nolan woodbury

Try a roll of good old AGFA Pan APX 100 in 120 giving you 12, 2-1/4 prints. This is my favorite B&W print film. It should work very well in your old Rollei, it certainly does in mine.

 

That is one very old camera Jon, but I'm envious...that you got such a neat piece of history for free, and that you're taking the time to experiment with it. I used to do that a lot, and it was most enjoyable. Happy shooting.

Once you get the thread issue figured out Weldon, another option for the 'Mat is the TiltAll tripod. I've been using them (I have one older version, which is heavier, and a new one too, still very nice) for years. The built-in tilt and pan feature is very handy for use with the 6x6 size. Make composing your subject a snap.

Michael, if the glass is unmarred with no fungus or scratches, this is a *excellent* available light camera. I have two of them, and since I can't attach my flash equipment I don't use them on jobs, but for artsy stuff or casual shooting it is splendid. I suggest sending it in to a qualified tech and get it repaired. If you email me privately, I'd be happy to send along info on the people I've used. This is a wonderful, "old world" camera that can produce stunning photography if your willing to put the time into it. Really, these are little jewels that deserve to be saved, restored and used.

I'll probably regret this, responding to such a immature statement gives it more credence than it deserves. Simply stated, you've made a fool out of yourself Bill. "Real" photographers (or those working, take your pick) would never make a blanket statement like that. The worst part about the art of photography? Photo-snobbery...thinking equipment makes the difference, one way or another. Whether I like the square or not makes little difference because the demands of one job are different than another. For the amateur or freelancer I'd say; If it inspires you, then use it, if it doesn't then find something else. Don't believe anyone who tells you your not a real photographer if you don't use a certain format, film size, shape, or color.

Michael asked: "One other question: how reliable have folks found the timing of the Yashica's mechanical shutter to be? Also, I notice that the shutter dial doesn't have click stops at the marked times; can intermediate times be approximated between those marked?"

 

I tried it on one of my camera's Michael, and I can't tell. If I had the right equipment (like a camera tech should) I could check the timing. Maybe your local camera repair shop can help...if not, Mark Hama or Paul Ebel certainly could. The iris opening indeed *is* variable however, which is not always the case. Incidently, the majority of old, knob wind Yashica TLR's I have purchased over the years have not needed a thing but a good cleaning. Amazing! These truly are GREAT old cameras.

To the best of my knowledge, the Yashica A doesn't have a button on the film advance knob. It is simply a matter of turning the knob while carefully watching the red window, and centering the next frame number in it to insure getting all 12 exposures from the roll.

 

The "button advance" seems to have started on the Yashica B. None of my A's have a button, but my B does.To the best of my knowledge, the Yashica A doesn't have a button on the film advance knob. It is simply a matter of turning the knob while carefully watching the red window, and centering the next frame number in it to insure getting all 12 exposures from the roll. The "button advance" seems to have started on the Yashica B. None of my A's have a button, but my B does.

 

Yashica A taking lenses are marked "Yashimar" or "Yashikor" but I admit, I have not heard of the Tashimar. Are you certain that "T" isn't a "Y"? Anyway, its most likely another version of the Yashica triplet lens that was commonly fitted to this camera. It is a good lens Michael, not as sharp corner to corner as a Tessar-type lens but I have found it gives pleasing images on informal portraits when kept between f5.6 to f11. A very warm lens with reasonable sharpness and very decent contrast. All in all, the Yashica A is a very durable camera with good, even surprising optics. You may be shocked just how good the images will look, as many who first use this camera are.

Todd, I agree with you that the Autocord is under-appreciated, however I don't find it to be "far superior" in terms of image quality...at least, not over other front line shooters I have purchased and used from Rolleiflex, Yashica, or Kalloflex.

 

That said, it definitely _is_ underrated when the conversation turns to what a good choice of TLR would be for the photographer looking to get into medium format inexpensively, or someone looking for a compact unit. I do however, have a few thoughts as to why this might be. First of all, the Autocord had a shorter production run than either Yashica or Rolleiflex, although Rollei dwarfs everyone in this regard. The Autocord was produced (roughly) between 1956 to 1965, with some units remaining on camera store shelves until the mid-70's. Where these leftovers, or did Minolta continue to produce small batches? I don't know. Yashica produced TLR's from the early/mid 50's (the first YashicaMat, one of which I have) until the early 80's. The casual photographer might assume the Yashica or Rollei "better" because there are simply more of them. This would be wrong.

 

I have used my Autocords professionally for a few years now, with publishers and art directors usually very happy with the images I submit. I doesn't really bother me that Yashica or Rollei is more popular, or generally sell for higher numbers. What really bothers me is when I see somebody "rate" these cameras in terms of their image quality. #1 Rollei, #2 Minolta, #3 Yashica, etc. Because of the ages of these units, it is impossible to give that type of information and be positive that it is accurate. Several years ago, I conducted a 'seat of the pants" comparison of the different TLR's I had found and generally, the images from the Autocord(s) were more pleasing: richer contrast, better color rendition with "punchier" films, and sharpness rivaled only by Kalloflex or Rolleiflex. Then again, the superior film flatness (no mistaking this) of the Autocord might have more to do with the image quality then we give it credit for.

 

I hope the Autocord remains affordable, so that young MF photographers or anyone looking to get into a compact camera can find and purchase one easily. The astronomical prices of some top-line Rollei models can drive the budding shooter away...for them -perhaps- there is the Autocord. Let the rest believe what they wish. Those who know this camera, use it and enjoy it, know better.

Mind if I squeeze into the conversation here fellas? (smile)

 

Todd, I don't have a Maxwell or aftermarket screen on my Autocord(s) either, although Murray has bugged me endlessly about making the upgrade. Yes, I need to, but in my opinion, it is the old Rollei Automat's that benefit from this upgrade more so than the Autocord. Although...

 

Again, the "Minolta verses Rolleiflex TLR" debate continues to ramble on, but there are good qualities to be found in both units. Rollei fans like Jerry will continue to believe the Minolta isn't a valuable camera (nor worthy of investment, be it for actual purchase or money spent on upgrading) but owners of this camera will argue otherwise. Personally, I cherish all my main-shooting TLR's, but it just so happens that my CdS-III (which by the way came in _considerably_ higher than a aftermarket screen) blows everything else I have (in a TLR) away, save for one camera. Make that two: one Rollei, and another older, beat-up Autocord that just happens to be a real gem. A photo collector would look at that camera and dismiss it as just another old junker, but the images it renders are truly magical. Someday, when I have time (and more dollars than sense) I'll treat it to a full restoration. Until then, its hand on the plow.

 

I'm glad your keeping the Autocord. Yes, it is worth the upgrade, and yes, a valued shooter is worth more than what it might "bring" in the future, money-wise...that is, if your really interested in making photographs and not just impressing other photo snobs with your high dollar toys.

Consider it a blessing in disguise Karl. Sure, no one likes to throw money around or spend it unnecessarily but truth be told your 50-year old Automat was probably due for a full service anyway. My repair/serviceman cleans the lens elements too (when servicing the shutter and iris) and many times the haze which is so commonly attached to that very old glass can be cleaned off, resulting is better contrast and even sharper images. While inside, you can also lube the wind mechanism, test the lens board alignment and check or replace the light seals too. Its a Rolleiflex! A camera of this quality certainly deserves a full service and cleaning in exchange for many more years of stunning images. If your looking for more advice or hunting for a tech, email me privately. I'll be happy to share with you what (little?) I've learned over the years.

Vartan, you sound like you've had some bad experiences with vintage equipment, but let me assure you that the machines in discussion here are not "throw away" units, or beyond repair if they happen to need service or are somehow damaged. True, in both cases you'd (probably) need a donor camera, but do not discount what can be achieved with good used parts and a properly trained serviceperson. I use vintage TLR's and put lots (really, a large amount...over 1000 rolls a year) of film through them. Rollei's, Autocord's, even old Yashica's and Kalloflexes. Good durable equipment. There is indeed life in the vintage TLR! In fact, they seem to be supported better now than they were 10 years ago.

Jeff is right. At $150 each, I'd buy and shoot both of 'em.

 

Mark, I don't have a Rolleicord but I do have Automat models with the Xenar lens fitted to both the V, Va, and the Vb. The Vb is the best of the lot; it's the latest/last Rolleicord and has a removable hood, handy for fitting a eye-level prism. That prism is likely to cost as much as three Rolleicords. The Autocord -if in proper condition- is a fine shooter. Like the Rolleicord its Tessar-type lens will provide tack sharp images on chrome or print film, and with a good CLA and proper care should last a lifetime. In fact, what is even more impressive is that both the Rollei and Minolta already have...they are good enough to last TWO lifetimes, if not more! The Autocord has a lever film winder, the Rollei a knob. The Rollei has the excellent, time tested Synchro-Compur shutter, the Autocord one of three excellent Japanese shutters that Minolta fitted. Expect equal sharpness (given both lenses are in good repair) and -perhaps- a bit more contrast from the Autocord.

 

Both camera's are well built machines, both are capable, enjoyable users. Both can be repaired and serviced. Like I said, for the price of a decent used zoom lens you could have both. That's my advice. Given the vintage of both its impossible to determine the variables because of condition and usage. The Rolleicord may be a much better, sharper shooter then again, just the opposite may be true. Given the law of averages, expect both to perform pretty closely.

Karl, I own and use several versions of the 50's era Automat; a X, MX, and MX-EVS and there are NO red dots or arrows to align with the "START" line on the film backing. It sounds to me like your winding too much film before you close the back, causing you to lose frames. I only wind the take up spool barely one turn before I close the back, then let the film feelers pick up the first frame when the thickness increases with both film and the backing paper. If your camera is malfunctioning, it probably needs a CLA. No big deal. Hope this helps.

Oliver makes some great points. In the newspaper world MF isn't even a topic of conversation anymore...its all 35mm and digital. I've been a working photo journalist (or moto-journalist, for motorcycle magazines) for over 10 years, and I've found if photo quality is important to the magazine, then they are usually receptive to paying for and processing medium format images. That said, I'm shooting more 35mm now then ever; it is very hard to work a crowded convention center with my MF TLR's, although it would be easier to do that kind of shooting with a 645 Mamiya. For sunset portraits and pretty pictures that I can pose and direct at my leisure MF is wonderful. For most other assignments and jobs, 35mm is where it is at.

Good answers here so far. It is very true the weak spot of the YashicaMat series is the film advance. Those that have this camera and use it -to quote my friend Murray Twelves- wind with advance "with care."

 

If it were me, I'd send both to Mark. Fix the Yashica, have him CLA both to insure everything is working properly. With proper lubrication, cleaning and calibration, both will give you years of trouble-free service (the Autocord more so) and excellent images. Again, I think you'll find the Minolta the superior of the two in terms of image quality: corner-to-corner sharpness, and contrast, but I don't want to sell the 'Mat short. I've taken some of my best pictures with the various Yashica lenses over the years. These camera's often have wonderful glass. What is the YashicaMat worth as a parts camera? Not much. Check the prices of "non-working" Yashica TLR's on eBay and I'm sure you'll agree; It may not even fetch a bid over $25.00. If the taking lens is in good repair the camera is worth fixing and should be fixed, its not a throw-away item. Either, or both are great medium format camera's...be it where you start, or finish

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

Kindly ignore the question portion of my post, as the "powers that be" at Photo.Net have kindly solved the problem. Kindly ignore the question portion of my post, as the "powers that be" at Photo.Net have kindly solved the problem. Thanks to those who contacted me with solutions and suggestions.

In the three + years I've been a member of the MFD, I've found it to

be an invaluable source of information and entertainment. Over this

time period I have also met (through the list) many wonderful people

and made some life-long friendships as well. One individual -

Hartley "Martin" Michaels- read one of my posts in which I made the

comment that I had spent years searching for a ultra-rare Yashica B

TLR. Imagine my surprise when Martin emailed me with the news that he

had not only found a Yashica B, but that he had secured it for me (if

I was still interested) and even arranged shipment! The "B" now

proudly fills the once gaping hole in my Yashica TLR collection.

Public thanks to Martin, and all the great photographers who frequent

this forum. I had never net Martin, never corresponded with him. I'm

overwhelmed! The camera is lovely.

 

My question: Just over six weeks ago, my long-time ISP went belly up

and I was forced to sign with a new provider, thus gaining a new

email address. Although I've tried to find a solution, I was forced

to "re-subscribe" to the MFD, leaving my archive of posts and my

gallery under my old information. I guess I'm not net savvy enough to

figure out how to "swap" the info over to my new area. Can anyone

tell me the procedure?

It's been my experience Jeremy, that there can be a pretty wide variance between the popular Japanese TLR's: Yashica, Minolta, and even the multi-lens Mamiya's. Basically, some just shoot "softer" than others, but get a good one (not that hard, all of them are "good" some are just exceptional) and you'll be amazed at what a camera costing between $100 and $175 can offer. Like the others, I suggest scrapping the idea of an on-board meter, and invest in a decent hand held unit, or use the one in your quality 35mm for quick exposure checks. The CdS meter in the later Autocord's are great, but batteries are tough to find, and so are the camera's themselves.

 

You can also get a decent older Rolleiflex/'Cord for that money, but it'll probably need more thrown at it for a CLA. I have several good working Japanese TLR's than came on the cheap, but no Rollei's; they either were expensive to begin with or eventually ended up that way. The Rollei TLR's are wonderful to handle and use though, and produce exceptional results...on par (but not quite as good) as my best Minolta Autocord's. You may need to purchase a camera or three to find your favorite, as there is no shortage of opinions here as to what that should be. Good luck-

It sounds like a critical focus problem. The above suggestions (out of whack ground glass/taking lens, ect) are just as valid as mine, but your problem may be simpler than that, and easier to fix. After seeing how Kalloflex and older Rollei Automats attach the built-in magnifier I realize just how floppy and un-reliable the cheaper/stand alone units with a small spring and hinge assembly can get. I had one Autocord with a worn magnifier that never returned to the same position twice in a row, causing many focusing problems. I solved it by robbing a tighter unit from a parts camera I had. Soft focus on a YashicaMat usually means a) your not in focus or b) something is wrong with the lens. Mark Hama in Georgia is a Yashica whiz and should be able to nail and fix your problem in no time flat.

I agree with you Chris, that one should check the pos/neg history and avoid sellers with spotty records, but a couple of negative or neutral feedbacks doesn't always mean the seller is un-trustworthy. Example: I bid-on and won what looked to be a pretty solid Minolta SRT 101 and when the camera arrived, it was a total piece of junk. I didn't ask for a refund, but I did write the seller to tell him I wasn't happy, and left him neutral feedback...then he left ME neutral feedback! Basically, my feedback rating was spotted for revenge, after I paid my money in good faith. I know of some sellers who won't leave negative feedback for fear of the same, so what is the use? Truth be known, a negative or neutral feedback from time to time may only mean the seller/buyer isn't afraid to speak his mind.

I agree with you Todd, for the most part eBay is a pretty handy deal. I've been using it for a few years now and have only had two bad experiences...just about on par with used camera stores or buying stuff through the newsgroups.

 

eBay is handy in more ways than just buying and selling gear; I use it as a search engine as well. Many is the time I've gotten an email from someone asking about this camera, a book, or a motorcycle part (whatever) and I've been able to locate an identical item on eBay (usually with pics) and pages load pretty quickly too. Its a lot more popular now than it was two or three years ago, but the informed buyer can still obtain a good deal. eBay is a solid, valuable part of the internet, IMHO.

Roger, this "discussion" is getting nowhere, and I suspect that Peter -the original postee on this thread- may have quit reading the responses days ago. Be that as it may, you've clearly made your point regarding your opinion of Minolta's, Yashica's, ect/all and I respect that. What I post in terms of information are facts I've gathered myself, what I post as opinion is information or insight I've heard from others. The fact is, different cameras and different glass can give different results...be it pleasing to one and not to the other is totally up to the individual. In my case, the work the comes from my Autocords, Rolleis, Kalloflex, 4x5, 35mm...all of it, is subjected to the hard glare of different publishers and art directors. Some of it is thrown back at me, but much of it is used. Surprising (to you? not me) are the number of slides taken with the Minolta Autocord picked for publication. Even more amazing is how that can be accomplished considering the soft corners and the burden of working with those screwy f-stop and shutter speed controls! Seriously Peter, Roger, and all; to each his own. Shoot what you like and like what you shoot, if you don't then get something else.

I'm sorry Roger, but you'll never get me to agree that a Rollei TLR is "a better camera in every way" than a proper Minolta Autocord, Kalloflex (perhaps the argument could be made here however?) or even a YasicaMat, because plenty of us have simply discovered otherwise..pet camera or not. The Autocord for example, offers better film flatness and a well cared for/preserved Rokkor lens is as sharp as any Tessar/Planar of that era. I do agree however, coatings and techniques improve with time, but you mentioned "Old TLR's" and that's pretty much what I'm about, with many different models and brands my user collection; lots of Rollei's too. Planar equipped E, F. GX better than a Jena/Opton Tessar or Xenar? Maybe, maybe not. That's my point. It very well may take Peter 10-15 camera's to find out for himself.

No offense Jon, but your response to this question bugs the heck out of me. I say that because I've spent many $$ and even more time comparing most or all of the camera's you mentioned and there is no way that I could consider one "better" or nicer" than the other...at least in terms of optical performance. Properly cared for and close to original in condition the Automat "X" will produce images indistinguishable from a 2.8F or a E2...if not better. In dealing with glass this old, how can you say one will be better than the other? Its impossible. This is not to say the later Rollei TLR's don't have some desirable features; removable hoods for fitting eye-level prisms, 220 capability, provisions for fitting a Rolleifix, etc. The early Automat's are better optically than you think, even it takes a good bit of looking sometimes to find a "special" one.

There is precious little information on this camera Joe...be it from vintage photo magazines or surfing websites. From what I have been able to gather, there is little or no difference between the Automat, K2 or just plain Kalloflex, as all of the camera's are simply badged as "Kalloflex" I have three of them (I need help, I know) with varying serial numbers, and they are identical: Prominar 75mm taking lens and a Seikosha "MX" shutter. I have a photo magazine ad from 1958, and the camera shown in the ad matches every Kalloflex I've seen, and I believe this was near the end of the production run. As for price differences, I'd say that would have to do with overall condition, the quality of the auction presentation, or the number of real Kalloflex attachments that are included. I assume your talking about the prices found on eBay?

 

The last one I found came with a "Automat K2" box, but again, it's the same camera. Maybe I have 3-K2's? I doubt it, but who knows? If anyone has more information about the Kalloflex I'd love to hear it.

 

For what its worth, it is a great unit with superior optics and a ruggedly built chassis. Probably the nicest quality production TLR ever.