[PenPusher]

I have read all your notes, warnings and suggestions for all of which many thanks

This seems to be a lot more difficult than making up one's mind on whether or not to upgrade your digital camera, with that you're probably tied into a brand - unless you have oceans of cash - so its basically just a question of deciding whether the latest machine or lens has something worth upgrading for and whether you will or won't.

With film the choice is vast I've been looking at WWW.TLR-CAMERAS.COM yes all in caps otherwise you end up at some other site - I never realised how many of theses things there were and how fascinating they are and then you move onto the single lens reflex type which has another enormous pool of offerings.

I realise that medium format cameras are bigger and heavier than the usual APS-C DSLR but I was thinking that with a TLR you would not be dragging a bag of lenses around with you, the most accessories available seem to be a close up lens or lenses, a filter plus a roll or two of film and in that way the outfit should stay relatively light. I also figured that with a minimum of moving parts in the camera there would be less to go wrong. I understand that Ansel Adams - when he wasn't using something bigger - preferred the 6 x 6 sq. format as you didn't have to decide between landscape and portrait and could crop it into whatever shape you liked so even if thats not as cost conscious - film wise - as the 6 x 4.5 format it gives you more scope in post processing.

My thinking on the SLR offerings was that there is a big pool of cameras and lenses out there to choose from, most cameras also have interchangeable backs which means that you could acquire a collection of them for different films just in case you might need them etc. then there are all the different prism finders and viewing screens and by the time you finished you would have a bigger load than a full frame DSLR to haul around which means that you - meaning me - probably wouldn't and the whole lot would sit on a shelf somewhere until herself got fed up with the whole proceeding and I was told to get rid of it.

So back to first principles and the "Less is More" doctrine brings you back to one TLR with a good lens - but which one.

This is rather like the civil servant who was asked if he wanted tea or coffee - decisions, decisions why must I always make decisions.

CD

[Swift1]

A TLR is a superb choice for getting into medium format. They fairly small, usually simple to operate, and for the most part they provide excellent image quality.
I now have 5 TLRs, and I've used nearly 10 different models.

Some things worth thinking about.

Film loading and transport - Depending on the make and model, film loading and transport can range from very simple to fairly complex. For example a Rolleiflex is very simple to load, and simple to use , but also has a very complex film transport mechanism. A Rolleiflex will automatically stop at each frame, and will cock the shutter automatically when you advance the film. The Autocord and Yashicamat operate much the same, but a Yashica A for example, as well as many of the early inexpensive Japanese TLRs have a very simple film transport with a small red window on the back and as you advance the film you stop when the frame number appears in the window, then you manually cock the shutter and make your exposure. Mechanically, this great because there's not much that can go wrong, but you do have to remember to advance, cock the shutter, make your exposure, then advance, cock the shutter, etc. It is very easy to accidentally make double exposures.
Then there are all cameras that fit somewhere in between. I have a Toyocaflex, which is basically like a Yashica A, but with a semi-automatic film transport and frame counter. When loading the camera, you need to do all the right things in the order, otherwise you will end up just winding up the entire roll onto the take-up spool. If you load film correctly, then the advance will automatically stop at each frame, and the frame counter will work automatically, but you still need to manually cock the shutter for each exposure, and then remember to advance before making another exposure.

Settings - with a Rolleiflex or a Yashicamat, setting shutter speed and aperture is a very simple straightforward operation, and once set it isn't easy to accidentally change the settings. With my Minolta Autocord, it's very easy to set the shutter speed and aperture, and it's also very easy to accidentally change the settings without noticing. With my Toyocaflex, changing the shutter speed and aperture is kinda fiddly, and accidentally moving the aperture setting isn't that difficult.

Camera noise - Most TLRs are very quiet in operation, but I know from experience that the Yashicamat 124G in particular has a terribly noisy film advance. I don't know if all the Yashicamat are like that, but I kinda think so.

Focusing Scale - my only real complaint with the Minolta Autocord is that the focus distance scale is on the bottom of the camera, and if you're holding the camera like you're taking a photo, you can't see the scale at all. This may seem trivial, and for many people it likely is, but for me it's quite frustrating. Focusing through a waist level finder can be a bit tricky. Over the years I have been using TLRs, I've formed the habit of instinctively checking the distance scale when focusing so that I know if I'm in the right area. With the Autocord, this is a PITA.

If you are planning on using filters, you probably want to get a camera with bayonet filter mounts on the lenses.

Hope that is helpful,

[abruzzi]

remember that some TLRs have interchangeable lenses are well--if you're that worried about having options.

[TwoUptons]

I have a Yashicamat with the wide angle converter. I think I've used the converter twice...

I also have a Rolleiflex 3.5, and there's not much there between it and the Yashica, image-wise, but I like using the Rollei more...

Neither is as good a 'working camera' as my old Hasselblad 500/C, just because it was so much more versatile -- you show up with one of those and you feel like a pro, even if you aren't :-)

But I made the trade for portability a long time ago, and I don't regret it.

-Eric

[PenPusher]

A TLR is a superb choice for getting into medium format. They fairly small, usually simple to operate, and for the most part they provide excellent image quality.
I now have 5 TLRs, and I've used nearly 10 different models.

Some things worth thinking about.

Film loading and transport - Depending on the make and model, film loading and transport can range from very simple to fairly complex. For example a Rolleiflex is very simple to load, and simple to use , but also has a very complex film transport mechanism. A Rolleiflex will automatically stop at each frame, and will cock the shutter automatically when you advance the film. The Autocord and Yashicamat operate much the same, but a Yashica A for example, as well as many of the early inexpensive Japanese TLRs have a very simple film transport with a small red window on the back and as you advance the film you stop when the frame number appears in the window, then you manually cock the shutter and make your exposure. Mechanically, this great because there's not much that can go wrong, but you do have to remember to advance, cock the shutter, make your exposure, then advance, cock the shutter, etc. It is very easy to accidentally make double exposures.
Then there are all cameras that fit somewhere in between. I have a Toyocaflex, which is basically like a Yashica A, but with a semi-automatic film transport and frame counter. When loading the camera, you need to do all the right things in the order, otherwise you will end up just winding up the entire roll onto the take-up spool. If you load film correctly, then the advance will automatically stop at each frame, and the frame counter will work automatically, but you still need to manually cock the shutter for each exposure, and then remember to advance before making another exposure.

Settings - with a Rolleiflex or a Yashicamat, setting shutter speed and aperture is a very simple straightforward operation, and once set it isn't easy to accidentally change the settings. With my Minolta Autocord, it's very easy to set the shutter speed and aperture, and it's also very easy to accidentally change the settings without noticing. With my Toyocaflex, changing the shutter speed and aperture is kinda fiddly, and accidentally moving the aperture setting isn't that difficult.

Camera noise - Most TLRs are very quiet in operation, but I know from experience that the Yashicamat 124G in particular has a terribly noisy film advance. I don't know if all the Yashicamat are like that, but I kinda think so.

Focusing Scale - my only real complaint with the Minolta Autocord is that the focus distance scale is on the bottom of the camera, and if you're holding the camera like you're taking a photo, you can't see the scale at all. This may seem trivial, and for many people it likely is, but for me it's quite frustrating. Focusing through a waist level finder can be a bit tricky. Over the years I have been using TLRs, I've formed the habit of instinctively checking the distance scale when focusing so that I know if I'm in the right area. With the Autocord, this is a PITA.

If you are planning on using filters, you probably want to get a camera with bayonet filter mounts on the lenses.

Hope that is helpful,

Thank you very much for all that Colton, very helpful and I know that must have taken you a while, by the way I have admired your work for quite some time now.

On the film loading: I have been looking firstly at Ikoflex because I thought rightly or wrongly that its lenses would be good but it has an awfully fiddly loading procedure to get it right, so today I've had a look at the Minolta Autocord and discovered the film runs top to bottom which surprised me but otherwise seemed straightforward enough. I then moved on to the Meopta Flexaret VIIa which loads from bottom to top in what seems quite a simple process, well compared to the Ikoflex anyway, the wind on has automatic stopping at each frame but you do have to cock the shutter manually, I think it has double exposure prevention - better check that again. I also had a look at one or two of the French SEMFLEX models, not too sure about them though one did have Angenieux lenses rather than their usual Berthiot, the film runs from top to bottom but you have to watch the red window for frame spacing on the standard model and on the Oto Model - the top one - frame counting is automatic but you have to move a crank about 30 degrees twice, something like the double stroke lever wind on the original Leica M3, quite nice looking cameras though and one model has a 135mm tele lens.

Settings: I note what you say about the Autocord, on the Flexaret and the SEMFlex it appears difficult to unintentionally change the settings.

Camera Noise: the Analog Insights YouTube channel did better than usual reviews of both the Rolleiflex and YashicaMat 124G, it certainly makes noise when you wind it on, reminds me of an Exa SLR I had a great many years ago, the mirror really slapped up on that one and everybody looked at you.

Focussing Scale: I wondered why that was bothering you when you could see things on the screen until I realised that you might to know the depth of field or hyperfocal distance to see the extent of coverage. There seems to be two different ways either on a scale on the bottom under the taking lens which both the Autocad and Flexaret have or around the focusing knob on the cameras side which seems to be more common, both methods require moving the camera to read the scale.

I notice that there are 3rd party bayonet hoods available on e-bay but anybody selling filters, particularly original ones, is looking for a lot of cash.

Once again thank you very much and appreciated.

CD

---------- Post added 06-19-2018 at 10:53 PM ----------

remember that some TLRs have interchangeable lenses are well--if you're that worried about having options.

No I want to make sure I don't get carried away on an equipment binge.

---------- Post added 06-19-2018 at 10:57 PM ----------

But I made the trade for portability a long time ago, and I don't regret it.

-Eric

Thats one of the reasons I'm looking at a TLR - relatively lightweight portability, with one lens you have to zoom with your feet, the other is you have to make do with a single lens so wondering which lens to use doesn't weigh on your mind.

[Swift1]

I have been looking firstly at Ikoflex because I thought rightly or wrongly that its lenses would be good

The Ikoflex won't really have lenses that any better than any other TLR lenses.

In general, TLRs all come equipped with either 3, 4, or 5 element taking lenses. A triplet in an Ikoflex (Novar) will perform much the same as the triplet (Tri-Lausar) in my Toyocaflex or Yashikor found in a Yashica A.
Likewise, a Zeiss Tessar in an Ikoflex will perform much the same as a Rokkor from an Autocord, or a Yashinon from a Yashicamat.

For 5 element taking lenses, you're mostly limited to Planar and Xenotar equipped Rolleiflex. There a few obscure Japanese TLRs (Olympusflex 2.8, Koniflex?, Fujicaflex?) that have 5 element lenses.
In the later model 3.5F, Rolleiflex switched to a 6 element taking lens, but from everything I read, it's basically the same 5 element design, but for simpler manufacturing, they took a somewhat complex single element and split it into a cemented double that was easier to make.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I've been shooting with an Autocord for a couple of years now and can't recommend it enough.

As mentioned, the Chiyoko Rokkor 75mm is outstanding (one of my favourite lenses from any format), the ergonomics are great (I really like the focus lever, rather than a knob), it's relatively compact and lightweight, and the price is still pretty good (especially compared the Rolleicord).

The main issue to look out for is the well documented focus lever failure. This is cause by the poor quality metal lever snapping if the lubricants get old and gum up. Easily prevented by a good service, but it does mean I would avoid buying an Autocord that hasn't had a documented CLA.

There is a member over at photrio.com called Dan Daniels, who refurbishes and sells Autocords fairly regularly. I got mine from his and it's worked faultlessly ever since.

Some photos showing the talents of that Rokkor

(Ignore the vertical line on some of these, it's my scanner dying a slow death... Nothing to do with the camera.)


Fuji Pro400H


Portra400


Tmax400


Pro400H


Portra400


Portra400


Tmax400


Portra400


Portra400


PanF 50

[Eyewanders]

Some more Autocord Rokkor-ness... Minolta Autocord | Flickr (and one down below as well)

But you should view Colton's Flickr if you've not already for some Rollei goodness... and plenty of it.

I've nearly puchased a Flexaret about twice a year for 4 years in a row. Then two years ago I was given an Autocord by a friend and that stopped my wandering.
To honest I'm not a huge TLR guy, but I like using it occasionally. The Rokkor is reason enough. A Rollei would be as well and then some but sounds a bit out of your $$ range.

[PenPusher]

The Ikoflex won't really have lenses that any better than any other TLR lenses.

In general, TLRs all come equipped with either 3, 4, or 5 element taking lenses. A triplet in an Ikoflex (Novar) will perform much the same as the triplet (Tri-Lausar) in my Toyocaflex or Yashikor found in a Yashica A.
Likewise, a Zeiss Tessar in an Ikoflex will perform much the same as a Rokkor from an Autocord, or a Yashinon from a Yashicamat.

For 5 element taking lenses, you're mostly limited to Planar and Xenotar equipped Rolleiflex. There a few obscure Japanese TLRs (Olympusflex 2.8, Koniflex?, Fujicaflex?) that have 5 element lenses.
In the later model 3.5F, Rolleiflex switched to a 6 element taking lens, but from everything I read, it's basically the same 5 element design, but for simpler manufacturing, they took a somewhat complex single element and split it into a cemented double that was easier to make.

Thank you again Colton for that advice.

I discovered a diagram showing both the Planar 5/6 and the Xenotar 5/6 lenses, the Planar's 2nd element inwards from the front has been split as you say but with the Xenotar its the second one in from the back that Schneider split and stuck, however I'm pretty sure I won't be buying a Rolleiflex.

I think I'll go for something with a 4 element lens design that has a good reputation.

---------- Post added 06-20-2018 at 10:08 AM ----------

I've been shooting with an Autocord for a couple of years now and can't recommend it enough.

As mentioned, the Chiyoko Rokkor 75mm is outstanding (one of my favourite lenses from any format), the ergonomics are great (I really like the focus lever, rather than a knob), it's relatively compact and lightweight, and the price is still pretty good (especially compared the Rolleicord).

The main issue to look out for is the well documented focus lever failure. This is cause by the poor quality metal lever snapping if the lubricants get old and gum up. Easily prevented by a good service, but it does mean I would avoid buying an Autocord that hasn't had a documented CLA.

There is a member over at photrio.com called Dan Daniels, who refurbishes and sells Autocords fairly regularly. I got mine from his and it's worked faultlessly ever since.

Some photos showing the talents of that Rokkor

(Ignore the vertical line on some of these, it's my scanner dying a slow death... Nothing to do with the camera.)

Thank you for your notes on the Autocord and the shots - great looking country, I had to look VERY hard to find the scanner malfunction, I had not heard about the focus lever failure. For some reason the grain on the Pan F shot seems more pronounced than that on the Tmax 400

---------- Post added 06-20-2018 at 10:13 AM ----------

Some more Autocord Rokkor-ness... Minolta Autocord | Flickr (and one down below as well)

But you should view Colton's Flickr if you've not already for some Rollei goodness... and plenty of it.

I've nearly puchased a Flexaret about twice a year for 4 years in a row. Then two years ago I was given an Autocord by a friend and that stopped my wandering.
To honest I'm not a huge TLR guy, but I like using it occasionally. The Rokkor is reason enough. A Rollei would be as well and then some but sounds a bit out of your $$ range.

Those Autocord shots are great, the Rollei is definitely out of range, all I have to do now is decide on a particular model and figure out a way to explain why I absolutely need another camera.

[nickthetasmaniac]

For some reason the grain on the Pan F shot seems more pronounced than that on the Tmax 400.

Yeah the Pan F shot was underexposed by a decent amount...

[Eyewanders]

A Rolleicord is another to look into. Often with the lovely Scheider-Krueznach Xenar, they're smaller, simpler, much less costly Rolleiflex counterparts. I think the Autocord is a bit more refinded, but the Rolleicord is well-loved. I've only held and played with one, never owned or shot with one. But really - they're all quite similar and you can't go wrong with any mentioned here.

I wouldn't overthink it too much. If it comes down to it, pick the one you find the nicest to look at so that you can smile bigger while it sits on the shelf when not in use. All of these will serve your purposes very well. There is not "need" for additional cameras, but for me personally they are all so varied (older cameras) and with such attention to detail in their construction, they become a bit addicting. There's often something unique to many of them and easy to appreciate. This is something that was lost at some point in the 1980s, as with most everything else when design turned more toward economy of parts not longevity of the product.

[PenPusher]

A Rolleicord is another to look into. Often with the lovely Scheider-Krueznach Xenar, they're smaller, simpler, much less costly Rolleiflex counterparts. I think the Autocord is a bit more refinded, but the Rolleicord is well-loved. I've only held and played with one, never owned or shot with one. But really - they're all quite similar and you can't go wrong with any mentioned here.

I wouldn't overthink it too much. If it comes down to it, pick the one you find the nicest to look at so that you can smile bigger while it sits on the shelf when not in use. All of these will serve your purposes very well. There is not "need" for additional cameras, but for me personally they are all so varied (older cameras) and with such attention to detail in their construction, they become a bit addicting. There's often something unique to many of them and easy to appreciate. This is something that was lost at some point in the 1980s, as with most everything else when design turned more toward economy of parts not longevity of the product.

A Rolleicord is indeed another to look into but as you say they are all great looking but you can't possibly have them all. I think you are probably right when you suggest picking the one you like the look of and not forever wondering which one.

I think the drop off in standards of construction and design was partially due to the craving for new features which most people will never use and the introduction of injection moulding for the bodies to lower the cost or increase profits whichever way you want to look at it, once it becomes plastic nobody sets any mass on minding it anymore. You can buy a plastic bodied SLR for next to nothing but the early metal bodied ones hold their value much better.

I blame the marketing guys for a lot of useless information - remember the megapixel race, one TV add now features "sustainable tomatoes" as a prime ingredient, every time I hear it I am reminded of Guy Clark's "Home Grown Tomatoes".

[Swift1]

Some more Autocord Rokkor-ness... Minolta Autocord | Flickr (and one down below as well)

But you should view Colton's Flickr if you've not already for some Rollei goodness... and plenty of it.

I can also attest to the capabilities of the Autocord, and aside from a Rolleiflex, it would likely be my next best choice. That being said, if I could only choose one camera to use for the rest of my life, the choice would be easy... or in other words, you can have my Rolleiflex when you pry it from my cold, dead hands...

[Eyewanders]

I can also attest to the capabilities of the Autocord, and aside from a Rolleiflex, it would likely be my next best choice. That being said, if I could only choose one camera to use for the rest of my life, the choice would be easy... or in other words, you can have my Rolleiflex when you pry it from my cold, dead hands...

I hate it a little bit when you say things like that about cameras I've never owned. It isn't good for my savings (lack thereof) account.

[tuco]

I have a Rolleicord IV, K3D with a Xenar 75/3.5 taking lens. An old camera like that usually needs a CLA and new focus screen that turns yellow and hard to see through with age. The lens has soft corners until you stop it down to f11. It is a PITA to load film in it. Just a data point.

TLRs are a good first medium format camera. I don't know what a Pentax 67 goes for these days. But you can put a waist level finder on it and have lens options. It's not as compact of course but with medium format film cameras, everything is a tradeoff.

Rolleicord IV, 100 Acros