Seagull 4A or Yashicamat 124G

[julian_philips1]

I have the opportunity to buy either a Seagull 4A or a Yashicamat

124G.

I'd like some opinions since I have checked out a number of websites.

My main concern is focussing.

The Yashicamat has a 3x loupe, sportsfinder, etc.

I cannot find any info on the Seagull in those regards.

Any info would be appreciated.

[johnmarkpainter]

Skip the Seagull.

 

Don't rule out a Rollei.

 

You can get a Rollei with a Xenar at www.keh.com for $250

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?

bid=RT&cid=04&sid=newused&crid=6410894

 

They have an excellent guarantee/return policy.

 

jmp

[juan_bonet]

Between Seagull or Yashicamat, I prefer Yashicamat. I have two Yashicamat (non 124G) and they are very good cameras and the lens too.

I have a Rollei too and it's the best, but the Yashica is very good too.

Juan.

[hclim]

The Seagull has a flip up magnifier which is very effective for old eyes. It also has, I believe, what you call a sportsfinder. I am referring to the hole in the backside of the hood for framing at eye level.

 

It is possible the focusing may not be that accurate, but if you are shooting scenics the depth of field is sufficient to compensate for any inaccuracies. The DOF scale on the focusing knob is pretty interesting.

 

Over here, the Seagull 4A-107 gives the most bang for the buck as far as new medium format cameras for general shooting are concerned.

[david_goldfarb]

Absolutely take the Yashicamat over the Seagull. Also affordable and decent are older Rolleicords and the Minolta Autocord.

[roger_michel]

the way rolleiflex prices are plummeting, i can't imagine not going for a flex. you can get a very fine mx-evs for the same money as a seagull. the mx-evs is a camera that would have to cost $2000 if it were made today.

[bob_chong]

These posts always amaze me. The collected wisdom on this topic, despite what the few Seagull enthusiasts claim, could be boiled down to this: the Seagull is, was, and will always be a gigantic, steamy pile of defecation.

[douglas_green1]

The correct question is: Yashicamat 124 vs. Rolleicord, vs. Minolta Autocord, vs. Low end Rolleiflex. All of those have their merits, and the answer would depend on price and condition of the specific cameras in question. Skip the Seagull.

[julian_philips]

I found out the Yashicamat has a scratched lens with fungus, it there any way to remove the fungus for good?

[david_goldfarb]

Yes, but if the fungus has been there for a long time the lens could be etched, and it's probably not worth the cost of repair, given that you can find another Yashicamat 124G or one of the other TLRs recommended here in good condition easily enough for cheap.

[john_calafut]

"the Seagull is, was, and will always be a gigantic, steamy pile of defecation."

 

Bob,

 

I had been a Seagull enthusiast like you, and I got into some heated discussions with participants in this forum as a result. But then, earlier this summer, the shutter on my Seagull seized up, only two months after the 1 yr. warranty expired. I had hoped that with gentle treatment, I would beat the odds and have a good camera that would last.

 

During the time it worked, my Seagull took nice pictures - without lens flare or vignetting problems that I had read of. I think Seagull optics show some promise of having overcome some of the problems reported in early models. But mechanically, the failure my Seagull had is far to common among those who tried them, leaving unhappy customers who respond in this forum.

 

I personally would like to see Seagull continue to improve their product and offer an affordable quality TLR. The supply of out of production TLRs in excellent or repairable condition is finite and will shrink as things like lens fungus, wear, mishaps, or well meaning but clumsy repair attempts render them first to parts cameras, then discards. Rollei's current high end answer is admirable, but I think there is a void in the market for a new production affordable consumer grade TLR of decent quality.

 

I hope Seagull will make improvements and fill this niche. In the mean time, the used camera market has fine examples of TLRs at affordable prices, but caution and research are required, as Julian is doing in this thread.

 

Best Regards

[hclim]

I just bought another 4A-107 as a backup. Guess what? The 1/125 is not working correctly. I am not repairing it yet but when I bought it I factored in the repair price and I feel it is still worthwhile. It isn't convenient for me to exercise the warranty claim in this case as it was bought overseas.

 

Yes, buying it is a gamble but spending a small amount of money on a brand new medium format camera is another feeling.

[lachaine]

Not too long ago, I became interested in low cost MF, and I gravitated to a TLR. I initially became interested in it by looking at Holga photography sites, but I quickly decided I want a real camera with real controls on it. So I looked at Seagull, but when you see the price for their best current model, used Yashica-mats, Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords begin to look pretty attractive. If Yashica, I would suggest looking for the simple Yashica-Mat model, with the Yashinon lens, rather than a 124 type. It's the one that says only "Yashica-Mat" on the faceplate. It has everything you need, and it never did have a meter (Who needs a camera with an old meter that doesn't work?). The one I got was made in 1969, and it's virtually brand new. I also bought a Rolleiflex with 3.5 Xenar (mine's an MX-EVS). Both are great cameras, with little to go wrong that couldn't be repaired if it did, and the feel of a solid, all-mechanical camera. But the fact of the matter is that either a Rollei or a Yashica that's in good shape is a far superior photo instrument than a Seagull of questionable construction and reliability. You can spend a lot more for a Rolleiflex with Planar or Xenotar lens, but the 1950's ones with 3.5 Zeiss Tessar or Schneider Xenar are terrific buys. The Yashinon lens on the Yashica is of similar Tessar-like design. Any of these lens should greatly outperform a Seagull.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Fungus can sometimes be bad news; and radically reduce the contrast. I have one lens that has so much fungus; that no amount of cleaning does an good at all. We tried every horrid chemical mentioned on the NET; and still one surface is like it is coated with vasoline. The coating layer has a uniform fungus on one surface. Polishing the fungus off makes the lens element clearer; but seems to reduce the lens's sharpness; because the polishing also tweaks the curvature of the lens surface too. A dome shaped lens polisher is required; to keep the sphere-osity (sp error) correct. At an optical shop; I have had lenses repolished; and the surface recoated again. For the average repair shop; removing radically fungused lens elements; and polishing out the fungus often will ruin the lens.