Minolta Autocord. Second Impressions

I put a roll of FP4+ film through the Autocord last week to see how it handled compared with the Rolleicord (and Rolleiflex since it has a lever wind).

First though I replaced the piece of felt on the inside of the door and a circle of leatherette that was missing from the upper spool holder. Milly’s Cameras (order from the eBay site) supplied the materials very quickly indeed. Compared to the Rollei, the back fitting to achieve light tightness is pretty crude.

Arrow shows the replacement felt

I didn’t find the handling so convenient as the Rolleicord. Focusing involves moving one hand (and sometimes two) under the lens board in order to move the lever from side to side. I really found the lack of a concentric depth-of-field scale a hassle. Situated around the lever drive with tiny knobs to move an inner wheel, I gave up on it and used my iPhone depth-of-field app instead. I also found that the position of the shutter did not feel quite right.

Depth of Field Scale

In using a TLR I usually use the magnifier and hold it at eye level with my forehead resting on the hood rather than low down like a box camera. But as I did so the magnifier moved out of the way and so I had to keep my eye a distance from the magnifier. This doesn’t happen to me with the Rolleicord or with any Rolleiflex I have owned.

Magnifier in viewing position

I do like the solid metal lens cap and, once I got used to it, the way it attaches to the bayonet fitting of the viewing lens.

In terms of handling the Rolleicord wins easily. However, when it came to the results, the lens on the Autocord did live up to its reputation. I found it the equal of the Tessar in terms of sharpness. It seemed to have more contrast than the Tessar but I would really need to do a side-by-side comparison to be sure.

This Autocord has certainly lasted well; the mechanisms seem robust and the lens looks and behaves as good as new. I will give it another try soon with infra-red film. I wonder for what wavelength the infra-red focus point was set.

Minolta Autocord versus Rolleicord Vb. First Impressions

For current users of 120 film, the Minolta Autocord has an almost cult following that rivals that of the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord. The lens is argued to be the equal of and sometimes better than the Zeiss Tessar in the latter cameras.

Having read the stories, I was keen to compare the two cameras. It is, of course, not fair to compare the performance of two cameras, both 50 years old, picked at random from those on sale. Conditions of storage, amount of wear and servicing could all be different and affect the original design and construction differently. Unfair, yes, but I will do it anyway.

I bought the Autocord from a UK seller on eBay. As soon as it arrived I realised it was in excellent condition and identified it as the RG 3rd version of 1963. That same day, I checked the shutter speeds electronically and found they were consistently about ½ stop slow and not worth applying a correction when using films like FP4+.

Please bear in mind that the Minolta Autocord was very different in price from the Rolleicord. In Amateur Photographer of 15 February 1961 I found one advertisement for the Autocord at £53-9-6d. In another advertisement on 14 February 1962, the Autocord was £50-7-10. Rolleicords at that time were about £85.

Please also bear in mind that Japanese cameras were very slow to gain acceptance in Britain in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They were regarded as cheap, unreliable and inferior imitations of German products. The trade was still locked into the British agents of German manufacturers. As one camera shop owner said to me in the late 1950s while looking down his nose at a Japanese TLR, ‘I have to sell these because of the price but I hate having to do so. Real photographers will always use German cameras.’ I do not recall ever seeing an Autocord in a camera shop; Yashica, especially the 4x4 yes, Minolta no.

So, without having used it yet, these are my first impressions.

The Autocord is heavier than the Rolleicord Vb (930 vs 1000 g). In general, the construction of the Autocord is crude compared with the Rolleicord. For example: screw heads are on show (anathema to premier German manufacturers); the opening mechanism is very crude and closure of the back relies on felt seals in places. The hood is non-removable and the sports finder release mechanism somewhat unreliable.

In terms of focusing, I prefer the side wheel of the Rolleicord to the front lever of the Autocord. I also prefer the split-image centre of the Rolleicord screen to the plain ground glass centre of the Autocord. I can see no difference in brightness.

The depth-of-field scale is around the focusing knob of the Rolleicord which makes it easier to use than the one on the Autocord. In the latter it is around the winding crank and the focused distance has to be read off the front scale and then applied to the depth-of-field scale. The Autocord but not the Rolleicord has an infra-red focusing mark.

Setting the shutter speed and aperture I find easier on the Autocord. I hated the exposure value system when it was introduced and I hate it now. Having to unlock a lever to change shutter speed and aperture was, and is, infuriating.

A major difference between the two cameras is the winding crank of the Autocord, thus making it comparable with a Rolleiflex like the T model.  For the type of photography I do with TLR cameras, I actually prefer the winding knob of the Rolleicord but I can see that, in its day, a rapid wind lever would have been an attraction.

The next job is to load a film and try the Autocord in action.

Rolleicord ‘waddling’ while focusing

There is often discussion in fora on what to do when the front of a Rolleicord or a Rolleiflex gets a bang, moving the lens and film planes out of parallel. An expensive repair is the answer. However, only rarely does discussion of another problem that can cause loss of parallelism arise.

In the 1980s, I had a Rolleicord Va with what I can only describe as a ‘waddling’ front end. When focusing, one side of the front end moved ahead of the other; eventually, the other side seemed to catch up when I stopped turning the wheel but I was never sure the lens became parallel to the film after being so far off. This is the only Rollei I have seen with the problem out of those I have had or handled. The mechanism that the front board runs in and out of the back part of the camera appeared to be loose.

Makers of bellows or other cameras with collapsible fronts used emphasise that their construction ensured the film and lens planes were parallel. But what is the margin of error in, say, that Rolleicord?

Using standard formulae for circle of confusion and for depth of focus (i.e. the distance from the film plane at which an image is in sharp focus or lens-to-film tolerance), the total depth of focus at f16 is 1.7 mm, for a Rolleicord/flex. However, depth of focus, like depth of field, decreases as the size of the aperture is increased. By f3.5 it is 0.37 mm and by f2.8 only 0.3 mm. So I probably would not have noticed anything wrong with my waddling Rolleicord at small apertures. But at f3.5 and focused at the centre of the screen, it would only take one side to be 0.15 mm further away and the other to be 0.15 mm nearer the lens for the effect of lack of parallelism to become apparent.

Also germane to this point, is the discussion of the flatness of film after being left in a camera for some time and the superiority of the film path of the Minolta Autocord over the Rolleis. Again, the effect would be more apparent at large apertures, and in the f2.8 Rolleiflexes in particular.

With folding 35 mm cameras the tolerance is even tighter. One of the last cameras my father bought for his collection before he died was an Agfa Karat 36 with a Rodenstock Heligon f2 lens. I remember that the struts of this great camera were particularly impressive in the way that they ensured film and lens planes remained parallel when the front was extended. They needed to be; at f2 the depth of focus is only 0.12 mm — the thickness of a sheet of printer paper.