Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Vintage Classic Cameras:
The Unvarnished Truth About 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 Twin Lens Reflexes. Part 2
4 Semi-Exotic TLRs from Japan, China, England, and the good ol’ U.S.A.
By Jason Schneider
Ansco Automatic Reflex ll
Ansco Automatic Reflex: The best made and most advanced 2-1/4x 2-1-/4 twin-lens reflex camera ever manufactured in the U.S., the Ansco Automatic Reflex, delivered to dealers in 1947, went all out to capture the TLR market from the Europeans. Unfortunately, it didn’t, and it was so costly to manufacture that Ansco decided to skimp on one key technical spec, the lens, which is a decent triplet (3 elements in 3 groups) but not up to the standard of the rest of the camera. It’s a substantial machine (2 pounds, 12 ounces), that’s exquisitely finished, and features focusing by left-hand knob, or by either hand using two ingenuous, interconnected front-mounted wheels. Film advance is by short-throw crank, after you set frame one in ye olde red window. The lensboard is suspended in four self-lubricating grooves and focuses via four cams, an exquisitely complex and durable but very expensive arrangement. There were two versions, the latter with fash sync. Both had shutter speeds from 1-1/400 sec and a coated 83mm f/3.5 taking lens made by Wollensak and labeled Ansco Anastigmat. The double exposure mechanism is finicky but can be made to work if need be.
Ansco Automatic Reflex l with added Heiland flash synchronizer
Bottom line: The Ansco Automatic Reflex was produced in small numbers so it’s fairly uncommon. It’s definitely useable if somewhat quirky, and it’s an affordable exotic that currently fetches aboout $250-$400 per copy. Its lens doesn’t deliver stellar performance in the corners of the field at its widest apertures but aside from that it performs quite nicely.
Microcord Twin Lens Reflex, courtesy Science Museum Group Collection
Microcord: This fairly exotic British TLR of the ‘50s was made in England by Micro Precision Products (MPP) and it’s largely based on the Rolleicord. It’s very well made and its chief attraction as a shooter is its 77.5mm Ross Xpres taking lens, an outstanding example of the 4-element, 3-group Tessar type. The Microcord Mark I introduced in 1951 had an 8-speed Epsilon shutter with T and B, ye olde red window film advance, and a mirror in the focusing hood like the Rolleiflex to enable eyelevel (albeit upside-down) viewing . The Microcord Mark II introduced in 1954 used a more reliable (and repairable!) Prontor SVS 1-1/300 plus B shutter, had semi-automatic film wind (no red window needed) via a Rolleicord style knob, and a focusing hood can be used as a sports finder. Microcords in pristine shape are pricey and not too common, but they’re superb picture takers, have good viewfinders and make great user-collectibles. Weak points: The Mark l’s Epsilon shutter is not as reliable as Prontor SVS and repair parts are no longer available, and the Mark ll’s film counter sometimes gives trouble but it can usually be fixed.
Bottom line: All Microcords are beautifully crafted, high-performance TLRs, but make sure everything is working properly and that the seller accepts returns. They’re not cheap in any sense of the word but the exclusivity alone may be worth the price.
Kalloflex l with Seikosha-Rapid shutter
Kalloflex: Made in Japan by the Kowa Optical Works, known for its high quality optics and innovative cameras, this beautifuly made, premium priced 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 TLR was produced in two versions starting in 1954. Its signature feature: a knurled focusing knob concentric with is single-stroke film-wind crank, enabling both functions to be performed by tne photographer’s right hand. Its distinctive viewfinder is also uncommonly bright thanks to having a convex lens atop the focuson screen instead of the more common Fresnel. The Kalloflex was the most expensive fixed lens, non-metered TLR in Japan based on 1957 prices, costing over 50% more than its closest competitors. Its 75mm f/3.5 Prominar lens (a 4-element Tessar type) delivers outstanding imaging perfprmance and it’s 75mm f/3 viewing lens enhances focusing precision as well as brightness. The Model 1 uses a Seikosha-Rapid 1-1/500 sec plus B shutter with no self-timer and provides semi-automatoc loading, automatic frame counting, and double exposure prevention. The later Model 2 employs a Seikosha-MX shutter, has a socket on the front panal for M-F-X sync, and a knob that enables double exposures. Both models have Bay 1 fittings on both lenses, are solidly built on a diecast alloy chassis, and weigh in at around 2-1/2 pounds. They’re superb picture takers that perform on a par with their leading contemporary rival the iconic Rolleiflex Automat MX, and they’re generally reliable and easily repairable.
Kalloflex ll by Kowa Optical Works
Bottom line: In the top tier of Japanese made 2-1/4 TLRs, Kalloflexes are eminently usable as well as collectible, are a joy to shoot with, and can capture images of exceptional quality. Currently averaging about $350-500 per copy in pristine condition they’re nether commonplace nor cheap but they’re a great choice for camera connoisseurs focused on taking pictures.
.jpg/:/rs=w:1440,h:1440)
Seagull 4A, Type 103 with 4-element Haiou lens
Seagull 4A: Manufactured in China by Shanghai Seagull Camera Ltd. for over 50 years, Seagull TLRs are nicely made and finished and perform quite well so long you pick the right model, such as the 4A-1 from the ‘70s or the latest 4A-109, which feature very good quality 4-element Tessar-type taking lenses. Other models such as the 4B and 4B-1 have 3-element Cooke triplet lenses. Other features of the Seagull 4A-109 include a stainless steel chassis, crank wind with semiautomatic loading and auto frame counting, a 1-1/500 sec plus B leaf shutter with self-timer, single or multi-exposure capability, a hot shoe, and a PC terminal. Other 4A-1-series models feature 1/1/300 sec plus B leaf shutter. Seagulls were produced with two alternative nameplates—one in Chinese characters for Asian markets and one in Roman letters for other markets. Howver both versions have been widely distributed. The Seagull TLR’s stealth feature: automatic parallax compensation using a mask that moves vertically under the viewing screen as you focus, just like the Rolleifex and Rolleicord!
Seagull 4A-109: The latest, most desirable model
Bottom line: Seagull TLRs are solid, well made, relaible cameras capable of satisfying results providing you choose a model with a 4-element lens (see above). Overall they’re on a par with mid-level Japanese TLRs of the same era and they’re a good value at their current price range pf $150-$250.
The Unvarnished Truth About 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 Twin Lens Reflexes. Part 2
4 Semi-Exotic TLRs from Japan, China, England, and the good ol’ U.S.A.
By Jason Schneider
Ansco Automatic Reflex ll
Ansco Automatic Reflex: The best made and most advanced 2-1/4x 2-1-/4 twin-lens reflex camera ever manufactured in the U.S., the Ansco Automatic Reflex, delivered to dealers in 1947, went all out to capture the TLR market from the Europeans. Unfortunately, it didn’t, and it was so costly to manufacture that Ansco decided to skimp on one key technical spec, the lens, which is a decent triplet (3 elements in 3 groups) but not up to the standard of the rest of the camera. It’s a substantial machine (2 pounds, 12 ounces), that’s exquisitely finished, and features focusing by left-hand knob, or by either hand using two ingenuous, interconnected front-mounted wheels. Film advance is by short-throw crank, after you set frame one in ye olde red window. The lensboard is suspended in four self-lubricating grooves and focuses via four cams, an exquisitely complex and durable but very expensive arrangement. There were two versions, the latter with fash sync. Both had shutter speeds from 1-1/400 sec and a coated 83mm f/3.5 taking lens made by Wollensak and labeled Ansco Anastigmat. The double exposure mechanism is finicky but can be made to work if need be.
Ansco Automatic Reflex l with added Heiland flash synchronizer
Bottom line: The Ansco Automatic Reflex was produced in small numbers so it’s fairly uncommon. It’s definitely useable if somewhat quirky, and it’s an affordable exotic that currently fetches aboout $250-$400 per copy. Its lens doesn’t deliver stellar performance in the corners of the field at its widest apertures but aside from that it performs quite nicely.
Microcord Twin Lens Reflex, courtesy Science Museum Group Collection
Microcord: This fairly exotic British TLR of the ‘50s was made in England by Micro Precision Products (MPP) and it’s largely based on the Rolleicord. It’s very well made and its chief attraction as a shooter is its 77.5mm Ross Xpres taking lens, an outstanding example of the 4-element, 3-group Tessar type. The Microcord Mark I introduced in 1951 had an 8-speed Epsilon shutter with T and B, ye olde red window film advance, and a mirror in the focusing hood like the Rolleiflex to enable eyelevel (albeit upside-down) viewing . The Microcord Mark II introduced in 1954 used a more reliable (and repairable!) Prontor SVS 1-1/300 plus B shutter, had semi-automatic film wind (no red window needed) via a Rolleicord style knob, and a focusing hood can be used as a sports finder. Microcords in pristine shape are pricey and not too common, but they’re superb picture takers, have good viewfinders and make great user-collectibles. Weak points: The Mark l’s Epsilon shutter is not as reliable as Prontor SVS and repair parts are no longer available, and the Mark ll’s film counter sometimes gives trouble but it can usually be fixed.
Bottom line: All Microcords are beautifully crafted, high-performance TLRs, but make sure everything is working properly and that the seller accepts returns. They’re not cheap in any sense of the word but the exclusivity alone may be worth the price.
Kalloflex l with Seikosha-Rapid shutter
Kalloflex: Made in Japan by the Kowa Optical Works, known for its high quality optics and innovative cameras, this beautifuly made, premium priced 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 TLR was produced in two versions starting in 1954. Its signature feature: a knurled focusing knob concentric with is single-stroke film-wind crank, enabling both functions to be performed by tne photographer’s right hand. Its distinctive viewfinder is also uncommonly bright thanks to having a convex lens atop the focuson screen instead of the more common Fresnel. The Kalloflex was the most expensive fixed lens, non-metered TLR in Japan based on 1957 prices, costing over 50% more than its closest competitors. Its 75mm f/3.5 Prominar lens (a 4-element Tessar type) delivers outstanding imaging perfprmance and it’s 75mm f/3 viewing lens enhances focusing precision as well as brightness. The Model 1 uses a Seikosha-Rapid 1-1/500 sec plus B shutter with no self-timer and provides semi-automatoc loading, automatic frame counting, and double exposure prevention. The later Model 2 employs a Seikosha-MX shutter, has a socket on the front panal for M-F-X sync, and a knob that enables double exposures. Both models have Bay 1 fittings on both lenses, are solidly built on a diecast alloy chassis, and weigh in at around 2-1/2 pounds. They’re superb picture takers that perform on a par with their leading contemporary rival the iconic Rolleiflex Automat MX, and they’re generally reliable and easily repairable.
Kalloflex ll by Kowa Optical Works
Bottom line: In the top tier of Japanese made 2-1/4 TLRs, Kalloflexes are eminently usable as well as collectible, are a joy to shoot with, and can capture images of exceptional quality. Currently averaging about $350-500 per copy in pristine condition they’re nether commonplace nor cheap but they’re a great choice for camera connoisseurs focused on taking pictures.
Seagull 4A, Type 103 with 4-element Haiou lens
Seagull 4A: Manufactured in China by Shanghai Seagull Camera Ltd. for over 50 years, Seagull TLRs are nicely made and finished and perform quite well so long you pick the right model, such as the 4A-1 from the ‘70s or the latest 4A-109, which feature very good quality 4-element Tessar-type taking lenses. Other models such as the 4B and 4B-1 have 3-element Cooke triplet lenses. Other features of the Seagull 4A-109 include a stainless steel chassis, crank wind with semiautomatic loading and auto frame counting, a 1-1/500 sec plus B leaf shutter with self-timer, single or multi-exposure capability, a hot shoe, and a PC terminal. Other 4A-1-series models feature 1/1/300 sec plus B leaf shutter. Seagulls were produced with two alternative nameplates—one in Chinese characters for Asian markets and one in Roman letters for other markets. Howver both versions have been widely distributed. The Seagull TLR’s stealth feature: automatic parallax compensation using a mask that moves vertically under the viewing screen as you focus, just like the Rolleifex and Rolleicord!
Seagull 4A-109: The latest, most desirable model
Bottom line: Seagull TLRs are solid, well made, relaible cameras capable of satisfying results providing you choose a model with a 4-element lens (see above). Overall they’re on a par with mid-level Japanese TLRs of the same era and they’re a good value at their current price range pf $150-$250.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Very nice write up as always.
There was also the MMP MicroFlex, the Microcord's big brother. Most of them are with jammed advance crank due to an awkward way of loading film (or something like that if i remember correctly). Great lenses though!
There was also the MMP MicroFlex, the Microcord's big brother. Most of them are with jammed advance crank due to an awkward way of loading film (or something like that if i remember correctly). Great lenses though!
oftheherd
Mentor
Interesting read. Thanks.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Great work.
Anscos and Microcords were popular with 'serious' photographers in Canada when I was a wee nipper in the '50s. Sixty years later these have all vanished - I know one shooter here in Australia who owns a Microcord but is now (the photographer, that is) too far advanced in age to use it. The Anscos don't seem to have made an appearance down in the Antipodes but I recall they were fine cameras and certainly popular if somewhat expensive in Canada in their time.
I was an early user of Yashicas, my first being a D I bought in 1962 and later a more basic A as a backup. Four years later I discovered the Rolleiflex - and I've never looked back.
So we have the Rolleis, 'flexes and 'cords. May we respectfully ask (I hesitate to say demand) a third articlet?
A comparison between the Rolleis and the Yashicas would certainly interest me - even now I occasionally print negatives taken with both and find I can't really see any great differences between the quality, maybe a little less sharpness overall but nothing to complain about.
In comparing the negatives I shot with my TLRs back then, It seems to me that films in those days were somewhat sharper than the ones we use nowadays. I may be wrong in this, of course - the older Verichrome Pan, Ansco Versapan and Agfa films of my younger years look to me to have a little more resolution (from higher silver content if this was a key factor) than the FP4 and HP5 I mostly use now, but this may be entirely 'anecdotal' on my part.
Anscos and Microcords were popular with 'serious' photographers in Canada when I was a wee nipper in the '50s. Sixty years later these have all vanished - I know one shooter here in Australia who owns a Microcord but is now (the photographer, that is) too far advanced in age to use it. The Anscos don't seem to have made an appearance down in the Antipodes but I recall they were fine cameras and certainly popular if somewhat expensive in Canada in their time.
I was an early user of Yashicas, my first being a D I bought in 1962 and later a more basic A as a backup. Four years later I discovered the Rolleiflex - and I've never looked back.
So we have the Rolleis, 'flexes and 'cords. May we respectfully ask (I hesitate to say demand) a third articlet?
A comparison between the Rolleis and the Yashicas would certainly interest me - even now I occasionally print negatives taken with both and find I can't really see any great differences between the quality, maybe a little less sharpness overall but nothing to complain about.
In comparing the negatives I shot with my TLRs back then, It seems to me that films in those days were somewhat sharper than the ones we use nowadays. I may be wrong in this, of course - the older Verichrome Pan, Ansco Versapan and Agfa films of my younger years look to me to have a little more resolution (from higher silver content if this was a key factor) than the FP4 and HP5 I mostly use now, but this may be entirely 'anecdotal' on my part.
CMur12
Well-known
There's the Kalloflex! Thank you, Jason.
These have long fascinated me and I would love to acquire one.
I've always found the Seagull interesting, too, though I never pulled the trigger on one.
- Murray
These have long fascinated me and I would love to acquire one.
I've always found the Seagull interesting, too, though I never pulled the trigger on one.
- Murray
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have to disagree with you on the Seagulls. I bought one 20 yrs ago brand new, a 4A-109. The lens WAS very, very good. Incredibly sharp. The rest of the camera was junk. The shutter release mechanism broke after four rolls of film.
Mark C
Well-known
Thank you Jason. This is fun; keep em coming.
I do have a question for you. Did any other TLR have a parallax correction system like the Rolleiflex? Or something else as functional? I know about the Mamiya, but really appreciate the simple, functional, and seamless approach Rollei took.
I do have a question for you. Did any other TLR have a parallax correction system like the Rolleiflex? Or something else as functional? I know about the Mamiya, but really appreciate the simple, functional, and seamless approach Rollei took.
Greyscale
Mentor
This is an excellent TLR that often goes unmentioned. The see-saw focus mechanism is a delight, and the Ricoh optics are excellent. The Diacord L is the knob-advance version of this camera.
Ricoh Automatic 225
Ricoh Automatic 225 by Mike Novak, on Flickr
Ricoh Automatic 225
Ricoh Automatic 225 by Mike Novak, on Flickr
charjohncarter
Mentor
It looks like the Diacord G. Except for the lever film advance which certainly is a big improvement. The average user would have double exposures with the G and not with the 225.
Greyscale
Mentor
I don't know what the difference is between the Diacord G and the L, if any.
ETA: The L has a light meter, the G does not.
CMur12
Well-known
I think the L also has a slightly faster, f3.2, viewing lens.
(I have an L - mine is marked "Ricohflex" - that belonged to my grandfather. Everything works, but one day I will treat it to a CLA.)
- Murray
Greyscale
Mentor
The Voigtlander Superb has automatic parallax adjust via movement of the viewing lens. The Koni Omegaflex M also has parallax correction, but it is a 6x7 camera and is technically a view camera until you add the accessory prism finder.
Koni Omegaflex M by Mike Novak, on Flickr
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
Ahhhh. Finally some love for the Ansco Automatic Reflex. Possibly one of the finest crafted wholly American Cameras ever built. Famed Industrial Designer Henry Dreyfuss worked with a clean slate here, succeeding in making a TLR which was Not a rehashed Rolleiflex. The large coated Cooke Triplet more than holds its own, giving an image possibly more enjoyable today for its Bokeh than was appreciated in the 1940’s. Five thousand each of version 1 and 2 were built, leftover examples were dropped in price and still available into the early ‘50s. The main quirk here, and one which may allow purchase of a “broke” camera not broke at all, is the double exposure lever. This tiny thing sits in front of the right side focus knob. If the camera has been fired without film being advanced, the shutter Cannot be cocked and fired again. That little lever must be pushed backward, then the shutter “works” again. You’ll find this condition a Lot with these cameras offered for sale. I’d suggest anyone buying one of these Masterpieces to get a “Butkus” manual. My only gripe is the semi-fresnel view screen is dim. Unique to the AAR though, the hood top opens to form a really nice eye level “sports finder”.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I think you are right. I'm not that familiar with photo equipment taxonomy or nitpicking. But I've loved my Diacord G: cheap, no problems (Citizen shutter ^) and if it gets stolen I'm not happy but.....
TriX HC-110h Rodinal by John Carter, on FlickrCMur12
Well-known
Here are three links about Ricoh TLRs:
http://antiquecameras.net/ricohflex.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/ricohflex.html
https://www.filmshooterscollective....f-the-humble-ricoh-diacord-howard-sandler-8-3
- Murray
http://antiquecameras.net/ricohflex.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/ricohflex.html
https://www.filmshooterscollective....f-the-humble-ricoh-diacord-howard-sandler-8-3
- Murray
Mark C
Well-known
Thanks. I was just reading about the Superb on Mark Hansen's interesting site. Still, the simplicity of the Rollei system is wonderful and I'm surprised it doesn't seem to have been copied.
The Konis are in crazy land to me, but very cool. I saw several at an old studio years ago. My memory is that the guy shot weddings with it, but that seems a rough way to go.
Automats are often available cheap so very hard to beat, other than the dark screen.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Crappy Seagull TLRs with phenomenal lenses?
Crappy Seagull TLRs with phenomenal lenses?
In response to Christopher Crawford's comments: I have run about 200 rolls of film through Seagull TLRs (mostly 4A-103s) and my comments are based on personal experience. I agree that the Seagulls' build quality and finish is not equal to, say, a Minolta Autocord or a Yashica-Mat, but I have never had one pack up on me and can't conclude that they are "junk" or generally unreliable. It is of course possible to have a sub-par experience with almost any camera and that can certainly color your impressions. As for the 4-element version of the 75mm f/3.5 Haiou taking lens, I found it to be a creditable example of a Tessar-type lens with some sharpness falloff in the corners of the field at its widest apertures, but nothing as spectacular as you have suggested. I would call it quite good or even very good, but it does not equal, say, the 75mm f/3.5 Rokkor in the Autocord or the 75mm f/3.5 Prominar in the Kalloflex.
Crappy Seagull TLRs with phenomenal lenses?
In response to Christopher Crawford's comments: I have run about 200 rolls of film through Seagull TLRs (mostly 4A-103s) and my comments are based on personal experience. I agree that the Seagulls' build quality and finish is not equal to, say, a Minolta Autocord or a Yashica-Mat, but I have never had one pack up on me and can't conclude that they are "junk" or generally unreliable. It is of course possible to have a sub-par experience with almost any camera and that can certainly color your impressions. As for the 4-element version of the 75mm f/3.5 Haiou taking lens, I found it to be a creditable example of a Tessar-type lens with some sharpness falloff in the corners of the field at its widest apertures, but nothing as spectacular as you have suggested. I would call it quite good or even very good, but it does not equal, say, the 75mm f/3.5 Rokkor in the Autocord or the 75mm f/3.5 Prominar in the Kalloflex.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The lens in mine was very good. I got lucky in that respect. The camera body was not.