Koni Omega Questions

[Ed Weatherly]

I have questions about the Koni Omega line of cameras.

1. As I understand it the Rapid M and Rapid 200 allow mid roll changes of film but the Rapid and Rapid 100 do not. Is this correct?

2. Do all four models share lenses? i.e. are they all the same lens mount and interchange between models? Any lenses to watch out for or all they all pretty good.

3. Do folks here on the forum like these cameras for B&W as much as color?

4. I understand these cameras were designed as protable "press' type cameras and used for presss work and wedding photography extensively. Would this line of cameras be a good choice as a landscape camera for B&W along side a Ricoh Diacord TLR?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[farlymac]

1. I'm pretty sure that both the 100 and 200 allow for mid-roll change, as it's just a matter of putting the darkslide back in the film holder, and removing it from the camera. Never used one of the older models, so I'm not sure on them.

2. According to the manual, all four lenses (and other optical accessories) interchange between all four bodies (Koni Omega, Koni Omega-M, Rapid 100, Rapid 200). The roll film backs are only interchangable between the M, and 100/200.

3. I only shot three rolls through mine, all B&W, but loved the results.

4. Landscapes is what I did with mine. I thought it was perfect for that. Would have been even better if I'd had the 58mm lens.

PF

 

[rjbuzzclick]

I have a KO Rapid M and have used it for landscapes. There are examples in my flickr stream. In order to be able to do a mid-roll film change, you need a camera that has the removable magazine that the back fits into. The dark slide fits into the magazine, and the magazine and back are removed from the camera as a unit. The back alone is not a light-tight package. The Rapid M and the 200 have this magazine, the Rapid and the 100 do not. On the Rapid and 100, the dark slide is only used for lens changes.

Regarding lenses, I believe all four bodies (Rapid, Rapid M, 100, 200) will take the same lenses. There is an earlier form of the Rapid (not sure what it's called, but it came after the original Simmons camera), that takes a slightly different back that doesn't fit on the four bodies in question. I'm not sure if it will take the same lenses or not.

From my understanding, the 135mm lens will bring up 135mm framelines only on a 100 and 200. The Rapid and Rapid M don't have these framelines, but I believe it was possible fot the factor to mod the bodies to take the 135mm. I don't have one so I'm not speaking from direct experience.

The 58mm and 60mm differ by the number of elements. I have the 60mm and have no complaints. Originally, I wasn't planning on getting the 180mm as I never liked using longer than "normal" lenses on a rangefinder. I was offered a 180mm at a great price and bought it, and was really surprised at how much I liked it. I use it more often that I thought I would.

 

[JRG]

...

The 58mm and 60mm differ by the number of elements. I have the 60mm and have no complaints. Originally, I wasn't planning on getting the 180mm as I never liked using longer than "normal" lenses on a rangefinder. I was offered a 180mm at a great price and bought it, and was really surprised at how much I liked it. I use it more often that I thought I would.

A bit more precisely: The 60mm has 6 elements in 4 groups; the 58mm has 8 elements in 4 groups. I don't know that there's a big difference in the performance of the two lenses, though. I've used the 58mm lens, and it seemed pretty good.

I had the same experience with the 180mm lens --- I ended up using it quite frequently. It's good.

 

[Ed Weatherly]

1. I'm pretty sure that both the 100 and 200 allow for mid-roll change, as it's just a matter of putting the darkslide back in the film holder, and removing it from the camera. Never used one of the older models, so I'm not sure on them.

2. According to the manual, all four lenses (and other optical accessories) interchange between all four bodies (Koni Omega, Koni Omega-M, Rapid 100, Rapid 200). The roll film backs are only interchangable between the M, and 100/200.

3. I only shot three rolls through mine, all B&W, but loved the results.

4. Landscapes is what I did with mine. I thought it was perfect for that. Would have been even better if I'd had the 58mm lens.

PF

Farleymac,
this is exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

 

[Ed Weatherly]

I have a KO Rapid M and have used it for landscapes. There are examples in my flickr stream. In order to be able to do a mid-roll film change, you need a camera that has the removable magazine that the back fits into. The dark slide fits into the magazine, and the magazine and back are removed from the camera as a unit. The back alone is not a light-tight package. The Rapid M and the 200 have this magazine, the Rapid and the 100 do not. On the Rapid and 100, the dark slide is only used for lens changes.

Regarding lenses, I believe all four bodies (Rapid, Rapid M, 100, 200) will take the same lenses. There is an earlier form of the Rapid (not sure what it's called, but it came after the original Simmons camera), that takes a slightly different back that doesn't fit on the four bodies in question. I'm not sure if it will take the same lenses or not.

From my understanding, the 135mm lens will bring up 135mm framelines only on a 100 and 200. The Rapid and Rapid M don't have these framelines, but I believe it was possible fot the factor to mod the bodies to take the 135mm. I don't have one so I'm not speaking from direct experience.

The 58mm and 60mm differ by the number of elements. I have the 60mm and have no complaints. Originally, I wasn't planning on getting the 180mm as I never liked using longer than "normal" lenses on a rangefinder. I was offered a 180mm at a great price and bought it, and was really surprised at how much I liked it. I use it more often that I thought I would.

Reid,
thanks for the reply - I am trying to decide if I want to add a camera with interchangeable lenses and 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 capability in addition to my TLR. This helps a lot.

Thanks,

 

[Ed Weatherly]

A bit more precisely: The 60mm has 6 elements in 4 groups; the 58mm has 8 elements in 4 groups. I don't know that there's a big difference in the performance of the two lenses, though. I've used the 58mm lens, and it seemed pretty good.

I had the same experience with the 180mm lens --- I ended up using it quite frequently. It's good.

My thinking is that I would probably use the 90mm and the 58mm or 60mm most. I think most of the shots would be shot at or near the sweet spot - f 8 to f11. So perhaps the lens construction is slightly less of an issue.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Also, regarding the 60mm lens, I forgot to mention that I don't have the external finder for it. I found that if I use the full width of the viewfinder beyond the 90mm frame and move my eye side to side a bit, it's pretty close to the FOV of the 60mm. I'd rather not using an external viewfinder so I prefer this arrangement.

The KOs are an acquired taste, but I really like mine. They're not lacking in build or optical quality, but operationally and weight-wise some folks don't get on with them well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Brute force from the mechanically unsympathetic means that you need to examine any KO that you are considering buying to make sure that it operates smoothly. Many do. Some don't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kuzano]

As Roger says....

As Roger says....

Mechanical damage from brute force. The Rapid Advance mechanism was designed for Press Corp duty. As a result, many of the backs have been hammered to death in the slamming of the advance knob back and forth.

One back will do for regular usage, but the Press Corp people wanted to change rolls fast and used to carry preloaded backs. Somewhere, there is a KO film back boneyard created by Press Camera usage.

Midroll changes. I used KO camera's a lot, but midroll changes were never an issue for me. After all, for the most part you are only shooting 9-10 images. 220 film is pretty much gone now, so plan for 120 roll film in terms of usage.

The lenses as I recall were either Hexanon or Omegon. I am inclined toward the Hexanon glass for it's reputation.

Occasionally you will see a NEW NOS back on eBay... Get it, if you run across one, whether it's a removable back or not. The backs are where you will have problems if you do. The camera itself is a TANK, and the lens incorporates the leaf shutter in the lens barrel. So the camera syncs at all speeds on flash.

Great image quality. NOT, I repeat, NOT quiet. The Rapid Advance mechanism can not be engaged quietly, without jeopardizing a good charge and advance of the film. When the backs are marginal, poor frame spacing is the biggest indicator. If you get one in your hands, rack the advance aggressively FULL stroke. See if you can deal with the sound of a good firm advance and cocking of the shutter.

When you are in the forest and you see a stampede of deer, bear, elk, raccoons and squirrels come rushing toward you, somebody has just advance the film in their Koni Omega somewhere behind all those animals.

Good Luck.

 

[venchka]

I had one way back when. Used it for outdoor work all the time. I still have a lot of negatives from my 100 & 90mm lens. Stellar system. One thing that I have noticed with most of the used cameras available: The cable release is missing. That is a very useful feature & worth having.
An oldie, but a goodie in my mind. From Thanksgiving, 1973.

Wayne

 

[KoNickon]

Some more clarification: If you decide on the M or the 200 so as to get mid-roll change capability, you'll need to make sure that your spare back(s) contain the magazine as well as the actual back -- it's the magazine + back that are swapped out. So in other words, you need not only a back, but the magazine too (which fits between the body and the back).

The later versions of the M have the framelines for the 135mm lens, as do the 100 and 200.

Production of these cameras passed from Konica to Mamiya -- I understand Mamiya purchased the production lines. The 100 and 200, which are called "Omega Rapid" and not Koni Omega, are from the Mamiya years, as are the Omegon lenses.

Last thing -- as kuzano mentions, it's best to pull the handle out crisply (this advances the film) and then push the handle back firmly, but don't slam it. The backs are the Achilles heel of the cameras, just because they get worked hard. If you need service, Greg Weber (webercamera.com) is the expert on these cameras. He's in Nebraska -- very nice guy.

 

[oftheherd]

I can't tell you anything about the KO as I have never had one. But to your question about a supplement to the 6x6, if you are like me, the 6x6 will lose a lot of its charm after you begin using 6x7 and/or 6x9. That's what happened to me when I got a Super Press 23. My 6x6 was damaged, then stolen (sorry thief!). I had a Mamiya C330 on lay-a-way, when I got the chance at the Super Press 23. I'd never heard of one, but jumped at it. I no longer find TLR so much fun. Don't be surprised at what you find yourself using it for. I have happily done portraits, landscapes, weddings (not many, not my cup of tea), you name it. If you have a good working 6x7 or 6x9, you are very likely to be happy. You don't get as many pictures per roll, but you sure get more useful shots.

 

[kuzano]

An interesting aspect of what oftheherd mentions here.

An interesting aspect of what oftheherd mentions here.

I can't tell you anything about the KO as I have never had one. But to your question about a supplement to the 6x6, if you are like me, the 6x6 will lose a lot of its charm after you begin using 6x7 and/or 6x9. That's what happened to me when I got a Super Press 23. My 6x6 was damaged, then stolen (sorry thief!). I had a Mamiya C330 on lay-a-way, when I got the chance at the Super Press 23. I'd never heard of one, but jumped at it. I no longer find TLR so much fun. Don't be surprised at what you find yourself using it for. I have happily done portraits, landscapes, weddings (not many, not my cup of tea), you name it. If you have a good working 6x7 or 6x9, you are very likely to be happy. You don't get as many pictures per roll, but you sure get more useful shots.

I've never been a square shooter. Just can't understand the format. However, I have frequently heard square shooters say they like the format because it allows lazy composition (that's my translation). In other words, apparently some square shooters save composition for after the snap and crop some image from the 6X6, which makes it a lesser image.

I now shoot 6X9 almost exclusively (it's a 3:2 ratio same as 35mm). I've shot 6X7, but I just can't work with square, particularly when I know I am going to discard part of the image.

6X6 is 12 on 120. I think 6X7 is 10 on 120, and 6x9 is 8 on 120. Effectively there is almost no 220 available any more. I mitigate my price by buying expired film on eBay. When I see buyers with large positive feedback and they say the film has been cold stored, I generally buy. Since I would be shooting 6X7 or 6X9, the cold stored expired film brings the cost per frame difference to a negligable level.

 

[Ed Weatherly]

I've never been a square shooter. Just can't understand the format. However, I have frequently heard square shooters say they like the format because it allows lazy composition (that's my translation). In other words, apparently some square shooters save composition for after the snap and crop some image from the 6X6, which makes it a lesser image.

I now shoot 6X9 almost exclusively (it's a 3:2 ratio same as 35mm). I've shot 6X7, but I just can't work with square, particularly when I know I am going to discard part of the image.

6X6 is 12 on 120. I think 6X7 is 10 on 120, and 6x9 is 8 on 120. Effectively there is almost no 220 available any more. I mitigate my price by buying expired film on eBay. When I see buyers with large positive feedback and they say the film has been cold stored, I generally buy. Since I would be shooting 6X7 or 6X9, the cold stored expired film brings the cost per frame difference to a negligable level.

This thread has been VERY instructional. I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful responses. I know what you mean about liking the 2:3 ratio but I find I really have to frame differently with square format,and I really like that. My shots are lacking so far but getting better. It is forcing me to look at photos with different eyes which is a good thing.

I guess I am trying to decide if I want to branch out IN MF or stick with the TLR. My rational side says shoot with the tlr until I make good photos and until then don't buy anything new. Part of me wants to expand the options though. I am also trying to decide if the KO system is the right one or if I should be looking at a different system. If cost were no object, I might be looking at Mamiya 7 and lensesmorma Fuji rangefinder. I have been a longtime user of Pentax equipment and have thought about 645 or 67.

 

[Ed Weatherly]

I had one way back when. Used it for outdoor work all the time. I still have a lot of negatives from my 100 & 90mm lens. Stellar system. One thing that I have noticed with most of the used cameras available: The cable release is missing. That is a very useful feature & worth having.
An oldie, but a goodie in my mind. From Thanksgiving, 1973.

Wayne

Wayne, this is a nice shot. The detail and tones are great!

 

[venchka]

Thanks Ed. I need to get a few more from that trip scanned and added to my gallery.
I sold the Rapid and bought a Pentax 6x7. Sold the Pentax too. Decades later I bought my current Pentax 6x7. Both systems deliver the goods.

Wayne

 

[farlymac]

I'll tell you what, Ed. If I come across something to trade to my buddy in PA, I'll get my old Rapid 200 back. It's one of the cameras I miss the most. That, and my C330F outfit.

PF

 

[Ed Weatherly]

Thanks everyone. This has been a lot of fun and has helped me understand these cameras much better. I do have another question if you all will allow it.

Do the Rapid M and Rapid 200 allow mid roll film changes because of the removable back? If so, doe this mean the other two cameras do not have removable backs? I understand the backs are the weak points, is it the same for all four models?

Thanks,

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Thanks everyone. This has been a lot of fun and has helped me understand these cameras much better. I do have another question if you all will allow it.

Do the Rapid M and Rapid 200 allow mid roll film changes because of the removable back? If so, doe this mean the other two cameras do not have removable backs? I understand the backs are the weak points, is it the same for all four models?

Thanks,

The backs remove on all of the cameras, but only the Rapid M and the 200 have the magazine as well. The back fits into the magazine, and then the magazine+back fit into the camera body. It's a light-tight box that allows mid-roll changes.

On the Rapid and 100, the backs fit directly into the camera body without the magazine. You can't change film mid-roll on these.

The backs are the same for all four camera bodies.