Photo thanks to Mr. Reinke
[email protected]

Related Links:
Minolta Autocord Page

The Minolta Autocord is a popular mid-1950s twin lens reflex camera, and well-regarded as an entry level or backup medium format camera ($100 US range used). While less expensive than the collectible Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords, the Minolta Autocords and similar Yashica-Mat TLRs are capable of very good results and crisp substantial enlargements.

Photo notes:

Minolta Autocord - SN 156449, c.1955. Similar to the top quality construction as the German Rolleiflex exhibits. Coated Chiyoko Rokkor 75/3.5 lens in SEIKOSHA-MX shutter .. it works surprisingly well and seems accurate (all speeds). It does have an original side mounted exposure meter.

Notes:

The above table gives a sample lens test (s/n 1104662) for the Minolta Autocord CdS model with its 75mm f/3.5 Rokkor lens. You should probably expect similar excellent performance in the mid-range f/stops, but check your own camera and lens to be sure. See the full review for more details, and testing details. See Lens Test Charts downloads and camera testing tips for more details...

Related Postings:

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Redmond Young)
[1] Re: Rollieflex and Autocord help
Date: Mon Feb 23 1998

Yep. I have an Autocord CDS and it takes a "PX-1" mercury battery that's been abandoned. I did find some brand new EverReady PX-1s at a recent swap meet, however. I picked up 2 for $5/each and put them in the freezer. The dealer only had about 10 or 15 left.

The PX-1 looks like a standard mercury battery except it's several times taller. Maybe if you stacked 3 or 4 mercury batteries it would be about right. Except now you've got more than 1.35 volts!

Here's the fix I'm going to do when the PX-1's go extinct:

Use a ''Weincell'', and cut/shape a wooden dowel to fill-up the extra space in the battery compartment. Then drive a nail or screw thru the dowel to complete the circuit. What do you think ??

Red

PS: My 32-year old CDS meter on my '66 Autocord is spot on accurate.
As is my 40-year old Selenium meter on my '58 Autocord LMX.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: " Dante A. Stella" [email protected]
[1] Autocord Anti-Defamation League
Date: Sun Apr 05 1998

I think it's time to stand up for the Autocord, which I (and a couple of other loners on this group) feel has gotten a bad shake. I can afford to be defensive because I own two Rolleis (I like all of these, but lay off the minolta!)

The crucial issue with the Autocord is not whether its optical performance is substandard. It isn't. The Rokkors that come with it are sufficiently sharp to pick up newsprint (8pt) at eight feet away (in the corner). There is nothing wrong with the lens coatings either, nor the general construction. You don't hear a lot about separation outside the Zeiss world.

The issue is not controls. The Autocord, as someone else pointed out, are easier to use than those of a Rollei (especially when you start talking about the EVS models). The focusing is worked by a lever under the taking lens. You can operate this camera with one hand. Moreover, it has an intergrated flash shoe, which can be reversed and used with modern shoe-mount equipment. Find this on a Rollei (when you are able to use shoe accessories on a Rollei, you can't use Rolleinars or Mutars). The focusing screen is also sharper.

It's not mechanical smoothness. An autocord makes a lot less noise in shooting than a Rollei.

The crucial problem is shutter repair, which is impossible to get. Chiyoko Seiko and Optiper shutter parts do not grow on trees. They never did.

Finally, when it comes to being sought after, you can easily see from the price books that the Minoltas don't cost that much less than the comparable Rolleicords and Automats.

Dante

From: steven T koontz [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Autocord Anti-Defamation League
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998

Dante A. Stella wrote:
>
> I think it's time to stand up for the Autocord, which I (and a couple of
> other loners on this group) feel has gotten a bad shake. I can afford to
> be defensive because I own two Rolleis (I like all of these, but lay off
> the minolta!)
>

I too have a rollei and two 'cords and like using the 'cords much better. The performance is equal if not slightly better (but I mean slightly). also the rokkor lens is very contrasty.. And less flare prone than my coated xenar rollei is.. As you said repair may be a problem but so far I haven't needed any.. I've blown prints up to 16X20 from both and see no real difference and I'm *REAL* picky. I too hate seeing people bash these and bet most haven't ever even used one..

--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz [email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
[1] Re: Expanding to Medium Format
Date: Tue Jun 23 1998

I use a Minolta Autocord (non metered) with chrome film for shooting subjects (like outdoor stuff, landscape, and classic motorcycles) and a number of different Yashica TLR's for shooting people. I like the basic "A" model the best because of the "soft" image it gives. These cameras can be had for much less then the newer, more modern SLR's from Hassey, Rollei, ect. But you can always get your money out of them and move up if you so desire. Right now, I don't! I'm REALLY happy with the results I get. The Autocord is awesome.

NDW

From: [email protected] (Colyn )
[1] Re: Minolta Autocord
Date: Sun Sep 06 1998

"RS" [email protected] wrote:

>A friend showed me this camera today. It is in good to very good shape. Uses
>120 film. It's like an old box style camera. does anyone know what it
>actually is and what it might be worth?? Has original hard cover case and
>previous owner said her husband used it as his everyday camera.

One of the better made TLR's around.. These cameras were made from the mid-50's through the 60's.. and are selling between $100-250..

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New Guy With Questions

I think the Autocord is far from trash, and maybe the next best thing to a Rollei. Interestingly, the early Autocords were apparently built on bodies made from dies that Minolta got from Franke & Heideke. Some years ago we ran a series of articles in Shutterbug by Jack Quigley in which he stripped down some Autocords and showed the original F & H markings on the body castings.

Bob

....

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
From: Geir Eivind Mork [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord TLR

Mickey Corbett wrote:

> I am curious to know what accessories were available from Minolta for
> the Autocord. What bayonet filters were made for this camera and were
> all the lenses the same size? Which models accepted both 120 and 220
> film? What year did production cease? Thanks!

http://dyson.brisnet.org.au/~craig/mug.html

MUG has links to Autocord related information (Minolta User Group)

From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord question

Jerry Solinger [email protected] wrote:

: I just purchased an Autocord, which seems to be in excellent working order.
: However, with no film in the camera, I tried to use the little switch which
: is to prevent film advance when cranking the lever, thereby permitting
: multiple exposures.  When I turned the crank, the roller turned too.  I'm
: wondering if the multiple exposure function works only with film in the
: camera??   Can anyone help with this question??

: Thanks,   Jerry Solinger

If you are talking about the little 'button' near the wind crank, pushing it allows you to cock the shutter. In an Autocord, you wind the crank in a clockwise direction to advance the film. After it 'hits the stop' and the film is advanced, you bring the crank back to its original position which cocks the shutter. To cock the shutter without advancing the film, you push that little button to the side and turn the crank a full turn counter clockwise.

Ray
--
E. Ray Lemar [email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

It's been a long time since I had an Autocord in my hands, but if I remember correctly some of them have a multiple esposure capability. That seems the most likely function of this mystery control.

Jack Quigley, who used to write a Minolta column for Shutterbug, took some Autocords apart and found Rollei markings on the main body castings. Based on this he theorized that Minolta had bought tooling and dies from Rollei when some models were discontinued and used these as the basis for the Autocords. No one was ever able to get any confirmation of this from Rollei or Minolta.

Bob

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: "kab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. Autocord

The latest models are the Autocord Standard, Autocord CDS, Autocord III and Autocord CDS III (III versions take 120 and 220 film). Easiest way to determine a late model is the shutter goes to 1/500 of a second and the shutter is a Citizen MVL. Earlier versions used Seikosha MX shutters and the earliest versions the shutter only went up to 1/400 second.

...

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: "kab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. Autocord

The models I listed were all available during the same time period (1965 - 1968), unfortunately I don't know the serial number range for these cameras. The Autocord III is basically the Autocord Standard with 220 capability added to it. As for disadvantages, all 4 cameras are basically them same with the III having 220 capability, the CDS having a meter and the CDS III having a meter and 220 capability. All of them are excellent picture takers, great contrast and super sharp lenses. The fresnel screens are extremely bright, which makes focusing a snap. I have seen 2 Autocords that had the spilt image center spot fresnel screen, not sure if the screens were after market or a very late addition by Minolta.

Good luck and happy shooting.

karl

[Ed.note: thanks to David for sharing these tips and experiences!...]
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. Autocord

[email protected] (S. Gordon) wrote:

>I've heard good things about both TLRs, their bodies and lenses, but I
>haven't come across any comparisons.
>
>Besides the Autocord's allegedly brighter viewfinder, can anyone discuss
>the differences between these two cameras? TIA.

Very similar shooting characteristics but in my experience the Rollei is maybe better built and the Autocord handles contrast damaging light a bit better. They have two different methods of focus, the Rollei with a knob , the Autocord with a little lever under the lens mounting plate. The latter can stick and get broken, many Autocords have been repaired for this problem.

After I left my childhood where I grew up shooting medium format and then went to smaller formats, I finally recovered from the small format bites and re-entered medium format with the Autocord. To this day I don't believe I've shot anything any better than with that camera in 6x6. The next best shooter in 6x6 has been the Rolleiflex , though some of the Mamiya TLR lenses are fine too but something about the images from that Autocord always just struck me.I've often thought of picking up another one just to see if the results would still strike me the same.

If you find a nice clean Rolleicord with a Tessar lens I would think you would be happy with the results from it. If you find a nice clean Autocord with its good coated lens, I know you will be happy with its results. To me , part of the charm of these little TLR cameras is the 75mm. lens and what you can do with the one lens. It is just a tad wider than normal , maybe like shooting 40mm. in 35mm. format, the clarity and detail in the images is great with either camera. I think in the end the trick is to get a good camera, try for a real clean example.

David Grabowski

[Ed.note: thanks also to Allen Zak for supplying these notes and tips!]
From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. Autocord

>I've heard good things about both TLRs, their bodies and lenses, but I
>haven't come across any comparisons.
>
>Besides the Autocord's allegedly brighter viewfinder, can anyone discuss
>the differences between these two cameras? TIA.

I have used several samples of both and find the lenses comparable, although individual variations were experienced in both types. The Autocord was handier to use because of the sweep focusing lever and film advance by crank simultaneously cocked the shutter, like the Rolleiflex. Overall, I enjoyed using mine, although it was more in the nature of brief infatuations before eventually returning to Rollei.

OTOH, the camera was flimsy compared to the 'cord, although better than the Yashicamat. Problem areas were the focusing lever, which could break under certain conditions, and also the handle on the advance crank, weakly attached. The MX switch was not positive, and on one occasion I lost a priceless set of photographs because it drifted to M while I was using electronic flash. Can't happen with Rollei.

The Rolleicord offers mechanical simplicity and a quality of construction I found valuable. I never had a mechanical problem with one other than the consequence of bashing it against something too hard. Some models offered multiple formats, which I liked and used. These days I am using a Rolleiflex, which I prefer to both 'cords. Check on condition before you buy.

Allen Zak

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000
From: "kab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. Autocord

I have used several Rolleiflexes (2.8C, 2.8F, 3.5EVS, 3.5F) and several Autocords (early and late version nonmetered and metered as well as the CDS 120/220). I found the Rollie's better for portraits (softer more pleasing complexions of the models) and the Autocords better for scenics (crisper rendition of the scenes). I was curious as to why the difference between the cameras, so I placed several of each on a collimator. The Autocords were consistently sharp from 3.5f to 22f. The Rollies were marginally sharp from about 8f to 11f, the rest of the time they were soft to very soft (which is what you would expect from a good portraiture lens). As for the quality of the build, I find the extra intricacy of the Rollie to be more of a maintenance hassle than it is worth. The Autocords are efficient in design and ergonomics, the light baffling and fresnel screen are superior to the Rollies. As for the focus lever being fragile, this is only a problem if one allows the helix grease to get old and gummy (about every 10 to 15 years you should service the cameras).

karl

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

Hi Mark,

> I have just received an Autocord (151963) I bought off ebay. Everything
> seems ok, but there is one mysterious control next to the wind lever -
> it is sprung and can be pushed back (towards the camera back). What does
> it do? Are there any on-line manuals for this camera? Any hot hints?

That spring loaded button is the intentional double or multi-exposure feature. To double or multi-expose, slide the button back (towards the film chamber) and crank the advance *backwards* to cock the shutter. It works great! Hmm...Rollei Automat's don't have a provision for double exposure do they? :-)

The properly serviced and cared-for Autocord is a wonderful photographic instrument. Because the film loads from the top, film flattness is excellent, and the Rokkor 75mm lens is the best of the Japanese Tessar-style copies. As for a user manual, I've heard Craig Camera has them for most of the popular TLR's (and a bunch of other stuff) and you can usually find one at Pacific Rim Camera.

The Minolta is a quality shooter. Enjoy yours Mark!

Nolan Woodbury

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: "Justin Bailey" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Autocord L Information

To adjust the viewing lens, you loosen the set screw in the side of the housing and screw it in or out. Most amateurs that take one apart end up screwing it all the way in, that must be the correct assembly. A simple way to verify focus would be to set the focusing lever at infinity and adjust the lens until the waist-level finder shows a distant scene in focus. What I did was to insert a ground-glass in the film gate and compare the images from the viewing and taking lenses at different distances.

The usual way of replacing leather was to have pre-cut forms with an adhesive backing. This is what camera repair technicians are used to doing.

I have been told that nobody makes Minolta TLR forms any more. Maybe you can find a shop that still has some in inventory. What I have done to re-cover a Minoltaflex is to get a large sheet from which I painstakingly cut my own forms. This takes a long time, and it's better to do yourself rather than pay a camera tech. $50 an hour for. Several on-line and back-of-Shutterbug sources can supply leather sheets. I got mine from the local repair shop, where I could find a close grain match. (I also re-covered an Autocord by being careful when I removed the original leather, and re-applying that.)

What kind of spring? A repair shop should have an assortment of fine springs, maybe even a parts inventory with the exact replacement. (I hope it's not a shutter spring!)

---
Justin "RED" Bailey
[email protected]

--- Original Message ---
From: [email protected]
Subject: [minolta] Re: Autocord L Information
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001

--- In [email protected], "Justin Bailey" red_bailey@h... wrote:

 >all I had to do was re-set the viewing lens for infinity.

Can you describe the procedure to accomplish that? I've found a repair manual (yes, a LMX repair manual...) but that task is not clearly explained.

I think I've played too much with mine...

Another couple of things about Autocord:

1) there's a place where I can find a replacing leather?

2) same as above: a place where to find springs. I've broken one.

I love to put hands on that camera...

Thanks

GFB

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

Bob Shell [email protected] wrote:

> Jack Quigley, who used to write a Minolta column for Shutterbug, took
> some  Autocords apart and found Rollei markings on the main 
> body castings...

I find this intriguing, since I'm a big fan of the Minolta Autocord.

Still, sitting an vintage Automat and a Autocord side by side reveals many not-so subtle differences; Although both camera's are (almost) exactly the same size and weight, the film loading is totally different, as is the back door locking mechanism as well as the focusing adjustment (the Rollei of course has a knob, the Autocord a swinging lever under the front standard) The Minolta seems more akin to the Rolleicord with its lever adjustments for shutter speed and f-stop settings, and is very "un-YashicaMat" is as much as the 'Mat was a clear, unbashed copy of the Automat. The Yashica is a good camera, but not up to the quality of the Rolleiflex, or the Minolta.

As I said before, the Minolta was the *very best* of the Japanese Rollei copies. The Kowa-built Kalloflex TLR is a stunning piece of workmanship, and is as rugged as they come but the Prominar 3.5 75mm taking lens is bit behind the Rokkor's sharpness and contrast...at least on the examples I have compared.

Anything is possible I suppose, and I'm not doubting Jack Quigley's comments for a moment- These are just my observations. BTW Bob, I love Shutterbug but wish there was more vintage camera material! Still its a must read when I have..oh, 5 or 6 hours to kill. :-)

Nolan Woodbury

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

> From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord
>
> Anything is possible I suppose, and I'm not doubting Jack Quigley's
> comments for a moment- These are just my observations. BTW Bob, I love
> Shutterbug but wish there was more vintage camera material! Still its a
> must read when I have..oh, 5 or 6 hours to kill. :-)

Well, I haven't been in touch with Quig for years and don't know what he's up to these days, but he was always a straight shooter. He substantiated his claims with photos. Now I suppose it is possible that Minolta subcontracted Rollei to make the dies for injection molding of the main body casting. He never was able to get a straight answer from anyone at Minolta or Rollei about this.

Roger Hicks is writing a series of articles on vintage cameras for Shutterbug for this year. I'm no longer involved with the magazine editorially, but I know the problem I had was in finding people who could write this stuff and get it right. Most of the people who used to write on vintage equipment either retired and stopped writing or died, and no one came along to replace them. I doubt that the new management will want to run many classic/collector pieces since that isn't where the action is in photography today.

BTW, talking TLRs, did you ever see a Ricoh Diacord? I used to have one of them and always did think it was a much better camera than the Yashicamats. I liked the double lever focusing!

Bob

[Ed. note: thanks to Allen for providing this update!..]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

you wrote:

> I have been told that the Minolta Autocord does NOT have parallax
> correction. Is this true?

The Autocord has no parallax correction. However, the viewfinder showa a bit less than will appear on film, so the top of your photograph will probably be included, after all. Both Rolleiflex and cord have automatic parallax correction by means of a sliding mask, thus assuring correct framing. This allows the viewfinder to be same size as the negative.

Since there is a displacement between the viewing and taking lenses, there will be a slight difference in that foreground or background objects many not line up in the photograph exactly as they appeared in the viewfinder. For most purposes, the effect is negligible. Where it is not, a mechanical parallax correcting device that raises the taking lens into the same position as the viewing lens would be in order. Minolta, I believe, made one for the Autocord. Its use requires a tripod. First you focus, then you jack up the camera with the devise so that the taking lens occupies the same position as the viewing lens did when focusing. The arrangement is clumsy, compared to an SLR, but quite usable on any subject that will hold still long enough.

Allen Zak

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord

> Gerard Tripptree asked:
> > I have been told that the Minolta Autocord does NOT have parallax
> correction. Is this true?

Edward Meyers:

> I'm not sure about the Autocord having Parallax compensation. The
> Rolleiflex (not cord, If I remember correctly) has built-in
> Parallax compensation.

The Autocord, unlike the Rolleiflex does not have the sliding mask in the view finder. Minolta did offer a very beautiful optional accessory, (the Paradjuster) which mounts between the camera body and the tripod, then lifts the camera the exact amount after composing. This is especially helpful when using a closeup lens set.

Nolan Woodbury

Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001
From: Juan Tovar [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions on Autocord

I also have a minolta autocord, and let me tell you that's an excellent camera. The optics are great. Mine has a selenium meter, and after all these years it's right on the spot. The fact that yours doesn't have a meter shouldn't worry you, you can always get a hand-held meter which are ALWAYS more reliable and accurate. Try to get one that reads incident, reflected (spot preferably) and flash. You don't say what lenses you have, but from what i have read thre are two types and minolta had them specially made for these cameras. My lenses are Chiyoko f3.5, 75mm, and after 1958(?) thery're still delivering excellent quality images. The page you're loking for is gone, and that's a BIG shame! But there are a number of pages e.g.

http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/mintlr.htm.

From what i gather from this web page, minolta introduced the selenium meter in 1955, so yours could be prior to that. Since you're dealing with a really old camera you should get it to a repair shop and have them give it a maintenace job it's always good for you camera and it could help you avoid the damage of the focusing knob). Your camera should use bayonet1 filters, you can always get them at B&H for around 35US, so ther's no problem with that.

Hope i helped.

Juan

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (DaveHodge)
Date: Fri Feb 16 2001
[1] Re: Questions on Autocord

Minolta Autocord was introduced in about 1958 selling for less than $100 and destroyed Kodak's market for the Chevron which was selling for $350. And the Autocord's lenses were as good as Ektars.

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Autocord

Hi Mark, all;

I have been thinking of buying an Autocord, and was wondering if anybody in this group uses one, and if so, what your opinion of it is.

I have 7 of them, ranging from a very early un-metered version to the very last of the breed; a CdS-III with 120/220 capability. I use mine (and Rollei/Kowa TLR's...also very fine) for professional slides of the vintage and collectable European motorcycles I write about, and sell to motorcycle magazines as a freelancer. I'm also currently a staff member of ME Magazine. I've been using the Autocord since 1995 (on the advice of a friend who told me they were very good optically) and continue to be amazed of what they are capable of. The Rokkor taking lenses are very sharp and contrasty (good for b&w or color) the controls easy to operate and the camera is very sturdy and well built. I have over 40 TLR's in my user/collection, and except for an exceptional 1951 Rollei MX (Jena Tessar) the Autocord's are the best of the bunch. Best shooter of them all? The CdS-III. Nothing with a standard 80mm lens..Hassey, Bronica, Mamiya, ect can better it. I know...I rented them and tried! The Autocord also features exceptional film flatness, the ability to flash-sync at any shutter speed and film chamber baffling. Here is a Moto Guzzi Gallery (Italian made motorcycle) with mostly Autocord images, 4 galleries in all. Look for my name:

http://www.motoguzzi.be/galleries/

> I would be using it primarily for B&W work, where I would like the  larger
> negative to get away from the grain on larger prints.

My advice? Do it! You will not be sorry. I can give the name of an excellent service person(s) for CLA's and repairs if needed. Just let me know.

Nolan Woodbury
www.moto-euro.com

From: David Grabowski [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei performance
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 

Stephe wrote:
> 
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> 
> >
> >> One thing, though....except for the newer Rolleis, the screens are
> >> dark.
> >
> > Any Rolleiflex or Rolleicord can be fitted with a Maxwell screen for a
> > MAJOR improvement in screen brightness and focusing accuracy. I have one
> > in my '51 3.5MX and I had one in my '81 3.5F Xenotar. This screen is
> > brighter and easier to focus with my '51 Rolleiflex than a current
> > Hasselblad with AccuMatte is, in my opinion.
> 
> I agree, I installed a maxwell in an old cord V along with a cla and it's
> wonderful. I installed an accumat-D in my Kiev-60 and wish I had gotten a
> maxwell. The accumat is good but isn't as "smooth" looking as maxwells
> screens are.
> 
> One suggestion no one mentioned was a minoltacord. It has a bright screen,
> is easy to focus and the rokkor lens is as good as any of the german glass.
> I actually think the helical focusing lever is faster/easier to use than
> the rollei's knob.
> 
> --
> 
>   Stephe

I agree with what you say about the Autocord, great camera.
One thing though, you can disturb the focus more easily on
them than on the rolleis, the front plate will push in by
hand. Not a huge issue, the taking quality is very good.

David

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Scanning negs and Minolta Autocords
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>


> I know that the Autocords are Japanese copies of Rolleicords, but the
> quality of the results speak for themselves. I think the 3.5/75mm Rokkor
> lens in the Autocords is based on the Tessar design.


Interestingly enough if you take some Autocords apart you will see Rollei
marking on the body casting.  We ran an article about this years ago in
Shutterbug showing photos which proved the castings were made with
Rollei-supplied dies.  Whether Rollei sold Minolta tooling when they made
a model change or licensed them to duplicate the castings from a current
camera is something no one seems to know now.

Bob


Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: "R. Peters" [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei-Minolta Autocord relationship

Some time ago, Bob Shell mentioned that he'd either seen or heard reports
that some Minolta Autocords had "Rollei" stamped into them.   A friend has
a 2.8A, and some previous owner had removed the original 2.8 Tessar and not
replaced it.  (I advertised once here for him looking for a replacement 2.8
tessar lens for it, but no luck)  Anyhow, what is interesting is that he
found a set of 75mm f.3.5 Schneider Xenar lens cells from a Rolleicord.
They wouldn't thread in.  But what is interesting is that the cells from a
75mm f3.5 Autocord DID fit perfectly.   

So if Minolta bought some of the dies from Rollei, it may be that the 2.8A
was the model that was involved.  Which might make some sense, since the
2.8A front panel wouldn't accept either the later 2.8 Planar or Xenotar, or
the Xenar.
	
bob


Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei-Minolta Autocord relationship

R. Peters wrote:
>Anyhow, what is interesting is that he
>found a set of 75mm f.3.5 Schneider Xenar lens cells from a Rolleicord.
>They wouldn't thread in.  But what is interesting is that the cells from a
>75mm f3.5 Autocord DID fit perfectly.

More likely, Bob, is that this is an artifact of the Rolleicord using size
00 shutters and the 2.8A using the slightly larger size 0 shutter.  I
believe the threads on these shutters were internationally standardized
around the time of the First World War.

Marc

[email protected]  

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei-Minolta Autocord relationship
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

This was based on research by Jack Quigley who used to write the Minolta
Mania column for Shutterbug.  He dismantled some Minolta Autocords and
some Rolleicords and found the main body castings were identical down to
the tiniest details including the maker's marks.  His assumption was that
Minolta had bought dies from Rollei when some Rolleicord models were
discontinued.  

Not surprising that the cells would fit since the Minolta shutter is an
exact clone of a Compur.  The threads on the front and back of Compur
shutters were standardized early on.

Bob



R. Peters at [email protected] wrote:

> Some time ago, Bob Shell mentioned that he'd either seen or heard reports
> that some Minolta Autocords had "Rollei" stamped into them.   A friend has
> a 2.8A, and some previous owner had removed the original 2.8 Tessar and not
> replaced it.  (I advertised once here for him looking for a replacement 2.8
> tessar lens for it, but no luck)  Anyhow, what is interesting is that he
> found a set of 75mm f.3.5 Schneider Xenar lens cells from a Rolleicord.
> They wouldn't thread in.  But what is interesting is that the cells from a
> 75mm f3.5 Autocord DID fit perfectly.
> 
> So if Minolta bought some of the dies from Rollei, it may be that the 2.8A
> was the model that was involved.  Which might make some sense, since the
> 2.8A front panel wouldn't accept either the later 2.8 Planar or Xenotar, or
> the Xenar.
> bob



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 
From: Dave Huffman [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord 120 pics

I was just scanning the Rollei Group digest and found a recommendation for
these pics taken with an Autocord.  Very nice!

Huff

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=143313  


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 
From: "Frank Mueller" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Autocord

--- In Minolta@y..., bethdan@b... wrote:
> > Serial number.  Check the following web site:
>
> Isn't this, though, not completely reliable since the author says
> it is not definitive?  He does not appear to know whether the
> serial number ranges are exclusive as to the end points.

I have a feeling he might have been a bit overcautious but here might
be cameras that don't fit his listing.  The seriael number was
accurate in my case.  I would look at features and serial number.  In
my case they did not agree, and I went with the features.  I should
have been careful and double checked.

> I may be interestred in just that model.  Want to sell it?
Make me an offer ;-)

> BTW, is the CDS meter vastly superior to the selenium meter?

Depends on how you want to use it.  For landscape the selenium meter
is probably quite ok.  Indoors I find the selenium meter just not
sensitive enough.  Also, it covers a very wide field.  Just look at
the huge selenium cell at the front of the camera.  I suppose as long
as you are aware of the shortfalls it's ok to use.  You must make
sure not to meter too much of the sky etc.

> And can I get batteries for it?

That is a tricky question.  The CDSIII takes the old PX-1 mercury
cells.  They have gone out of production ages ago.  Apparently you
can use a PX-625, which is still available in most countries other
than the US, or any of its substitutes plus a spacer (eg a dime).
The latter is just hearsay, I have not tried it.

The selenium meter has a clear advantage because you never need to
worry about batteries.  Also, IMHO it just looks far better without
the CdS metering cell and the battery compartment.  They are two
round objects at the top front of the CDSII.  Once you know what a
CDSIII looks like you can clearly identify it from a photo.  The
metering cell of the LMX is hidden under the front top plate where it
says 'Autocord'.  This plate flips up on the models with a meter.
You can also see the meter as a fat knob on the left hand side of the
camera.

In addition to the CdS meter, the CDSIII has 120/220 film capability,
its screen is rumoured to be a bit brighter, and some people seem to
believe that even the lens is a notch better.

In short, if you can find a CDSIII it is probably one of the best
TLRs you can buy.  Quite a few people prefer them over the
Rolleicords.  If you can't find one the LMX might be the next best
thing.

Frank



From: [email protected] (DColucci)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 28 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: TLRs:  Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G


both have 4 element Tessar type lenses so will perform very similiarly although
the Minolta has a 75mm lens while the Yash has an 80mm.  Minolta's are well
built and a bit cheaper.  They also hold film flatter.  see my site for links
on the autocord

Antique & Classic Cameras Web
Site



Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
From: Colyn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLRs:  Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G

 "John" [email protected] wrote:

>I'm curious to know how these two TLRs compare with one another in terms of
>optical quality and their reliability.
>
>In addition, I was wondering if anyone has experience shooting handheld
>using electronic flash with these TLRs.
>
>I'm finding that both are fetching between $250 - $300 for ones in good to
>mint condition.
>
>Thanks in advance for the input.

Actually both are excellent cameras. However the Minolta has a slight
edge on the Yashicamat..

Minolta optics deliver better overall resolution and edge sharpness..

Colyn Goodson
Ft. Worth, Texas
[email protected]
http://home.swbell.net/colyng

Leica camera/lens information
http://www.colyngoodson.com



From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002


I've heard of Minolta Autocords being used professionally but never
Yashicamats. To me, that says it all.

You can shoot flash at any available speed with leaf shutters.

If you check out ebay you should be able to get both cameras cheaper.
...


From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G


>I've heard of Minolta Autocords being used professionally but never
>Yashicamats. To me, that says it all.

Allow me to introduce myself as a professional who at one time used both.
During the 60s when a lot of press photographers were still using TLRs, many
publications provided Yashicamats to its shooters on the theory that they could
be replaced more cheaply than Rolleis repaired.

Y'mats were also widely used by home portrait, baby and team photo specialists,
and I occasionly encountered them in studios, too.
The Autocord was actually easier to operate than other TLRs, especially with
off-camera flash because you could focus and trip the shutter with one hand
while holding a flash in the other.  I tried both at different times, and
although regarded the Minolta as optically and mechanically superior, never
really warmed to either.

In the end, I concluded neither were sufficiently robust and returned to
Rolleiflex.  But worldwide, Y'mats were the mainstay of many professionals.
Minolta was never as popular, although a better camera.

I hope this adds some perspective on the subject.

Allen Zak


From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLRs:  Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 

"John" [email protected] wrote:

>I'm curious to know how these two TLRs compare with one another in terms of
>optical quality and their reliability.
>
>In addition, I was wondering if anyone has experience shooting handheld
>using electronic flash with these TLRs.
>
>I'm finding that both are fetching between $250 - $300 for ones in good to
>mint condition.
>
>Thanks in advance for the input.


  I'd toss a few more models into the mix. $300 can get you a good
Rollei or Mamiya TLR, and I think it's too high for a Yashicamat. I've
had several Yashicamats and there's no need to pay the premium to get
the 124G. The earlier Mats (with no number or letter after "Mat") were
somewhat flare prone, but after that they all do the same thing.

  If you want a cheaper alternative, look for the Ricoh Diacord
models. The Diacord I have (I think it's the "G" model) is kind of a
cross between a Rolleicord and a Minolta with the push-pull focusing
bar.  A solid camera that takes good images, and I got it on ebay for
$41 in excellent condition.

  The answer to the flash question is simple...get a bracket. A sturdy
flash bracket improves the handling of ALL of these cameras. Any flash

with manual controls will do fine. The cool thing about leaf shutters
is that you can do very interesting daylight/flash combinations.

  headscratcher


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 
From: "Justin Bailey" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Autocord Model I question???

You have located the film counter!  In short, it won't work without film in
the camera.  For the long story, here's a previous explanation of mine:

The frame counter of the Minolta Autocord depends on two things. First is a
pin just inside the body which must be pressed in by the closed camera back,
this is what re-sets the counter to zero when you open it. Second, a rod
inside at the top must turn to move the counter, by making contact via a
rough wheel with the supply reel of film. Cranking the wind lever turns the
bottom (take-up) reel, and when this is attached to the top (supply) reel by
a length of film, the supply will turn in concert, and thus actuate the rod
and the counter. Each frame number on the counter has a catch which will
stop the crank at the correct position. The supply reel does not move of
itself, only by the film being pulled to the take-up. No film means no
connection to the take-up means no rotation of the supply means no counter
advance.

The lever with two symbols is the flash synchronization selector.  Lightning
is for X sync. with electronic flash, and closes the flash circuit the
instant the shutter blades open.  Bulb is M sync. for M-class flash bulbs,
which fires the bulb slightly before the shutter is open, to give the bulb
time to start its burn.  I'm guessing you'll want to use X, since I'm also
guessing you don't have the equipment for bulbs (and further, that you want
your flash exposures to work).

What you have is not early model Autocord, because of the Citizen shutter
(and because the first models had only a 400 top speed).  But what gave it
away to me was the flash sync. pictograms, which are only present on the
last models, where previous ones just had X M and/or F markings.  Another
difference is it should have posts on either side for a quick-release neck
strap, rather than loops for threading a strap.  Your camera is from the
mid-1960s, more precision available when you report on whether it has a
rotating film pressure plate for 120 and 220 film, and if it has an exposure
meter.

Have you been to the Autocord identification site
http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/a-cord.htm?

---
Justin "RED" Bailey
[email protected]
...



minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002
From: "Justin Bailey" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Autocord question

The mass of an Autocord is about 1kg, with the metered models higher.
From the instruction manuals:

MX (none given)

Standard 980g

CdS 1.100g

CdS III 1.125g

---
Justin "RED" Bailey
[email protected]



Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 
From: Colyn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Autocord CDS III  

 "Jack Sprat" [email protected] wrote:

>I have a Minolta Autocord CDS III camera.  The camera is in excellent shape
>except that it looks the
>CDS is dead.  I know it can be repaired but $250 is a little steep to
>replace the CDS photo conductive cell.  I have replaced the battery and
>it checks out.  Does anyone know where I can get a photocell to replace the
>dead one.  Someone must carry them
>since the dealer says he can replace it.

Buying a photo cell is simple. Calibrating the meter is a whole
different ballgame..

The best place to have a meter repaired is

Quality Light Metric
7060 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 415
Los Angeles, Ca. 90028

Phone 323-467-2265

My last meter rebuild costed me less than $70..  
Colyn Goodson
Ft. Worth, Texas

[email protected]
http://home.swbell.net/colyng



From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord Info needed
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003


The Achilles heel of the Minolta Autocords was/is the pot-metal focus
lever and helicoid. They break at the slightest provocation. There are
no replacement spares except from another Autocord. Replacing the focus
lever/helicoids is not difficult:  after removing the front lens shroud,
unscrew the taking lens jamb nut from inside the camera.  The lever and
helicoid slide out. Autocord user manuals should be available from a
number of suppliers including John Craig.

Regards,

Marv

Christopher Maness wrote:
> I'm bidding on an autocord on ebay.  The seller states the problems are:
>
> 2. Focus lever seems to be unhooked from lens board. 3. lens board
> overextends and will rotate slightly.
>
> Does anybody have any idea how fixable this is if I purchase two cheapies
> and use one for parts?
>
> It would be great if someone could email me a scanned instruction manual.
>
> Thanks in Advance
> Chris Maness


Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 
From: Colyn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord Info needed

 Marv Soloff [email protected] wrote:

>The Achilles heel of the Minolta Autocords was/is the pot-metal focus
>lever and helicoid.

Not entirely true..

The lever assembly was made of aluminum and the Helicoid brass.

The problem was the lever where the knob attached was thin and would
break easily if forced..

Colyn Goodson
Ft. Worth, Texas


From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord Info needed
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003


I'm not sure your statement is entirely correct - the four focus
arms/helicoids I have repaired (retained three of the cameras) were pot
metal castings - almost identical to the pot metal (Zamak) one finds on
disintegrating Lionel castings of the 1960 - 1970 period. I was
surprised because the rest of the Minolta Autocords were fairly well
made - much better made than (for example) the YashicaMats. To my
knowledge, no one has produced a replacement (non-Minolta) for these
castings that work.

Regards,

Marv


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Minolta Autocord: Need Info
From: Valtteri Vuorikoski [email protected]
Date: 21 Jul 2003

> I'm considering a Minolta Autocord. According to a website I visited
> (http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/a-cord.htm) apparently some Autocords don't
> have X-sync ability. Can anyone confirm this to be true?
>
> I'm asking because I anticipate using it indoors with a flash mounted to a
> PC socket--possibly a couple of slaved Vivitar 283s, and it would seem
> obvious that if the camera can't perform X-sync then this would be
> impossible.
>
> Tips?

Most likely only a few models are missing (X-)sync, the RI (with
Optiper-M) and the L (with Seikosha Rapid) seem the most suspect. I'd
assume all the ones equipped with the Citizen shutter have X-sync, but
don't take my word for it. My Autocord-RG (2nd version, Optiper-MVL
shutter) has both X- and M-sync and a normal PC socket, and I have
succesfully used it in a studio several times.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kb/minolta_autocord_CDS.jpg shows a CDS model
with a Citizen shutter and there is a PC socket there, and next to it
is the X-M switch. http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kb/ has pictures of
several Autocords, all of which have sync sockets.

I like mine very much, and would recommend it. It has worked well,
except for one shutter failure which ended up being quite pricey to
repair. I don't think this is a common problem though, and may have
been partially a result of incorrect handling.

http://www.notcom.org/kuvat/autocord1.jpg and autocord2.jpg are some
pictures taken with the Autocord.

-v


From: "Larry R Harrison Jr" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Minolta Autocord: Need Info
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 

I'm considering a Minolta Autocord. According to a website I visited
(http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/a-cord.htm) apparently some Autocords don't
have X-sync ability. Can anyone confirm this to be true?

I'm asking because I anticipate using it indoors with a flash mounted to a
PC socket--possibly a couple of slaved Vivitar 283s, and it would seem
obvious that if the camera can't perform X-sync then this would be
impossible.

Tips?

LRH





End of Page