Koni Omega performance?

[IK13]

I was looking at some numbers here http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html and it seems to me that while many people say the Omegas produce great pictures, the edge sharpness (for all but the 135mm lens) is rather quite bad?

I guess this might not be a problem for weddings, but can ruin an otherwise great landscape shot..

Any Omega users out there with first hand experience.

 

[BillBingham2]

I used a Koni Omega Rapid years back and do not remember ever seeing edge problems with any of the lenses in the kit. IMHO Konica has always made some very under rated glass.

B2 (;->

 

[eric]

IMHO Konica has always made some very under rated glass.

B2 (;->

That I believe. I have to finance a 4x5 field camera and I will be selling off my Nikon SLR's and lenses and keeping my Konicas. Big, heavy, underatted, low key cameras. CLA'd by GW so it'll last forever. My Nikon F2's have been CLA'ed by Sover but I'd rather keep my Konicas.

You can't go wrong with Konis. Not a big fancy name but nice lenses.

 

[oldgearhead]

Well, a 6 x 7 is a much different animal than a 35mm SLR. Even considering film flatness, the Koni 6 x 7 will have sharper corners than the SLR.

Having said that, I too sold my F2. However, my film camera of choice is not the
Koni, but the F3. Why:
1) The F3 is smaller.
2) faster (with MD4).
3) has AP automation.
4) bigger and brighter viewfinder.
5) much better meter.

Even with all those advantages the F3 is obsolete, just like the KO.

I'm saving for a D300. Anyone interested in a KO 100/90mm with a 120 back that needs clutch service?

 

[BillBingham2]

I too am saving up for a D300. Have an F2 and an Apollo FTn to sell off yet. Keeping my Nikkormat FTn as it was my first "Real" camera. Lots of bills to pay off first though.

B2 (;->

 

[IK13]

Well, a 6 x 7 is a much different animal than a 35mm SLR. Even considering film flatness, the Koni 6 x 7 will have sharper corners than the SLR.

I understand what you're saying yet the numbers for corner resolution are low enough that a good 35mm lens can probably more than double them leveling the playing field.

Anyways. My concern was not comparing to 35mm edge sharpness, but rather something else - imagine a landscape shot, grass, leaves, whatever - lots of detail. With the edge sharpness going twice as low as the middle - it should be pretty noticeable on large prints.

I'm saving for a D300.

Amen to that. The darn thing is so nice...

Anyone interested in a KO 100/90mm with a 120 back that needs clutch service?

I'm not all that serious at the moment, but what would you ask for it?

 

[furcafe]

But you also shouldn't be comparing the Koni to more expensive medium format cameras. As you know, the Koni was designed to be used for weddings & photojournalism, & while the lenses are a great value & good performers for what they are, they're probably not up to the same standards as the best Zeiss glass for the Hasselblad, etc.

My concern was not comparing to 35mm edge sharpness, but rather something else - imagine a landscape shot, grass, leaves, whatever - lots of detail. With the edge sharpness going twice as low as the middle - it should be pretty noticeable on large prints.

 

[venchka]

Balderdash! The last 3 rolls of film I ran through my Koni 100 with the 90mm lens were Tri-X in D-76 1:1. I have some 8x10s I made at the time. Grainless. Sharp. Make your eyes bleed sharp. Don't believe numbers on a chart. I don't photograph charts. I photograph the real world. In the real world Konica lenses don't take a back seat to anybody.

Here you go. Epson 4990 scans. Dumbed down for the internet.

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

The Koni Omega wide angle lens is fantastic. I got results similar to Hassalblad SWC, but not as wide.

 

[BillBingham2]

But you also shouldn't be comparing the Koni to more expensive medium format cameras.

Why not? It's a very solid camera, different from a 'Blad, but for most of the stuff I have ever done outside (read not studio) with MF, I would have much rather had a KO.

As you know, the Koni was designed to be used for weddings & photojournalism,

OK, so fast handling and reliable are bad things for who? These are very easy cameras to hold (for a MF). A great knob to focus with and could not be in a better position.

& while the lenses are a great value & good performers for what they are, they're probably not up to the same standards as the best Zeiss glass for the Hasselblad, etc.

The Best? Let's just look at the standard stuff you can find with ease. IMHO the Konica glass was very close to any of the general Zeiss stuff that I had on the 'Blad I got to use. When you switched lenses it wasn't prone to needing a dime to recock the lens on a KO.

It's a great camera at a great price these days. Perhaps without the high end glass but that's OK for me.

B2 (;->

 

[furcafe]

Hey, I own a couple Koni bodies & have the entire lens line, so it's not like I'm dissing the camera or lenses & my experience is similar to yours. I agree that even if the Koni bodies & lenses don't have the same edge-to-edge sharpness as the latest Zeiss/Rollei/Fuji/Mamiya glass, they're still damn good, especially considering they made for a 1960s wedding camera. However, my point was simply that if the OP is looking for a pure landscape medium format camera, there are better, but definitely not more economical, choices than the Koni.

Why not? It's a very solid camera, different from a 'Blad, but for most of the stuff I have ever done outside (read not studio) with MF, I would have much rather had a KO.


OK, so fast handling and reliable are bad things for who? These are very easy cameras to hold (for a MF). A great knob to focus with and could not be in a better position.


The Best? Let's just look at the standard stuff you can find with ease. IMHO the Konica glass was very close to any of the general Zeiss stuff that I had on the 'Blad I got to use. When you switched lenses it wasn't prone to needing a dime to recock the lens on a KO.

It's a great camera at a great price these days. Perhaps without the high end glass but that's OK for me.

B2 (;->

 

[JohnnyZap]

I lived with my Koni Omegas for 12 years

I lived with my Koni Omegas for 12 years

I used 2 Omega's, one a Rapid 100 and the other a Koni Omega.
I shot close to 200,000 wedding photo's through them and only used the 80mm. Never had a problem with edge sharpness although we did try not to crop to close to the edge just because the labs didn't line up the masks to good.
I only had problems with the film backs, we only could use the 120 black. But, since I lived in Queens, NYC about 10 miles from Omega (BMC), and my best friend worked in the Omega group I had unlimited access to parts.
I had a Rolli Twin lens and 2 Hassy 500cm's but nothing was as fast and rugged as the Koni's. I sold the 2 Konis and 12 backs, plus all the attachments for them 5 years ago and got more than I paid for them. For fun I added up all the 1099s I got over the years while using those 2 Koni's and it came out to $306,000! Not back for a $1,500 investment.

 

[raid]

I have a Koni Omega M with the 90mm lens and 2 backs. I haven't used the camera in several years. I should sell it here.