Autocord vs Tessar Rolleiflex (now that they cost about the same)

[madeleineostoja]

Now that the Minolta Autocords have crept up in price to be about the same as the older Rolleiflex models with Tessar lenses (MX / MX-EVS), are they still the better buy?

I’ve read a few times that the Rokkor Tessar beats even the Rollei Tessar, and that the handling is better. So if two cameras were in roughly the same condition, for roughly the same price, which would you go for? Has anyone shot both and compared results? Or have a clear favourite?

I used to own a Rolleiflex MX, and was pretty happy with it. The lens misbehaved sometimes (really needed to get myself a hood), and the viewfinder hood was broken, but I enjoyed it. Now I’m looking for another TLR, and I’m seriously eyeing up the autocord. It seems better designed, and I like the idea of the levers everywhere vs knobs.

It’s silly but the reality is I’m wary about paying the same amount for an “imitation” that originally sold for half the price, when I could have the “real deal”. I know, stupid, but here we are.

So, is the autocord as good as people say?? Is it worth investing in (upgraded viewing screen, probably a replacement focusing lever one day)?

For now a planar Rolleiflex is out of the question, and the one I owned for a very brief period of time was worse than my Tessar model, which is why I now only buy crystal clear optics.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Now that the Minolta Autocords have crept up in price to be about the same as the older Rolleiflex models with Tessar lenses (MX / MX-EVS), are they still the better buy?

I’ve read a few times that the Rokkor Tessar beats even the Rollei Tessar, and that the handling is better. So if two cameras were in roughly the same condition, for roughly the same price, which would you go for? Has anyone shot both and compared results? Or have a clear favourite?

I used to own a Rolleiflex MX, and was pretty happy with it. The lens misbehaved sometimes (really needed to get myself a hood), and the viewfinder hood was broken, but I enjoyed it. Now I’m looking for another TLR, and I’m seriously eyeing up the autocord. It seems better designed, and I like the idea of the levers everywhere vs knobs.

It’s silly but the reality is I’m wary about paying the same amount for an “imitation” that originally sold for half the price, when I could have the “real deal”. I know, stupid, but here we are.

So, is the autocord as good as people say?? Is it worth investing in (upgraded viewing screen, probably a replacement focusing lever one day)?

For now a planar Rolleiflex is out of the question, and the one I owned for a very brief period of time was worse than my Tessar model, which is why I now only buy crystal clear optics.

I'd take a fully working Autocord over a fully working Rolleicord for sure, but the jury is out regarding an Autocord vs a Tessar Rolleiflex. I just really like the focusing of the Autocord better than the Rolleiflex, but the Minolta HAS to be in good condition and the focusing mechanism recently serviced and lubed.

Phil Forrest

 

[madeleineostoja]

I also just had a closer look at a bunch of the eBay listings I saw — for the same price the Autocords are in better condition than the Rolleiflex's, a mint Rolleiflex Tessar still fetches a fair bit more than a mint Autocord. Maybe that settles it!

 

[CMur12]

From what I have read online, my experience is atypical, but I have had five different Autocords and I never had a broken focusing lever. As long as the focusing mechanism is properly lubricated, the focusing lever is perfectly adequate. It is only when old lubricant hardens and the lever is forced that it tends to break.

I have seen aftermarket replacement focusing levers on eBay and it seems that a number of technicians make such repairs themselves, as well.

My understanding is that Autocords were made with professional use in mind, and they are quite robust. Some say that the winding mechanism isn't strong, but out of my five Autocords, one had a little roughness in the winding mechanism and I had it serviced. The other four have had no such problem.

The Autocord draws the film down from the top, so it is exposed before it is bent over a rolled onto the take-up spool. The Rolleis and most of their copies draw the film from the bottom, bending it over the roller before exposure, which can result in a kink in the film and focusing inaccuracies if left sitting for long between uses.

The Autocord's lens is known to be a particularly good Tessar-type. Some feel that it out-Tessars the Tessar. I have an Autocord and a Rolleiflex T with the reputedly reformulated Tessar. I have gotten some notable slides out of both of these TLRs, but I have never compared them critically.

My favorite TLRs are the Minolta Autocord and the Mamiya C330f, which are very different from each other and complement each other nicely. If I had to reduce my herd to two, it would be these. If I added a third, it would be the Rolleiflex T, which is my favorite among the Rolleis.

I had a Rolleicord that I never really bonded with. It feels different from other Rolleis, but it is a very competent picture-taker with a good Tessar-type lens. It would be greatly enhanced with a brighter focusing screen.

I have no experience with the earlier Rolleis that you reference, though I have often been curious about them.

Hopefully, someone who can critically compare the lenses in question will chime in. Good luck on your quest!

- Murray

 

[benlees]

It's unlikely you would see any difference in lens quality between the Tessar-type lenses. Handling and ergonomics might be more important. I've had the T, various Rolleicords, and an Autocord. The Autocord was my favourite (the lens focus lever works amazingly well)- though I quite liked the Rolleicords. The Rolleicords seem very compact and well made. Always wanted a Diacord but never found one...

 

[David Murphy]

Both of these are beautiful and highly capable cameras (I own and use both).

In my experience however, the Rolleiflex has the edge at least mechanically if not optically. The Rolleiflex (if properly adjusted) set an exceedingly high bar for the competition.

 

[charjohncarter]

It's unlikely you would see any difference in lens quality between the Tessar-type lenses. Handling and ergonomics might be more important. I've had the T, various Rolleicords, and an Autocord. The Autocord was my favourite (the lens focus lever works amazingly well)- though I quite liked the Rolleicords. The Rolleicords seem very compact and well made. Always wanted a Diacord but never found one...

I have a 'T' and here is one from it:

2006 Rolleiflex (645 mask) Tmax400 by John Carter, on Flickr

My Diacord G I paid $50 for and it has a similar lens:

Arista EDU ultra 100- Arista Liquid developer by John Carter, on Flickr

But I like the focus lever much better than the Diacord G (which a little different from the Minolta and it is much easier to use) and I like the split focus screen better on the 'T' than the Diacord G.

 

[CMur12]

Both of these are beautiful and highly capable cameras (I own and use both).

In my experience however, the Rolleiflex has the edge at least mechanically if not optically. The Rolleiflex (if properly adjusted) set an exceedingly high bar for the competition.

Sometimes, however, the Germans "over-engineer" their devices, resulting in unnecessary complication, while the Japanese may accomplish the same function with a simpler mechanism.

I now recall that I had an early post-War Rolleiflex that had a wobble in the lensboard. I contacted a trusted technician, who told me that the fix would be easy on an Autocord, but that it would be very involved and expensive on the Rollei.

- Murray

 

[retinax]

Sometimes, however, the Germans "over-engineer" their devices, resulting in unnecessary complication, while the Japanese may accomplish the same function with a simpler mechanism.

I now recall that I had an early post-War Rolleiflex that had a wobble in the lensboard. I contacted a trusted technician, who told me that the fix would be easy on an Autocord, but that it would be very involved and expensive on the Rollei.

- Murray

Maybe so in that case, but generally an Autocord will have a little lens board wobble due to wear in the focus helical. A miniscule amount of wear translates into noticeable wobble and nothing can be done a against it except damping with thicker grease, whereas the Rollei focusing mechanism can be adjusted to compensate for wear. So I'd argue the Autocord is underengineered. Now if we look at Zeiss Ikon cameras, they are indeed overengineered.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I think perhaps the sharpest medium format lens I have ever used was a pristine Zeiss-Opton 75mm Tessar f/3.5 fitted to an Automat MX. That one I brokered to a friend locally for $100 AUD. Why I didn't buy it myself I have no idea.

I only ran one roll of film through it so didn't really explore the attributes of the lens. Not saying it's the best Rollei lens I've ever used. But centre sharpness, my eyes were bleeding.

I rate Minolta optics very, very highly so (other than the well known focus lever issue) would not criticise the Autocord. But (unless interchangeable lenses are a must, and you already have that covered) I find it difficult to recommend a make of TLR other than Rollei. They made twin lenses for a very long time, in part because the whole product was so good in virtually every way. As per my comments in the folder thread, if a lighter, quality TLR is desired, do not neglect to consider the Rolleicord series.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Maybe so in that case, but generally an Autocord will have a little lens board wobble due to wear in the focus helical. A miniscule amount of wear translates into noticeable wobble and nothing can be done a against it except damping with thicker grease, whereas the Rollei focusing mechanism can be adjusted to compensate for wear. So I'd argue the Autocord is underengineered. Now if we look at Zeiss Ikon cameras, they are indeed overengineered.

Yes: having re-calibrated the focus parallelism of a Rollei from scratch a few times, it is whilst not hard, per se, tedious, fiddly work involving much messing about with shim thicknesses between removing, trialling and refitting the lens board each time to measure adjustments. But in the end, unless an example is badly impact damaged or very hard used, you will have a Rollei correctly adjusted and ready to go for a few more decades. They surely made them to last and last.

 

[Nitroplait]

Having owned a few Japanese TLR's and Rolleiflex's over the past 20 years:

For a 4 element lens, a newer Japanese TLR will be preferable over an much older Rollei which will likely have older softer coatings (with light cleaning marks) light haze etc.

Mechanically I prefer Rolleiflex over a Japanese TLR of same vintage (strongly dislike the Rolleicord handling and build but the Xenar lens is great)
Some Japanese TLR's such as the Minoltas feels well build when compared to early Rolleiflex's produced just prior and post WWII.

I would prefer a sound Rolleiflex T over any Japanese TLR.

 

[DownUnder]

Mechanically I prefer Rolleiflex over a Japanese TLR of same vintage (strongly dislike the Rolleicord handling and build but the Xenar lens is great)

I would prefer a sound Rolleiflex T over any Japanese TLR.

Me too. I have (and often use) two latermodel Ts (black bodies, mid 1960s) which ergonomically are as good as they get. They are light and easy to use but the speed and f/stop settings are via two belts which seems rather flimsy. I use them carefully and have not had any problem with a belt breaking.

I also have (and now and then use) a Rolleicord Vb with the Xenar lens which, while the glass is to me as good as the Tessars, has odd ergonomics that annoy me. Film winding is via a wheel like the old Yashica TLRs (I had and used a D for several years before I could afford a Rollei). The shutter lever works off the bottom of the front panel below the taking lens, with a left-right-left motion. I mostly use it with a hand grip and a cable release which slows me down, but then Rolleis are static shooters anyway so it doesn't matter much.

The Ts and the 'cord Vb have accessory 16 exposure kits for additional images if smaller negatives/slides. With careful cranking you can easily get 17 images on a 120 roll. The Vb also has a 24 exposure kit that produces nice small panoramic images of horizontal landscapes. (I have both but have never used the '24').

You can do multiple exposures with the Vb but not with the Ts. Again, I've never done this. So...

Negatives from my Ts and the Vb are contrasty and sharp and print easily to up to 8x10" which is as big as I want.

I have never owned an Autocord nor known anyone in Canada or Australia who has had one. So I can say only this about them. As there are so many out there, can still be repaired and go on working well after what? 60+ years, they must be excellent cameras. Like the Rolleis...

 

[wjlapier]

I owned an Autocord LMX and took it one day with a Ikoflex Ib with a Tessar lens out for a walk to compare the two. IMO, the Ikoflex tessar was the sharper of the two and had greater contrast. Both lenses very sharp.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The ergonomics of the Autocord are light-years ahead of the MX.

 

[j.scooter]

I rate Minolta optics very, very highly so (other than the well known focus lever issue) would not criticise the Autocord.

I just want to point out that Karl Bryan has quite an elegant fix for the brittle focus lever. I bought my Autocord from him, with his replacement focus arm 3 years ago and it is still smooth and fun to use as ever just like it was in 1955

 

[Mark C]

I guess you can tell by now they are both great cameras with their individual age related issues. I've had a couple Autocords and like them as a cheaper substitute for a Rolleiflex, and would prefer them to all but the last models of Rolleicord. Rolleiflex X, MX or later are a bit nicer optically and mechanically than the Autocord, at least in my experience.

One thing that always seems to be left out in these comparisons is the wonderfully simple automatic parallax correction in the Rolleis. To me this is a huge benefit and combined with the Rollei close up sets really ads to the versatility to me.

Rolleiflex T is my all time favorite TLR though, even over F's. I'm keeping one X for nostalgia but ditching my MX for lack of use now.

 

[Deardorff38]

Mine too. I had several very clean 2.8 F and I prefer the character of the T's Tessar

Flickr

 

[madeleineostoja]

Thank you for all the replies! Lots to think about...

My favorite TLRs are the Minolta Autocord and the Mamiya C330f, which are very different from each other and complement each other nicely. If I had to reduce my herd to two, it would be these. If I added a third, it would be the Rolleiflex T, which is my favorite among the Rolleis.

I actually own a C220! It’s what I ended up replacing my Rolleiflex with, and while I do like it and love the results I get, it’s just too cumbersome to lug around sometimes, and I miss having a compact fixed lens medium format camera I can throw in a tote. My budget and love for WLFs means another TLR (considered folders, and I can’t afford a Fuji rangefinder).

It sounds like the lenses are much of a muchness. So it comes down to handling and reliability. I’ve already ordered a new brightscreen from Rick Oleson in anticipation (the same screen fits the Automat/Autocord/Rolleicord). It sounds like most people prefer the handling of the Autocord.

I just can’t get over the Rollei name, it’s like being able to buy a Leica for the same price as a Japanese rangefinder and choosing the Japanese version. Which I know is really silly. Is there any rationality to that? I assume the Autocord will keep kicking for years if I treat it well, same as a Rolleiflex/cord. And is the handling of the rolleicord really that bad? I only have my old Rolleiflex and C220 to go on.

 

[chipgreenberg]

I recently considered upgrading my Autocord to a Planar/Xenotar Rollei. I had the budget. At the end of the day I decided I liked the results so much from my Autocord the upgrade would be too close to being redundant and went a different route.