Yashicamat Mat-124G - The Gold Standard

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I have been on a mission lately to sort out some of my gear and to revisit cameras I own that I haven't used much. This Yashicamat Mat-124G falls into that category. Yashicamat's have been around a long time and produced, in various flavors, from 1957 until 1986. Basically a Rollei twin lens reflex copy, they are fairly common and inexpensive. The Mat-124G was the final model made from 1970 until 1986. Mine is an early 1980's Mat. Using a sliding pressure plate, the Mat-124G uses both 120 and 220 film. The “G” stands for gold as in gold coated contacts on the on-board, coupled CdS metering system. While this Yashicamat does not have the smooth-as-glass precise feel of a Rolleiflex or the shear tank-like ruggedness of a Mamiya 330 or Kalloflex, it does represent a solid, entry-level, fixed-lens medium format platform. </p>

<div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>What impressed me most about this example was, besides it's good condition and cool all-black looks, was its relatively light weight. I've been moving away from heavy cameras the last few years. While the TLR form factor is not the most ergonomic, it certainly is eye-catching and walking around with this has stimulated more than one conversation from young and old alike. While some users have reported wind problems in these later Mat's, mine works well. It did lock up on one frame, on my very first roll, but moving the wind lever back to the end and forward again freed it and it has been reliable ever since with good film spacing.</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The multi-coated, Yashinon 80mm f/3.5 lens is of good quality and my understanding is this Tessar type lens was sourced from the Tomioka Optical Company. The Copal SV leaf shutter provides quiet exposures and flash sync from 1-1/500 of a second. The lens takes standard Bay 1 accessories.</p>

<p>Here are a few images from this camera on Fuji 160 pro S and 400 film and scanned on an Epson V750 scanner.</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#1 </p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#2</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#3</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#4</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#5</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#6</p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#7</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Looks new, Louis. We sold a few of those when my family owned a camera shop. My dad kept the last one after we closed in 1993 and he gave it to my oldest son (who is now 22). I have the simpler and older Yashica D (with the triplet Yashicor lens). <br /> When TLR Yashicas started showing up for photo magazine ads in the late 50's it was pretty obvious that they were competing with Rollei, although in that day you couldn't actually call your competitor by name. A memorable ad shows a man shopping for a TLR "in the $150 class" as a Christmas gift. The ad copy suggests for the same money he could buy a Yashica and treat himself to one at the same time.<br>

And, nice work, Louis. I've found when I use my Yashica D, Rolleicord III, or Yashica 44A, that I take my time since the design doesn't lend itself to fast shooting, but that's a good thing since there's only 12 exposures per roll.<br>

Thanks for posting.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>#8</p>

<p>I have to admit this is a fun camera to shoot. It meets my most basic camera requirements. A simple device that holds the film flat and transports it through the camera with precision, has a good lens/shutter, and is easy to accurately focus. The meter was reasonably accurate (½ stop under) and one test roll had the film, meter and scanner all dialed in. The camera is light enough to be easy on the neck and the lens delivered very good results from f/5.6 onward. It is relatively common and inexpensive so no fear in dinging up a valuable collectable. Overall, a good shooting experience with quality medium format results.</p>

<p>Thanks for looking!</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>Very nice. When I had a 124 (not the Gold version), I replaced the fresnel finder with one from Rick Oleson with a rf split surrounded by a circle of microprisms, and from then on my shots were tack sharp. Your choice of subjects does a great job of showing the capabilities of that fine camera coupled with a discerning eye. Thanks for sharing.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I agree Louis, it is a great camera and at a high Q-P ratio. You seem to have found a mint example. I once had the ordinary 124 model and appreciated its quality, although as a high school student of the time, I didn't quite get photos of a quality like yours! I did however produce with it all the portraits for our school yearbook, thanks to a strike then of our teachers regarding extra curricular activities, one of whom, Mr. Wolff, was school photographer.</p>

<p>It also shows that from the purely functional/cosmetic angle the 124 G is as fine a product of high graphic design as is a Leica M4-2 or MP or Hasselblad or Rolleiflex. The Yashinon Tessar is often considered less performing than the more complex lenses, but I think that closed down (f4 or f5.6?) it must be close to the best and in any case 120 optics are often used closed down for adequate depth of field.</p>

<p>In your last image, did you use a paramender or something similar on a tripod to avoid parallax error of view, or do you correct for that by personal experience / estimating actual field of view?</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Hi Arthur: I used a tripod on all the shots. Except for the shot of the Tiffany Rotunda at the Chicago Cultural Center where I placed the camera directly on the floor. One advantage of a boxy body I suppose. The garden bench shot I did compensate for parallex by eye.</p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Louis,<br>

Congratulations for your pictures, using front/back depth of field and lighting ratio effectively. I have a trivial side question: what is your setup for taking pictures of cameras? (also very nice)<br>

B.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Very nice Louis. I've had one or two of these and put many rolls of film through them. The TLR isn't my best configuration but these old Yashicamats as we called them covered many a news event and wedding. Good find and very nice work.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Hi Bernard: I use many different basic studio set ups to shoot cameras like <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00alE8">HERE </a>or <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00TLFY">HERE</a>. Sometimes I use a "natural light" location Like <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00S4XM">HERE</a> or <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00XHsX">HERE</a>. When I'm pressed for time or feeling lazy, which is most times, I shoot cameras, like the one above, in my wife's eBay tent set up which is a small, white, rip-stop nylon booth/cube. The set is lit with two daylight balanced curly florescent tubes in ancient Smith-Victor orange A100 lamp heads. She uses an equally ancient Canon 300D camera with standard kit zoom lens. It does a decent job.</p>

<p>A couple of tips to get better shots from this inexpensive set up are, use clean white paper background instead of the nylon ones that come with the booth-looks cleaner. Set a custom white balance in your camera using a neutral gray card. I put one light on top of the cube and one near the front opening to get some harder, but still soft direct light into the recesses. A couple of silver cards help do the same for the sides. When processing images, set histogram end points for a rich black and bright highlights, then open the mid-tones up slightly to make black leather show detail better. </p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Louis,<br>

Thank you for the examples and the info on lighting. And the reminder of the effectiveness of dark shiny material for the base. But what prompted my question was the striking depth of field of your camera pics. So (I should have been more specific to start with), what typical combination of sensor size, focal length, and f-stop do you use? I would guess that to achieve large depth of field on a small object, a small sensor is an advantage. Of course, all things equal, a good macro lens helps.<br>

B.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Beautiful example. I cut my teeth on a pre-G 124, borrowed from our Y's camera club in the late 1960s. Still have a photo of myself with that camera, taken by a friend with his new Spotmatic. I'm guessing we were both all of 12 or 13 years old at the time. It was my first experience with an adjustable medium format camera, a huge step up from the Brownie and other box cameras I'd received as gifts since age 8.</p>

<p>To this day I still have a soft spot for square format and often see that way unconsciously when shooting digital. I'm surprised by how often I didn't even notice the stuff beyond the square that I see only in my mind - even when the digicam is a fixed 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio without any frame guidelines. My Fuji X-A1 has a 1:1 square format option (but the raw records full 3:2 aspect ratio, good for backups), and with the tilt-up rear LCD it offers a kinda-sorta TLR-ish experience.</p>

<p>Around 2001 I was looking for a 124G, and found one at a camera show. But the seller talked me out of it, and into a much better Rolleiflex 2.8C for not much more money. The Rollei had a very slight and inconsequential thumbprint impression in the coating of the taking lens, that had no effect on photos but made the selling price much closer to my budget. Great camera, still kicking myself for selling that Rollei. On the other hand, the Yashicas had brighter, crisper viewfinders than the standard Rolleiflex screen. That doggone 2.8C viewfinder was so heavily vignetted in the corners it was like looking at an old silent movie.</p>

<p>My Yashica lust was unabated, so I bought a 635 from a fellow photo.netter in 2002 and still have it. Not quite as convenient as the Rolleiflex or 124/G, due to the separate film advance and shutter cocking steps. But even the humble triplet in the 635 turned out to be as sharp as the S-K Xenotar on the Rollei, and nearly as sharp in the corners. And it's much lighter than the Rollei and comfortable around the neck. The Rollei was uncomfortable around my gimpy damaged neck with the lovely but barely functional original Rollei leather skinny strap and beautifully crafted metal couplers with those Art Deco touches.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Lovely Yashicamat and some nice results from it. I have the same one. Although it doesn't have chrome bits and crank is plastic, it is still an excellent camera. Thank you for sharing.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Superb post, <strong>Louis</strong>, and great work with the Yashicamat. Pics #2 and #5 stand out, for me. I've owned quite a few TLR's in my time. but never a Yashica. Your post makes me wonder what I've been missing! Many thanks.</p>

[rick_gerbehy1]

<p>Used a 124G while on the college yearbook staff in the early 70's. Eventually graduated to Mamiya TLR's. After college finally broke down an purchased a Rollei F2.8 to shoot weddings. Always loved the results of TLR's because they force one to slow down to compose and focus. Very different approach from the 35mm SLR's that were popular at that time. When Yashica' TLR's were at the end of their run some NYC discount stores were closing them out for less than $150.</p>

[Andrew in Austin]

<p>Superb images, Louis. I admire the fill-the-frame, front to back use of depth of field you chose for two of the flower shots and again for the bench covered in Lichens. You are definitely a master of composition.</p>

<p>Best Regards,</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Absolutely beautiful, Louis! The camera is a very nice example and the pictures you've created are superb. I've never used a TLR, although I've had a couple of lesser models that I used for display. I have, however, always admired the looks of the Yashicas and I've seen incredible shots taken with them. Perhaps I will yield to the urge to acquire one and learn to put it to good use; your pictures are certainly encouraging me to consider it. Thank you for the great write-up and excellent pictures!</p>