Koni Omega Rapid as compared to a Yashica Mat 124G

I am interested in comparing a Koni Omega Rapid with a 90mm lens to

the Yashica Mat 124G with the fixed 80mm lens. I know that the KO is

6x7 and is a rangefinder and the YashicaMat 124G is a 6x6 TLR. I

have used my YMat 124G for a good while now and love the results but

it seems that the KO is an inexpensive way to get into MF with the

possibility of changing lens (58/60mm, 135mm and 180mm) where the

YMat 124G is fixed at 80mm unless you use the converters.

 

How do the cameras compare as far as the quality of optics? The YMat

is great but everything I read on the KO is great as well and you get

6x7 and interchangeable lens at a super price. I am interested in

the opionions of others who have shot and used these cameras.

I should tell you that I shoot my Nikon F5 and F100 about 90% of the time for my photojournalism. I shoot the YMat 124G for fun and when I shot some advanced art students they loved the square format of the YMat 124G. The first images I have seen from a borrowed KO are good but it takes a little time to master that funky RF and film advance. My purpose for the camera would be sheer fun and total enjoyment as neither camera works well on the sidelines of a football game, my major love and use.

Jimmy,

 

After doing a reasonable amount of research, I picked up an old Koni Omega Rapid last year as an inexpensive way to get into MF after 40+ years of using only 35 mm cameras. I have no regrets about the choice of camera. In my opinion, the lenses are quite sharp, and the lack of mirror slap helps maximize the image quality. The camera is built like a tank and gives every appearance of lasting forever. The film advance may seem strange, but I have found that I had no problem adjusting to it, and it really is a "Rapid" means of advancing MF film if you need that capability.

 

Personally, I use the Koni for landscape photography, but I think that you would find it suitable for sideline photography even without the "sports viewfinder" that is available for it.

 

With best wishes,

- Tom -

I've owned both over the years and also had a Yashica D as my very first MF camera. It was purchased used in the mid-seventies for about $30! The Yashicas are capable of surprisingly good results. I was recently looking over a friend's wedding pix from back then, done with the D and it was still gratifying to see the decent results. I had used umbrella lighting and the processing was spot on so it probably had wrung everything the old TLR had in it.

 

I can only say good things about the KO system. They are very fast functioning and got great candids for me. I currently own Fuji RF's and quite a complete P67 system that both have well-regarded optics and I'm quite certain that the Hexanons are really just as capable, optically. Any foray into reasonable quality MF equipment will give you much satisfaction in attainable quality. Try a TLR and see if the reverse image finder would work for you.... if not, perhaps the KO would be an easier adjustment. Also, consider Autocords and perhaps the MXV series of Rolleis.... you'll need to search for any real criticism of their optics and they're more enjoyable mechanically than the Yashica's, too.

I have both a 124G and a Rapid Omega 200. It's as hard to compare one to the other as to compare a horse to a roller coaster. Each has its list of strengths, but I feel the RO has a much longer list.

 

The 124G is lighter and delivers 12 shots per roll vs. 10 on the RO. Its 12 6x6 shots will contact print onto 8x10 paper, while the 10 6x7 shots of the RO will not. And the 124G has a meter, however limited its usefulness.

 

The RO has superb lenses (but your 124G is no slouch so long as you limit your shooting to f/8 or f/11). The RO 200 and M models have film magazines that let you change film in mid-roll. The rangefinder is *much* easier to focus in dim light, and at least as easy as the TLR in bright light. A subtle point here is that its focusing scale is very visible. You can speed up focusing by estimating the distance to your subject, then quickly setting that estimation on the focusing scale. When you put the camera to your eye, the focus will be quite close, requiring only a quick tweak to get it dead on. The RO was ergonomic before that became a word. The film advance quickly becomes second nature, and you will then consider it truly funky to have to swing a big lever in a circle to get to the next frame. Funkier yet is the left-right image reversal of the TLR, a phenomenon unknown to RF cameras. If you like to print square, you can crop a 6x7 to 6x6, but if you like rectangular, you can't crop a 6x6 to 6x7; your cropped 6x6 is effectively only about a 6x4.5 image. Finally, the RO is built much more solidly than any TLR with the possible exception of the Mamiya C33.

 

Neither camera is great at focusing close. Both are marked with a minimum distance of 3.5 feet, but my impromptu tests show that the RO can crop just a bit tighter.

 

A decent 124G goes for about $175-$200, and an RO 200 goes for maybe $50 more. My 124G is for sale, but not my RO 200!

I own both cameras, the KO gets a lot more use than the Yashica. Why? I like the 6x7 format and I have a grip for the KO which makes it easier to carry even though the KO is MUCH heavier than the Yashica. Also, because the KO is built like a tank, I don't worry about banging it around. Another point is eye-level versus waist level focusing, which do you prefer? Eye-level focusing makes the KO easier for me to use even though I occasionally forget that it is a rangefinder and I forget to focus! I have the 60mm wide angle and while it is very sharp, it is a bit wide for my taste. Buy both and experiment!

I love the answers so far. I have been using the KO more lately and am adjusting to its quirks. I even bought a Rapid Omega 200 and a 180mm lens to go with my KO Rapid. I love the look I am getting from the KO and the 6x7 format. I am really excited about using the 180mm.

 

My only real problem with the KO has been in a very bright situation. I was shooting up into a bunch of wisteria trying to focus. I had gotten the right exposure via a spot meter reading but when I tried to focus on the blue wisteria, the bright background overwhelmed me. I just could not find the focus. Is there a way to handle that with a RF like the KO?

 

My Nikon F5 and F100 handled the focusing like a champ, both on AF and manual focus. I am trying to learn how to use the KO so please do not blast me for such a simple question.

Quirks? What quirks, Jimmy? I think the RO and KO represent what should be the norm, and most other cameras are quirky to one degree or another! Now, the KOs and ROs are butt-ugly, which some confuse with quirky. [:-)

 

Seriously, the RO is a joy to use. Now tell me if I'm wrong, but I�ll bet the very first time you picked one up and held it with both hands (it's so heavy, you have to use both hands), your left hand slid comfortably into the grip, your left index finger found the release button without even trying, your right thumb and index finger went straightaway to the focus knob, and your palm couldn't help but rest right against the advance lever, just waiting for your little finger to grasp it to advance the film. And from there, without moving your hands, your two middle fingers could easily set the shutter speed and aperture.

 

There's a very long list of quirky cameras out there that don't fit the hands nearly so well. For a mild example, I've used my slightly quirky but beloved Olympus cameras since 1976, and still cannot find their stupidly-placed shutter rings in a dark room!

 

Regarding your other question, I don't know a wisteria from a germanium [sic]. Well Ok, wisterias are typically blue-purple and look like clumps of grapes, but I don't know your shooting distance, lighting contrast level, etc.

 

Still, I have some comments that may be of help. First (as I mentioned before), get into the habit of estimating the subject distance and cranking that estimation into the focus knob of your RO before you raise it to your eye. Its coincident rangefinder is easiest to use when the two images are already close together, much more difficult when not.

 

Second, the aging optics of your RO and KO rangefinders may need cleaning. Grime, smoke and haze over their years may have lowered their contrast enough to hinder focusing. You should be able to take care of that yourself, but if you prefer not to pop their tops, have them cleaned professionally.

 

This next is slightly more personal, but I write it for the potential benefit of anyone to whom it may apply. If you have been alive 40 years or more, your vision may be losing just enough of its edge to cause you focusing problems. My Olympus OM-4T has a built-in diopter adjustment, and my RB67 has a +1.75 correction lens plugged into its eyepiece, but I have to remember to wear reading glasses when using my RO or any of my other cameras. With my Yashica 124G, even with its magnifier lens popped up, I *can not* focus it properly without other correction.

 

I�m saying that though the acuity of your vision may still be good enough to read a newspaper, it may be off just enough to cause subtle problems when focusing a camera. When I first had that problem with my OM-2, I thought it was because I had bent its body when I landed directly on top of it as I took a bad fall while skiing. I even sent it to Olympus specifically to have its focusing checked, and was puzzled when they said it was focusing just fine. I�m not particularly vain, but at that time in life, maybe 40-42, I had no clue that my vision was anything less than perfect.

 

This may sound both stupid and unbelievable, but I continued to shoot slightly out of focus photos with that camera for several more years, until I finally realized that just a half diopter of optical correction made everything right again. Hindsight is always 20-20, while foresight is a bit more fuzzy!

 

If you already wear eye correction for presbyopia (medical jargon for �old people can�t see�), try about 0.5 diopter less when focusing your cameras. For example, if your reading glasses are 1.75 diopters, try 1.25 diopters for focusing. The reason for the reduced correction is that reading requires focusing the eyes to 12" to 18" or so, while the average camera viewfinder requires the eyes to focus only down to about 3' to 5'.

I did get a Koni Omega Rapid and Rapid Omega 200 with the 90mm and a 180mm lens. So far my results are varied but good. Here is a short sample of my findings with the KO Rapid and RO 200:

 

1) The 90mm lens is awesome! I love the results I am seeing and have nothing negative to say. 2) The 180mm lens is extremely sharp and the results are good. However, this beast is hard to focus and it will not focus closer that 12-13 FEET! This really makes the lens of limited use to me, but when I do use it, the results are good. 3) The 6x7 format has its strength, but I just like the 6x6 system on the YashicaMat 124G and my Kiev 60 better. I know lots of people hate the square but it easier for me to use. 4) The KO Rapid and RO 200 both are easy to load and advance film. You do have a little worry about frame spacing but it is not excessive. With my Kiev 60 I have to make a few adjustments to insure proper frame spacing.

 

I have enjoyed the answers and thanks for all your help. Any further answers can be posted for later use.