yashica mat 124G (lens quality?)
bob
does anyone know the quality of the lens.
i think it would be an ok camera to get started with medium format, but
since funds are short right now, i don't want to buy a new enlarger lens if
i won't be happy with the contrast and resolution of the negatives.
thanks
bob
spartanburg, south carolina
John Stewart
was OK when stopped down considerably.
John
bob wrote in message <6uvsq6$2b1$1...@supernews.com>...
Dana H. Myers K6JQ
"John Stewart" <radi...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Back before the camera was deified, the common belief was that the camera
> was OK when stopped down considerably.
"Deified" - heh. A couple of different tests I've seen indicate the
center sharpness is quite good between f/8 and f/11. The edge sharpness
isn't as good, which can be quite evident in some enlargements.
Overall, the camera is certainly OK, and even very good if used properly.
--
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
X35g
I think you'll be happy with the camera in general. I have one. You're getting
a negative that is x-times larger than 35mm, so there's gotta be some decent
advantage there, even if the lens was poor.
You will find it soft at the wider apertures. Mostly this is nice for portraits
and whatnot. If this is your first forray into MF, I think you'll find that the
depth of field seems noticably shallower and thereby less forgiving for a given
aperture than you would expect with 35mm. That is, I'm told by the keepers of
the optics formulas, a result of the larger negative size, and not any unique
property of the lens. The lens is a four-element, based on the Tessar, which
has been a fairly popular design.
Stopped down to f/8, your lens should get sharp, and combined with the
advantages of the negative, the detail is an impressive step up.
My YashicaMat 124G was my first MF camera, and I'm still awfully new to MF, but
I have some B&W shots I took and printed (8x10, not huge) that still mesmorize
me by their detail. I'm sure there's better out there, but not for the price.
Best of luck
Rick Schiller
end of when they stopped making them. I used sporadically for a
couple of years and sold it. Lens was ok stopped down 2 or 3 clicks.
Edge resolution was lousy. I could never figure out, except for
price, why people rave about this camera. Pretty dim viewfinder also.
But it did work and didn't cost much compared to anything else in MF.
Rick
In article <6uvsq6$2b1$1...@supernews.com>, b...@carol.net says...
Peter Mikalajunas
>i have a yashica mat 124G.
>
>does anyone know the quality of the lens.
>
>i think it would be an ok camera to get started with medium format, but
>since funds are short right now, i don't want to buy a new enlarger lens if
>i won't be happy with the contrast and resolution of the negatives.
As others have noted, it is a so-so lens. Really depends on the situation and
how much enlargement you will be doing.
If funds are really tight, you might want to check out something like a Zeiss
Nettar. They can be had for about $50, one fourth the going price of a 124G.
It is a fun little camera, with faults all it's own. But a very inexpensive
entry into MF.
me
>
>does anyone know the quality of the lens.
>
>
>bob
>spartanburg, south carolina
>
Bob,
I have a nice 124G along with a very nice P67 setup.. but the 124G is a nice
rig to get started with.. I shoot many portraits and groups with the 124G
and find it to be an execellent tool. It has it's drawbacks but then all
cameras do..
I work at F5.6 and above. (I do with any camera) unless I want a shallow
DOF..
I have used 124Gs for all types of photography from Headshots to Decor and
found it again to be an execellent tool...
Ron
Tacoma, WA
Gary Helfrich
I got a 124 as a travel camera. My thought was to have an inexpensive
camera that has a basic meter that I would not get too upset if something
happened to it. I bought it based on what folks in this group had to say
about it. I also have a C330, Mamiya 6MF,Mamiya Universal, and an
embarrassingly large slew of other equipment.
If I look at a chrome taken with the C330, and the M6, I have a pretty tough
time telling them apart. About the only real difference is if the lens is
wide open or if there is alot of backlighting.
The Yashica is a whole 'nother story. My old Zeiss folder is sharper than
this camera. In fact, any of my 35mm cameras, even an Olympus Stylus, is
sharper than the Yashica when blown up to 11x14. Film grain and totality
are, of course, better with the mf image no matter which camera is used.
My suspicion is that many of the folks that are recommending the 124 either
A:) Have never had much experience with a high quality medium format camera,
or B:) Are just parroting r.p.e.m-f folk lore.
I've run close to 100 roll through the 124, and my conclusion is that it is
grossly overrated. Sure, it gets sharper as you stop down. All you are
doing is approaching the diffraction limit where all lenses perform more or
less the same. I've shot the same subject side by side with the C330 and
the 124 mounted on a stout tripod, and at f/11 and faster, even a blind man
could pick out which chrome was from which camera.
One of the joys of a TLR is shooting people. A camera that has to be
stopped down to f/16 in order to be sharp is not that useful for candids, or
shots where you want a shallow depth of field. The 124 (as well as most of
the other fixed lens TLRs) does not focus any closer than 1 meter. With an
80mm lens, this means that headshots can only be done by cropping. At that
point, why not just use a good 35mm camera?
So what is the point of all this ranting? The 124 seems to be the knee jerk
recommendation for an entry level MF camera. I think that starting with one
of these camera after using a high quality 35mm camera is more likely to
turn someone off the MF, rather than encourage them to explore the
possibilities of this format further. Sure, it is inexpensive compared to
buying a modern MF camera. On the other hand, I feel like I just went out
and flushed a couple of hundred dollar bills down the toilet with the
purchase of the 124. Well, not quite, because thanks to this newsgroup,
there was another unfortunate who bought my camera and thought that he just
gotten a great deal when I sold him the 124 for $150.
Saving a few hundred dollars on a low quality camera is a false economy when
you look at where equipment cost figures into the big scheme of things.
Let's say that you run 100 rolls of film through the camera. (That is what
you bought it for, after all) If you shoot print film, it will cost you about
$1000. to develop and contact the film. (This is based on my local labs
fees) This is 1200 images. Lets say that you get 1 out of 10 keepers that
you want to proof at 5x7. At $5. each this amounts to $600. You could also
D&P with 5x5 proofs at $17.50/roll. Either way, your lab costs are up in
the $1600. range. Now lets say that of the 120 images that you liked, 1 in
10 are good enough to hang on your wall. You would be lucky if printing,
matting and framing was less than $50./image, if you do the matting and
framing yourself. You can run the same scenario with E-6, and the results
will be close to the same. While the processing costs are lower with
chromes, the cost of proofing and printing the good images will quickly eat
up the difference.
If you really use that inexpensive 124, it will eat up $2500. or so in lab
costs each year. Most people who are photographers, as opposed gear heads,
will have lab costs be the most significant cost of this hobby or
profession. The camera and the lens is on one time expense, while film and
processing costs go on forever. Why muck up a $2500. investment in
processing and film with a crummy camera and lens?
An older C220 is not that much more money. Mamiya TLR's are not that cheap
anymore, but they are still not insane like Rolleiflex prices. Some of the
more eccentric MF cameras like the Koni-Omega, Mamiya Universal, or Kowa,
are also better choices for the beginner.
Lets say that you limit the price of the camera to be no more than 20% of
what the film and processing would cost. Here are some cameras that you
could consider: (Prices are from the current KEH catalog)
Koni Omega $235. (with 90mm f/3.5 and 120/220 back)
Kowa Six $364. (with 85mm f/2.8)
Mamiya Universal $364. (with 100mm f/2.8 and 120 back)
Mamiya C220 $309. (with 80mm f/2.8)
Mamiya C330 $340. (with 80mm f/2.8)
Or for just a bit more
Mamiya RB67 $650. (with 90mm f3.8 lens and 120 back)
Bronica S2 $645. (With 75mm f/2.8 Nikkor, speed grip and back)
All of these cameras not only have better optics than the 124, but all have
interchangeable lenses, and most of them have interchangeable backs as well.
Sorry for such a long rant, but I felt that an alternative to the mantra of
"just get a Yashica 124" needed to be voiced.
Gary Helfrich
Boris Kozintsev
Gary Helfrich wrote...
>In fact, any of my 35mm cameras, even an Olympus Stylus, is
>sharper than the Yashica when blown up to 11x14.
Can it be that Yashica is not in the perfect order? Also, are you talking about
a minilab 35 mm processing, or a better kind? I am a user of Minolta
Maxxum (50mm f1.7) and Minolta Autocord (75 mm Rokkor), and where
Autocord is applicable it gives [subjectively] better results at the same
consumer-grade lab.
>My suspicion is that many of the folks that are recommending the 124 either
>A:) Have never had much experience with a high quality medium format camera,
That's me all right.
>I think that starting with one of these camera after using a high quality
>35mm camera is more likely to turn someone off the MF, rather than encourage
>them to explore the possibilities of this format further.
I guess the point is that Yashica is cheaper than a high quality 35 mm camera and
makes better pictures...
>I just went out and flushed a couple of hundred dollar bills down the toilet with the
>purchase of the 124
I assume that you are not a professional photographer. Then, if you are not ever going
to sell it, this is the right feeling for any camera whatsoever. OTOH, if you do not mind
selling it, this feeling is wrong, again, for any camera that holds value, e.g. Yashica.
>Saving a few hundred dollars on a low quality camera is a false economy when
>you look at where equipment cost figures into the big scheme of things.
In the big scheme, those who do not make money off photography should not photograph.
However if they still do (for fun), economics say they should buy the cheapest cameras.
>If you really use that inexpensive 124, it will eat up $2500. or so in lab
>costs each year.
Thanks, never thought about it this way. How awful... :)
>Lets say that you limit the price of the camera to be no more than 20% of
>what the film and processing would cost. Here are some cameras that you
>could consider: (Prices are from the current KEH catalog)
>
>Koni Omega $235. (with 90mm f/3.5 and 120/220 back)
>Kowa Six $364. (with 85mm f/2.8)
>Mamiya Universal $364. (with 100mm f/2.8 and 120 back)
>Mamiya C220 $309. (with 80mm f/2.8)
>Mamiya C330 $340. (with 80mm f/2.8)
Thanks again, good advise. But look -- your exact argument can be used
against these fine cameras in favor of a Hasselblad, word for word, isn't it?
I guess the choice of the first camera comes down just to immediate availability
from the owner and the amount of money available for immediate spending
(say, on the eve of vacation/holidays).
Boris
peters
of them by yours. I have had several and all are needle sharp.
Probably someone has, ahem, "repaired" yours.
bob.
Gary Helfrich
: Have it checked because something is wrong with it. Don't judge all
: of them by yours. I have had several and all are needle sharp.
: Probably someone has, ahem, "repaired" yours.
:
: bob.
No one had, as you say, ahem "repaired" the 124 I had. The camera was in
like new condition when I got it. After a few rolls of film I began to
notice that the images tended to be softer than I was used to, so I did have
it check out. Nothing wrong was found. I shot a few rolls of Tech Pan
using the Edmund Scientific depth of field target. If the lensboard was out
of plane, then the target will show the shift in focus point. The taking
and viewing lens focus points agreed. There was no signs of separation,
and the pressure plate was in perfect condition. The images were not
horrible, they were just softer than any of my other cameras.
Stopped down to f/11 or smaller, the camera was ok. As I said earlier, most
cameras with perform well as the diffraction limit is approached. A Seagull
or Lubie will also begin to produce acceptable images at smaller lens
openings as well. (Assuming that they don't fall apart first) Of course sharp
as a tack can mean many things. To some people it is a point & shoot
hand-held with Gold Max film. To others it is a view camera with a sheet of
Velvia on a heavy tripod. My Mamiya 6 on a tripod is my own standard for
"needle sharp". Some folks have higher standards, and some have lower ones.
The 124 is nicely made, and is a better choice than something like a
Seagull. For someone just getting into MF, it seems like a very limited
camera. For a few hundred dollars more you can get a camera that a beginner
can grow with. As I said before, even if the camera was free, you are still
going to rack up a couple of thousand dollars a year in lab and film
costs.(Assuming that you use the camera). A camera with a fixed 80mm lens
that can't focus close, has lots of flare, and needs to be shot at f/11 in
order to be sharp? No thanks.
Gary Helfrich
wcm...@ibm.net
>
> peters (to...@nwrain.net) wrote:
> : Have it checked because something is wrong with it. Don't judge all
> : of them by yours. I have had several and all are needle sharp.
> : Probably someone has, ahem, "repaired" yours.
> :
> : bob.
>
> No one had, as you say, ahem "repaired" the 124 I had.
The Yashica's ok, but you're right about too much rhetoric extolling
it's quality & ability. Particularly true about comparisons between
Yashica & Rollei, even the older Rolleis. I don't see how any sober
person who's shot more than 2 rolls of film with both those cameras can
conclude that the Yashica has anywhere near the quality of the Rollei.
Wishful thinking, and a nice way to get folks to pay exorbitant prices
for a pretty good camera. I'd like to see a post from someone who wants
to trade their Rolleiflex Tlr ( Xenar or tessar ), straight-across, for
a Yashicamat in comparable condition.
Bill Martin
peters
I don't think anyone has said the YashicaMat and Rollei MX were of
equal quality, because they certainly are NOT. However, while there
may be more variation in the quality of Yashica Mat lenses (?), the
ones I have had have been quite sharp. Others have done tests and
found them quite comparable to the Xenar or Tessar.
I have several Rolleis, and I am not a died in the wool Yashica
booster. No, won't trade a Rollei for a Yashica Mat. Advancing
film through a Yashica Mat has much the feel of using a coffee grinder
after using a Rollei. Kind of like driving a Yugo if you're used to a
Mercedes. In my estimation, this is where the Yashica Mat falls
down...you can wear out three of them or more for every Rollei you are
likely to wear out. The Yashica will not stand up to the prolonged
heavy use that a Rollei will.
But if your Yashica Mat isn't sharp, then yours has a problem. Have
you checked the focus of the taking lens with a piece of groundglass
on the frame rails with the back open? A piece of scotch tape will
substitute for ground glass. It may not be focusing correctly on
infinity. Also check it at 10 feet (both taking and viewing lenses
obviously have to be focusing on the same distance.)
Edmond Duggan
searched on the web and found a very nice site at:
http://home.att.net/~j..harper/gallery.html ( this site includes a camera
operation manual )
On this site there is a link to a site with an actual test data for
sharpness. F/11 is this camera's best aperature acording to the site's data
and the literature for the camera that I have.
There seams to be a few people who believe that the equipment makes the
photographer. The question to ask is "Are you happy with the quality of
images the camera makes for you given what you spent?" You can ask
yourself this question for any camera you own.
Edmond Duggan
bob <b...@carol.net> wrote in article <6uvsq6$2b1$1...@supernews.com>...
> i have a yashica mat 124G.
>
> does anyone know the quality of the lens.
>
> i think it would be an ok camera to get started with medium format, but
> since funds are short right now, i don't want to buy a new enlarger lens
if
> i won't be happy with the contrast and resolution of the negatives.
>
Gary Helfrich
:
: Gary Helfrich wrote...
:
: >In fact, any of my 35mm cameras, even an Olympus Stylus, is
: >sharper than the Yashica when blown up to 11x14.
: Can it be that Yashica is not in the perfect order? Also, are you talking about
: a minilab 35 mm processing, or a better kind? I am a user of Minolta
: Maxxum (50mm f1.7) and Minolta Autocord (75 mm Rokkor), and where
: Autocord is applicable it gives [subjectively] better results at the same
: consumer-grade lab.
All my color is done by a local pro lab. B&W I do myself. If a Tech Pan
negative is not sharp, there is little else to blame other than the camera
or the person operating it. Test shots on the Edmund DOF target will tell
you how sharp the lens is even if the taking and viewing lenses are not
parallel.
Flare, on the other hand is the sort of thing that will show through even
with poor processing. The 124 has plenty of it. And yes, I do use a shade
on the lens.
: >Saving a few hundred dollars on a low quality camera is a false economy when
: >you look at where equipment cost figures into the big scheme of things.
:
: In the big scheme, those who do not make money off photography should not
: photograph. However if they still do (for fun), economics say they should
: buy the cheapest cameras.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Should
photography never be pursued as a hobby? Do non-professional photographers
have no business owning high quality cameras? Perhaps I'm being obtuse
myself, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
: Thanks again, good advise. But look -- your exact argument can be used
: against these fine cameras in favor of a Hasselblad, word for word, isn't it?
If a Hassleblad meets a persons' needs, and they can afford it, by all means
they should purchase one. Some of the cameras that I mentioned fill a
different niche than a 6x6 SLR, so a Hassleblad (or Rollei, Bronica, or
whatever) is not a good substitute for them. There are times when a TLR is
a better tool for the job at hand. Some times the larger 6x9 negative is a
benefit. An SLR is not a substitute for a TLR, rangefinder, or a large
format camera.
If you need an SLR, then a Hassleblad would be a better camera that those
that I mentioned with the possible exception of the RB67. Once again, get
the right tool for the job. The Hassleblad is a nice small portable camera
with very good lenses. So is a Mamiya 7. Is one "better" than the other?
No, they are very different pieces of machinery that have their own
strengths and weaknesses. And of course a Yashica 124 is as sharp and
contrasty as either of them :-).
Gary Helfrich
Garry Lee
I've had 2 Yashica TLRS which were optically really excellent. I know what
I'm talking about. I have had loads of kit in my time and have Mamiya 6s
at the moment.
You can get a bad example of anything. Even Leicas etc.
Boris Kozintsev
Cool. Some day I will too. But then how can you compare the results?
>: In the big scheme, those who do not make money off photography should not
>: photograph. However if they still do (for fun), economics say they should
>: buy the cheapest cameras.
>
>Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Should
>photography never be pursued as a hobby? Do non-professional photographers
>have no business owning high quality cameras?
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying -- _if_ the main drive is economics. Obviously, the
best way to save on photography is not to photograph. This is in response to your
reasoning that buying a more expensive camera than a Yashica would make more
sense economically. The point is -- we should admit that we buy cameras strictly for
fun, and put business lingvo aside.
>If a Hassleblad meets a persons' needs, and they can afford it, by all means
>they should purchase one.
See -- if a Yashica meets my needs, and I can afford one, I should purchase one.
I think it comes as no surprise that sometimes one can afford to spend today $200
but is reluctant to spend at the same day $400.
>And of course a Yashica 124 is as sharp and contrasty as either of them :-).
I wish it were so...
Boris
Boris Kozintsev
>I think the point is that at the $200 price point (and dealers charge more
>like $275 for yashicamat's) you can get a better camera. I personally
>feel that a Rolleicord or Minolta Autocord are better budget medium format
>cameras, and they cost significantly less.
Of course, no question about that. I, for example, have an Autocord -- just because
it was available at the moment. But they say it is only marginally better optically,
and others say there is no difference. There is no way to compare since the lenses
on both hypothetical cameras are not sparkling new anyway. And surely, Autocord
suffers from all the same non-rollei-tlr drawbacks Gary Helfrich mentions.
When buying a $200 MF camera, one does not want to wait forever, and the choice is
really limited, I'd say there is no choice at all (except e-bay or rec.photo.marketplace,
but I prefer seeing what I buy).
>If you are going to spend $200, you might as well spend $250 and get a Mamiya
>C220 + 80/2.8 lens.
I just did not come across it at this price. Have I seen it, surely I would go for it.
The local dealer told me the price of a C330 outfit was $500 and C220 -- $400,
and he did not have any anyway -- that's the funniest part. Beats the whole notion
of "price" for me.
Boris
Joseph Albert
Boris Kozintsev <b...@math.umd.edu> wrote:
>See -- if a Yashica meets my needs, and I can afford one, I should purchase one.
>purchase one. I think it comes as no surprise that sometimes one can afford to spend today $200
>afford to spend today $200 but is reluctant to spend at the same day $400.
I think the point is that at the $200 price point (and dealers charge more
like $275 for yashicamat's) you can get a better camera. I personally
feel that a Rolleicord or Minolta Autocord are better budget medium format
cameras, and they cost significantly less. If you are going to spend $200,
you might as well spend $250 and get a Mamiya C220 + 80/2.8 lens.
j. albert
Randy Stewart
Helfrich)2 Oct 1998 18:52:29 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>Sorry for such a long rant, but I felt that an alternative to the mantra of
:>"just get a Yashica 124" needed to be voiced.
:>
:>Gary Helfrich
Hi Gary,
Good of you to take the time to spell it all out. Most, including me, would
not invest the time. Hope you do not take too many hits from the "124G
faithful".
I've owned and used a number of TLRs and several Koni-Omega cameras. Of all
of the used, "entry" TLRs I have examined, my objective lens tests indicate
that the Minolta Autocord, Rolleicord, or Rolleiflex with a Tessar are the
only ones worth considering for the money in a lower cost, fixed lens TLR.
The Ricoh Diacord has several good recommendations from reliable sources as
being in the same class, and has not been discovered by the gear heads. Its
only reported difficiency is that it as an excessive number of holes and slots
through which more than average amounts of dirt can enter the body.
Your comment that someone moving into medium format might be put off the whole
subject by getting an over-rated camera and finding loosy results is very
interesting - something worth considering.
As to Yashicas, all prior to the Yashicamat (4 element Yashinon lens,Tessar
style) are little more than shapshot box cameras, based on crappy 3 element
lenses.
While I have repeatedly tested "Mats" with the Yashinon, I have never tested
one which measured up to the other TLRs mentioned above - leaving it (as a
class) "the worst 120 TLR with a Tessar-type lens". As Yashica advanced the
124G to its end in 1989, it is reported to have cheapened down the "build"
with plastic parts in gears sets. As a result, an early 124G, 124, 12, or
Yashicamat may be a more reliable camera.
They all have the same lens but for multicoating toward the end, and
multicoating is a nearly pointless feature on a lens of this design.
Bought, used and sold two Yashica TLRs over the years - no regrets.
Randy Stewart
1998 15:25:39 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>I don't think anyone has said the YashicaMat and Rollei MX were of
:>equal quality, because they certainly are NOT. However, while there
:>may be more variation in the quality of Yashica Mat lenses (?), the
:>ones I have had have been quite sharp. Others have done tests and
:>found them quite comparable to the Xenar or Tessar.
Who "others" would you have in mind? No one I've hear of, and I've been
watching and listening for about 35 years.
:>But if your Yashica Mat isn't sharp, then yours has a problem. Have
:>you checked the focus of the taking lens with a piece of groundglass
:>on the frame rails with the back open? A piece of scotch tape will
:>substitute for ground glass.
Surely, you must be joking. If your "test" of comparative lens performance is
"eyeballing" a piece of ground glass or tape set on a film plain, rather than
a carefully controlled series of test exposures on film using resolution
targets, then you would expect to find that a Ciroflex is apparently as good
as a Hasselblad.
FOR7
>>In fact, any of my 35mm cameras, even an Olympus Stylus, is
>>sharper than the Yashica when blown up to 11x14.
>
If your Olympus Stylus gives better results than the YashicaMat then there is
definitely something wrong with yours. My YashicaMat 124G delivers outstanding
pictures especially considering what I paid for it and always gets those oohs
and ahhs responses that consistently look better than my 35mm at that size. No
comparison. I get the sharpness of a 4x6 35mm shot at 10x10.
Joseph Albert
Boris Kozintsev <b...@math.umd.edu> wrote:
>Joseph Albert wrote...
>
>>I think the point is that at the $200 price point (and dealers charge more
>>like $275 for yashicamat's) you can get a better camera. I personally
>>feel that a Rolleicord or Minolta Autocord are better budget medium format
>>cameras, and they cost significantly less.
>
>There is no way to compare since the lenses on both hypothetical cameras are not sparkling new anyway.
Let's assume the performance is the same, since both have Tessar-type lenses,
the optical formula for which had been known for decades at the time the
cameras in question were made. Autocords are about half the price.
I just can't see a YashicaMat as being a good buy on the used market unless
it is priced well below market.
The reader can decide for themself whether they think Minolta or Yashica
is likely to have designed a lens to higher tolerances or whether Minolta
had better quality control than Yashica.
J. Albert
Boris Kozintsev
Joseph Albert wrote ...
>Autocords are about half the price.
Then of course one should very seriously consider an Autocord (but it seems to me
that this was not the point Gary Helfrich was making).
However, the cited statement would be correct only if there existed a place where both
cameras were readily available in all conditions at the prices you describe. I do not know
of any such place. On e-bay, for example, I do not see such a difference. (What I see is
mostly people with 70 feedbacks and id's like SuchAndSuchCameraInc bidding, so this is
not the indication of the user market anyway).
My estimate is that it makes sense to buy any of the two cameras with good lens, working
shutter and working meter for up to $199. No meter or broken meter - make it $150.
Otherwise you can grow old before you buy anything.
Boris
Robert Monaghan
Budget FAQ, also Danny Gonzalez's great reviews of medium format at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html
most of us don't realize how important it is to consider the final system
capability and costs when we start out in medium format; I know I didn't ;-)
so if you prefer a TLR, and you have only around $200, then the extra $50
or so for a system TLR like the C220 with interchangeable lenses and a
pro body is a longterm upgradable and extendable choice.
for the same $250 or so, you could also squeeze into a 6x6 SLR like a
Bronica C with nikkor optics, with lots of upgradeability too.
one of the koni-omega 6x7 rangefinders is also a great buy in this price
range
for more examples, see my medium format camera library pages at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html and ~rmonagha/bronica.html
Gary makes a good point that film and developing should be the biggest
long term cost for any active photographer. Even if you only shoot a roll
of film a week, 50 rolls/yr, 250 rolls/5 years, at say $10/roll, yields
$2500 - if you throw away your $250 camera, your equipment costs work out to
about ten cents a roll, or 40 cents/month. That's pretty affordable ;-)
If you bought a $500 rig, its 80 cents/month, and a used hassy 500 or
bronica ETR at $1k will run you less than the cost of a burger a month!
In reality, you don't toss the camera after five years, you resell it,
often for near or more than you paid for it (getting dollarettes that
have depreciated, I will admit ;-) and so your real costs may be close
to zero if you start with fully depreciated medium format gear...
the big surprise is that so many of yesterday's pro medium format cameras
like kowa 6/66, bronica 6x6, K-Omega, Mamiyas, hassy 500C - are capable
of producing quality work hard to distinguish from their 10 to 20 times
more costly current competitors. On the other hand, any of these medium
format older pro cameras and lenses will probably blow my best nikon 35mm
SLR results out of the water, quality wise and tonality wise etc. even if
I spend twenty times more on a full nikon 35mm setup. That's hard to beat!
regards bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmon...@post.cis.smu.edu *
* Bronica 6x6 medium format: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html site *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*
Boris Kozintsev
Robert Monaghan wrote in message <6v7431$7...@post.cis.smu.edu>...
>for the same $250 or so, you could also squeeze into a 6x6 SLR like a
>Bronica C with nikkor optics, with lots of upgradeability too.
Robert,
could you please recall when and where have you seen this camera at this price?
I think I am missing some very important source completely.
I keep hearing "such and such is worth that much to that much", but for crying
out loud I cannot see at which shop / forum.
Boris
peters
>:>But if your Yashica Mat isn't sharp, then yours has a problem. Have
>:>you checked the focus of the taking lens with a piece of groundglass
>:>on the frame rails with the back open? A piece of scotch tape will
>:>substitute for ground glass.
I'm merely suggesting that this is a means to check the focus--that
both lenses are focusing on the same point. I've seen cameras that
were worked on where the ground glass focused on one point, the
viewing lens on a second, and the taking lens on a third. Clear
enough? Need a diagram?
>Surely, you must be joking. If your "test" of comparative lens performance is
>"eyeballing" a piece of ground glass or tape set on a film plain, rather than
>a carefully controlled series of test exposures on film using resolution
>targets, then you would expect to find that a Ciroflex is apparently as good
>as a Hasselblad.
One other point. Some have mentioned flare and soft images. Maybe
your camera has these problems and the following won't help. But, one
thing that would explain these problems is an oil film on the inner
surfaces of the lens cells. These lenses are now 20 years old, or
so, It may be that oil has volatilized and has coated the glass.
Well gang, it's been fun!
bob
Robert Monaghan
sale at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronused.html, sample past listings:
ex - Cole's camera - bronica C waist level finder 75mm f/2.8 nikkor 12/24
insert 8+ condition for $250;
another bronica 6x6 a later model C2 for $275 with extra inserts and straps
(igorcamera) and another C2 for $200 from same source no extras but (ex/EX+)
camera traders also listed an bronica S model wlf/75mm f2.8/12mag ex++ for
$249
ken-mar's S2 body/back/wlf Ex++ for $199 plus a lens would be around
$250-275?
seawood camera has a bronica S with 75mm for $200
========== so bronica SLRs in 6x6 with nikkor lenses $200+ are out there ;-)
personally, I'd recommend spending the extra $100 and getting a $350 or so
bronica S2a system, more rugged, (or maybe a Kowa 6 SLR for $350 too) but
any of these bronica 6x6 system cameras could be bought from dealers for
$200 to $250, in ex/Ex+ shape etc. A key point is that other bronica
nikkor and over 70 third party lenses listed on my bronlens.html page can
be bought, often at shockingly low prices (like $89 for a 400mm f6.3 komura
for 6x6? - and from a dealer yet ;-).
There shouldn't be any doubts about the quality of the 75mm nikkor lenses
that are part of the package, right? ;-) Some of these $200 Med fmt SLR
cameras also have replaceable backs, as well as prism finder options. Wow!
see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html Jeff Albro's IMPACT Used
Gear pages for links to over a hundred dealers, and classifieds ads - you
can use these to locate the best buys from hundreds of dealers and online
classifieds...
So you can buy a medium format 6x6 japanese quality hasselblad (1000f) copy
with nikkor optics for $200 up in these Bronica SLR models.
regards to all -= bobm
Kirk Loftis
I see these types of posts often as well. I am sure that folks out
there get great deals. But when you are new to MF like myself, I have
not seen those great prices either (eg B&H, Adorama, Local Stores). I
think a lot of folks buy from someone else. The sellar advertises at
let us say $500 and they talk them down to $250. These might occur here
and there as the market/timing will bear. Just my 2cents worth.
Kirk
Boris Kozintsev (b...@math.umd.edu) wrote:
: Robert Monaghan wrote in message <6v7431$7...@post.cis.smu.edu>...
Gary Helfrich
: Hello Boris,
:
: I see these types of posts often as well. I am sure that folks out
: there get great deals. But when you are new to MF like myself, I have
: not seen those great prices either (eg B&H, Adorama, Local Stores). I
: think a lot of folks buy from someone else. The sellar advertises at
: let us say $500 and they talk them down to $250. These might occur here
: and there as the market/timing will bear. Just my 2cents worth.
You might try looking at either KEH or Midwest Photo Exchange. B&H has just
about the worst prices that I have ever seen on used equipment. Only ebay
seem to be higher. Midwest has the best prices, and KEH has the best
condition. Both are a bargain compared to the NYC used equipment places.
BTW, it my post, when I gave prices they were of equipment currently being
offered by KEH, not some once in a lifetime deal. Try KEH or Midwest, and
you might be pleasantly surprised what a good deal second hand MF equipment
is.
Gary Helfrich
Boris Kozintsev
thanks for taking time to reply. I now know more than I did when this thread started.
Your approach is certainly the correct and most reasonable one.
The only thing -- it requires being into MF equipment for several years already,
having many cameras currently and in the past, and not being in a particular need of a next
one -- hardly a position when Yashica is advised...
Boris
Gary Helfrich wrote in message
>Kirk Loftis (lof...@corp.hp.com) wrote:
>: Hello Boris,
Christopher M. Perez
> most of us don't realize how important it is to consider the final system
> capability and costs when we start out in medium format; I know I didn't ;-)
>
> so if you prefer a TLR, and you have only around $200, then the extra $50
> or so for a system TLR like the C220 with interchangeable lenses and a
> pro body is a longterm upgradable and extendable choice.
At various swaps I've seen the earlier C3 and C33 cameras in the $150 range. Outstanding
buys for interchangable lens'd systems.
Or you could look at a Rolleiflex with a 3.5 Xenar 75mm lens for about that price too.
Rolleicords with decent optics are cheaper yet. But I've found the film plane to be
suspect (film buckles slightly in the center).
> one of the koni-omega 6x7 rangefinders is also a great buy in this price
> range
Agreed.
I'll go out on a limb and say that if a person works 120 format like they do large format
(4x5 or greater) they may find folding cameras from the '40's and '50's useful. Many can
be found with good optics of less than $100. If they don't have a rangefinder mechanism,
little Watameters or Kodak rangefinders can be found for less than $25 in many cases. So
a person could build a 120 kit using lightweight folder camera (say, $50), plus a $20 Luna
Pilot meter, and another $25 for rangefinder. It'd be perfectly usable for many
situations.
I hope this helps.
- Chris
er...@sask.trlabs.ca
> The Ricoh Diacord has several good recommendations from reliable sources as
> being in the same class, and has not been discovered by the gear heads. Its
> only reported difficiency is that it as an excessive number of holes and slots
> through which more than average amounts of dirt can enter the body.
The Diacord G does have an amazing number of slots and
holes around the shutter: 5 for shutter speed, aperture,
shutter cocking, selftimer cocking, and MX setting. Plus
it has three holes where the two focusing knobs and the
distance pointer exit the lens plate. These 3 are mostly
covered by a sliding piece that covers most of the slot
opening.
The Diacord L has slightly fewer openings and its
Seikosha shutter has fewer openings than the Citizen
shutter in the G.
The Ricohmatic 225 is better still since the shutter
is cocked by the crank so there is no shutter cocking slot. And
the selftimer is selected with the MXV lever. Its Seikosha
shutter also has fewer openings than the G's Citizen.
On the good side, all three models have very good internal
baffling. I've heard that you have to get a Yashicamat 124G
model to get this (the plain 124 doesn't have any or as good
baffling I've heard).
Regards - Greg
Ricoh TLR info and more:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/ricohflex.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rwh56
It is funny how much of us enthusiasts ignore the cost of processing when
evaluating the expense of a camera. I think the TLRs are vastly overpriced
for the technology they provide. I am a cheapy, so I will live with my
unmetered $15.00 yashicamat that i fixed.
By the way, your name resembles a bicycle frame builder. I once built wheels
for Chris Chance.
Rob Harold
rw...@aol.com
she...@rbdc.com
C330, and woule have to say the 330 is a better piece of machinery from the
standpoint of optics. Cheers.
In article <19981010192554...@ng-fb2.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
NEVADANICK
I HV TOO MUCH EQUIPMENT. PRICE???
NEGOTIABLE.
CONTACT:::NEVAD...@AOL.COM
THX
NICK
Karl Juul
NEVADANICK wrote in message <19981018081250...@ng82.aol.com>...
Stop shouting, you AOL butthead. Also, for sale posts belong in
rec.photo.marketplace, which is a newsgroup, BTW, not a message board.
-Karl.