sar-photo
Simon Robinson
About a year ago I bought a late 50's Autocord to replace the Mamiya 6 that I had to sell to ward off the bailiffs 
I remember being very impressed with it when it arrived and I still really like it now - except for a couple of things that annoy the hell out of me...
1. I don't like the lever adjustments that control the aperture and shutter speed - I swear they move of their own accord (more likely is that they get knocked when the camera is over my shoulder or when I take it out of the bag etc). I much prefer the little wheel controls the the Rolleiflex's have.
2. It's bloody annoying not being able to select/deselect the 1/500 shutter speed if the shutter has been cocked.
3. Mine has a lightmeter that is pretty good but it's not coupled which makes it a bit of a pain to use.
4. Only a minor thing - the shutter speeds are the old variety - 1/25 1/50 etc
But then there are things that I really love about it...
1. The build quality is excellent. It's a good weight and doesn't feel (or sound) cheap.
2. The focus lever at the front that can be operated esily with either hand - much better than the knob focussing you get on most other TLRs.
3. The film path.
4. The quietness of the shutter and winding on mechanism.
I got myself a Yashica 124 and it resolves some of the issues but introduces some of its own...
Pro - All shutter speeds selectable when the shutter is cocked.
Coupled meter.
Wheel controls for aperture and shutter speed.
Stops down to f32
Con - Winding on mechanism is noisy.
Build quality and feel not as good as the Minolta.
The ground glass seems smaller (must measure it when I get home).
So I am thinking of selling the Minolta and just using the Yashica. What I really want is a combination of the two - I suppose that a Rollei would suffice but it is way out of my budget!
Cheers
Simon
I remember being very impressed with it when it arrived and I still really like it now - except for a couple of things that annoy the hell out of me...
1. I don't like the lever adjustments that control the aperture and shutter speed - I swear they move of their own accord (more likely is that they get knocked when the camera is over my shoulder or when I take it out of the bag etc). I much prefer the little wheel controls the the Rolleiflex's have.
2. It's bloody annoying not being able to select/deselect the 1/500 shutter speed if the shutter has been cocked.
3. Mine has a lightmeter that is pretty good but it's not coupled which makes it a bit of a pain to use.
4. Only a minor thing - the shutter speeds are the old variety - 1/25 1/50 etc
But then there are things that I really love about it...
1. The build quality is excellent. It's a good weight and doesn't feel (or sound) cheap.
2. The focus lever at the front that can be operated esily with either hand - much better than the knob focussing you get on most other TLRs.
3. The film path.
4. The quietness of the shutter and winding on mechanism.
I got myself a Yashica 124 and it resolves some of the issues but introduces some of its own...
Pro - All shutter speeds selectable when the shutter is cocked.
Coupled meter.
Wheel controls for aperture and shutter speed.
Stops down to f32
Con - Winding on mechanism is noisy.
Build quality and feel not as good as the Minolta.
The ground glass seems smaller (must measure it when I get home).
So I am thinking of selling the Minolta and just using the Yashica. What I really want is a combination of the two - I suppose that a Rollei would suffice but it is way out of my budget!
Cheers
Simon
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Some day I will figure out how to put a 3.5 Planar lens on an Autocord body and I will be closest to the perfect camera for me. Until then, every TLR has its strengths and weaknesses.
To deal with the 1/500 issue, cover the lens and fire the shutter. Set the shutter dial, then cock the shutter using the double exposure switch (slide it back, then wind the lever backwards only).
To deal with the 1/500 issue, cover the lens and fire the shutter. Set the shutter dial, then cock the shutter using the double exposure switch (slide it back, then wind the lever backwards only).
Mablo
Well-known
Bought an Autocord last fall. It's been serviced twice so far. First was the usual stiff focus lever and then later the shutter trigger mechanism failed. I've only shot a few rolls with it. I told my service person I'm thinking of selling it but he strongly recommended to keep it.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
Funny, I sold my Yashica 124G and kept my Minolta Autocord. My reasons were:
1. The Autocord's Rokkor lens was better, IMHO.
2. The build quality of the Autocord really impressed me, too. The Yashica--not so much.
3. See No. 1.
The Yashica is a fine machine, and I always liked the results, but I LOVED the results from my Autocord.
Joe
1. The Autocord's Rokkor lens was better, IMHO.
2. The build quality of the Autocord really impressed me, too. The Yashica--not so much.
3. See No. 1.
The Yashica is a fine machine, and I always liked the results, but I LOVED the results from my Autocord.
Joe
sar-photo
Simon Robinson
Thanks for the tip on the double exposure fix Dan. That's one less con for the Autocord!
Simon
Simon
Dan Daniel
Well-known
By the way, if you are adventurous, it isn't hard to get inside the Yashica 124 and put some grease on a couple of gears and really quiet it down. Almost all of the noise comes from one particular spot. The hardest part is getting the leatherette off.
And if you want, I could tell you how to get inside the Autocord's adjustment gears to add some grease to lessen its tendency to move of its own accord. I tend to carry the Autocord in one hand using just the short parts of an Optech strap as safety harness. I thought I was doing htis for speed on the street, but maybe subconsciously this was a way to avoid knocking the levers?
But you are right, the Autocord is built better than the Yashica. I've also had a Ciroflex and a later Roleiflex. Ciroflex> Yashica> Autocord> Rolleiflex. Each one is a solid step up from the previous model, with the Rollei probably being two steps up!
And if you want, I could tell you how to get inside the Autocord's adjustment gears to add some grease to lessen its tendency to move of its own accord. I tend to carry the Autocord in one hand using just the short parts of an Optech strap as safety harness. I thought I was doing htis for speed on the street, but maybe subconsciously this was a way to avoid knocking the levers?
But you are right, the Autocord is built better than the Yashica. I've also had a Ciroflex and a later Roleiflex. Ciroflex> Yashica> Autocord> Rolleiflex. Each one is a solid step up from the previous model, with the Rollei probably being two steps up!
Last edited:
PMCC
Late adopter.
Dan, the gear-head in me was interested in your assessment of the build quality of TLRs you have known. Your ranking seems about right to me, and consistent with what I've read and heard about from repair people.
What about optical performance? How do you rate them on the 'quality' of the photos they make, both at the margins of performance and at the respective peaks of each camera? The way I would ask the question is, is the Rolleiflex (insert model and lens) better than the Autocord's Rokkor? And is the Yashica's Yashinon as good as the Rokkor? Subjective and objective responses from all comers welcome.
What about optical performance? How do you rate them on the 'quality' of the photos they make, both at the margins of performance and at the respective peaks of each camera? The way I would ask the question is, is the Rolleiflex (insert model and lens) better than the Autocord's Rokkor? And is the Yashica's Yashinon as good as the Rokkor? Subjective and objective responses from all comers welcome.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Ah, optical performance- always an objective issue : )
The Ciroflex, obviously, at the bottom. Perfectly OK, and hard to know how much is age, alignment, and original design. But I doubt the three element Wollensak would have ever been considered a great lens.
I've had maybe 9 Yashica-Mats with Yashinons (or Lumaxars), almost all of which I've sold. All in all, I think the Autocord lens is nicer, but there seemed to be more variation in the Yashinons than the Autocords. A couple were excellent, up there with the Rokkors possibly. Maybe the Yashica's flimsier construction and number of units over the years leads to more variation?
Typical for Tessar-type designs, the Yashinons all seemed a bit soft and more so to the edges at wider apertures.
The Autocord's Rokkor is a very good lens. At f/8-11, it is very close to the f/2.8 Xenotar on my Rolleiflex. I've had 6 Autocords in the last year or more, sold four. The way the Autocord is constructed, with the brass helical block and plate securely bolted to it, might explain some of the perceived quality of the lens? No shimming, no adjustment needed. The body casting basically defines the lens axis, and knocking it out is pretty hard to imagine.
At larger apertures, the Rokkor goes soft in the corners. I have been using more and more ISO 100 film for grain and depth of field, so this is what led me to get....
The Xenotar f/2.8 on my Roleiflex 2.8C model is very very good. Some of the shots, I can't imagine anything being better. Different, ok, but not better for crispness and micro-contrast and all that hoo-haa that makes people talk this way about a lens. And yes, out at f/2.8, it is still sharp wherever the plane of focus falls, and holds up well out to the edges.
Understand that I am also a 10-bladed aperture nutcase. I barely use a camera with five, or even eight, be it a Yashica or Autocord. And I am scanning with an Epson v500, not the sharpest scanner around, so there are nuances I could be missing. And, last caveat, I have used only one Rolleiflex.
The Rokkor deserves its reputation. The Yashinon might match or come close to the Rokkor, depending on sample and condition of the body? The Xenotar f/2.8 also deserves its reputation. All in all, I think my build quality scale is the same as thel ens quality scale, but the differences are much smaller.
The Ciroflex, obviously, at the bottom. Perfectly OK, and hard to know how much is age, alignment, and original design. But I doubt the three element Wollensak would have ever been considered a great lens.
I've had maybe 9 Yashica-Mats with Yashinons (or Lumaxars), almost all of which I've sold. All in all, I think the Autocord lens is nicer, but there seemed to be more variation in the Yashinons than the Autocords. A couple were excellent, up there with the Rokkors possibly. Maybe the Yashica's flimsier construction and number of units over the years leads to more variation?
Typical for Tessar-type designs, the Yashinons all seemed a bit soft and more so to the edges at wider apertures.
The Autocord's Rokkor is a very good lens. At f/8-11, it is very close to the f/2.8 Xenotar on my Rolleiflex. I've had 6 Autocords in the last year or more, sold four. The way the Autocord is constructed, with the brass helical block and plate securely bolted to it, might explain some of the perceived quality of the lens? No shimming, no adjustment needed. The body casting basically defines the lens axis, and knocking it out is pretty hard to imagine.
At larger apertures, the Rokkor goes soft in the corners. I have been using more and more ISO 100 film for grain and depth of field, so this is what led me to get....
The Xenotar f/2.8 on my Roleiflex 2.8C model is very very good. Some of the shots, I can't imagine anything being better. Different, ok, but not better for crispness and micro-contrast and all that hoo-haa that makes people talk this way about a lens. And yes, out at f/2.8, it is still sharp wherever the plane of focus falls, and holds up well out to the edges.
Understand that I am also a 10-bladed aperture nutcase. I barely use a camera with five, or even eight, be it a Yashica or Autocord. And I am scanning with an Epson v500, not the sharpest scanner around, so there are nuances I could be missing. And, last caveat, I have used only one Rolleiflex.
The Rokkor deserves its reputation. The Yashinon might match or come close to the Rokkor, depending on sample and condition of the body? The Xenotar f/2.8 also deserves its reputation. All in all, I think my build quality scale is the same as thel ens quality scale, but the differences are much smaller.
Last edited:
graywolf
Well-known
Dan, I am interested in your opinion of the Lumaxar v. Yashinon. I have read that the Lumaxar are slightly better, but mostly from people reporting only two samples (one of each). With your multi-sample experience, what is your opinion?
Unfortunately, I have never used an Autocord. I had a Rolleiflex 2.8E2 Xenotar at one time and from comparing to a friends Planar version, I came to the conclusion that the Planar was a tiny bit sharper, but the Xenotar was contrastier.
If one goes over to the 120 RF Folder forum here, and looks at some of the photos taken with various old folders, one comes to the conclusion that a lot of lenses that people mostly sneer at, take rather nice photos. Also, photographers in the 1930's who mostly shot B&W seemed to prize a creamy smoothness rather than razor sharpness in their lenses.
Unfortunately, I have never used an Autocord. I had a Rolleiflex 2.8E2 Xenotar at one time and from comparing to a friends Planar version, I came to the conclusion that the Planar was a tiny bit sharper, but the Xenotar was contrastier.
If one goes over to the 120 RF Folder forum here, and looks at some of the photos taken with various old folders, one comes to the conclusion that a lot of lenses that people mostly sneer at, take rather nice photos. Also, photographers in the 1930's who mostly shot B&W seemed to prize a creamy smoothness rather than razor sharpness in their lenses.
Steve M.
Veteran
I'd have to agree w/ Dan on the lenses. The Rokkor is an excellent lens, and has quite a bit of that Heliar-like 3D effect on subjects that are in the short/medium range of focus. Like Dan, my 2.8 Xenotar was a heck of a good lens (better than the Rokkor? Not necessarily, but maybe better in it's own way). Unfortunately the camera is really large, so the Autocord gets a nod for being smaller and lighter. Unfortunately, the Autocord doesn't have two important features that I like: a removable focusing screen that you can quickly change, and an ability to put a prism finder on if you anticipate portraits. The Autocord focus screens tend to be dim, and w/ the Rollei models that have removable top shades it is such a neat thing to flick the hinged screen up, dust the mirror clean w/ a sable brush, and slip another focus screen in there. The whole operation takes about 10-20 seconds.
As much as I liked the 2.8 Xenotar I used to have, the 3.5 Planar lenses are my favorites in a TLR. What a super lens, and if you go for an E3 w/ 3.5 Planar you still have a reasonably compact TLR. When you get to the 2.8 varities, size and weight go up more than the 3.5 models.
As much as I liked the 2.8 Xenotar I used to have, the 3.5 Planar lenses are my favorites in a TLR. What a super lens, and if you go for an E3 w/ 3.5 Planar you still have a reasonably compact TLR. When you get to the 2.8 varities, size and weight go up more than the 3.5 models.
dnk512
Well-known
The performance difference between yashinon, rokkor and (dare I say) planar/xenotar is minimal. Yes, there is a different 'look', but all those are very successful performers (condition matters). You may have to view several images under several conditions to decide which you like the most. Cost can be an issue as the planars/xenotars come at a much higher price tag. Only difference I see consistently is the 4 element being less contrasty wide open. Nothing that can not be adjusted digitally or on the enlarger.
So, for me it comes down to the body, its user interface, cost and reliability. The Autocord won. I have three. Will not sell.
So, for me it comes down to the body, its user interface, cost and reliability. The Autocord won. I have three. Will not sell.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Tom, I'm not certain what to say about the Lumaxars. I had one camera where the lens was very good. I had another where it was fine but didn't have the snap of the other version. So I really can't make any definitive statements about them compared to the Yashinons. I know that there are some who claim that the Lumaxars are definitely superior. And I've seen others claim that they are inferior. Go figure....
I am starting to think that the condition of the body and focus rails, and the overall alignment of the lens board, are the bigger determinants of lens performance on the Yashicas. I know that I moved a set of Yashinons from one body to another and its performance went up a bit. My alignment of Yashicas when rebuilding is very primitive, so a repairman with more sophisticated experience would probably be able to offer a more informed opinion.
I am starting to think that the condition of the body and focus rails, and the overall alignment of the lens board, are the bigger determinants of lens performance on the Yashicas. I know that I moved a set of Yashinons from one body to another and its performance went up a bit. My alignment of Yashicas when rebuilding is very primitive, so a repairman with more sophisticated experience would probably be able to offer a more informed opinion.