_larky
Well-known
Hello.
I'm not closer to any idea of what to get. So this weekend I hit London to see what I can find. Along with the back falling off my current TLR, it also appears to focus about 5 feet behind what I told it to, from about 5 feet away.
I'm not closer to any idea of what to get. So this weekend I hit London to see what I can find. Along with the back falling off my current TLR, it also appears to focus about 5 feet behind what I told it to, from about 5 feet away.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
+1 but I get crazy sharp images with my Xenar lens.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
If you are going to get a chance to handle a variety of cameras, I bet the answer will come pretty quickly. Some models may not be available, some may have obvious problems. Not to be silly, but in a way buying a used camera in person can be like getting a kitten. One just finally jumps up and leaps into your arms and says, 'Take me home!'
I would suggest that a Yashica-Mat is about as low as you want to go on the quality of build scale. So handle one or two and get a feel for what a good build is like. Focus should be smooth, focusing screen should have some pop to it, the shutter release should have a smooth feel, and winding should feel solid (Yashicas can be noisy, but it shouldn't feel as if you are grinding something).
Check lenses- open the aperture, set to B, open the back and fire and hold open while looking through.
It'd be good to carry a test roll of film, and a spare spool. Load the film and run it through its paces. When you get to frame 12, open the back and look at the paper- '12' should be at about the center of the film gate. This should give you some idea if the counter mechanism is working.
Any of the cameras people have recommended will do you well, as long as you get one that works and has a clean lens and is aligned ok. Oh, be prepared to replace the light seals on the back.
Happy hunting!
I would suggest that a Yashica-Mat is about as low as you want to go on the quality of build scale. So handle one or two and get a feel for what a good build is like. Focus should be smooth, focusing screen should have some pop to it, the shutter release should have a smooth feel, and winding should feel solid (Yashicas can be noisy, but it shouldn't feel as if you are grinding something).
Check lenses- open the aperture, set to B, open the back and fire and hold open while looking through.
It'd be good to carry a test roll of film, and a spare spool. Load the film and run it through its paces. When you get to frame 12, open the back and look at the paper- '12' should be at about the center of the film gate. This should give you some idea if the counter mechanism is working.
Any of the cameras people have recommended will do you well, as long as you get one that works and has a clean lens and is aligned ok. Oh, be prepared to replace the light seals on the back.
Happy hunting!
regularchickens
Well-known
I vote for the first one you find that has a four-element, Tessar-class lens and is in fully working and lubricated condition.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I'm not telling, I don't need the competition!
olleorama
flasher extraordinaire
I like my seagull 4A. Not really Rollei, but does its job and it was cheap too.
Not really Rollei, but does its job and it was cheap too.
David Murphy
Veteran
The Autocord is a good choice because it's light and a decent camera optically, but collectors have now doubled or tripled the price on these lately. The Rolleicord is great too because it's very light and the Tessar or Xenar models are sharp. The 'cord is a well made camera and not too expensive.
I once had a Seagull. The interior metal surfaces that contacted the film were machined without having had the sharp edges broken. In machinist parlance this means the surfaces cut like sharp knives' - both fingers and film. It wasn't that bad on the fingers, but it scratched the hell out of film. Typical work from a factory with poor quality control. Sadly, this is not a recommended camera.
I once had a Seagull. The interior metal surfaces that contacted the film were machined without having had the sharp edges broken. In machinist parlance this means the surfaces cut like sharp knives' - both fingers and film. It wasn't that bad on the fingers, but it scratched the hell out of film. Typical work from a factory with poor quality control. Sadly, this is not a recommended camera.
Last edited:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Just kidding of course. There are a load of different TLRs to be had. None perfect of course, depends on one's tastes. Not even a Rolleiflex is perfect. (for instance I agree with those who feel that the spreading of the focusing and winding mechanisms to either side of the body is not a good idea ergonomically)I'm not telling, I don't need the competition!
I disagree that a TLR is not suitable for hiking, they are not that big and heavy, its not as if they are view cameras. I sometimes carry two, again it depends on one's preferences.
Of the more available options, I'd choose the Autocord. Its well built, its lens is from what I've seen very good, and its ergonomics appeal to me. The focusing arm may be a bit flimsy, but I very much like the principle of an arm beneath the lens which you can achieve full travel in a fraction of the time most other mechanisms can. My Flexaret uses the same principle, and I prefer it to most other solutions.
David Murphy
Veteran
A lightly built TLR is an excellent carry around or hiking camera - generally lighter and more compact that many 35mm film SLR's.
olleorama
flasher extraordinaire
I don't agree with the statement about seagulls being crudely made. I think modern made ones are more than okay. Mine is every bit as good finish wise as a Yashica I sold, and as a two other japanese tlrs I own. The lens is far beyond 'lomo' or 'Holga' too, stopped down to f/8 it is satisfyingly sharp corner to corner. I think I paid $50 for mine, it's made in 2006.
I use the seagull and a bessa R2 (50 cron + 35 summitar) as my travel kit. Usually pack down a flash too.
For hiking, the seagull would suffice. I used to hike a lot when I was younger, and routinely schlepped along a hasselblad with lenses. The negs were worth it. Today I'm fitter, but just too damn lazy to bother with anything heavier than a TLR. Last longer hike a did was last year in the fall, 10 days over tundra and fells, only had a hexar AF and a ricoh gr-d II, missed my tlr every step of the trip.
I use the seagull and a bessa R2 (50 cron + 35 summitar) as my travel kit. Usually pack down a flash too.
For hiking, the seagull would suffice. I used to hike a lot when I was younger, and routinely schlepped along a hasselblad with lenses. The negs were worth it. Today I'm fitter, but just too damn lazy to bother with anything heavier than a TLR. Last longer hike a did was last year in the fall, 10 days over tundra and fells, only had a hexar AF and a ricoh gr-d II, missed my tlr every step of the trip.
gliderbee
Well-known
I have the Yashica-Mat 124 (non-G) and it's indeed much sturdy and better built then the 124G; it feels (and imho _is_) less "tin can" then the G-version (I had the G-version before and sold it).
I also have the Minolta Autocord and the Mamiya C330. The Yashica-Mat is a perfectly fine camera that gives great results, as is the Autocord. The C330 is another kind: heavier, sturdier and of course the interchangeable lenses.
Stefan.
David Murphy
Veteran
I've owned both the 124 and 124G. The 124 is nicely made, but I found the optics so-so. The 124G's are very pretty cameras, many are in very good condition or almost new (for some reason) which is nice. I'm sure the Seagulls have had their problems ironed out (mine was an older model I think, but new-old-stock) - I may try another sometime.
I find that the Mamiya line is quite powerful, but really in another class than the fixed lens TLRs we are mostly discussing in some sense due to it's interchangeable lenses. It's also heavy and bulky (a great studio or luggable camera however)
I find that the Mamiya line is quite powerful, but really in another class than the fixed lens TLRs we are mostly discussing in some sense due to it's interchangeable lenses. It's also heavy and bulky (a great studio or luggable camera however)
Last edited:
andreios
Well-known
I'd suggest bring a camera that you know, or at least one that is operated similarly than the one you already have. I mean - I've had a Rolleiflex for some time, than added a Rolleicord, and lately I somehow bought a Minolta Autocord - which is a fine camera, mind you, but the different way of focusing drives me mad sometimes - as I grasp in vain for the "missing" focusing knob on the side of the Autocord - or move the focus when trying to find the shutter lever under the taking lens (as on the Rolleicord but NOT on the autocord)...