Konica TC anyone?

[Paul Howell]

I have a T, T3, and 4 along with an A and A3 but no TC or TCX which as I understand it was made by Cosina. I see lots for sale, they seem to be holding up while the later Konica FS and FT are hard to find in working condition. Anyone using the TC or TCX, any reason to get one?

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I have my grandfather’s TC, although I’ve not used it much.

It’s not a bad camera. I’m not sure about it being a Cosina product-not discounting that but I also don’t recall reading that and it doesn’t “feel” like the other Cosina SLRs I’ve had like the FM10 and T60.

I’m not a Konica guy, and it’s probably not a camera I’d go out of my way to acquire if I wanted a one camera from them. I’m glad to have my grandfathers, though.

 

[Paul Howell]

I believe the TC was made in the Konica factory, while the TC X was made by Cosina. I like my other Konica AR mount bodies, only grip is the viewfinders are a bit dim. From what I read the TC and TCX are better viewfinders otherwise not sure what advantage a TC would have over a A3.

 

[blee1996]

I have both T3n and TC, and I like them both. The T3n is built like a tank, and has great mechanical precision feel to it. The lighter and simpler TC, paired with the wonderful Hexanon 40/1.8 pancake lens, is my go-to camera for daily snapshots.

I used to have T4, but has some film transport issues. I had FT as well, but it was not reliable even after replacing the deteriorated insulation pads. So I gave them both away to charity.

 

[runswithsizzers]

First let me say, I have never used either a Konica TC or a TC-X. But I do have a Konica Autoreflex T4.

Have you seen this reference which discusses the TC <https://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eTCHaupt.html>? And from the same author, this page about the TC-X <https://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eTC-XHaupt.html>?

If I understand correctly, the two cameras are very different from each other. The TC is made by Konica and is very similar to the T4, but missing a few features. More importantly for me -- I believe the TC has the same viewfinder as the T4, which is pretty good, as far as Konica viewfinders go. The viewfinders on the TC and T4 are said to be noticeably brighter than previous Konica models, and after owning a T3n, I agree.

As for the TC-X, that one is made by Cosina. I like the fact that the TC-X takes a modern battery (unlike the TC and T4). The fact that the TC-X is mostly plastic doesn't really bother me; I like light cameras! But the deal killer for me is the dimmer viewfinder in the TC-X, compared to the TC/T4. According to this review <https://davidde.com/2018/12/06/konica-tc-x-slr-review/> the TC-X has a "...has a rather dark viewfinder for this class of camera and is easily its worst attribute."

I know, the quality of the viewfinder does not affect the image, but... One of the reasons I shoot film is because I enjoy the experience of using the old analog cameras, and part of that experience is the big, bright view through the pentaprisms of my Pentax cameras. While the viewfinder of my Konica T4 is not as bright as my Pentax MX, the T4 is acceptable to me -- but the Konica T3n viewfinder was not. From what I've read, I am guessing the TC-X viewfinder will be more like the T3n than like the T4?

Greg Weber, who is something of a Konica expert, also says this about the TC-X, "...drawbacks include its meter, which has a tendency to go out of regulation.." <http://www.konicafiles.com/slr-bodies/-konica-tc-x-1985/>

 

[Paul Howell]

So a TC with a 40mm, not a true pancake but close. I use 625 hearing aid batteries, a bit pricey, I extend the life of the battery by taking them out of the camera and recovering the air holes. I have a T4 that I need to recover, the leatherrett has shrunk and is coming loose. I like the fact that it has a motor winder, not fast at 2 FPS and needs 6 AAs. I miss the shutter speed readout of the T, T2, and T3.

 

[MattKing]

I sold the TC back when it was current.
It was a good introductory SLR for those who wanted to move to that type of camera.
It was relatively light and small, and the standard lens was excellent.
It wasn't as robust as the earlier Konica T models - we had one customer who abused one horribly*, and it wasn't up to the task.

*If you have one of those chrome sided, metal attaché case style camera cases like the Halliburton ones, it is NOT a good idea to remove the internal foam padding to fit more stuff in with your camera!

 

[Paul Howell]

Other than lighter, as I have an A3, a stripped T3, I decided not to buy a TC just for shake of owning one.

 

[dynachrome]

I am always happy to see interest in Konicas. I bought my first TC as soon as it came out in 1976. At the time , I also had a T3. The T3 was purchased in 1975 and replaced my T2 of 1971. The original TC had two arms attached to the mirror and had a metal bottom plate. The later TC had only one arm attached to the mirror and had a plastic bottom plate. My TC gave excellent service for eleven years, before I traded it for a better looking one. The skin on the TCs has not aged well but that's an easy fix. The later TCX was indeed made by Cosina and it's somewhat fragile. I have many of the Cosina and later Phenix made SLRs and the TCX is not one of the better ones. The Yashica FX-3 and FX-3 Super cameras are reasonably well made. The FX-3 Super 2000 is very poorly made. Most of its gears are made of plastic and not very good plastic either. The TC is small, light and reliable. It also works properly with most non-Konica lenses. This was a weak point for the T3, T3N and A3 cameras. These models just wouldn't work properly with other Konica mount lenses. The T/T2, A/A2 and A1000 models did not suffer from this problem. The T4 was made on the same chasis as the TC. It was also reasonably reliable if you did not use the motor winder on it too much. Later in life I found that I needed some negative diopter correction to use the T4. My theory is that the T4 was made for younger people. The Canon F-1 (original 1971 model) has a very different diopter setting and was probably used by older picture takers, who could afford it. The 40/1.8 Hexanon has an interesting design and is very sharp. It makes a nice package with a TC. As my vollection has grown over the years I find myself using other brands and formats more but I still enjoy going back to my Konicas.

 

[Paul Howell]

My first SLR 35mm was a Pentax Spotmatic, second a T, I used for several years then traded it in for Nikon F with motor drive. The F2 had just come out and T with the 57 1.2 almost paid for the Nikon. I think the Konica lens were as good as any Nikon I've owned. I need to recover my T4, and I do use it with the motor winder. When I was trading in Konica the Konica rep was at the shop and I asked him why Konica did not make a motor drive. He told me that the Cds meters memory would give a false reading in AE mode when shooting at 3FPS. I have 2 Vivitar S1 in AR mount, they seem to work fine on my T, but I don't use them much, they just a bit heavy so I use primes. Of the 70s and 80s vintage Japanese SLRs Konica's Ts seems to be holding pretty well, unlike the FS and later bodies.

 

[xkaes]

 

[blee1996]

When I need aperture priority, I go for Nikon EM with Series-E 50/1.8. When I need (slightly) better lens, I go for Konica TC with 40/1.8. Both are cheap, small, lightweight, and fast to shoot with one hand.