The Seagull 4A

<p><p >I bought the Seagull at a local village garage sale last Summer for 25GBP, in mint condition with the original instructions. It has a nice bright viewing screen with split image focusing aid (made by Minolta?) and I was surprised to find it also had the Rollei style moving mask system for parallax correction. I’m not sure whether the taking lens is 3 or 4 element.</p><div></div>

<p >Wrong picture! This was taken at Kirby Muxloe Castle, near Leicester, UK, when I got around to putting a Tmax 400 film through it a few weeks ago. After the first 3 frames or so I noticed the winding handle going past the stop position without locking. This happened a few times and I ended up with seven usable images on the roll, with blank spaces in between.</p><div></div>

<p>Another one from Kirby Muxloe Castle.</p><div></div>

<p>The Ship Inn</p><div></div>

<p>The Statue of Liberty and Summit Building</p><div></div>

<p>The River Soar in Leicester</p><div></div>

<p>Last one - feeding the birds.</p>

<p >I ran a scrap film through it, and it was missing the stops every time. The winding mechanism on these cameras has a poor reputation, and mine was apparently no exception. I took the side off and found lots of stamped out metal gears, levers etc with nothing obviously wrong, it just didn’t seem to be up to the job. Even if I could get it fixed (probably costing twice what I paid for the camera) I guess it would soon fail again.</p>

<p >So – I decided to cut my losses. I took out the bright screen and after trimming it down slightly, installed it in my MPP Microcord whoch only had a dim ground glass screen before. And my Ricohflex has acquired a perfectly fitting lens cap, whilst the Seagull has been relegated to ther dead camera box. Heigh-ho, thanks for looking.</p>

<p>The picture. Seagulls, even!</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, having conceived of the Seagull as a sort of Chinese Lubitel, I had no idea how nice the results would be.</p>

<p>"It must be a really swell camera since the photos are so nice." ;)</p>

<p>The photos are excellent. I had a mint Seagull something-or-other a few years ago. I think it had similar problems. Nice work though.</p>

<p>Ten years ago I bought a Seagull, because it was cheap, for my son to use. I shot a couple of rolls of film in it myself. The view hood folding magnifier soon fell apart. The lenses are a 3-element design, I think, and fairly okay optically if stopped down a bit. John, your pictures bear that out, they look quite good. I understand your final disposition of the camera, it's the best you could do with it in the long run. One more thing, for as poorly made as they are, the presentation box looked very luxurious with plenty of attractive dark blue silky satin cloth and a nice fitting and sturdy two part box. Too bad the camera wasn't built as well as the box. </p>

<p>The pictures are sharp; that is what matters, I think. Enjoy the camera. sp.</p>

<p>Was there no way to punch a hole in the middle of the back and go old school frame counter? As has been said, your pictures are great. Nothing wrong with the lens.</p>

Great results from the Seagull. I think the top of the line model had a 4 element lens, IIRC. But your results show that 3

elements can work very well.

<p>Thanks for the comments - yes, Rob, I did consider trying to fit a red window and I think the winding mechanism would have cocked the shutter OK, but I've got much better options so I decided to use the screen in the Microcord instead. Its a shame as the Seagull is quite a well featured camera, on paper streets ahead of the Lubitel, but there it is.</p>

Well I 'll join the chorus. The pics are great! I have respect for decisive decisions..... I'm the wort! SO I hope that bright finder is a boon to making more pictures wit hthe Microcord and the lenses on that Richoflex won't get scratched or dirty! Oh and how fitting; photos of Seagulls by a Seagull . I too remember seeing they offered both 3 and 4 element versions. One of my friends, a neighbor has one . I suspect one of these years he'll offer it to me as it'S just gathering dust. Maybe he thought I'd offer to buy it... umm well I have plenty of working TLRs.. soooo

<p>IIRC, the top model Seagull TLR had rotary shutter and aperture knobs similar to some Rolleiflex models and the Yashicamat 124G. Interesting idea about adapting the focusing screen from a Seagull to another TLR. My Yashica D could use one. Maybe I should start looking for a Seagull. ;)</p>

<p>The Seagull's screen was bigger than the Microcord's, so I had to trim it - by scoring it as deeply as possible with a craft knife, then breaking off the excess bits with pliers. It left jagged edges which I had to file down - luckily without damaging the surface.</p>

nice photos

My SEAGULL 4B-1 TLR has two red windows at the back

one for 6x6, one for 4.5x6

The 4B is to the 4A what the Rolleicord is to the Rolleiflex: fewer features for less money.

And less things to go wrong.

I've never owned or used a Seagull 4A so I can't share any experiences with anything going wrong. As a long time reader of photography magazines I remember reading reports on the Seagull branded cameras. IIRC (those more knowledgeable than me please correct) at introduction they were budget priced. By then I think the Yashicamat 124G was out of production so used ones or NOS were fetching premium prices. I do realize this is an eight year old thread, but still interesting to me. One more thing- I believe the later Seagull TLRs have bright focusing screens (maybe even with a split image focusing aid)?

I don't think I'd buy one since I have a Rolleicord III and Yashica D.

Mike, the 4A screen is pretty bright and it does have a split image focusing aid, I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the screen was made by Minolta. As I stated, I re-fitted mine into an MPP Microcord, making the view much brighter and more usable than that with the original plain ground glass.