Mamiya Super 23: Love at First Light

<p>Louis, I just got a reasonable Super 23 from Cameta Camera and the viewfinder is quite cloudy and I really want to have this baby get a good CLA before I play with it. I am wondering what's up with mine because it has a 90mm f3.5 lens on it (is this not a normal lens?) and I haven't figured out how to operate the Mamiya back that you slide a metal button to change from 6 x 4.5 to 6 x6. Where are you supposed to store the darkside once you take it out? My Mamiya 645 Pro seems like light years away from this simple basic machine.</p>

<p>If I can find a phone number for Clarence Gass, in Mission, Kansas, I will call him. If not, since I am in a suburb of Oklahoma City, a trip is not out of the question and probably would be best since that way Clarence can teach me a few things about this wonderful camera.</p>

<p>Bob E.</p>

Fantastic! A friend "gave" me a Super 23 a year or so ago, with 2 lenses, roll film back and ground glass. I was having a look at it yesterday with a view to loading some film and trying it so I Googled Mamiya Super 23 and came across this post. I do have a question and hope this thread is still active.

If I use the rear bellows to alter perspective/focus and use the ground glass and lupe to view the scene, lock everything in place then change the ground glass for the roll film back, will that also be in focus? To put it another way, does the film in the 120 back, occupy the same exact plane that the film would in a sheet film holder?

Many thanks for your original post Louis, I definitely have to use this camera now.

Fantastic! A friend "gave" me a Super 23 a year or so ago, with 2 lenses, roll film back and ground glass. I was having a look at it yesterday with a view to loading some film and trying it so I Googled Mamiya Super 23 and came across this post. I do have a question and hope this thread is still active.

If I use the rear bellows to alter perspective/focus and use the ground glass and lupe to view the scene, lock everything in place then change the ground glass for the roll film back, will that also be in focus? To put it another way, does the film in the 120 back, occupy the same exact plane that the film would in a sheet film holder?

Many thanks for your original post Louis, I definitely have to use this camera now.

Sorry for dead post above, the system timed out immediately for some reason the first time I tried to reply.

If I use the rear bellows to alter perspective/focus and use the ground glass and lupe to view the scene, lock everything in place then change the ground glass for the roll film back, will that also be in focus? To put it another way, does the film in the 120 back, occupy the same exact plane that the film would in a sheet film holder?

Yes, both roll film and sheet film should be in the same focus plane.

BUT: the big "gotcha" with the Press cameras is their horribly-designed, oft-dysfunctional M film back release latches. In many bodies. the latches are stiff and uncooperative, and the corresponding lip of the back is recalcitrant at fitting easily. This is annoying enough on the Press Universal which lacks movements, on the Super 23 it can impair the utility of the movements. By the time you finish cajoling the roll film back onto the camera, the movements you preset may have been knocked off a little. Depending on subject distance (and strength of the aging bellows friction locks) this may or may not be significant.

Of course, if your particular Super 23 latches and film backs mate "like butter", you will not encounter this issue. In my case, experience with four Universal bodies and six backs has led me to purchase extra M back mount plates: its much quicker/easier to release/reattach the entire mount with the back than to release/reattach the back to the M mount. Unfortunately one cannot do this with the Super 23, which has the M mount plate permanently affixed to the bellows.

Orsetto,

Thank you for your reply. I think this camera has had very little use and one thing I did like was how easily the backs were to fit/remove. It won’t be a regular user but as it’s in the collection, I feel I must produce at least one decent photograph from it. The next couple weeks should give me a few hours to try it. If results are ok I may post a couple.

Thanks again,

Jim.

Wow wow wow! I've been thinking for some while about a "bigger" camera system. I recently wanted a 6X9 of some sort and after going over many options, wound up with a 1930s Voigtlander folding Bessa. After shooting only a couple rolls of film so far, I'll say it has its ups and downs, well OK it might be just me.

The Original poster clearly has (had?) quite a lot of skill, I see this was in 2010- so a fair bit of water under the ol bridge between now and then. Hope Mr Louis is still alive and well, and sure as heck hope he still has that awesome camera system! His images are/were amazing to say the least!

[uSER=3936535]@jim_gardner|4[/uSER] I hope you enjoy your Mamiya press camera. PLEASE show us some photos you take with it.

Cheers to all!

Wow wow wow! I've been thinking for some while about a "bigger" camera system. I recently wanted a 6X9 of some sort and after going over many options, wound up with a 1930s Voigtlander folding Bessa. After shooting only a couple rolls of film so far, I'll say it has its ups and downs, well OK it might be just me.

 

The Original poster clearly has (had?) quite a lot of skill, I see this was in 2010- so a fair bit of water under the ol bridge between now and then. Hope Mr Louis is still alive and well, and sure as heck hope he still has that awesome camera system! His images are/were amazing to say the least!

 

[uSER=3936535]@jim_gardner|4[/uSER] I hope you enjoy your Mamiya press camera. PLEASE show us some photos you take with it.

 

Cheers to all!

Yes, I'm still here and shooting. The camera system is in storage and doing well. I only shoot digital now. Glad to see folks still using these old cameras. Fun stuff!

Orsetto,

Thank you for your reply. I think this camera has had very little use and one thing I did like was how easily the backs were to fit/remove

Just a bit if information about light seals, not necessarily applying to your camera but worth checking after you get some films developed ...

The ease or difficulty of attaching the backs to the Super 23 can depend on the thickness of their light seals. With worn or thin light seals, there will be no problems turning the locking latches to lock the back in place. But if a previous owner has replaced the light seals with a thicker material, the latches will be harder to turn, if they even get past the edge of the recess in the back for the latch to start turning into the locking position.

The thickness and compressibility of the light seal material is important, there's a fine line between achieving relative ease of turning the locking latches, and preventing light leaks. From my experience of replacing the light seals on the 23 back, a soft spongy seal does the job better than a tougher closed cell seal. To check the thickness needed, a few small pieces of Playdough placed in the light seal groove (after scraping out the worn seal) will give an accurate thickness of the space between the back and body, but then of course, another 1mm must be added to that derived Playdough thickness to arrive at the correct thickness for the soft spongy rubber seal.

The seal material should not be too porous, like that self sticking door seal bought at a hardware store is. It must be "closed" cell enough to prevent gradual fogging of the film, but spongy enough to allow easy compressibility and locking of the latches.

The ease or difficulty of attaching the backs to the Super 23 can depend on the thickness of their light seals. With worn or thin light seals, there will be no problems turning the locking latches to lock the back in place. But if a previous owner has replaced the light seals with a thicker material, the latches will be harder to turn,

Interesting! This is something I'd never thought to check (if I don't experience leaks, I don't normally examine seals very closely). Although in my particular case, its more a question of not being able to get the bottom lip of the back to move past the M frame edge to clear the two latches at all (I struggle quite some time until the back edge stops fouling on the M plate edge and fits into place properly). A lot of Press users seem to have trouble with this seemingly simple act of fitting the film back into the M plate recess, its very fussy.

Once snapped into place, I can totally see your point that overly-aggressive foam seals could push the lip of the back upwards past where the C latches can turn over it. Will definitely file that for future reference: now that I've had a close look, the seals on two of my backs show enough wear that they should be replaced fairly soon.

Although in my particular case, its more a question of not being able to get the bottom lip of the back to move past the M frame edge to clear the two latches at all (I struggle quite some time until the back edge stops fouling on the M plate edge and fits into place properly). A lot of Press users seem to have trouble with this seemingly simple act of fitting the film back into the M plate recess, its very fussy.

I only told half the story - now move to the top of the film back. Seals that are too thick will also prevent the top lip of the back from sliding easily and properly into place in it's mating recess. The two elliptical spring tensioners in that recess are positioned horizontally, and with thick seals, the back has a hard time getting past them. Mr Logic says the springs should have been vertical so the top lip of the back will have no trouble sliding past them, akin to a car driving up ramps - try driving a car up ramps when the ramps are placed sideways to the wheels.

A previous owner ground those two spring tensioners off my Super 23. I never knew about it until I noticed excessive play at the top of the back. I glued a piece of cable tie the correct thickness and cut to length, inside the recess. Surprisingly, it does a far better job than the original spring tensioners. The cable tie is very slightly rounded and smooth which allows the back to slide in without getting hooked up.

A seal that is too thick will prevent the back from easily sliding under these two tensioners and they could even get damaged if strong arm tactics are applied to get the back in. There is no alternative but to have spongy seals the correct thickness. Seal kits are available on Ebay, but I'm always wary unless I know for sure that they are made to factory specs. However, if there's no complaints about them, they're probably ok.

Once again, kmac, you opened my eyes to something that should have been obvious but wasn't (to me). :)

With your description and photo, I now see whats been tripping me up the entire time I've owned a Mamiya Press system: those damned poorly-positioned leaf springs in the top channel of the M mount plate! o_O Each and every time I try to swap to a fresh film back, its upper lip fouls on those stupidly horizontal springs, preventing the lower edge from correctly fitting into the recess. I agree: those springs would have made far more sense if positioned so the back slides under them, instead of against their bowed edge where it tends to snag and not slide fully under.

Because of your post illustrating this nonsensical spring position, I've discovered that I can easily/quickly make the film backs fit properly if I do it with the camera upside down! The difficulty was in trying vainly to tilt the top edge up into the spring lip with the camera sitting on its base: when turned on its head, you're tipping the problem edge down into the spring recess with the help of gravity and a better approach angle. Annoying and counter-intuitive, but so much easier to clear the springs!

Many thanks: I'll be using my Press Universal kit more often now! ;)

I've discovered that I can easily/quickly make the film backs fit properly if I do it with the camera upside down!

Glad you're having more luck with it now.

There's nothing wrong with tipping the camera up-side down - whatever is easiest to get the back in and locked. Sounds like a good idea to me because as you say, gravity would help. It would help keep the back steady and more manageable while it's being maneuvered into position.