nolan woodbury

Thanks for the clarification Dave. I'm guilty of throwing info out there in a sloppy manner. Sorry.

 

Yashica did produce a version of the 'Mat, much like the LM with the un-metered Yashica-Mat. This camera has the 4-element, 80mm f3.5 Yashinon (with B-1/500 shutter speeds) and I think it is every bit the camera, both optically with better construction, than the 124G. This is the camera I was (absentmindedly) referring to.

 

So Bob, when it comes to Yashica TLR's, you do have a nice variety and selection to choose from. It is my opinion that the over-priced version -the 124G- just happens to be the least attractive to me. I do realize however, that optically they can be very good.

My advice is to open your search to Yashica TLR's other than just the 124G. A YashicaMat 124 for example, has the same sharp Yashinon lens, but lacks the G's CdS metering...given the difficulty finding proper mercury cells these days, it seems silly to pay the additional money for the more advanced metering. You should seriously consider hand held with a TLR these days. Some knob advance Yashica D's have the Yashinon too, a truly great camera offering excellent optics and rugged reliability.

 

The later 124G's were very "plasticky" and I've never liked the coffee can "grind" of the 124G's film advance. My (all alloy and steel) YashicaMat 124 is much quieter, and just feels like a more quality unit overall.

 

I'd also advise opening your search to other TLR's...the Minolta Autocord, older Rollei Automats, or high end units from Zeiss, Kalloflex, Ricoh, or Mamiya. Good luck!

Paul Ebel W230 Terrace Street Box 86 Spring Valley, Wisconsin 54767 (715) 778-4372

Nick,

 

The Autocord (any TLR, or strange camera) will seem like a mystery at first but after you get it in you'll find it's easy to use. A (very) quick Autocord lesson:

 

-The film loads top to bottom, after removing the empty film spool from the top, and placing in the take-up position. Thread the leader in, and advance until the arrow aligns with the "Start" marker on the film backing.

 

-Shutter speed and f-stop controls are located on either side of the taking (bottom) lens, with the info stacked inside of a window on the top of the taking lens. Standard TLR stuff. The shutter button is located on the lower right hand side of the lens board. The film crank advances the film until "1" shows in the film counter (near the crank) and also cocks the shutter.

 

-The Autocord (6x6) will give 12 exposures per roll of 120 film. Your Autocord I may have a 220 film counter, and adjustable pressure plate.

 

There are several online sources for manuals, and you need one. I shop here a lot:

 

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/catalog/menu.htm

 

Go to "Minolta" Then "Minolta TLR." Any Autocord manual (CdS-III, Autocord LMX...) will work, as all controls and important features are the same.

 

Happy shooting.

This is an email I got from Mark tonight, word for word:

 

"Sorry for the delay. Such a camera does not exist. I am happy to answer any questions. Best regards, Mark Hama"

 

To be fair, I've known Godfrey for years (he's a fellow motorhead, and a talented one) and he is not prone to exaggeration. I'm not sure exactly what he saw, but I'll go with Mark on this one. To those who know Mark, this type of answer is typical; short and to the point. While I'm sure Yashica never produced such a camera perhaps a special, a prototype, or simply a mistake slipped past the doors. I simply don't know.

If this camera exists, it is certainly news to me. I'm not saying it is, or isn't true but I have not seen this "model" listed anywhere. Either by serial number/description in list, or for sale. Anywhere!

 

Another possibility does exist however. I believe Yashica offered the "D" model TLR for nearly as long as the 124 series. This resource page:

 

http://www.williamsphotographic.com/yashica.html

 

....states later D's were fitted with a Yashinon, however. I have a message in with Mark Hama, awaiting his answer. It's for sure that I'm not the only one needing clarification on this...

Its been my experience that the Yashinon lens fitted to your new YashicaMat will compare quite favorably to a Rolleiflex or a 'Cord, regardless of what lens they have. There are however, several other differences (not all having to do with image quality) that factor in. For one, the 'Mat's have notoriously weak film advance mechanisms. However, your YashicaMat was made before Yashica went to the all plastic -late- 124G, fitted with the same lens and a CdS meter. That is a plus. Another is consistency from camera to camera. I have owned and used a wide variety of both Rollei's and Yashica's, and find the Rollei to be a consistent machine from unit to unit...amazingly so, in fact. The Yashica can range from brilliant to just OK...but given the size (2-1/4" square) of the neg, you can get useful images from almost any working Yashica. I have also noticed a pattern of soft corners in the Yashinon, even though the subject (centered, or otherwise framed) is razor sharp. This bothers some but not me, for I rarely do landscape work in which this may be a problem.

 

And no, your YashicaMat is a far better camera than either the Seagull or Lubitel. No comparison actually, though I have heard some get good images from this range of "new" TLR's.

 

You didn't pay too much Steve, and the camera should certainly provide you with much enjoyment. I understand the curiosity of comparing the Yashica to a Rollei, but you'd have to be a very gifted photographer indeed to get the better of either.

First of all Jeffery I agree with you; the Monaghan site is an incredible on-line resource for the old camera junkie.

 

Now then, lets start by finding out what you plan to photograph? By way of experience (my own and others) I'll begin by recalling a email I got a couple of years ago from a lady who is a serious amateur photographer. Her speciality was outdoor weddings (she was insistent on that...she would not shoot indoors) and her tools were a manual focus 35mm Nikon with various wide angle and tele lenses, a Sony digital camera, and a Yashica A TLR. She would use the A for portraits only, and shoot her Nikon for candid stuff (also for exposure readings) and the digital for whatever she felt was needed. By her own account, her services were in demand and people loved her soft, warm 11"x14" wedding portraits. She had found the TLR that worked for her, and had no desire to buy or use anything else. I did recommend finding a backup TLR and she later added a nice Yashica D, also with a triplet lens.

 

Another fellow I was corresponding with found his passion to be black and white street photography. After using a old Pentax Spotmatic for years, thought he'd find a cheap TLR to try. At my suggestion he bid on and won a Yashica A on eBay, but told me later that in certain shady conditions the viewfinder was just too dark. He found a Yashica 124G (a later plastic version) and fell in love with it. As far as I know, he's still using it. He values the 124's super sharp optics and when he sent me a few 5x5 prints, I was blown away. He'd found a camera that matched his gifts perfectly.

 

My good friend and MFD member Murray Twelves uses a brace of minty Autocord's and a equally lovely Rollei T for his window light photography. Murray also shoots the occasional wedding, and just loves handling and using well built, accomplished cameras. He's had bright screens installed in several of them so they are easy to use and focus indoors, or out.

 

I use Autocord's and old Rollei TLR's, the main unit an early 50's MX that Paul Ebel lovingly restored for me. The intent for this camera was years of hard use, and I put the money into it that would ensure its reliability. So far, so good. Murray got sick of me whining about the dark finder and finally gave me one to install...thanks buddy! TLR shooters are a tightly knit group you know...

 

The bottom line, for what it's worth: A solid Minolta Autocord is the best bet for the serious TLR shooter...especially one trying to hold costs down. The stock bright screen is the best of the bunch, the optics magnificent and the superior film flatness adds to that optical superiority. It uses cheap and easy to find Bay I accessories (hoods, filter) has flash sync, and is tough and durable. If the taking lens is clean and fungus free, the rest of the camera (yes, even the shutter) can be repaired. I have never had to wait for parts, and the two service people I have used (Mark Hama and Ebel) say the camera is easier and cheaper to repair/service than a Rolleiflex. Conclusion: Overall, the Autocord is the solid, overall choice suitable for nearly every kind of photographic endeavor...well, with a fixed lens TLR, that is.

 

You sound like you've done your homework Jeffery...you're on the right path. Go with the Autocord.

Steve, I may be wrong but I don't think the Kalloflex TLR was designed to shoot 220 film. Every bit of information I have on that camera (not including the three I actually own) states the Kalloflex uses 120 film only. Does your K-flex have a 12-24 counter, or does it return to "1" after the 12th exposure? Could be, shooting 220 film is the problem.

 

Nevertheless, Paul Ebel can fix it if it's broken. He has experience with the Kalloflex.

 

Paul Ebel Lens Service

W230 Terrace St. Box 86

Spring Valley, Wisconsin 54767

(715) 778-4372

Getting back to the question at hand: Is $490 too much for a nice Rolleiflex 3.5 with a Tessar? Judging from your comments Frank no, it certainly isn't. Consider you get a pretty good deal on a Tessar-'Mat for say, $175 or so. Add in a $150 CLA and another buck-ina-quarter for a bright screen and you are right back up there. Don't forget shipping, and waiting around for it to arrive. Skipping that hassle is worth good money alone. You even have the luxury of testing it first. Sounds good.

 

Planar/Tessar/Xenotar/Xenar...the TLR debate for the ages. I'll just say this; Paul Ebel, respected camera repairman and lens expert (and he really is, believe me) has often told me the Tessar was as good as any lens -for sharpness- fitted to a Rollei TLR, and does a damn fine job on color rendition and contrast with modern chromes as well. These days, it's better to shop for condition then lens brand -or speed- for that matter. It sounds like you want the camera Frank, so buy it. I'm sure you won't regret it. Oh, and Frank? I love Italian food, in case you're making dinner plans...

While on the subject of CdS-series Autocord's and film advance, it seems to me that due to the increased diameter of the 220 roll, the lever stroke would be quite short at, or near the 24th exposure, wouldn't you say? Yes, this makes sense now, seeing as the film is pulled and laid over the outside diameter of the roll, causing "less" of a stroke to advance the necessary film for the next exposure.

 

Only the last series of the CdS Autocord's (the III) took 220 (easily distinguished by the "12-24" switch by the counter, near the advance) and you have to manually re-position the film tensioner too. I think the last of the un-metered (the Autocord I) units were 220 capable as well. I have run exactly -0- rolls of 220 through my CdS-III, so I'm speculating here.

 

This has been a good, informative thread. It made me think, and I learned something. Thanks guys. Another question you raised Andrew, that I don't think was covered was one of slight cleaning marks on the taking lens. While it *is* better if the lens is very clear and clean (no marks visible to the naked eye) very light scratches or marks shouldn't cause much of a problem. In fact, my favorite (most used, and most pleasing optically) Autocord shows very faint specks in the coating of the front element. The biggest concern isn't optical performance, but flair. Use a lens hood.

 

Hope this helps-

There is a resource page for Ikoflex at:

 

http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm

 

I'm somewhat confused at the serial number you listed, as there isn't anything resembling that there. Could the "8" possibly be a "2"? In any case, the Zeiss Ikoflex series is a highly respected camera. The best of the bunch was probably the Favorit. According to the December, 1959 issue of "Consumer Reports" the Rolleiflex 3.5F, Ikoflex Favorit, Rollei T and the Minolta Autocord were the top TLR shooters tested. If the lens is clean, it'll probably deliver stunning pictures. Shoot it and let us know, OK Faraz?

Andrew, you 'kinda got my head spinning! Making me think (or trying to remember) things I never consider while shooting. I use Yashica's, Rollei's, Minolta's and even Kalloflex TLR's, although I load my favorite Autocord more than any of them. One comment you made caused a red flag; a "tight spot" at the 2:00 O'clock position. I do think there is a bit of resistance in the lever when it is cocking the shutter, and this is common in all TLR's. Next time I'm working, I'll try to pay attention to lever position and let you know what I find. Remember this however: The take-up spool is driven by a dog that fits into the axle portion (or i.d.) of the spool, the spool could be 1/2" or 12" in diameter and the lever would advance the film the same amount. If it didn't, you would not be able to get 12 exposures from a roll of 120. I'll stick by what I said before, and claim the lever should move the same amount every time. I could be wrong! Like I said, I'll watch closely next time.

 

One last thought: You expressed concern about the rising cost of getting your Autocord working properly (if in fact, there is something wrong with it, which I think we're both beginning to doubt) I try to explain that the purchase of the camera is only the first step, a full service and CLA is required if you're really serious about using the camera and desire optimum optical performance. My Rolleiflex TLR's average $500 per unit, and my (recently purchased) Autocord's nearly that. I could buy a small car for what I have into my Kalloflex's. You are fortunate to have backing from your dealer and yes; I'd ask if they have any objection to sending the unit to a TLR expert like Hama, Ebel, or Yerkes, should the need arrise.

 

My point: You are shooting medium format. Considering the optical quality you are likely to get with your Autocord, even $500 invested puts you way ahead of the game. If you are good enough with it, the camera will make the money back in no time. After that is when the shooting gets fun-

Kowa fitted the Kalloflex with a studded/button that screwed into the shutter release button, but the threads are slightly smaller than "standard" (as in what is drilled and tapped into every other camera I have, TLR or otherwise, except Yashica).

 

Your adapter should work...mine does, either pushing against the screw in button or into the threaded hole. A "L-shaped" adapter is a great idea for keeping the cable out of the way, but it isn't necessary. I use plastic wire ties fitted at various points on my tripod, holding the cable in a safe, out-of-the-way location. When shooting hand held, I don't use the cable release. Another thing about the Kalloflex I like is the shutter release button is on the left side of the lens standard (looking into the view finder while using the camera) allowing you to trip the shutter with your left hand, and advance film/focus with the right. The thought put into this camera was second to none in the TLR world, as is the construction and materials used. First class. Of course, the K/flex was a press corps unit so that explains the handy control layout...and the funky curved "quick focus" ground glass.

 

The Kalloflex is a great camera Will. Fitted with a spectacular lens. Enjoy!

Andrew, I'm answering your question without the benefit of having a camera in my hand, so I hope my explanation is clear. Before I give my two cents, you *are* sure you're loading the film leader into the take up spool correctly?

 

If so, I suspect there is a problem with the film advance in your Autocord. If memory serves me correctly (and it should, considering I've done this a thousand times) after you've loaded the film and advanced it to the first frame, the advance lever should rest at the 11:00 O'clock position, and fully advance the film by the time it reaches the 5-6:00 O'clock position. This may vary from camera to camera slightly, but the lever SHOULD act the same upon advancement EVERY TIME. If it doesn't, that means it isn't advancing the film correctly, or something is slipping. Either way, there is a mechicanial problem. I'd exercise the option on your guarantee, and if they bristle or the camera doesn't work correctly, you have other options. The names of qualified and trusted service tech's can be found in the MFD archives.

I'm always intrigued by this type of question, because the wide range of answers available. When someone mentions "amazing optical quality" my first thought isn't sharpness, but tone. I've seen razor sharp slides and prints that looked like crap, and warm, fuzzy pictures that inspired my soul. $1500? That will buy you a very nice TLR plus options (tripod, a few hoods, a suitable strobe and a handful of film) or a modern MF SLR body, maybe a lens and probably a film back. A start. My suggestion is to seek and find a later Rollei E or F series TLR, or a Minolta Autocord. They are amazingly sharp optically, durable, and somewhat portable as well. My first MF camera was a Yashica A TLR that sold for $19.95 in 1959. It wasn't anything special really, but it certainly inspired me and took *my* photography to the next level. You can always buy more, and spend more, when you get a feel for what you like.

I fly a lot, and my experience/thoughts on this mirror what Joseph Verdesca said; It is an intrusion, but a necessary one.

 

I've taken to jamming all my bodies, lenses and film into the smallest bag possible, partly because the opening in the scanning machines seems to be getting smaller and smaller. My hard shell camera briefcase will not pass through any of them anymore. Used to be, I'd take three TLR's and two 35mm bodies, but I've cut that to one TLR and one 35mm body, with probably two or three lenses (a 35mm wide angle, 50mm standard, and 70-210mm zoom) film, meter, cable release, flash, hoods, etc. I check the large tripod with my clothes, and carry on the camera bag and computer. I pack a small tripod in my camera bag, in case my checked items get lost. I may wear the same smelly clothes for three days, but at least I'll get the shots! By the way, it's the laptop that seems to cause the most fuss, but security routinely rifles through my camera bag. Not only at x-ray, but often at the gate too. They do go through everything, even my important papers one by one. This is just the way it is and we have to live with it.

 

My conclusion: I don't want to die up there, just like everyone else. I take the good (fast travel) with the bad (invasion of privacy) knowing the airports really don't have a choice at this point. I smile, hope for the best, and look forward to the end of the trip when I have (what's left of) my freedom back.

Mike, I'll step out on a limb here and disagree with the consensus, basing my judgement on your description of the camera. I too, have purchased and shot many Rolleiflex cameras of this vintage, so I have some experience. More than some, not as much as others.

 

Practically every Automat I've purchased has needed a CLA, so what is the difference if you snag the camera for $175.00 then spend another $150-$200 for a CLA, when you can purchase a clean, well working camera for $300 and be done with it? Makes no sense to me. Oh, and one more thing: Patric Dahlén is right- Except at the widest aperture you're unlikely to see any difference between the Tessar compared to the Xenotar or Planar. This is a well known...no, a widely known fact, and I'm always amazed when I hear or read people state otherwise. My advice Mike? If your test roll comes back solid, buy the camera for $300 and use it. Your probably money ahead.

Mike, I use a couple different Sunpak flash/strobes; a 522 and a 555. These come with a bracket that holds flash and camera, screwed onto the tripod. As mentioned before, connect the pc cable to your Autocord, set the switch to "X" then plug into the flash. Metz "potato masher" units and the like work great too. I've been using this set up for years, with good results. I found both on eBay, plus a couple of spare pc cables for around $150.00 each.

Thanks for the kind words Felix. There are many knowledgeable and gifted photog's that contribute to Photo.net. I'm happy to be in the mix.

 

According to my literature, your Rolleiflex is a Automat MX, and fitted with a Xenar means it was manufactured in either 1951 or 1952.

 

Yes, it has coated lenses, and was a popular model for Rolleiflex. It's a great camera Felix, enjoy it.

It depends on the vintage of the camera and lens Felix.

 

The first production Rolleiflex with both lenses coated is widely regarded as the Automat II, better known as the Rollei "X" for the factory-installed X synchronization port. This was Rollei's first "true" post war camera, and came equipped with either a Carl Zeiss Jena (East German) a Zeiss-Opton Tessar, or a Schneider Xenar. Manufactured from late 1949 to late 1950, these camera's use serial numbers 1.100.000 to 1.116.999. Any serial number after that will probably have a coated lens, unless it was swapped out for a older piece of glass. Don't ask me how I know.

 

Also, according to Arthur Evans (Collector's Guide to Rolleiflex Cameras, ISBN # 0-931838-06-1) the Automatic Rolleiflex, made between 1945-1949 (better known as the Automat Type 4) may, or may not have a coated taking lens. Serial numbers for these units are: 999.000 to 1.099.999.

 

Hope this helps.

Reading about, or listening to someone talk about the actual process of photography is like listening to somebody telling me about their vacation; it bores me to tears. Unless they are speaking about something I have no knowledge of. Reading what different people use or do to *achieve* their photographic goals is another matter entirely! To me Amir, not enough is written about light, for I have found that basic element the most difficult to capture, or grasp. I don't complain about it though, because I feel if I stay with it I'll figure it out myself, and probably better remember what I learned. I like what Garry Edwards said: Vision, competence, and tools. Somebody should put that on a t-shirt and sell it.

First of all Mike, congrats on the purchase of an excellent camera. I'm glad to hear that not only are you pleased with it optically, but that you feel strongly enough about your Autocord to spend the time, effort, and money on a cosmetic restoration. I feel the same way. I have purchased paint and aftermarket leatherette from these fine folks: http://www.micro-tools.com/ Do yourself a favor and order the catalog, as there is many useful items in it. It is true however, that cutting and applying the replacement leatherette takes a experienced hand, and I stink at that kind of stuff.

 

That said, the Autocord leatherette/leather kits from Cameraleather (that's www.cameraleather.com) look wonderful! I don't know about you, but I'm jumping on the phone first chance and ordering the lizard-skin leather kit for my beloved, yet ragged 1958 Autocord. For the first time in a long while, it will look as good as it shoots! Thanks for the great link Mike, as I had never heard of these guys.

For the record Kara, I strongly disagree with Vartan Grigorian that the vintage (or in this case sub-vintage, to coin a phrase) Rolleiflex is only good for "collecting or for occasional use." I use a variety of older TLR's from various makes, and they have proven ultra-reliable...in some cases more so than the modern or newish equipment I have purchased. As a matter of fact, I have -literally- traveled the world with old Rollei's and the like, relying on them for once in a lifetime chances at certain subjects. Certainly, choose the machine that is in the best possible condition, but if you do happen to find a Rollei, Minolta, or other quality TLR with a clean taking lens needing other repairs (for example, needing service to the wind or shutter) don't be afraid to go out on a limb and pick it up. Very often, you can find a "diamond in the rough." My best, sharpest Rollei TLR (an early 50's MX model) was purchased with the knowledge if had a broken iris blade. I didn't even unpack it, but sent it directly to my service person. For the cost of a decent zoom lens I have a really wonderful, very special camera. The Rolleiflex's you are considering are quality, well made cameras; they are worth fixing and using. You *can* be a active, successful and inspirational photographer using old Rolleiflex cameras. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

You have already received the best advice Kara; choose the camera with the best, clearest and cleanest (looking) taking lens. Everything else is a wash, but do yourself a favor and start saving for a aftermarket screen (like a Maxwell) now. It is really needed on these models! I have no problem with a knob wind, crank wind, manual cocking shutters or what have you. Both are excellent, and both are capable of providing incredible images. In the vintage TLR world, always pick the camera with the best glass. Rolleiflex TLR's are cameras you can keep, and shoot for a lifetime. They're not just a beginner camera. In its focal range, a Rollei TLR can compete (image wise) with anything currently available. Shoot for the stars!