I'ver written about the Minolta Autocord cmera that I owned as a replacement for one of my earlier TLR's elsewhere in this blog. It actually deserves further comment here. As a young photographer still in school, but quite advanced I had studied all the literature and gained all the opinions that I valued before going to the local photography store--who knew me well enough to allow me to devide total cost into three or four payments. I had intended to secure a Yashica 124 G camera. It would have been a good choice.
The store didn't have one in stock, and I was in a bind as a friend had dropped and broken my Yashica 44. I was pursuaded to settle for a Yashica D, which I kept for a while but I went ahead and secured another camera that I ran across. It was a Minolta Autocord. Now consider that many Japanese brands were still fairly unknown in the United States. I had been aware of but knew li9ttle about the Minolta Autocord. I purchased it new with the understanding that I could run a couple of rolls of film through it and return it if I didn't like it. I did like it.
The lens was certainly sharp enough, and met my other lens criteria. It compared feature for feature with both the Roleiflex and the Yashica 124 G. I liked the "unique" index finger focusing, which moved easily below the taking lens. It had a reasonably bright viewfinder and I liked the controls. It felt more or less like other TLR's. It is very hard to tell about the quality of construction when a camera is new and bright and shiney. Although the Rolleiflex was clearly the "best", as far as I could tell, it was also out of my budget range at the time.
I became a bit fanatical, I suppose, about owning a lot of cameras--more than I needed--during the next couple of years that followed--including a couple of Rolleiflexes. But I did rely on the Minolta Autocord as my primary camera for a good year of heavy use--without complaint or problem.
You'll read among the various literature and bloggers, more or less the same theme--that "the Minolta Autocord is second only to the comparable vintage Rolleiflex models." A few sources squeamishly mention the Ikoflex. Some even metion the Yashica D as the best alternative to the Relleiflex. I think they must all be a bunch of lemmings that follow one another to the sea. Having owned and used multiples of all of the leading brands of TLR's, but this is merely my opinion.
However, since my opinion is presumably what my blog is read for, I will give it. It is clear to me that the overall quality and desirability of vintage TLR's is more or less as follows. Mamiya, Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, Meopta (including some earlier Opemas), Ikoflex, Minolta (Autocord), Yashica 124 G, Reflekta, ... virtually any European or American made brands excluding the bake-light models, then any number of less-known Japanese models (there were over four-hundred Japanese brands alone on the market during this time--followed by Ricoh , which as good optics but are ceaply made with a few exception. The bakelight Russian TLR's are a good value. All the Chinese TLR's that I am aware of suck.
A later model Minolta Autocord with both camera and case in good shape coswmetically and which is operational, is a pretty good budget choice. Their collector value increases as they become more scarce. If you are wanting a shooter, there are better choices for the money at the time of this writing.
Grab a Minolta Autocord if you can get it in the above condition for less than 200 bucks. You can certainly get a good Yashica 124 G for that amount-due to the great numbers made and sold and still available on the used market. Although not as highly featured, a Rolleicord offers superior construction and good optics for just over a hundred bucks.
But if you are wanting a shooter for an extremely good value--I heartily recommend Meopta, Reflekta, or Ciroflex for a turely great value for the money. A ciroflex is often improperly reported to be a lousy camera. It isa not. It is an American made copy of a Rolleicord with an excellent lens (less-well-known American-made lens, but truely excellent). The construction of both camera body and leather case is extraordinary. It could not compete with the cheaper made Yashica D (also a fairly solid camera), and other Japanese offerings due to the greater cost of labor and construction.
So, in conclusion, can I say that the Minolta Autocord is the greatest camera next to Rolleiflex? Probably not. Do I like the camera and feel that it is a worthy contender among several others? Sure. I really like the Minolta Autocord. It has some weakmnesses, including a tendency for the bottom, index-finger focusing lever to break off, but it is a pleasant camera to use and generally has very sharp optics edge-to-edge at more f/stop settings than many other Japanese cameras (not that as discussed elsewhere in this blog, sharpness is only one factor that goes into good optics for photography). It feels good to handle is made solidly (not ruggedly), and will usually offer good serviceability and make great photographs in the hands of a competent photographer.
Given all this opinion, I realize that my own eBay-offered Autocords are probably over-priced--but that notion does overlookthe collector value, which is a real factor. What I said above, is that IF you can find a nice one for less than 200 bucks, get it. However that has become increasingly difficult to find.
Note: Since this posting, I have discovered defects in this camera involving the focus mechanism. This is a common and predictable defect. If the internal failuer is what I have found after removing the face of similary afflicted cameras, it is not that hard to fix. A new (salvaged) lever of the same kind would be the best replacement, but it could also be braze or soldered back together. The real problem in this camera, however seems to be that the lever cam has come unsecured to the lens focus mechanism--as moving the leftover broken stub does not meove the focus machanism in or out.
