Best of Bay I TLRs?

Sounds quite comfortable, thanks.

Dang! My Start 66 died after second shot, shutter got busted... Quality issues, makes me think about buying Rolleiflex as "no substitues" option.
 
Over the decades I have owned a Anscoflex, a Mamiya C3, a Rolleiflex 2.8E2, a Super Ricohflex, and just recently a Yashicamat. Every one of those were reliable but the Yashicamat which gave up the ghost on the third roll I put throug it. I do not think the problem was design, just an old camera that probably had a poor repair done to it sometime in the past (the front and crank side Vulcanite were a slightly different pattern than the rest; a sure sign that the camera had been worked on).

Based on those I like the ergonomics of the Rollei and the Yashica best. The Mamiya is a camera that belongs on a studio stand. The only thing wrong with the Automat style control setup, to me, is if you are using a handle mount flash, then one that can be focused with the right hand is nicer.

I also like the shutter/f-stop interlock my rollei had that everyone else seems to dislike. I kind of think that is a legacy of the Ansel Adams crap exposure system, which I hate even with a view camera. Why constantly fiddle with the exposure when the light has not changed a bit?

Also, to me, the reason to use a TLR is the waist level viewfinder, others claim they are unusable without a prism finder. Also, the optics are not all that far different on any of the cameras, an expert with a loupe can tell the difference, but it is kind of hard to see any on a normal print at the middle f-stops, if the lens is not damaged in some way.

A thing that improves the handling of most TLR's is a short shutter release cable. Most of the people I knew who shot TLR's back in the 40's & 50's always had one on the camera. You could wind the crank and set the shutter speed with out letting go of the cable release.

The rolleiflexes have one real problem, they are expensive as heck to have worked on, usually costing more than the lesser brands cost to buy. However, the fit, and finish on 50's era Rolleiflex are second to none. Strangely, as the technology improved later on the workmanship became worse.

In the end it is how you like the handling of the camera, followed by what you can afford. The rest is pretty much BS.
 
Last edited:
I just got my Kalloflex. And though I can see myself liking this camera, it has nothing on the Rolleiflex when it comes to fit and finish. No matter what others say. It may have been called the poor man's Rolleiflex in its day, but that was not necessarily a token of appreciation. Its nicely built, much better than the Flexaret I have, which is more than satisfactory, but its still nowhere near a Rolleiflex in feel. But it is bay I. ;)
 
Agree that nothing beats a nice Rolleiflex for fit and finish; they are also readily (albeit at a price) serviceable. But don't write off Kalloflex too quickly, despite the bad luck of drawing a beater. You can have it serviced, cleaned up and releathered, and a few scratches on the lens won't mean jot. If the internals are up to operational standard, you may be able to enjoy the unique ergonomics of this camera. I bought a known DOA junker, had it fixed up and now I won't part with it.
 
One thing I found that helped with handling a TLR was a grip for the left hand. I could hold the camera steadier, and still use two fingers to do the focusing. And this was with a YashicaMat, and a C330F. I never did like the things hanging from my neck, and the grip provides a flash mount also. Loved the Porrofinders on the Mamiya (metered and non), and would like to get a Rollei with the prism. My Automat Model 1 has an older style hood that has no sportfinder function, and that I miss.

PF
 
Thank you Peter for support, I need patience more. Once again I have to sell everything and buy Rolleiflex, 2.8 probably, cause its my Holy Grail of TLRs.
 
shadowfox said:
Piotr,
If I may ask, what would be the base of this conclusion?
I agree with everything you have written except the above.

I have looked (very carefully) at loads of photos (high and low resolution) from both cameras and I could not find a single shred of proof that Autocord lens is optically more capable (in any visible significance) than the Rikenon on the Diacord or Ricohmatic.

What I know personally, is that when you make a 11x11 inches print from the Ricohmatic negatives, you get an image whose subjects jump at you :)
Click to expand...

this has been my experience also. i dont have a ricohmatic but the diacord negs hold amazing levels of detail. maybe the best for a 4-element lens.

I can see hairs on arms and legs from full body shots in the studio, lovely transition to o.o.f areas also
 
Last edited:
I had a Diacord L a couple of years ago. I cannot say the lens was particularly sharp, just average perhaps. I think I had a bad apple. The sharpest TLR lens in my own experience belongs to Minolta Autocord. Not even my Rolleiflex 3.5F with Planar can beat it.
 
Yikes, more fuel to the fire. As I've said elsewhere in the TLR forum, I'm a fan not a combatant, and like 'em all. Except for the Ikoflex, which sucks. :) I have a new personal rule of thumb which I no doubt will regret venturing here: 1955-56 is the bright line dividing good TLRs from the best ones. The greats are overwhelmingly made in 1956 and later. Check it out: durability, repairability, screen visibility, lens coatings, etc. Let the bidding begin.
 
Mablo said:
I had a Diacord L a couple of years ago. I cannot say the lens was particularly sharp, just average perhaps. I think I had a bad apple. The sharpest TLR lens in my own experience belongs to Minolta Autocord. Not even my Rolleiflex 3.5F with Planar can beat it.
Click to expand...

That could be an indication of a need for a good adjustment by a camera technician. I've so far owned two Diacords and one Ricohmatic 225 (all are equipped with the same taking lens).

I've also sent all of them for CLA and that's the base of my evaluation. In the end, all I need is one since I no longer collect cameras, so I sold the Diacords and kept the Ricohmatic.

5973979611_6797c439fa_z.jpg

* a sample from a recent roll, not a particularly good one I must say, it was a 100-degree day without a shade. Not that easy using a TLR while sweating profusely :D
 
I always, but always believe that if someone has a "Holy Grail" camera, that's what he should buy first, because he'll never get to relax when shooting with anything less. I spent many thousands of dollars buying "second choice" gear before I finally bought my "holy grail" cameras. All four of them. There's the list with my signature.
 
The Yashica models with four element taking lenses and crank wind offer the best value. The 124g's for example are often available in good working condition at reasonably low prices. The Rollieflexes are all excellent of course, but many will require servicing due to age.

I own and use a Kalloflex. It is a nice camera with a sharp lens, but it's not for everyone and it is heavy too. If I had to carry a TLR around on the street for extended periods of time I'd prefer a Yashica. The Kalloflex is also hard to find and many need service these days.

Regarding the Autocord, it is a fine camera, but many need service these days, and collectors are driving the prices to quite unjustifiable levels if one is mainly interesting in a camera for taking pictures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom