How nice are higher end TLR's?

[Theo Sulphate]

For decades I ignored TLR's as not being my style. Then I realized how nice Rolleiflexes are and they're not being made any longer. My first TLR was the 3.5F (K4E) followed by a 2.8D (K7D).

I love both, but I'd prefer not to worry about the F's complex meter linkage and ageing selenium meter (which I cover when not in use). The variable depth-of-field vanes on the focus knob are a clever and nice touch, but also add to complexity.

I like the 2.8D's EV system, which is easy to keep disengaged or engaged, whatever you need. A simple meterless camera. My opinion only, but I think it's the peak of Rolleiflex design.

 

[Chrismat]

I used a Rollieflex 2.8F and 3.5F with Planar lenses and they were beautiful. They handled easily, a joy to carry around and they produced great images. The only drawback was their non TTL CDS meter. Other than for collecting purposes, I wouldn't give up my DSLR for one. Yashica shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence, their lenses are soft. Minolta had great optics but the camera didn't handle well. Mamiya is almost as good optically but a big tank, I'd choose a 6x6 SLR over one of those (and did).
This is just one guys test and opinions but I agree with his TLR findings:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

I've used Rolleflexes, Yashicas, and other brands and the lenses on the Yashicas were never soft. This is of course after having a cla done on the Yashicas by a competent technician. Rolleis are more refined, but many of the images I took with the Yashicas were as good or compared well against the Rolleis. The Microcord I have now is as good as any tlr I have ever used.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I had a Yashica 124G, the lens was just fine as was the rest of the camera.

 

[Chrismat]

One problem I did have with some Yashicas was lens flare, but that was not the fault of the lens, but of the internal lens/film chamber. Flocking it took care of any type of flare issues.

 

[removedacct1]

I've owned a Lubitel 2 and I enjoyed using it - until the shutter crapped out, that is. Its a very limited device (few shutter speeds, focusing is nearly impossible) but the optics just aren't that bad. The problem with the Lubitel is that the shutter is so poorly made that it WILL fail as use takes its toll. Mine started sticking open every 5th or 6th exposure, and then not long after that the shutter wouldn't fire at all. They are essentially unfixable at that point. Its too bad - I would have continued to use it if it hadn't crapped out on me. If you used it for portraits and shot close to wide open, it could give you some very pleasant "petzval-like" swirliness:

The "real" TLR's (Rolleiflex/Rolleicord, Yashica, Autocord, et al.) are better cameras in terms of their build quality. Each has its own distinct persona, but all are well made and, if cared for, are as functional in 2017 as they were the day they were made. If you buy one of these cameras, you are getting a much higher standard of reliability, and greater flexibility (remember what I said about limited shutter speeds on the Lubi?).
That said, there's no practical reason to choose the far more expensive Rolleiflex over one of the Japanese alternatives. Quite honestly, I enjoy working with my Minolta Autocord more than my Rolleiflex. (I also think the Autocord's Rokkor lens is better than the Xenotar on my Rollei) There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Yashica Mat or an Autocord. You just don't get a whole lot more from a Rolleiflex except that you are getting a "prestige" camera, for which you will pay twice as much.
This was made using my Minolta Autocord, which I paid $200 for:

And a piece made using my Rolleiflex 3.5E:

If I were to show people a dozen images made with my Rolleiflex and another dozen made with my Autocord, I very much doubt anyone could tell which camera made which image.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
This was made using my Minolta Autocord, which I paid $200 for:

Very nice. Wonderful photo.

If I were to show people a dozen images made with my Rolleiflex and another dozen made with my Autocord, I very much doubt anyone could tell which camera made which image.

You are correct! The photographer is responsible for probably 99% of the result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

TLRs are very good, but you will find that SLRs are better. Take a look at Hasselblads which has interchangeable lenses and changeable film backs which most TLRs do not have.

 

[Down Under]

TLRs are very good, but you will find that SLRs are better. Take a look at Hasselblads which has interchangeable lenses and changeable film backs which most TLRs do not have.

Oh, sure! MF SLRs (Hasselblad) = fiddly bits, high costs to purchase same, clunky shutter/blind system. Endless repairs. Here in Australia, 'blad servicing is calculated in A$200 increments, one little thing, $200, another little thing, $200 more, and so on. Endless money down the drain. So you end up buying secondhand, often as not a pro camera almost on its last legs, eighty to ninety per cent dead. You'll get to know your camera service center well. An ideal kit for boys who like to play with toys.

I was into Hasselblads for about ten years and eventually sold out. Bought three before I finally lucked into a 500CM owned by an amateur and carefully used. Made some money on the camera when I sold it, but took losses on the accessories. End result, I was down about $2,000 overall.

MF TLRs. (Rolleiflex, Rolleicord) = simple cameras, reasonable costs to purchase same unless you want the legendary 2.8 models with two thirds of a stop more and higher prices, not for me! Accessories available at good prices. Easy loading, no fiddly backs to attach. So no changeable backs,so what? My Rolleiflex T and Rolleicord Vb have 16 exposure insert kits and I also have a circa 1950 35mm back which fits on any Rollei. So no intechangeable lenses, have you priced a good 50mm or 40mm Zeiss for a Hasselblad? Even a secondhand 50 in good condition is worth more than any two of my Rolleis. Resale value for TLRs stays reasonable, but beyond saying this,I wouldn't know or care, as I've never sold any of my user Rolleis. I used them regularly and they just keep on going, even the 1962 3.5 E2 I bought 51 years ago.

This isn't meant to disparage what Sirius Glass wrote, his viewpoint is only one of many, mine differs. I've owned Rolleis since 1966, put them aside for a decade when I got into Hasselblads, now using them again.They are a joy to work with and always produce the goods.

In the end, it's all horses for courses, and some common sense.

 

[dxqcanada]

I really like TLR's, there is nice feeling of how it is physically used ... even though they are made of a lot of metal.
I've never had a Lubitel (nor a Rollei) but I have used Yashicas, Minoltas, and a Ricoh TLR ... I think you will like stepping up from what you got.
I think the lenses are better in the Minolta Autocord and Ricoh Diacord than the Yashica's ... though most of these old cameras need a CLA before usage.