Lens Quality: Koni/Rapid Omega vs Mamiya Press

charjohncarter said:
We are really comparing apples and oranges here; IF you are using 6x9 with the Super 23. K-O is 6x7 so less difficult lens to build. But the Super 23 has a reputation for having the RF go out of adjustment. I adjusted mine when I bought it 8-9 years ago and I have never had a problem, but this write up is what I used to adjust mine. It seems long but there are many screws so this writer explains exactly which ones to adjust. The process is very simple when understand the three screws that are to be turned:

Roger Krueger , Feb 06, 2002; 01:15 p.m.


It's really not too tough (The description looks long, but it's simple in actual practice), although getting (and keeping!) several lenses all synced to the same camera can be challenging. The ideal way to do it is with a ground glass back, but comparing a tape measure to the distance markings will be sufficient unless you're planning to shoot a 100/2.8 or 250/5 wide open. Remember, the lens markings are from the film plane, not the end of the lens.

(Note to others: these instructions work for the bright-frame finders on the Universal and the Super 23. They do not work for the Standard 23 or Deluxe, which have a totally different top end. The basic procedure is the same for the old bodies, but there are four screws, not two, and they're located somewhere else entirely. I only use my Standard to scale-focus my 50, so I've never bothered to adjust the rangefinder)

First, be wary of adhesives on all adjustment screws. Many heavy users wanted to avoid things vibrating out of adjustment. The bright ones used nail polish (which I'd recommend to you also), which does the job, but breaks right off when turned with a screwdriver. The jerk who previously owned my 100/2.8, however, used very permanent epoxy. If the screw won't turn, investigate why before you ruin it, they're expensive to have remade :(

If you have multiple lenses you have to pick one lens to adjust the body to, then adjust the other lenses to match the body. I believe neither the 90/3.5 or 100/3.5 have provision for lens adjustment; they're the ones to start with if you have one of them. The 50 and the 65 are a pain to adjust - you have to add or subtract shims - but generally are sufficiently slow and wide that they don't need to be dead on. The 100/2.8, 127/4.7, 150/5.6 and 250/5 have an adjusting screw inside the lens mount; sometimes there's a hole in the "mask" plate at the back of the lens to give you access, sometimes you have to take the mask off - just remove the obvious screws and set it aside.

First remove the rangefinder cover - one screw on each side, plus you remove the knob which selects the 100, 150 or 250 bright frame. The cover then slides straight up. While you have the cover off, resist the temptation to clean any mirrored surface with anything wet - they're very easy to de-silver. A dry Q-tip used VERY lightly could be used to take off egregious dust, but don't sue me if you screw up.

Towards the rear of the assembly, somewhat left of center, you'll see a screw at a 45-degree angle; that's your close focus adjuster. To the left of it is a similar screw that goes straight in; that's the main focus adjuster.

To adjust the main focus, either find an object at infinity (like, a half mile away) or at the last marked distance on the lens. Focus on it with the ground glass if you have it, otherwise measure the distance. Note where this is on the focusing scale - use the DOF scale to help you if need - i.e. you can write down "the 1 of the 10m mark at left f/11" if that gives you the most precise description - then focus with the range finder (You may need to shield the mechanism with your other hand to keep out stray light). Note where it focuses the same way. Turn the main focusing screw about an eighth turn. I always forget which way is which, you'll find out in your first two tries :) Now go back to the range finder. Take it clearly out of focus and then bring it back into focus. Note where you are on the focusing scale again - are you getting better or worse? By how much? Keep going until the rangefinder focus as read off the lens is exactly the same as the ground glass or tape measure reading. (If you have any tendency towards dyslexia you'll probably need to stop halfway through for an aspirin or a scotch.) At the end you'll be making adjustments to the screw that barely qualify as nudges. Now repeat this procudure using an object at a close focusing distance. I use the next-to-the-closest-possible distance on the lens, but that's not gospel. Anything under 10 feet should be fine. Remember to use the angled close focus adjusting screw, not the main adjusting screw.

Put the cover back on - you're done with the body! If you have additional lenses use the same procedure on them, but using the adjuster on the lens, and only at one distance, I use 12-15 feet, but it really shouldn't matter. If you have the 250/5 or 100/2.8 you may want to sync them to the body at 20+ feet, then use them to reset close focus on the body - their shorter DOF makes them need more precision at close distances. Also, for these two you really want to use a ground glass, not a tape measure. I know, the 2.8 is only 1/2 stop faster than the 3.5's, but it's actually usable wide open, the 3.5's really aren't. Don't set close focus on the 250 using a distance closer than about 13 feet - closer than that its rangefinder tracking is very different than the other lenses. You just have to live with the fact that this lens can't really be focused with the rangefinder closer than 12-13 feet.

Thank You Roger K. wherever you are.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this! I have a Super Press 23 body that needs tweaking.
 
I did actually own both systems for a while - I found the lenses to be quite good on both (with everything adjusted properly). But I have to give the edge to the KO. Simply amazing quality - but you needed quite an enlargement to see the difference. I had a normal and a wide for each system. The KO 60 was outstanding while the Mamiya 65 was just really good. Actually still using the Mamiya (adapted to a lens board) on my Century Graphic.

I may have a "rose colored glasses" view of the KO. I used it a lot in school - team pictures for the yearbook, etc. Then I got into 35mm and spent 20 years chasing the same quality I got when I was 14 with the KO. Now, when I shoot film, I only shoot MF. Usually 6x9. I am happy again. Size REALLY matters with film, even more than digital. Buy you all know that.
 
I can say from personal experiance the Mamiya 127 f4.7 is a lens I an happy to use (and it just covers 4x5).
 
I have the Koni Omega with the 90mm lens and that lens is very sharp. cannot comment about the mamiya because I have never owned one.
 
I have a mamiya universal and I love it! the images are sharp and contrasty. I also have a koni omega rapid m coming in the mail as we speak. Ive found that these old press cameras are a great bang for your buck. snatch em up while you can!
 
I've had both, although the KO was quite awhile ago, the Mamiya is current.

The KO 90mm lens was quite sharp; I didn't have any others. The Mamiya lenses (I have the 65, 90, and 150) look good too - I've posted samples on the 6x9 thread and the M-S 65mm thread - but I've been shooting them stopped down a good bit.

Still, comparing these cameras is apples vs oranges. The MP is like using a Speed Graphic. You have to remove the dark slide, compose, focus, cock the shutter, take the picture, and advance the film. It's lighter than a Speed Graphic, and the 23 and Super have viewfinders that adjust for parallax, but otherwise they're quite similar.

The Koni Omega is more like a Hasselblad. There are interlocks preventing you from doing something stupid. I only had the KO for a shot time - the first couple of rolls were amazing, and then the back started overlapping frames, so it got returned. But it felt way more modern than the MP.

Every once in awhile I look at KOs on eBay. The prices are super-tempting. But the MP, despite its quirks, is so much more flexible. In the wet darkroom era 6x7 as a format made tons of sense because it matched 8x10 and 16x20 paper. In the modern era the advantage goes to 6x9 - one can print 12x18 or 20x30.

The MP rewards slow careful use on a tripod. If you want a Mamiya 7 for carrying around but can't afford one, the KO is worth a long careful look.
 
Dante_Stella said:
The Koni-Omega lenses are in a dead heat with the Fujinon lenses for the G690 rangefinders. The secret of the former is super-flat film; that long plunging shutter release tensions the pressure plate. It is also hard to beat the loading speed of Koni-Omegas with interchangeable backs.

Dante
Click to expand...

It's also hard not to see all the alarmed wild life in the forest when you aggressively charge the Koni Omega film transport/shutter charge. Deers head jerk up, rabbits jump and other small animals jerk toward their dens.... WOW, the noise. I did a wedding once with the Koni Omega. The wedding singer asked me if I could not charge my film when he was in a particularly sweet rendition of a romatic song.

Did I say loud.

Dante, you turned me onto the Texas Leica years ago. You can't take me back to it's predecessor... the Koni Omega this late in life.
 
No medium format is quite stealth... even bronica or fuji 645...

Using the 50mm, 75mm and 100 2.8 from MP it´s quite different from using the 65mm 6,3 or the 90mm 3,5 it seems

The MP has a bigger offering and lens vintages so: some might be worst than KO offerings but the best are probably better.

I´ve been seeing some images here made with the 65mm and they may not be the most rendering of detail nor have the utmost corner sharpness but they have an appealing that i might give the 65mm a go! bay bay...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom