Which to get Yashic124G or Autocord
Skunkens
Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
DavidM
In my opinion the TLR is not good for portraits, since you cannot get
close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
shots, not for head and shoulders.
From the 2 cameras you mentioned, I would pick the Yashica if cost is no
object, it is more modern and more easily fixed if it has problems.
You can also use 220 film with the Yashica 124G. Only the very uncommon
(and hard to find) Autocord models can use 220.
The Autocord however is also excellent, on a par with Rollei in quality.
Dave
experienced distortion. If I get really close there is some potential for parallax
but no distortion. However, if it is parallax that is easy to deal with. Some of
the Mamiya cameras have parallax correction.
If you are reffering to perspective (using a 80mm lens might make for squatty
appearance) then the best way to go is Mamiya "C" series since you can change to
longer lenses that will have a more gentle perspective.
Regards,
Dave
DavidM wrote:
--
Please reply to the group or directly to:
dpayne at pacifier dot com
Bonnephoto
>close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length<BR>
I find that you can do portraits with an 80 mm MF lens from the waist up
without significant distortion and crop-in if you like, but I agree that an
Autocord or 124G would be a better tool for landscapes than portraits.
Here's a link to Darron Spohn's page regarding shooting landscapes with a 124G.
http://photo.net/photo/nature/mat124.html
Jim
Colyn Goodson
>I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
>Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
>world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
>3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
>Skun...@aol.com
My personal favorite is the Minolta Autocord.. The Rokkor lens is
sharper and contrastier than the Yashica lens..
Colyn Goodson
>Skunkens wrote:
>>
>> I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
>> Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
>> world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
>> 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>>
>
>In my opinion the TLR is not good for portraits, since you cannot get
>close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
>shots, not for head and shoulders.
Tell that to the portrait photographers of the 50's and 60's who used
TLR's to shoot many outstanding head and shoulder portraits..
Composition is the key..
NJFotomakr
>close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
>shots, not for head and shoulders.
Excellent for environmental portraits...................
Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace
Black and White Photography
Shoo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Skunkens wrote:
> >
> > I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
> > Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
> > world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
> > 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
> >
>
> close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
> shots, not for head and shoulders.
> object, it is more modern and more easily fixed if it has problems.
> You can also use 220 film with the Yashica 124G. Only the very uncommon
> (and hard to find) Autocord models can use 220.
> The Autocord however is also excellent, on a par with Rollei in quality.
Your kiddiung.... right?? I have used the TLR's for headshots for
years.. Execellent.. As Colyn pointed out, composition...
Shoo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
> Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
> world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
> 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
I now use a 124G for portraits.. I have used for over 20yrs a Richoflex
TLR.. the 124G is newer and has more parts available.. Also the reason
for my shift was the 124G takes 220 film..
The camera, (fixed TLR) can be an execellent portrait tool with some
practice.. I shot for an in home baby portrait company yrs ago.. The
camera issued was a Rolli TLR.. Each photographer had 2 of them..
Execellent results with these little TLR's..
Ron
David Foy
45mm-55mm "normal" lens on a 35mm camera (note the qualifier
"approximately"). There are photographers using 35mm who prefer longer
lenses (80mm-105mm) for portraits, since they "flatten" the sitter's
features somewhat. If you visualize portraits like that, then a
non-interchangeable lens TLR like the Yashica and Minolta products will not
suit you and you should be looking at the Mamiya C-series equipment.
It is instructive to look at portraiture taken with Rolleis, however, as
many were in the post-WWII era (and still are). I prefer portraits shot with
an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera, but I find nothing to object to, and much to
delight in, when a thoughtful artist uses a 75mm or 80mm lens on a 6x6 TLR.
Yashica TLR cameras with the Yashinon (Tessar-type) lens and Autocords with
the very good Rokkor will both perform admirably. The Autocords command
higher prices and many feel the lenses are better, but I find the Yashinon
lenses to be just as good as any comparable lens (such as the Xenars on
Rolleicords and earlier Rolleiflexes). The Yashicas are more plentiful and
easier to get repaired (more parts bodies are available). Also, the Yashica
124 and 124G both take 220 film and have very bright viewfinders, thanks to
their f2.8 viewing lenses and fresnel viewscreen brighteners.
Consider the Yashica 124. It's virtually identical to the 124G but usually
sells for as little as half the price. It's black and chrome (the 124G is
all black) and prettier, in my view. The 124G has gold contacts in the meter
circuit (thus the "G"). And there may be some minor differences in the meter
circuit itself. But that's it.
--
Hitting "reply-to" won't get a reply past the spam blocker, so please
reply to: davi...@shaw.wave.ca
David Foy, 1431 6th St NW, Calgary AB T2M 3E7 (403)282-0512
DavidM wrote in message <35BBDC...@cyburban.com>...
>Skunkens wrote:
>>
>> I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium
format.
>> Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium
format
>> world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta
Autocord 80
>> 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>>
>
Tony Zoccolillo
ft away the same for an 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera as it is on a 35mm camera?
Maybe "perspective" is the wrong word...but if you clip a 6x6 negative, shot
with an 80mm from 3 ft, and compared the negative to one sot with an 80mm
lens on a 35mm, shot from 3ft, the images should be nearly identical (except
that the 80mm on the 35mm probably has better resolution and contrast).
Right?
So...If you want to shoot portraits with a TLR, get a Rolleiflex with a
Rolleikin back, and shoot 35mm film....or just crop during printing.
BTW....I would look for a Yashica 12 or a Yashicamat with a Yashinon lens.
Generally, these Yashica's are half the price of the 124G and all you loose
is the built-in meter (for the Yashicamat) or the 220 film option (which few
TLR users shoot anymore, anyway). Take the $100 savings and put it toward
your next medium format camera....since nobody ever settles on a Yashicamat
once they get the MF bug....
good luck,
Tony Zoccolillo
Alan...@my-dejanews.com
<C6B9D589184D279B.5D1EA6F2...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn Goodson) wrote:
> >In my opinion the TLR is not good for portraits, since you cannot get
> >close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
> >shots, not for head and shoulders.
> Tell that to the portrait photographers of the 50's and 60's who used
> TLR's to shoot many outstanding head and shoulder portraits..
> Composition is the key..
I agree with that. Not only is the square format a good composition aid for
many portraits (despite what is referred to as 'portrait' - vertical -
orientation), but the 75/80mm lens is perfectly adequate for a more realistic
approach. I've seen great portrait portfolios shot with 60mm lenses on 6x6.
The longer lenses flatten the features, which is not always an added value to
a portrait. There is more atmosphere and more depth with 'normal' focal
lengths. In a bizarre way, I do not feel the same with 35mm shooting, where I
tend to use focal lengths between 85 and 135mm. Maybe because the setup is
usually not as precise (indoors with carefuly oriented lighting for MF,
outdoors with available light for 35mm ?).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Geoff Mackenzie
In article <35be2b9c....@news.airmail.net>, Colyn Goodson (colyn....@airmail.net) writes:
>On 26 Jul 1998 20:56:05 -0500, DavidM <dm...@cyburban.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
>>> Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
>>> world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
>>> 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>>>
>>
>>close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
>>shots, not for head and shoulders.
> Tell that to the portrait photographers of the 50's and 60's who used
>TLR's to shoot many outstanding head and shoulder portraits..
>Composition is the key..
>
I wouldn't class myself as an outstanding portrait photographer,
but in the sixties I used to do a lot of hairstyle shots. I used a
C33 with 180mm lens and it was just excellent.
Geoff
Nolan Woodbury
>I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
>Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
>world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
>3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
All things being equal, I'd choose the Autocord over the Yashica
124G.
I have both camera's (Three Autocords, the entire Yashica TLR
line-up except the "B") and the 'Cord is a tighter, brighter,
better made camera. Don't get me wrong- the Yashica is wonderful
as well, there is just that little *something* in the images
given by the Minolta on 120 color print film...just a
little sharper, a little clearer, prettier. Chromes? All I can
say is...wow.
For CLOSE UP portrait work, a C330 Mamiya with a proper
assortment of lenses just plain rules. No joke- this is a
wonderful, superb camera!! Pretty big and heavy, but lovely.
NDW
Joseph Albert
> In my opinion the TLR is not good for portraits, since you cannot get
> close enough without distortion. It would be good only for full length
> shots, not for head and shoulders.
most TLRs, and certainly Rollei and Mamiya ones, have sharp enough lenses
that you can crop the image quite a bit and still get very nice prints.
most lenses are sharpest in the center, so you just have to position the
head in the center and you'll get a beautiful head shot with cropping so
that you can stand at a position far enough back for pleasing perspective.
all too often, people try to apply 35mm shooting technique to larger
format work, and it just isn't always valid. medium and large formats
offer possibilities that just aren't there in 35mm, so you have to re-think
how to get the most out of the equipment. I think of a Rollei TLR as
having a zoom lens that runs from the equivalent of 45mm to 80mm angles
of view for 35mm format, with the format size decreasing as it is "zoomed",
but the zooming is done by cropping. when I can carrythe extra weight
of a C220F and 3 lenses, I will prefer that, but when I can't, I make do
with a Rollei.
I wonder if you took all the portraits and weddings ever shot with a
Rollei or Mamiya TLR, and counted them up, if there is another type
of camera that would come as close in numbers.
j. albert
Redmond Young
On 26 Jul 1998 21:25:46 GMT, skun...@aol.com (Skunkens) wrote:
>I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
>Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
>world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
>3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
Colyn Goodson wrote:
>My personal favorite is the Minolta Autocord.. The Rokkor lens is
>sharper and contrastier than the Yashica lens..
I also prefer the Minolta Autocord (I have 4 of them!). I owned a
YashicaMat 124 (non G) but returned it to the dealer. The mechanics
just felt rough and "tinny" to me. The Autocords feel alot smoother
in operation. And that particular Yashica costs me $175, while I
recently sold an extra Autocord I had for only $110.
BTW, the Autocord has a 75mm Rokkor lens, not a 80mm. The Yashicas
have a 80mm.
Two of my Autocords have working meters. One is a '58 LMX with
Selenium meter and MX sync (was my father's camera). The other is
a c. '66 with CDS meter and self-timer. Takes 120/220 film.
Luckily I bought a couple of extra PX-1 mercuries at a recent swap
meet.
If you gotta have a meter and need 220 film, you should probably
pay the price and get a YashicaMat-124. Otherwise, I like the lens
and mechanical feel of the Autocords.
And don't forget the Mamiya 220 TLR!
Red
Colyn Goodson
wrote:
>I wonder if you took all the portraits and weddings ever shot with a
>Rollei or Mamiya TLR, and counted them up, if there is another type
>of camera that would come as close in numbers.
>
>j. albert
Automat to shot the wedding.. These photos are some of the best
wedding photos I have ever seen.. Even the old Rollies have
potential..
M Ritchie
>
> >I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
> >Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
> >world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
> >3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
autocord of 1950s vintage without a finctioning light meter. I loved
the look, feel and usability of the camera. However I had two major
complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily. Mine
broke after about two days of use and showed that it had been repaired
on at least two separate occasions. Hence I returned it to the store
and got a slightly more expensive Yashica 124g. Again this was a very
nice usable camera. Definetley more suited to modern photography than
the minolta was. However it did not have that feeling of hardiness that
I find with other cameras. In addition the focussing screen was still
too dim, and on my model not correctly positioned. As a result I traded
in in for a Mamiya C22 with a 80mm chrome lense. This is the camera
that I have kept. The camera feels indestructable, the focusing screen
is nice and bright, the lenses are at least as good plus being
interchangeable. The only drawback to this camera is that adjusting
aperture and shutter speeds is not as nice as on the other two.
--
Martin Ritchie
http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/student/mdritchi/index.html
Colyn Goodson
<mdri...@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
> However I had two major
>complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
>more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily.
I have heard several people complain about these 2 items.. I have a
couple of Autocords that I bought new in the 60's that have bright
screens, brighter than my Rollie screens... True the Yashica screen is
brighter.. And I have never experianced a break of the focusing
lever.. I still actively use these cameras too..
Redmond Young
>When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
>complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
>more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily
I thought my Autocord's brightness was good, especially after viewing
through like-vintage Rolleicords and a slightly older MinoltaCord.
No doubt about it, an Autocord is going to be as much as 20 years older
than a YashicaMat-124G (Autocords 1955-1966, 124G as late as 1988-ish)
The reason for the broken focusing lever is that the camera was seldom
used and left sitting for long lengths of time. The old style lubricants
would gum up, freezing the gears. Then, a user would try to muscle
the decidely light pot metal of the focusing lever and it would simply
break.
My first Autocord was my father's ... a 1958 with working meter that
hadn't been used since 1969 (when my mother gave him a new, whizbang
SRT-101). Lessee, I got the Autocord in 1993 so the camera hadn't been
exercised in 24 years! The lever was frozen. Not wanting to break it,
I had a shop do a complete CLA. Now everything works great.
I have another Autocord that has been stored some 30 years and it too,
has a frozen lever and sluggish shutter. The camera doesn't have a
nick or ding anywhere, and the lens is as new. But the long storage
in has also resulted in the leatherette shrinking a bit.
I agree, the versatility of the Mamiya TLR's is the way to go!
Red
Geo
skun...@aol.com (Skunkens) wrote:
> I'm a 35mm shooter who is about to take the first steps into medium format.
> Any thoughts on which would make a better introduction into the medium format
> world. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes. The Minolta Autocord 80
> 3.5 or the 124G. Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
The Autocord has a nice easy focusing lever and sharp lens but it doesn't
have a CDS meter (I don't think) like the 124G. And the screen is very
bright on 124Gs.
-George Struk
Natural Light Black & White Photography - http://www.accesshub.net/naturalight
Nolan Woodbury
>>When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
>
>> However I had two major
>>complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
>>more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily.
I have both a 124G and a Yashicamat, and the view screen is
brighter on my 40 year old Autocord than it is on either one of
these two cameras, or any Yashica I have for that matter. It's as
bright as the screen on my C330. The Autocord focusing knob can
be damaged by incorrectly sitting the camera on a table or other
surface- if you angle the camera *lens first* while sitting it
down, you stand a good chance of striking the focus knob and
bending it outward. I did this once and tried to straighten it
out with my fingers. Guess what happened..."plink"...damn!
I guess this debate is nearing it's end, I wonder if the original
poster is even reading it anymore? :-) Still, a person could
choose either of these two camera's, and have a wonderful
shooter. I will say this- The Yashica "leather" covering is a
great deal more durable that what Minolta glued on the
Autocord's. But, IMHO, it's what's inside that counts, and that
is where the 'Cord holds the edge.
BTW, Hi Red!
NDW
Colyn Goodson
wrote:
I'm still reading it but I did not write the above message you
responded to.......
Redmond Young
>I guess this debate is nearing it's end, I wonder if the original
>poster is even reading it anymore? :-) Still, a person could
>choose either of these two camera's, and have a wonderful
>shooter. I will say this- The Yashica "leather" covering is a
>great deal more durable that what Minolta glued on the
>Autocord's. But, IMHO, it's what's inside that counts, and that
>is where the 'Cord holds the edge.
>
>BTW, Hi Red!
>
>NDW
Whazzup, Nolan ?! 8^>
Yup, the Autocord's thin leatherette shrinks and turns brittle.
I think the newest 124G's don't even use add-on leatherette,
it's actually injection-molded plastic with the texture of
leatherette (actually, not a bad idea for wear and tear).
I've bought some self-adhesive leatherette from Fargo Enterprises
($10) and cut and replaced the leatherette on one of my Autocords
myself. A bit time-consuming, but it looks great!
I know there will always be an ongoing debate comparing a 40-year
old Rokkor to a 20-year old Yashinon, but there's is no doubt in
my mind about which one has a superior mechanical "feel".
The Autocord.
Red
ele...@home.com
Organization:
Reply-To: ele...@home.com
Nolan Woodbury <rwo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
: colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn Goodson) wrote:
:>>When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
:>
:>> However I had two major
:>>complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
:>>more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily.
Actually, that may not be true of all Autocords. When I broke the lever by
trying to straighten it (early 70s), the replacement part was different
from the original. On the replacement, the the casting was cut and and the
two cut pieces were riveted to a piece of spring steel. Thus, when you
pushed the end of the lever back into the camera, the spring bent (and
then returned to its original shape) resulting in no broken lever. I do
not know if this type of lever ever appeared on new cameras or if it was
just used in replacement parts. I would be interested in finding out.
Ray
: I have both a 124G and a Yashicamat, and the view screen is
: brighter on my 40 year old Autocord than it is on either one of
: these two cameras, or any Yashica I have for that matter. It's as
: bright as the screen on my C330. The Autocord focusing knob can
: be damaged by incorrectly sitting the camera on a table or other
: surface- if you angle the camera *lens first* while sitting it
: down, you stand a good chance of striking the focus knob and
: bending it outward. I did this once and tried to straighten it
: out with my fingers. Guess what happened..."plink"...damn!
: I guess this debate is nearing it's end, I wonder if the original
: poster is even reading it anymore? :-) Still, a person could
: choose either of these two camera's, and have a wonderful
: shooter. I will say this- The Yashica "leather" covering is a
: great deal more durable that what Minolta glued on the
: Autocord's. But, IMHO, it's what's inside that counts, and that
: is where the 'Cord holds the edge.
: BTW, Hi Red!
: NDW
--
E. Ray Lemar ele...@home.com <-new
ele...@access.digex.net <-will disappear
DavidM
>
> @news.goodnet.com>:
> Organization:
> Reply-To: ele...@home.com
>
> Nolan Woodbury <rwo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> : colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn Goodson) wrote:
>
> :>>When I got into medium format my first camera was an impulse buy minolta
> :>
> :>> However I had two major
> :>>complaints. Firstly the viewing screen was way too dark. Secondly, and
> :>>more important was the focusing lever, it breaks far too easily.
>
> Actually, that may not be true of all Autocords. When I broke the lever by
> trying to straighten it (early 70s), the replacement part was different
> from the original. On the replacement, the the casting was cut and and the
> two cut pieces were riveted to a piece of spring steel. Thus, when you
> pushed the end of the lever back into the camera, the spring bent (and
> then returned to its original shape) resulting in no broken lever. I do
> not know if this type of lever ever appeared on new cameras or if it was
> just used in replacement parts. I would be interested in finding out.
>
by out of alignment focussing panel.
Look for an Autocord which focusses easily. The lever wont break.
Randy Stewart
20:43:01 -0500 writes:
:
:>The broken focussing lever problem results from stiff focussing, caused
:>by out of alignment focussing panel.
:>Look for an Autocord which focusses easily. The lever wont break.
I think most Autocord focus lever breakage results from the lever being the
first thing to hit if the camera is slammed on its front-bottom edge.
That said, the Minolta Rookor optics test out noticably better than the
Yashica Yashinon, although they are both Tessar types. Also, the recent
pressure to acquire Yashica 124G units has made the Autocord a relative
bargain if you shop around.
peters
>The broken focussing lever problem results from stiff focussing, caused
>by out of alignment focussing panel.
>Look for an Autocord which focusses easily. The lever wont break.
The stiff focusing is usually caused by the grease drying out and
getting hard. Not saying that the focusing panel COULDN'T be out of
alignment, but that isn't the usual problem.
bob
Colyn Goodson
>The broken focussing lever problem results from stiff focussing, caused
>by out of alignment focussing panel.
stiff focusing is caused by the lube drying out... A simple CLA...
Rwh56
You opined:
> Also, the recent
>pressure to acquire Yashica 124G units has made the Autocord a relative
>bargain if you shop around.
I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality is
that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a little
cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
Rob Harold
Colyn Goodson
>I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality is
>that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a little
>cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
>
>Rob Harold
You just need to look, Autocord bargains are out there, as well as
Yashicas... My last one I bought for $100 with perfect glass and
mechanics and E++ cosmetics...
wcm...@ibm.net
Jehosophat!! I bought my Rolleicord III for less than that! Call me a
bigot if you like, but I can't understand a sane person paying more for
either a Yashica or a minolta than they'd have to pay for a Rolleicord
or Rolleiflex -- I bought my mint 'flex mx evs with case for $150. Yes,
I've owned 2 Yashicas, they take good pictures, but don't even approach
the quality of a Rolleiflex.
Bill Martin
Redmond Young
On 12 Aug 1998 01:44:11 GMT, rw...@aol.com (Rwh56) wrote:
>I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality is
>that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a little
>cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
>
>Rob Harold
>>You just need to look, Autocord bargains are out there, as well as
>>Yashicas... My last one I bought for $100 with perfect glass and
>>mechanics and E++ cosmetics...
I'm also an Autocord fan. I have four of them. I sold an extra one
recently for only $110. Cosmetics were perhaps an 8 or 8-, but
everything worked smoothly ... it was a real usable shooter.
I bought my 2nd Autocord (my first was my father's 1958 LMX, and that's
the one that started my keen interest in Autocords) for only $65.
The leatherette was trashed and there was a speck on the front element
of the taking lens. Under a loupe the speck turned out to be a tiny
flaw in the coating. And I replaced the leatherette myself. The speck
has no influence on the final images.
I bought my 3rd Autocord for $50. It's frozen, but a shop quoted me
a $75 price to fix it and CLA. That brings the total to $125 and the
body is in great shape. (well, the leatherette has shrunk some)
I haven't fixed it yet since I still have three other Autocords to
shoot with.
My 4th Autocord is the CDS metered one that takes 120/220 film and
has a self-timer. I paid around $150 for it, and it has a fair share
of scrapes and dings.
There have been several Autocords on Ebay recently, and I've had to
resist bidding on them! I think one closed out at $91. The CDS model
was around $165 last time I checked.
NJFotomakr
>the quality of a Rolleiflex.
>
> Bill Martin
>
Bill,Bill,Bill,Bill.BILL. Surely you jest.I have both,stopped down to f 8 or
smaller,you won't see a difference.Wide open,however is a different matter
altogether.This is where the Rolleiflex shines..................
Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace
Black and White Photography
Colyn Goodson
>Colyn Goodson wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Aug 1998 01:44:11 GMT, rw...@aol.com (Rwh56) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality is
>> >that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a little
>> >cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
>> >
>> >Rob Harold
>> You just need to look, Autocord bargains are out there, as well as
>> Yashicas... My last one I bought for $100 with perfect glass and
>> mechanics and E++ cosmetics...
>
>Jehosophat!! I bought my Rolleicord III for less than that! Call me a
>bigot if you like, but I can't understand a sane person paying more for
>either a Yashica or a minolta than they'd have to pay for a Rolleicord
>or Rolleiflex -- I bought my mint 'flex mx evs with case for $150. Yes,
>I've owned 2 Yashicas, they take good pictures, but don't even approach
>the quality of a Rolleiflex.
>
> Bill Martin
The Yashicas and Minoltas tend to outperform or at least perform as
well as the older Rollies with 75mm Xenars and Tessars... The
Rolliecord III has either a Triotar or Xenar.. Triotars are poor
quality.. The MX-EVS has either a Xenar or Tessar both pretty good
quality lens..
I have owned a MX-EVS Rollie as well as a couple of other older
Rollies for a number of years with excellent glass.. My Autocords
outperform them.. Now my Rollie 2.8F is a different story.. With a
Planar lens, it's probably the best TLR around..
To be honest, I think you are pushing it a bit when you say the
quality of the Yashica "don't even approach the quality of a Rollie."
unless you are talking about a Rollie with a Planar or Xenotar lens..
wcm...@ibm.net
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:49:35 -0400, wcm...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >Colyn Goodson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12 Aug 1998 01:44:11 GMT, rw...@aol.com (Rwh56) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality is
> >> >that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a little
> >> >cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
> >> >
> >> >Rob Harold
> >> You just need to look, Autocord bargains are out there, as well as
> >> Yashicas... My last one I bought for $100 with perfect glass and
> >> mechanics and E++ cosmetics...
> >
> >Jehosophat!! I bought my Rolleicord III for less than that! Call me a
> >bigot if you like, but I can't understand a sane person paying more for
> >either a Yashica or a minolta than they'd have to pay for a Rolleicord
> >or Rolleiflex -- I bought my mint 'flex mx evs with case for $150. Yes,
> >I've owned 2 Yashicas, they take good pictures, but don't even approach
> >the quality of a Rolleiflex.
> >
> > Bill Martin
> The Yashicas and Minoltas tend to outperform or at least perform as
> well as the older Rollies with 75mm Xenars and Tessars...
Yashinon ( some Yashicas have 3-element Yashinars ), Tessar, and Xenar
are all 4-element "Tessar" designs. Given equal quality control, they
should produce comparable results. In my own experience, using all 3,
There's not a nickle's worth of difference in the good ones. For quality
manufacture, though, I'll keep my money on Rollei. Here's an analogy: I
own a KIEV 88, which produces excellent results and has performed
flawlessly for almost 8 years ( it was made in 1989 ). It's a competent
camera, but it ain't a Hassleblad and it doesn't exude the Hassleblad
kind of quality. But I didn't pay a Hassleblad price for it either; So
I've been real happy with it. Likewise, I wouldn't pay a Rollei price
for a Yashicamat. If I did, I'd regret it after sobering up. In my
opinion, Rollei is of much higher quality; But it's your money, and as
they say, without differing opinions there wouldn't be any point to
horse races.
Bill Martin
Dante A. Stella
Owning and using both an autocord and a rollei, I can say the Rokkor is at
least as good as an Automat tessar or xenar. I don't know about the Planar
and the Xenotar, but I imagine they are better than the Minolta. The
Rollei lenses don't seem to be very sharp wide open, at least to 8x10.
Cheers
Dante
On 13 Aug 1998, NJFotomakr wrote:
> >I've owned 2 Yashicas, they take good pictures, but don't even approach
> >the quality of a Rolleiflex.
> >
> > Bill Martin
> >
>
Colyn Goodson
<da...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Owning and using both an autocord and a rollei, I can say the Rokkor is at
>least as good as an Automat tessar or xenar. I don't know about the Planar
>and the Xenotar, but I imagine they are better than the Minolta. The
>Rollei lenses don't seem to be very sharp wide open, at least to 8x10.
>
>Cheers
>Dante
I own and use Autocords and Rollies myself and fully agree.. The
Planar and Xenotar are however better than any of them.. My Rollie
2.8F beats them all..
David Foy
excellent condition:
Rolleiflex 2.8 ($350 to the sky)
later Rolleiflex 3.5 ($250 to $350+)
Yashica-Mat 124-G ($165-$200+)
Autocords ($135-$185+)
Ricoh Diacord ($150 or so, not often offered)
late Rolleicord ($125-$185)
Yashica-Mat 124, non-G ($100-$145)
Yashica-Mat EM ($80-$120)
early Rolleiflex, Rolleicord ($65-$125)
Yashica-Mat ($80-$120)
Yashica D ($60-120)
Yashica A, C; Ricohflex; other inexpensive TLR's, $45-$65
Any given auction can end surprizingly (Yashica A's worth $45 going for over
$100, Autocords going for about $90). I guess that's what it is about
auctions.
Some of this could drive you to the crazy house trying to figure it out --
why this consistent premium for the Yashica-Mat 124-G over the fully-equal
(but cosmetically different) non-G, and why such a large premium for metered
Yashica-mats over the non-metered, plain-vanilla Mat, which has the same
lens (and, in its later versions, a much brighter viewfinder)? Why pay the
same for a Yashikor lens on a D as you'd pay for a Yashinon on a Mat?
I can understand the preference for a Yashinon-equipped Yashica over a
Tessar- or Xenar-equipped Rolleicord or old Rolleiflex. With the 124/124-G
you get the 220 option, and you get a significantly brighter viewfinder, and
the lenses are comparable. The Rolleis "feel" better in a way that is hard
to describe, but unmistakable when you experience it, so I can also
understand the preference for a Rolleicord or older Rolleiflex over the
Yashica-Mats.
I suspect Automats are now becoming more widely known and prices will
eventually settle in above the Rolleicords and below the comparable
Rolleiflexes. I suspect the premium prices for Yashica-Mat 124G's will
continue for awhile, for no good reason. Are they being uncritically
promoted by teachers? Who knows. Ricoh Diacords are relatively unknown and
may present as bargains. The Xenotar and Planar Rolleiflexes are secure at
the top of the heap for a long time.
--
Hitting "reply-to" won't get a reply past the spam blocker, so please
reply to: davi...@shaw.wave.ca
David Foy, 1431 6th St NW, Calgary AB T2M 3E7 (403)282-0512
Redmond Young wrote in message <6qtd0f$3rp$1...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
>
>On 12 Aug 1998 01:44:11 GMT, rw...@aol.com (Rwh56) wrote:
>
>
>>I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality
is
>>that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a
little
>>cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
>>
>>Rob Harold
>
>
>>>You just need to look, Autocord bargains are out there, as well as
>>>Yashicas... My last one I bought for $100 with perfect glass and
>>>mechanics and E++ cosmetics...
>
>
NDW
> >I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality
is
> >that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a
little
> >cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
> >
> >Rob Harold
Disagree.
Compared to many newer SLR MF camera's. the Autocord (and certain Yashica's
as well) is a true photographic bargin, considering the high quality of the
prints.
As noted, the Yashica 124G is NOT the only quality camera they ever made.
In fact, the Yashicamat 124 I consider to be a nicer camera...same lenses,
same metering (except for the gold contacts, big deal) but less plastic.
Rumor is quality was poorer on very late models due to expensive
manufacturing costs.
Not trying to start a debate here....just important to know that a person
CAN purchase a quality, older MF camera with out spending a ton of cash.
Not good news for the camera salespeople....but good news for the rest of
us. If it breaks and cannot be fixed, then you've found the weakness to
this plan. So far, my oldies are holding up pretty well.
NDW
Shoo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Not trying to start a debate here....just important to know that a person
> CAN purchase a quality, older MF camera with out spending a ton of cash.
> Not good news for the camera salespeople....but good news for the rest of
> us. If it breaks and cannot be fixed, then you've found the weakness to
> this plan. So far, my oldies are holding up pretty well.
>
> NDW
So true..
However the Gold contacts on the 124G somehow helped reduce battery
consumption.. as you know the meter is battery activated when the
viewfinder is opend..The 124 ate batteries really fast compared to the
124G.
Actually alot of the oldies can be fixed.. And even if not most are
cheap enough to be replaced easily..
I have a Richoflex that was given to me new in '57.. Still going
strong..
Ron
j...@magicnet.net
I believe the last new-camera price for the 124G was $399; that's why the premium prices for used ones although they offer nothing more than the ordinary 124 other than
gold-plated synch contacts.
John Hicks
John's Camera Shop
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
j...@magicnet.net wrote:
> > Typical end prices
>
> I believe the last new-camera price for the 124G was $399; that's why
> the premium prices for used ones although they offer nothing more than
> the ordinary 124 other than gold-plated synch contacts.
$399? Is that $399 USD or HKD? ;-)
Notes like this make me feel good that I whimsically bought one, brand new,
in 1986 for $100. They also make me feel slightly bummed that I didn't
buy 5 at the time, but I'll survive this. I guess I feel more bummed
that I bought DuPont at $68/share ;-)
--
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
peters
said that the last ones were multi coated. I believe the film
chamber in the G has better anti reflective baffling than the earlier
124. But they do handle similarly.
bob.
j...@magicnet.net wrote:
>> Typical end prices
> I believe the last new-camera price for the 124G was $399; that's why the premium prices for used ones although they offer nothing more than the ordinary 124 other than
>gold-plated synch contacts.
er...@sask.trlabs.ca
> Typical end prices (guesstimates based on memory) on eBay for 6x6 TLR's in
> excellent condition:
> Rolleiflex 2.8 ($350 to the sky)
> later Rolleiflex 3.5 ($250 to $350+)
> Yashica-Mat 124-G ($165-$200+)
> Autocords ($135-$185+)
> Ricoh Diacord ($150 or so, not often offered)
> late Rolleicord ($125-$185)
> Yashica-Mat 124, non-G ($100-$145)
> Yashica-Mat EM ($80-$120)
> early Rolleiflex, Rolleicord ($65-$125)
> Yashica-Mat ($80-$120)
> Yashica D ($60-120)
> Yashica A, C; Ricohflex; other inexpensive TLR's, $45-$65
Being the resident Ricoh TLR expert I'll say that
the Ricoh Diacord's usually go for about $70-$100. The
Ricohmatic 225's (basically crankwind diacord) goes for
$100 and up. There was one recently that included the 35mm
adapter and went for about $200.
Another recent interesting result was a lot of 3 Yashica
D's with Yashinon lens, all working, that went for $150!
If I wasn't committed to the Ricoh TLRs for my stereo camera
project I'd have bit on them.
My Ricoh TLR info page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/ricohflex.html
My Stereo Ricohmatic 225 project page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/twin225.html
Regards - Greg
j...@magicnet.net
Yep, $399 US Dollars. I've actually encountered a few people who paid that much for them.
NDW
> On 12 Aug 1998 01:44:11 GMT, rw...@aol.com (Rwh56) wrote:
> >I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality
is
> >that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a
little
> >cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
> >
> >Rob Harold
Cannot agree with this statement.
When you compare prices of high end SLR's with those of a used Autocord
(something, that between f5.6 and f11 can shoot with almost anything) the
Minolta becomes a real bargin. I love this camera! Mine aren't even
metered, I always use a hand held.
Another point: Yashica made other camera's besides the 124G that shoot well
and give excellent prints too. In fact, I perfer the plain Yashicamat 124
(same lenses, same metering except gold contacts, big deal) in that it uses
less plastic on the chassis than the "G", a camera that is rumored to have
quality control problems on the later models. I even like the 4-element "D"
series more. I enjoy the knob wind, and the red window isn't a problem for
me either.
Cross point: If your vintage Japanese TLR bails with a faulty shutter or
other serious problem, your most likely out of luck, or looking at doubling
your investment to get it working right again (at least). Still, I've shot
ton's of film through my 40 year old Autocord's and Yashica's, and their
still going strong.
NDW
NDW
> >I have yet to see a bargain on a working metered Autocord. The reality
is
> >that Yashica 124G have an absurd price. If a comparable Autocord is a
little
> >cheaper, its still expensive for what you get.
> >
> >Rob Harold
Compared to a high dollar SLR, the Minolta is a steal. Just iffy it it
breaks. Mine are still going strong however.
Yashica 124G's aren't the only quality TLR they made. I like the
YashicaMat124 more.
NDW
David-M
>
> > Typical end prices
>
> I believe the last new-camera price for the 124G was $399;
But look in magazines a few years earlier. You could pick up a mint one
for $100 easily.
Its also instructive to look at new prices for cameras such as the Ricoh
Diacord and Rolleicord. They were very cheap.
NJFotomakr
>
> Yep, $399 US Dollars. I've actually encountered a few people who paid that
>much for them.
fools
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>fools
No, no, no ! They're brilliant !Really ! The TLR's
are really worth that much ! I mean you can do so much with
them and the optics are just great. And the ability to take
120 or 220 without switching backs. And the high speed flash
sync. Can't get that on a 35mm ! And talk about durability
is their any camera as durable as a C-220 ? And did I
mention that I'd consider selling my C-220 ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas
S p e c t r u m P h o t o g r a p h i c I n c .
http://www.spectrumphoto.com
David Foy
links. The Ricoh TLRs deserve more attention than they get.
--
Hitting "reply-to" won't get a reply past the spam blocker, so please
reply to: davi...@shaw.wave.ca
David Foy, 1431 6th St NW, Calgary AB T2M 3E7 (403)282-0512
er...@sask.trlabs.ca wrote in message <6s6h1d$h2h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
LFORMAT
The G version has internal BAFFLES. I threw a non-G version away because the
shutter stuck and the lack of baffles caused interanl FLARE (lights outside the
visible image gave an internal reflection).
I love the G and use it, but do not regret throwing away the other one.
David F. Stein
Rolleiflexes.
Msherck
>learn to compose a photo....
'Compose' a photo? Heck, I thought 'point and shoot' meant exactly that! :)
Mike
David Foy
probably the factor affecting battery life, not the contact plating.
--
Hitting "reply-to" won't get a reply past the spam blocker, so please
reply to: davi...@shaw.wave.ca
David Foy, 1431 6th St NW, Calgary AB T2M 3E7 (403)282-0512
Shoo...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <35E54B...@ix.netcom.com>...
Rwh56
Autocord TLRs is that they are very simple cameras. Yes, they produce
wonderful results. But the price does not match the engineering. In a free
market, i suppose price is affected by much more than the design of a product.
Hence people do sell these models for an amount that i find a little
ridiculous.
On the other side of this, these cameras are pretty easy to fix. I have picked
up two Yashicamats (no meters) for dirt just because the shutter was gummed up.
So, there are good deals to be had.
Rob Harold
rw...@aol.com
Colyn
>I guess my main reason for decrying the prices of Yashica-Mat 124G and metered
>Autocord TLRs is that they are very simple cameras. Yes, they produce
>wonderful results. But the price does not match the engineering. In a free
>market, i suppose price is affected by much more than the design of a product.
>Hence people do sell these models for an amount that i find a little
>ridiculous.
I would have to disagree with you when you say they are poorly
engineered.. Yashicas and Minolta Autocords are made from high quality
componants... and worth every penny paid..
>On the other side of this, these cameras are pretty easy to fix. I have picked
>up two Yashicamats (no meters) for dirt just because the shutter was gummed up.
> So, there are good deals to be had.
I have also picked up these cameras at yard sales for little of
nothing because the owners thought they were cheap cameras.....
>Rob Harold
>rw...@aol.com
Rwh56
seem to match the rather simple and successful design. I think they are great
cameras, but it is crazy to spend $200 plus for a metered autocord or
yaschicamat. Come on! Its just a light-tight box with a shutter lens that
moves in and out.
In the world of medium format, some will think that I am arguing over pennies
given the price of modern medium camera models. Anything less than $500 is
dirt cheap.
I will promise not to rant anymore. Someone else can have the last word. But
my modest point is that these cameras, which i love, have an inflated price
that does not seem to match the item involved.
I guess an illustration of my point is that you can purchase a very complicated
and high quality used 35 mm camera for the same money. A Canon A-1 perhaps.
Even a simpler slr is more involved and yet costs less than the yachicamat or
autocord.
Anyways, hope everyone had a splendid labor day.
Rob Harold
rw...@aol.com
FOR7
>metered
>Autocord TLRs is that they are very simple cameras. Yes, they produce
>wonderful results. But the price does not match the engineering. In a
>free
>market, i suppose price is affected by much more than the design of a
>product.
>Hence people do sell these models for an amount that i find a little
>ridiculous.
>
>picked
>up two Yashicamats (no meters) for dirt just because the shutter was gummed
>up.
> So, there are good deals to be had.
>
>rw...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
The reason the YashicaMat sells for what it sells is because there is a demand
for any inexpensive medium format that produces good results and there aren't
any cameras made today that fills that demand. I am amazed that the camera
manufacturers have not taken advantage of that opportunity and say produce a
medium format setup with possibly even just one lens with autoexposure and just
basic features meaning the ones only needed ccompact and with good build
quality for say in the $500 dollar range. Many would be interested including
me. In the meantime the YashicaMat and Autocords will fill that need and the
price will reflect the demand.
David-M
The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
makes (except Rollei) them anymore.
Look in a 50's photo magazine and you will see maybe a dozen types of
TLR for sale, today you will see only the grossly inflated Rollei
special editions.
There is a small demand from enthusiasts, but not enough to justfiy the
enormous tooling costs of producing a new model.
The non-lens interchangeability was the thing that killed them.
FOR7
>demand
>> for any inexpensive medium format that produces good results and there
>aren't
>> any cameras made today that fills that demand. I am amazed that the camera
>> manufacturers have not taken advantage of that opportunity and say produce
>a
>> medium format setup with possibly even just one lens with autoexposure and
>just
>> basic features meaning the ones only needed ccompact and with good build
>> quality for say in the $500 dollar range. Many would be interested
>including
>> me. In the meantime the YashicaMat and Autocords will fill that need and
>the
>> price will reflect the demand.
>
>The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
>makes (except Rollei) them anymore.
>Look in a 50's photo magazine and you will see maybe a dozen types of
>TLR for sale, today you will see only the grossly inflated Rollei
>special editions.
>There is a small demand from enthusiasts, but not enough to justfiy the
>enormous tooling costs of producing a new model.
>The non-lens interchangeability was the thing that killed them.
>
>
inexpensive , decently built that delivers good results even if it has just
one lens. Enormous tooling for a simple mechanical camera? I really doubt that
very much. Obviously the Fuji rangefinders have sold well enough to be on the
market for quite a long time and they have only one lens. Imagine one for half
the price! Who would buy one? Alot of people would!
lemonade
(FOR7) wrote:
> >The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
An interesting assertion for which you have zero evidence. The only thing
we have to go on is trade in the used market- very lively, from what we can
see- and the prices the machines fetch- in the case of the Yashica, quite a
bit more than when it was last sold new, not very long ago (1991?). So
actually, the evidence, such as we have, is that there is quite a bit of
demand. Ultimately, it will take someone who believes in the concept to try
it and find out; and also find out if they can create new demand through
intelligent marketing, something the camera manufacturers are not very good
at.
> >There is a small demand from enthusiasts, but not enough to justfiy the
> >enormous tooling costs of producing a new model.
Oh, so you have some figures to back up your statement. I'd love to know
the tooling costs, estimated costs per unit, and latent demand figures.
Please, share them. Or are you just speaking ex cathedra?
> >The non-lens interchangeability was the thing that killed them.
There were two families of interchangeable lens TLRs, at least one if not
both, excellent machines. What killed them was dopey marketing; and the
fact that the new crop of engineers and product people that came up in
Japan were raised on Pachinko and not photography; and, if they kept on
producing simple TLRs, would not have had anything to do. Marketing little
Pachinko games as cameras kept them occupied.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
David-M
>
> In article <199809090947...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
> (FOR7) wrote:
>
> > >The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
>
> An interesting assertion for which you have zero evidence. The only thing
> we have to go on is trade in the used market- very lively, from what we can
> see- and the prices the machines fetch- in the case of the Yashica, quite a
> bit more than when it was last sold new, not very long ago (1991?). So
> actually, the evidence, such as we have, is that there is quite a bit of
> demand.
You forget that PRICE is a function of SUPPLY and DEMAND. Not just
demand. Because supply is limited (no new ones) price goes up. That DOES
NOT mean there is a high demand.
Believe me people are not going in to camera stores asking to buy a TLR.
> > >There is a small demand from enthusiasts, but not enough to justfiy the
> > >enormous tooling costs of producing a new model.
>
> Oh, so you have some figures to back up your statement.
If there was sufficient demand one of the major camera manufacturers
would be making one.
They are in business to make money you know.
The small demand simply does not justify the costs of producing one.
How much do you think the Lubitel and Seagul would cost if made in
Japan?
A WHOLE lot more than they do now. The Russians and Chinese are paid
slave wages.
John Stewart
1990's. According to one long-time store owner, there apparently was a HUGE
stock of these items made. That is one reason why the prince may have
remained stable over a period of years.
The Chinese TLRs and (for what's it worth) the Lubitel (when made in the
USSR) were not products of a demand economy, but a "command" economy. We do
not know if the current Seagulls are made in crumbling state-run factories
or new ones that actually have to make money. We do know they are cheap on
the wholesale side. If Calumet, no provider of bargain prices, can sell a
TLR for $139.95, they are probably paying $65 for it. The Seagull folder
had a wholesale cost of about $18 when it was sold for $59.95 at retail.
This is why Russian, East German and Chinese cameras have ALWAYS been sold,
despite of shoddy workmanship. They offer such a high degree of profit that
some stores simply "don't notice" how bad they are. These same stores often
make it very hard to return defective units. Most stores that tried to
sell them "honestly" gave up in disgust.
Still, we have a limited number of TLRs available, and even the mats are
getting old. So there seems to be just enough demand for them and just not
quite enough supply.
What kills me is to see a Mamiya C-3 selling for far less than a Yashicamat!
John
David-M wrote in message <35F68B...@cyburban.com>...
Joshua_Putnam
>>> The reason the YashicaMat sells for what it sells is because there is a
>>demand
>>> for any inexpensive medium format that produces good results and there
>>aren't
>>> any cameras made today that fills that demand.
>>The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
>>makes (except Rollei) them anymore.
>>Look in a 50's photo magazine and you will see maybe a dozen types of
>>TLR for sale, today you will see only the grossly inflated Rollei
>>special editions.
>Maybe little demand for a TLR but not for a medium format camera that is
>inexpensive , decently built that delivers good results even if it has just
>one lens. Enormous tooling for a simple mechanical camera? I really doubt that
>very much. Obviously the Fuji rangefinders have sold well enough to be on the
>market for quite a long time and they have only one lens. Imagine one for half
>the price! Who would buy one? Alot of people would!
Look how many people buy, and are quite happy with, a Lubitel TLR.
The fit and finish is below anything you'd expect from even
the cheapest Japanese brands, yet if you don't mind a bit of
operational crudeness, you're getting coated glass optics and
flash sync to 1/250 for $40, including a cable release, 6x4.5 and
35mm masks, and case.
For only $10 more, you could get a Hassleblad tripod coupler.
Sure it's crap, but it's crap that works. If you could get
someone to bring up the quality level without even adding any
features, you could probably get a really nice all-mechanical MF
starter camera for under $100. I know some Russian camera works
were capable of making very nice cameras in the past -- I love my
old Moscow 5 folding rangefinder, the only sub-$150 6x9 that fits
in my coat pocket.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Boris Kozintsev
>The fact is that the TLR was refined about as far as it could go.
>When a camera reaches this point, the supply of used ones eventually
>catches up to the demand. There may be a high demand for cameras,
>but also a large supply of used ones.
Will the same happen to Hasselblad or Linhof Technika then?
>The beauty of the TLR is in its simplicity and reliability. With
>reasonable care, they just don't break.
But front elements do get scratched no matter what. If the probability
of scratching a lens in course of one day is "p", then the probability
of scratching a lens in course of 40 years is... high.
peters
>>>The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
>>>makes (except Rollei) them anymore.
>>>Look in a 50's photo magazine and you will see maybe a dozen types of
>>>TLR for sale, today you will see only the grossly inflated Rollei
>>>special editions.
The fact is that the TLR was refined about as far as it could go.
When a camera reaches this point, the supply of used ones eventually
catches up to the demand. There may be a high demand for cameras,
but also a large supply of used ones.
So what does it matter if the latest model has more plastic on it, if
one 10 years old and selling for half the cost has 95% of the features
of the new one...and the same lens and shutter?
The beauty of the TLR is in its simplicity and reliability. With
reasonable care, they just don't break.
As a consumer, I don't like planned obsolescence, but when design
stagnates, it can mean the end of the production run. I suspect this
is what happened, as much as anything.
bob
lemonade
<radi...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> The Chinese TLRs and (for what's it worth) the Lubitel (when made in the
> USSR) were not products of a demand economy, but a "command" economy. We do
> not know if the current Seagulls are made in crumbling state-run factories
> or new ones that actually have to make money. We do know they are cheap on
> the wholesale side. If Calumet, no provider of bargain prices, can sell a
> TLR for $139.95, they are probably paying $65 for it. The Seagull folder
> had a wholesale cost of about $18 when it was sold for $59.95 at retail.
> make it very hard to return defective units. Most stores that tried to
> sell them "honestly" gave up in disgust.
Except that I would explicitly distinguish Calumet as a quality store, I
agree with the above. I really wish I knew a) what their markup is; b) what
type of factory and know-how make up the Seagull works; and c) what the
economics and financials of Seagull TLR production in China are. Perhaps
even Seagull doesn't know the latter.
> Still, we have a limited number of TLRs available, and even the mats are
> getting old. So there seems to be just enough demand for them and just not
> quite enough supply.
> David-M wrote in message <35F68B...@cyburban.com>...
> >lemonade wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <199809090947...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> fo...@aol.com
> >> (FOR7) wrote:
> >>
> >> > >The fact is there is very LITTLE demand for them, that is why no-one
> >>
> >> An interesting assertion for which you have zero evidence. The only thing
> >> we have to go on is trade in the used market- very lively, from what we
> can
> >> see- and the prices the machines fetch- in the case of the Yashica, quite
> a
> >> bit more than when it was last sold new, not very long ago (1991?). So
> >> actually, the evidence, such as we have, is that there is quite a bit of
> >> demand.
> >
> >You forget that PRICE is a function of SUPPLY and DEMAND. Not just
> >demand. Because supply is limited (no new ones) price goes up. That DOES
> >NOT mean there is a high demand.
> >Believe me people are not going in to camera stores asking to buy a TLR.
The missing ingredient here is that DEMAND is a function of MARKETING and
similar factors. I have a Mamiya brochure for the C330/220 from the 1980's
and it says: "The twin-lens reflex, always a viable and valuable tool
for..." Translation: we don't really believe in this camera, why should
you? That brochure listed absolutely none of the peculiar advantages of the
basic TLR format. You had to already know that you wanted one before it
would interest you.
An aside: it's not precisely true that price is a function of only supply
and demand. That only holds well in an auction market, like eBay or
something. For cameras, if it were true, then you would see the
manufacturers constantly probing the market by raising and lowering the
price all the time, since that is the only way to find out what the demand
curve actually is. However, in reality they just pick one price and stick
to it for quite some while, the occasional promotion aside. Real economics,
and business experience, shows that most goods, especially from oligopolies
like the camera business, are not determined by supply and demand, but by
the cost-plus markup method.
> >If there was sufficient demand one of the major camera manufacturers
> >would be making one.
> >They are in business to make money you know.
But they are not omniscient, they are just an oligopoly, made up of people
with tastes and prejudices and internal politics. You need an individual
with the vision to create demand. Do you think there was any demand for the
OM-1 before Maitani came along with his inspiration? Everybody else was
making bigger and bigger hulks. Even Pentax, known for their small cameras,
was increasing their size. Then this magnificent system was released, with
pretty good marketing, and people all of a sudden realized: hey that's
right, I DO want that!
> >How much do you think the Lubitel and Seagul would cost if made in
> >Japan?
> >A WHOLE lot more than they do now. The Russians and Chinese are paid
> >slave wages.
Plenty of Japanese companies have plants in China. Pentax produced the
K1000 there for many years.
j...@magicnet.net
> As a consumer, I don't like planned obsolescence
Word from Mamiya back when they discontinued the C330 was that if they were going to continue production they'd have to retool; costs would then push the retail price of
the camera above that of a Hasselblad 500 C/M.
The same sort of thing happened with the Olympus OM-1; Olympus said that if they built new cameras it'd retail for a higher price then either the OM-4 or OM-3 and of
course no one would pay that.
j...@magicnet.net
cameras other than those who want to buy a Mamiya TLR for less than $100 and
those who collect Rollei TLRs.
And that's unfortunate. TLRs just aren't sexy any more.
lemonade
> Word from Mamiya back when they discontinued the C330 was that if they
were going to continue production they'd have to retool; costs would then
push the retail price of
> the camera above that of a Hasselblad 500 C/M.
> The same sort of thing happened with the Olympus OM-1; Olympus said
that if they built new cameras it'd retail for a higher price then either
the OM-4 or OM-3 and of
> course no one would pay that.
The question then is: how did they ever manage to build them in the first
place?
As to your previous post about seeing no demand for TLR's as a dealer, why
should you? Is anybody marketing a TLR? Are there any ads for them?
How many people would vote for a politician if he never advertised, made a
speech, was interviewed, etc? How many people buy anything without any
marketing?
David-M
> OM-1 before Maitani came along with his inspiration? Everybody else was
> making bigger and bigger hulks. Even Pentax, known for their small cameras,
> was increasing their size.
You are completely wrong here, cameras had been getting smaller for
decades. Remember the Kodak 'Pocket' cameras that measured about 8
inches long by 4 inches wide?
'Smaller is better' was well established for cameras by the time the
OM-1 came out.
Only after the bulky autofocus cameras came out was that finally
abandoned as a marketing ploy, to be recently resurrected with the APS
cameras.
Dan Pettersson
"Boris Kozintsev" <b...@math.umd.edu> writes:
>
> But front elements do get scratched no matter what. If the probability
> of scratching a lens in course of one day is "p", then the probability
> of scratching a lens in course of 40 years is... high.
>
>
>
But 40 years is a long, long time. Sad to say, i'm without MF at the moment.
In 1952, my grandfather bought a brand new Voigtlander Perkeo II (with the
color skopar lens) (This is not TLR, only a see-through. Will it be called
a rangefinder in english, even though it has no focusing information what
so ever?). After about 20-25 years, he decided to go for 35 mm with automatic
exposure. I got the old 6x6 Voigtlander. That camera has been in my pocket
(yes, a foldable camera) almost everywhere I've been going for the last five
years. That kind of use gives a very high probability, right? However,
last month I dropped from a mountain. I could see it bounce about three hundred
meters downhill on a steep, solid rock. When I finally got down there, the
appeared to be perfectly intact. But it was not. The case had been slightly
tilted (not enough to bee seen with bare eye), so the mechanism that avoids
double exposure has jammed. However, after this episode I can assure you that
a high quality camera can be used under hard conditions for almost 40 years
and even dropped down from a mountain, and the lens can remain unscratched.
My believe (and what was about to happen with my grandfathers camera) is
that the high quality old cameras dont break when they leave the used market,
i think that they rather tend to end up in boxes on the attic and then thrown
away the next time someone needs to get rid of old trash.
Dan Pettersson
Boris Kozintsev
Dan Pettersson wrote in message <6t8lpl$nph$1...@eol.dd.chalmers.se>...
>However, after this episode I can assure you that
>a high quality camera can be used under hard conditions for almost 40 years
>and even dropped down from a mountain, and the lens can remain unscratched.
>My believe (and what was about to happen with my grandfathers camera) is
>that the high quality old cameras dont break when they leave the used market,
>i think that they rather tend to end up in boxes on the attic and then thrown
>away the next time someone needs to get rid of old trash.
I agree. But on the other hand, I've been looking for a TLR just lately, and I've
examined several of them, at different shows. Sadly, all scratched and ugly. I ended up
with Autocord of 1958 -- my father was half my current age when it was made. The lens is not
perfect, just the best of what I could get (still pretty good, maybe as good as new -
who knows?).
See, if you are using a perfect specimen, you are probably not going to sell it. Did you sell
yours after the mountain accident? :)
Boris Kozintsev
I want to tell about my experience with some other dealer. I do not put any moral into my story,
it is just unbelievably absurd and funny, and yet everyone involved seems right.
I bought a metered Autocord with a sticky seicosha shutter that sometimes would only close half-way.
I've poured some lighter fluid inside and operated it for some time, but it did not get any better,
so I've realized a CLA was imminent. I went to my local pro photo dealer, sitting alone in the dark
store surround by wooden tripods, buckets of old lenses, mountains of filters and shades, you get the idea.
I've asked him if he would give my camera to his repairman.
He says:
- I could, but it does not make any sense. The overhaul of this camera would probably cost $85, and
this is a 75 dollar camera.
- What do you mean, $75? Do you have such a camera for sale at $75?
- No, right now I don't. Can sell you a couple of Russian TLR's, if you want...
- No, thanks. Do you often get Autocords at $75? When was the last time?
- I can't remember. Anyway, son, in the world of TLR's there are Rollei's, and
there are the rest. The rest are $75. Look, here is The Book (he actually produced
a worn book). Which Autocord exactly is yours? Ok, LMX. See, it says: $100-$150.
Forget it, it's a 75 dollar camera. No matter whether I have it or not.
- So, you think I should throw it away?
- Well, I am not going to dispute you. If you want a CLA - you're the boss.
- Yes, please.
In two weeks I come back, and the dealer says:
- Guess what, it is now working perfectly, and I will only charge you $45. Don't thank me,
thank the repairman. I could not believe he would want to work on that...
See what a nice guy he turned out to be? But being a dealer he looks kind of out of touch...
Bob Flood
>original tooling, and likewise the tooling for any new camera model. So one
>has to wonder whether the manufacturer is just offering this as an excuse
>or not
At the time of the original tooling, TLR sales were in good shape and Mamiya
was introducing an advanced capability TLR to boot. Years laters, after
Hassy/Bronco/Pentax/etc were established and TLR sales were declining,
retooling to replace old production equipment probably wasn't cost-justified
if sales continued downward, which they did.
Another poster also predicted a shift away from 35 mm for professionals and
serious amatuers toward MF hardware. If that is to come true, I think 2
things will have to happen. First, MF hardware will have to be more
competitive with 35 mm prices. And that will be difficult for
manufacturers - making the moving parts work correctly is a more difficult
assignment when the parts are larger, as will always be the case for MF vs
35 mm. The larger negative means larger shutters, lens diameters, etc, and
that translates into a higher cost for a camera system of body, motor,
assorted lenses, etc.
Second, MF will always be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to the
range of lenses that can be made available at a feasible cost. Imagine the
6X7 MF equivalent in angle of view to a 1,000 mm on a 35! The cost would
probably be in the range of a small BMW. Can you imagine trying to follow
the action in a sporting event with that monster? How about carrying such
hardware into the high country in Yosemite? The inherent advantage of the MF
negative size also brings liabilities as well. I think those liabilities
will keep 35mm alive and well for quite a while.
j...@magicnet.net
Well, maybe, but otoh it's very close to a conversation I have every few days.
My repair wizard's minimum charge for a leaf shutter job is usually around $100-125, and it makes no difference whether it's a Contaflex or a Hasselblad lens. So a
customer comes in with a camera that's worth maybe $50 in perfect condition and isn't worth having repaired for $100. And of course I can't sell him another one for $50
because I practically can't give the things away so avoid taking them in.
But every now and then the wizard throws us for a loop and does a repair for all of $20......
What I think many have forgotten in this discussion is that when the 124G or Mamiya TLRs were developed and first marketed Japanese labor was dirt cheap, so those
cameras could be sold for significantly less than the European competition. In recent years Japanese labor has gotten to be as expensive as European labor; we've
seen photo gear made in China etc and we've seen Japanese cars produced in the US.
Demand for TLRs? No. The standard Rollei 2.8GX sold for about the same price as a Hasselblad 500 C/M with lens and back, and the Rollei had a light-meter and ttl
autoflash control as standard....and hardly anyone bought them. The last price for the Mamiya C330 Pro-S was $799 dealer net for the body only...and hardly anyone
bought any of those either.
Why? They were preceived as too expensive, especially considering the plethora of those cameras for less than half price in mint used condition.
So the manufacturers saw no demand for their TLR cameras and dumped them.
How about cheap cameras such as the 124G? The last retail street price for new ones was $299; I have personal knowledge of only one person who paid that price, but I
know lots of people who bought clean used 124Gs for $60-$150. I believe Yashica found itself in the same position as Mamiya, needing to retool if production was to be
continued and finding that the camera would have to be sold for more than the market would apparently support.
And I'm cheap too; for my TLR I'm perfectly happy with my old Rollei 2.8E and had no desire to spend five times the cost for a 2.8GX even at dealer price. I put my money
into a 6003 for modern gear.
lemonade
le...@lime.org (lemonade) wrote:
Hmm, this post didn't come out quite the way I wanted it to. What I mean to
say is:
1) Of course, retooling would be a major expense. But then, so was the
original tooling, and likewise the tooling for any new camera model. So one
has to wonder whether the manufacturer is just offering this as an excuse
or not. After all, the Pentax 6x7 has been in continuous production for
about 30 years. Why didn't they just give up when it came time to retool?
The price certainly hasn't gone up over the years.
2) I can understand completely why there is no overt demand for TLRs-
nobody is there to explain and market their peculiar advantages. Probably
the Japanese manufacturers never really understood those anyway, since they
just copied the basic design from Rollei, and added engineering refinements
mimicking other camera types, like interchangeable lenses and so on. But
there was nobody to ever explain that the TLR format is just unbeatable for
certain types of pictures, and very useful for many others.
No marketing and no publicity = no demand. Of course no obvious demand =
conservative types won't take the risk to see if they can create demand.
But, someone who understands and loves the equipment, and can explain its
advantages to others, might. It's a little much to expect a TLR-Maitani to
ever come up through the ranks in Japan, but perhaps an American
photo-entrepreneur with some daring might try it, just as a couple of Swiss
ones have done with the new Alpa rangefinder, or the original F&H of Rollei
did with the Rolleiflex, or Victor Hasselblad did with the cameras of the
same name. There was no demand for any of these products before they came
out with them, because nobody even knew they existed- or should I say, they
didn't even exist at all.
j...@magicnet.net
Pentax 67 prices went way up several years ago.
> It's a little much to expect a TLR-Maitani to
> ever come up through the ranks in Japan, but perhaps an American
> photo-entrepreneur with some daring might try
It sure would be nice, but I see the camera market going in other directions. IMHO 35mm will become almost entirely consumer-level while those who use an F5 or EOS-1
today will be using a medium-format verion of the same sort of camera in the next few years. The standard TLR will be considered even more archaic.
But that could be good for us TLR users in the short run at least; good Rollei and Mamiya TLRs should come down in price.
Joshua_Putnam
>>1) Of course, retooling would be a major expense. But then, so was the
>>original tooling, and likewise the tooling for any new camera model. So one
>>has to wonder whether the manufacturer is just offering this as an excuse
>>or not
>At the time of the original tooling, TLR sales were in good shape and Mamiya
>was introducing an advanced capability TLR to boot. Years laters, after
>Hassy/Bronco/Pentax/etc were established and TLR sales were declining,
>retooling to replace old production equipment probably wasn't cost-justified
>if sales continued downward, which they did.
Also, changes in production methods factor in. If you started
making something 30+ years ago, you most likely have a line of
manually-controlled machine tools that are essentially worthless
on today's market, but as long as they continue to work, they're
already fully depreciated, so your only real cost is labor. When
those machines go belly-up and 20 year old repair parts cost too
much, you have to compare the sales volume to the price of a
whole new production line, which probably means upgrading to
modern CNC milling centers, or new lens plants, etc. Yes, modern
production would save a lot of labor, but are sales high enough
to cover the capital cost of the new equipment?
There's also the question of exchange rates. At the heyday of
cheap, hand-machined Japanese products, a dollar would buy more
than 200 yen. These days it will buy around 130 yen, and that's
better than a year or so back when it was only worth 100 yen.
Still, that means a 1000 yen item has gone from $5 to $7.69, even
assuming no increase in the cost of Japanese labor.
Now that Japan is in recession, on the verge of depression and a
deflationary spiral, it's possible that some of those old
production lines would suddenly be profitable again.
Unfortunately, in this and other industries, disused tooling is
often scrapped out immediately, rather than kept around just in
case. On the other hand, there could be a lot of very new CNC
equipment sitting around in shuttered factories if the economic
decline continues.
LDaneman
Unobstructed view with use of heavy filters? Being able to see proper flash
operation at the time of exposure? Quiet reflex camera?
I think the point was well made that there are enough mint TLR's out there to
satisfy demand cheaper than new ones. I had to buy a $600 C330S when I damaged
my C330Pro the day before a wedding shoot. It is not black anodized so I'm not
having any luck finding a buyer.
LAD
Dan Pettersson
to repair it.
Dan Pettersson
Tom Rittenhouse
:
:
: Another poster also predicted a shift away from 35 mm for professionals and
: serious amatuers toward MF hardware. If that is to come true, I think 2
: things will have to happen. First, MF hardware will have to be more
: competitive with 35 mm prices. And that will be difficult for
: manufacturers - making the moving parts work correctly is a more difficult
: assignment when the parts are larger, as will always be the case for MF vs
: 35 mm. The larger negative means larger shutters, lens diameters, etc, and
: that translates into a higher cost for a camera system of body, motor,
: assorted lenses, etc.
Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
more than 35s. In fact little more than the difference in materials cost.
But it is hard for a manufacturer to sell 10,000 of something for the same
as he sells a million of them, when the overhead is about the same.
--graywolf
Dave Flater
> Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
> if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
> more than 35s. In fact little more than the difference in materials cost.
> But it is hard for a manufacturer to sell 10,000 of something for the same
> as he sells a million of them, when the overhead is about the same.
Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
this niche market, I'd love to do it.
DWF
(Just bought a Zeiss Ikoflex, and it RULES)
lemonade
Albert) wrote:
> In article <6thost$c...@universe.digex.net>,
> Dave Flater <da...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>
> >Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
> >exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
> >decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
> >this niche market, I'd love to do it.
>
> ie try to do what Mamiya, Rollei, Minolta, and Yashica can't make any money
> at, despite having all the design work ready to roll, not to mention
> marketing and manufacturing experience and name recognition?
We don't know that the above mentioned companies CAN'T make any money at
TLR's; in fact usually such decisions are based not on not being able to
make any money at all, but instead on not being able to maximize the rate
of return.
However, for a small enterprise, the economics might be very different. The
fact is that no one really knows what the economics would be. Relatively
speaking, there isn't very much camera manufacturing expertise in the US;
most of it seems to be proprietary and well locked in to the small group of
Japanese and German manufacturers. Unfortunately, while these companies
know a lot about manufacturing, they know less than nothing about
marketing.
The upshot is, if you believe in the product, understand what makes it
great, and have the know-how to be able to market it in a way that would
convince others of those advantages, then it would be one of those business
risks that you'd just have to try to find out. You'd have to get the lenses
made by a third party, and likely have it manufactured in the far east. The
problem would be getting the expertise together, in addition to the
capital.
The most interesting thing about this particular thread, and in fact all
threads about TLR's that I've ever seen, whether on Usenet or elsewhere,
such as the Mamiya forum, is the influx of vehement naysayers who always
feeled compelled to jump in and say, "TLRs are dead, get used to it", and
worse. One always has to wonder: why? Why this need to constantly beat down
anyone who says, you know, TLR's have unique advantages and there are a lot
of people who like them. It's almost as if they are afraid that they might
actually come back one day.
Bob Flood
Tom Rittenhouse wrote in message ...
> Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
> if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
> more than 35s.
I am not trying to be argumentative here. I really am curious about this. I
am a physicist by training and by trade, so I think along techical lines,
and can't claim any savvy at marketing, finance, etc.
I use a Yashi TLR, but I also use my old workhorse Nikkormat FTN with a 50
mm f1.4. To my way of thinking, a 6X7 SLR with a lens fast enough to give an
equally bright viewscreen as my old Nikkormat would have to be rather large
in diameter, making it a) HEAVY, and b) expensive because getting the
optical quality one wants across a larger diameter piece of glass simply
takes more time and costs more money to achieve (grinding a big piece of
glass is harder than a small piece of glass). And achieving accurate 1/1000
sec (or faster) shutter speeds witha focal plane shutter the size of a
typical king of hearts must be more difficult than for a 35 mm - the larger
mass of the larger shutter makes the engineering more difficult and that
means more expensive. Unless of course the system uses leaf shutters, in
which case the user has to buy a shutter with each lens, which has to cost
more than a lens without a shutter in it. And the camera itself, given its
larger negative size, must be enough larger that the weight of the camera
would be problematic unless some exotic materials are used to get lower
weight without sacrificing durability - and that would cost more, too.
Or am I missing something of overiding importance in the design/manufacture
of a camera?
Joseph Albert
>Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
>exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
>decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
>this niche market, I'd love to do it.
ie try to do what Mamiya, Rollei, Minolta, and Yashica can't make any money
at, despite having all the design work ready to roll, not to mention
marketing and manufacturing experience and name recognition?
TLR's are generally very rugged and reliable cameras. Rollei's are
almost bulletproof, and Mamiya TLRs are quite rugged, except maybe
for the frame counter, which, though not quite up to Rollei standards,
is acceptable in build quality. it isn't going to be easy to compete
with used cameras that are rugged enough to pass down to your
great grandchildren.
>(Just bought a Zeiss Ikoflex, and it RULES)
Very good quality Tessar lens, comparable in quality to a Minolta Autocord
or Rolleicord, but I find the film loading ergonomics and ergonomics
in general to be lacking compared to an Autocord or Rolleiflex, or
Mamiya TLR.
j. albert
Joshua_Putnam
>In article <Ez8p6...@graywolf.com>, Tom Rittenhouse <t...@graywolf.com> wrote:
>> Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
>> if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
>> more than 35s. In fact little more than the difference in materials cost.
>> But it is hard for a manufacturer to sell 10,000 of something for the same
>> as he sells a million of them, when the overhead is about the same.
>Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
>exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
>decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
>this niche market, I'd love to do it.
As it happens, when I was in a shop this weekend looking for an
87 gel, I noticed a sale on a camera I hadn't seen before, a new
TLR from Kalimar, if I remember correctly, for a bit over $200.
I asked the salesman about it, and he said that while it's no
Rollie, it's also no Lubitel, and he's had a few knowledgeable
customers try them out and like them. I didn't have the time to
look at it, but maybe next time I'm in there I'll take a look.
Joseph Albert
lemonade <le...@lime.org> wrote:
>> ie try to do what Mamiya, Rollei, Minolta, and Yashica can't make any money
>> at, despite having all the design work ready to roll, not to mention
>> marketing and manufacturing experience and name recognition?
>
>TLR's; in fact usually such decisions are based not on not being able to
>make any money at all, but instead on not being able to maximize the rate
>of return.
Mamiya discontinued the TLR line because their tooling was worn out
and to manufacture new tooling would have made the system cost prohibitive
for them to make any $ on it. Someone starting out from scratch is further
behind in the design curve, and would probably not be able to amortize the
design or tooling costs over as many sales. but you're right, this doesn't
mean nobody can do it. did I say otherwise? maybe you should re-read what
I said above more carefully, which is to point out that what was being
proposed was to try to do what those companies abandoned, not to claim it
was impossible. The success of their TLR was what put mamiya on the map
in the world of medium format.
>The most interesting thing about this particular thread, and in fact all
>threads about TLR's that I've ever seen, whether on Usenet or elsewhere,
>such as the Mamiya forum, is the influx of vehement naysayers who always
>feeled compelled to jump in and say, "TLRs are dead, get used to it", and
Your reading alot more between the lines than is there if you think that.
I haven't seen people say TLRs are dead. I use the Mamiya TLR system and
it is my favorite 6x6 system. But I do believe that a TLR has to be
significantly cheaper than a competing SLR system to be successful in the
marketplace.
Speaking of small operations marketing a TLR-- Peter Gowland still
makes and sells his Gowlandflex 4x5 TLR.
Joseph Albert
lemonade
Albert) wrote:
> In article <lemon-ya02358000...@news.microtec.net>,
> lemonade <le...@lime.org> wrote:
> >> ie try to do what Mamiya, Rollei, Minolta, and Yashica can't make any money
> >> at, despite having all the design work ready to roll, not to mention
> >> marketing and manufacturing experience and name recognition?
> >
> >We don't know that the above mentioned companies CAN'T make any money at
> >TLR's; in fact usually such decisions are based not on not being able to
> >make any money at all, but instead on not being able to maximize the rate
> >of return.
>
> Mamiya discontinued the TLR line because their tooling was worn out
> and to manufacture new tooling would have made the system cost prohibitive
> for them to make any $ on it. Someone starting out from scratch is further
> behind in the design curve, and would probably not be able to amortize the
> design or tooling costs over as many sales. but you're right, this doesn't
> mean nobody can do it. did I say otherwise? maybe you should re-read what
> I said above more carefully, which is to point out that what was being
> proposed was to try to do what those companies abandoned, not to claim it
> was impossible. The success of their TLR was what put mamiya on the map
> in the world of medium format.
Well, as long as we are urging careful reading, let me do the same: I
didn't accuse you of saying nobody can make money on TLRs. I just said we
don't know if it's really true that the above-mentioned companies
themselves really can't make any money on them, as you claimed. They just
might prefer to invest dollars elsewhere for a higher RATE of return. A
different company would be in a completely different situation.
We've heard that Mamiya's reason for discontinuing was the prohibitive cost
of retooling. But that doesn't answer the question: for example, why has
Pentax not found the same for the 67? That model has been in continuous
production for about 30 years, they must have faced the same problem.
Or, perhaps they didn't because they have wiser people managing their
productions lines. Some hypothetical scenarios: Pentax continually invested
in incremental retooling/maintenance, because they planned from the start
for this to be a long-lived model; while Mamiya just let the tools run into
the ground, milking them for all they were worth because they had no
intention of maintaining the line. Or, the basic tool dies were not as
durable... In other words, knowing Mamiya's claim that the tool dies wore
out is just the beginning of the mystery, not the end of it.
And it leaves open the question, how does any manufacturer ever introduce a
new model in the first place?
Unfortunately, because all of the information needed to really understand
the entire situation is proprietary, we'll never really know. In any case,
innovative new businesses are all about changing the rules of the game.
> >The most interesting thing about this particular thread, and in fact all
> >threads about TLR's that I've ever seen, whether on Usenet or elsewhere,
> >such as the Mamiya forum, is the influx of vehement naysayers who always
> >feeled compelled to jump in and say, "TLRs are dead, get used to it", and
>
> Your reading alot more between the lines than is there if you think that.
> I haven't seen people say TLRs are dead. I use the Mamiya TLR system and
Actually this comment of mine wasn't particularly addressed at your post,
it was an overall comment on this and many other threads, both here and
elsewhere. As for yourself, you didn't say TLR's per se were dead, but you
were a nay-sayer on the idea of new production. Yet, you use one yourself
and love it. Why not try to convince others buying a camera of their
advantages, instead of discouraging the thought of ever making them again?
David-M
>
> In article <Ez8p6...@graywolf.com>, Tom Rittenhouse <t...@graywolf.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
> > if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
> > more than 35s. In fact little more than the difference in materials cost.
> > But it is hard for a manufacturer to sell 10,000 of something for the same
> > as he sells a million of them, when the overhead is about the same.
>
> Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
> exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
> decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
> this niche market, I'd love to do it.
>
>
It would cost more to make it than you could sell enough for to recover
your investment.
You would have to have it made overseas (probably China or India) where
labor is cheap.
Where would you get the lenses? You would probably have to put in a
minimum order of a few thousand and then you would have top sell that
many cameras.
How would you handle warranty repairs? New cameras must come with a
warranty.
- David.
David-M
> feeled compelled to jump in and say, "TLRs are dead, get used to it", and
> anyone who says, you know, TLR's have unique advantages and there are a lot
> of people who like them. It's almost as if they are afraid that they might
> actually come back one day.
>
year old design that has long been superceeded by superior designs does
not make sense.
There are more than enough good used TLR's on the market to satisfy any
future requirement.
No-one is going to make money making a new TLR today. Your best bet
would be to set up a refurbishment facility to buy used Yashicamats,
refurbish them and sell them used but with a warranty - spmething like
the 'certified' used cars being sold nowadays.
In any case, in another 25 years conventional photography will be dead
and everything will de digital, certainly all medium format photography.
Dave Flater
lemonade <le...@lime.org> wrote:
>Well, as long as we are urging careful reading, let me do the same: I
>didn't accuse you of saying nobody can make money on TLRs. I just said we
>don't know if it's really true that the above-mentioned companies
>themselves really can't make any money on them, as you claimed. They just
>might prefer to invest dollars elsewhere for a higher RATE of return. A
>different company would be in a completely different situation.
My thinking was that all of the big camera companies are concentrating
their efforts on adding more electronics, more gimmicks, and
better/faster everything to their already expensive SLR cameras, which
maximizes their return from well-funded pros but ignores "the rest of
us" who maybe just want to shoot landscapes on MF and have a perfectly
good 35mm for the other stuff.
In terms of financial feasibility, I am concerned about the lens. You
can get an engineer to design a good camera body, but only the gods
can make a good lens. I'm thinking that just the cost of getting the
lenses made by a "real" camera company might make the whole thing
prohibitive.
In e-mail somebody said that Seagull has been there and done that for
making new TLR cameras -- do they use cheap lenses?
DWF
Michael Liczbanski
to setup. Think of all the R&D work that has to go into a decent camera,
especially a mass-market roll film camera. The biggest problem is film
position (flatness) and transport (not very reliable on some v. expensive
cameras, even now.) It is not an accident, that the vast majority of
cameras manufactured by small companies, use either cut (sheet) film, or
roll film backs engineered and manufactured by an established outfit
(Linhof, Sinar, Toyo, etc.) Talk to Mr. Gowland in Santa Monica,
California: He's been making a variety of cameras for ages, and can even
manufacture some really odd stuff, like a 8x10" TLR...
Michael
=================================
***=mliczbanski in my address
Spam belongs in a can, not on the Internet
=================================
Dave Flater wrote in message <6thost$c...@universe.digex.net>...
>In article <Ez8p6...@graywolf.com>, Tom Rittenhouse <t...@graywolf.com>
wrote:
>> Actually, I think, and prices back in the old days seem it concur, that
>> if there was equal demand, larger format cameras would only cost slightly
>> more than 35s. In fact little more than the difference in materials
cost.
>> But it is hard for a manufacturer to sell 10,000 of something for the
same
>> as he sells a million of them, when the overhead is about the same.
>
>Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
>exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
>decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
>this niche market, I'd love to do it.
>
>DWF
Colyn
wrote:
>Is there anybody here who could make realistic estimates on what
>exactly it would cost to manufacture a simple manual TLR camera with a
>decent lens nowadays? If it's feasible for a small business to grab
>this niche market, I'd love to do it.
>
>DWF
>(Just bought a Zeiss Ikoflex, and it RULES)
compared to the number of units sold.. If you sell a small number per
year, you have to sell high to make a profit..
Colyn
Just bought 3 Rollie 3.5E's at the Ft.Worth show..
Bob Flood
Colyn wrote in message
<41F98A3ADFB84F69.C0FDA7BE...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>The problem for a small business to manuf. a TLR is cost per unit
>compared to the number of units sold.
The TLR manufacturer also has to compete in the open market, where "Just
bought 3 Rollie 3.5E's at the Ft.Worth show" would be a real problem. Can a
new TLR offer enough to attract buyers away from high quality used equipment
that's in rather abundant supply?
Now, if someone developed a decent quality 2 1/4 square TLR using
non-interchangeable zoom lenses (about 60-160 mm would do), THAT would
challenge the SLR and rangefinder units now available. But if wishes were
horses . . .
Dave Flater
Bob Flood <jrf...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>The TLR manufacturer also has to compete in the open market, where "Just
>bought 3 Rollie 3.5E's at the Ft.Worth show" would be a real problem. Can a
>new TLR offer enough to attract buyers away from high quality used equipment
>that's in rather abundant supply?
I expect the supply of TLRs with high quality, mint condition lenses
to approach zero pretty soon, if not already. In favor of making them
new is that a new lens, plus reliable new mechanics, might obviate the
need to buy three of them at a time. (Smirk)
>Now, if someone developed a decent quality 2 1/4 square TLR using
>non-interchangeable zoom lenses (about 60-160 mm would do),
(Shudder)
Ick. That would be one _ugly_ camera.
DWF
(On the "prime" team)
Bob Flood
Dave Flater wrote in message <6tjrct$r...@universe.digex.net>...
>I expect the supply of TLRs with high quality, mint condition lenses
>to approach zero pretty soon, if not already.
Well, I can't speak with any authority about the the supply of old TLRs with
mint lenses versus those with degraded lens quality, but it stands to reason
that at some point in time the supply of good ones will start running out.
I'm not sure that we've reached that time, but I certainly can't prove we
haven't.
> In favor of making them
>new is that a new lens, plus reliable new mechanics, might obviate the
>need to buy three of them at a time. (Smirk)
Actually, belay that smirk - this isn't a bad alternative to trying to build
new TLRs. A reliable business that replaces lenses with quality stuff, and
rebuilds the mechanicals and offers some sort of warranty might just find a
profitable niche.
>>Now, if someone developed a decent quality 2 1/4 square TLR using
>>non-interchangeable zoom lenses (about 60-160 mm would do),
>
>(Shudder)
>Ick. That would be one _ugly_ camera.
I can't argue with that, but as I recall correctly, in this game they don't
award style points for camera appearance.
lemonade
Liczbanski" <***@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Feasible or not, large-scale precision manufacturing will be very expensive
> to setup. Think of all the R&D work that has to go into a decent camera,
> especially a mass-market roll film camera. The biggest problem is film
> position (flatness) and transport (not very reliable on some v. expensive
> cameras, even now.) It is not an accident, that the vast majority of
> cameras manufactured by small companies, use either cut (sheet) film, or
> roll film backs engineered and manufactured by an established outfit
> (Linhof, Sinar, Toyo, etc.) Talk to Mr. Gowland in Santa Monica,
> California: He's been making a variety of cameras for ages, and can even
> manufacture some really odd stuff, like a 8x10" TLR...
So, one solution would be to base it on e.g. Bronica backs, or a more
adaptable multi-back system like the new Alpa. Besides avoiding the
development costs, you'd have a TLR with interchangeable backs!