Mamiya C3 vs. C33 vs. C330

I apologize in advance if this issue has been covered already. I thought it would have been but I couldn't find the info when I searched.<p>

 

I am considering picking up a used TLR. At first I was going to get a Yashicamat 124G for its low price, but I decided the lack of a wide or tele lens would be too limiting. So now I'm considering the Mamiya TLRs.<p>

 

I noticed there is a big difference in price between the C3, C33, and C330. I'm wondering what the differences are. If it's simply the lack (or addition) of a light meter, I'm not concerned -- I'm willing to meter seperately with meters I already have. I would assume, however, that there are other differences.<p>

 

Also, any suggestions for a reasonably cheap, reasonably sharp wide lens would be appreciated. (I'll probably just start with the wide lens, then pick up a normal and a tele if I decide I like shooting with the TLR.)<p>

 

Thanks in advance for any advice offered.

Whoops... I should also ask about the 2- series TLRs as well (C220, for example). Thanks again.

Graham Patterson has a great Mamiya TLR system summary at URL:

www.reading.ac.uk/~slspatte/ which will tell you everything you need to know about all the models of the Mamiya TRL system. You might also try Mamyia's web page; I believe there's information there also.

 

<p>

 

As far as wide lenses go, there is a 65mm and a 55mm; both are good. Avoid the older chrome lenses as repair parts are no longer available for them.

 

<p>

 

The Mamiya TRL is a great system: inexpensive, but produces high quality images. If you find you like shooting with the TLR, you'll love the Mamiya.

My Mamiya pages are actually located at www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/ which may be quicker than going via the link on the Reading server. There are several references to Mamiya resources in the document, both electronic and 'conventional'.

Hallo Russ,

 

<p>

 

Tje Mamiya TLR is a fine camera. In comparison with the Rolleiflex and the Yashica 124 it 's a bit bulky. Some find it not very easy to handle. You did not say which kind of photography you plan to undertake with the Mamiya. Landscapes with a tripod? Fine! Easy handling might not be a consideration. In that case go for the Mamiya with interchangeble lenses. Otherwise you will find a Rollei of Yashica more easy to handle. In that case you will have to forget about wide-angle and telelenses. Unless you happen to be very rich and can afford the Wide-angle Rolleflex and Tele-Rolleiflex.

I have a Yashica 124-G and a Mamiya C-330 and a C220. I would argue that a Yashica or a Rollei is easier to use than a Mamiya. I find waist level viewing clumsy and I have no trouble with my prism finder on my Mamiya. I also find focusing with my right hand convient to the shutter release and you don't have to change hands from focusing grip to winding grip when hand holding the camera. If you plan on using a flash holder like a stroboframe the Mamiya is much more convient on film changing since the back opens from the top instead of the entire back hinging up. I must confess that I do weddings and I am sure that this gives me a strong bias towards the Mamiya. My only complaint with the Yashica is the meter is not very accurate and I do wish it had a prism.

 

<p>

 

JM

The question of what is the difference between the C3, C33 and C330 was not answered. I have a C33. What is the difference between the three. Also my C33 needs to be repaired. Does anyone know of a reliable repair shop?

Thanks, Rick

Dear Rick, go to the above quoted link to acess G.Patterson's webpages. There is really not much more to say about it.

 

<p>

 

Concerning the repair, I think, Mamiya still services it, at least they do for the newer versions. They have a nice internet service

http://www.mamiya.com.

My question is as Russ's. I did go and check out G. Patterson's webpage and it's great. However, specifications on these cameras don't tell me much about how these cameras compare in practical terms. If anyone has knowledge/experience in this area please email me on Vivian@mypostbox.com or post the advice on this board. Thank you very much.

I used a 124G for a couple of years and really liked shooting with it. It was light, easy to use, and had reasonable image quality. Recently I bought a C33, and the difference is notable. The C33 offers multiple exposures, optional backs, an optional parallax-compensation device and feels more solid. Because it's a bellows-focusing camera, close-up pictures are also much more straightfoward (with parallax and exposure compensation). I find it to be much more of a pro camera. As an earlier post stated, it's definitley a tripod camera. Mine perches atop a Bogen Geared Head, and I am in love with the setup. As for the differences in 3/33/330, as far as I know, they are mostly functional. The 33 cocks the shutter for you, dosn't allow shutter release under certian boneheaded circumstances, and more. I think the C3 lacks some of that. The 330, from my limited understanding, incorporates more plastic in the camera structure, so is a bit lighter.

 

Hope This Helps

I have a C33, and was looking at getting a C330 before the great C33 + lots deal turned up, so I can answer that bit: The C330 includes focus scales on the body for the 55, 65 and 250 mm lenses. I don't use them, so that didn't bother me. (The C33 covers the 80, 105, 135 and 180 focus scales).

 

However, the C330 also has the right gearing / cams / whatever to correctly position the "parralax warning mark" for the 55, 65 and 250 lenses, which the C33 doesn't (again, it covers 80 - 180). This thing is a useful line that appears in your viewfinder that shows you where the top of the frame will be when using (moderately) close focus.

 

The paralax / crop line is quite useful if you're using the camera handheld, or if you don't have a paramender (or the time to use it, I have one, and find it fiddly).

 

As for lenses, most reports say they're all very good, except the 250, which may be a bit soft, or failing that just very hard to focus. The 180 Super is also better than the original 180.

A few things: I use 2 C330's (a standard and an 'f') and a 220. Yes, they are

heavy, but perfectly useable handheld - indeed, the weight can act as a

stabilizer at slow shutter speeds. I only use mine handheld, using existing

light (check out http://www.markpringle.net/photo/portraits/ for examples -

nearly all taken with a C330).

 

I find the paralax guide utterly useless and ignore it entirely, especially when

shooting at less than a metre from the subject using the standard 80mm lens.

 

The film advance on these cameras can be dodgy - variable spaces between

frames etc.

 

I also own a nice Rolleiflex which is mechanically far nicer than the C330, has

better optics but a much dimmer viewfinder and I can't get anything like close

enough to the subject.

 

And if you break your C330 you can usually score another one for around

?120 (sterling) on eBay. Wonderful things.

C3 vs. C33 vs. C330; this is one of lifes mysterys!<BR><BR>The C3 Kit here of mine has a 120 back; a 220 back; a single exposure back for sheet film or glass or plates. It has a chrome 105mm and 180mm lenses; the ones folks said 2 decades ago that had no parts to fix them; IF they broke. Since I got my used kit cheap 1/4 century ago; the worry about "the chrome lens problem" is abit of a joke; since they work well. I alway hear or read stuff about the C33 or C330; than mine doesnt have; but it does; so take each person coments with abit of "Missouri show me" ; to really prove it. The C3 is a heavy rig; the porro meter I have too reads down to 1/2 at F4 at asa 400; it uses A76 batteries.