jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/27/85)
While buying my weekly supply of photographic materials at the local photo
store yesterday, I saw a gentleman buying an unusual-looking camera. This
made me curious, so I also asked to see one of them; it was a "Yashica Mat
124-G" twin-lens reflex camera. I had seen these advertised before in the
catalogs, but since it said something like "good for student or professional
use," and since it was very low-priced, I always figured there wasn't much
to them.
However, this actually looks like a fairly interesting camera, especially
considering it only costs $124. Does anybody out there have one of these?
What are they good for? I see that there is a description of it in the
December '84 Modern Photography's survey of cameras (page 107), which
reveals that it is kind of primitive; unfortunately, the description assumes
you already know more or less all about them. Well, it looks vaguely like
something from the 1940s or thereabout, and has a separate "focusing" and
"taking" lens, and apparently some kind of magnifying glass so you can
see the image projected by the focusing lens onto a waist-level viewfinder
in order to focus it properly; it also has a mysterious "eye level sports
finder". What is this camera, anyway? Does it make good pictures?
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Nyy gur jbeyq'f n INK;
naq nyy pbzchgre cebtenzzref, zreryl Erchoyvpnaf."hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (05/29/85)
The Yashica is basically identical to the old Rolleiflex twin lens reflex camera from forty years or so back up to the late seventies. The advantages of the TLR is that 1)they are quiet, like rangefinders, since they have no mirror movement 2)they are really simply constructed, 3) you can take picture of people without their knowledge since they permit waist level viewing and may not be recognized as cameras 4) big negatives and slides at a cheap price. Disadvantages are 1)parallax error: what you see is not what you get 2) lack of interchangeable lenses (except the Mamiya TLR) 3) limited range of shutter speeds. -r-
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (05/29/85)
In article <981@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >While buying my weekly supply of photographic materials at the local photo >store yesterday, I saw a gentleman buying an unusual-looking camera. This >made me curious, so I also asked to see one of them; it was a "Yashica Mat >124-G" twin-lens reflex camera. I had seen these advertised before in the >catalogs, but since it said something like "good for student or professional >use," and since it was very low-priced, I always figured there wasn't much >to them. > >However, this actually looks like a fairly interesting camera, especially >considering it only costs $124. Does anybody out there have one of these? >What are they good for? I see that there is a description of it in the >December '84 Modern Photography's survey of cameras (page 107), which >reveals that it is kind of primitive; unfortunately, the description assumes >you already know more or less all about them. Well, it looks vaguely like >something from the 1940s or thereabout, and has a separate "focusing" and >"taking" lens, and apparently some kind of magnifying glass so you can >see the image projected by the focusing lens onto a waist-level viewfinder >in order to focus it properly; it also has a mysterious "eye level sports >finder". What is this camera, anyway? Does it make good pictures? Back in the 40s, when the standard newspaper photographer's camera was a 4 x 5 Speed Graphic, the standard magazine photographer's camera was a Rolliflex. The Yashica you saw is a "poor man's" imitation of same. The picture size is typically 2 1/4 in square (twelve pictures on a roll of 120 or 620 film). They were popular in the days before there were small, convenient single-lens reflex cameras around. The problem of parallex between the views seen by the viewing and taking lenses was partially licked in the fanciest Rollei by gearing the mirror in the viewing system to the focussing drive, so that as you focussed on close objects the mirror changed its angle slightly from 45 degrees to compensate. The automatic Rollei also had very fancy film loading. You just turned the crank until it turned no further, and you were ready for your first shot. After each subsequent shot, you just turned the crank forward a partial turn as far as it would go, and returned it to its home position. After the last shot of the twelve, the crank could be turned continuously to complete the winding of the roll. The camera had the drawback of all reflex cameras before the invention of the roof prism for viewing: there was a right/left reversal of the image as the result of one reflection. This made it very difficult to follow a moving subject. In fact, almost all of these cameras have a way of popping down the front of the hood that shields the ground glass from stray light, giving you an open frame finder to use when chasing a moving subject. Disadvantages are the camera's relative bulk and fixed lens. It should make very good pictures indeed, and the larger format does give an advantage over 35mm. At the price, the Yashica version is one of the world's best bargains. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
kirk@cholula.UUCP (05/29/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR 50MM F/1.8 ***
Thought some TLR guru would've responded to this by now...anyway, for the
benefit of the uninitiated -- the twin-lens reflex is usually a medium-
format (6 X 6 cm neg. on 120 size film, although I'm sure that some
members of the genre have used other sizes) camera, having a second
("viewing") lens over the "taking" lens. The image from the "viewing"
lens is reflected on to a ground-glass screen on top of the camera (the
image is reversed left-to-right); this necessitates holding the camera
at chest level for most pictures. The "sports finder" is simply a small
aperature cut in the back of the viewing hood, atop the camera; with the
front part of the hood folded down, you can look through the aperature at
eye level and compose the picture fairly quickly, assuming you've pre-
focused (at least that's how it works on my old Minolta Autocord).
The big advantage of these cameras is, of course, the larger negative
size as compared to 35MM. Price is also a plus; it's about the cheapest
way to get into medium-format, short of a box Brownie. And they're fairly
rugged, having a small fraction of the number of moving parts of their
medium-format SLR brethren (Hasselblad, Bronica, Pentax 6x7, etc, etc.).
They're quieter, too, if that counts. And most have a leaf shutter, which
means you're not limited to one shutter speed for flash pictures.
On the minus side, they're definitely cumbersome to use, compared to
SLR's. The ground-glass image can be difficult or impossible to focus in
low-light situations (most have a magnifying glass that flips over the
screen for focusing). And most don't have interchangeable lenses, although
you can get auxilliary wide-angle and telephoto lenses for the Yashica and
others.
Caveats aside, I would certainly recommend TLR's to anyone who's not quite
solvent enough for a Hassy (or a Sinar :-) ) and has finally gotten tired
of grainy 8 x 10's.
---
Kirk Bellar WB0SJP Teltone Corporation
...uw-beaver!teltone!tikal!kirk Kirkland, Wash. USA
"They told me I was gullible...and I believed them!"mls@wxlvax.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (06/04/85)
I have had a Rolli for over 20 years and feel I can make some comments about a TLR. First, it is not all that hard to use; you adapt to the left to right movement on the screen, just as you can compose on the screen of a view camera. The camera, which has a large negative, doesn't die. It has been through more sports events than I would like to remember (in fact, the camera and I were hit on the sidelines of a football game - I was black and blue the Rolli kept on ticking). It has been through trip in the bush on Land Rovers where the shocks were unknown. In all of this, the camera has needed repair only once. It has been serviced on a regular basis (every five years). Today it still performs as well as the day I got it. So, it you want a good camera with a large format that doesn't need babying, get a TLR. mike schneider
barad@brand.UUCP (06/06/85)
In article <981@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >While buying my weekly supply of photographic materials at the local photo >store yesterday, I saw a gentleman buying an unusual-looking camera. This >made me curious, so I also asked to see one of them; it was a "Yashica Mat >124-G" twin-lens reflex camera. I had seen these advertised before in the >catalogs, but since it said something like "good for student or professional >use," and since it was very low-priced, I always figured there wasn't much >to them. I have a Yashica Mat 124G camera and I have been using it for about 6 months now. I used to use a Minolta 35mm camera. With few exceptions (such as sporting events), I only use the Yashica now (or at least prefer it). It is amazing that you can spend only $135 (my price) and get better quality pictures than just about any 35mm can give you. The simple reason is that the negative is about 4 times the area. If you make an enlargement from a 6x6 (cm) negative, you will not have to enlarge it as much. You will be less likely to have grain problems. This characteristic is taken even further by a view camera. A view camera is too cumbersome for my usage, so I think that medium format is a good comprimise. Another reason for better image quality is that some films are made better as roll films than 35mm cartridge. For example, Tri-X have a much lower film base density for 120 roll film than 35mm; thus, you can get better blacks, etc. I highly reccomend the Yashica MAT 124G for anyone who is interested in medium format (and doesn't have megabucks for a Hasselblad...) -- Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] ...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!herb or ...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!brand!barad
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (06/11/85)
In principle, the 6x6 should offer more resolution than 35mm, but at least for color work, the sharpest films available are only made in 35mm (read Kodachrome 25). This probably has at least twice the resolution of Ektachrome 100. The 2 stop speed loss is compensated by the considerably faster optics of the 35mm format (f1.4 vs. f2.8). Therefore, I'd guess that in terms of resolution, the differences are probably small. For darkroom work, however, the 6x6 is better for contact prints and general handling. -r-
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/13/85)
> In principle, the 6x6 should offer more resolution than 35mm, but at least > for color work, the sharpest films available are only made in 35mm (read > Kodachrome 25). This probably has at least twice the resolution of > Ektachrome 100. The 2 stop speed loss is compensated by the considerably > faster optics of the 35mm format (f1.4 vs. f2.8). Let's have some hard figures here! Every week there are 2 or 3 testamonials from the Kodachrome 25 worshippers, who indignantly inform us heathens who make photographs on strange brown films that there is nothing better. (I even recall one contributor who cited the prophet Simon, who wisely observed that "Kodachrome...brings out the night's bright colors." This would not be too surprising to me, since my data sheet "Reciprocity Data for Kodak Films" indicates that Kodachrome should not be used for nighttime photography.) [While we're on the subject, though... the only film that Kodak DOES recommend for nighttime photography is not available in 35mm.] This makes it hard for me to distinguish Kodachrome 25 from other mysterious objects with "good" properties, such as BMWs. Now, I've seen the comparative photographs published by Kodak that indeed show that the Kodachrome resolution is not that bad. Personally, if I was going to use a color reversal film, I would probably use Kodachrome. But, they have ways of rating these films, some of them even specified by the ANSI. So... does anyone have the data sheets for Kodak color films? (I don't -- Kodak has been "out of stock" on them ever since I first became seriously interested in getting to the bottom of all this several months ago.) If you do have the data sheets, and want to contribute to getting some reasonable comparative facts together, mail to me the following information on the films you have data on: the resolution and the RMS granularity, D-min, the lux-seconds and density at which the characteristic curve becomes linear for each of the three color emulsions, and the approximate lux- seconds value at which the density reaches D-min.* I hope I won't get an unmanageable flood of mail, but I am curious about the properties of these alleged color films. Not just slide films; color negative films, including in particular VPS and VPL. (I wish I could get some comparative data on "color rendition," but alas, I don't know how to do that at present. Any suggestions?) ---------- *I'm referring here to the "toe" length; most negative films don't start to flatten out at the other end within the usable range: only slide films have that problem. PS - my apologies to the many people who have perfectly rational reasons for using Kodachrome 25. I just get annoyed when I see only inexact or irrational ones. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."