Flex, Mat and Cord

[rfshootist]

About junk

Dear Bertram,
A friend of mine shot a 32-sheet poster on an Autocord. I forget what the campaign was -- it was 30+ years ago -- but it certainly argues that the cameras weren't 'crap'. I assumed Rolleijoe was joking (hence my Alpa post). Presumably if he wasn't joking he'd have said so by now.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Hi Roger,

sorry to say so, but as others too here I could not discover anything in this crap+junk post which could let me assume that it was meant ironic. And my expectations are the other way round: If this was meant really ironic the funny Rolleijoe should better say it now.

No matter if Yashica, Minolta, Mamiya or even Ricoh and Meopta, the latters at least on par with the Triotars, none of them is junk.
A Yashinon came quite close to the Tessar in one of these ridiculous test I've seen in the web. And tho I've met some Gagas who claim to see a "clear difference" on the negs with a 25X loupe (!!) I bet none of these "experts" can keep them apart with an identic print 40X40cm. Not to speak of the Mamiya lenses. And the Zeiss Planars on the other side seem to be not free of compromises, as I was told by folks in whose knowledge I trust.

Of course the build quality of a Mat124 is not like a Flex and as a PJ in the 60s, making my living with such a camera, I would have taken the Flex too.
More to FEEL save than because of a proven higher reliability.
But I am just a bloody amateur who babies his stuff and so I was glad to get a new Mat124 1986 for about $250,- when the Flex was (for me in those days) outta sight already somewhere at $2500,- AFAIK

About build quality a story, the difference between assumed and proven :

When I got it some months first, I dropped the Mat on concrete, I had pulled it out of the car boot together with a woolen blanket, a two meter high and 5 meter long curve in the air, and BANGG!! it landed.
I got so extremely upset that , out of control, I fired it on the concrete a second time to destroy it completely. My wife thought about calling the docs. The lens board was bended, the lens was out of everything, pressed into the board.
At home my wife suggested to let the Yashica repair, and after I had cooled my heels I sent it to Kyocera in Hamburg, to let it repair and to sell it then.
Came back completely rebuilt and perfectly adjusted for $ 65,- . It had a filter mounted when it hit the concrete and so the filter had(still has) a little ding, not the lensbarrel tho. Some test shots told me the lens was still perfect, no decentering or whatever, focus drive perfect too, and so I decided to keep it. Works perfect up til today, in June I'll tak it to Paris, on the tracks of Doisneau. ;-)
No, the film transport does not sound like a Flex, so what ? But it's a brick anyway. And I do not dare to think about what the Flex repair had costed.
I think I would have died by a stroke if that all would have had happened to me with a 3 months old Rolleiflex 2,8

Best regards to the southwest of France !

Bertram

 

[naturephoto1]

I would like to say that my Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar 12/24 is extremely sharp, probably close or equal to the 2.8F Planar or Xenotar. I enjoy using the camera when I can and it handles and balances so well.

I had a Yashica Mat 124G before a series of Rolleiflexes. Mine gave me problems from the beginning, the lens was OK but I do not think that it was the equal of my present 3.5F. I found that camera jammed frequently.

For RolleiJoe-

Do you think that that other maker of German cameras and optics formerly from Wetzlar and now from Solms- the one that you might have heard of- Leica made/makes crap? I have been using their SLRs since 1984 as replacements for my Canon F1, EF, A1, etc. system. I would definitely not consider Leicas to be crap.

Rich

 

[Grunthos]

I would like to say that my Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar 12/24 is extremely sharp, probably close or equal to the 2.8F Planar or Xenotar. I enjoy using the camera when I can and it handles and balances so well.

I had a Yashica Mat 124G before a series of Rolleiflexes. Mine gave me problems from the beginning, the lens was OK but I do not think that it was the equal of my present 3.5F. I found that camera jammed frequently.

For RolleiJoe-

Do you think that that other maker of German cameras and optics formerly from Wetzlar and now from Solms- the one that you might have heard of- Leica made/makes crap? I have been using their SLRs since 1984 as replacements for my Canon F1, EF, A1, etc. system. I would definitely not consider Leicas to be crap.

Rich

I think that the 3.5F is an incredible camera. I really don't care if the lens is a Planar or Xenotar for that matter. The reason I got a 2.8E with the Xenotar rather than the Planar was because that was what was available at the time. I was shocked to find that the lens was superior to the Planar on my Blad. This is the camera that I use when I shoot MF and don't need interchangeable backs or lenses and when an 80mm will do. I love the way it handles and I really like the Beattie screen the previous owner installed.

My first decent camera was a Yashica-Mat, an older model, not a 124G. While not the equal of my Rollei, I get very nice results with it at ƒ8 and above. I have heard that the build quality of the older Yashicas was better than the 124G for several reasons I will not bore you with here. I also have a 124G that has worked very well for me. These cameras are a good choice to take places where I don't want to put my Rolleiflex at risk.

I have some rather nice gear, most of it not super expensive, that manage to deliver the goods. This is the most important thing to me, having tools that help me get the results I want, as opposed to owning an ultra expensive camera for bragging rights or, perhaps, a penis substitute.

One thing I have learned in the time I have been shooting, is that it is certainly possible to take dreadful pictures with a Rolleiflex, while outstanding photographs can be and frequently are made by photographers using equipment that certain equipment snobs denounce as "crap".

Rich, I sure don't think Leicas are crap. I have a IIIf and a couple of lenses that I love, and a Nicca, which is a copy of an even older leica.

Grunthos

 

[Grunthos]

Mine is a also a Vb with a Xenar 75 f3.5. It's always been a little soft. If you say yours is sharp, maybe there's something wrong with mine.
N

Neal, The Xenar on my Rolleicord Vb is Quite sharp at ƒ8 and smaller. I have a Rolleicord IV that is just as good. Maybe something is out of adjustment. The Vb has interchangeable focussing screens. Is yours installed correctly installed? Is it the original screen that came with the camera? If not it might not be of the correct thickness, which would mean that your two lenses may not be in agreement as to correct focus. You may want to have it checked out.

I remember taking a couple of junker Yashica-Mats apart and swapping out the lens panel assemblies just for giggles. I was transplanting the lenses and shutter from a camera with a dead film transport to a camera that had a non-functioning shutter. After I got the taking lens to focus correctly I had to loosen a set screw on the viewer lens and adjust the lens focus by screwing and unscrewing the viewer lens until the viewfinder focus agreed with the focus of the taking lens. Since I ruined the leatherette covering on the front lensboard, I now have a very functional, if ugly Yashica-Mat.

Grunthos

 

[Greg_E]

Since I ruined the leatherette covering on the front lensboard, I now have a very functional, if ugly Yashica-Mat.

Grunthos

Here's your solution to the undressed camera:
http://www.cameraleather.com/

 

[ricksplace]

I have a Yashica A that I got for $15 on epay. At f11 the results from the little Yashikor three element lens are REALLY good. Sure, it's not my Rollieflex, but it will still blow away ANY 35mm.

 

[DBP]

For that matter, the lens on my 124G easily outperfoms the Triotar on my Rolleicord, which should surprise only one person.

 

[rfshootist]

For that matter, the lens on my 124G easily outperfoms the Triotar on my Rolleicord, which should surprise only one person.

I use also use these two and agree. But within that circle of enlightened Rolleiists, to which the one person obviously belongs, a Triotar is anyway considered as a Rollei for poor, crap in principle. Publicly they cannot say that, they would contradict themselves and would thus perforate their own creed "all-crap-if-not-Zeiss".

The truth about the Triotar is that, tho less "sharp", this is a very good lens too, portraits shot with a clean uncoated pre WWII lens have more "glow" than a Leicaist would believe !
Did not HCB tell us that sharpness is a bougeois concept anyway ?
Too hard to understand for somebody who obviously educated himself as a photographer by reading the posts at the Rollei mailing list.

bertram

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I've got a Rolleicord IId in my "to repair" box with a CJZ uncoated Triotar. I think its worth keeping it around just to have a different lens from my Rolleiflexes.

The Novar (also a triplet) on an Ikoflex IA I recently sold was actually quite a decent performer. I think either would still smoke any 35mm format camera.

About the whole Rollei/Zeiss thing - I think the Schneider Xenotar on my 2.8E is the best MF lens I own!

 

[DBP]

I'm actually very fond of triplets (in lenses anyway - a friend has the other kind), but would never expect one to beat a Tessar in resolution. But resolution is not the only important factor.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Here's one from the pedestrian Ikoflex Ia - Novar 75/3.5 (triplet), Agfacolour 200

 

[DBP]

Point well made. It's the same lustrous quality that I get from my Argus Cintars.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have a Rolleicord V which I got from that well known on line auction service for only £34 last year. It has the four element Schneider Xenar lens and it is superb.
I am always amazed at the sharpness of the images every time I process a film or get an E6 film back from the lab.
Although I know there are sharper lenses in existence, I'm sure they would be of no benefit to me at all - especially as I hardly ever open wider than f8.
The rolleicord is also great for carrying around when I want to keep things simple (i.e. not take a bag of equipment with me) and Whenever I go to get a camera to take on a walk with me it usually gets picked up in preference to my Bronica ETRS or Nikon cameras. Put a few of rolls of film and a couple of bayonet mount filters in my pocket and off I go.
I am also often surprised at how sharp images are when taken at slow shutter speeds hand held.

Steve Smith.

 

[battra92]

Want to gripe about junk? Go fly a Seagull!!!

I always find these camera lens pissing contests kind of funny because I bet that Seagull probably takes some nice pictures when the right person has it in their hands.

How about an Argoflex E anyone?

 

[DBP]

I learned on an Argoflex EM. Pity it was designed to take 620. If my local camera stores had carried 620 as long as big yellow kept making it, it would have seen a lot more use back when cameras of any sort were a major investment for me. And yes, I know about, and have done, respooling, but graduated to a Ciroflex so I didn't have to bother. And then a Yashicamat, a Flexaret, and a Mamiya C, the first two more for speed of use issues - got tired of doing deep knee bends to advance film with the camera on a tripod.

 

[battra92]

I learned on an Argoflex EM. Pity it was designed to take 620. If my local camera stores had carried 620 as long as big yellow kept making it, it would have seen a lot more use back when cameras of any sort were a major investment for me. And yes, I know about, and have done, respooling, but graduated to a Ciroflex so I didn't have to bother.

Probably a good idea. I do reccomend an Argoflex as a good weightlifting device. I have taken some decent shots with it but I haven't used it in at least a year. The 620 spooling is too much work for that kind of camera.

And then a Yashicamat, a Flexaret, and a Mamiya C, the first two more for speed of use issues - got tired of doing deep knee bends to advance film with the camera on a tripod.

I love my Yashica 44 and was all set to take tons of chromes with it when Macochrome was discontinued. T_T

 

[DBP]

Probably a good idea. I do reccomend an Argoflex as a good weightlifting device.

Now for a good workout, you really need to spend a day shooting a Kiev 60 handheld with the 250mm/3.5 Jupiter 36.

 

[JBrunner]

If it's not medium format Rolleiflex, or Rolleicord, it's junk. Period. Not that I'm a 6x6 shooter only. 35mm keeps going in my Contax G with Zeiss lenses.
It IS true, that if it's not Zeiss, it's crap.

Rolleijoe.

I have lenses and equipment that I favor over any other, however, I think that if I said anything but my choice was crap, junk, etc. well, that would be just plain arrogant and pretentious. I don't, so I guess I am not arrogant and pretentious.

Oh, did we ever figure out what "cord was? Is it record? or an acronym?

 

[DBP]

I have lenses and equipment that I favor over any other, however, I think that if I said anything but my choice was crap, junk, etc. well, that would be just plain arrogant and pretentious. I don't, so I guess I am not arrogant and pretentious.

Oh, did we ever figure out what "cord was? Is it record? or an acronym?

Why would we address the subject of the thread when we can argue about lenses and cameras? Actually, Mike Kovacs answered it about three pages back before Rolliejoe started insulting almost every camera ever made.

From Parker:

Wilhelmine Heideke suggested cord. "Co" from Cop (Rolleiscop, Heidescop cameras), "R" from Reinhold (her husband), "D" from Deco

I love my Yashica 44 and was all set to take tons of chromes with it when Macochrome was discontinued. T_T

I know what you mean. I had just gotten my first roll of superslides back and was all ready to order more Macochrome when they stopped production.

 

[rfshootist]

Why would we address the subject of the thread when we can argue about lenses and cameras?

Exactly, well said !
Actually the argueing about lenses mostly deals with sharpness and means the numbers of a lab test result. As photog IMHO you cannot embarrass your self more and disqualify your own knowledge worse than claiming publicly you got the best lens because you got the sharpest one.
The relevance of sharpness is limited, by film, by printing and most of all by the human perception, which ends at 80-120 lp/mm on a 30X40cm print.
If I had to print detailed landscapes on 80X80 cm for a gallery I probably would look too for the lens with the best edge to edge sharpness I can get.
This would not be the "best" tho necessarily. If at all it would be the best for this purpose.
But for me it all ends at 30X30cm, best case and so the sharpness thing is a non issue for me.
There is NO relevant sharpness beyond the human perception, at least for all those who do not want to get lost in esoteric circles discussing the perception of the invisible.

What really matters is the look or the "footprint" of a lens, which gives it an identity (sometimes) , as we know it can differ clearly from type to type and brand to brand and it is much more relevant for the personal choice than sharpness.

Unfortunately this interesting issue is seldom discussed tho, maybe because you need time and patience for careful observation and comparison, personal practical experience and a certain basic education in seeing. All not that easy to gain, reading MTF charts is easier.

The most unmasking experience I had with a guy once who did not comment on one of my Mat124 photos at all but said only "the Yashinons are not good,
i bought one too tho, just to have a soft lens too for certain purposes".His self nudes ?
He said he makes test shots with all TLRs he considers to buy and checks the negs with 25X (!!) loupe then to see if they are what he expects them to be.
First then he "had his mind free for shooting" (sic!). To have his mind free ?

First then ? How helpless and insecure must he feel, how complete must this mans lack of esthetical and artistical selfconsciousness be that his whole approach to photography is primarily anchored and thus also strictly limited , by the the basic informations of a 25X loupe ?
One could laugh about that, but in my eyes it is rather the tragedy of a constrained personality who tends to erect fences everywhere. He won't get his mind free ever this way.

HCB once said (adressing the gearhead fraction) that the addiction to precision and reliability to him seems to be the search for kinda balance for many people who feel unsafe and permanently insecured by the uncertainties of their everyday life. An interesting thought.

bertram

 

[DBP]

I wonder if that guy ever shoots handheld. I have some pretty good equipment scattered around here, but, as I have said before, some of my best shots are not taken with my best gear.

 

[rfshootist]

I wonder if that guy ever shoots handheld. I have some pretty good equipment scattered around here, but, as I have said before, some of my best shots are not taken with my best gear.

Considering how relative the lab performance of a lens is to the everyday handheld shooting makes the whole sharpness issue even more ridiculous.

It is simply a lack of technical knowledge to claim one could get "sharp" photos with a blade shutter lens or a cloth shutter @ 1/8sec handheld.
Maybe one can get "surprising sharp" photos, or "acceptable sharpness", in any case tho one will be far away from the lens' lab performance on a tripod.

@1/8 sec the result will depend on 1001 things, but surely not tho from the max resolution found in a test, on a tripod, at 100% film contrast.

I never ever found any tests in the www which say something about how much resolution gets lost handheld , or would define at least a range of loss, best case/worst case for the lower shutterspeeds shot handheld.
I think not only the effort for such a test would be enormous (number of persons needed for a representative result) , also the results would sober some fetish obsessed minds.
Maybe this is the reason nobody is really interested in this kinda practical tests ? MTF charts simply sell better as a "hard information". The truth is tho it is as soft as any other practical information is too, it is all relative.
bertram

 

[Papa Tango]

Dont pee into the wind....

I always find these camera lens pissing contests kind of funny because I bet that Seagull probably takes some nice pictures when the right person has it in their hands.

How about an Argoflex E anyone?

Exactly the point. Seagull has some obvious build issues that most photogs attempt to remedy right out of the box. The Seagull is not a Yashica, the Yashica is not a Mamiya, and the Mamiya is not a Rollei. Understanding the characteristics of each camera and having a competent shooting technique, can I get prints that are indistinguishable from each other? You bet. And in the final analysis that is what counts.

I would love to have a brand new Lexus. But my old beater of a Nova has icy cold auto air and still does much more than the speed limit. Getting from point A to B is my priority. Not who I impress getting there....

 

[DBP]

And if that is the toyota built Nova, it's great in snow.

 

[Papa Tango]

And if that is the toyota built Nova, it's great in snow.

Yup, 1987 Corolla in disguise... 355K and still running strong.