A quest for a reasonably cheap TLR

[neilt3]

If your looking at a Rolleimagic , you would be better looking at the Rolleimagic II as it give you control of manual exposure .
The original didn't give you control of shutter speeds other than 1/30" for flash and "Bulb" .
To give more or less than the meter reading you'd need to adjust the ISO to override it .
The second model you can shoot at what you want .
See here ; http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rollei_Magic
For most of my shooting I tend to be in aperture priority mode , so most of the time it might not be an issue .
I had looked at the first Rolleimagic but got put off by this .
Not sure of your budget , but I wouldn't say the Rolleimagic II would fall in line with "a quest for a reasonably cheap TLR" though !

My first TLR was a Yashica 124 G that I bought about 15 years ago , that was cheap ( about £80 ), but prices seem to have shot up since .
I've always been happy with the results .

 

[M-88]

If your looking at a Rolleimagic , you would be better looking at the Rolleimagic II as it give you control of manual exposure .
The original didn't give you control of shutter speeds other than 1/30" for flash and "Bulb" .
To give more or less than the meter reading you'd need to adjust the ISO to override it .
The second model you can shoot at what you want .
See here ; http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rollei_Magic
For most of my shooting I tend to be in aperture priority mode , so most of the time it might not be an issue .
I had looked at the first Rolleimagic but got put off by this .
Not sure of your budget , but I wouldn't say the Rolleimagic II would fall in line with "a quest for a reasonably cheap TLR" though !

My first TLR was a Yashica 124 G that I bought about 15 years ago , that was cheap ( about £80 ), but prices seem to have shot up since .
I've always been happy with the results .

Won't be looking for anything since I've acquired a regular non-G Yashica 124 and it's reasonably good.

 

[neilt3]

Won't be looking for anything since I've acquired a regular non-G Yashica 124 and it's reasonably good.

And I'm sure you'll be very happy with it , it more or less the same as the "G" and I'm still happy with mine .
There is both a wide angle and telephoto set available for it that give fair results as well as a close up diopter .
If you get any of these , make sure you get the full pairs ( taking lens and viewing lens ) .

 

[Kino]

I find the accessory wide angle set I bought for my 124 Mat G disturbingly loose when mounted. Have been trying to design a shim out of a feeler gauge to tighten-up the lens when I use it.

Not Yashica's greatest moment when they made these lenses...

 

[M-88]

And I'm sure you'll be very happy with it , it more or less the same as the "G" and I'm still happy with mine .
There is both a wide angle and telephoto set available for it that give fair results as well as a close up diopter .
If you get any of these , make sure you get the full pairs ( taking lens and viewing lens ) .

I find the accessory wide angle set I bought for my 124 Mat G disturbingly loose when mounted. Have been trying to design a shim out of a feeler gauge to tighten-up the lens when I use it.

Not Yashica's greatest moment when they made these lenses...

I browsed the internet and found some materials comparing Rollei and Yashica. They both look similar on the outside, but once you look inside, Yashica looks cheaper, so I'm not surprised with the quality of the snap-on lens. But on the other hand, German equipment costs 2-3 times more in this case.

 

[AgX]

Installing the mirror is simple- it self-registers to cast brackets so no alignment or adjustments needed.

In theory the thickness of the mirror matters.

 

[Dan Daniel]

In theory the thickness of the mirror matters.

As long as it fits, no, thickness does not matter for this camera. It is a front surface mirror. There are three stationary surfaces that it indexes to, and the indexing is based on the front of the mirror. Which is the reflective surface. The substrate that holds the reflective surface against the three index points could be any thickness, just needs to slide in the slots for convenience.

 

[AgX]

Just because it is a front surface mirror thickness matters
Any difference in thickness results in angular dependant difference of focal plane.
With a SLR mirror the difference of focal plane distance would be 1.4 x mirror thickness difference.

 

[summicron1]

I've been using a Yashicamat 124 for about a decade now, I bought it on this forum. It gets used alongside my LF kit with a mix of coated and multi-coated lenses and I definitely don't get flat lifeless images from it, in fact they match my LF images.

Have to agree with Dan about the interior although I've only had an issue once in unusual lighting conditions working almost wide open.

Ian

well, there's cheap and then there's cheap ... I just got a yashica mat back from service, lovely lens of the better variety, and it performs very well, images just fine.

However, the camera as a whole, even just serviced, is no Rolleiflex. Handling, feel, quality, just not there ... and tactile joy is a real thing.

Got this particular rollei, an MX, for $300. I'd call that darn cheap for what it is.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I won't disagree about the difference in build quality, my Yashicamat 124 had been dropped (before I bought it) and the focusing isn't a smooth as it should be, it could be fixed but at a cost higher than getting a mint 124G. It'll just wear out faster I makes excellent images and that's all that matters, It's no longer my main TLR and it stays in Turkey for use when we are there.

I bought a Rolleiflex Automat MXV with an Opton Tessar at a Lea market for £70 ($92) about 3 years ago that's now my main TLR in the UK although I also have a mint Rolleiflex 3.5E2. Yes the Rolleiflex cameras are excellent build quality but I'm using the Yashicamat and Automat alongside my LF cameras I need something that's not as precious as my 3.5E2 that still give excellent results.

Ian

 

[Dan Daniel]

Just because it is a front surface mirror thickness matters
Any difference in thickness results in angular dependant difference of focal plane.
With a SLR mirror the difference of focal plane distance would be 1.4 x mirror thickness difference.

Disagree for the YashicaMat (and many other TLRs). Again, the front surface of the mirror, the reflective surface, is the indexing surface for installation. Three tabs cast into the YashicaMat body define where the mirror surface sits. The mirror could be .005 inches thick or 50 inches thick, all of that material is behind the reflective surface and, because the indexing of the imaging surface not changing, has no effect on the imaging system.

SLRs usually have the mirror mounted based on the rear surface, so of course in these cases the thickness of the mirror affects the location of the reflective surface.

 

[George Mann]

Now I have Rolleiflexes with Zeiss Planar lenses. In viewing normal sized prints I can see no difference between pics taken with the Xenar or Planars.

As you shouldn't because these are licensed OEM versions of the Planars that are not as finely made as the optics Zeiss reserves for their own cameras.

The biggest difference is in how the elements are ground and polished.

 

[btaylor]

As you shouldn't because these are licensed OEM versions of the Planars that are not as finely made as the optics Zeiss reserves for their own cameras.

The biggest difference is in how the elements are ground and polished.

? The Schneider Xenar was the budget lens Rollei used on Rolleicords and cheaper ‘flexes, a 4 element lens. The Zeiss Planar was the premium lens, a 5 (or later model, 6) element design. The Zeiss Planar and Schneider Xenotar were marketed as the superior lenses by Rollei.

 

[George Mann]

? The Schneider Xenar was the budget lens Rollei used on Rolleicords and cheaper ‘flexes, a 4 element lens. The Zeiss Planar was the premium lens, a 5 (or later model, 6) element design. The Zeiss Planar and Schneider Xenotar were marketed as the superior lenses by Rollei.

My point was that one will notice less differences when comparing the different lenses that Rollei used vs. the various lenses that Zeiss reserved for their own product line.

 

[warden]

The interior of the YashicaMats is rather reflective. A discussion of this on Flickr, with photos down the thread showing flocking installed-
https://www.flickr.com/groups/yashica_tlr/discuss/72157622734630140/

And a lens hood is needed. You can get cheap plastic ones for under $10, better than nothing. Or patience on Ebay can get you a Rollei-type hood that mounts to the outer bayonet, allowing filters on the inner bayonet (the YashicaMat is 'Bay I' (one).

Much agreement here - flocking and a lens hood really transforms this camera.

 

[Kino]

In the USA, most hobby, craft and fabric stores carry a line of black fabric/felt with a self adhesive backing for about $2-3 a sheet which can be used to flock a camera.

 

[warden]

You can also google "telescope flocking" for online sources.

 

[M-88]

Much agreement here - flocking and a lens hood really transforms this camera.

I'm currently working on the issue. I also have to source a hood from abroad. All in its time, however, I'm in no hurry.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Good day and Merry Christmas, apparently.

I have a small task for my brain - to find a cheap and also a decent TLR camera for myself. "Cheap" means Under 100$. I've been doing some research and so far have found only a few of such cameras, which are:

1. Yashica D and 124
2. Minolta Autocord
3. Rolleicord

I have picked those since they don't have questionable quality, whether built or optical. Sadly if I want any of those in working condition with fungi-free glass I might not find them within designated budget. Maybe I overlooked some other cameras that qualify? Any advise is appreciated!

P.S. Two things I'd like to mention just so we can stay in 120 Format TLR category and not consider other models:
1. I want it to be 120 format specifically due to scarcity of "Type 127" film and not much improvement of 40x40 mm over 36x24 mm;
2. I used to own Bronica and it was a wonderful machine but then I started acquiring its lenses and accessories which resulted in a rather heavy backpack and completely neglected my 35 mm gear. I don't want it to happen again so SLRs are off the table (also because of the price, of course). And I also wouldn't want a rangefinder with bellows and such.

Thank you

Mike

For 120 you really need to look at Yashica Mat (no 124, no D etc.) as this is the lowest priced of them all (typically). so far two I bought have caused me no trouble. you may find a Mat EM or LM even lower (no difference other than meter built in on EM/LM). Also the 635 is an option and while often more expensive, it may not be (and a chance to play with 35 mm film with adapter). The main point on 635 is that one with Yashinon lens is going to cost more as Yashikor was more common on them (and also of lesser qaulity).

 

[M-88]

For 120 you really need to look at Yashica Mat (no 124, no D etc.) as this is the lowest priced of them all (typically). so far two I bought have caused me no trouble. you may find a Mat EM or LM even lower (no difference other than meter built in on EM/LM). Also the 635 is an option and while often more expensive, it may not be (and a chance to play with 35 mm film with adapter). The main point on 635 is that one with Yashinon lens is going to cost more as Yashikor was more common on them (and also of lesser qaulity).

I went straight for 124 (non-G) in as-is condition for 63$ including shipping and got it fixed, since every other Yashica option was too expensive or in too poor condition. But thank you anyway.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Disagree for the YashicaMat (and many other TLRs). Again, the front surface of the mirror, the reflective surface, is the indexing surface for installation. Three tabs cast into the YashicaMat body define where the mirror surface sits. The mirror could be .005 inches thick or 50 inches thick, all of that material is behind the reflective surface and, because the indexing of the imaging surface not changing, has no effect on the imaging system.

SLRs usually have the mirror mounted based on the rear surface, so of course in these cases the thickness of the mirror affects the location of the reflective surface.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I went straight for 124 (non-G) in as-is condition for 63$ including shipping and got it fixed, since every other Yashica option was too expensive or in too poor condition. But thank you anyway.

If it works fine and lens has no issues, you have a bargain.

 

[M-88]

If it works fine and lens has no issues, you have a bargain.

Seems like it, but hood is a must have.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Seems like it, but hood is a must have.

I can't think of one TLR that would not benefit from hood. In fact I put hood on any lens as default set up in any condition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Seems like it, but hood is a must have.

I can't think of one TLR that would not benefit from hood. In fact I put hood on any lens as default set up in any condition.

Lens hood as must haves for SLR, 4"x5" cameras, ...