Twin Lens Shootout

[hefty]

I have more TLR cameras than I really want at the moment (don't worry, I'm not expecting sympathy for that statement) and after Christmas at least two (maybe three) must go in order to replenish my camera gear slush fund.

The contenders are (left to right) a Rolleicord III, an Ikoflex IIa, a Microflex, a Rolleiflex 3.5E and a Yashica-Mat.

The Rolleicord I've had for around 20 years (my first medium format camera), although it spent about ten of them in a cupboard when I discovered digital cameras. It came back into use around 2 years ago and it was serviced by Rollei at the factory before being laid up - it works like new. The Yashica-Mat I bought by pure chance around a year ago and immediately loved; it hasn't been serviced but then it's never appeared to need it (although I did replace the light seals on the film door when I first got it). The Microflex came recently from eBay as a spares/repairs camera (very cheap) and it's been completely overhauled (not cheap) - all seems well, but it's untested with film as I haven't had much time in the last few weeks.

Last Sunday I went to a camera fair to hunt down a Microflex lens cap (and found one!) but ended up coming home with the Rolleiflex, because I wanted to see what the fuss is all about, and the Ikoflex; simply because it enchanted me. It's a beautiful camera to behold and I was smitten at first fondle (although it has a couple of unusual quirks that may or may not grow on me in actual use).

Neither of the new cameras has been tested with film and the Ikoflex certainly needs a service as the focus is too stiff. Both have shutters that sound about right to my ear, but I have yet to discover whether there are any film transport problems. I'm not expecting any though, as they both appear to be in pretty good shape overall. If I end up keeping the Ikoflex then I'll get it serviced; with the Rolleiflex I'll follow the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" school of thought that has applied to the Yashica-Mat.

The contest will take place over the holiday period (assuming my film arrives in time) with a shoot-out. I'll be putting a roll of Fuji Reala 100 through each camera, as that's my most used emulsion.

The idea is to take two shots of six scenes with each camera. Just in case the first shot goes horribly wrong at some point - almost inevitable with the Rolleicord taking part, due to it's non-existent interlock combined with my woeful memory.

The first scene will be a shot of the other four cameras each time, it doubles as an identifier as to which camera shot which negatives when they come back from the lab. This will be a tripod shot, probably at medium-wide aperture (f/5.6-8 or so) and naturally lit.

The other five scenes are still pretty much undecided and I'm open to suggestions. I want a broad spread so the lenses get used both wide open and closed down, and at various distances. I won't be wasting any on charts and brick walls as this is predominantly a test of which lens takes the prettiest picture. There should probably be a landscape and a portrait in there somewhere I guess.

I've already decided the Rolleiflex, although not perfect, is the best when it comes to ergonomics. Having said that, every camera here has something about it that I uniquely like - even the Rolleicord. It has the focus knob on the right where it feels so much more natural to me - all the others make me focus with the left hand. It's a small point but it all gets taken into account.

I'm expecting to like the results from the Rolleiflex and the Microflex the best, although I'm prepared to be surprised. The Xenar on the Rolleicord and the Yashinon on the Yashica are lenses that I'm familiar with (albeit not tested back-to-back before) and know to be superb, so the bar is already set high. Also, I'm basing my guesswork largely on the evidence of other peoples' photos that I've looked at on the net (several on this forum), so it's not exactly a foolproof plan. The Ikoflex's Tessar is sort-of familiar to me as I used a Super Ikonta of similar vintage for a while. If this Tessar is as good as the one on the Super Ikonta then I rule no winner out.

I'll be keeping the two winners of the contest (maybe three if it's a close run thing). I'll be quite sad to see any of them go but I don't like owning cameras that I know I won't use - I can see me taking two to an event (especially if it's an indoor / outdoor one and different films are required concurrently) but three's pushing it and more than that is really out of the question unfortunately. Mind you, I said at the start of last year I was giving up 35mm for good and sticking purely to digital and 120 film from now on; well I ended up shooting a couple of rolls of 35mm this year anyway (and kept a couple of cameras for sentimental reasons) so I reserve the right to modify or even cancel this year's resolution.

That's my photographic goal for this winter anyway. I'm quite a fairweather shooter with film so it'll be nice to get this sorted out now, before Spring rolls around and I stagger out of the house blinking at a barely-remembered Sun and looking for things to photograph.

So would anybody like to see the results in about a month or so?

 

[FrankS]

I have a Rolleiflex E (version 2, I think) with 75mm f3.5 Planar. It is amazing. I boldly and confidently predict yours as the "winner".

I'd use a wider aperture in order to see a greater difference in the results.

 

[hefty]

I intend doing two scenes fully open, two at mid apertures (where I most frequently shoot), and two at small apertures. I'll have to wait until the categories are decided before figuring which is which though.

I have a sneaking suspicion you're right about the Rolleiflex but I'll wait and see. The Microflex should offer it some stiff competition - there's a Taylor Hobson lens there and if anyone can give a Zeiss a bloody nose...

 

[dfatty]

I definitely would be interested in seeing the results. After a really bad GAS attack I bought a bunch of TLRs this year, and they're all still so new to me (only run maybe 1 or 2 rolls through each) that I haven't been able to identify the differences in the lenses. I hadn't thought to run a comparison like this, that's a great idea.

 

[maddoc]

My Rolleiflex 3.5 E (Zeiss Planar lens) just came back from service done by Harry Fleenor and feels and works like new. 🙂 This and additionally a bright new Maxwell screen makes me wanting to use the camera much more than before.

 

[charjohncarter]

Don't sell the MicroFlex, too cool.

 

[hefty]

My heart says Microflex and Ikoflex, my head says Rolleiflex and Microflex. Either way, unless the Microflex behaves appallingly in the test it's odds-on favourite to be one of those staying. 🙂

 

[hefty]

Update

Update

I had my delivery of film today and I've shot the five rolls of Reala as intended. They are now safely tucked up in a Jiffy bag, ready to post to the lab on Monday morning. Don't know if they'll be back before Christmas or not, but they're usually pretty good - around 48 hours turnaround (post them Monday, get them back Wednesday as a general rule; but I'll forgive them parties and hangovers at this time of year).

With the above in mind I thought I'd update on how I found the cameras to behave during the shoot. The condensed version is: The Rolleicord met with no mishaps, but the Rolleiflex did (shutter stuck open on frame 9 and took a couple of wind/fires to clear) and I'm pretty sure the Ikoflex did too (loading issue, my fault but I won't know for sure until the negs come back). The Microflex worked well but has an abysmally dim screen, and I barely remember using the Yashica; meaning it did everything right with no fuss.

The longer version is this:

The Rolleicord is very easy to load - it's built to Rollei standards after all, and I have no problem lining up start arrows on film to marks on the body. The Yashica-Mat and the Microflex have similar loading sequences which suits me fine to be honest. The Rolleiflex has its clever semi-auto load, but I think the one or two seconds it would save me in loading time are more than made up for in the time taken to release the Rolleiflex from the leech-like grip of its case. The Ikoflex has a system whereby you wait for a number 1 to appear in a red window on the base, then manually reset the counter. This is further complicated by you having to shoot/wind beyond 12 exposures before you can change the counter again. I'm sure it's something you'd get used to but I can't imagine ever preferring it to the simpler arrows>marks set up. I couldn't properly see the numbers through the window on the Ikoflex and I have a sneaking suspicion I started on frame 2, hence I wouldn't be surprised if the negs come back with some spacing issues and half the last shot missing. I will make allowances as it was my fault.

The Rolleiflex and the Microflex both have quick-release film doors, which are far preferable to having doors flapping around when loading/unloading. The Ikoflex opens backwards (i.e.. hinge at the bottom) but doesn't feel compromised for doing so when compared to the Rolleicord and the Yashica-Mat.

The spool holders on both Rolleis are nicely built with a good positive action, as are they on the Ikoflex. The ones on the Microflex have the nicest action though - beautiful weighting and superbly machined. The ones on the Yashica are cheap, scratchy and too heavily sprung - they do the job required just fine but there's none of the inner glow you get when you handle something perfectly crafted. People who view cameras as mere tools probably wouldn't care, but for many others those sorts of things count heavily.

While we have the bonnets open (so to speak) I'll just mention that the Rolleiflex and the Microflex have baffled lens chambers whereas the other three have flat sides painted matt black. All five cameras feature flat springs under each reel to minimise any chances of spools unraveling.

The two Rolleis and the Microflex feature a neat sliding bar arrangement to lock and unlock the film door. The Ikoflex has a sturdy button-operated latch (also nice), and the Yashica-Mat has a plastic wheel attached to a pressed (as opposed to machined) latch. All work just fine but only the Yashica threatens to take the skin off your knuckles in the process.

I ignored the Rolleiflex's meter for the sake of this test and took a reading with my usual meter, which I then transferred to each camera. The Yashica-Mat, Ikoflex, Rolleiflex and Microflex all use two wheels to adjust aperture and shutter speed (the Rolleiflex and Microflex can additionally link the values to an EV scale, giving you Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority modes in all but name). On all four cameras the chosen values are displayed in a window above the viewing lens. The Microflex has the biggest window and is the easiest to read in low light, although the Yashica-Mat also deserves credit for well considered use of fonts and backgrounds. There's nothing between the Rolleiflex and the Ikoflex, both being adequate if not class-leading. The Rolleicord uses two levers at the sides of the taking lens and the chosen values are displayed just above them, meaning you have to look in two places to get a comprehensive overview of what's happening. This isn't actually as annoying as it sounds most of the time, but having them grouped into an upper window is better. The Yashica-Mat actually felt the most responsive of the quintet with the most pronounced indents at each value - this may be because it's a 70's vintage machine rather than a 50's vintage one though? The Copal shutter on the Yashica-Mat sounds the nicest of the five too (although the Rolleiflex and Ikoflex could probably both do with a service which might change that result).

When it comes to focusing the Rolleiflex wins hands-down with the biggest, brightest screen. It's the easiest to compose on too. When you add in the eye-level focus feature and the fact that the hood cuts out the most extraneous light it really is in a league of its own in this company. The Yashica-Mat screen doesn't have the eye-level focusing and it's not as big, but it's pretty bright and very easy to use with the clearest grid lines. The Ikoflex is almost identical in performance to the Yashica-Mat but without the grid lines. Also the hood on the Ikoflex is a little too complicated for quick erecting and folding. The Ikoflex has the shortest focus throw (about 90 degrees) by some margin, making accurate focusing harder than on the other four (all somewhere around the 270 degree mark). The Rolleicord has a very dim screen indeed but redeems itself by having the focusing knob on the right hand side where it feels more natural to me. The Microflex was by far the worst of the bunch with a screen that would embarrass some pre-war cameras. If I do keep this camera then I know what'll be getting upgraded. The actual focusing action is lovely - probably the best of the lot so it seems doubly a shame to hamstring it with such a poor screen.

It should be pointed out that the Rolleiflex, Yashica-Mat and Ikoflex all have field lenses (fresnel screens) incorporated as standard, whereas the Rolleicord and Microflex do not.

In terms of shutter action I've already mentioned that the Yashica-Mat has the nicest sound, it also ties first with the Microflex and Rolleiflex in terms of feel. It loses a point though for having a Leica-style cable release attachment rather than a regular plunger type (a bit too fiddly I find). The Rolleiflex gains a point for having a lock to enable timed exposures without having to use a remote release. The Ikoflex release has a nice feel but is oddly positioned on top of the camera where fitting the cable release is a job for nimbler fingers than mine. The Rolleicord requires you to cock the shutter yourself and release via a nudge to the cocking lever - not particularly intuitive and almost encourages camera shake. The Prontor shutter on the Microflex "only" runs to 1/300 seconds , compared to the shutters on the other four cameras which all reach 1/500 seconds (although at this age there's probably not that much difference). The actual shutter speed markings follow the modern scale (1/30, 1/60, etc) on the Rolleiflex, Microflex and Yashica-Mat; the older scale (1/25, 1/50, etc) on the Ikoflex and Rolleicord.

The shutter blades on the Rolleiflex actually stuck open on the 9th frame, indicating the camera does need a service after all.

The Rolleiflex, Yashica-Mat and Microflex all incorporate a lever wind that cocks the shutter when reversed. The Ikoflex has a knob wind which cocks the shutter as you wind. The Rolleicord has a knob wind and you cock the shutter yourself - no interlock between the two so expect unintentional double exposures unless you keep a close eye on the frame counter. The Rolleiflex and the Microflex both allow you to bypass the interlock to take intentional double exposures. The Microflex was probably the quietest, closely followed by the Rolleiflex and the two knob-wind models. The Yashica-Mat sounds like somebody twirling an old fashioned football rattle in comparison, but all five seem perfectly solid in performance.

In general the Rolleiflex is the heaviest and the Rolleicord the lightest; but it's not a huge spread and they all feel quite comfortable to hold. The Rolleis and the Ikoflex have impeccable fit and finish, the Microflex close behind them but with just a little less finesse in certain areas. The Yashica features many plastic-fantastic parts and feels comparatively poorly made, however, experience has taught me that appearances can be deceptive and that the Yashica is actually a pretty sturdy little beast.

If I may be excused a car analogy it would be this:

The Rolleiflex is a Mercedes-Benz from the days when engineers ruled the roost - everything is innovative and exquisitely thought out. It's built to last a lifetime and probably several more beyond if looked after properly. The Rolleicord is also a Mercedes-Benz, just a more prosaic model - a W123 taxicab to the the Rolleiflex's 300SL Gullwing. Being simpler though it'll be one of the few things to outlive even the Rolleiflex in all likelihood.

The Ikoflex is a British Leyland car, built to BMW standards and styled by Pininfarina. It certainly doesn't lack imagination, but some of the innovations feel like they're there for the sake of being clever rather than serving a purpose (Hydragas suspension, quartic steering wheels, talking dashboards - sound familiar?). There's no complaints when it comes to fit and finish - the build quality is easily the equal of anything else here. And it does look gorgeous (and has by far the best fitted case too). Probably something like an Austin Westminster then.

The Yashica-Mat is a Datsun Cherry. People may mock them but they work just fine at what they do and they're surprisingly resilient to abuse. Everything just works, and what it lacks in refinement it makes up for by just getting on with the job in hand with minimum fuss. A very likeable camera to use in general.

The Microflex is a Jaguar. A great design let down for want of a hap'porth of tar (the appalling screen and the Prontor shutter in this case, rather than dodgy electric seats and spontaneously bursting heater matrixes). But it's a special Jaguar with a Rolls-Royce engine grafted into it. I've never owned a Taylor Hobson lens on any camera before but I've always envisaged them as the Rolls Royce of lens makers (just like Angenieux is the Bugatti). This is the camera to take to the paddock at Goodwood, and I hope to be doing just that next year.

That's my findings for now anyway; if I think of anything else I'll post another update, otherwise I'll post again when the results come back.

 

[PMCC]

Great field report, hefty. Both useful and a good read. Maybe I'll add some of my own -- Autocord, Diacord, Ricohmatic 225, Kalloflex -- to a future such exercise. No current plans to thin the herd, but just for fun. My little herd are mostly Toyotas, and one Charolais.

 

[Mablo]

Being a TLR buff I just loved to read this. Can't wait for the results. The Mercedes-flex will definitely be in the front row but it will be very interesting to see the stopped down results for other contenders.

 

[hefty]

Thanks for the compliments, I'm really looking forward to seeing the results once they come back from the lab. I'm still quite open minded about which lens will be the best performer, but I have to admit that on paper the Rolleiflex does look favourite.

I've remembered one more detail I left out of the last post: The Ikoflex and Rolleicord both feature 10 bladed irises, the other three cameras have 5 bladed ones. At least one of the test shots I took had some specular highlights in the background so I'll be able to compare the various starburst effects.

 

[wintoid]

Do any of these not bend the film prior to the pressure plate? I know the Mamiya C series don't, but curious whether any other TLRs don't. They say (although I've never really had a problem), that film left in a Rolleiflex ends up bent, and then when you advance it, you are capturing an image on a non-flat piece of film.

 

[hefty]

All five cameras tested here bend the film before the pressure plate. I could see that possibly being a problem if the camera was left to sit with a part-used roll of film for some time, however, I tend to load a roll and then shoot it straight away so I've never encountered any flatness issues with a TLR.

 

[Mablo]

Minolta Autocord would be one that doesn't bend the film. It drops down nice and straight on the pressure plate. But as Hefty said, it is not a problem unless you keep a film in the camera for a longer period.

 

[PMCC]

Another one that has a straight film path from supply roll to pressure plate is the Ricohmatic 225. Along with the Autocord, it also has lever-operated helicoid focus (in the Ricoh's case, durable dual steel levers), flim chamber light baffles, crank-wind film advance with auto-shutter cocking, and refined examples of coated 4 element tessar-type taking lenses.

Edit: My early Autocord has a 10 bladed iris, later models have 8 blades. My Ricohmatic has a 5 blade iris, and an uncoupled selenium meter which is alive and kicking. Autocords came in various flavors, meterless (my own preference) as well as with selenium or CdS meters in later models. It's been my personal observation that the selenium meters in Japanese cameras from the 50s (?) - 60s seem to have fared better than the ones provided in German cameras from the same period. But they all tend to be more trouble than they are worth to use, so I like meterless better (possibly excepting the few coupled meter models).

 

[archeophoto]

That's interesting. My Yashica-Mat LM has 10 blades. Does anybody know when Yashica changed this?

I've remembered one more detail I left out of the last post: The Ikoflex and Rolleicord both feature 10 bladed irises, the other three cameras have 5 bladed ones. At least one of the test shots I took had some specular highlights in the background so I'll be able to compare the various starburst effects.

 

[hefty]

That's interesting. My Yashica-Mat LM has 10 blades. Does anybody know when Yashica changed this?

I can't tell you when it changed but my Yashica-Mat is one of the very last made in the early 70's, consequently it features parts from the 124 and 124G but without the meter or 220 film provision. The basic Yashica-Mat had a very long production run and was subject to numerous changes throughout, hence an early one (made at the same time as your LM) would differ quite a lot from the last models made.

 

[hefty]

Microflex case

Microflex case

Assuming the Microflex stays, I'm going to have to sort out a case for it as it's the only one naked at the moment.

I've seen the original fitted case but wasn't particularly fond of it, so I'll probably get something more modern with better padding (when I use cameras I rarely leave the case on, just a strap. The case is more for transportation and storage).

Does anyone know of a (preferably British Racing Green but I'm not holding my breath) nice bag that is waterproof and can take a TLR with just a hood, a few filters and a few rolls of film? I don't want anything too big, and I'm really after an over-the-shoulder type.

 

[hefty]

Results

Results

Sorry for the delay, the negatives actually arrived back on new year's eve and were scanned in on the same day. Since then I've spent a long time studying them on the computer and I've made several prints which I have shown around to family and friends for opinions.

The upshot is that there was no clear winner, with each camera offering a roughly similar performance (slightly surprising as I expected the Rolleiflex's Planar to be noticeably superior). If anything, the Micronar on the Microflex delivered the most consistent performance and (to my eyes) gave the best colour rendition - the portrait shots wide open at f/3.5 in particular favoured the Microflex, with every single viewer of the printed results picking it as the most pleasing (nobody other than me knew - or cared most likely - which camera took which photo so there's no chance of bias creeping in there). I won't show all the results as the differences are less obvious on screen than they are in print, however, here's one of the winning Microflex ones as an example:

The Yashinon on the Yashica-Mat appears to be able to render more detail than any of the other four lenses once stopped well down. This may well be because it was produced some 20 years later and presumably benefits from more modern contrast-enhancing coatings. For an example here's a very small section cropped from the top of a scene shot at f/11 - the rooftop is around 80-100 yards from the camera:

Bear in mind that the above is reproduced much larger than my normal print size (8"x8") and when the whole scene is viewed in print there is nothing to separate the five cameras. If I ever wanted to produce wall-sized prints (which I don't) then I'd probably have to conclude that the Yashinon has the edge, otherwise it's a less important victory for the Yashica.

At middling distances shot at f/5.6-8 there is (again) nothing to separate the five lenses. Here's another tiny crop taken at f/8 with the focus on the foliage around 4-5 yards away. This time the crop is from near the centre but all five lenses retained this level of sharpness right into the extreme corners of the frame:

This was probably the most important of all the scenes to me as it's the one that represents my most used aperture and subject distance. It didn't really help that I couldn't discern a significant difference between the five lenses, nor could anybody else I showed the prints to (although everyone picked either the Ikoflex or the Microflex eventually - the Ikoflex just winning out at four votes to three. Nobody could put a finger on why those two were better though and nor could I).

In terms of colour rendition, I've already mentioned that the Micronar was my favourite with lovely saturated hues and a slightly warm tone (like it had an 81A filter attached). The Xenar on the Rolleicord and the Yashinon on the Yashica-Mat gave pretty much identical results, both being the most neutral and accurate if not the most appealing. The Planar on the Rolleiflex was a little too cold for my liking, and the Tessar on the Ikoflex was a bit too warm (although I could see the appeal of the Tessar for many subjects). I won't give examples for this as (a) it's near impossible when everyone's using differently calibrated monitors and the differences are very subtle, (b) none of you have been to my house to know what the colours in question are supposed to look like, and (c) it's rather moot in a digital age where the colours can be changed so easily in Photoshop anyway. I was just curious which lens would give the best results on my favourite emulsion, thereby leaving me less work to do in PP.

My final test was for bokeh but the Rolleiflex didn't take part as the shutter had jammed at that point (I've since dry-fired it at each speed a couple of hundred times and it now appears to be working happily again). These are crops from an out-of-focus area shot at f/3.5 from the four cameras that did take part:

On the whole the results were, again, broadly similar. The Yashinon probably putting in the best performance with a less obvious bright line around the specular highlights. The Tessar on the Ikoflex isn't far behind here but in print the differences are negligible.

So, on to the summary. All five cameras and lenses put in excellent performances and in isolation it would have been near-impossible to pick a winner, however, tested back-to-back it became clear that the Micronar provided the most consistently pleasing results. My biggest disappointment was the Rolleiflex; maybe if I'd restricted myself to shooting test charts and brick walls then the Planar would have shown the benefits of its extra element, as things stand though I found it indistinguishable from the four element lenses in the other cameras. That doesn't imply it's a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination, just not as superior as the price and reputation would suggest.

In terms of value-for-money it's hard not to admire the Yashica-Mat. Considering you can pick one up for a fraction of what you'd pay for the others, it turned in a performance that was the equal of all bar the Microflex (and at very small apertures the sharpest of the lot). The Rolleicord and Ikoflex were also excellent but neither did quite enough to stand out in this comparison.

If you've read this far it will come as no great shock to hear I'll be keeping the Microflex. I actually preferred the Rolleiflex to use as a camera, but the results from the Micronar consistently brought more broad smiles than the Planar and that's what has swung the deal for me. As for a back-up camera I think I may keep the Yashica-Mat, until I find a second Microflex anyway...

 

[JPD]

Something must be wrong with the Rolleiflex. That's not how the Planar should perform. I suspect that the focus needs adjustment, or that the lens elements aren't screwed in correctly. The 3,5 Planar is the sharpest lens I've used, and I have used Xenars, Tessars, 2,8 Planar and 3,5 Xenotar.

I remember that I had to have the Planar collimated and sdjusted when I bought my 3,5F in the early 90's. Now it is a jewel. The Planar should be as sharp as Xenar/Tessar in the center but sharper at the edges at large apertures.

Please check the focus with a ground glass on the film rails.

Is the Microflex equipped with the Ross Xpres?