Autocord vs Rolleiflex

[campy51]

There always seems to be a debate between Bronica and Hasselblad and I thought it might be interesting if we compare the Autocord and Rolleiflex for value vs craftsmanship. I recently bought an Autocord with a frozen focus lever and after fixing it I shot a roll of just random things around the house and I was amazed how sharp this lens can be. I have just sent my newly acquired Rolleiflex 2.8C for repair and cleaning and when I get it back I think I might do a side by side test. I kinda hate to waste the film but I may do it anyway. Any owners of both cameras want to put their 2 cents in?

 

[Ian Grant]

It depends on which model Rolleiflex and the lens, I have two a late MX Automat with an f3.5 Opton Tessar and a 3.5 E2 with a Xenotar. While the Opton Tessar is an excellent lens it'll be on a par with the Minolta Autocord's lesbut neither are quite as good at wider apertures compared to the Xenotar or Planar lenses.

You could also compare to the Yashicamats, I have a 124 optically it's weaker than the Opton Tessar at f3.5 to f5.6 but still a reasonably good lens.

Ian

 

[Dali]

There always seems to be a debate between Bronica and Hasselblad and I thought it might be interesting if we compare the Autocord and Rolleiflex for value vs craftsmanship.

Well, regarding value, it is up to each owner and as such it is fully subjective.

For craftsmanship, I doubt anyone could give you an adequate answer unless you talk to repairmen.

 

[Alex Varas]

Well, regarding value, it is up to each owner and as such it is fully subjective.

For craftsmanship, I doubt anyone could give you an adequate answer unless you talk to repairmen.

I have worked on both Autocord and Rolleiflex K4A, I like it more the Rolleiflex (the guts I mean).

 

[Dan Daniel]

Mechanically, Rolleiflexes are simply better built than Autocords (and Autocords are better built than YashicaMats). The finish on the parts is better, the solidity, fit. Also the 'Flex is made to be repaired, adjusted, have parts replaced, etc. in ways that the Autocord isn't.This isn't to say that the Autocord is poorly made, it isn't. But there is not denying that Rollei used better materials, executed parts to a higher level, and shows a combination of engineering and design through out that the Autocord doesn't match. The strap lugs of a Rolleiflex are a good indicator of the overall difference- the Autocord is well-made, the Rollei has an extra layer of elegance and attention to detail beyond the technical.

I used an Autocord and a Rolleiflex 2.8C concurrently for many years. the Autocord was more of a knapsack shooter. The Rollei was more of a 'I am going out to take photos' shooter. Except in cases where I was going to be in places or situations where there was a chance of theft or a need for quick reactions (political marches and such). The Xenotar has more bite. The Autocrd Rokkor has better OOF. The bite and contrast of the Xenotar worked well with the creamier quality of Fuji ACROS. The Autocord was a little flat with ACROS but worked very well with Delta or TMax films.

Some day I hope to install a Xenotar or Planar lens set on an Autocord body. I love the focus system and the overall feel of the Autocrd is very nice. The 75mm lenses from a Rollei will fit the Autocord easily, and it's be easy to machine a mount for the 2.8 viewing lens.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I have been (and still am) an Autocord user for years - it was my first TLR, and I've compared all others I've had since then to it. I like the focus lever for focusing better than the knob on the Rolleiflex, and the ease of loading film is good too (I can't tell you how many rolls I wasted in my Rolleiflex as I always forgot to put the film under that damn roller). The straight film plane is good too, especially if you leave film in the camera for a while. I have an old Rolleiflex and it's my main shooter now, but I don't find any difference between the quality of the photos between the two cameras. That may change, however, if and when I ever buy a better Rolleiflex in the future.

 

[Ariston]

I bought an Autocord because I couldn't afford a Rolleiflex, and I am glad I did. After owning the Autocord, I don't really know what could be improved upon. Maybe a little bit faster lens would brighten the ground glass some, but I don't know how it could get a thousand dollars brighter.

It's the same with my Hasselblad 500cm... why do I still reach for my RB so often?

That being said, the Rolleiflexes are much more beautiful to look at than the Autocord.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have had several of each and to be honest I had no problem with either, Personally my favourite was a Rollie 3.5F with a built in meter which was incredibly accurate.The Xenotar lens had such a high degree of contrast I had to modify by developing times - every time, to get a easily printable negative. The Minolta's I have owned were very much up to the mark but let down by the focussing lever on the front of the camera body - simply I prefer the knob on the side. The much simpler Rokkor lens was very good and a large print quite easily made so long as the camera was on a tripod - It seemed to be prone to camera shake - with me anyway.

Currently I have an almost mint Autocord, boxed with the original sales receipt and instruction booklet and what I have said about Autocords above applies to this one too.​

 

[Dan Daniel]

It seemed to be prone to camera shake - with me anyway....

​

I found a small soft release button really helped with the Autocord and less movement. I like the match Technical ones, whatever the small smooth ones are called. Like this-
https://www.popflash.com/mtechBIPslvr-OL
Also helps with Rolleiflex movement.

 

[guangong]

Keep in mind that before usurpation by Hasselblad, Rolleiflex was the workhorse of the fashion industry and many newsmen, and so was built to withstand professional wear and tear.
However, I had a Minolta Autocord in very early 1960s and the camera was very capable. Its weakest point is the focusing mechanism. Whether it could hold up to genuine professional day long use is an open question.
Mine was traded in for a Nikon from Japan at a price I couldn’t pass up. Nikon still going strong. Ten years later bought a Rolleiflex 2.8 F.
For normal use, you won’t go wrong with an Autocord.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I never seen any TLR with lens even close to Rolleicord one But for those who could only see sharpness and contrast it is impossible to explain. Those are lucky. No reason to pay more if you see less...

 

[guangong]

I never seen any TLR with lens even close to Rolleicord one But for those who could only see sharpness and contrast it is impossible to explain. Those are lucky. No reason to pay more if you see less...

I like your response!

 

[Alan Gales]

The Autocord has a really neat dual polarizer available. It fits over both lenses so you can see the effect as you are adjusting it. I don't know if it will fit on a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex though.

 

[macfred]

The Autocord has a really neat dual polarizer available. It fits over both lenses so you can see the effect as you are adjusting it. I don't know if it will fit on a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex though.

The Minolta Autopole works with every Bay I TLR

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't think so. The differences between lens centres are slightly different. Not much, but enough to stop the lenses being mounted properly. The actual bayonet fitting is the same, but that is as far as it goes.

 

[macfred]

^


I'm not sure but this is what I found - there are more pictures like those on the web - rangefinder forums has a thread about the theme too.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yeah, I knew the bayonet fittings were the same. I was worried about the spacing between the two lenses.

Maybe someone here has tried an Autopole on Rollei TLR's. I wish it could work on my Mamiya.

 

[MattKing]

You can use two matched polarizers on a Mamiya C series TLR.
Just be sure that they both have reference marks, and that you screw them on to the same position.

 

[macfred]

Dante Stella reports on his site the Autopole works with his Rolleiflex 3.5MX. On rangefinder forums there is a user who has it working on his Rolleicord Vb with no problems. Maybe Dan Daniels knows about the spacing between lenses.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I don't know hard specifics of spacing between the lenses of Bay I TLRs. Most Bay I TLRs can use the same double lens cap, so that's a good clue.

As I understand the Autopole, it bayonets to the lower lens and in the process rotates in front of the upper lens. So slight variation on lens distance wouldn't matter much?

 

[Alan Gales]

You can use two matched polarizers on a Mamiya C series TLR.
Just be sure that they both have reference marks, and that you screw them on to the same position.

Thanks, Matt. I already knew this but someone else might not.

It's just that the Autopole is so slick!

 

[macfred]

I don't know hard specifics of spacing between the lenses of Bay I TLRs. Most Bay I TLRs can use the same double lens cap, so that's a good clue.

As I understand the Autopole, it bayonets to the lower lens and in the process rotates in front of the upper lens. So slight variation on lens distance wouldn't matter much?

Thank you, sir - that's what I thought.