* sophisticated series of baffles, and they're deeper too. I also have my Autocord CdS III handy, and here David is right; the baffle ridges are both smaller and fewer than the other two pictured.

 

Not meaning to put David on the spot here, he's a great poster and really knowledgeable too. My real point is incredible build and optical quality is spread through the entire range of Japanese TLRs. If you have a good one...use it! Lots of good shooters out there-<div></div>

Interesting. For 10 years now I've been shooting professionally with TLRs. In the mid-90s I began using my first one (a Rollei MX-EVS) but soon started mixing in models from Minolta, Yashica, Ricoh, the Kalloflex and other Rolleis. The TLR format worked for me because is was portable enough to fit into my motorcycle luggage, yet returned the big, life-size look that made my photography sell.

 

It took buying, trying and comparing four different Ricoh Diacords to find one that was even close to my best shooters. This isn't a rarity; out of all I've found a wider (optical quality) variance in Yashicas, followed by the Ricoh, Minolta and Kalloflex. I've never had one properly functioning Rolleiflex that didn't return stunning images.

 

I love the Diacord and its 'Duo' focusing system. They seem almost as sturdy and well built as the Minolta and can still be found affordably. I also think Ricoh take the prize for outstanding finish quality; even old, abused models seem to have more robust leatherette and highly wear-resistant paint. Very pretty!

 

Optically, if you have a 'good one' Kevin, cherish it. Believe me when I say Yashica and Kalloflex (the 'King Kong' of fixed lens TLRs) made some good ones too. But for me, when it comes to outstanding image quality, the Autocord and Rollei Tessar rule the day.<div></div>

Years ago I purchased a MX-EVS with a taking lens/coating so badly scratched, you could barely see through it. With a lens hood, it still produced acceptable images, but always with a yellow-ish tint. Hmmm. Anyway, I purchased another MX a couple of years ago, and the taking lens on that camera was badly separated by fungus. I had eBayﾒd two or three more by then, and Paul Ebel swapped the best lens onto the best body. That's now a great camera that I use all the time-

First of all, there is no such thing as a "X, Type 2". Rolleiflex produced the first, standard X sync from 1949 to 1951, with slight updates and features added along the way.

 

Close to $500 is probably too much to pay up front, but after you purchase a (clean) Rollei TLR, get it CLA's and updated with a bright screen, that's probably what you'll have into it. The difference is, you're stopping there, with a useable camera, not starting.

 

If you need a Hassy with interchangeable lenses, buy that instead. But don't be afraid of using a properly serviced and cared-for Rollei of this vintage. Years ago, I made the decision to shoot with various TLR's exclusively, and have put literally thousands of rolls through about three different cameras. One of them is a early 50s Rollei, and it has never failed me. In fact (no bull) it's working better than ever.

 

I'd say, if you can talk them down $100 you're getting closer. If they stick to their price, buy that 500 cm you've always wanted, then find a Minolta Autocord to play around with. They are wonderful optically-

Using the word "affordable" and "Rolleiflex" in the same sentence usually points to the older, 4-element Tessar models or the later T's. The MX/MX-EVS units from the late 40s-early-50s can be had affordably, while still offering useful features like coated lenses and a factory installed flash sync port. The T's are more money, but, since they are slightly newer, usually can be found in better condition. Like the previous poster said, the 'Cords are an option too, but I have little experience with them. I've seen some fantastic results from those models though, so it seems best to keep your options open.

 

Ones to avoid? Unless you're collecting, the Magic won't bring much pleasure, and the first 2.8 (the A) had a factory lens recall, and the attachments are very difficult to find. Other than that, it's wide open.

 

For me, hunting, buying and then using Rolleiflex cameras has proven to be deeply rewarding, and career boosting. I routinely shoot magazine covers and features with my Rollei's. Good luck!

My resource material says it's a 620 or 621 Standard Rolleiflex, built from Jan/1932 to May of 1938 (Model 620, using a f4.5/75mm Tessar)or Model 621 (Feb/1932 to Jan 1935) which fits a f3.8/75mm Tessar.

 

If the glass is fairly clean and the shutter is accurate, you should be able to get some fine images. The above poster is correct is advising to watch for flare, as the 28.5mm push-on filter for the taking lens will be hard to find. A well placed hat to shade the lens should do the trick.

 

Enjoy it! You'll probably be amazed just how good the images look.

Years ago, when I first began freelancing writing and shooting for motorcycle magazines, I discovered the compact shape of a TLR fit into my (very) limited space while traveling via motorbike. Additionally, the cameras were affordable, and as result I purchased and tried many of them as the years went by. After travelling up the ladder a wee bit, I still shoot old TLR's (mostly Minolta, Kalloflex and Rollei) and mix in that with the usual digital and pro-35 work than comes with any modern jouro-gig. There's just something about shooting a vintage Brit-bike with a musty old TLR that gets me up early after all these years...

I don't consider myself as a collector, but I think I am, judging by the number of vintage or antique cameras lying about. In my heart, I'd rather use them (and I do, at least, most of them) but a few examples are so nice, I'm hesitant to subject them to the rigors of dust, dirty hands, and the inevitable bangs and bruises the occur. In my field of photographing new and vintage motorcycles, the conditions are often pretty harsh (travelling on the bike, racetracks, wind, rain or shine) and it seems I can chart the wear visually. Case in point: My new 1-year ago, Nikon N90S looks like...well, most of the user N90S's you see. Wear marks through the clear, lettering faded. The depreciation is breathtaking. It has however, made me far more than it cost, so viewed in that light it was a successful purchase, but the...'collector' in me knows its preservation is pointless.

 

I have three cameras -a mint, boxed, and brand new gray w/gray case Yashica A TLR with bill of sale, a late 60s Minolta Autocord CdS III (same description) and a new, jewel-like Rolleiflex 'X' that I refuse to donate 'to the cause'. I'd like to pass these on to my son, to show to his children what cameras used to look like, and as a reminder of his dad's photographic interests. I cock and fire shutters, look over and even occasional shoot these (except the Yashica) but for the most part they stay in. Besides, I have user examples of each to enjoy.

 

For an odd twist, the TLR I've used more than any is a 1958 Autocord Import that has seen thousands of rolls. A couple of years back, when sending the camera to Paul Ebel for a CLA, I asked Paul to install a Camera Leather/black leather recover kit, just to give the old girl a bit of love for its years of faithful service. Amazingly, the non-covered parts of the Autocord's chassis are still shiny and bright, and when I got the camera back it looked so good...well, you know what I was thinking! But no. Not this one. Not my right arm, my Number One. But, no matter how crazy the situation, I take the time to carefully secure it and stow it away. It deserves that.

I posted this question to my camera tech (Paul Ebel) a couple of years ago, and he told me people often refer to the air-space between the elements as elements themselves. Thus, looking at an exploded diagram of a lens, one could easily mistake those areas as another portion of the lens assembly.

 

What's interesting, is that Paul said that space is a critical part of how a lens works correctly, and also noted the incredible resolution figures Kowa posted for the Prominar taking lens. I, and others have tested the Kalloflex against the Minolta Autocord, Yashica 124 and Rollei-Tessars, and found that while the Kallo was as good (overall, better or worse at certain openings) there wasn't a clear optical advantage. FWIW, I use the Kalloflex (I have four of them!) and Rollies/Minolta's professionally, with superb results. The Rollei's are dead sharp and very consistent camera-to-camera, the Minolta is more contrasty while the Kallo is very sharp, despite an inferior ground glass. But, it is the beefy construction and ease of use that earns the Kalloflex a spot in my kit. It's the most rugged, best made TLR ever...even if the (wonderful) optics don't distance it from other quality TLR's.

Right. There is a wide selection of both the Minolta MD (more modern) and MC lenses available for this body. Everything from wide angle to long teles and zooms.

 

In my opinion, this is fantastic glass and the full manual Minolta's are very pleasing to use. In fact, when I get in a rut I stash my digital and modern Nikon (film) SLR's and break out the old Minolta's. Right now, I'm shooting a cherry XD11 w/winder through various Rokkor/Minolta lenses. I especially love the MD tele Rokkor-X, 135mm 1: 3.5. An amazing lens with a built in hood and sweet optics. The Minolta lenses are rather affordable, and easy to find too. This is a great time to build an older 35mm Minolta outfit!

 

As for service, I purchased (on eBay) a very nice SRT 101 from a guy that repaired/serviced Minolta manual SLR's, but lost his info when I changed systems. A bit of searching the database here should turn something up.

Every Autocord uses a 75mm Rokkor taking lens produced in Japan by Minolta. You're right about different shutters, but I have every version and they all work fine if properly maintained.

 

Some Autocord's are metered, some are not. The latest versions, produced in the mid-to-late 60s use a CdS meter. Of those, the very latest -CdS III- is the most valuable. It takes both 120 and 220 film, and has a switchable counter, an adjustable tensioner, and a somewhat brighter screen.

 

I have several; the best being an Autocord export model from 1958. It has a Seikosha MX shutter and a magical taking lens. I use it professionally. One other, a mint CdS III is still brand new and won't be used often. It's something I will keep and preserve, but it matches my un-metered user 'Cord optically. A lovely piece of photo equipment that I am most proud of.

 

Professionally, I use a mixture of the Autocord, a Kalloflex (another -masterful- Japanese TLR you should consider if you're into that sort of thing) and a Tessar Rollei.

 

So, the advice you have been given is correct. Buy on condition, not model or shutter. Even so, if you find a good deal on one and want to invest some money, the camera can be rebuilt and recovered...only the taking lens cannot be replaced, so make sure that is clear and free of fungus.

 

Happy hunting.

Then I guess we'll agree to disagree Mark. I have shot hundreds & hundreds (conservative estimate) of rolls through each, and my findings do not support your opinion of these different TLR's. That's OK, I have no desire to convince anyone here of what to buy, but I will respond if I see a blanket statement that I know isn't true.

 

Film flatness: Printed evidence of the problem? Search the archives of the MFD for plenty of conversation on that topic. Basically, instead of bending the film around (and between) rollers then feeding into the take-up spool, the Autocord runs the film straight down from the roll onto the film path, with no bending until after the frame is exposed. Is it a big deal? To some, it certainly is, but to be honest I've never experienced a problem with this in any of my Rollie's. Then again, I load and shoot through while some might take days or weeks to use up a roll. In that instance, I can certainly see why it could be a problem. Advantage: Autocord. I'd also like to briefly address the (much hated?) Autocord focusing system. Again, it has been my finding that the large majority of "plinked" focusing knobs are from new buyers who attempt to force the knob back into a horizontal position, after it has been bent by striking a table or platform when sitting the camera on its feet. I've purchased Autocords with the focusing frozen in place and never upset the knob by attempting to sweep it through its travel. Indeed, the lever is located in a precarious position, but it isn't *that* delicate.

 

Finally, I do not dislike Rollei...just the opposite, and all of my cameras are serviced routinely. There are few vintage/classic cameras of any type that I wouldn't love to own and try (as evidenced by my collection of over 45 TLR's alone) but that will not stop me from sharing my views, even if it might upset the Rollei aficionado. Furthermore, I have always believed the main "element" to good photography is the photographer; not the equipment. If someone is cheated from experiencing good value and great lens performance due to bias or a predisposition for certain "brands" that's a wrong that should be righted.

I'll have to completely disagree with that advice. I've been shooting professionally with many different TLR's (both German and Japanese) for a number of years, and my best Minolta Autocords perform better. As follows, the Autocord outdoes the Rollei in these, and other areas: 1) As sharp, if not sharper...but with a bit more softness in the corners, meaningless in the type of work I do. 2) More contrast, especially important (and valuable) when not shooting landscapes, something I rarely do. 3) Provision for double exposure, a great option to have. 4) better film flatness. 5) Better (brighter) viewfinders. 6) On the whole, my Minoltas have been more reliable than my Rolleis, less fussy and more durable.

 

Both cameras have their particular strengths and weaknesses. The Rollei, for example, has a much better magnifier and a silky smoothness to the wind that is very pleasing, but less reliable. For overall chassis quality and performance, neither match the Kalloflex- the King Kong of fixed lens TLR's. I know you are a technician Mark, but that doesn't stop me from being disappointed in your response. As a respected member of this community, your advice -if put so bluntly- should at least be followed with a creditable explanation. As for me, I'm prepared to back up my findings with published work.

Douglas, your question is valid but Lex nailed it when referring to Yashica quality control. There very well may be Lumaxar fitted Y-Mat's that perform with the best Rokkor, but none that I have tried or owned. FWIW, I have nearly every 3-4 element Yashica TLR's produced, with many duplicates in the letter series...even a "B". I think Minolta's Q/C was better, but I've noticed pretty substantial variances with them too. In this regard, Rolleiflex rules.

 

Lex raised another good point; In my mind, a great, affordable MF TLR "system" would consist of a Autocord, and one of the knob advance, triplet Yashica's. I don't care what anyone says, those are GREAT cameras...very durable, reliable, and the lens has a warmth that is absolutely perfect for available light portraits. I'll go as far to say that a triplet-lens Yashica TLR is by and far the best value in photography today. Doubts? Surf over to eBay and pick on up for $50.00 (or less) then shoot a roll of Porta 160 VC. You too, shall become a believer.

 

Again, it isn't totally fair to compare cameras of this vintage in lens performance, as there is a lot of water under the bridge. Still, the Autocord is a better -overall- camera than any Yashica TLR. These are truly special units...and I'm far from the only one who knows! :-)

...I think, when comparing both cameras in reasonable working order with clean glass, you'll find a startling difference between the two. The Autocord's Rokkor taking lens is -in my opinion- the best of the 4-element Tessar-types. Not only is it *very* sharp, it's rich and contrasty too, giving almost a 3D effect on many images. The chassis is superior on the Autocord; smoother, tougher, and more reliable. This isn't to say the Yashica is a bad camera, because it's not. In fact, with both CLA'd I doubt you'll ever *need* to buy another TLR for most shooting situations. Only when you feel the need for interchangeable lenses and backs will you be forced to move to a modern MF SLR. You're all set!

Mark,

 

First of all, I appreciate your input here in this forum. Having a knowledgeable camera tech posting information certainly adds to the depth and quality of any discussion.

 

That said, I simply can't agree that the Planar/Xenotar equipped cameras offer enough -if any- difference or improvement in image quality to justify the prices. Other features, like metering and removable finders, better stock screens or the fact the E's and F's are just simply newer could certainly make a difference to the would- be shooter. I'll admit to keeping every fixed lens TLR I shoot with (regardless of lens) to a minimum of F8/11, but it has been my finding in many years of professional motorcycle photography and composing that I'm more inclined to shoot smaller apertures (f16 or f22) than wider ones. I just haven't seen much need to shrink the DOF that much. In this case (or in my situation) shooting with a 3.5F or 2.8 over a MX-EVS renders no advantage. I know of many veteran shooters who have reached the same findings. Please don't get me wrong; I'm not against the newer bodies and lenses, I just -in all honestly- feel they are over-hyped.

 

As for market depression in the classic camera world, you're probably right; nearly every serious money sapping hobby activity is down these days. Still, it seems to me that I drop a minimum of $500 into any TLR I'm preparing for serious shooting, be it a Rolleiflex, Kalloflex, or Minolta Autocord. Finally, I still find it difficult to believe that $300 for a quality Rollei is over priced when compared to newer MF SLR systems and lenses...but I like a deal as much as the next fellow...

 

Again, I appreciate your input and I'm not the only one-

I'm inclined to disagree with the majority here. $300 for a good, working Automat X (Automat II, not to be confused with the older pre-and-post war Automatic Rolleiflex or the New Standard, all of which look similar) isn't too much for the camera, considering it can capably function and perform with most of the preceding MX/MX-EVS models which typically sell for that amount or more. It is, in fact, somewhat of a rare model with only 68.000 (for both type 1 and 2) being manufactured from 1949 to 1951. Compare those figures to the next generation of Rolleiflex TLR (MX) which Rollei cranked out roughly 228.000 units (both type 1 and 2) between '51 and '54. Source: Collectors Guide to Rollei Cameras by Arthur Evans.

 

I paid $500 for a early (type 1) Automat X five years ago in collectable condition (with case, caps, box and bill of sale) plus a receipt of service from Harry Fleenor. It is an exceptional camera; I'd stack the performance of its Zeiss-Opton Tessar against -any- Rollei TLR.

 

Finally Bob, I believe you must cock the shutter before advancing the shutter speed to 1/500. It'll feel a bit tight (using a very stiff spring to trip that quickly) but if it resists don't force it- Many Rollei TLR shooters never used the setting. If your description of the camera is accurate $300 + the cost of a normal CLA isn't a prohibitive price to pay for the camera. You could easily pass that figure trying to restore a heavily worn beater. In many cases, the more-expensive camera is the cheapest to own and use. Choose wisely.

Robert, follow the advice Todd gave you, it's spot on. Personally, I'd recommend Paul Ebel, but there are other good resources for repair...some are even active on this digest.

 

One thing to remind you of tho; The film advance lever will wind with shorter strokes as you work though the roll. I.E. It will take a progressively shorter stroke as you shoot through the roll. Still, the camera needs serviced/repaired before use. I have a Rollei X (the first Automat with a X-flash sync port) and it is a superb performer. Pretty rare too-

I agree with Mark Hansen about Yashica, but only to a point. Brad, when considering a fixed-lens 120 film TLR condition of the taking lens is the most important thing, be it a Rolleiflex, Minolta, or a Yashica. The lever film advance/auto cocking mechanism of the Yashica's ('Mats and the 124 series) are problematic, but I'll assert that the knob-advance A/C/D's are as rugged as any. I'll leave a bit of room for doubt here however, and confess that I haven't used these units nearly as much as the Rollei's and Minolta's I shoot on a nearly daily basis. In short; If you find a Yashica to your liking, make it a manual-shutter cocking knob advance model. They're great cameras.

 

Your self-imposed $150 budget is Yashica country. It has been my experience that by the time you are finished setting up and servicing an Autocord or Rolleiflex, you'll be $400-500 dollars into it. If your heart is set on a Rollei or Minolta, see if you can't purchase it then save a bit more for the CLA. Paul Ebel in Wisconsin can preform the CLA, and I strongly recommend you have it done.

 

As for worrying about the reliability of a older TLR, don't. It's been my experience they are as reliable (after the CLA) as any new MF camera...probably more so. Although I've gained superb images with the Autocord, two of the seven (I forget?) I have are clearly better than the others, while every clean Rolleiflex I've owned or tried has been outstanding. Camera for camera, it is hard to beat the consistent quality of the German Rollei. I'm beginning to feel the same way about the Kowa-made Kalloflex too!

 

If you plan on trying two or three, by all means select the Autocord. But, if you want to reduce your search time then choose the Rollei. Certain Autocord's are magical, but all (clean) Rollei's will return excellent images. Good luck Brad, and let us know what you decide-

Peter, you're catching a glimpse of life as a Minolta fan. Finding information on Minolta before the mid-60s is very difficult, and what you do gather often conflicts.

 

I can say that the Minoltaflex you are speaking of is most likely a Minoltaflex II, made in 1950 or so, which would explain the "Occupied" band on the camera body. Many Japanese products carried this labeling until the 60s, but I am unsure if it adds to the value at all.

 

As for quality, most all Minolta cameras are very good quality units, and very durable if nothing else. If the camera could be purchased for a low price, it would be interesting to find out how the image quality is. It wasn't too much later that Minolta released the Autocord (in about 1955, I'm pretty sure) which featured auto-cocking and other handy features.

 

Collectable or a user? Tough call. It used to be that creative photographers would run through truckloads of different cameras, searching for one that produced a different or interesting slant to an image. You could do that or buy something a little more common or newer. A Yashica A is a fun, effective camera that can be purchased cheaply, or spend a bit more and pick up an Autocord, a Kalloflex, or a Rollei MX or MX-EVS. Worth? Something like this 127 film Minolta Miniflex: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/images/61861.jpg...is certainly collectable, with a price of $1200 proving that.

I have used both the Rollei and Minolta close-up lens sets, to good effect. My questions regarding wide angle or tele attachments came about when looking for other options and/or ideas to help "expand" my TLR shooting. What I was hoping to find, was a solid stream of information as to which of these attachments gives the best image. So far, there seems to be a equal number of both fans and detractors for each. I'm hoping to find a Rollei Magnar 4X to try, as I have a hunch it is probably the best bet (optically) of the tele attachments.

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1369702&size=md">

 

Until then, I'll test the Yashica and Sun wide-angle devices, like this one shown on my Kalloflex. Please, if you have a image to share, post it! I'm not necessarily looking for razor-sharp optics, but perhaps a bit of a image-spin with unusual or even a slight fisheye effect.

"...One more thing, am I just kidding myself in thinking that some these TLR lenses can match the quality of some Med. Format SLR lenses?"

 

I'll answer your question with a question Donny; If I said yes, would you believe me?

 

As always when the "old-verses-new" question is raised the answers are diverse, but there is much more to it. Modern SLR systems simply offer a wider range of helpful accessories that have little to do with actual image quality, but greatly effect the ultimate outcome or success of the shoot. Swap-able film backs, Polaroid or digital backs, and of course the ability to change lenses. Sure, a quality new lens for a Hassey, Bronica, Mamiya, or Rollei MF/SLR should, with everything else properly seen to, produce striking images. You can do the same with a TLR, but you'll have to work harder and it will take more time. I know this from experience...a lot of it.

 

The advantages of a TLR are: Little to no vibration due to lack of the swinging mirror (as well as not losing the subject in the viewfinder for the same reason) the ability to flash-sync at any shutter speed, portability, and low cost. For many photographers a TLR is the ideal tool for shooting extraordinary images at a fraction of the cost of a modern SLR system. What are you going to do? What are you going to shoot? Where, for how long? Most importantly, what do you envision your images looking like when their developed and put on paper? The answers to these questions should help you zero in on what you need, and how much you'll have to spend.

 

Frankly, you can get a wonderful TLR for less than $250. Still, I feel the best value in quality (read: sharpness, color rendition and contrast) MF shooting are the oft-suggested fixed-lens units from Yashica (4-element 'Mat and 124 models) Minolta Autocord (a personal favorite) Kalloflex Automat (very under-rated) various Zeiss Ikoflex models, and of course, Rolleiflex/Cord; a camera with a rich history that I cherish. Dare I say it's difficult to choose a bad one, regardless of model or lens? That said, the Magic would be my very last choice. The C220/330 Mamiya's are another option, but probably a bit beyond your price range. Lovely units they are tho.

 

Sharpest in your price range: 1) Kalloflex, 2) (tie) Rolleiflex w/Xenar-Tessar and Minolta Autocord 3) Yashica 124 and/or Rolleicord.

 

My opinion, but I do have 40 or so of the little buggers lying around here. Enjoy the hunt!

Has anyone had any experience using a Rollei 2X, 4X Magnar or

varients thereof? How about the different Sun, Yashica tele or wide

angle lens attachments? I don't think a long, drawn out diatribe

about ultimate image quality is really necessary but I would like to

hear comments good, bad, or otherwise. Any preferences as to which?

Is there any effect on standard (otherwise correct) exposure

settings? Post 'em if you have them...

There is a better way.

 

Contact Paul Ebel:

 

Paul Ebel Lens Service W230 Terrace St. Box 86 Spring Valley, Wisconsin 54767 (715) 778-4372

 

I have had two Autocords with the knurled focusing knob broken off, and Paul fixed one with a spare (Minolta) part, and other with a entire lever he crafted. His was better. Don't bother with the hassle of sending the camera back, it needs a CLA anyway and this repair shouldn't break the bank. When it returns fully serviced and ready to use, you'll have something to be proud of.