Graflex XL vs Mamiya Universal: experiences?

Thanks for the XL answers! I've checked out several places, including

here, concerning the mamiya universal. How would anybody compare these

cameras in terms of:

1. Lens quality - sharpness, specifically mamiya 75 & 127 and graflex

58 & 100 planar

2. shutter reliability

3. overall durability

4. overall quality

5. "relative" ease of use

Thanks.

The Mamiya 127 is a pretty ordinary lens - it won't be as good as the Graflex's Planar, and it also doesn't have brightframes in the finder. Its only purpose in life is that it covers the Polaroid format. A much better comparison would be to the Mamiya 100/2.8 (NOT the 3.5) which is a superb Planar clone. (but which doesn't come close to covering the Polaroid format.) The other standouts among the Mamiya lenses are the 75 and the 50. I'm not familiar with the Graflex 58, but it would take something pretty special for a lens of that era to beat either of these.

However the lens performs by itself, the Graflex backs have real film flatness problems; the Mamiya "M"" backs, while bulky/ungainly, are very flat, even by modern standards.

I don't believe the Graflex has depth of field scales on the lens, the Mamiya does.

Breaking the Mamiya requires a large hammer and considerable patience; The Graflex can suffer fatal damage falling even a short distance lens first.

To me, the Achilles heel of the Mamiya is that it's vulnerable to having the rangefinder vibrated out of adjustment. Every few car trips I have to check my adjustment, although if I wasn't shooting the 2.8 wide open it wouldn't be enough to matter - I've never had the point of actual focus get further than halfway to the wide-open depth-of-field marking on either my 65 or 150 (both very nice, but not quite Planar-wonderful).

FWIW if you don't have plans to shoot Polaroids, the Super 23 is a better camera than the Universal - it has back movements, and the finder is somewhat larger than the Universal's - it's the same magnification, but the Universal barely covers all possible positions of the 100 frameline, the Super covers quite a ways beyond. But avoid the Press Deluxe and Standard - They're the early models without the third window in front for brightlines. Their finders aren't remotely as good.

Roger -

Thanks! Very helpful. Too bad about the 127. I definitely plan on the 75. maybe I'll try to retro-fit a Symmar in a 127 focusing mount. I realize the graflex backs have film flatness problems. But do other, e.g. Horseman, rollfilm holders made for 4x5 graflock backs fit on the G back? Or is it strictly backs made for 2x3/6x9 cameras?

Andy

I don't believe 4 x 5 Graflex backs work in the 2 x 3 mount. What will apparently work, however, are early, non-interlocked (ie, not Pro or Pro SD) Mamiya RB backs. The later backs fit, but you have to have a repairman disable the interlocks.

The 127 isn't a bad lens, per se, it's just not as good as a Planar. It's equal to or better than probably 80% of the 2 x 3 lenses of the period, and compared to 3 x 4 lenses it looks even better.

I would like to ADD to the above!

I agree on the finder being liable to vibrate out of adjustment! The Koni Omega may not have this problem! The 100mm 3.5 is very sharp. I can't compare it to a 100mm 2.8, as I have no experience.

The film back on either the Mamiya Universal or Super 23 hugs the body with a thinner profile. This means your chin, nose, mouth are not uncomfortably banging against the film back. With the Graflex XLRF, the Graflox back sticks out more. The wind knob seems to be more "naturally" fit for the right hand than the graflox back of the Graphlex. The thumb just finds the level easier with the Mamiya. By the way the film backs on the Mamiya Universal fit on the old RB Mamiya's I am told.

Both cameras have holes which attract dirt. The Mamiya shutter can't be fixed with parts. They don't exist anymore. But used lenses are still cheap.

The finder in the Mamiya is simpler to view through; it only shows one mask at a time. The Graphlex overleafs its mask so you see three masks at the same time: confusing!

The finder in the Graphlex is about 1/2 stop brighter than the Mamiya.

The Mamiya Universal is the best choice over the Super 23 in regards to toughness. That moving back can become untightened with a big bang. That would through your focussing efforts off! The movable back, however is the cheapest view camera you'll find! It is great for small movements such as a group photo on roll film! Just alittle 1/8" movement will do it for a group of 40-60 people! Everyone will be sharp at f5.6!

The Graphlex has a very big Achilles Heel: The focusing tracking uses a plastic nib grooved into a slot on the lens barrel. If this breaks while you are mounting a lens, there is no way to fix it. There are no parts! The body becomes a disposable camera!

The Graphlex is light weight, it seems to weight about 2/3s of the Mamiya. The body is tough as the Mamiya's. The focussing handle makes it easy to focus. The Mamiya does not have this feature.

The only way to own a Graphlex XLRF is to never remove the lens. This way, you will probably never hurt the focusing nibs. The Mamiya does not have this problem.

My suggestion is to buy the Mamiya. I have owned both and used both. Buy extra lenses for the Mamiya as you wear them out. Each lens will give you about 30,000 clicks. Have it oiled, but you will wear out the lens. I am told a Compur 00 could be fitted in the Mamiya barrel. But why, since there are still so many lenses around.

The Mamiya, in Japanese fashion, solved many user problems of the Graphlex XLRF. Koni-Omega came along and made the system alittle faster and more foolproof than either. But the Mamiya has the Super 23 movable back. And that is a real plus.