nolan woodbury

I'm inclined to go with John here. The unsure nature of Patrick's question certainly shows he's searching for something to move him, emotionally, in his photography.

 

I've been shooting professionally now for 12 years, and I *think* I'm ready to try a MF/SLR. That said, I use my TLR's a lot and get great results from them. There are many things I haven't tried yet, and new ideas come to me all the time. As for which MF/SLR, I'll never buy Hasselblad if it means I instantly transform into a self-puffing snob. Where are all these Hasselblad users anyway? I travel all over the world, working shows, conventions, races...I never seen them anywhere. The pro's I know shooting MF/SLR's are using RB/Z Mamiya's.

 

Stay away from the SLR's Patrick, and buy a Rollei. When you begin to feel limited, then you'll have a better idea where to go. It's doubtful you'll really be sure any other way. You have to travel the journey yourself.

It is really nice to read the solid comments given by users of Minolta 35mm gear, a family of cameras and lenses that are -far and away- some of the best values found today.

 

I've been using Minolta for about 3 years, switching over from Pentax, with a X-700 body, a XD 11, and several SRT-series bodies and lenses. All are good, but an especially lovely and sweet 101 has my heart forever.

 

You did well Yunus, and you'll be able to outfit that X-700 for a fraction of what you'd spend an almost any other 35mm camera. Minolta still supports it too- I sent mine to Minolta in California and it was totally rebuilt/serviced for $126. Again, amazing!

 

The XD 11 I got last week. A friend gave it to me after trying to trade it and its 50mm 1.7 Rokkor X for a zoom lens. The shop didn't want it, claiming no market exists for that camera anymore. A set of batteries and its working perfectly. It does have a bit of mirror slam though...more than the others? I think so.

 

My sharpest Minolta lens? Easy, the MC Rokkor PG 50mm f/1.4 that came on my favored SRT-101. Amazing lens, truly amazing and special.

Agreed. However, it is impossible to tell if it's a 4.5 or a 3.8. Both, according to my Rollei literature were manufactured between 1929 and 1932.

Hi Eddie,

 

I have an opinion on your first question, but was going to write and mention Mr. Yerkes, since he's in LA. Sounds like you're in good hands.

 

Don't fret about the vintage or model of your Autocord! One of the truly great things about this TLR is there isn't a "bad" one, but the CdS models do have brighter screens and seem to command more money. I assume it's because of the meter, which gives the camera a more dramatic appearance as well.

 

I have a wide range of Autocord's, from a very early 1956 version to one of the latest CdS-III models. Two are optically superior: the second oldest (an Autocord Import model from 1958) and the newest CdS-III. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Rokkor taking lens remained unchanged through Minolta's production of the camera (1955/6 to 1966) and any differences in image quality are attributed to slight (at worst) production inconsistencies.

 

Any Autocord is a good Autocord! Don't be surprised when it begins to push your Rollei's for shooting time...

Joseph,

 

I just had returned to me my most prized, valued Autocord from Minolta master Paul Ebel in Wisconsin. Please don't take this the wrong way, as I really do admire the "fix it yourself" attitude you have shown. I too, wish to learn all I can and be capable, but I would really like to encourage you to do so on something *other* than a Minolta Autocord; especially one with nice glass. It truly is a prized shooter if working correctly, and if you send it in now you could possibly forgo spending more later to fix or repair damage caused by inexperience.

 

My Autocord suffered from extreme wear of the film wind, focusing helix, and needed a shutter overhaul. Paul fixed these (by replacing the wind gearing with a like new or new parts) and, well...simply did his magic on the focusing. He even installed my new Camera Leather recovering kit, which makes me smile every time I look at it.

 

Consider seriously, sending the camera in for expert service and get the school to pop for the repair. Either that, or shoot them a low-ball offer to purchase a old/damaged camera and pay for the service yourself. It is more affordable than you might think. Heck, if you want a camera to practice on I'll send you one free of charge-

Clark, there seems to be two different versions of the Yashicaflex. About a year ago, I purchased one from eBay (with "Yashicaflex" in script-type writing and a Heliotar taking lens) and then enjoyed some conversation with noted vintage camera buff Bo Hultburg, who gave great information. Here are the specs:

 

1) Yashicaflex "S" Taking lens: Heliotar 1:3.5 80mm, Shutter 1-1/300 sec. Exposure meter.

 

2) Yashicaflex "AS" Taking lens Yashimar 1:3.5 80mm, Shutter 1/10-1/200 sec.

 

Both versions I believe, are from (around) 1955 and were the first Yashica TLR's. The "S" was reported to be the first Japanese TLR with a built in exposure meter.

 

Yashica TLR's junk? That is plain ignorance. Most are in fact, quite durable and well made, especially the knob film advance models. Rollei quality? No, but that doesn't limit their usefulness. Again, don't let anyone convince you the Yashimar lens isn't worthy of serious photographic endeavors, because it is. In fact, the Yashimar is probably a better available light portrait lens than the Tessar in your 3.5T. It will render a very smooth, creamy texture in skin tones that is very flattering to older adults and glowing results with children. I'll go as far to say you have a great pair of TLR's to work with, ones that will give different results for different types of shooting assignments. A Tessar for razor sharp, corner-to-corner sharpness and the Yashimar for warm, contrasty portraits or interesting landscape scenes. It's also a great wedding camera. As for the manual, well, you probably don't need one as much as you need to send the Yashicaflex in for a CLA before giving it much use. After that, you'll be able to use and enjoy it for years.

I'll try to answer your questions David. Although I use the Autocord a lot and have a few of them, I'm not a expert. Given the lack of production info on these cameras, I'm not sure who is.

 

1) Are the L and LMX models the only ones with selenium meters? That is, do the later models have either a CDS meter or no meter at all or do the later non-CDS models have selenium meters instead of CDS meters?

 

You were right the first time, I believe. The L and L(MX) have a selenium meter, while the newer models, starting with the CdS-1 of the mid-60s used the first battery powered, CdS meter. I'm reasonably certain Minolta only fitted the CdS meter in later years, and didn't offer the selenium meter as a lower priced "option". They did however, continue to offer non-metered Autocord's regardless.

 

2) Is there a particularly compelling reason to prefer the CDS models to the selenium models or vice versa?

 

Other than 220 capacity in later versions, no. Basically, what the others have posted here is good advice. Pick a Autocord on the basis on condition, not what type of meter it has. For serious metering, use a good hand held.

 

3) Can batteries for the CDS models be found?

 

The mercury (Mallory MPI, ect) battery is no longer available, and hasn't been for quite some time. There are options (some of which are discussed in the MFD archives) but none are as good as a quality hand held meter.

 

4) Setting aside the change in top shutter speed from 400 to 500 is there any reason to prefer one shutter over the other?

 

No, although many claim the Seikosha Rapid is the best of them.

 

5) Are the lenses different from one model to the next or is it the same lens throughout the various models of Autocord?

 

Same lens. See the current post on Autocord lenses.

 

6) Finally, are there any other reasons to prefer one model over another. I already know which ones allow 220. Anything else other than what I've already asked?

 

The CdS models are more valuable because they are newer (generally) in better condition, and are 220 capable. Pick your Autocord on the condition of the taking lens, and have the rest of the chassis serviced afterward.

Eugene, I'm not sure where your information on "early" or "late" Minolta Rokkor's came from, or if you're just speculating. From what I've been able to gather there isn't much (if any) difference between the lenses used in the Autocord's from the mid '50s, to the ones fitted in later cameras. The time frame really isn't that drastic, Minolta only produced the Autocord, with its 4-element Tessar style Rokkor for a bit over ten years. (1955 to 1966).

 

Unlike the resource books I have for Rolleiflex and other popular makes, there is precious little in the way of information on the Autocord. Given the worldwide popularity of Minolta, I find this rather strange. I'd like to see factory documents and information like production numbers, techniques, models changes and upgrades through the years. In fact, I'll go as far to say that the MFD Archives probably has more information on the Autocord than anywhere else in the world! If you have a source of information Eugene, by all means share it with us.

 

Personal experience has shown me excellent examples of Rokkor's in both early (1958 Export model, Chiyoko Rokkor w/Seikosha-MX shutter) and late (1966 CdS-III, Minolta Rokkor w/Citizen shutter) cameras. After long conversations about this very subject with noted Autocord technician Paul Ebel, we have concluded that any vintage of Minolta Autocord is worth owning and shooting. Like any lens, some are simply better than others. In this case, I would say age -not actual condition of course- has no factor upon it.

Ok Zippy, here you go-

 

1) Will it hurt the camera if I just use it at the shutter speeds that work? (i.e. 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/200, 1/400 & "B")?

 

Resist the temptation to use the camera before it is serviced. It will last longer and perform better.

 

2. What's the name of the cable release adapter for this camera and where can I purchase one?

 

Nikon (Leica?) nipple, or the last one I bought was simply referred to as a "cable release adapter". Another option is to simply go to a quality photo shop with the camera and explain what you need. It is a pretty common item.

 

3. As far as the CLA goes, do you have any idea of what it will cost me to fix the shutter problem and clean, lube and adjust everything?

 

Judging by past experience, anywhere from $100-200, depending on what exactly is done. Understand, that I am reluctant to quote this type of info- It's not right to quote for someone else's time and labor!

 

4. I figured out the flash shoe was indeed hot, but the problem I'm having is that both flashes I have only fire when mounted backwards on the Diacord. Neither of them will fire at all when I mount them forward. Any idea why they won't fire when mounted forward?

 

Because the contacts aren't touching. I'd recommend a proper L-bracket with "potato masher" style flash that connects with a cable. Something like a Sunpak 555.

 

5. How do you go about using filters with this camera...for landscape etc. (i.e. grads, polarizers, etc.)?

 

The best filters for TLR's are made by Rollei and Minolta, although I have quite a few Tiffen filters that attach between the lens hood and the Bay I mount. The only filters I use consistently are UV filters, just to protect the taking lens when working.

Well, Greg is the Ricoh expert here but he's being modest, so I'll give it a shot.

 

1) Not good. The camera needs a clean, lube and adjust. Like somebody posted recently, "loosening it up" by using it only grinds the old lube and dirt away.

 

2) Fixed, but people sometimes see bad spots on the reflex mirror and misjudge them for spots on the G.G.

 

3) If the material is located inside the lens, and not between the elements, it can be cleaned during the shutter service, I believe. Very often (but not always) small imperfections in the taking lens have no effect on the image quality, but some can cause flare problems.

 

4) For attaching a shutter-release adapter, Nikon nipple, or what ever. Screw the adapter onto the threads, and the shutter release cable into the adapter. Often (at least on my Diacord's) there are enough threads exposed (with the nut screwed on full) to fit the adapter. Give it a try, and don't force it. My repairman glued these nuts into place.

 

5) If your shutter release cable had a locking feature, then that is one way. The shutter button has no locking feature (like the Minolta Autocord)

 

6) Check the archives for info on Paul Ebel, Mark Hama, or Ross Yerkes. All have an excellent reputation here. Personally, I use Paul often with great results, always.

 

7) On the Diacord, I believe the flash shoe is indeed hot.

 

8) Compared to the TLR's that actually have baffling (as Greg alluded to) the Dia's and Dia G's have what looks like a pretty sophisticated maze of baffling, which should improve image quality by blocking any stray light that may leak through the seals. Then again, I'm not sure of the Ricoh has seals, which may explain the design of the film chamber.

 

At any rate, get the problems sorted out, then get out and use it. It was rated favorably when it was produced, and should by all accounts help you make beautiful pictures. The lens really is quite good, and the Duo-Focusing system is the best fitted to any TLR...well, any I've seen anyway. Build quality and finish on the Diacords is very nice, and I think they were some of the prettiest TLR's ever, if that matters to you.

 

Enjoy!

I think if Stuart could afford a $700 to $1000 camera, he wouldn't be asking for advice here.

 

Stuart, I get the impression that you are planning on (at least someday) buying a succession of camera's when you can do so. You want something better and affordable, right? My friend Murray Twelves told me about the Cameta Camera email list, so I signed up. Once a week, they send you an updated list of used equipment, and I've purchased a few of them in the past months with very happy results. Here is the link to the updated stock:

 

http://www.cameta.com/just-in.html

 

They currently have three Yashica A's listed, two at $49.00 and one at $59.00. Toss another $10.00 in and picked up a Yashica LM and gain Bay I mounts and more shutter/iris options. Any of these camera's will help you get better, and the build quality is excellent; especially the -A- which skips the typical Yashica wind/advance problems. Shipping will cost you a bit, but you're still money ahead. These are great camera's, durable, and optically inspiring. There are better ones, but name anything close for under sixty bucks! With a warranty!!

 

For what it is worth, shooting MF-TLR's made me a better 35mm photographer, and I burn less film too.

With both cameras as new or in perfect condition, the safe bet it to claim the Minolta the better of the two. Optically, in chassis construction, in film flatness, and in ease of use.

 

Again (and I feel like I've said this a thousand times) condition is critical when choosing a camera of this vintage, so if you can carefully check the condition of the taking lens. Open the back of each camera, set the shutter on "B" and the aperture on f3.5 (wide open). Wind the film advance, fire the shutter and hold it open. With a bright flashlight or penlight check for scratches, flaws, fungus or separation. In user condition, both the Autocord and the 124 can produce simply wonderful images. If the Yashica looks cleaner, choose it, if they look the same, choose the Minolta. Common to both is loose-ness or wiggling of the lensboard due to heavy use (easy to fix on both). The Yashica loses points for its fragile, fail-prone film advance/wind, while the Autocord's "smiley face" focus arm/knob often suffers from looseness or damage. Again, a common problem with several practical solutions. The glass is the most important thing and the hardest to solve, save for transplanting a good lens from a donor camera.

 

Both are supported by a number of very good technicians. Check the MFD archives for info on Paul Ebel, Ross Yerkes or Mark Hama.

Hold on a second guys! This isn't such a terrible camera. I think everyone agrees the Ciro-Flex (later, after Graflex bought them out they were named Ciroflex, then simply Graflex 22) isn't Yashica quality, but many owners claim excellent images from the Wollensak taking lens. Problem: Several grades (from average to good) of the Wollensak lens was offered on the C-flex, with corresponding prices. Knowing which is which could be a major hurdle. Yes, the camera has a M-F-X switch, so you can use a modern flash.

 

You don't like auctions Karl? Well, this one has the "Buy it Now" feature. It's $25.00, case included.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1387866566

 

Why not check it out? You can always get a Y-Mat, Autocord, or Rollei later.

Hard to add anything to the answers already given (even if I don't exactly agree with all of them) but I'll try to zero in on your question Frederick, and add my 2-cents.

1) Is the Rolleiflex planar lens that great to justify the extra money?

 

If you looking for big differences in optical performance, than no. But there is much more to the later Rollei TLR's than just Planar (or Xenotar) lenses. Removable prisms, solid support, accessories and high value. Regardless of what you pay for a later (Planar or Xenotar) Rollei, if it's nice it's worth money. Anywhere. This is very important to some people.

 

2) How good is autocord vs. planar vs yashica?

 

There are people who will insist the best lenses are found on the Rolleiflex, and although my best TLR camera (optically) is a Minolta Autocord, it has been my experience the Rolleiflex offers a higher degree of excellence, camera to camera. Example: I have seven (I think) Autocord's and all are good, but two are excellent. Every, not most, but EVERY Rollei I've purchased (except ruined ones) have performed flawlessly, optically speaking. Yashica? Of the three or so 4-element lenses I've had, none were on-par with the Minolta or Rolleiflex. But I know there are good ones out there. The 3-element camera's (A, B, C, and D's) are some of my favorites for portraits.

 

Again, it is up to the shooter or publisher in many cases. I like a contrasty lens, and the Minolta's Rokkor is better for this than a Tessar, Planar, Xenar/Xenotar. The Rollei's seem to shoot "flatter" than the Minolta.

 

All said, I figure if you plan on buying or using only one TLR camera, buy a Rolleiflex. If you think you'd like to experiment a bit, buy a cheaper Rollei (like MX-EVS or MX) and a Autocord, and compare the two. Throw in another $75.00 and pick up a nice Yashica A. I use this ensemble a lot, and enjoy (even count on) the differences between them. Check the MFD archives for support on each.

I'm not done.

 

David, I didn't mean to imply that your post was stupid, just the direction it was going. If there is one thing I've learned over the years, it's that great photography starts between the photographers ears. What is held in the hands is far less important.

 

My good pal, Hartley Martin Michaels has been sending me his old copies of Club Rollei Magazine, and after looking through them and studying their used (or new) camera-bid formula, I'd never buy or bid on a eBay Rollei again. Prices seem more realistic, there is a tasty selection, and the content is very interesting and inspiring too. Write to:

 

Ian.parker@jersey-mail.co.uk

 

....for info on how to subscribe.

"Explain to me why a serious photographer would rather have a $800 used TLR than a $800 used hasselblad? I have two rollies and a mamiya c330, and they just collect dust while I'm shooting with the 500cm."

 

Explain to me Gene why a "serious" photographer would shoot with a stinkin' Hasselblad when he could produce much better photographs with a LF 4x5 or a 8x10 view camera? This is a stupid thread.

There isn't much I can add to the excellent advice already given, except to echo what Jeffery said; For quite a while, my favored (but worst condition, cosmetically) Autocord was my best shooter, better contrast and sharpness. I will also add, of my Autocords that have lens imperfections, none are scratches...more like tiny little specks that look like dents or chips in the coating. Viewing chromes under a high power loupe shows no ill-effect.

 

Again, shoot a roll of Ektachrome 100 and see for yourself. It's been my experience that haze or oxidation can effect image quality more than scratches or dust specks. Have the camera CLA'd and the lenses polished.

 

Lastly, you didn't pay too much Dominic if the camera is relatively clean and functioning. Regardless, whether it's perfect or slightly rough, it'll benefit from a CLA. After that, you should enjoy and long and happy relationship.

That makes sense, asa settings are pretty important in metering! :-) Art however, is still correct. Many cameras have asa "reminders" (old manual Yashica and Exa 35mm SLR's come to mind here) with no provision for metering.

 

That said, I think this is an important, and stunningly beautiful camera. Certainly not obtained cheaply, the Rollei T is still 1/3rd the price of a nice 3.5F. I've often wondered if the "T" really does utilize an "improved" version of the Tessar lens? Maybe this has been covered, but does anyone have documented proof? There is no mention of this in any of my Rolleiflex reference books.

It's a Rolleiflex T Adrian, made sometime between 1958 and 1966. The reason it has an asa selector is because you could get an optional meter, if so desired. Probably not a real necessity at this point.

 

Worth? Hard to say. If it is in good condition, probably more than $500, depending on who/what/where. Certainly, it was (is) a fine photographic instrument, fitted with a legendary lens. If the camera hasn't been used in a while, it probably needs a CLA. There are lots of names and numbers in the MFD archives of people who can do that.

 

Good luck!

Many classic camera users and collectors enjoy sharing information about their chosen passion, why should Autocord "fans" be any different?

 

Yes, there seems to be a pretty strong Minolta Autocord presence here on the MFD, but no one has ever forced me to read something that I'm not interested in reading. If you're not concerned with the Autocord Anthony, why read posts about them? The word "killjoy" comes to mind.

 

I'll say it again, but it's likely to go in one ear and out the other; Shooting with quality vintage MF TLR's makes great economic sense. For under $500 (in some cases, far under that) a photographer wishing to shoot 120/220 film can do so with a quality machine that is both rugged and optically strong. Not only that, but TLR's are compact and lightweight, making them easy to carry. One other point should be made: In the unfortunate event of theft, loss, or damage you won't suffer from cardiac arrest or wake your insurance agent at 3:00 am to make a claim. TLR's offer a solid, surefire way to get great photographs without breaking the bank, if that is important to you. To be honest, it's important to me.

 

The Autocord is a handsome camera, like many TLR's. I do enjoy handling them, keeping them clean and making sure they operate properly. I've carried my favored Autocord all over the world. I've used it to shoot magazine covers, and many, many feature articles. It looks like hell, but I just finished placing an order with Cameraleather to fix that. After it's done, I'll take a picture of it and put it on my wall. I'd be more than happy to send you a print Anthony...

Thanks for sharing your "feelgood" experience Jonathan. It is a great story and brings to light several very important facts.

 

First, you did the right thing by getting the camera serviced right away. Even the newest Autocord is now over 35 years old- now doubt ready for at least a CLA. My friend Murray Twelves found me a *very* mint CdS-III Autocord that looked, worked, and even smelled brand new, but the film chamber seals were shot. I doubt the camera saw more than ½ dozen rolls before I bought it.

 

Second, and most impressive (to me) was your willingness to spend money on a camera that many feel is a inferior Rolleiflex copy. Now, you know for yourself that isn't true. The Autocord is truly a great twin lens reflex; optically, and in all other ways. Reading this testimonial almost makes up for the biased and...dare I say, almost hateful attitude shown to "non Rollei" TLR's, most of which is simply spouting off, and not backed up with real testing or experience. Judging by the aftermarket support (re-skin kits and several techs devoted and skilled in repair) I'd say the secret of the Autocord isn't a secret anymore. Oh, by the way Morgan Sparks offers more than just Autocord kits...he offers pre-cut sets for other classic Minoltas like the SRT-series, and other popular full-manual 35mm SLR's. Good stuff.

 

Lastly, I too have met and made some dear friends because of my love and interest in shooting and using classic cameras. Many who use this old equipment do so for personal and not professional gain, but there are still those who put their Autocord's to work, producing images on par with the latest/newest MF/SLR's. Sometimes, even surpassing them. With the support of people like Ross Yerkes, Cameraleather, and many others the Autocord has a long and productive life ahead of it.

Hi Marianne-

 

The Yashica A is one of my favorite cameras. Despite its rather limited number of f-stop and shutter speed selections, it does wonderfully in available light and/or well lit situations (the finder is rather dark) I have used both the Yashimar and Yashikor lenses, and found both to render much the same image quality. Not only is the "A" very easy and enjoyable to use, it's a tough little camera too. Some of my favorite informal portraits have come from them. Shade the lens (in lieu of a proper lens hood) with a hat or your hand, and load some Kodak Porta 160VC color print film. Very nice. Enjoy it!

I think Jeffery briefly touched on a point that I'd like to share. I admit that I got a bit carried away when I first started using it, and certainly participated in a few "competitive" auctions as well. While I mix purchases between eBay, private sellers, and favorite camera shops (online or otherwise) I still feel eBay is a great resource for that hard-to-find or rare item that may never make it to the camera store counter or web list. Sometimes that oft used line "I don't know much about cameras" is a real plus! My point? Know what you want, what it is worth, and get really good at studying grainy .jpegs.

Agreed. The strengths listed above when referring to the Rolleiflex (or any quality TLR) has little or nothing to do with the age of the machine. Certainly, many feel modern cameras are easier to use than a TLR, but in many cases I've found just the opposite. One of my favorite angles in motorcycle photography is "low and away" catching the machine from a pleasing ground angle anywhere from 8-10 feet away. Using a table top tripod and a TLR with its top mounted finder makes this shot a pleasure. With a conventional "thru the lens" camera or viewfinder, this type of shot is much more difficult. That said, I'm glad for the choice...what my TLR's can't do, something else resting in my bag probably can. It's great to have the choice...that freedom.

 

The inference to simple nostalgic value alone concerning Rollei's and TLR's is incorrect. Technology can't take the place of inherently correct fundamentals. Like any other sound engineering idea, what's true then is still true.

Rob, a few years ago I was in a photo dilemma. I was aspiring to be a freelance motorcycle journalist, but my images (although sharp and well received) weren't giving me the "oomph" I was looking for. It wasn't just clarity, my pictures needed more soul, more lifelike contrast. They -and I- needed to be better.

 

It's not often you hear people mention the portability factor with the MF TLR camera, but it was a real issue with me. I packed my gear in the tank bag of my Moto Guzzi motorcycle and space was at a premium. Not only that, but a quick check of MF/SLR prices had me wondering if I would ever be able to afford a top notch camera. Plus, if I did spend the money on a Hassey or Bronica, would I want to subject it to the vibration and hazzards of motorcycle travel? My solution was found in a trusted old friend; the Rolleiflex TLR. I now have several of them, and shoot other brands of vintage TLR (read: Japanese) as well. The images (plus a lot of hard work) I got from my TLR's got me noticed, and although my traveling mode is widely varied (lots of airplanes, another hassle to be sure) now, I've stuck with the TLR because I'm comfortable with them and confident in them.

 

Since many of my published photographs are printed in rather small sizes, I still shoot a lot of 35mm (splitting time between wide angle and medium focal length zooms) but I'll load a roll of 120 to gain the most pleasing aspect of my subject in a portrait. Most always, at least one of these slides are chosen (usually for the larger pictures) even though my publisher hates paying the extra $$ for scanning.

 

Dislikes? None. I love working with TLR's, my best work comes from them. Of *my* cameras, the Rolleiflexs have been the most problematic. They seem a bit more fragile than my other front line TLR's. Image wise, they offer the dedicated and creative photographer the world. I think every serious shooter should have at least one TLR.