View Full Version : TLRs - is "Better" really better? Or Brand snobbery?
Hello all,
I know - I'm sure this was discussed before. But I wanted to revisit this and see what everyone is thinking on this subject.
My question is - is "Better" brand in TLRs really better? Is it personal preference, or there is actual tangible proof and there is a reason to pay extra $$ to get a better quality photos. In other words - is Yashica always inferior to Rolleiflex? Or it is not so? For the more reasonable comparison, lets take similar models with same or similar lens design. Or Tessar versions. And there are many TLRs that use this lens design. I'm sure Planars/Xenotars will have edge on some things. But what about cameras in the same category?
I have some pictures here - and while they all have different "feel" - I'm hard pressed to decide which I like more.
So, any thoughts?
Comments?
BTW - I have a Rolleiflex with Tessar, which has a new costume on - so I call it Brownflex. - I just thought it would look different, so old and worn black leather was replaced by me. Not perfect, but ok for me.
George
more "Brownflex" photos.
George
Well, and here is a Yashica Mat 124 . Not G. Just a 124, which I think is better anyway. Photos were takinen same day. Same Film. All scanned on an Epson Flatbed 2450 scanner. 600 dpi I think.
Some pictures from Brownflex were sharpened in PS. Ones from Yashica were not. No other adjustments other than size change to fit here.
George
Richard Black
06-18-2006, 05:04
I have found the term "better" results in a lot of discussion and brand preference. If you mean resolving power of the lens, lasting under heavy use, holds resell value, then you could choose one brand over another. I have had a Rolleiflex, a Yashica 124, and there is not a great deal of difference between that model and the G, and a Mamiya Sekor C330f. I departed with the Rollei when it would cost more to repair it than to replace it. The other two are fine and product great photos. I also hava Pentacon, SLR Mf, and use it. They produce different shades of the same image, better, I can't say. I like using the Pentacon best.
My personal feeling is most differences between cameras-outside of durability and handling-are too darned small to make a real dfference in the photo. Bad MF beats good 35mm, of course.
I have a Yashicamat 124 (not G) that I bought new in about 1971 or so. I've never been disappointed with the pictures it takes.
There is some static that the only difference with the "G" is gold soldering in the meter connections. OH, wow!! But it has plastic controls for speed/aperture, and mine has metal controls.
Being basically a 35mm user, I've never been terribly taken with the square format, but there are others who swear by it. Back in the days when I used to do my own developing and printing, the 8x10 paper required some cropping anyway. Nice camera.
I've never owned a Rollei, and I won't argue that they were probably superior, but does a Mercedes get you there faster than a Camry?
A lot of variables, such as whether you're shooting wide open or stopped down. From f/8 downwards most TLR's are awfully good. I've used Yashicas and Rolleis and they're both capable of great images.
I did notice a difference when I added a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar to my collection. The Planar was noticeably better wide open and was generally a little better throughout. The build quality of the 3.5F, which adds to the pleasure of using the cam, is akin to a Leica. Superb. Not essential, but aesthetically pleasing.
Gene
Todd.Hanz
06-18-2006, 05:59
The diference between the Rollei and Yashica pics above looks like a post processing issue to me.
You have two very fine TLR's, if you cannot tell the the difference in build quality between the Rollei and the Yashica, I don't know what to say. I have both the same cameras you have, the Rollei is built to a standard far superior, better materials, tighter tolerances, it is smoother to operate, feels "heftier" and the images snap into focus. The Yashica feels lighter, more plasticy, is louder when advancing film, etc. (it's still a great camera)
I also have a Ricohflex Dia L, it is built better than the Yashicas- same 4 element Tessar design and the images look very similar to the Yashica's. They are all great cameras, they all make amazing images and are a joy to use, I love all my TLRs.
If you are comparing the end result, the image, then the Tessars and all the copies will have a very similar look. Unless you are going to get expensive drum scans of each negative or extreme enlargements, you probably will not see a difference between them to the naked eye. Just enjoy using both of those excellent cameras you have, life is too short to fret about it.
Now if you want to talk Planar or Xenotar... :)
Here's a pic from a Rollei with a Planar:
Now if you want to talk Planar or Xenotar... :)
Xenotar, by far, because it starts with an X and sounds cool :cool: :D
Gabriel M.A.
06-18-2006, 06:12
Now if you want to talk Planar or Xenotar... :)
Oh yeah. The Xenotar gives you a nice "sharp" image, but the bokeh is just...err...well, to me it's disappointing. The Xenar, on the other hand, has a delicious bokeh. It flares like a 'roid on a Chile Poblano dipped in Habanero sauce, but it's a beauty; and cheaper than the Rolleiflex with a Tessar.
Now, the older the Rolleiflex, the dimmer the screen (unless it has already been replaced). The newer ones are ok.
But overall, "better being really better" is a truthism that is as real as one's perception. As long as you're happy with your gear, that's what's best.
Flyfisher Tom
06-18-2006, 06:29
It flares like a 'roid on a Chile Poblano dipped in Habanero sauce, but it's a beauty; and cheaper than the Rolleiflex with a Tessar.
Gabriel:
Great, thanks for putting that image in my head !!! ;)
I agree that the Xenar is an exceptionally fine lens. I love my Rolleicords. But as you already know, lots of other TLRs are also very fine and equally stellar. My Diacord is much cheaper, yet performs equally to the Xenar.
The Xenotar I own is a magnitude better made, sharper and more impressive than the Xenars. But it by no means blows the Xenars out of the water.
In the final analysis, as long as your TLRs are competent (and most are, certainly yours are), the remaining magic is with the photographer :cool:
Todd.Hanz
06-18-2006, 06:34
It flares like a 'roid on a Chile Poblano dipped in Habanero sauce
Classic, classic....can I borrow that? :)
Todd
I am used to Planar lenses for many years, but last year I added a Rolleilfex Automat with the Tessar lens. It offers a nice alternative for photography. The Tessar can do things better than the Planar in some cases and the Planar does better in other cases. It depends how you want to take a photo. Overall, the Planar and the Xenotar lenses are hard to beat for sharpness and contrast. Gabriel brings up Bokeh ... this needs to be explored.
There are 2 aspects to consider when comparing these 2 cameras: lens type, and body build quality.
The better Yashinon lens of the Yashica is similar in design (number of elements) to the Tessar and Xenar lens of the Rollei. The Planar and Xenotar lenses available on the Pollei are more complex designs with more elements that allow better performance wide open and towards the corners.
As Todd has already explained, the Rollei has a higher level of build quality. Some people can feel the difference and some cannot. It is like the difference in build quality between a Leica M3 and a Bessa RxA. Not only were the 2 cameras built to a different price point, the older Leica M3 and the Rolleiflex were also built in a different time, when quality was held in greater regard by manufacturers than it is today. We've become much more accepting of the "disposable" mentality (some would say the good enough because it's cheap Walmart mentality) than people living in the 1940's and 50's.
As to which camera takes better pictures: that depends totally on the photographer operating the camera. They are both capable enough cameras that their technology is not a limit to the photographer's ability.
The interesting aspect to this discussion IMO, is the ability of some people to feel the difference in build quality in some cameras, and that some people don't. Unfortunately, those who don't, sometimes criticise those who can, calling them stupid for wasting their money on an expensive (Leica) camera when brand X is just as good in their estimation. Also unfortunately, some people who can feel the difference sometimes become snobbish about it.
The snobbish part is eveident with many luxury items in life, Frank.
To many, this is main reason for getting that "item".
The old Rolleiflex TLR cameras are built in way that is difficult to improve upon, and the latest Rolleiflex TLR models have shown that they are not built better than the ones built in the 1950's. I depend on my Rolleiflex to work and work without a fault, and I expect sharpness from the lens. When holding a Rolleilfex, it really is like holding a Leica M, with respect to "security", "precision", "no nonsense" feeling. Such cameras are the Rolls Royce models of cameras made.
Good - many opinions already.
To comment on some - I too can tell the difference in mechanical quality of Rolleiflex vs. Yashica, yet while pleasing, what matters to me more - is the final image. However, I do prefer to use some cameras over others, just because it's more enjoyable to hold/use it. My Voigtlander Bessa RF 6x9 comes to mind. Well, what about other TLRs? Voightlander, Zeiss, Kallowflex, Minolta, etc - any comments on those? What about their lenses, their built quality? Would be interesting to hear from users of those. AND - if you have photos to support your opinions - please post them too.
George
Gabriel M.A.
06-18-2006, 07:33
The snobbish part is eveident with many luxury items in life
That is why I raise my pinky with every bite out of my double bacon whopper -- it's a luxury I indulge in once a month. :D
Gabriel M.A.
06-18-2006, 07:37
Classic, classic....can I borrow that? :)
No problem. I have a twisted sense of "humour" sometimes.
Todd.Hanz
06-18-2006, 07:57
This thread maybe better located in another part of the forum but here goes,
Ricohflex Dia "L":
Solid build, heavy, all metal construction, smooth focus (duo lever action), Tessar quality 4 element lens, decent focusing screen, knob film advance, capable of really creamy bokeh and "separation" or "3D effect":
Todd
Nikon Bob
06-18-2006, 08:08
I can't add to the comments on which is better that others have already made. I can say that sometimes you have to disassemble something to see the differences in built quality between two items. Cameras I don't take apart but I have seen obvious manufacturing short cuts taken on post WWII rifles as compared to pre WWII rifles of the same manufacturer. Outwardly you could not reaaly tell and they both functioned the same. I have a Minolta Autocord that gives fine results but again cannot compare it to a Rollie as I do not own one. For me the bragging rights would go to the Rollie in similar condition to the Automat but the output may not be much different in my hands. For $65 I will stick with the Autocord for now.
Nikon Bob
There are, essentially, two types of "snob"; high-brow and low-brow for want of better terms. The high-brow snob will only accept owning the very best and the more it costs, the better as cost often defines "taste". In the world of the high-brow snob, "best" is most frequently determined by the opinions of others because the high-brow has neither the experience nor desire to make that determination himself. It's more important to own the "best" than it is to know how to use it properly. The high-brow will always be contemptuous of those who own "lesser", second-best items. I view people who will only own Leica or Nikon or Hasselblad or Rollei etc. and who look down on anyone who owns anything else as belonging to this group.
The lowbrow snob, OTOH, often finds himself unable to afford the more expensive brands and has to settle for less expensive alternatives. It's a fact that the less expensive equipment in the hands of a competent operator will often produce results on a par with the most expensive gear in the hands of a novice or less talented individual. It's then easy for the lowbrow to rationalize that they don't really need the expensive brands because their gear is just as good. This then leads to sneering at the highbrow with as much contempt as the highbrow has for them and their "cheap" inferior stuff.
The arguments about "best" will rage until doomsday and the two sides will be no closer to agreement than we are today. The snobs at both ends will still be with us as they have since time began.
I've owned a new Yashica 124 and I've owned an older Rolleiflex. Both took great pictures and I was happy with either. I could tell a difference in the build quality but didn't need to worry as the use I gave them wasn't heavy enough to matter. I have Vivitar lenses that are nearly 40 years old and that I bought new. They still take a fine picture but, if subjected to heavy daily use, they wouldn't last as well as a Leica, Nikon or Pentax lens. It's often the mechanical quality that makes the real difference.
There are a lot of people on the RFF who don't fit into either camp but simply enjoy their equipment regardless of it's brand. Happily, these people make up the great majority of our members and may they always remain so.
Walker
Good picture of the three glasses, Todd, but what is the hazy horizontal light band above them? Windows, I thought, but those do not extend beyond buildings.
In India, up to the 1960s anyway, most serious photography was done with TLRs. Rolleiflexes were expensive, so there weren't many of them. There were a great many Yashicamats. For reasons that are beyond me, there were few Rolleicords. I used a R'cord (model not known, but 3.5 Xenar, only M sync. and Compur Rapid shutter), and its results were no different from those of the Yashicas. The R'flexes, on the other hand, shone when we went beyond 20" by 30" or so. They were also marginally quicker to handle. The superiority of their lenses was a plus point, another being quality of construction such that it was uncommon for one of them to break down or give trouble. Since most prints made were 10" by 8" or smaller, though, they just did not make economic sense.
Gabriel M.A.
06-18-2006, 10:42
Perhaps I'm the "no brow" snob. I like "good things", regardless of brand. The cheaper the price, the better. I only look down on my wallet, which fails me with my every whim.
This thread maybe better located in another part of the forum but here goes,
Ricohflex Dia "L":
Solid build, heavy, all metal construction, smooth focus (duo lever action), Tessar quality 4 element lens, decent focusing screen, knob film advance, capable of really creamy bokeh and "separation" or "3D effect":
Todd
Wow. Nice photos. I really like the bokeh. And sharpness is great too. Was it wide open?
Impressive.
George
Walker, I agree with your description of snob types and also agree that RFF is very lucky to have few if any of either type!
Interesting commentary, Walker, on snobs of different stripes. :)
My Dad tended to be a "low-brow snob" so I've seen that in action close-in, and the rationalizations of clear inconsistencies...
This thread maybe better located in another part of the forum but here goes,
Ricohflex Dia "L":
Solid build, heavy, all metal construction, smooth focus (duo lever action), Tessar quality 4 element lens, decent focusing screen, knob film advance, capable of really creamy bokeh and "separation" or "3D effect":
Todd
Thanks Todd. Wonderful pictures. I had been looking to buy a TLR for a while already, and I had given serious consideration to a Diacord. Your post pulled me over the edge and I just bought a very clean Diacord L on ebay for $60.
Cheers!
David Murphy
06-18-2006, 22:49
Not to sound like a plug, but the book by Williams that I have on the Classified section discusses this very issue. Williams seems clearly to favor the Rolleicord and Rolleiflex series of cameras.
My own experience with the Autocord was fairly negative, but much more favorable with the Eastar (a Seagull predecessor) -- which goes against the wisdom of many learned experts. I now have a Rolleiflex Tessar that's going to get a test of fire in about a week on holiday in Texas, and then Asia.
David Murphy
06-18-2006, 22:52
I also had a "Toyocaflex" which was very good, until I found unhappy combination of the shutter cocking lever and self timer that locked it up. It was a beautiful, but somewhat primitive beast that took great photos. BTW the Autocord has a very bright viewfinder -- seemingly brighter than my Rolleiflex.
Pherdinand
06-19-2006, 00:18
My rolleiflex automat from 1930-something has better construction than my yashica D had. Even with the 30 years difference in their age, the rollei having survived a world war, it feels more precise and more solid, although a bit less heavy(!).
The rolleicord V i had, had about the same build quality like the 'flex.
However, imagewise i've never seen any difference between the tessar, the rolleicord's xenar and the yashica's yashinon.
Finally, the yashica had a brighter Fresnel-equipped screen, that helped a lot in composing the image (although NOT in focusing).
David Murphy
06-19-2006, 01:01
Well the Autocord is certainly a thing of beauty in the exterior at least. I may try another one soon -- they just look so pretty.
The remark above that the 1930's Rolleiflex was like a Yashica D is probably true and it's because the fledgling Japanese camera industry back in late 40's and early 50's tore them apart and learned how to copy them, which they did with abandon (just as they did with Leicas). They did this over and over again so that there are dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds varieties of Japanese TLR "clones". Just follow them on eBay for a while -- some of them are obviously very serious efforts with lenses from Nikon, Zunow, Olympus, etc. and others have lessor pedegreed optics, but still look interesting. Having used a few of the more offbeat TLR's I am certain that a good fraction of these must be decent performers (as well as making good eye candy).
I've got a Yashica 12 that is a good picture taker. I got it off a junk sale on eBay and repaired it. It was the first camera repair I ever successfully completed, and I was happily drilling holes and cutting threads into the body to fix the waist level finder that had been glued on, taking the gears apart to clean them and remove debris, and in the end covering the whole thing in red leather. Somehow I don't think I have the self-confidence and/or technical skill to do this with a Rolleiflex. In that way the Yashica is the "better" camera for me. The Rolleiflex might have slightly better "build quality", whatever that means, and maybe a slightly better lens. But now I know a lot more about cameras and have the enjoyment of using a technically somewhat imperfect, but sufficient camera that I literally know inside out.
I had a similar argument this weekend with two friends. One of them is very technical-minded and said that he wouldn't buy and use something that doesn't embody "value" and hence uses Leicas and Rolleicords, and his Kiev that he bought years ago was tuned and optimized by the best and most expensive repair shop available. The other is a portrait photographer (gallery (http://www.samuli-schielke.de/foto.htm) ) who got me started on photography in the beginning. He's using a Flexaret with a 4,5/75 Belar that has bad focus and considerable vignetting. It's quite a bad camera by anyone's standards, including his. But still he uses it and recently has had it repaired for more than he paid for it in the beginning because he knows the quirks and likes the look. I think this is a perfectly valid perspective. "Value" and "quality" might be very different things depending on the metrics and meanings you attach to those terms. So asking which is "better" is really asking what you do with a camera and what you expect of it.
One of the better series I took this year was at carnival with a Canon "plastic bomber" EF-M and a generic 35-80 Canon zoom lens. Not a "good" camera, but it fit into what I was doing at the time, helped me to get my stuff on film, and I wasn't afraid losing or destroying it, which in the end did the pictures some good. I think it ultimately boils down to what you use your stuff for. If you like to possess and use technical equipment that has the charm of long-lasting precise mechanics, you're in a completely different situation and have different notions of quality than if you are mainly interested in a tool that gets you the desired result on film.
Philipp
An interesting thread - For the infrequent TLR traveller even a Yashica D with a Yashinon may be all that you need.
I've owned a Yashica D and Rolleicord V, but have settled in to a gently used Autocord LMX with an added Mamiya RB67 bright screen with a focusing prism.
Having had taken a "Test Ride" with a Rolleiflex, it definitely has a much better build and therefore better feel than my Minolta Autocord. The Synchro Compur is superior to the Seikosha/Citizen shutter. Optically the Rokkor is as good as a Tessar.
The Minolta Autocord is superior to my photographic skills with a TLR, but it still has proved to be an excellent value at 50 bucks, plus a bright screen.
The thing with the Autocord is that once you tried the lever focusing, you won't go back to the Knob thing!
Unfortunately there are only two TLRs with lever focusing (as far as I know), the Autocord and the Meopta Flexaret.
Todd - nice work with the Ricohflex Dia "L". The four eggs are a classic still life.
David Murphy
06-19-2006, 04:34
An interesting thread - For the infrequent TLR traveller even a Yashica D with a Yashinon may be all that you need.
I've owned a Yashica D and Rolleicord V, but have settled in to a gently used Autocord LMX with an added Mamiya RB67 bright screen with a focusing prism.
Having had taken a "Test Ride" with a Rolleiflex, it definitely has a much better build and therefore better feel than my Minolta Autocord. The Synchro Compur is superior to the Seikosha/Citizen shutter. Optically the Rokkor is as good as a Tessar.
The Minolta Autocord is superior to my photographic skills with a TLR, but it still has proved to be an excellent value at 50 bucks, plus a bright screen.
I guess here I do not agree. I found that it was easy to bump into the level on the Autocord after composing and focusing and slightly defocus the camera ruining a lot of shots. Sometimes the levers drift too. None of this can happen with a geared knob type focus.
The thing with the Autocord is that once you tried the lever focusing, you won't go back to the Knob thing!
Unfortunately there are only two TLRs with lever focusing (as far as I know), the Autocord and the Meopta Flexaret.
I think the Diacord's have the same, if I understand you correctly.
I think the Diacord's have the same, if I understand you correctly.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I missed the Diacord.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I missed the Diacord.
Great! I was just making sure, since I have a Diacord in the mail and I'm quite excited to get it.
I found that it was easy to bump into the level on the Autocord after composing and focusing and slightly defocus the camera ruining a lot of shots. Sometimes the levers drift too.
I guess this is a user interface problem similar to Mac's versus Windows. I haven't had either problems that mentioned. Rather than being a problem, I find the focusing lever very convenient to use while the bottom of camera held in the right hand.
My own quibble is that I'm not a fan of crank winding. It works, but every thing stops while I while I wind forward then backward.
Also, the Autocord's shutter and aperture levers have longish slotted openings, which look rather inviting for dust or whatever to enter the camera.
Todd.Hanz
06-19-2006, 06:28
JVX,
The Diacord L I have has lever focusing, firm enough that I don't think it would wander even if bumped slightly.
thanks for the comments!
Todd
Pherdinand
06-19-2006, 07:00
The best TLR ever is the Beautyflex.
And the rolleiflex of Todd Hanz.
Todd.Hanz
06-19-2006, 07:12
Just so I don't become labled "snobbish", I also own this little gem of a fixed lens, fixed focus, fixed shutter speed, point and shoot, red window film counter, bakelight TLR (not really a reflex camera but what the heck) :):
Todd
The Flexaret I had was not built well at all. The focus lever was wiggling, and I had to sent my first Flexaret back to Poland after receiving it since it was defective. My camera repairman had only one comment: "this is crap". I then got the replacement Flexaret IV (or so), and I sold it immediately to someone who likes such cameras. There simply was no comparison possible between a Flexaret and a Rolleiflex in terms of build quality. The Flaxeret lens is most likely close in quality close to a Tessar or Xenar.
I am also very impressed with quality of built of the Tele Rolleiflex. Wow. A tank.
Pherdinand
06-19-2006, 07:50
Tanks are off-topic here.
Just for a laugh - speaking about quality TLR's, I can't resist the urge to post an image from my Lubitel-2 :D
(bakelite junk I bought for $5)
I thought about posting from my Lubitel as well but I did that in the last TLR thread. I guess I'll have to dig for some shots from my Seagull when I get home.
RicardoD
06-19-2006, 10:16
It's pretty clear from this thread that it would be great to have a TLR forum on RFF and that there is no earth shattering image difference between Rolleiflex, Yashica, Autocord etc... I think in general the the huge jump is from 35mm to 120 film and then the talent of the photographer. But I still would like to get a Rolleiflex 2.8F down the road because l very much appreciate a precision mechanical device. In the meantime I plan to shoot many rolls with my Yashica Mat.
pesphoto
06-19-2006, 10:23
I have an old Rolleicord I tried this weekend, but film was fogged. been wanting to try 6X6. or 6X7. Where to start for under $100 though.
RicardoD
06-19-2006, 10:30
I think Minolta Autocords are $100 or less. I know KEH had some bargain Autocords less than $100 with missing leather (who cares in the short term).
harold722
06-21-2006, 17:15
What are the opinions out there about these cameras??? I have one of each and find that they are superior to the Yashicas in build and control...let me know what you think. I am looking for a Ricoh 225...thanks
The Minolta Autocord is a good camera for very little money and they get only better when a fresnel bright screen is added.
I now have two Autocords and they are the next best thing to a Rolleiflex with a Tessar or Xenar. I've opened up and cleaned up both a LMX and the later model 1 standard. The build quality is sub-par to the Rolleicord, IMHO. Imaging is on par with the Rolleis or "slightly" better. I like the ergonomics of the levers. Others may not.
I had a Mamiya C330 (I'm a Mamiya Guy, I guess...) for a while. Easy enough to use, easy enough to change lenses but they were the problem...
I didn't like most of 'em. The 105 had a strong "Novar" background blur. The 80 was "okay," but I prefer the 100mm f/2.8 on my Universal... So I got rid of 'em.
I too notice the strong "snobbery-of-sorts" about the cameras. Rolleis vs. Cheapies. The cheapies, when stopped down, can take great pictures. That's all that matters to me.
:-)
A Minolta is one of the cheapies, but a good one.
An electrician at work picked up a Mamiya C330 and two lenses for $50 at an estate sale that was run more like a yard sale. If he really did get the Mamiya gear for that little, he has me beat on cheapness.
I have a Flexaret VII, the last of the line and quite a capable and complex piece of engineering. It is a former Soviet Bloc product, no doubt, but everything in Czechoslovakia was higher quality than in Mother Russia (except for the Russian tanks stationed there in 1968!). My flexaret has no wiggle anywhere as Raid reported. Though I doubt it's up to Japanese and German standards, it's far above Russian and can take a beating. I dropped and knocked mine all over Slovakia and Turkey and it kept on taking photos. Though the shutter/wind on linkage has finally gone a little tempermental on me.
I just won a Rolleiflex with a Xenar off ebay for a song (I know I need to put CLA costs into it) so I may change my tune shortly. But I think a maintained, CLA'd Flexaret is nice. Though for very similar money, a CLA'd Autocord could be had, too, from Karl Bryan.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.