Koni Rapid Omega

Related Postings

Trivia from Greg Weber: The 58mm and 60mm lenses are identical. Exactly. The numerical diffo is explained by import duties being higher at that time on lenses >60mm...the lens is actually 60mm.

From: dannyg1 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: WANTED: KONI-OMEGA INFORMATION
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998

HowardS11 wrote:

Can someone provide me with a breakdown of the different models available in the Koni Omega series ?

There's a fairly complete rundown of this on the KEH website, in which archive, I'm sorry I dont remember. I'm pretty sure I saved it somewhere; if I find the article, I'll post it here.

Danny Gonzalez

Koni-Omega Lenses
Courtesy of Peter Kotsinadelis

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998
From: [email protected]
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Filter size

58mm/60mm Series 7 filters (use a Series 7 to 55mm adapter)

90mm Series 6 filter but removing the inner step down ring povides you use of 49mm filters.

135mm Series 8 (there may be a step down ring which you can remove which allows you use of 67mm filters. I recently purchased a relatively new 135mm lens [they were only made for 2 years] and it did not have this ring so I was able to use 67mm from the go.)

180mm Series 8 (but my step down ring is absent so 67mm filters fit perfectly)

From: [email protected] (Rjmdmc)
[1] Re: Koni-Omega Rapid v. 100 or 200
Date: Sat Feb 28 12:47:44 CST 1998

Hi,

The koni-omega used the the term
'' Rapid'', did not have mid room removal of the magazine
''Rapid M'', had mid roll magazine removal.

the 100 & 200 designations came later ie, Omega 100 & 200 the 200 provided mid roll removal.

Bob

[Ed. notes: from an EBAY for sale posting

RAPID OMEGA 100 Medium Format Roll-film Camera with Super Omegon 1:3.5 f=90mm lens (built-in lens shade) focuses as close as 3 feet. Shutter speeds are from B,1-1/500 second, aperture range 3.5-32, M,X flash synchronization. The camera comes with a 120 roll-film interchangeable back, and takes 6cm x 7cm images on 120 (10 exposures) film. With this ''Ideal'' format, 4x5's, 8x10's and 16x20's are full-frame enlargements. This is the next generation after the Koni-Omega was discontinued. The camera allows for interchangeable lenses and backs (can take 220 film back).

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998
From: K.M. Smith [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] KONI-RAPID Repairs ... A GOOD Experience!

Hello folks,

The name of Greg Weber is not new to this list...it's how I discovered him. I just received back my Rapid with the previously cloudy RF/Viewfinder *Sparkling*, the shutter CLA'd and (unsolicited) new springs installed on the film pressure plate *to be on the safe side*. Greg did the work within the time frame he promised and at the LOW! end of the estimate he'd given me.

I'm delighted and highly recommend him!

Contact: GREG WEBER / Weber Repair
[email protected]
(402)721-3873

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [KOML] New guy questions


I have only recently become aware of Koni-Omega cameras and I find them
quite fascinating, but I can't seem to find a lot of information on
them. Can someone answer a few questions for me?
1. Are they still being manufactured?

NO


2. Where and by who are/were the bodies and lenses made?

Originally Konica then the factory was transfered to
Mamiya.  Konica designed and manufactured the lenses and           
bodies.  Minor changes were made over time but the lens
designs remained intact.

3. How available are lenses and other parts?

There were 4 lenses available for the camera.  A 58mm
(aka 60mm) F5.6 lens, the 90mm F3.5 (standard lens), 135
F3.5, and 180mm F4.5.  Of all the 135mm lens is the most
difficult to find since it was made for only 2 years.
Pricey compared to the others, but cheap compared to
other comparable lenses on the market.


4. How do the optics compare to Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei,et al.?
Thank you for your comments,

First rate.  Comparable to Zeiss & Schneider optics and bettering most 
other Japanese made lenses.


Peter K  

From: Mike [email protected]
Subject: Re: Koni-Omega Rapid v. 100 or 200
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998

The 200 used a magazine......the 100 used backs so that you couldnt change rolls mid way thru....

I worked as a tech for Berkey Marketing in NY i can still fix the Rapids along with the Konica T3 and older cameras...... in my sleep......LOL Mike

[email protected]

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: [KOML] Lens ?

The Omegaflex is a TWIN-Kens relfex and hence the lenses will not fit the single lens requirements of the KO Rapid. The 180mm lens is far easier to find than the 135mm. The 135mm will only work on Rapids not the original KO since it was made for 2 years and only during the time of the RO.*[see note disputing this statement] If you look on your focusing dial you can see if it has an indication for the 135mm lens. 180mm lenses were made from day one. Generally, the price for a 180 is about $250-$350, while the 135mm is about $500.

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:16:41 -0800
From: [email protected]
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Lens Test on Omegaflex/Nikon/4x5 & Misc Ramblings  

OK, I had some spare time and I was curious to see first hand how the
Omegaflex lenses compared to the 35mm Nikon Equip. and 4x5 Schneider lenses
that I have.  This is more of an observation than a scientific test.  

A real world situation, I was out on an assignment taking pictures for a
magazine featuring apartment complexes.  I used all three formats on the
same tripod.  Velvia film in all cameras and processing by A&I (top E-6
lab).  All done on the same day under the same conditions.  


I viewed all of the photographs with both a loop and an Olympus stereo
microscope .7-4x with 10x eyepieces (7-40x).  I found that they all looked
sharp through the loop.  They all looked great.  The lenses used were
Nikon 24-50 AF, Sigma 70-210 APO, Schneider 135mm APO Symmar & Schneider
210mm APO G-Claron, Hexanon 58mm, 90mm, 135mm, 180mm.  I shot every lens
on the same shots, mid aperture, Gossen meter reading.  I looked at all of
the photos, at different spots within the photographs at objects that
couldn't be seen with the naked eye.  I am talking about car license
plates, signs of varying sizes, criss-crossing building lines, tile roofs,
window blinds and other small objects.  

I found that the Omegaflex lenses performed very well, well enough in fact
that I will be using the equipment for professional shots.  However, the
35mm Nikon and Sigma lenses were the sharpest.  The 4x5 lenses were a
close second and the Omegaflex lenses were last.  This doesn't mean a
whole lot because all of the formats are capable of producing professional
results, and I was most pleased with the quality of the Omegaflex lenses
in this order 58, 135, 90, 180.  


Remember that I was able to purchase the whole Omegaflex kit for less than
a Mamiya 7 body and that it is (in my opinion) built very rugged and
should last a long time.  A great cheap way to add medium format (with
full flash sync. throughout the range) to your system.  I really like the
way the camera handles, the added weight makes for steady shots when your
not using a tripod and the grip and ergonomics work very well.  Oh by the
way, I was also able to use a polarizer fairly easily with excellent
results in my photos.  I wasn't shooting into the sun so I didn't test for
flare, but generally I get flare with all of the lenses unless I hold up a
big grey card to block out the sun.  I might try some air force test
targets under more scientific circumstances (I'll keep you posted) but I'm
not sure it really makes a difference at this point.  

When it gets to the point where your looking under a microscope at a
picture to find differences, the differences just don't matter anymore
(unless your making billboards for your living room), most of my pro
photos are used 4x5 and 8.5x11 (covers), some are blown up to 16x20.  

In case your wondering why I shoot all three formats, its because I get
more variety on 35mm and there easy for my clients to scan and manipulate,
6x7 because their quicker than 4x5 and can be enlarged more, and 4x5
because you can crop extensively, enlarge to any size, it can be fun, the
photo's are incredible to look at, and the 'wow' factor from the customer. 

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:50:27 -0800
From: [email protected]
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens Test on Omegaflex/Nikon/4x5 & Misc Ramblings

Contrast was excellent and not nearly as noticeably different than the
clarity and detail, it was slightly less.  Once again, please remember this
is at 40x magnification.  

The other lenses are also of APO design (other than the 24-50 which is at
a focal length that doesn't need APO).  I believe that resolution in lines
per millimeter is usually highest with 35mm, then 6x7 then 4x5 if we did a
comparable test with all modern lenses. 

Like I told Peter, no one you ever show your pictures to will look at them
with a microscope.  I would have been more concerned if I noticed
differences with a standard loupe at smaller magnifications.  Its kind of
funny in a way, when you examine photo with a micrscope you can see things
that you can't normally see, objects in window sills, small pieces of
trash, you name it, its all there.  I can see now how they do spy photo's! 

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:55:57 -0500
From: Paul Durham 
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Filter Sizes on KO Omegaflex Lenses

[email protected] wrote:
>
> OK, I am baffled.  I am still trying to find out the filter sizes on the KO
> lenses.  I measured 67mm for the 180mm, 54mm for the 58mm, 44mm for the
> 90mm.  Peter had replied back that the 58mm took a size called series 7.  I
> ordered some used Series 7 filters from Wall Street Camera and they appear
> to be some where around 49mm, much too small for the 58mm KO lens and they
> also have no thread???  Can anyone clarify for me the sizes needed for each
> lens?


Regarding the 90mm, I went through this a month or so ago and discovered
that the 90 sometimes has a series 6 ring (about 44mm) inside a 49mm
thread. I got the series 6 out using a rubber stopper that I bought from
Fargo Enterprises, and can now use the inexpensive 49mm's with no problem. 

Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland 

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 98 00:06:26 -0500
From: melhus 
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: Koni-Omega List 
Subject: [KOML] Dark slide available

According to their web page, Pacific Rim Camera has a darkslide for
sale, item 32734, for $20.  Look under Large Format, then Large Format
Press and View.  Their web page is at:

http://www.teleport.com/%7Epacrim/

Don't all harass them at once.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus       |  PDGA#   |     Where would we be without
[email protected]    |  11296   |     hypothetical questions?     

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:50:25 EST
From: Imageslide 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Film Backs

Richard
   Several items are useable on both!  The backs for the M and 200
are the same, will work fine.  Check thompsonphoto.com, good supply.
The ground glass back fits inside the back, so this too will work.
Some of the chimney finders and rt. angle finders will fit
over the gg back for viewing.  I believe the grips and cables and flash
bracket are also the same.    I haven't seen an Omegaflex
for years, but always heard they were first rate.  They are a little awkward
to use for verticals though.  Good luck.

Rick    

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 98
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 180mm lens

>Also, when you buy a film back don't you usually get the whole back? I
>mean both halves and the dark slide. Not just the film transport? Thanks
>for the info. Jim

Well, there's the back, and then there's the complete magazine.  One of
the annoying things about this setup is that it's never clear which one
an ad is talking about (this isn't the camera's fault, obviously.)  I
think the best policy is to talk to the seller and make sure that the
description of what you're getting is complete.

The Rapid-M and 200 take the full magazine.  The 100 only needs the
magazine back.  The Rapid takes a different back.  And the Omegaflex
takes the M/200 magazine backs.  So there is a reason to sell the    
back alone.  But as the back is more likely to die, and be used for
parts, the magazine fronts shouldn't be too hard to find.  A Camera
in Chicago has a number of both, as well as a lot of other places.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus       |  PDGA#   |     Where would we be without
[email protected]    |  11296   |     hypothetical questions?    

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998
From: Imageslide [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] New guy on the block

Anthony

The 90mm lens originally had a series 6 thread, this was actually an adapter that many people remove so they can use 49mm filters. Sounds as if yours' has also been removed. You now need a 49 - series 6 adapter for this auto-up to work. Yes, they did make a ground glass adapter for the camera. I looked for 2 years before I found one, paid 100.00 for it, very hard to find. Good luck.

Rick

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Models - Definitive List?

As listed in McKeown's Price Guide to Antique & Classic Cameras
1997/1998:

Simmon Brothers, Inc. Omega 120 - circa 1954

Konishiroku Koni-Omega Rapid - circa 1965
Konishiroku Koni-Omega Rapid M - circa 1967
Konishiroku Koni-Omegaflex M - circa 1969

The book also lists the Rapid Omega's under Konishiroku as follows:

Rapid Omega 100 - circa 1975
Rapid Omega 200 - circa 1975
                               

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] KO Web Site

Hi Everyone,

I just stumbled across a page that could legitimately be called a KO Web site. It was created by Robert Monaghan and is located at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/korapid.html. It contains a lot of useful information, a good deal of which was gleaned from this very mailing list. The only significant error that I noticed was a statement that read: "The 135mm will only work on Rapids not the original KO since it was made for 2 years and only during the time of the RO."

Peter Caplow

You might get by without the finder for the wide angles. The edges of the viewfinder window on my Rapid M correspond fairly well to the coverage of the 58/60. I can't say exactly how well- I've never done a serious test- but I've been doing landscape work quite successfully since my finder went to the bottom of a lake six or seven years ago. If you're looking for a bargain, you might try buying a lens without a finder- they're substantially cheaper.

John Poirier

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Konica Press - M vs Rapid M

OK. Straight from the horse's mouth. I spoke to Henry for about 1/2 hour. He founded Konica (the US distribution company) in 1951. Sold it to Berkey Marketing in the 60s. Hence the reason you see Berkey on all the literature for Konica and rapid cameras from that time. Berkey contracted with Konica to built the Koni-Omega. The factory was under controlled of Konica in Japan and an adjacent building (to Konica).

The Omega trademark and name were the property of Omega watches in Switzerland. Henry had to go to Switzerland to speak with them and negotiate use of this trademark (the greek letter Omega), which according to Henry was the 2nd most guarded trademark worldwide, Mercedes Benz star in a circle being the #1.

However, in Japan, the government would not allow the use of the Omega name/trademark. They feared people saying they were copying a trademark.

Therefore, the word Press was used and as you will find there is no use of the greek letter Omega.

In the 60s Konica could no longer continue to make Koni-Omega cameras in small quantities (cost).

Berkey owned the tooling to make these cameras and physically moved the factory to one owned and operated by Mamiya. Berkey did not intend to change to using the Mamiya name, but instead replaced the Konica with Omega and the addition of Rapid. They produced the 100 and 200. In Japan there was the Press 1 and 2.

The reason for their demise, they became too expensive to make. The shutters which were made by COPAL, could not be made in the smaller quantities they required. Realize that manufacturing things in Japan are a business, and generally manufactured in quantities like 1,000, 5,000, etc.

Since we are all trying to figure which models came first, Henry pointed out that the first model did not have removable backs and was 120 only. He did not say which it was. Sorry, I didn't get into the real excruciating details with Henry because his time is limited.

Hope this helps.

Peter K

PS I think we can figure that where the Omega sign is used it is a US model, where not a Japanese model. As to why an M versus a Rapid M, don't know.

Perhaps it was the model directly predating the use of the word Rapid-Omega.

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Auto Up specs and fogging problem

I had a light leak in an earlier Rapid 100. It was missing screws inside the compartment.

Do you notice if it fogs only when you change lenses?

Try inserting the dark slide, remove lens and hold toward the sun. Put lens back and look again. Also could be the sealant around the back or where the dark slide for the lens goes in.

Peter K

----

Subject: [KOML] Auto Up specs and fogging problem
Author: "[email protected]"
Date: 4/24/98 1:02 PM

I'm having a problem with fogging in the right third of some negatives, but not all the time even when shooting a whole roll with the same lens. It does not fog past the picture area to the physical edge of the negative, so that rules out a light leak, right? Someone suggested a shutter problem, but they didn't know that we were talking leaf shutters.

Can they account for that shape (pretty straight across the picture). I haven't done tests yet to narrow it down to a specific lens, shutter speed or aperture (I know it does it with the 90, but I also have the 58). I'm going to do that this weekend, but does anyone have an idea?

Thanks. This group has been a great source of info. I'm a definite convert to MF and older cameras. Now I'm thinking of getting a 6x9 folder for travel (!).

-Keith Nichols
[email protected]

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998
From: Jim Jameson [email protected]
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Auto Up specs and fogging problem

Hi Keith: I had a similar problem and finally isolated a light leak at the slot where the dark slide is inserted. Direct sunlight accidentally hitting the slot with the dark slide removed fogged my film. I sent one magazine to Greg Weber for refurbishing and with my other magazine I'm still using a temporary (indefinite) fix. I use a wide black rubber band around the lens to cover the slot both when the dark slide is in and when it is removed. Haven't had any problems with fogging with either fix.

Jim Jameson, Las Cruces, NM

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: Re[2]: [KOML] Konica Press - M vs Rapid M

     Both my 100s were marked with 135 and 58, could be when they changed
     the labeling between 58 and 60.  They are very much the same lens,
     regardless of whether it says hexanon or Omegon, 58 or 60mm  (minor
     shutter differences aside.)  Great lens too.  Nice modification of a
     Biogon.

Peter K

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
From: John Mostrom [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] More History...

I joined this group just prior to the flurry of activity around the history of the various models. I found the information very helpful and it helped me decide between a few alternatives at a swap meet this weekend. I was able to purchase a Koni-Omega Rapid w/90mm and an extra back for $150. It also came with a photocopy of the manual that had some information that might add to the history so far compiled. I apologize if this has already been included in the archives but here's what the manual says:

============below is probably copyrighted by KO or derivatives================

KONI-OMEGA(R) "RAPID"

This camera...  
...conceived and designed by the engineering department of Simmon Brothers
in Long Island City, New York.
...perfected, production engineered, and manufactured by Konishiroku Photo
Industry Co., Ltd. in Tokyo, Japan,
...made for professional photographers all over the world.
......is dedicated to international friendship.

We wish to express our appreciation to the thousands of satisfied owners of the original Omega 120 camera (discontinued in 1958) who urged us to bring out their new, improved model, and who were generous to us with their suggestions and advice. We hope that the KONI-OMEGA(R) "Rapid" fulfills their every expectation.

Our particular appreciation goes to Dr. L. Weisglass, Vice President of Engineering in charge of Simmon Brothers Research and Development, who has been associated with this camera project for over 15 years, and to Mr. O. Miki, Chief Engineer in charge of the Special Products Department, and Mr. Z. Kurita, Design Manager, both of the Konishiroku Photo Industry Co., without whose splendid cooperation and many strenuous trips to the U. S. A. this camera could not have been completed.

THE STORY BEHIND THE KONI-OMEGA(R) "RAPID"

The original Omega 120 was developed at the suggestion of the U. S. Navy in the 40's. There was a need for an all-around, lightweight rugged and reliable professional camera which was as convenient to use as a 35mm camera, but which would offer the advantages of large 120 size negatives.

The original Omega 120 was a technical success but a commercial disappointment. Strangely enough, when it was discontinued in 1958, the increasing popularity of Kodacolor and other color films created a continuous demand for this very camera because 35mm color negative just was not satisfactory for many types of professional work. True, there were and are many good single and twin lens reflex cameras using 120 film, but reflex cameras are not the best answer for many types of photography.

Ever-increasing labor costs and ever-higher lens and shutter prices made it impossible to manufacture the camera again competitively in the U. S. A. In looking for a manufacturer abroad, we were fortunate to get together with Konishiroku Photo Industry Co., Ltd. (a company which started making cameras in 1882), one of Japan's oldest and most prestigious photographic manufacturers. With over 4000 employees, Konishiroku not only manufacturers the famous Konica cameras, but also the equally famous Hexanon lenses, as well as sensitized products.

Thus, Konishiroku could supply our mechanical and optical needs, and in addition, could contribute much experience as a camera manufacturer.

===============================================================

Any typos are my own.

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: "Frazier, Charlie" [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Simmon Bros. Omega

Found for sale at address given.

Kind of nice for those looking for the early models.

http://www.cameta.com/used2.html

PRESS AND VIEW-KONI-OMEGA

          Simmon Bros. Omega 120 Ser.#125692 With Omicron
          90mmf2.5(Original Koni/Rapid Omega)(Rare)(E++/Working
          Perfectly/Collector's Piece) $439

          Simmon Bros. Omega 120 Ser.#125756 With Omicron 90mmf2.5, 
          Original Lens Shade, Wrist and
          Neck Strap(Original Koni/Rapid Omega)(Rare)(E++/Mint-/Working
          Perfectly/Collector's Piece) $559
          Koni Omegaflex M With 90mmf3.5 Hexanon & 120 Magazine(E++) $619
          Hexanon 58mmf5.6 With Case(Koni Omegaflex-M)(Mint/Mint-) $269     

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] film advance

> ... My 220 magazine is not advancing the film properly. Sometimes
>it advances one frame, sometimes two frames, and sometimes it doesn't
>advance at all....
>
>How does the frame counter interlock with the advance mechanism? Has
>anyone tried to repair one or should it be sent to Greg Weber? Thanks
>for the info. Jim

I've opened up the backs of a few of my magazines that had oddities (one would only take the darkslide halfway, the other had the exposure indicator not working right.) If you're handy with tools, and don't mind working with some small parts with springs on them, the back can be opened and worked on. But if you're not good with tools, and patient, forget it. Also, be sure that you know when to quit and get a professional to do it.

To open up the back, peel off the leatherette on the sides, and just above the plastic back door release. Unscrew the 5 screws that you find. Then remove the screw holding the back release lever on. Now you can take the back off and look at the guts of the mechanism. The large triangular gizmo on the left as you look at the back side of the back is supposed to slowly drop as the film is exposed, changing the distance that the film gets reeled (to compensate for the increased thickness of the film.) However, in your case, it sounds like the gear that engages the advance lever is not hitting all the time. Look at it, and see what looks wrong. It's also really nice to see another that works properly (same film type.)

Most important, though, is the home mechanics version of the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm." Or don't undo what you can't redo. That way, your investment in the back won't be squandered on idle curiousity.

Good luck,

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Where would we be without
[email protected] | 11296 | hypothetical questions?

From: [email protected] (D.Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Omega, Rapid 100 Questions
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998

John,

You know that no one can really speak in terms of the particular camera you are in interested in but can only speak in general terms about Omega Rapid 100, in other words condition may vary.

So in general terms , the Omegas are all of similar design, that being coulpled rangefinder. The 100 will not provide for polaroid back useage whereas the 200 will as I understand it. The 100 as you know has removeable backs though, or interchangable if you will. The lenses are all rated to be quite good but a little slow in my estimation. The 58 is one of four offerings , the others being 90mm. which is normal , 135mm. and 180mm. The speeds range from 3.5 to something like 5.6. If other lenses are available I am not aware of it-them, maybe someone else can help you out here. I am also unaware of a shutter change capability.The coupled rangefinder design works well , however the viewer is a bit dim and some well used older models tend to yellow in the viewer department hindering the view a little more.

Overall these cameras seem to be a good value and are easy handling good shooters with a sliding film advance control . It is generally recognized as a good entry into medium format and even prefferred by some later on in their shooting lifetime. Opinions naturally vary on the subject of rangefinder vs. other designs but in general the Konis - Rapids and Omega in general don't get really bad raps and are available at reasonable prices.They are reasonably functional systems with interchangable backs and lenses that shoot in the popular 6x7 format.

Hope this helps,

David Grabowski

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter" [email protected]
To: "\"Koni-Omega Mailing List\" " [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Koni Models - Definitive List?

  The Simmons Omega (Clive I am not sure if it was a B1 or B2
  that they used as model designation), 1948 I believe.  I have
  an article from Shutterbug written by Paul Klingenstein of
  Mamiya America, detailing the initial developments of the
  Simmons Omega.  I will refer to this to find the dates.

  The Rapid Omega I believe was 1970.

  If anyone has an interest in the article, let me know.  It
  doesn't go into detail about each subsequent model following
  the Simmons Omega, but is really focused on the origins of the
  6x7cm format and how it came to be in the Mamiya 7 (great    
  grandson of the Simmons camera).

  Peter K.
   

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter" [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] RE: Some more information

I went through my files and found a document from Konica Japan that details the specific time frames of the company and products. It is a 30 page (or so) colorful brochure so to condense it for the Koni-Omega group here goes:

1873 - Rokusaburo Sugiura begins trade of photographic and lithographic printing materials in his apothecary Konishiya at Kojimachi 4-chome Tokyo

1876 - Rokusaburo Sugiura suceeds the company and becomes Rokuemon Sugiura, the Sixth, as he moves the shop to Muromachi, Nihonbashi and calls it Konishi Honten. (not uncommon in Japan for a man to change his name, can also take a wife's family name if it is a name that is well regarded).

1903 - Cherry Hand camera debuts. Single element lens. (This was the first Japanese made camera - Konica is the oldest Japanese camera manufacture).

1921 - Konishi Honten becomes Konishiroku (Note the name Konishi + Roku for the founder.

1931 - Hexar lens - beginning of lens production in Japan. Hexar F4.5 was a 4-element design based on the Zeiss Tessar. (Incidentally, the name Hexar (and later Hexanon) was taken from the name of Rokuemon Sugiura - Roku means "6" in Japanese or "hexa." (By the way the original Hexar dates to 1925 and was the first photographic lens made in Japan for commercial production. It was based on the British Thornton lens used on a gun camera. Later it was improved and released as a phtographic lens in 1931, which I believe was 2 years before Nikon introduce a Japanese made optic [which they hired 8 German optical engineers and moved them to Japan to develop. This is in another book I have detailing the Japanese optical industry].)

1948 - the "Konica" brand was first used on the Konica I 35mm camera.

1965 - Koni-Omega rapid (6x7cm) - A press camera winds 120 film rapidly with a sliding bar that cocks the shutter simutaneously.

1967 - Koni-Omega Rapid M - Press Camera for export only.

1968 - Koni-Omegaflex M (6x7cm) The world's first 6x7cm twin lens reflex. This lens interchangeable camera has finder in its back. Accepts Koni-Omega Rapid M magazines (120,220)

1969 - Konica Press - reintroduces Koni-Omega Rapid, lauched in 1965, in domestic market under a new name.

1970 - Konica Press 2 - Konica Press is modified to accept interchangeable film back.

1987 - Changes company name to Konica Corporation October 21, 1987

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] More History...

At 4:05 pm -0700 27/4/98, John Mostrom wrote:

>I just purchased a Koni-Omega Rapid with the 90mm lens. The lens has a
>Series VI filter attached to the front and I would like to remove it to
>clean up the lens. How do I remove the filter? (I heard somewhere that the
>filter is held in place by an insert? Does it just screw off like modern
>filters?)
>
>
>Thanks,
>John   

The filter is held in place by a screw in locking ring which should have a knurled top allowing you to unscrew it and remove the filter which just rests in position.

The lens has an additional screw in adapter ring which can be removed to allow you to use 49mm modern filters. A camera repair shop will do this for you for next to nothing.

Hang on to the adapter ring if it is removed as you may need it for either of the close-up attachments available for the camera. They fit on the 90mm lens and use the "series" filter thread.

All the best,

Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Oops! Wrong title (should be "Series VI Question"

  I think the best suggestion was to go to Home Depot and but a
  rubber stopper of the same size (49mm in diameter).  And then
  use it to unscrew the ring (the inner ring in the front of the
  90mm is removable and will then allow you to use 49mm filter.

  Save the ring though, because any close up adapter, or other
  accessory, that you may buy in the future requires a Series 6
  size.  The ring can then be used as the adapter for the close
  up (or other accessory) only.

  Peter K   

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: Martin Melhus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Series VI ring removal.

The stopper is a number 10 1/2 (ten and a half). The base just fits into the ring, and then it unscrews like butter. Like really warm butter, actually. Stopper is about $3, and should stay in your toolkit for the camera.

Regards,

--
Martin Melhus | PDGA# | Being politically correct means
[email protected] | 11296 | always having to say you're sorry.

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] More History...

It's accurate up to Konica made cameras in mid-60s. Henry Froelich (founder of Konica US distribution 1951) and Paul Klingenstein (founder of King Photo in NYC) worked together with Berkey Marketing (whom Henry sold his Konica distribution to - not to be associated with konica USA today) and had Konica make the Koni-Omega in 1965. Berkey was the money behind this.

Later, when Konica could not manufacture the smaller quantities that Berkey wanted (price was the issue - In Japan they manufacture to make money, so there are minimum quantities they will make and nothing below that #), they transferred the factory to Mamiya. Incidentaly, the tooling was paid for and owned by Berkey in the US so this was possible. The Mamiya name would not be used, since Mamiya already had a Mamiya Press camera. Mamiya made the same camera with the smae tools that Konica did. In the US it was called the Rapid Omega 100 & 200 (magazine). In Japan it was the Press 1 and Press 2 (the equivalents of the 100 and 200 respectively.

I still have no idea why the Koni-Omegaflex but will ask Henry next time I speak with him.

Peter K

Date: Thu, 7 May 98
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni-Omega Rapid M body with 120 magazine/Also: Mint

>I need to get a wide-angle polarizer, my current one vignettes a bit.  I
>believe B+H sells one made by Rollei, hope they make a Series 7.  What do
>other Koni users use on the 58mm?  

I hold the series 7 UV or Sky 1A (depending on the shot) filter in with a series 7 to series 8 adaptor. 67mm filters fit in the 8, and I use the same polarizer and filters that I would use on my 180mm lens. I can stack at least two more without vignetting (havn't tried more, and havn't used more than one, really.)

In this way, the 67mm filters work for my 60mm, my 180mm, and potentially, when I get one, my 135mm. And the 49mm filters that I use for the 90 also fit on another camera I own.

While filters aren't hundreds of $, the total investment in them can be. I try to conserve bucks by overlapping like this.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Where would we be without
[email protected] | 11296 | hypothetical questions?

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 98
From: melhus [email protected]
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: [KOML] Military Surplus K-O sale

Brooklyn Camera Exchange recently bought 50 military surplus K-O Rapid 200 cameras. They are being sold AS-IS, with the body and 120 back selling for $99, and the body, back, and 90mm lens for $149. They only had a few with dark slides, and I suspect they are all gone.

I spoke to a guy there before ordering. His comment was that these are military surplus, and are pretty beat up. They should be able to be made functional, but almost certainly need some work.

I bought the body and back as a backup for my M. When they came, the body has a few dents (as expected.) The exposure indicator on the back was not working (the spring was broken.) I'm gonna see what I can do with piano wire. Also, the rangefinder needs adjustment. But for a back and body for $99, it was a good deal.

I'd also recommend checking out Phil Greenspun's "Neighbor to Neighbor" site, at:

http://db.photo.net/neighbor/index.tcl

In particular, KOML list member (I think) Richard Oesterling had a bad experience with them. But of the 5 experiences posted, 3 were positive and 2 negative. My suspicion is that the people who get the early ones will do well, while the last few will be parts cameras only. But your mileage may vary.

Brooklyn Camera Exchange can be reached at:

516/678-5333 (info)
888/570-6009 (orders only)
516/678-5894 (fax)
[email protected] (e-mail)

I would have posted this sooner, but my wife and I were busy having another daughter.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Where would we be without
[email protected] | 11296 | hypothetical questions?

Jim Richey wrote:
>
> Is the Konica Instant Press based on the Koni-Omega design, or is it a
> completely different design?

Konica Instant Press is similar to a Polaroid 180 - uses Polaroid pack film (669, 665, etc) Nothing like K-O at all

Randolph Carlisle

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998
From: Marilyn Smith [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] HISTORY

In response to the question regarding whether anyone uses an original Simmons Omega 120, I'll answer in the affirmative. I bought mine as a way to get my first taste of medium format, and have been pleased with it. I was stunned by the sharpness of the negatives, and even the owner of my local custom Ilfochrome lab told me it was as good or better than those of modern cameras costing thousands of dollars. The first frame or two of each roll overlap just slightly since there isn't any compensator built in like on the KO, but the negatives are so big I haven't found this to be a problem. From this camera a learned about the KO, and I have subsequently purchased a RO 200. The only reason the Omega 120 was not suitable for all of my medium format subjects is that there is no provision for a cable release. I have been doing increasing amounts of winter moonlit mountain landscapes, so a cable release is required to help isolate my convulsive shivering from the camera. Now that the RO 200 has proven its mettle, I'd part with the Omega 120 for $350. I feel it is in excellent condition. If you have any specific questions about this camera design, I'd be glad to address them.

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998
From: George Curtis Fant [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] HISTORY

I finally got to see one of the original Simmons Omega 120. I was amazed how small it is compared to my RO. The guy who showed it to me ordered it for a customer back when it was new! He has since gotten it back. He thought it was a strange, ugly beast when new. Of course now he thinks that the camera is worth a cool $600. Curtis Fant

Date: Thu, 7 May 1998
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Polarisers on Wide-Angle Hexanons

At 5:58 pm -0400 6/5/98, Imageslide wrote:

>I could use a new body, after 45 years this one is experiencing
>technical difficulties!  Shot my Rapid M at an honest to goodness paying
>job the orther day, normally use a view camera or my RZ, but I needed
>a wide-angle  for an exterior and don't have one for the others.  Chromes
>looked fine, might have to use it more often.  Color, contrast and sharpness
>were comparable to anything else I use.  One thing though,
>I need to get a wide-angle polarizer, my current one vignettes a bit.  I
>believe B+H sells one made by Rollei, hope they make a Series 7.  What do
>other Koni users use on the 58mm?
>
>Rick  

I cheat a bit and use a Cokin P polariser on a 55mm adapter plate. I have an Omega wide-angle which has a 55mm screw thread :-)

You can do the same by using a series 7 coverter ring to take you up to a mm size of Cokin plate or a larger mm size for the glass polariser. You can soon tell if you are going to get vignetting - just put the shutter on "B" with the filter in place, open wide the aperture, remove the back and take a peek from the back film plane corner to corner. If you can see the edge of the filter then you may get vignetting if shooting with the lens aperture wide open.

By the way - visual inspection of my Cokin "P" circular polarising filter shows it to have a slight blue cast - I use a slight warm-up to compensate. Suppose it should really be replaced, however it was only $8 so I may put up with it ;-)

All the best,

Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

From: Richard Deimel [email protected]
Subject: Response to Is a Koni Rapid Omega a good camera?
Date: 1998-05-20

Parts and excellent service at reasonable prices are available from Greg Weber, 2022 E. 7 St., Fremont, NE 68025, 402-721-3873, fax 3838, e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].

A word about the lenses: the Hexanon lenses are generally considered superior to the Omegon lenses.

Date: Sun, 31 May 1998
From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] KOML Posts

Bill Barton wrote:

> Buy the way any idea what would be the price range for a 100 with the
> 90mm lens and three backs 120 size. I have seen one for $350.00 I don't
> use a Koni at this time....thanks Bill

Bill, last fall I bought a RO200 with the 90mm and a 120 back for $180 or $190 (I forget). I would expect the 100 to be worth somewhat less, maybe $150 or so? Its one-piece backs, as opposed to the two-piece backs of the 200 series, should go for about $50 each. So, if my numbers are in the ballpark, I think you should look to pay $250 or less for the setup you mentioned.

By the way, the KO and RO gear is top-notch and very rugged, but they do have an Achilles heel. Worn backs are common (especially 220 backs over-used by wedding shooters), so be wary and check them out thoroughly. Light leaks are another common problem, but are easily and cheaply fixed in the comfort of your own home. Mine doesn't let any of the dark leak out, but my 120 back did have a film advance problem. Fortunately, I was able to rip it apart and fix it. Even got it back together with not too many parts left over, and it works perfectly now.

The price of any equipment is, of course, subjective. A passage in the front of an old McKeown's price guide says it best: "This book is dedicated to the fact that the price of an antique camera is entirely dependent upon the moods of the buyer and seller at the time of the transaction."

Good hunting,
Mel

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Randy Stewart)
[1] Re: Wide Angle for Rapid Omega
Date: Wed Jun 03 20:29:46 CDT 1998

:>I'm looking for a wide angle lens for a Rapid Omega.
:>45mm would be good. 55mm acceptable. Is there such
:>a thing?

45mm or 55mm might be good, but 58mm is what you get. The only lenses which fit this camera are the manufactuers' lenses made for it: 58; 90, 135 and 180. There is an earlier version of the 58mm which was rated at 60mm - some people familar with the camera say that that there is no difference between the 60 and 58mm lenses. My experience as an owner of both was that tht 58mm was an improved lens, however my experience may be the result of normal manufacturing variables between individual lenses.

The seperate viewfinder for the 58/60mm lenes shows a significantly smaller field than what you actually get on the film.

Randy Stewart
[email protected]

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998
From: chanan [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Lens filters for Koni-Omega

The sizes for the lens are 49 for 90, series 7 to 52 for the 58,and 67 for the 180

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens filters for Koni-Omega

Here we go again:

The Konis use a series filter, series 6,7,8, once a convenient way to use the same filters on a number of different size lenses, but not as popular a choice today. They are still being made but not always easily found. The series 6 is close to 49mm, the 7 to 55mm, the 8 is indeed 67mm. The Koni lenses actually have an insert that can be removed to achieve the 49 and 55mm sizes. Many opnions on the best way to go with filters on the Koni, I guess it all depends on how many different camera systems you have and what you are willing to spend. I personally like to keep things together, so I just buy the filters I need for each system. Hope this helps.

Rick

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998
From: John Mostrom [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Film Loading

Something I missed when I loaded my first roll is to be sure that the film counter indicator on the back is set to "LOAD". If you don't have this set properly, the film advance compensation is off and the space between the frames will be incorrect.

You will notice as you advance the film that the the film advance lever does not return all the way after frame 3 or 4 and sticks out even farther after 6 or 7. This is to compensate for the difference in diameter of the takeup spool as you wind film onto it.

The manual listed below shows the proper loading method but I missed all this in my hurry to get the camera loaded and out taking pictures my first time.

Have fun!
John

>The seikosha shutters in your len are in need of a cleaning and repair. The
>other problem is easier, when you roll the film on
>You will notice a mark with two arrows that look like this <---> on the the
>flim that is where you should be starting when you put the back on the
>camera. There is a copy of the manual for the camera on the
>net.http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/korapid.html  

[Ed. note: actually, we have a link to the manual here ;-) ]

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998
From: John Mostrom [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens filters for Koni-Omega

I was lucky to join this group just before the last discussion around the 90mm lens and its series 6 filter insert. I found a number 10 rubber plug (per advice offered) and, after triming the top edge of the plug slightly, was able to use it to remove the insert.

Since then, I have purchased a 49->52 converter and and can use my collection of Nikon-size filters with the 90 [although this means I can't use the handy built-in hood :v( ].

Is there an archive of these posts where a person can be referred to look for answers to the oftern repeated questions?

John

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Koni-Omega's Downfall

I was reading a book called "Medium Format Photography A User's Guide to Equipment and Applications" by Lief Ericksenn. In it the author mentions what terrific camera's the Koni-Omega's are. However, he says the reason they stopped producing then was because of the high cost to manufacture the shutters. Why would the leaf shutter in the Koni-Omega's be any more expensive to produce than any other leaf shutter?

--

Jim Richey
[email protected]
http://snoopy.cmagic.com

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni-Omega's Downfall

Jim,

Maybe that's just his opinion - my repair dude says that the Koni shutters are of a type used in many other cameras - Sekor.

It's more likely that they were marketed poorly. They seem to have pitched at the wedding photography market, just look at the example photos in the manual.... Now wedding photography is a demanding and highly skilled profession, however some people look down their noses at kit regularly used for such purposes, rather than "arty" portraits or landscapes etc. Also they went for government/police/forces market - people have strange misconceptions about kit designed/marketed in this way.

In the UK people just couldn't get their heads around the innovative design - "but where's the wind on knob" etc etc.

It is clear to me that the quality of build and quality of the lens system at least matches and probably betters most of the opposition, including very expensive Zeiss glass. Compared to the Fujica and Mamiya rangefinders in the current marketplace, Koni-Omegas hold their heads high.

In addition to poor marketing they were probably priced too cheaply. Strange old world isn't it? Still we shouldn't complain too much, our wonderful Konis would be collectors items and way out of reach as a user camera.

All the best,

Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Koni-Omega's Downfall

The reason would more likely be supply and demand. Since Mamiya took over the camera manufacturing, then a few years later came out with the RB67 (1970), why compete against themselves. The major market for the Rapid was Aerial and Wedding Photographers. Since there are many advantages to an SLR, it would be hard to break into the Hasselblad marketshare without an SLR design. You can also plan out a new system far easier then designing around an existing and aged design like the Rapid (I am not bashing it just explaining things). Therefore, it would appear to make good business sense to go with a potentially more profitable camera.

Peter K

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] M or Rapid M

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Rapid Omega equivalents to the Koni-Omegas as I'm sure most people on this list are by now. However, based on Kenan's experience it appears that there were actually three Koni-Omega models; the Rapid, Rapid M, and the M , with the M actually being a direct equivalent to the Rapid Omega 200 in that it has the frame lines and distance scale for the 135mm lens.

From: Martin F. Melhus [email protected]
Subject: Response to Is a Koni Rapid Omega a good camera?
Date: 1998-05-17

In a word, yes. In terms of the price, on eBay last week, some of Rapid 200's with the 90mm lens and a 120 back went for $200, and a 180mm lens went for $230. Backs have been going for $50 or so. So the price is fair.

The optics on these cameras seems a real bargain to me. I have a Rapid M, and a 200, with the 58mm, 90mm, and 180mm lenses, as well as 2 220 backs, 3 120 backs, and a ground glass back that I can attach an Omegaflex reflex viewer to. I'm really happy with this setup, and have taken many nice photos with them.

The potential problems I see for you are the following:

1) The rangefinder is a different beast than a Hassie (SLR) or a TLR. Best to decide if this is a camera you're comfortable with.

2) The accuracy of the rangefinder isn't quite as good as a SLR. I've found that both of my rangefinders are just a touch off at certain distances. For supercritical focussing, I use the GG back.

3) There are only 4 lenses available for this camera. 58, 90, and 180 are around, but not easy to find. The 135 is very difficult to get, and can cost about $500. Accessories are similarly difficult to find. Extension tubes exist, as well as a close-up adaptor.

4) The filter sizes are not quite standard. The 90 takes a series 6, or a 49mm if you remove the insert ring. The 135 and 180 take series 8, which is functionally 67mm. The 58 (or 60) takes a series 7 filter that is hard to match with modern filters. I use a series 7 UV or sky, held in by a series 7 to 8 adaptor ring, and I can strap on additional series 8 filters if I need them.

So it's a good deal, and can shoot great images, but has it's quirks and foibles. If you can put up with these, and like the 6x7 format, go for it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to write me.

Regards,
Martin F. Melhus

From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Response to Is a Koni Rapid Omega a good camera?
Date: 1998-05-17

To Martin's excellent advice, I would add one thing to watch for. Many of these cameras were heavily used by wedding shooters, and the backs (especially the 220's) may be badly worn. Be sure to check out the wind mechanism on the one you are considering. Sacrifice an old roll of film to make sure it spaces properly between frames.

Another common problem is light leaks, but this is pretty minor; you can obtain new foam material cheaply and refurbish it yourself.

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998
From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 180mm Hexanon question

I don't think your lens is to blame. There are several adjustments in the K-O rangefinder and focussing system which must be coordinated to obtain proper RF operation and infinity focus.

I have identified at least three points of adjustment: 1) an infinity focus stop screw, located under the "hood" (with the "Rapid Omega" name on it in the case of my RO 100), 2) a RF adjustment screw located near the pivoting RF mirror and 3) an adjustment for the lens coupling pin, also located under the "hood". From troubleshooting my camera (which worked great with a 90 but lousy with a 58), it appears that screw (2) should be adjusted with the 58 and screw (3) should then be used with another lens to bring everything into proper adjustment.

Adjusting only screw (2), as described earlier in the MFD and in this mailing list, can correct a RF problem for one focal length, but will invariably result in a camera that works with one focal length only.

My first "post tuneup" photos came back yesterday and they show that I'm a lot closer than I was, but still have a little work to do. My biggest problem appears to be jury rigging a ground glass screen that really works and puts the image where it's supposed to be. If I work out a successful procedure, I will post it. For the time being, I recommend that you consider having your RF serviced by a competent and knowledgable shop.

>I just purchased a 180mm lens for my cameras (Rapid M and a 200).
>My first two rolls through this lens seem to be very slightly out of
>focuse at infinity (objects at 150-200 feet are sharp, farther out is
>fuzzy).
>
>After my first roll, I thought I might have focused at 120 feet instead
>of infinity (based on the range finder) but my 2nd roll was set
>correctly.
>
>FWIW, I was shooting at f4.5, f5.6.  I just tried another roll with some
>frames at f22 to see if it's sharper.
>
>Anyone have any suggestions?  my 90mm stuff seems okay, but it's hard to
>compare when shooting from the same position.  Since I shoot landscapes
>(thunderstorms) infinity is the only point I really care about.  Anyone
>have any similar experiences/suggestions?  Should I just return the
>lens?
>
>-Shaun Kelly (http://www.visi.com/~spk, [email protected]) 

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] 180mm Hexanon question

Is the image shown in the rangefinder at infinity out of sorts or is it correct? In other words, does the image show double or one at infinity when you are set to infinity? If slightly out, try this. There is a small cover just near the viewfinder that unscrews. Inside is an adjustment to set infinity focus. Leave your 90mm lens on, and set the focusing knob to infinity. Then adjust the screw underneath the cover so infinity shows in the rangefinder image. This should clear it up.

Peter K

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998
From: Tim Atherton [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Light Seals,Baffles?

I ordered some foam from Fargo (which also came with a small packet of complementary candies!). Can't remember the Cat. # offhand. I have only just installed the new foam and am waiting for a test roll back. I will let you know how it goes.

Tim A

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
From: Tom Wyse & Jo Hughes [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] New to list

Brooklyn Camera advertises in Shutterbug and they have recently gotten a large shipment of government surplus K-O's, they are listing bodies at $99.00

Tom

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998
From: "John J. Stafford" [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] 90mm lens tips (filter, lens)

90mm f3.5 Super Omegon lens

Thank you to Stephen Lewis and Martin Melhus for the tip on how to remove the retaining (series-6 filter) ring. Besides using a 10.5 rubber stopper, one can also use a 1.5" rubber plumbing seal ($1.65 at the hardware store.)

TIP: When you remove the retainer, also remove the front cluster of the lens and examine the back lens of the cluster. Mine had a subtle coating of light oil on it. I cleaned it and it is good to know that I now have exactly the lens Omega intended.

(I also took this opportunity to remove the built-in lens shade to make it a bit easier to use a 49mm to 52mm step up ring.)

Very best,

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998
From: Michael Scott [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Light leak at dark slide.

Hi,

I have a problem with light leaks near the dark slide on my Rapid-M. I have this problem with all 3 of my 120 backs (I have resorted to using black electrical tape to cover the slide insert when not changing lenses). Apparently they have each seen alot of service. I saw a message on this list regarding light baffle kits for light leaks on the Fargo website so I investigated (even ordered their catalog) but that appears to be a foam light baffle - not what I am looking for.

So I took apart one of the backs and found that the dark slide insert point consists of 2 strips of a black velvet-like material that are supposed to block the light when the dark slide is removed. It appears that these 2 strips (because of extensive use) have become flattened to the extent that they are now letting a small amount of light in. Does anyone have any ideas about getting this black velvet-like material? If I can find the right stuff I can remove the old and glue in the new. Thanks in advance for any assist.

MJS

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] A Good Place To Buy

The best dealer in the country:

Vaughn Smith Cameraone.com He has a Rapid, will be fair and trustworthy.

Brad thompsophoto.com Has lots of Koni stuff, good prices, easy to deal with.

Bill mpx.com (Midwest Photo) Good prices, good service.

None of these dealers will let you down, if they do, let me know!

Rick
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] RF adjustment, 180 lens

John,

You can have my 180mm for the bike or the Pentax 135mm macro - I could put up with either of them......

The one disadvantage with the 180 is the close focussing distance of about 12 feet. An extension tube is needed for portrait head shots etc. and then you need a way of previewing the image as the rangfinder focussing will be redundant. There are fairly easy ways around such problems, however the handling of the camera goes out of the window....

One solution is the 135mm Hexanon lens, however these tend to be expensive as there were few produced. I'm still looking for one.........

All the best,

Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] stupid loading question

>I have the Koni-Omega Rapid (not M, not 100, not 200). As you know, this
>model has just the film transport, no dark-slide, no changable backs.
>
>How does one load the camera in total darkness? I have some infra-red film
>I'd like to try, but I'm just too stupid to noodle this one out!
>
>btw - a great find. A Leitz true-infrared filter. Not red, but _black_. You
>can view the sun with it, it's that dark.
>
>...and another interesting find: The Weston light meter (at least all the
>Master series) reads into the infrared adequately. 

The Koni Omega Rapid is my favourite - I use it a lot for shooting IR. You can load all of the currently available 120 roll IR film in subdued light. It is only Kodak HIE that you have to be careful with as it has no anti-halation backing and the film acts as a "light pipe" - this is not available in 120 rolls.

If you are rolling your own then you will need either a large changing bag or preferably a dark room.

All the best,

Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] RF adjustment, 180 lens

Each of the lenses had but one design. There were minor difference in the shutter mechanisms as time went on but the 58/60 are essentially the same, the 90mm, the 135 (made 2 years) and the 180 were basically unchanged whether they bear the name Hexanon or Omegon, the latter when Mamiya took over the factory.

Peter Kotsinadelis

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] RF adjustment, 180 lens

The lens is sharp, rangefinding/focusing is fine. As with any lens the longer the less depth of field. Have not used the F4.5, F5.6 much, but why would you? What are you planning to shoot that you would require such a shallwo depth of field? If people, they will have to be at a good distance away from you in which case perhaps the 90mm is the better choice. If the lens is $250 or less grab it. The only suggestion is the lens is a bit cool, so your best with a warmer filter not a Skylight. (Same as the 135). Either a B+W KR1.5 or Tiffen 812 will do fine.

Peter K

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
From: Tony Graham [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Light leak at dark slide.

I fixed my light leaking 200 with the non-catching side of velcro. It works fine now. I simply sliced it into three strips. And then I cut those into 8 pieces to do the job. Four where the back makes contact with the body and 4 where the body intersects with the lens (this part was probably not necessary). My felt there was hanging on by a thread. I did have to remove the top strip as I was getting a visible stripe across the bottom of the film.

This thing used to leak from the top to the bottom of each shot.

Tony Graham
phone- +45 35878925

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Light leak at dark slide.

Has anyone tried adhesive backed flocking or is that too thin. Should be able to find it at either an arts and crafts store or a hobby store. They also make glue on stuff where you paint the glue on and then sprinkle the flocking material on top. Here's an online hobby shop that sells the adhesive backed stuff. http://www.djhobby.com/catalog/mh-decalsdetailing/KENSKS.html I have no idea what size this stuff is or what it looks like. I would also think that someplace that sells telescope making supplies might have the stuff.

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Filter

Terry,

Before you give up, hopefully you did not remove the screws on the side of the lens. If you did you could have accidentally removed the outer portion of the front. Try very carefully to apply some WD-40 on the threads. Best done with a q-tip soaked in WD-40. You DON'T want that stuffon the lens. Le it soak in for about 1/2 hour and then try to remove the ring. If the stopper does not work, try using a rubber band (thick one) apply pressure with your fingers on each opposite side and turn counterclockwise. It should come off easy enough. Hope this works. Whatever you do, DON't SPRAY the WD-40 on, it broadcasts too wide an area.

Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998
From: "John J. Stafford" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Filter

Terry Smart[SMTP:[email protected]]

> I tried the rubber stopper to remove the Series 6 ring from the 90mm
> lens and all I managed to do was disassemble the lens. The filter ring
> won't budge.

Okay, don't panic. You are well along to doing the job. I went through exactly the same problem. Here is how you proceed. Go ahead and disassemble the lens again (I'm assuming that you ended up unscrewing the front lens cluster. That's a GOOD THING because now you can clean that rear element.

I'll bet that it has a mild fog of oil on it. Mine did.

Now get to the hardware store and get a 1.5 inch rubber ring (it's a plumbing gasket). Assuming you have the front lens cluster off, remove the collapsable lens hood. You don't need it. Leave it off. Put the rubber ring _around the outside the lens so that you can get a grasp on it and try the rubber plug trick again. An alternative is to get two 1.5 inch rubber rings and put one inside the ring and exert pressure out as you turn.

Do not use any lubricants. There is too much a chance that they will seep into the lens, then you are dead. Instead, just warm the front cluster with your hand and freeze the plug and try again. (Freezing the plug will temporarily shrink the ring and help you break its grip.)

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Broken Film Transport

You can try to adjust this yourself, but it is a pain. First while you can remove the back cover, you need a special screwdriver to remove the handle attached to the advancing lever. If you can get this off then you have the back opened. (Yes, I know there is a way to avoid removing this and simply lift the back up like a car hood [Engine Compartment for you folks in the UK]). Then you can try to adjust the mechanism so it drops the stepped clutch sooner. Best of luck.

By the way, I too sent my to Greg Weber. He did a great job. I avoiding headaches and time. May be worth your while.

Peter K

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998
From: omegaman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] flash/lens

Russ:

The Omega flash bracket I have is set up for the Graflex clamps that will be useable with most "head and handle" flash units. Go for the 58mm wide angle. Your type of phootgraphy may be different but I have not found myself using the 180mm nearly as much as the 58mm. Naturally, if you see any of the lenses at a bargain price grab it whatever the focal length. There were: 58mm, 60mm, 90mm, 135mm, and 180mm focal lengths - either Hexanon or Omegon.

R. Carlisle

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998
From: Bill Eadie [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] flash/lens

Hi: Koni-Omega's and most medium format range finder cameras with interchangeable lenses work best with wide angle and normal lenses. This is true because the image demarcation lines as seen through the viewfinder delineate smaller and smaller areas as you increase the focal length of the lens. This means you may be looking at a virtual rectangle of roughly 1/4"(app) for a 180 mm lens. Obviously. ones reaction to this is very personal-it may not bother you at all.

Another consideration is that long lenses on range finder cameras like the Koni often do not focus closer than about 8 ft. Cameras like the Graflex XL offer extension backs which decrease the close focusing distance. But this is an awkward solution necessitating the use of a ground glass back.

The vast majority of Koni's were used by wedding photographers because of their fast push pull film advance. I have a hunch that they switched to a different camera like a Mamiya RB when they took those tight head and shoulder shots. So why buy the long lenses for medium format range finder cameras? Mainly because they're there. Much of the fun of having and using these older cameras is experiencing their substantial build quality and appreciating their excellent optics for bargain prices. I would wager that if you were given a complete Koni-Omega kit, you would end up using the 58 mm and the 90 mm most of the time. You would probably enjoy the greater depth of field and grow to accept the wide angle distortion of the 58 mm lens. You may even have friends requesting those funny portraits of people and dogs that you can get with this lens. And you can blow then up to 16X20 to boot. As you can see, I enjoyed your post, and wish you many happy years fiddling around with Tinker Toys for adults that just happen to take pictures and are fun to hold.

Bill Eadie [email protected]

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998
From: wes reins [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Reply to Merv shubaly

Merv:

I have the omega flex with a 58mm,90mm, and a 135mm. Living in Montan I naturally do landscapes, I like the 90mm and 58mm for that reason. I also have a Rapid 200 w/ 58mm,90mm and 180mm.

I use the 58mm and 90mm for the majority of my photos. I also have a Fuji GW670 that sits on a shelf, as I prefer the glass of the Koni cameras.

I had been using "hyperfocal distance" for landscapes but was unhappy with "fuzzy" mountain peaks. I found an article on the web titled "Depth of Field Revisited" by Harold Merklinger, Now

I have no more "fuzzy" mountains. This has also improved my portraits as well as other types of shooting.

Regards,
Wes Reins

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998
From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] flash/lens

>Someday, just
>for the heck of it, I would love to check my 58 and 90 with a resolution
>chart....Dave

They are pretty respectable... I have used a 60x microscope to view the image formed by these lenses while doing rangefinder adjustments (i.e. to determine the plane of focus relative to the film rails). The level of detail visible in these tests was pretty amazing, so just for grins I set up a resolution test target. My set up isn't really stable (or well lit at < f8) enough to do proper resolution testing at the level of detail these lenses are capable of, but I did tentatively determine that both lenses were capable of in excess of 150 lines/mm at the film plane. I should think that at this level it gets pretty academic and that other factors (film grain, film flatness, diffusion of light within the emulsion, color correction, focusing accuracy, etc.) will surely be of more practical importance.

IMHO, the very best aspect of the K-O system is the optical quality of the lenses. I find them outstanding. It's what keeps us putting up with 4 1/2 lb cameras with little viewfinders, dim rangefinders and fiddly film backs.

Not too long ago I had some 11 x 14 outdoor portraits at a professional framer -- when they were picked up the framer says "[name omitted], our local wedding pro, wants to know what kind of camera you have!" That was a particularly good day :-).

-Evan

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998
From: Michael Scott [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Light leak at dark slide.

Tony:

Upon further investigation I found that my Rapid M light leak was really coming from the interface between the film back and the camera. I then purchaced the fargo light baffle kit and installed the foam at the interface point (the old foam was beatup pretty bad). The leak seems to be gone but I still need to test it. I guess velcro would work (and has in your case) as long as its thin enough.

Michael

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998
From: Michael Scott [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Range finder adjustment : Ground glass thickness.

This is a followup question to Al Thompson's post regarding the K-O range finder adjustment (I have a KO Rapid-M):

I tried to do a test based on these instructions as follows:

I took some ground glass from an old focusing screen and taped it in place in the open K-O back and focused using the rangefinder on an object about 15-20 feet away. I then took a 8x loop and examined the image on the ground glass. After playing with it for a while I found that the image at the focus plane was out of sync slightly with the rangefinder. I have not yet attempted to do the adjustments as defined in Al's post. Before I do I have a question -

Is the thickness of the ground glass critical? I measured it to be about 1/8 of an inch (If my math is correct thats .125 inch). Wax paper or frosted tape would be thinner but I prefer the ground glass since it does not give. I read an old article by Kevin G. Hawk entitled "Depth of focus explained" (Darkroom & creative camera techniques, Mar/Apr 1992). In this article the author makes the point that depth of focus (which is similar to depth of field, only it is at the film plane) is very critical. The author states that "Ultimately, depth of focus dictates the permissible variation in film location at the camera's focal plane." For example, at f/4, 16 feet the depth of focus is .0081 inches - signifigantly less then the .125 inch thickness of my ground glass.

Now the designers of the Koni-Omega adressed this issue with the the pressure plate which at the end of the film advance sequence presses the film firmly against the film rails thereby eliminating any gaps that would create a problem for the depth of focus. My question is, when adjusting the range finder, shouldn't this be taken into account?

Any assistance on this question would be greatly appreciated.

M. Scott

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 98
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Re: Ground glass thickness

>.0081 inches - signifigantly less then the  .125
>inch thickness of my ground glass.

The thickness of the ground glass is not critical. The thickness of the ground portion, where the image is formed, is. But that thickness (the surface of the glass) is far less than 0.125 inch. It's probably closer to 0.001 inch or so.

>My question is, when adjusting the range
>finder, shouldn't this be taken into account?

Yes, by making sure that the ground side of the ground glass is pressed closely to the spot where the film would lie. There's a sort of mask that defines the edges of the image. Place the glass (wax paper, tape, whatever,) touching that, with the ground side against it, and you should be just fine.

Regards,
Martin F. Melhus

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
From: Wade Waterman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Polaroid back for Koni?

Hi

I have a Rapid M outfit that I would be very interested in fitting a Polaroid back to. I realize the camera body sits above the film plane and would obstruct a normal Polaroid back but I wondered if anyone out there has ever seen a Polaroid back for these cameras or knows of anyone who has tried to fit one. I am not really familiar with all of the Polaroid products so maybe there is something out there that I haven't seen yet.

Thanks.
Wade Waterman

*** *** *** *** *** *** ****
Wade Waterman ph: 430 / 450-5129
Machine Shop
Alberta Research Council mailto:waterman

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Polaroid back for Koni?

If I remember correctly, Polaroid backs won't work on Koni-Omega's because there isn't enough room to mount a Polaroid back and have the image focus on the Polaroid film and there was never a Polaroid back specifically make for Koni-Omegas. However, I have thought about getting a Polaroid Captiva and hacking it up to see if I could fit it on the back of a Koni-Omega. The Captiva uses smaller Polaroid film/prints than normal. Would make an interesting project if it will fit. Rigging a button to eject the film/print would be the other challenge I suppose.

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
From: Wade Waterman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Polaroid to K-O

I have looked at the Captiva and think that it might be the only way to get a polaroid image. You're right though, you would have to hack it up pretty good. I think you can only get color film for that camera also. I'll let you know if I try to meld the two.

Wade
*** *** *** *** *** *** ****
Wade Waterman ph: 430 / 450-5129
Machine Shop
Alberta Research Council mailto:waterman

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998
From: "Tanous,. Bruce" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Polaroid to K-O

WHY COULD YOU NOT JUST TAKE A POLAROID CAMERA, HACK OFF THE LENS HOUSING, AND EPOXY IT ON TO A K-O BACK. THERE ARE SO MANY POLAROID CAMERAS OF ALL VANTAGES ON THE USED MARKET. FAR THAT MATTER, MAYBE A P-BACK FOR ANY LARGE FORMAT, I.E. SPEED GRAFIC, COULD BE EPOXIED TO K-O BACK.

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Polaroid back for Koni?

I also wanted a POL. back, called a polaroid expert, 4-seasons or something like that, they manufacture Pol, products, do custom work, they told me the Koni is too small. nothing they can do. Look to another system for Polaroid.

RB

With regard to the rangefinder question, there is a post on each lens that identifies the focal length. I'm not a camera repairman, but I did adjust my rangefinder by attaching a piece of ground glass at the film plane w/ a rubber band and tweaking the rangefinder adjustment screw. I have a 58mm and a 90mm; since the 90mm has less depth of field and needs to be more critically focused, I used it to adjust the rangefinder. Note also that there appears to be adjustments that can also be made where the post for each individual lens contacts the camera body. After adjusting my camera w/ the 90mm, the 58mm also was in perfect adjustment, so I didn't have to go any further than the rangefinder itself. The ground glass is an excellent way to check your focus, especially w/ a magnifying loupe. My rangefinder was off as was confirmed w/ the ground glass, and since being fine-tuned it performs like new (maybe even better!) BTW, when I used the ground glass, I just set the shutter to "B" and used a cable release that can be locked. Also, I should add that the rangefinder tracks perfectly regardless of the distance.

Hope this helps....Dave

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] $30 Polaroid Back Projects resources

see Roger Hicks nifty article in Shutterbug titled "Building Your Own Test Camera" August 1997 p.38 on (4 pp) for some ideas on building a polaroid back. Basically, you can buy the polaroid back part as an OEM item from any polaroid dealer (cost circa $30 US) and then mount it and shim it onto the desired camera or body. Mr. Hick's article used a Lubitel 166 as a cheapy 6x6 body, removed the back and epoxied the whole thing together. This article is a great reference to anyone wanting to add a polaroid back or test camera to their bag of tricks - ;-) regards to all - bobm

[Ed. note: for those who say medium format quality cameras are pricey...]
From: "M.Kronquist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS Koni Omega 100
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:13:59 GMT

With lens works fine $250

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

For what it' worth, I have a 58mm wide Omegon and it's exceptionally sharp. I also have used both the 90mm Hexanon and Omegon. Upon getting the 90 Omegon, I taped an old newspaper on the wall and took a picture of it (filling the frame) for an informal test, using a flash to minimize any camera shake (it was also on a tripod). I found that one corner of my negs were consistently fuzzy. After close inspestion w/ a dial indicator, I found that the lens mount (on the lens, not the camera body) was not perfectly parallel to the lens elements. After very judicous shimming between the mount and lens body I was able to get things right again. Now the lens is very, very sharp. With my 90 Hexanon, everything is perfectly parallel and is where it should be, and after working on the Omegon, I cannot tell the difference in image quality between the two. Of course, here's the $5 question, do Omegons have more liberal mechanical tolerances than did the Hexanons? I don't know. Again, my 58mm Omegon is sharper than anything I've ever worked with. If I was looking for a 180, I would see if I could make arrangements to try it first, and ideally it would be really nice to be able to try an Omegon and Hexanon at the same time. Hope this helps...Dave

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: FW: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

That is nonsense, or what some of us call "old man talk." Older stuff tends to become more fiction than fact as time goes on (like tall-tales). In 20 years people will probably start saying Hexanon designs were the ones Zeiss copied.....oh brother.... Both Omegon and Hexanon 180mm are the same lens, except the Omegon may have a more updated shutter. It is basically a tele-Planar design. Excellent lens.

Peter K

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: FW: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

The lenses were made in the same factory by the same people. Mamiya took over the factory which was orginally owned by Konica. Of course there were updated shutters, etc. added and the name on the lens changed from Hexanon to Omegon, but nothing else did. I know the people who started the Koni-Omega factory in Japan and this is what I have been told. Perhaps some quality control aspects changed which may account for the sharper Hexanon lens. Hexanons were built under original Konica quality control, alleged to be the best in the industry (this always ticked off Nikon by the way).

Peter K

-----Original Message-----
From: omegaman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 1:07 AM
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: Re: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

[email protected] wrote:

>
> I'm thinking of buying the 180 mm lens, and I see both the Hexanon and
> Omegon lenses listed.  Is there a difference between the two?  I have heard
> Hexanon lenses are in general better than the Omegons; is this due to a
> different design or to things such as lens coating?
>
> - Lawrence Cheng

Lawrence:
I had both the Hexanon and the Omegon. Between the two examples I had the Hexanon was sharper. Hexanon was made by Konica and the Omegon was a Mamiya

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: FW: [KOML] need advise

The Rapid 100 has backs too! They are smaller since they don't need the front piece required for a 200, and can be changed just as quickly. The 100 is also slightly lighter.

The 90 is your lens. Changing it is a waste of time and the 135 won't do any better. Just move in closer if you want a closer shot. The 90 focuses relatively close.

Wedding photography is like combat, you don't have a lot of time to play around changing lenses.

Peter K

-----Original Message-----
From: John H. Beverly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 5:09 PM
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: Re: [KOML] need advise

kent wrote:

>
> Can some of you experienced wedding pros tell me the best Koni-Omega set up
> for weddings?  Lens, which make, film, and any other tips.  I'm just
> starting and need some advise.
>
> Thanks

Hi Kent,

For weddings, I prefer Rapid Omeg 200. The 200 has interchangable mags which can be preloaded and change in just a couple of seconds. You would do well to have the normal 90mm lens & a 135mm lens, of less importance would be the 58 or 60mm lens. I have had only limited application for the wide angle lens in wedding photography.

Good Shooting
John

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: FW: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

Well, the 58mm (and 60mm) are the same also. Whether they read Hexanon or Omegon except for a newer and actually better shutter mechanism in the Omegons. By the way, there is also a 58 Omegon which was the Hexanon lens with changed name when Mamiya took over the factory. Are tolerances different, I doubt it. Perhaps your 90mm Omegon lens was just banged around before you got it (I am assuming you picked it up used).

The reason the 58mm is so sharp is that it is a Biogon lens type, which is the Zeiss lens that all wide angles want to be like. The Biogon is considered the best Zeiss wide angle ever made. Currently found on the Contax, and Hasselblad including the blad that went to the moon). The 90mm is a Tessar-type design, hence the reason for just ok images at F3.5 and razor sharp at F8 and F11.

Peter K

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 7:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 180 Hexanon and Omegon lenses - difference?

For what it' worth, I have a 58mm wide Omegon and it's exceptionally sharp. I also have used both the 90mm Hexanon and Omegon. Upon getting the 90 Omegon, I taped an old newspaper on the wall and took a picture of it (filling the frame) for an informal test, using a flash to minimize any camera shake (it was also on a tripod). I found that one corner of my negs were consistently fuzzy. After close inspestion w/ a dial indicator, I found that the lens mount (on the lens, not the camera body) was not perfectly parallel to the lens elements. After very judicous shimming between the mount and len body I was able to get things right again. Now the lens is very, very sharp. With my 90 Hexanon, everything is perfectly parallel and is where it should be, and after working on the Omegon, I cannot tell the difference in image quality between the two. Of course, here's the $5 question, do Omegons have more liberal mechanical tolerances than did the Hexanons? I don't know. Again, my 58mm Omegon is sharper than anything I've ever worked with. If I was looking for a 180, I would see if I could make arrangements to try it first, and ideally it would be really nice to be able to try an Omegon and Hexanon at the same time. Hope this helps...Dave

[Ed. note: Steve Taylor was kind enough to share this PDF manual with you/us!]
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998
From: Steve Taylor [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: great idea! ;-) Re: KO Manual

Robert

I hope this manual will help others. James did a great job scanning the files.

I just took his files and placed them in a document and converted it to PDF format.

See you.

Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Re: Backs

If you are only getting 9 frames on a roll of 120 with your back, is the spacing quite large between them? And growing sizably as you go from 1 - 9? This may be due to a a cam that drops slowly into position as you pull out the film advance lever. That Cam may be dropping too slowly or not at all. Each time you pull/push the advance lever it should stick out a bit more so the stroke is shorter, hence the reason there is an increase in the size of the space between each frame and typically a thin space between frames 1 & 2. There are a few people who can repair this.

Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998
From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] shooting problems

[email protected] wrote:

> hi yall,
> my koni sometimes does not cock the lens when i advance frames and  sometimes
> the flash will not fire with it.  is this something i can fix myself or should
> i call someone.

Aaron, the cocking mechanism is dirt simple with no adjustments that I know of, short of bending the finger that actually cocks the shutter lever on the lens. That would be necessary only if the finger is not pulling the lever all the way over. About the flash problem, have you verified that your sync cord is not at fault? If not, the problem is internal to the lens, and a professional repair is in order.

Mel Brown

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Blank film: rookie mistake?

I made what might be the mistake with my first roll through my K-O 200. What I found was that I was not pushing the shutter release hard enough. I had heard a click and assumed that it was the shutter firing - it's not, that sound is something else that I can't remember at the moment. You have to push the shutter release all the way down to the body, about 1/4" of travel; it's a lot longer than a typical 35 mm camera.

You can verify this by opening the back and observing whether or not the shutter opens when you push the shutter release.

- Lawrence Cheng
Creative Labs

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998
From: "Frazier, Charlie" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Blank film: rookie mistake?

If I remember correctly, if you are using negative film (not transparacies), a black roll has been fully exposed to light somewhere along the line. If no light had hit the film, then it comes out clear.

A good example, is the leader on a 35mm roll, which is black, while the rest of the roll will either be clear (if unused) or have images.

The problem you describe, could be caused by failure of the shutter to close at all. Which while unlikely, is possible. If you run through a roll, with the dark slide installed, by just advancing the lever and soup it, you should get a clear roll of film (negatives as before).

If you are using slide film, the opposite effect is to be expected on the exposures.

Charlie Frazier

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] KO Rapid

Is this list dead???!!! I have not heard from but one person in the weeks that have past.

Now for some information, for those who care.

I spoke with a good friend who is very well versed in optics. For those who care:

The 58/60mm Hexanon for the KO/RO is a Zeiss Biogon type and is a dead ringer for the Schneider Super Angulon (which itself is a modified Biogon) and a superb lens. This is why the photos with this lens have little Barrel distortion. The Super Angulon, being nearly symmetrical eliminates much of the geometrical distortion.

The 90mm is a Zeiss Tessar copy which means that it is best at F8, F11, and maybe F16. Wide open it will be soft. (This I can attest to personally)

The 135mm is a Zeiss Sonnar type. Very very Sharp. Similar to the Sonnar lenses used on the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex SLRs of today.

The 180 is a cross betweeb a Planar and Sonnar type lens. You don't see too many tele-Planars, but this is some sort of hybrid, and a very sharp one too!

Peter K

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998
From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] True lies + back fixes

Amort, Alan D wrote:

> I have made two purchases on Ebay.  The prices were not the best but I was
> content with what I got.
>
> Also, I have two 120 RO backs that cause minor spacing errors and are a
> little stiff to operate.  I prefer to fix these kind of problems myself but
> I have not taken them apart to see what needs done.  Has anyone done their
> own repairs?  How much will it cost if I have it done at a shop?

Alan, my first RO200 back, a 120, had a weird problem that caused it to bypass the number "1" on the frame counter, jumping to "2" instead. I opened it and found the cam had a rounded spot that should have been a flat land area. A few minutes with a small file fixed it. The irregular spacing you mention is probably caused by the clutch (I would call it a "rack and foot") mechanism in the left side of the back. Likely that either the teeth are worn, causing slippage, or some lubricant has gummed up the works.

They are easy enough to disassemble. The hardest part is removing the six screws securing the winder knob to its lever. Then, peel back the sides and very top of the leatherette and remove two screws on either side, along with a fifth screw at top center. Unscrew the latch screw, and you can remove the shell, exposing the innards. No springs will fly across the room, so even if you give up at this point, no harm done; just put it all in a bucket and take it to someone who gets paid to do that sort of thing.

Mel Brown

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] True lies + back fixes

If the backs are stiff sometimes a lubricant helps. You can spray wome WD-40 on the gear that turns the drive spool in the back and this will help. But as far as your back goes, if its spacing improperly, do you mean overlapping? Otherwise, it is normal to have the spacing get larger between each consecutive frame.

Peter K

Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Blank film: rookie mistake?

Carl:

Well, here's my 2 cents.

1. First disconnect the lens and set the shutter to 1/15 and F4. Cock the shutter manually and then trip it with the lever on the side of the rear of the lens. Hold it up to light to see if the shutter opens. I have seen KO lenses where the shutter trips but the blades do not open. If you do this 10 times and nothing the shutter needs a cleaning badly. Sometimes it needs excercise and maybe after the 4th time the shutter opens but it means the shutter is becoming sticky and should be cleaned nonetheless.

2. If you remove the back from the camera, place the lens on it and note the position of the shutter cocking lever by the front of the lens. Make sure it is on the proper side so it can cock the shutter. If it is not, there is your problem. THIS IS ONE of the Headaches with the KO/RO cameras. If the back and lens is off the body at the same time you can have the shutter cocking bar in the wrong position.

3. Last thing. If everything mentioned is correct, now with lens and back on observe the shutter cocking bar as you withedraw the film advance lever. Is it cocking the shutter properly? Its just a lever so it should. If not, the last this to do is remove the back and see if moving it manually will cock the shutter. If not then the lever has a problem. If the shutter does cock, then the back is the problem.

By the way, Ally McBeal???? Isn't that the show for 24-year old single female college graduates with angst? (Watched it twice, I prefer to watch the rain on a window pane).

Peter K

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998
From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] RE: Cable Release

"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:

> Can anyone trell me what the length of the cable release for the
> Koni/Rapid-Omega is?
> Any suggestions for a suitable replacement would be appreciated.

The overall length is 22cm, the flexible part is 9.5cm, and the travel is 17mm. I also have a generic cheapie that works fine. It measures 29.5cm total length. I chose it because it works great with my Siegelite bracket. Avoid using a longer release, or it may get itself into the picture with the 90mm lens. Unlike the Koni release, the cheapie wallows around in the holder on the grip, but that's easily fixable with a few turns of electrical tape or whatever. Koni shutters need a release with a long travel, so make sure the one you choose has at least 15mm of travel while being held in a 180-degree turn.

Mel Brown

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 98
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Filter Sizes and wide lenses (was KO for Landscapes?)

At 9:47 am -0800 21/11/98, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

>Carl Wegerer wrote:
>
>> Is 1/125 too slow for handheld shots?
>>
>Depends on how steady you can hold it, I have gotten good reaults at 1/30
>but a tripod is always better.
>
>> In this thread, I have also read about filters.  Do the majors make
>> filters that
>> work, or does these require modification?  
>>
>Yes. Here's the deal:  58mm/60mm Lens  Series 7 (which is a 54mm Filter)
>                       90mm                    49mm (Remove the step down
>ring and use 49mm filters.  But save it if you want to
>use the auto-up closeup adapter that requires it.)
>                       135mm                   67mm  (mine fits fine.)
>                       180mm                   67mm
>
>Peter K    

Great to read the landscape threads.

On the filter sizes, mentioned this some time ago - have a 58/60 with a 55mm thread. This may be a late version of the lens assembled by Mamiya with a contemporary filter thread size. Worth checking if you are in the market for a wide Hexanon.

From memory, markings on the lenses are also different - Omegon versus Koni Hexanon. No difference in the glass although shutters may well be different. Seem also to recall my tame repairman muttering the words "Seiko shutter" when delving in the innards of a 90mm taken in for a CLA..... The shutters changed over the years - Peter probably has a good handle on this story.

The evening before Kerry's posting on using a wide Hexanon on 4x5 a friend and I had a similar conversation. He had sold his outfit and was considering doing exactly that with his remaining 58/60 lens. He asked me about the usable image circle of the lens. Guess we're all going to hear the answer on that one fairly soon.

The most interesting news was the fact that the lens elements can be used with a Copal #0 - am tempted to join in the experiments myself now ;-)

All the best,
Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Macro with the KO

Hey the list is alive again....

Kerry, the KOni & Rapid Omega lenses are copies of the following Zeiss designs as follows:

The 58/60mm Hexanon for the KO/RO is a Zeiss Biogon type and is a dead ringer for the Schneider Super Angulon (which itself is a modified Biogon) and a superb lens. Photos taken with this lens will have little Barrel distortion. The Super Angulon, being nearly symmetrical in design eliminates much of the geometrical distortion found in other lenses. It is also tack sharp and best at F16. THIS LENS IS PARTICULARLY WELL SUITED TO SCENICS.

The 90mm is a Zeiss modified Tessar type lens. It is best at F8 and F11 but wide open will be soft. THIS LENS IS PARTICULARLY WELL SUITED TO PEOPLE SHOTS. Also good for close ups because of the way it capture a sense of 3-D, Leica lenses use to use the term roundness which represents a means of reproducing more depth to the photograph.

The 135mm is a Zeiss Planar type depending how you look at it. Planar types tend to have edge to edge sharpness, excellent choice when you need to shoot more open. Very very Sharp. Similar to the Sonnar lenses used on the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex SLRs of today. PROBABLY THE BEST LENS FOR CLOSE UPS IF YOU USE THE SPACER. The problem is finding one of these lenses. They only made them for 2 years and are razor sharp. Apparently they were pricey too when new from what I am told, another reason for their scarcity.

The 180 is a cross between a Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Sonnar type lens. Either way its a modified triplet. In English (that's "American English" Clive! We simply improved on a good thing.) the lens is a hybrid that will offer sharp images even wide open, although the image is better stopped down. My experience shows the lens to be best from F8 to F22, F32 is fine but what you gain in DOF you lose in resolution). It has good contrast, but cool in coloring. If you have pletny of sun fine, but in shaded areas use a good warming filter (81B) for scenics.

The Rapid and Koni cameras are great but it is the lenses (and their prices) that justifies us "KONI-nuts" using this mechanical monster.

Incidentally, the famous 50mm F1.4 Nikkor that was the lens that was the most popular Nikkor of its day was actually a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar design.

Peter K

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Macro with the KO

It focuses to about 7 feet normally. The spacer is like an extention tube that moves the lens further from the film/focusing plane. You need a M or 200, so you can remove the film magazine, use a ground glass back to set up, focus and then reinsert the magazine to take a shot.

Not sure of the tube sizes. Perhaps someone who has one or two can lend a hand.

Peter K

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Macro with the KO

I have one of the spacers and I believe that it is either 9 or 10mm. As far as I know there is only one size, but you can stack them if needed.

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
From: Kerry Thalmann [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] KO for Landscapes?

...

Thanks to some info I located online, here is what I learned about filters for the KO lenses:

By removing the internal series VI adapter ring, the 90mm can use standard 49mm filters. The 58 (or 60) takes series VII filters (between the current standard 52mm and 55mm sizes). In the current B&H catalog, they list series VII to 52mm, 58mm, 62mm and series VIII stepping rings. 52mm is slightly smaller than the seris VII size, so may cause some vignetting with the wide angle lenses. The 135mm and 180mm lenses take series VIII filters which are compatible with standard 67mm filters. I have a 49mm to 67mm step-up ring and obtained locally a series VII - VIII step-up ring, so now I can use all my existing 67mm screw-in glass filters with the KO lenses.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
From: Jim Richey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] KO for Landscapes?

One nice thing about the Koni-Omegas that isn't often mentioned is that the shutter and aperture rings on the lens are synced so that once you've decided on the optimum exposure settings, you can simply grab both rings and turn them one or more stops in the same direction and you'll still be exposing the film the same amount. This is especially good for taking several shots with different depths of field, or for getting variations on shots of moving water.

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] KO for Landscapes?

Carl Wegerer wrote:

Is 1/125 too slow for handheld shots?

Depends on how steady you can hold it, I have gotten good reaults at 1/30 but a tripod is always better.

> In this thread, I have also read about filters.  Do the majors make
> filters that
> work, or does these require modification?

Yes. Here's the deal:   58mm/60mm Lens  Series 7 (which is a 54mm Filter)
                        90mm                    49mm (Remove the step down
ring and use 49mm filters.  But save it if you want to
use the auto-up closeup adapter that requires it.)
                        135mm                   67mm  (mine fits fine.)
                        180mm                   67mm

Peter K

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: Kerry Thalmann [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] 58mm Lens Coverage

Hello again,

Does anyone know the image circle of the KO 58mm lens? Since it is a Biogon type, I'm guessing the angle of coverage will be in the 100 - 105 degree range, similar to the Schneider Super Angulons (the f8 Super Angulons cover 100 degrees and the f5.6 series is 105 degrees). If this is accurate, and assuming no mecahnical vignetting, this would yield an image circle somwhere in the 138 - 151mm range.

I know this may sound like blasphemy to long time KO aficionados, but has anyone tried to use this lens on any other camera? Assuming the above range for the image circles is in the right ball park, this means this lens doesn't quite cover 4x5, but easily covers 6x9 or even 6x12.

There are a few reasons that lead me to this query. First, given the tendancy of the plastic focusing tips to break, I know it is common practice for people to remove the excellent Graflex XLRF lenses from their focusing mounts and use them on other cameras (of course, the KO bodies do not suffer from this problem). Second, the KO 58mm is relatively inexpensive compared to other lenses of comparable focal length and performance. Third, in my search for a 58mm lens, I noticed that about 1 in 3 are being offered for sale without the finder. And finally, when taking apart my KO 58mm lens to clean a film off the inner glass surfaces, I noticed the shutter assembly looked very similar to a standard Copal #0. Since I had one handy, I tried screwing the KO lens elements into a standard Copal #0. Perfect fit.

I am not suggesting anybody permanently modify a KO 58mm lens, but has anyone tried to adapt them for use on a press or view camera? If you did, did you use the existing KO shutter and figure out some way to trip the shutter while mounted on a lensboard, or did you re-mount the KO lens elements in a standard shutter? I thought it might be fun to play around with using this lens on a 4x5 field camera with a 6x12 roll film back. Assuming the KO shutter spacings are all consistant with the current Copal #0 (which would mean they are also the same as all other German and Japanese #0 shutters - everything from old Compurs to the Prontor Professional), all you'd need is a working shutter and an aperture scale.

It just so happens I have a 120mm lens in a modern Copal #0 shutter that has an aperture scale engraved from f5.6 - f64. If you round of the KO focal length to 60mm, this would be equivalent to f2.8 - f32 (of course, the KO lens would still only have a maximum aperute of f5.6 - the marks corresponding to f 2.8 and f4 would be meaningless). Alternatively, if you had a cheap 80mm lens mounted in an old Compur #0 shutter, you would be real close to the correct aperature by simply opening up one stop from the engraved aperture scale. (58*sqrt(2) = 82.0)

Anyway, I was just thinking out loud. Again, I am not suggesting anybody sacrifice a KO 58mm lens for such experimentation. That would be a shame, since there are a finite number of such lenses available, which should rightfully be used with KO bodies. I'm merely considering other uses for my lens that would in no way prevent me from still being able to use it with my KO camera. Since I already have all the parts, when I get around to testing the KO lenses, I'll probably mount the 58 in a convential Copal #0 shutter and shoot a couple test shots on my 4x5. At the very least, this should give a good idea of the coverage of this lens.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: Kerry Thalmann [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm Lens Coverage

...

Hey John,

Great minds think alike! Let us know what you find out. It will probably be a week or so before I get around to trying mine out, so I'm anxious to find out what you learn. Unless there is mechanical vignetting, it should cover at least 13cm. Of course, such mechanical vignetting is a real possibility since it was only designed to cover 6x7 (about 90mm image circle). They may have designed the lens to be as physically small as possible while still covering the full 6x7 area. This could lead to vignetting well before a lens of this formulation would normally run out of coverage.

One other problem in attempting to use this lens on 6x12 could be light fall off in the corners requiring an expensive center filter. Heliopan makes a 55mm center filter that B&H sells for $149.95 (they also sell as series VII to 55mm adapter). Pretty reasonable compared to the larger center filters required by most modern 4x5 ultra wide angle lenses. Still, it's a lot of money to pay for a filter.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] 58mm Lens Coverage

Kerry,

Because the lens is a Biogon-type does not mean it has to have a substantially large angle-of-view. It is simply that the design yields little barrel distortion and will provide you with a beautiful sharp image edge-to-edge. (I am not trying to be a wise guy here, so please note this is said without sarcasm). The angle-of-view of the 58mm lens is 61 degrees with 6 x 7cm format, equating to about a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR. I am just not sure how the angle-of-view was measured (e.g., diagonally?)

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: Kerry Thalmann [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm Lens Coverage

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply. I was referring to angle of coverage, not angle of view. The two are totally different. Angle of view, is simply a function of the film format and the focal length of the lens (which is useful for relating "equivalent" focal lengths between different formats). It appears the 61 degrees you mentioned was calculated using the long dimension of a 6x7 negative (2*atan(35/58) = 62 degrees, but I used the full 70mm length - the actual image area might be slightly smaller due to margins) Angle of coverage is a function of the lens design, and is derived independently of film format (although it is important to know if the angle of coverage is sufficient to cover the intended film format). In other words, a given 58mm lens will have the same angle of coverage regardless of what size piece of film you place behind it, but the angle of view will vary proportionally with the film dimensions.

> You raise an interesting point about mounting the KO lens for larger  format.
> I know someone on this list talked about doing something like this a while
> back.  Perhaps the Archive might show it.  Sorry I don't have more
> information on this.

Thanks for your help. I'll let you know what I learn in my little experiment.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: Kerry Thalmann [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm Lens Coverage

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

> Sorry, in this case I don't know the angle of coverage.

Thanks Peter. This is usually only specified for lenses intended to be used on view cameras where movements are possible. It doesn't make any sense to spec it for a rigid bodied camera. By design, the lenses have enough coverage to hit the corners of the film, and that's all that matters. What I was really wondering (I should have been more clear), is was if anyone had experiementally determined just how large an image circle this thing throws. I will learn this myself when I get around to testing my lenses, I just didn't want to re-invemt the wheel if I didn't have to.

Kerry

P.S. I enjoyed you article on "The Pros and Cons of Medium Format" in the current issue of Photo Insider. Ironically, I had never even heard of the magazine until the day after I subscribed to the KOML, and then there it was on the shelf at my neighborhood Barnes & Noble. For anyone else reading this far, do yourself a favor and check out this publication. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire issue and sent away for a subscription.

--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Fair value for lenses

Here's my 2 cents:

        58mm with finder about $225-$300
                Finder alone $50-75
        60mm (same as 58mm optically but often found for less $)
        90mm $50-$100
        135     $450-$800
        180     $200-350  (silver housing ones are the latter 
edition. Were made for ROs)    

Peter K.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Indheatec)
[1] Re: Need advice on Koni-Omega
Date: Sat Dec 05 21:04:44 CST 1998

>Subject: Need advice on Koni-Omega
>From: [email protected]
>I need a quick lesson on the differences in the  Koni-Omega models
>(Rapid, Rapid M, 100 and 200).  I am planning to get one for my Xmas
>present. I don't want to buy the wrong thing because of some obscure
>point that I do not know of.
>Thanks in advance
>Paul

Paul,

The Rapid and the 100 models are the same/similar, the Rapid M and the 200 models are also the same/similar.

What's the diferrence between the Rapid/100 and the Rapid M/200?

The Rapid M/200 has a removal magizine with a dark slide so you may change films in mid roll.

The Rapid/100 you cannot remove the magizine in mid roll you may only remove the film holder when the roll is finished.

I always thought that the Hexanon lenses were sharper than the Omegons. The Hexanon lenses come with the Rapids, and the Omegons came with the 100/200's.

Make sure that the film magazines are O.K by loading a roll of film and firing off the shutter, then remove the lens, look into the body and with a pen and using the 6X7 area of film showing at the focal plane scribe the 6X7 oblong onto the film. Continue to advance the film and do this 9 X's. Remove the film, remove the paper backing and check to see that you have 10 6X7 engravings scribed onto the film which would indicate that the magizine is O.K.

Check the range finder with a metal rule.

The 58mm WA requires an auxiliary finder.

I always used the 135mm lense as my standard lens and the 58 and it's finder was always in my bag, their resolution and contrast would indeed measure up to that of my Mamiya 6 lenses that I use today.

Sincerly,

Bob Mc.

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Hello

Hi John,

Thanks but no not the Rapid (I have one of those too) but the ORIGINAL KONI RAPID which had silver colored backs (unique to that camera alone) and also part of the front was silver as I recall. If someone has one of these would they check and let me know.

Thanks.

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999
From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

>I shot my pictures in the aperature range of f-8 to f-11 at 1/125 using the
>KO 90mm.

I find that f8 - f22 is very sharp on the 90, and f11 and f16 devastatingly so, IF the RF is on the mark. I had a lot of problems with a wonky RF and being of a particularly stubborn (and mechanical) persuasion actually fixed it all myself, but this is a whale of a job -- two adjustments for infinity focus (yep, mine were off), one more on the body for the 58mm (yep, that was off), one basic adjustment on the RF mirror (ditto) and one for the lens coupling pin (waaaaaaay off). There are two more on the 180 lens (spot on, thankfully) and probably one or two on the 135 (don't have that "problem").

>Any suggestions on how to test the
>rangefinder?

You need a way to inspect the image cast by the lens at the film plane. Ground glass, etc. It needs to be *real* flat, with frosted side towards the lens. The depth of focus at f3.5 is tiny -- less than the thickness of film I think -- forget trying to use wax paper or scotch tape for this as some have suggested, this job takes real precision and accuracy. I use a little 60x microscope mounted on a ring stand that just spans the film rails -- no GG needed. The DOF of the microscope is so narrow that once I set it to be in focus in the plane of the ring stand, I'm all set. You need to check RF vs GG at *many* different distances. For the 90mm lens I would work at "infinity", 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 8 and 5 feet. If the adjustment for the 58mm lens is out to lunch, as mine was, you may find that there is an intermediate range that is out of focus on your 90, while close and far works well (or vice versa). Would not worry too much about less than five feet -- it *can* be done, but RF cameras are not in their element for close ups in any event. You can do a very quick and dirty check by noting whether the distance reported on the focus knob is correct -- if the RF says 20 feet and the tape measure says 12 or 15, you have a problem. If it's off, I suggest calling Greg back and asking him about it. You really need a 58mm and a 90mm lens to get all the camera body adjustments in synch... and they all tend to affect each other to an extent.

>Most of photographic work has been sports at night using the widest
>aperatures.

Ack. Use a different camera. The KO is difficult to focus in low light and the lenses aren't all that hot wide open anyhow. Fast film and f8 is better in the KO than slow film and f4. Tessar type lenses like the 90mm are capable of about twice the resolution at f11 vs f3.5.

Regards,

Evan Ludeman

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

>> You
>> need to check RF vs GG at *many* different distances.  For the 90mm  lens I
>> would work at "infinity", 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 8 and 5 feet.
>
>Why more than the two distances I suggested? If it's a linear device, as it
>seems to me, only a near and a far adjustment would be possible or
>necessary. Am
>I missing something?

Actually, it's not a linear device. The distance of the focal plane varies as one over the distance that the lens moves. The classic thin lens formula from my physics book is:

  1       1          1
 ---  +  ---    =   ---
 d(i)    d(o)        f

where d(i) is the image from the lens to the image, d(o) is the distance from the lens to the object, and f is the focal length of the lens.

This means that when the lens is focussed at infinity, the 1/d(o) term is zero, so d(i) = f. Small changes in d(i) produce large changes in d(f) in this region. Then it smooths out, and when d(i) = d(o) = 2f, the change in d(i) and d(o) are similar, but opposite in sign. So this is a highly nonlinear relationship, and the rangefinder's mechanics have to approximate it. Usually they are OK, but if one thing is a bit out of whack, the whole lot can be really messed up.

(Note that in lens design, they use the thick lens formula, which is more complex, and more accurate. If the lens is thin relative to the distances d(i) and d(o), the thin lens formula is OK.)

Hope this helps, and is of general interest.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Welcome to day 21xx of
[email protected] | 11296 | "The Truman Show" presidency.

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999
From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

Mel,

First off, no flames intended -- I think at one point I suggested using tape, myself -- it will work for a very gross check of the system.

The reason I don't like it is a) I'm not convinced the tape really stays where you need it, i.e. precisely at the film plane, b) I found it difficult to tell when the image was in focus on the "emulsion side" of the tape, c) I found a better way :-). As I recall, the depth of focus for a lens at f3.5 is a few thousandths of an inch, increasing to a mm or so at f22 -- I worked that out a while back and concluded that scotch tape wasn't going to work as well as I needed it to for adjustment purposes.

The microscope I use is a "Carton" brand that I had kicking around the lab at work -- I have no idea where the heck this came from, but the key feature is that it sits on a ring stand that is quite rigid and just the right size to span the film rails on the KO. I first focus the microscope in the plane of the ring stand by setting it on a flat surface and focusing on that surface. Its depth of field is exceedingly small, so it provides a very good test for focus of the aerial image.

Okay, more info -- I picked up the Edmund Scientific catalog and found a dead ringer for the microscope I have -- p/n D38,380 -- now for the bad news: it's $325.

Now, as far as why more than two distances. It's not really a function of the non-linearity of the system so much as the fact that there is more than one system in there. Specifically, there are two parallel systems, one handles the 58mm, the other handles the 90 and the mechanism in the 180 adapts this lens to the 90mm focus system. Now, it is possible, through misadjustment, to have the 58 focus system "take over" from mid distance through infinity. You can detect this by observing the RF image while the focus knob is rotated from near to far focus. If the image suddenly seems to move faster as infinity is approached, you have a problem here. The adjustment for the 58mm lens is located on the top of the "bellows" under the cover that says "Rapid Omega" or whatever. A brass colored pin contacts a nickel plated lever throughout the RF range with the 58mm lens mounted, but should only contact at infinity with the 90mm mounted. Mis adjustment may cause this pin to make contact short of infinity and foul things up. Adjustment is via an eccentric screw located nearby.

Now -- take all this with a largish grain of salt because I am not a service guy and I don't even have manuals available. This is all stuff I have sorted out for myself through experiment and observation. I really don't recommend mucking about with the RF for the average KO user -- I wasted a lot of film, time and effort getting this ole camera working right and frankly it was not worth the aggravation -- assuming that this can be fixed professionally at a reasonable price (I haven't talked to any pros about this).

It *is* worth having a well adjusted RF. The camera really does very nice work now.

The procedure I used roughly goes like this:

1) confirm that infinity focus stops (one on the "bellows", one on focus knob) are set correctly, adjust if needed. 90mm lens works best for this at f3.5 (recall that depth of focus is strictly a function of aperture, not focal length). Set focus knob stop so that the knob stops positively when the bellows hits its hard stop -- this is a little tricky, but very important. You can use a very thin strip of paper to detect when the bellows stop is close to contact.

2) Mount 58mm lens and set RF to infinity by adjustment near RF moving mirror.

3) adjust aforementioned pin on top of bellows for proper RF action at near distance with 58.

4) Mount 90mm lens. Adjust with screw accesses from front of camera, just abouve the lens coupling pin.

5) repeat steps 2 - 5 as needed. Check both lenses at several distances between 5 and 50 feet plus infinity.

You're on your own for the 135 and 180. I don't have the former and the latter did not require adjustment in my case. The adjustments are found under the cover eblazoned with the greek omega.

Best,

Evan Ludeman

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

Hi Roger,

Its Bill Maxwell. Great guy. Known him for years.

I would not worry about the rangefinder yet. Try a roll of film through the camera first. Chances are its OK. The problem with KOs and ROs is that the Rangefinder can be out of adjustment, especially if someone monkeyed around with it that had little understanding of it. I had one like this. I did have it repaired, and it was great after that. The problem with the KOs and ROs is that the rangefinder is set to a specific standard for the lens.

Sometimes, the lens rod (each lens has a rod on it except for the 58/60mm) can be off. Even though the cameras have interchangeble lenses, a perfect camera would have to be set up for all the lenses one owns so that the rangefinder is in perfect sync with the lenses employed. Otherwise, the rangefinder may not be as accurate as it could possibly be. Again, only worry about this if you are having a problem with the camera. Otherwise, shoot and be happy.

Peter K

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

Depth of focus and RF adjustments re-visited...

From Stroebel, et al, the Acceptable Lack of Focus (:-)) formula is said to be C*N*2 where C is the circle of confusion, N is the F number and 2 is two. Using the KO manual's nice, round 0.0583mm COF, I get an ALoF of 408 microns or about 0.016". Now, I'll admit that that's about 4x what I recall having calculated a while back, which means that either a) I used a much smaller COF (likely, I'm a stickler for sharpness where I want sharpness), or b) the brain goes to hell once you're past 27 (even more likely). Still, this is sixteen thou from Unacceptable Lack of Focus to equally ULoF (:^)). I grant that the tape, well applied, will probably be within +/- 0.008" of the film plane, but one actually has to get things a lot better than this. If one is willing to tolerate a displacement of the depth of field of <25%, one needs to get the lens and RF in agreement to about 1/4 the ALoF. That's +/- 0.002". Assuming that my nose hair is about 0.003", I'd better clean off the film rails :-).

Anyone know how thick the image forming part of photo emulsions are?

Practically speaking, I had a lot of trouble with scotch tape and my 10x lupe. The results were poor, I didn't enjoy it, I botched the pics at my Dad's retirement, etc. The microscope's depth of field is . In any event, it worked a lot better for me. With 60x magnification at the film plane, our 0.058mm COF at ALoF enlarges to an apparent 3.5mm -- readily visible, even if your coffee pot is on the fritz.

By setting the system up as accurately as possible "on the bench", I get that much more room for error in the field. As Mel points out, field errors are non-trivial, whizzer KO glass, modern film and 6x7 frames really bring them out, too! For the average KOML reader, whom I assume is more interested in taking quality pics than in spending a lot of time fooling with the camera and burning a lot of film testing results, I think a pro job is indicated.

>That's good information, but as a troubleshooter with a "divide and conquer"
>approach, I would bet that once the camera is set properly, you don't  touch it
>again; you simply adjust each lens as needed.

Not guaranteed. As I alluded to earlier, the adjustments are somewhat interdependent.

Best Regards,
Evan Ludeman

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] FAQ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 12:57 PM
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: RE: [KOML] FAQ?

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

|Clutter away, the list has been too quiet too long.

OK, Peter, I will.

Actually, the main question I have right now is about film backs. Are there any 220 backs for the Omegaflex? And is there a special type of back for it, or does it use one of the types that fit other Koni-Omegas? I haven't really puzzled out what the various kinds are yet.

Thanks

scott

and postscript:

Oh yeah, but NOT the original Koni-Rapid. Those are unique to that camera.

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: Randolph Carlisle [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] FAQ?

....

Scott:

Omegaflex uses the same backs as the Koni-Omega. If you want to try one for fit, I have some for sale at Camera & Palette Camera Shop on Beverly Street in Staunton. That is about 25 miles from you.

rc

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

One thing to consider:

I know the Koni lenses are good, but... they are old designs, uncoated or at least not as good as modern coatings. Anyone who believes these old lenses stack up to modern designs are fooling themselves! I have seen dramatic differences in new vs. older lenses from the same manufacturer, specifically Nikon, Hasselblad and Mamiya. Of course these lenses also have to use heicoil focusing, but I think it is simply a matter of newer vs. older designs, coatings, and maybe materials. I still have my Koni, and it works well for most situations, but if you need to be critical, sharp is a relative term.

Rick

You shouldn't base your comments on only your Koni and lenses. I have owned several, some terrible, some not. Most of the time the fault is the body. The Rangefinder is a pain to adjust when it goes out of whack, and if someone does not know what they are doing and try to adjust it...man are you in for it.

The koni lenses are coated, not multicoated. I know there are some that think the Hexanon sharper than the same Omegon lens, like the 180mm, but this is nonsenses. They are the same design its just that we did not have the computer automation to create glass as we do today when these lenses were made 40 years ago. For this reason they will vary to an extent. Same with the camera, like cars sometimes a RO made on a Wednesday may better one made on a Monday. Hey, it was manual labor years ago that controlled even the precision machinery.

I do agree with you that some newer lens designs have an edge when they include multicoating, low dispersion glass, and/or aspheric elements, but without these additions a new Hasselblad Planar lens would be no more different than an older one except that it is now multi-coated, which mighht give it somewhat better characteristics. A new Tessar or Planar is the same as an old Tessar or Planar unless modified with LD glass or aspheric elements.

All new Nikon, Canon, or other 35mm Lenses are generally better as a group than their older siblings. More automation, less rejects. Case in point, Sigma never did make great lenses, but their new EX line is incredible. They really improved things with more computer automated optical design and LD glass (they use Hoya optical glass as does Pentax, Leica, Tokina, etc.). In fact, I was lucky enough to trial several macros and I could have bought any one, but the new Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX macro shocked the heck out of me when I used it, so that's what I bought. Performance was equal (honestly) that of the Tamron 90mm which was the Macro I originally decided on, but since the Sigma was 105mm, and I had a tad bit more working distance that made it the easy front runner.

Peter K

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Lens aperture and image sharpness

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

> I do agree with you that some newer lens designs have an edge when they
> include multicoating, low dispersion glass, and/or aspheric elements, but
> without these additions a new Hasselblad Planar lens would be no more
> different than an older one except that it is now multi-coated, which   might
> give it somewhat better characteristics.  A new Tessar or Planar is the  same
> as an old Tessar or Planar unless modified with LD glass or aspheric
> elements.

Just to elaborate a bit on what Peter wrote... New glass is vastly superior to the glasses of the 60s and 70s: it is much more consistent and it is more readily available in more extreme indexes and at much lower prices. What would have been exotic LD glasses in the 60s and 70s is cheap run-of-the-mill stuff today. And the computer programs which can take advantage of the optimisations these new glasses offer are so inexpensive and run so quickly that they are used constantly and there is no comparison given an apples to apples comparison.

The Zeiss Tessar on my T4 (which is a 35 mm fl lens BTW) is virtually apochromatic and just beats the daylights out of even recalculated Tessars from the 60s, which were "normal" fls. Even though apotised for contrast, it still has remarkable good resolution and beats the heck out of far more expensive formulations from Nikon.

Another part of this equation is the high levels of automation and extremely tight fabricating and fitting tolerances available today... orders of magnitude better than 20 or 30 years ago. So todays Planar could be vastly superior to yesterdays, even with the same basic design and for reasons far more important than the coatings everyone seems to focus on.

The question of whether extra care is actually taken and higher levels of performance actually realized by lensmakers can only be answered on a case by case basis, as many makers care only about hitting the consumer price-point and selling up to their target valumes.

Eric Goldstein

rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (Bbadger)
[1] Re: Koni-Omega Parts????
Date: Mon Feb 08 20:09:41 CST 1999

>Does anyone know where parts can be found for KoniOmega
>Rapid 100 cameras

Contact Greg Weber. [email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Advice- Best inexpensive TLR?
Date: Wed Mar 03 13:55:17 CST 1999

Avuroski [email protected] wrote

I've been looking for a good medium format camera for a while now, have bought two over EBAY and had to return them both due to simple functionality or "soft" lenses. I'm probably dreaming, but is it possible to get incredibly sharp, contrasty 6x6 negs from a camera under $300? That's all I really have to spend. I've heard mixed reviews of different Yashicas and Rollei's...

> Yes, you can get awesome images from a $300.00 MF camera. But you will have
> to center your search on Japanese TLR's, or perhaps a dinged Rolleicord.
>
> The Minolta Autocord, Ricoh Diacord, YashicaMat can all be had for under
> $300.  All are very reliable, very easy to use, and produce graphic color
> and contrast, focused razor sharp.

I just tested a Minolta Autocord against a Koni-Omega Rapid M with 90mm Hexanon lens. I used Fuji Velvia film, cameras on a tripod with a cable release. The Autocord images may be a bit more contrasty, but on sharpness there was no comparison.

The Autocord was fine at f/11, f/16, and f/22; not as good at f/8; and not acceptably sharp at f/5.6 or f/4. The Koni-Omega started to get soft at f/5.6 and was not acceptable at f/4. More significantly, at any given f-stop, the Koni-Omega beat the Autocord. If the picture really matters to me, I won't chhose the Autocord and I won't shoot the Koni-Omega any wider open than f/8.

Other Koni-Omega pluses: interchangeable 120 and 220 backs and a choice of four lenses. On more neutral topics, I prefer the rangefinder and the 6x7 format of the Koni-Omega. Downside: its heavier, bulkier, and about 2x as expensive -- but still under $300!

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

There are 2 sportsfinders. One for the koni-Omega which covers the 90mm and 180mm and then a later version for the Rapid Omega which incorporated one additional for the 135mm lens.

> Mel Brown wrote: "There is a sports frame finder that seems to cover two lenses, but
> I don't know which two."
>
> Two types of sports finders exist.  The newer Rapid Omega sportsfinder covers the
> 90mm, 135mm (only a dream for many) and 180mm lenses.  This sportsfinder measures 2
> 1/2 x 1 3/4.  The much larger (and older) Koni-Omega sportsfinder covers the 60mm (or
> 58mm),  90mm and 180mm lenses; the 135mm is a later product.  It is about 4 15/16x 4
> 5/16 in size. 

Thanks for the info, Carl. Didn't know there were two sports finders available. The KO manual (http://www.skypoint.com/members/jcwatne/omega/page14.jpg) shows one for the 90 and 180 lenses; it appears to be about the size of the first one you mentioned.

Mel Brown

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
From: "Robert E. Smith" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Old Klunkers, Digital Cameras,etc

Thanks for asking. Here it is:

The Story:

In the fall of 1993, a friend and I were photographing landscapes in the Charlottesville VA area. I have always been enthralled with a church in the small community of Cismont, nestled in lovely horse country. It is a beautiful setting but the dickens to photograph. As an experiment, I suggested that we use identical set ups, with his Hasselblad 501C /80mm and I with my Koni-Omega Rapid/90mm. I supplied the film, Kodak PXP, and developed both rolls in my darkroom in fresh D76 1:1, 68.0 deg F., identical agitation. The cameras were set identically both aperture and shutter speed. A Bogen 3046 tripod with a 3047 head was set for eye level (5.5 ft) height. A cable release was used, of course. The only compensation employed was a slight change in distance to compensate for the difference in lens focal length. Both cameras were focused at 25 feet and stopped down to give maximum depth of field. The cameras were tilted slightly upward, which gave a little convergence which I hoped would create a feeling of uplift.

The resulting negatives were taped together on a light box window with opaque Strattford board and masking tape to disguise the formats and shown to three local professional photographers. I ask them to identify the image produced by the Hasselblad. After considerable of discussion on acuitance, sharpness, gray gradation, contrast, and other more esoteric qualities, the three agreed on one. You might imagine their surprise when I removed the tape revealing the formats. They had picked the 6x7 negative from the Koni-Omega.

What does this prove? Not much, really. Prints from the two negatives can not be differentiated. I used to be sheepish about discussing equipment with owners of more expensive and modern cameras but not any more. For the type of photography I enjoy, landscape, portrait, and still life, I have all the equipment necessary. I dont do weddings (I cant handle brides or their mothers), I do few close-ups requiring slr technology, and I am a snob about my work, not the equipment used to get it done. I hear few carpenters argue over who has the best hammer (although I once had to break up a fist fight between two musicians over the best way to carve a clarinet reed - truely). :-)

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] KO prices/sportsfinders

I tried to dig up some information on the sportsfinders in a few back issues of Modern Photography. I didn't find anything but I thought these list prices from Modern Photography's annual buying guide were interesting:

December 1968:
Koni Omega Rapid M with 90 and 120 back $449.50
Rolleiflex 2.8F $449.50
Hasselblad 500C $660
Mamiya Super 23 with 100/3.5 & Graflok back $349.50

December 1976:
Rapid Omega 200 with 90 and 120 back $575  
Rolleiflex 2.8F $967
Hasselblad 500C/M  $1,425
Mamiya Universal with 100/3.5 & 6 by 7 back $635

R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected] or
mailto:[email protected]
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Rapid M and lenses for sale

Hi-I'm new to the list. Some experience with medium format and larger, but mostly 35mm. The question is Can the koni-omega type camera accomodate a polaroid back or is it too small? I passed on a nice looking kit on ebay today because I have not seen much discussion tying a KO and polaroid together. I am looking for something versatile (interchangible lenses and backs), but am primarily wanting the instant feedback that Polacolor 100 gives. TIA

Ben

There are no polaroid backs for the KO/RO.

Peter K

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

Mel,

OK, first the finder on the top left of your page is an optical finder for the 58/60mm lenses. There is NO equivalent with the Sportsfinder. The Photo on the bottom, is an older one with the KO Sportsfinder, notice there are only 2 frames in the front for 180mm and 90mm. THe wording also states only for the 90 and 180mm. Later Sportfinders that bear the name Rapid Omega on them had 3 frames, 90, 135, and 180mm. Realize that the 135mm lens was only made for 2 years. It is a fantastic optic, but the rarest of all the Koni lenses, but when you find one you will find it has exceptional resolving power.

Peter K

...
Peter and Carl, my interest is only academic (who, since the 1950s, has actually used a sports finder?), but you two guys are not in total agreement about which lenses each finder covers. You both say the newer one covers the 90, 135, and 180 lenses, but what about the older finder? Carl says it covers the 58/60, 90, and 180. Since he supplies the dimensions that seem to fit the 58/60 coverage, that makes sense. But neither of you describes a finder that matches the photo in the user manual (http://www.skypoint.com/members/jcwatne/omega/page14.jpg), which clearly shows one with frames for only the 90 and 180 views. Were there three finders?

Mel Brown

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Rapid with 60mm and finder and case. Cheap?

That camera on ebay is a Koni Rapid. Its backs are not compatible with the Koni M, RO100 or 200. It was the first version made by Konica. Nice camera nonetheless, but the viewfinder shown on top should be in the center shoe is your using the 58mm or 60mm lens.

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: Robert Trabucco [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

Mel,

As to who, is using a sports finder. Anyone that shots people.

There is no way of seeing expression through a rangefinder/veiwfinder or an SLR. I started using a sports finder when a photographer I shot weddings for (with a Koni-Omega 200) required it of all his photographers. After using the sportsfinder I agreed with him totally, few wasted shots over expression.

Bob

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 99
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Darkslides and misc bits

Richard Jakowski [email protected] wrote:

> To repeat the original message: I need 2 or 3 dark slides for the
> backs I have. I'm pretty sure I saw some for sale on a
> web sites I checked out last week but can't remember now. Does anyone
> know were these can be found? I think the
> ones I saw were selling for $10. Is this the going price?

Another place to contact is A Camera, a used camera store in Chicago. They are the very first listing on Impact!, maintained by R. Monaghan. They have a decent web page, with all their KO cameras and bodies listed. However, they often have odd bits that they don't list, and will sell reasonably. For example, I got the ground glass back, the Omegaflex reflex viewer, and a 120 back all for $75. The reflex viewer will fit on the GG back with a little filing, and gives an upright but RL reversed image. Now all I need is a fresnell lens to even out the brightness.

So call or e-mail them. They may have nothing, or they may have 6 sitting in a box. URL for Impact!:

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Welcome to day 23xx of
[email protected] | 11296 | "The Truman Show" presidency.

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: John J Stafford [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Darkslides and misc bits

Richard Jakowski [email protected] wrote:

>  To repeat the original message: I need 2 or 3 dark slides for the
>  backs I have. [...]

Richard, as a last resort I can have some slides made for you. They would be stainless steel, and the same rigidity of the originals, if you wish.

[ed. note: - one person's opinion - see IMPACT! for more dealers...]
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Source for clean used eqpt.

I used to own everything they made for the Koni, I found stuff all over. The best vendors: Midwest Photo Columbus www.mpex.com Thompson Photo Chatanooga www.thompsophoto.com Wall Street Camera has a lot of stuff, haven't tried to deal with them.

Good luck

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999
From: JEFF TEICH [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] med format color printing

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> I did get the post.  That's a good size enlargement 30 x 40.  I remember
> Kodacolor II well.  My first SLR looked great using Kodacolor

Pete,

Trying to learn this computer, thought I lost that post in cyber space.

If you only go back to original kodacolor days, I cut my dues when we switched from 4x5 to 4x5 - 6x9 roll backs using agfa's first attempt in color neg film "without the orange mask". Try to print that film on the old chromega enlargers with the gel filter head while the gel filters were burning up. That's when you learn about color printing and darkroom procedure.

A little tid-bit, when I was in my early teens, met Fred Simmons & his brother at a wedding while I was a photog ass't just after they introduced the original Omega 120. They asked why we are shooting 4x5 speed graf's not their little gem. Fred kindly offered us to borrow two cameras and see if these cameras would work out shooting weddings. Talk about two drug pushers giving you your first fix. Please remember at that time Rollies' were becoming popular.

After my first wedding with the Omega120, that's when I decided to only use these cameras. A real love affair. The Simmons brothers were gentlemen, always kept in touch with them and they got me into the photo industry as a sales rep. Things were different in the mid fifties. Just wanted to let you know how far back I go with the KO. I see you are very active in this news group most likely you too have a love affair with the KO's

Jeff T

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] med format color printing

Hi Jeff,

Well, never met the Simmons Bros. but have been friends with Henry Froelich and Paul Klingenstein (Paul worked with the Simmons Bros, in the 50s and took over the idea turning it into the Koni Rapid, later the Koni Omega M, and later Rapid 100 and 200) for a number of years.

My love affair with the Koni has only been in the last decade. I was (and still am to some extent) a Rollei TLR shooter as well, but like the 6x7cm neg and the fact I have superb interchangeable with the RO.

My RO 100 was a great find and I fell in love with it when I saw the lens quality. Truly amazing. Since that time I have acquired all four lenses. Each offering some great features. I don;t think I would ever part with it.

Peter K

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Auto Up No. 2

Rick,

I have a set of instruction, which if memory serves, are from Hank Green. They are in japanese but the photos show how it works with numbers indicating the proximity they work at. I can e-mail you the file if you like. I think its a jpg and also have the same in powerpoint. Let me know which is best.

Peter K

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999
From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Auto Up No. 2

Rick Gordon wrote:

> I picked up a Koni "Auto Up No. 2" closeup attachment - its kind of weird,
> consisting of a screw-on lens attached to a 2-part frame - which I presume
> is to be used for parallax correction. Frankly it doesn't seem very
> practical in actual use. Did/do people really use this for closeup work?
> Why are there 2 parts to the frame? (Basically I'm looking for instructions
> or experience here - or at least some clues!)

The Rapid Omega version consisted of a close up lens attached to a frame holding a diopter for the rangefinder. There was no correction for parallax. Distortion along the edges of the image was a problem.

Instead of an Auto up, I would get a large close up lens like a 58mm and step it down to a series 6... unless the inner ring of your 90mm was removed, then you could get by with a 49mm adapter. Fabricate a wire frame for the correct subject area and distance from the lens using a ground glass to view the image with the lens racked out. Attach the frame to the camera body. This will eliminate parallax and focusing errors.

A spacer between the lens and the body would be better. KEH had a close up adapter listed several years ago that was described to me as a spacer.

R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected] or
mailto:[email protected]
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999
From: Don Hensley [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Rapid Ground Glass backs

Looking at an old review of the Rapid M in an old photographic magazine I came across a reference that there was a ground glass magazine for this camera available.

How rare are these backs? I have never seen them advertised in any magazine.

And is it possible to fashion a working ground glass myself? And if so how?

Don
Don Hensley
Railroad Photographer & Historian
Specializing in Shortlines and Industrial railroads.
Visit my shortline and industrial railroad photo history web page "TAPLINES" at:
http://www.greenepa.net/~taplines/

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Rapid Ground Glass backs

Don,

Yes there is a ground glass back for the KO, I have one, but they are rare and hard to find. They're great for using close-up lens on the 90 mm for flowers and such (or 180 to get a head shot). I also have the chimney finder (3X magnifier built in) which attaches and I really like that setup for thoughtful compositions. The one I have has had the original replaced with an RB-67's screen and is really bright corner to corner.

Cheers,

Nick Nichols

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999
From: Kevin O'Brien [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Rapid Ground Glass backs

The KO is easy to use with a ground glass. All that is required, in pratice, is a piece of thin ground glass of suitable size, a large dark cloth and a little dexterity. I have done it, in the distance past, to check the rangefinder focussing. With the back off, the glass is simply placed, ground side, against the film aperture. A piece of tape may be useful to hold it in place if you run out of hands while trying to hold a magnifier as well.

An aside - if your ground glass breaks a temporary focussing screen can be made form cellophane dipped in bacon fat. I have the photos from a Thornton Pickard Ruby Reflex to prove it.

Kevin O'Brien
Wainuiomata, NZL

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 99
From: melhus [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Ground glass solutions

>   Hey, a friend of mine made some nice looking ground glass with glass
>etching compound that he got from a craft store. The stuff is really
>hazardous to work with so he does it outside and washes off the residue
>with a garden hose. He said you can sand one side of the glass with 400
>grit sandpaper ( from an auto parts store) but the etching compund only
>takes 5 minutes.

Why not just buy a piece of ground glass. I'm sure that there's at least a dozen people in Shutterbug that will sell you a piece, and glass in small sizes is pretty easy to cut down.

For anyone with a M or 200, there's a really easy way to get a GG back. Just get a magazine front, and glue the glass into it.

Don't use gobs of glue, and make sure that the glass is pretty flush with the edges of the film holder. And this way, it's easy to remove the GG back, and slip on the magazine when you're done composing and focussing.

There should be a small supply of magazine fronts without backs around, because the backs can break beyond repair, but it's almost impossible for the fronts to break without being totalled. Ask around at used shops, and you should be able to get one. That's how I got a single front. I'd have glued the gg back in, but I have the standard KO back, and the reflex viewer from the Omegaflex hooked up to it. That's the best setup, IMHO. I just need a fresnel lens to even out the brightness, and I'm decked out.

Finally, if you do get a magazine front, tape down the darkslide interlock, so that you don't have to put a darkslide in front of your GG before taking it out.

And note that this won't work for a Rapid or a 100, because they don't have the removable magazine, just the back. Only use the glue on a 200 or M removable back.

Regards,

Martin F. Melhus | PDGA# | Welcome to day 23xx of
[email protected] | 11296 | "The Truman Show" presidency.

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999
From: Richard Jakowski [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

Greetings,

I have an Omega Rapid 200 and need a 58mm lens with the finder. I realize stuff for these cameras is a "being at the right place at the right time" sort of thing but, does anyone have a potential source for me to check out?

What about a ground glass back for same?

It's gratifying to know there nuts like me out there who enjoy photography with older, medium format cameras. I get the feeling that a lot of the new stuff marketed today is designed for folks who either never owned a camera before or someone with very deep pockets.

With cheaper digital cameras on the horizon, I wonder if in another 10-15 years photographic film will only be available in the art supply stores.

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999
From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

Mel Brown wrote:

>....Seems I read somewhere (probably
> in this group) that the 58/60mm lens has about the same angle of view  as the
> entire image in the camera's viewfinder. That finder clearly wasn't  designed for
> this, so you'll have to move your eye left, right, up and down to see all four
> sides of the frame, one or two sides at a time.

Yes, that's what I do instead of using the albada type optical finder.

I once checked the viewfinder image against the ground glass image and it was right on. The albada type optical finder looks klunky http://www.skypoint.com/members/jcwatne/omega/page14.jpg and got to be a hassle to use. I had to put a piece of vinyl tape on the bottom of the finder to keep it from sliding out of the accessory shoe! I would guess that alot of finders slid out and hit concrete.

R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected]
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999
From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

Mel Brown wrote: "There is a sports frame finder that seems to cover two lenses, but I don't know which two."

Two types of sports finders exist. The newer Rapid Omega sportsfinder covers the 90mm, 135mm (only a dream for many) and 180mm lenses. This sportsfinder measures 2 1/2 x 1 3/4. The much larger (and older) Koni-Omega sportsfinder covers the 60mm (or 58mm), 90mm and 180mm lenses; the 135mm is a later product. It is about 4 15/16x 4 5/16 in size.

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
From: Kevin O'Brien [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder/ LENS MOUNTS

-----Original Message-----

>I'm pretty sure it's an optical finder. There is a sports frame finder that seems
>to cover two lenses, but I don't know which two. Seems I read somewhere (probably
>in this group) that the 58/60mm lens has about the same angle of view as the
>entire image in the camera's viewfinder  

I didn't know until seeing this group that there was such a finder. I have had a 60mm lens for years and used the main viewfinder. It seems to match at the corners fairly closely to suffice. I wear specs and have no probs framing with it.

The idea of a wire frame has appeal and I suspect that it requires little more than another outer rectangle to the others with the size inversely proportional to the focal length. i.e 1.5x longer on each side compared to the 90mm frame.

LENS MOUNT FITTINGS

Does anyone know of a mounting adapter so the lenses can be used on a lensboard ? I'm not handy enough to make one but the parts from a retired Koni, if there is such a thing, could render the job fairly easy for the right person.

I have an old Linhof field camera 13x18cm, probably used in WW1, with a further set of adapted backs from polaroid 4x5 to Graphic 6x9cm roll film and it would be nice to be be able to use the superb Hexanon lenses with it.

Kevin O'Brien
Wainuiomata, Wellington, New Zealand

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
From: Mel Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm lens and finder

"Carl Wegerer, III" wrote:

> Mel Brown wrote: "There is a sports frame finder that seems to cover  two lenses, but
> I don't know which two."
>
> Two types of sports finders exist.  The newer Rapid Omega sportsfinder  covers the
> 90mm, 135mm (only a dream for many) and 180mm lenses.  This sportsfinder measures 2
> 1/2 x 1 3/4.  The much larger (and older) Koni-Omega sportsfinder  covers the 60mm (or
> 58mm),  90mm and 180mm lenses; the 135mm is a later product.  It is  about 4  15/16x 4
> 5/16 in size.

Thanks for the info, Carl. Didn't know there were two sports finders available. The KO manual (http://www.skypoint.com/members/jcwatne/omega/page14.jpg) shows one for the 90 and 180 lenses; it appears to be about the size of the first one you mentioned.

Mel Brown

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999
From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Sportsfinders-followup

The Rapid Omega version (item number unknown) is designed for 90mm, 135mm and 180mm lenses. The much larger Koni-Omega sportsfinder (706-112) covers the 60mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses. I bought the KO version on eBay and looks like it is in the original box. If anyone has a sportsfinder covering other lenses, please let me know.

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999
From: n1965n [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] sports finders

Hi: For what it's worth, my sports finder has only two front rings. The large outer one is labeled Koni-Omega & has the omega symbol on the front and 90mm on the back. The 180mm inner ring just has a turquois ring around the inside. The rear sight adjust up and down for parallax. It is labeled for 4 feet, 8 feet, and infinity.

They must have made many versions of these things.

Jim

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] sports finders

>From Carl's information (and others) it would appear there were 3 versions.

KO version with 90 & 180mm
KO version with 60, 90, and 180mm
RO version with 90, 135, 180mm.

Anyone have any others? Maybe a RO version with the 90, 180 only?

Thanks.

Peter K

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Sportsfinders-followup

Carl,

I believe the optical viewfinder was always available. I agree with the others that if you don;t have it you can assume the edges + or - 5% of the viewfinder will encompass the 58/60mm angle of coverage. Regardless, that Sportsfinder with the 60mm frame has got to be an interesting piece.

snip..
Maybe the logic for discontinuing the 58mm/60mm option relates the the optical viewfinder and the fact that it would be used mostly for landscapes, not sports.

snip..
PS Are you selling any of the eyecups?

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Sportsfinders-followup

Peter K wrote (edited): " Regardless, that Sportsfinder with the 60mm frame has got to be an interesting piece."

It is huge! The Koni-Omega sportsfinder is about 4 15/16x 4 5/16 in size (21.29 square inches), so it much larger than the newer RO (the 90mm, 135mm and 180mm model), which measures 2 1/2 x 1 3/4 (approximately 4.38 square inches). My fellow KO fan says he would use the RO model since it so much smaller, but I guess he missed the fact the wide angle is not included.

This is what I wrote: "Maybe the logic for discontinuing the 58mm/60mm option relates the the optical viewfinder and the fact that it would be used mostly for landscapes, not sports." The point I was trying to make (and probably failed) was that a wide angle lens would probably not be used much in sports photography. The 58mm/60mm lens approximates a 35mm lens in 35mm format. Most sports photographers use lenses in the 85mm to 180mm range in 35mm. I do not own a 58mm/60mm yet, so I cannot tell anyone how well it works.

I will be offering the eyecups only if my friend refuses to buy the four extras.

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: Larry Kunk [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Sportsfinders-followup

>From the front, the inner dimension of the frames are:

1 15/32 W x 1 5/32 H 180 mm
3 1/16 W x 2 11/32 H 90 mm
4 5/8 W 3 5/8 H 60 mm

The rear frame has inner dimensions of 1 W x 25/32 H.

The distance from the rear frame to the front frame is 3 1/16.

There is the slide mechanism which has marked positions for 4, 6, 10 feet and infinity. It is pushed down all the way for infinity.

Distance from the bottom of the center shoe to the inside of the top of the rear finder ring is 3 3/32 when set at infinity, 3 9/16 when set at 4 feet.

When set at infinity, the centers of the two rings are at the same elevation.

The mounting mechanism goes in two of the shoe sockets on top of the camera. One of the shoes is directly under the rear frame. The other is on the right (from the rear) with a screw mechanism which locks it in place. The frame fold in so that the it is rather compact. Quality is very nice. Spring loaded. A conventional spring on the rear, with a shaft going through it. A flat metal spring of thick metal on the front to snap the forward frame into position. I don't know the term for this type of spring. You all have seen them. Support for the inner-most ring is from a pair of ribs which attach top and bottom. The middle ring has ribs in the center of all four sides.

If I were going to make one of these, I would use bar stock to create the horizontal support which goes from the shoe straight forward. I might simply cut groves in the bar stock and slide the forward and rear frames into it, so that it could be taken apart. Alternatively, the frames could be fastened to the ends of the bar stock. The shoe would be attached to the bottom of the bar stock. The front and rear sections could be made from black Lexan or some other material. Many of you will come up with better construction methods. Koni Omega sure did. It would be rough to duplicate thier product exactly.

(All dimensions in inches, accurate to 1/32 probably)

Larry

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Back latch looseness and light leaks

You need to get foam material for your back that fits into the groove and ensure no light leaks. This can be gotten from http://www.micro-tools.com which is Frago Enterprises. Hopefully that will remedy the situation. If you can borrow another film back you can at least narrow it down to that. How about putting the dark slide in the body and with the back removed look up toward the sun to make sure there are no light leaks in the body somewhere.

Peter K

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999
From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Back latch looseness and light leaks

Jay Maynard wrote:

> I've scanned the contact sheets of the first roll I shot with my Rapid  Omega
> M, and put them up at http://conmicro.dynip.com/~jmaynard/kocntac1.jpg (and
> 2 and 3, too). If you look at kocntac1 frames 4, 6, 7, and 9, you can see
> there's significant fogging at the right side of the frame,  corresponding to
> the left side of the camera. My camera has (for now, only) a 220 back, and
> the latch is loose - it'll rotate behind the film reminder holder and let
> the back get loose; when it does, the left side of the back wiggles a fair
> amount. (So does the right side, for that matter.) Is this a common  problem?
> How do I fix it?
>
> Also, what's the edge fogging near the end of the roll from? Is that just  
> sloppy handling (I've never shot 220 before), or is something else at work
> here?
===============================

There's a bolt 3/4 in. below the focusing knob that threads into the
body. It's the bolt that runs through the neckstrap lug. If it's missing
you have a hole leading directly into the film chamber! I had a Rapid
Omega with a missing bolt and the film used to fog before I figured out
the problem.



R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )

mailto:[email protected] or

mailto:[email protected]

http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm 




Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999

From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] 120 film in a 220 back


Jay Maynard wrote:


> My camera has (for now, only) a 220 back, and
> the latch is loose - it'll rotate behind the film reminder holder and let
> the back get loose; when it does, the left side of the back wiggles a fair
> amount. (So does the right side, for that matter.) Is this a common  problem?
> How do I fix it?



---------------------------------



There's a bolt inside the center of the back that threads into the
latch.


Try tightening it with a screw driver.


Try a roll of 120 in your 220 back. I've done that several times with no 
overlaping frames. Here are the specs on frame spacing:


Start to Frame 1: 38mm
Frame 1-2: 13mm
Frame 2-3: 12mm
Frame 3-4: 11mm
Frame 4-5: 10mm
Frame 5-6:  9mm
Frame 6-7:  8mm
Frame 7-8:  7mm
Frame 8-9:  5mm
Frame 9-10: 3mm
Frame 10-end: 35mm




R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )

mailto:[email protected] or

mailto:[email protected]

http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm



Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 120 film in a 220 back 


This is great!   I just inherited a 220 back, but I really only use
120.  So, you just use the same frame numbers on the 220 back (1-10)
and everything just works?  Cool! 






Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999

From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 120 film in a 220 back


[email protected] wrote:


> This is great!   I just inherited a 220 back, but I really only use
> 120.  So, you just use the same frame numbers on the 220 back (1-10)
> and everything just works?  Cool!




============================

After frame 10, advance to frame 20 before removing the back.


R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )

mailto:[email protected] or

mailto:[email protected]

http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm  




Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Back latch looseness and light leaks


snip..

Jay Maynard wrote (edited):


I thought you couldn't use 120 film in a 220 back because of pressure plate
depth issues. I can see how the moving pressure plate allows this to work in
the KO where it wouldn't even stand a chance in other cameras, but does it
push too far and make the film buckle, or scratch around the edges of the
film gate? In any case, I've got a couple of 120 backs coming (Hi, Craig!),
so this is a temporary issue.  



snip..



In some cameras it makes a difference because of the way the film pressure
plate is designed but not with the KOs or ROs.  Bear in mind, older Rolleis
use 220 and they use the same pressure plate in the camera back, with no
change.  Same for KOs and ROs.  The only difference in the RO/KO 220 back is
the counter and starting mark being unique to 220.



Peter K  





Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 

From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] sync cords


Ever get tired of all the misfires because your sync cord keeps falling
out of your flash post?



 I got one of these cords from Paramount several years ago and have been
using it with my Sunpak 555 handle flash with much success.



http://paramountcords.com/koni-ome.htm



 I recently found their website and thought I'd pass it on to the group.
http://paramountcords.com/




R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )

mailto:[email protected] or

mailto:[email protected]

http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm  






Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 

From: JEFF TEICH [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Sportsfinders-followup


Carl Wegerer, III wrote:


> Peter K wrote (edited): " Regardless, that Sportsfinder with the 60mm frame
> has got to be an interesting piece."
>
> This is what I wrote: "Maybe the logic for discontinuing the 58mm/60mm  option
> relates the the optical  viewfinder and the fact that it would be used  mostly
> for landscapes, not sports."  The point I was trying to make (and probably
> failed) was that a wide angle lens would probably not be used much in  sports
> photography.  The 58mm/60mm lens approximates a 35mm lens in 35mm format.
> Most sports photographers use lenses in the 85mm to 180mm range in  35mm.  I do 




Please compare apples with apples. The KO format is a 1to1.25 aspect
ratio, the 35mm is a 1to1.5 ratio format.  Making the 58/60 lens a 25mm
wide angle at the1to1.25 ratio or a 28mm wide angle lens at the 1to1.5
ratio. NOT A 35mm Wide Angle. 



Some of you do not remember the KO ads in the photo fan mags when the KO
was popular. It was the ideal camera set up for aerial photos. The KO with
the 180 & smaller sports finder 90/180 was pictured being hand held by a
photog in a bubble top helicopter . When I used this set up for aerials, I
always set the focus at inf, 1/250 or 1/500 th, F8 or higher & a UV
filter, worked all the time. Also used 58mm for this shooting, never the
90mm. Wanted wide or tele, never sold any aerials with the 90mm. Found
working with the KO system 58 to 180 took care of over 90% of my
photography. Still use my original KO's even today not bad for 30 years.



It was easy & fast  for aerials then and what is available & used today, the
KO is a down right bargain.



Jeff Teich 





Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] R-O Lens Info ?


The stories are stories. The Omegon and Hexanon are the same optically.  The
shutters are different in the Omegon since they were manufactured later.
The factory was originally a Konica factory and hence the hexanon lens name.
Later the factory was transferred on paper to Mamiya.  nothing changed in
terms of tooling.  The 58 and 60mm lens are the same optically, but for a
period Mamiya decided to relabel it 60mm.  The 90mm is the same except
Omegons have a newer (perhaps some would say better) shutter.  The 135mm was
only made 2 years and I believe it was when mamiya had the company.  The
180mm was originally Konica and later relabeled Omegon and a newer shutter
was used.  Hope this helps.  Quality control was not as tight as it is today
with computer designs and manufacturing, so sometimes you will get a superb
Hexanon or Omegon and some times (albeit rare, Konica was considered to have
the best QC of all the Manufacturers including Nikon...I was told by a
Nikon exec years ago it use to piss off Nikon when the Konica lenses
outperformed them often as a group and in many casees individually, this
considering Nikon was always #1 with the Pros).




Hope this helps.


Peter K    

<


Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999

From: Jim Richey [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] R-O Lens Info ?


I have both the 90mm Hexanon and Omegon. As Peter says they are the
exact same design. I do notice a difference in the lens coating. The
Hexanon has a purplish coating while the Omegon has a bluish coating.
Although with equipment this old it's certainly possible that one of
them was recoated at some point. For me the Hexanon definitly performs
better (sharper, higher contrast). However, as Peter says, it's probably
due to manufacturing tolerances. 




Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Tripods for Omegaflex?


Scott,


For a tripod at a reasonable price, I would recommend the Slik 300DX.


I also have a Bogen which is good and solid, but the Slik is the best deal
for the money and very sturdy.  Runs about $89 new in the stores.  See it at
http://www.tocad.com/12d.html   



As to the TLR 58mm lens, you can check with Greg weber (402)721-3873, or
they may have some in the latest Shutterbug ads.  They are not easy, but not
diffuclt either, to find.



Last, the film back.  When you ask for and buy a back you get just that, the
back or film holder as some would call it.  What you want is a complete
"magazine" which will include the front portion with dark slide and film
holder (or back). There are some on ebay and they may still be available.



PK  




Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] RE: Rapid Omega glass vs. Koni Omega glass


I know we have been through this before, but the Hexanon and Omegon lenses
are the same except for improvements in the shutter over the years.
Regardless, there are many factors that could point to a specific Hexanon
being better than its comparable Omegon or vice versa, but generally
speaking they should be very much the same.  Sometimes, the little rod on
the 90 and 135/180 could be a 1/2 mm longer or shorter which could make for
better (or worse) rangefinding.  It could also be the mfg tolerances since
many where made without the aid of the wonderful lens design and mfg
technology we have today.  And this also includes the mounting hardware 
tolerances.  but if you found one that's great stick with it.
I will get off my soap box now :-)





Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999

From: Don Hensley [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Original Simmons Omega Camera


According to Bill Cameta's ad in Shutterbug and on his web page at
www.cameta.com, this is a 2.5 Omicron lens on the Simmons Bros. camera they
have for sale. Is this a miss-print??


[Ed. note: probably as f/3.5 is standard...]


Also some info I have found in some old Camera magazines. The Koni-Omega was
originally reviewed in US Camera in October of 1963, the release date was
for March of 1964.  The article goes in great depth about the Simmon
Brothers and about Konishiroku. This is a year earlier than the accepted
date of 1965.



The Koni-Omega Rapid M was originally reviewed in the January, 1970 issue of
Popular Photography. 



Anyone interested in copies contact me off list.


Don 




Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Original Rapid and Article


Someone asked what the lens on the original Simmons Omega was.  I check and
verified it was a Wollensak (made in NY).  To the best of my knowledge, from
there the lense were mae by Konica (Japan), and then the factory transfered
to Mamiya but the same lens design (again Made in Japan).  They were never
made in Germany by Rodenstock as someone mentioned.



Also, I have an electronic copy of an article Paul Klingenstein (one of the
founders of the Koni Omega which later became the Rapid Omega, and currently
Chairman of Mamiya America) penned some years back.  He sent it to me and 
its scanned and can be sent Jpeg or Tiff.  If anyone is interested, e-mail
me privately.



Thanks.


Peter K  




Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 

From: Richard Jakowski [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Filters


Greetings to the KO user list:



Last week there was a lot of talk about filters for the KO/RO lenses.



It seems like there is a rather expensive nightmare facing anyone using
the KO/RO cameras because each of the lenses take a different size filter
(55, 49 and 67mm). Filters are going pretty high these days with $25 - $30
for the least expensive type. Does anyone have a suggestion for adapter
rings etc.that allow would allow one size filter to fit the 58,90 and 180
lenses? 


I thought I saw an email a while back mentioning how one of you (old?) pros
accomplished this. Was I mistaken?  



Rich Jakowski




Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Filters


The 58mm lens uses Series 7

the 90mm lens uses 49mm (but you have to remove the step down ring inside
the lens front)

The 135 and 180mm use 67mm filters.


I use a Series 7 to 55mm adapter and there is a 49-55mm adapter if you want
to reuse the 55mm filters on the 90mm.  Personally, I buy 49mm filters
because they are cheap.  As to 67mm, they are a bit more but I generally
only use a Sky, Warming, and Polarizer so its not a big deal.    



Check ebay for used bargains.  Buy them if Made in Japan even if they are
and odd brand they are generally good, I would personally stay away from
Korean and China made filters.



Peter K   



Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999

From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] cleaning the shutter.  


...

This may not be recomended by others but I had a KO 90mm with some of the
slower speeds sticking. I held the lens sideways and shot some lighter
fluid in it a couple times through openings for the cocking and the flash
setting opneings. Then I shot some air in it. I did this a couple of times
and it starting functioning regularly. The KO had not been used for a
number of years when I bought it.


Roger 




Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999

From: rick gordon [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] cleaning the shutter.


Well, supposedly I have an official factory repair manual coming my way, i
would be willing to make & mail copies for a small renumeration, if for
nothing else than to help offset what I paid for it. Once it arrives and I
see how bit it is I'll now how much.


Let me know if you're interested.  




Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999

From: Konstantin Levay [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] cleaning the shutter.


So far, the quoted price for a CLA and re-foaming (from one of the K-O
specialists) was $240. Ouch! This is way too expensive. If anyone know good
repair facility that charges less, please let me know.


Kostya Levay

U of Miami 





Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999

From: Geoff McAuliffe [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] cleaning the shutter.


Konstantin Levay wrote:


> So far, the quoted price for a CLA and re-foaming (from one of the K-O
> specialists) was $240. Ouch! This is way too expensive. If anyone know good
> repair facility that charges less, please let me know.
>
> Kostya Levay
> U of Miami




    Paul Ebel of Spring Valley WI, 715-778-4372, has been mentioned on
this list as a good K-O lens man. I think he charges $58 for a leaf
shutter lens. 



Geoff 





Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999

From: Konstantin Levay [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Cleaning the shutter: Update.


I couldn't even expect before that cleaning the shutter (if nothing is
brocken) is so easy to perform. And after Douglas Braun shared some of his
previous experience, it took me only about 15 minutes to do the job. The
hardest part was to find a spanner wrench (finally, I borrowed one from the
local camera repair shop) and a lighter fluid.



As for the repair manual, I found one also (70 pages for $15). Thanks to
everyone offered a copy anyway.



I have another question. How do you fit a roll of 120 onto 8x10 proof sheet?



Kostya Levay

U of Miami 




Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999

From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Rapid Omega System Brochure and Price List


I finally acquired a system brochure via eBay!


The price list is dated October 1, 1974.  The price for a RO 200/120 was
$575 while a RO 100/120 sold for $450.  A complete 120 magazine sold for
$146 and a 220 magazine.  Lens prices were $330 for the 58mm (with
finder, which sold separately for $38, and case), $175 for the 90mm (a
case cost $5 more) and $275 for the 180mm.  The 135mm was "D" for
discontinued.  Amazing stuff!  This equipment has really kept its value.  





Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 13:22:54 +0200
From: Olaf Pilling <[email protected]>
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [KOML] repairs

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]




> Hi Koni fans,

I can also provide you now with some repair manuals for your equipment,
but keep in mind that there are always some works described in them
which are reserved to do only by professionals !!!!!
The first manual I can offer as a copy in a plastic ring binding is for 
the Omega Rapid 200 (service, repairs, part numbers, adjustments) and
90mm lens only. The second is for Koni Omega Rapid cameras (explosion
drawings, parts numbers lists, measurements for the body and tolerances
for the lens shutters, covering lens service also) this will be in
plastic binding as well.
Due to the fact it is reproduced in Europe you will get DIN A4 format
not LETTER.
Normally I will make double sided pages due to the less weight and
resulting lower shipping cost, if you like single pages you have to
mention this separately.
I do not know at the moment the exact shipping and total cost (copy and
binding) but let me have some furhter days and I can tell you that too.
At least please do respond directly to my email adress NOT over the
mailing list as last time happend,
I don't want to get nasty letters from persons their mail boxes are
filled up with orders !!!!!        



Mail to: [email protected]



Have a nice easter enjoy the nice waether and take some real good shots.



Best regards Olaf   





Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Koni FS


Whether silver or black the 180 lens is the same.  The Tele-Omegon was the
renamed brand for the lenses that were manufactured by Mamiya (they
transferred the Koni factory ownership from Konica to Mamiya).  These would
have been made in the 70s.  B should function the same on either the
Tele-Omegon black or silver or the Hexanon 180mm (earlier manufacture of the
same lens).  What you say about the B setting makes no sense.  Can you hold
in the shutter release with either lens?  What happens with each when you do
this.  B should hold the shutter open until you release pressure from the
shutter release button.   



Peter K





Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999

From: Donald Hinds [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: Koni Omega



the models called just Rapid Omega were made by Mamiya, not Konica. They
came with the Omegon (not Hexanon) lenses.



                Don  




Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Ground glass



[email protected] wrote:


> Hello----
>   I am a newcomer to the world of Koni.  I own a Rapid 200 w/ the standard
> 90.  I have a few questions.  Is there a way I can prevent one of my backs
> from rolling the take up roll crooked?  Where shoud I look for the ground
> glass back and the wide angle lens?   What should I expect to pay for these
> items.




Ryan, as you can see by inspecting the back, the film path is about as
simple as dirt. There's not much to go wrong if you load the film
properly. When doing that, make sure to keep tension on the leader as you
wind it to the starting point. Here's how I suggest you do it. After
inserting the roll, pull the leader across and thread it into the takeup
spool. Then use your thumbs on the ends (not on the shaft) of the takeup
spool to wind to the starting point. 


If only one back is causing you problems, check that the pressure plate is
releasing when you pull the wind lever out a bit. And make sure no gummy
stuff is on the rails of the insert. Let me point out one oddity I've
noticed;  of the two very small rollers near the takeup end of the
pressure plate, the upper one has a lot more spring pressure on it than
does the lower. I can't explain it, but I checked several of my backs, and
they all have that characteristic.  This is apparently of no concern,
because I have never had a problem with film winding. 


For accessories, you can check news://rec.photo.marketplace, or ebay, or any
number of dealers who sell used gear. For a list of these, go to:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html#used.



Mel Brown





Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Ground glass



Hi Ryan,



Sometimes, the problem with crooked rolling is the spring loaded top side
(non winding) side of the take up reel.  Try cleaning it up with some
alcohol so there is no dirt that can drag the spool and see if it spring
straight up/down.  There should be very little play in it moving sideways.
If more than a little something is worn.  Just make sure you have installed
the roll and as Mel mentioned, make sure it is taught at the point when the
arrows are lined up.  I have 21 or 2 backs that are slightly crooked and
cause small fraying at the side of the roll but nothing much to speak of.
If its a problem and the crooked rolling causes light leaks onto the actual
film, then I would suggest you replace the back or send it out for repair.



Peter K.





From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[email protected]>
To: "'Koni-Omega Mailing List'" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [KOML] Resolution and format.
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 07:13:17 -0700
Carl,
The 90mm F3.5 lens is best at F8
The 58 or 60mm is best at F11
The 180mm at F8 to F11
Generally speaking its 2-3 stops down from wide open. The 90mm at F5.6 
is OK, stunning at F8 and F11.
Peter K
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wegerer, III [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 6:14 PM
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List
Subject: Re: [KOML] Resolution and format.
 
Could someone please help a non-technical photographer? If I 
understand correctly, the following lenses would be "optimized" as 
follows: 

90mm at f5.6, 

58/60mm at f11 

and 180mm at f8.

Thanks!
Carl



From: [email protected] (Stan Schaefer)

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re:[KOML] Frame/Negative Spacing

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 



What's a reasonable answer? Sounds like the back needs a little
servicing. There's a wedge in there that moves down to progressively
block the travel of the film advance, I suppose if it gets hung up
occasionally, it would give you varying spacing. I would suppose that
the advance clutch on the takeup spool could also get worn or crudded
up and might not give a full advance. That you could check by seeing
if you could turn the spool backwards. If it turns backwards even a
little, the clutch needs some work. I just finished working over my
two 120 backs, amazing how dirty they were in there. The service
manual calls for Moly G paste for lube, so crumbs of that were spread
all over. I have to find some outdated film to sacrifice, so I
haven't checked frame spacing yet. If you've got the tools and
inclination, taking the back apart for cleaning and lubing isn't a big
job. For future reference, the pivot screw for the film counter wheel
is a LEFT-hand thread. Not metioned in the service manual.




On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 you wrote:


>This may have been covered before, (my apologies if so) but is there any
>reasonable answer to the problem of uneven spacing on my KO negatives? I
>am using a Rapid Omega with a 120 back.
>Typically my last shot of the roll is only half the frame, and my lab has
>a nasty habit of placing an ID sticker at this spot on the roll. 
>Consequently, I am getting 9 shots per roll. On some shots the spacing
>between negatives is fine, on others its farther apart, and on some it
>overlaps.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Brian





Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] servicing in the uk?



Dave, before you send the camera off for servicing, there's one adjustment
you can make without getting in a lot of trouble. Unscrew the small cover
on the upper back portion of the body and use a small screwdriver to turn
the screw inside to adjust the coincident images properly for a distant
object with the focus knob set to infinity. If that doesn't do the trick,
then you'll have to send it to a repair house. Sorry, I don't know any to
recommend in the U.K. 


As to the jammed cocking lever, that's almost certainly a broken spring. Just
remove the three screws on the cover beneath the lever so you can inspect it.
Springs almost always break in the hook at the end. Use needle-nose 
pliers to bend a turn of the spring out 90 deg to form a new hook.



Mel Brown





From: Alan Amort [email protected]

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 

Subject: [KOML] How to take close ups?



Hello,


I would like to be able to take some close up pictures with my rapid 200. 
Not too close, perhaps such that an 8 to 12 inch object fills the frame.
I have the 58,90 and 180mm lenses and would like to buy some close up
filters and scrounge up a piece of ground glass.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what filters to buy or any other
recommendations such as which lens to use?
regards


Alan





Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 

From: rick gordon [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] How to take close ups?



there are closeup adapters available for the camera, called "Auto Up #1"
and "#2" for different closeups - they provide a simple lens and a parallax
correction frame. I have a #2, along with an instruction sheet in Japanese,
but frankly its so much easier to use a macro lens with my 35mm that I
haven't bothered to mess with it - it seems like a real pain to use.




4/30/99 you wrote:


>Hello,
>
>I would like to be able to take some close up pictures with my rapid  200. 
>Not too close, perhaps such that an 8 to 12 inch object fills the frame.
>
>I have the 58,90 and 180mm lenses and would like to buy some close up
>filters and scrounge up a piece of ground glass.
>
>Does anyone have any suggestions on what filters to buy or any other
>recommendations such as which lens to use?
>
> regards
>
>Alan






Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] How to take close ups?




Alan Amort wrote:


> Hello,
>
> I would like to be able to take some close up pictures with my rapid 200.
> Not too close, perhaps such that an 8 to 12 inch object fills the frame.
>
> I have the 58,90 and 180mm lenses and would like to buy some close up
> filters and scrounge up a piece of ground glass.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on what filters to buy or any other
> recommendations such as which lens to use?




In addition to the Auto-Up lenses that Rick covered, a +1 or +2 closeup lens
would probably do what you want with the 90mm lens. They usually come in
sets, including +1, +2, and +3 lenses. For the 90mm lens, you can remove the
screw-in insert and use the 49mm size. The 58mm lens will yield greater
magnification, but will probably force you to work uncomfortably close. The
180mm lens will provide less magnification, but will afford a greater working
distance.



For the ground glass, you may want to look for one from a 2x3 Graphic camera.
You can get new ones from Stephen Shuart (www.stephenshuart.com) for $15.




From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] How to take close ups?

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 


I will add my 2 cents. I Have an auto-up. The coincident images are hard
to see unless you have plenty of light. Parallax is a partial problem but
you can work around that. 


Peter K





From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Detailed instructions for RF calibration

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 



1) As most of us don't have microscopes or KO ground glass backs what would
be the best viewing screen? frosted tape stuck across the filmplane or a
piece of Ground glass taped to the film rails?



This what Greg Weber told me to do.  Take your magazine to a glass shop and
have them cut a peice of frosted glass that fits over the opening.  Tape the
glass so it will not move.  Put a coat over your head so you can see.  Place
objects at various distances and compare.





Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 

From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Detailed instructions for RF calibration



Carl Wegerer, III wrote:


> 
> 1) As most of us don't have microscopes or KO ground glass backs what would
> be the best viewing screen? frosted tape stuck across the filmplane or a
> piece of Ground glass taped to the film rails?
> 
> This what Greg Weber told me to do.  Take your magazine to a glass shop and
> have them cut a peice of frosted glass that fits over the opening.   Tape the
> glass so it will not move.  Put a coat over your head so you can see.    Place
> objects at various distances and compare.


================================================




  If those "objects" are flat, calibration is much easier. Take a page
out of the classified section of your newspaper and tape it to a wall
upside down. With your KO or RO on a tripod, you will know when you're
in focus when you can read the newsprint with a loupe. The edge of the
paper is also a good line to focus on with the rangefinder.


  Adjust the rangefinder at 5 feet and check it at other distances such
as 10, 15 and 20 feet. 


  I use an old ground glass from a junked Yashicamat held in place with
poster putty. You can make your own ground glass with glass etching
compound from a craft store or 400 grit sandpaper and lots of elbow
grease. 



R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected]  





From: [email protected] (John J Stafford)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Rapid Omega 100/200 vs. Mamiya Universal Press

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 



greg kerr wrote 


> I am looking on moving up from my first medium format camera, a
> in the running but I have also been researching the Koni Rapid Omega and
> Mamiya Universal Press cameras. I tend to be somewhat enthralled with
> 6x7 and am wondering what opinions are on either of these cameras. I
> could be wrong but they seem more versatile than an older Pentax 6x7. As
> these are older cameras are they still easily serviced ...




Okay, I have and use both a Koni Omega Rapid and a Pentax 67 (MLU).
First, service - there are good service people for the KO. One in
particular is almost legendary. I can send his name via private e-mail.



Candid comments: Except when shooting with a light source in the
frame, the KO lenses are just as good as Pentax, and sometimes
far better. And lots less expensive. An exception, of course, is
when I do close-up work where the Pentax is simply more adept - the
kludges to make a rangefinder (the KO) work in that regard are a pain.



Recently (heck, just this week) a fellow KO photographer send me a
picture he did with his KO 180mm lens. I compared it to a similar shot
of mine done with the Pentax (67) 135mm macro. I was FLOORED. The
KO was far better, especially in its bokeh. (But if you shoot in
the F64 school, you will never appreciate that.)



Finally, if you are going to use flash, flash-fill, etc, the
Pentax only synchs to 1/30th. The KO up to the lens' max,
usually 1/500th!



The choice is yours: a KO with 90mm lens for about $250 or
the Pentax 67 for what, $999 used without lens - at best? 
When you can't tell the difference between the results? Some choice.



(I've never used the Mamiya, but wonder how many lenses are available.
Maybe someone can help here. The KO has 58mm, 90mm, 180mm and 135mm lenses.)





From: "Carl Wegerer" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Rapid Omega 100/200 vs. Mamiya Universal Press

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 



If you are looking for Koni-Omega/Rapid Omega information, visit:


http://www.smu.ed/~rmonagha/mf/korapid.html



There is also a listserver.



I own a KO M with the 90mm and 180mm lenses.  Everyone dreams of finding a
135mm, which was made for only two years and costs about $600 to $800 today.
A 180mm runs $250 to $300, which is about the same as the 58mm/60mm
(optically the same, just different names between Konica and Mamiya) with
the optical viewfinder.  Todays prices are about the same as when these
items were new!  From what I have read, the lenses are top notch.




[Ed. note: included here for your info - however, a screwed up 
rangefinder calibration may be hard or impossible for pro repairers to 
fix if they lack the factory jigs to make the repairs, so caveat 
repairer!]


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Detailed instructions for RF calibration (LONG)

	

Lyndon Fletcher wrote:

	
>  I've seen quite a few posts about the need for accurate RF calibration
> but no one seems to have explained it in detail. Any chance of someone
> giving us a run through maybe in the process answering some questions?


	

Lyndon, good questions. So far as I know, no one has yet revealed their trade
secrets to us porch monkeys, probably for good reasons! I've managed to 
beat my
own gear into a reasonable state of focus, but I'm not the least bit 
qualified
to advise you or anyone else on whatever the proper procedure is. So, caveat
emptor. At least my advice is free, so you're getting what you paid for....

	

Meanwhile, until someone offers a more qualified opinion here, here's mine.
Keep in mind that I'm not going to touch on every RF adjustment of the RO 
body;
I'm assuming yours needs nothing more than a minor touch-up, as did one of
mine.

	

> 1) As most of us don't have microscopes or KO ground glass backs what would
> be the best viewing screen? frosted tape stuck across the filmplane or a
> piece of Ground glass taped to the film rails?


	

Just as a point of clarification, "filmplane" and "film rails" are one 
and the
same in the KO/RO cameras. Most other cameras have rails, parallel to the
direction of film travel, that are raised a fraction of a millimeter above
(behind) the film gate. I've not put a lot of thought or research into this,
but I assume film rails serve to eliminate scratching the image area of the
film in cameras with static pressure plates. As most Koniphiles know, the 
KO/RO
pressure plate retracts during the film advance cycle, and the film path is
totally flat, so rails are not needed.

	

Because frosted tape is always handy, quick and simple, I was a proponent of
its use until recently, when I critically compared it to ground glass. 
For some
reason, the two media focus in very slightly different planes. I can only 
guess
that the ground part of the glass has a greater physical depth than does the
frosted surface of the tape. That would cause the average plane of focus 
of the
glass to be just a bit farther back from the lens. Whatever, I got better
results with the ground glass, so that's what I recommend to you.

	

To be complete, let me quote the last paragraph in the KO Tech manual: "The
ground glass focusing screen is 0.2mm closer to the lens than the plane 
of the
camera film gate. This is to allow for the surface characteristics of roll
film. Although the mechanical distance from flange back to film gate is 
66.8mm,
the real image projected by the lens is formed at a distance of 66.6mm." I've
not seen an official ground glass, so I don't know whether that makes a
noticeable difference. A distance of 0.2mm seems a bit much to me; I 
wonder if
that should be 0.02mm. Years ago, I learned that most camera manufacturers
offset the focus just a bit, in order to compensate for film, which never 
lies
perfectly flat.

	

For my tests, I borrowed the focusing screen from my Mamiya C33. A bit small,
it fell into the film gate of the RO, so I placed two adjacent sides of it
against the RO opening to fix it at the proper plane. One very nice thing 
about
my screen is that it has a split-image center. That made critical 
focusing VERY
easy and repeatable, especially for the up-close tests. I have just 
purchased,
but have not yet received, a used w/l focusing hood for a Mamiya RB67. [Maybe
one day I'll buy the rest of the camera....] Hopefully, the ground glass from
it will be a better fit for my RO200. Maybe your local or mail-order camera
store has something in their junk box that will work well for you.

	

After you tape the ground glass into place, use it to focus your 90mm 
lens on a
fairly distant object, maybe 100 feet away. You want the object just close
enough that you have to turn the knob slightly away from infinity for proper
focus. With any camera, human error creeps in here, so focus on the object
eight or ten times, always from the same direction. Each time, note the exact
position of the focus knob, and use the average of those positions for your
reference. Then peep into the viewfinder to check the RF. It should agree 
with
what you see on the ground glass.

	

If not, unscrew the small port on the rear of the body to gain access to the
infinity adjustment screw. You can't get into much trouble here, but 
before you
turn that screw, make a sketch of its angular orientation so you can put it
back where it was in case you get everything thoroughly out of focus! Note
that, unless some gorilla got in there first, you should not have to turn the
screw more than 1/8 turn to get everything to agree. So, adjust it as 
needed to
get the focus of the RF to agree with what you see on the ground glass. Next,
use the RF to focus on the same object, then cross check the ground glass to
verify that it agrees. Repeat until you are satisfied with the 
consistency of
focus at a distance.

	

Now, while you're checking distant objects, turn the knob to its infinity 
stop
and verify that very distant objects (several hundred meters or furlongs or
whatever) are sharp on the ground glass and that the RF agrees). If the knob
turns beyond infinity, or won't quite allow you to focus there, look for a
screw inside the focus knob; it fixes the position of the infinity adjustment
plate.

	

Next, you need to repeat the above procedure while focused on an object at
about 3.5 feet (the nearest marked distance on the knob). A split-image 
center
in the ground glass really earns its keep at this distance. I used a 
small nail
as a target. For actual tests with film, I can think of better choices. You
could use a ruler at a 45 to 60 degree angle from the film plane, 
focusing on
its midpoint. The film would tell the tale.

	

I truly hope you find that the RF and the ground glass agree at this 
distance,
because what I'm going to tell you next is not from any book. But it 
worked for
me on one of my bodies, so here goes.

	

Pop the top (two screws on the left side, one on the right, another from
underneath after removing the back). Looking down at the innards from the top
rear, the RF mirror is toward the right side. Just northwest of it you will
find a locking screw and an eccentric. If you must, loosen the locking screw
and adjust the eccentric to adjust the RF for close distances. I very 
strongly
recommend you sketch the position of, or measure the angle of, the eccentric
screw before touching anything.

	

While you're in there, note the adjustment screw atop the mirror platform,
slightly behind the mirror itself. Turn this screw to adjust the vertical
coincidence of the two rangefinder images.

	

Recheck the distant focusing before you button everything up. It could 
be, as
it is in many calibration procedures, that you have to ping-pong between the
near and far procedures several times until you get both ends dialed in
perfectly. And remember, if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.  [:-)

	
> 2) My own observations seems to suggest that it's possible for the 90mm
> lense to be in sync with the rangefinder but for the 180mm lens not to be?
> Does this make sense? How would you adjust the RF for just one lense FL?


	

Yep, after you examine several of the lenses a bit closer, it will make 
sense.
The 58/60 has no RF coupling pins at all, so I suspect (but don't know for
sure) that it should be used for the base RF adjustments. The 90 has a single
pin of fixed length that biases the RF mechanism for its focal length.
Everybody has this lens, so that's why I suggested you use it for your 
initial
calibration.

	

The 135 and 180 lenses each have two spring-loaded pins. On both lenses, the
right pin presses against a fixed pin in the body, so this serves as a
benchmark. The corresponding pin in the body is probably adjustable, but I
wouldn't touch it without factory jigs! To see how the very clever left 
pin of
the 135 or 180 works, you'll have to remove the top cover of those lenses.
(Just 4 screws, and trust me now, believe me later, that will be a LOT easier
than trying to discern its operation from anything I can write.) The short
story is that the fixed right pin of the body provides a reference for the
spring-loaded right pin of the 135 or 180 lens, which, in conjunction 
with a
ratio lever atop the lens, proportionalizes the response of the left pin back
to the body.

	

In English? Note that the focus knob on the body causes all lenses to travel
10mm out as it is turned from infinity to closest focus. The 58/60 has no 
pins,
so the RF follows its base design parameters. The 90 has a single, fixed pin
that biases the RF mirror mechanism to track somewhat differently, 
appropriate
for its focal length. As the focusing rack moves through its 10mm range, the
left pin of the 135 lens (which controls the RF mirror in the body) moves 
only
5.8mm. For the 180 lens, the 5.8mm figure would be different. A picture is
worth a thousand words, no?

	

Finally, to answer your last question, the ratio levers in the 135 and 180
lenses have eccentric adjustments that allow fine-tuning the ratio of 
movement
of the left pin compared to the right pin (lens movement). Before you 
dare to
move the eccentric on the 135 or 180, please be sure you have carefully
adjusted the near and far ranges of your 90, and that film tests confirm your
work.

	

Good luck,

	

Mel Brown

	



Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Whither the film plane?



Flipping through my recently acquired tech manual (thanks Doug) I
encountered a bit of a surprise.  Avid readers of the list may recall my
mutterings, musings and ramblings about K-O focusing, rangefinders, etc.
and will not be surprised that this is the first part of the manual I
looked at.  The surprise concerns the location of the real image plane vs.
the film "aperture" (in K-O manual speak).  Evidently, the K-O was set up
at the factory to focus the image 0.2mm (0.008") in front of the film
aperture (i.e. rails), "to account for the characteristics of roll film".
Huh?  The implication here is that the designer is assuming that the film
will bow out towards the lens.  The manual also notes that the K-O ground
glass attachment incorporates this 0.2mm offset into its construction (can
anyone confirm this?).



Q:  Is this reasonable, necessary or advisable?  Is this typical of roll
film camera design?



N.B. 0.008" is actually quite a lot in terms of D.O.F., about 1/2 at f3.5,
and 1/4 at f8.  More, if one uses a more critical circle of confusion than
the K-O 0.058mm manual value.



I have my camera adjusted to put the image plane in the plane of the film
aperture.  It seems to work very well this way although I have not done any
rigorous wide open aperture testing on film -- in normal use I rarely open
up past f8.



regards,

Evan Ludeman




Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Whither the film plane?

	

Evan Ludeman wrote:

	
> Flipping through my recently acquired tech manual (thanks Doug) I
> encountered a bit of a surprise.  Avid readers of the list may recall my
> mutterings, musings and ramblings about K-O focusing, rangefinders, etc.
> and will not be surprised that this is the first part of the manual I
> looked at.  The surprise concerns the location of the real image plane vs.
> the film "aperture" (in K-O manual speak).  Evidently, the K-O was set up
> at the factory to focus the image 0.2mm (0.008") in front of the film
> aperture (i.e. rails), "to account for the characteristics of roll film".
> Huh?  The implication here is that the designer is assuming that the film
> will bow out towards the lens.  The manual also notes that the K-O ground
> glass attachment incorporates this 0.2mm offset into its construction (can
> anyone confirm this?).
>
> Q:  Is this reasonable, necessary or advisable?  Is this typical of roll
> film camera design?


	

Evan, I spotted that too, and was surprised to see they had put it into
print. Based on something I read some years ago, this is a totally
standard practice. I don't remember for sure, but I'm fairly certain it
was a column in Modern or Pop Photo. The gist of the article was that an
independent repair shop had adjusted a Nikon to focus at the film plane.
Seems logical, but the customer then complained that the focus was worse
than before. After some testing and head-scratching, the shop contacted
Nikon, who suggested they set the focus in front of the film plane by some
small amount. They did, and it solved the problem. The columnist recounted
that story because in a separate conversation, another manufacturer
admitted to setting up their cameras in the same way. He asked why they
were now admitting this, and they told him, "because we know you can
measure it now." The reason quoted for this practice was to compensate for
the tendency of film to bow out slightly. And all this was for 35mm
cameras, where the problem should be virtually non-existent! 


Now, if memory serves, some months back, you and I had some conversations
of frosted tape vs. ground glass. After recently purchasing another RO200
body and some lenses, I naturally wanted to test everything to make sure
it was in order. 


I got out my trusty roll of tape and laid a strip tightly across the
center of the focus plane. There was a small disagreement between the
rangefinders of the two bodies and the image on the tape. I tossed the
strip and put another in its place, being very careful to make sure it was
taut and flat. Same results. I was having to move the lens very slightly
forward of the position indicated by the rf in order to get a sharp image
on the tape. Then I borrowed the focusing screen from my Mamiya TLR, and
taped in place. The plane of focus changed ever so slightly. I went back
and forth with the tape and ground glass, and the difference was
repeatable. The only explanation I have is that the rough surface of the
tape is much thinner than the rough surface of the ground glass. That
would set the average focusing surface of the ground glass back just a
bit, but I have no idea how much. Anybody got a scanning electron
microscope? 


I'm afraid I'm providing only more questions, not answers. Like you, I
have not conducted any critical tests of focus, mostly because
everything's working just fine at f/8! 


Now, this next is a separate subject, but related because it affects focus
to some degree. I have two 90mm lenses, and for some reason, I held them
back-to-back to check that both rangefinder pins were the same length.
Guess what; they were not, by some fraction of a millimeter! Well, the
pins are the same length, but the washers seem to be of different
thicknesses. Anybody seen that? Maybe one pin is simply screwed in a bit
tighter than the other? 


This is getting altogether too confusing. I think I'll just start telling
people I have to wait for the sun to come out to take their picture,
because I only use f/8.  [:-) 


Mel Brown

	





From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Resolution and format.

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

	

Kerry,

	

Interesting dissertation.  You sound like a student of Kingslake.  What you
say is accurate, but the reason for the large format lenses being better
stopped down does apply as well.  In fact, Kingslake points out that all
lenses are best at about 2 stops down from wide open.  The loss of
definition caused by diffraction at very small apertures is more serious in
small format because 1/20mm in a small negative is far more significant than
1/20mm in a larger negative.  Thus the diffraction effect at F/32 might
seriously affect the definition in a small format, but photos made at that
aperture would be quite acceptable in a larger format.  Also, longer focal
lengths suffer from chromatic abberations so there is another design
consideration that needs to be looked at for resolution.  

	

I disagree with your comment about Large Format lenses being designed to be
sharp corner-to-corner.  That is due to a lens design and not the format.
If you compare a Super Angulon to another Large Format lens, it will be
sharper in the corners.  That is the design of the lens.  Also, the format
lends itself to providing more than adequante resolution at the film plane
for images.  

	

IMHO, the closest one can come to a so-called "perfect" lens is a
Biogon-type for wide angles, Heliar or Planar-type for normal lens and
telephoto.  Theses lenses were designed to be excellent corner-to-corner at
wider open apertures (BTW, a Super Angulon is a Biogon-design) but it may
not be as sharp at the center as other lenses once they are equally stopped
down.  This is due to design, not format.  

	

Peter K

	

Most large format lenses are optimized to be at their sharpest (corner
to
corner) at f22, some at f16.  This again, is a rule of thumb and not
absolutely accurate for all large format lens designs.  


	



Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Whither the film plane?

	

"John J. Stafford" wrote:

	
> I wonder if KO's analysis isn't stuck in the era of its design. Films today
> are more varied. What if one uses a thin estar base film? Or a really heavy
> film?


	

John, since the base is behind the emulsion, its thickness would not 
affect the
position of the emulsion relative to the plane of focus. But you make me 
wonder
whether modern emulsions are also significantly thinner....

	

Mel Brown

	


Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

From: Jim Richey [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Whither the film plane?

	


The question is, when it says "in front of the film aperture", does
front mean the lens side of the camera or does it mean the film side of
the camera as viewed with the back off? If the later, could the actual
imaging layer on the film be 0.2mm behind (away from the lens) from
where the film actually makes contact with the film rails?

	

Evan Ludeman wrote:

	
 
> Evidently, the K-O was set up
> at the factory to focus the image 0.2mm (0.008") in front of the film
> aperture (i.e. rails), "to account for the characteristics of roll film".
> Huh?  The implication here is that the designer is assuming that the film
> will bow out towards the lens.  The manual also notes that the K-O ground
> glass attachment incorporates this 0.2mm offset into its construction (can
> anyone confirm this?).
> 


	



Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 

From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Whither the film plane?

	

Actually, it's very specific: real image is formed 66.6mm behind the lens
mounting flange with subject at infinity, while the film aperture is to be
set 66.8 mm from the lens mounting flange at infinity focus.

	
>The question is, when it says "in front of the film aperature", does
>front mean the lens side of the camera or does it mean the film side of
>the camera as viewed with the back off? If the later, could the actual
>imaging layer on the film be 0.2mm behind (away from the lens) from
>where the film actually makes contact with the film rails?


	



Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Filters



The 58 is the only one that really takes Series 7 which is 54mm which is why
they would be tight if you attempt to fit in a 55mm filter.  You can buy a
Series 7 to 55mm adapter.  The 135 and 180mm lens take 67mm filters.


Peter K




Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999

From: Olaf Pilling [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filters



Hello Brian,


I was the originator for the tip with removing the inner lens ring at the
90mm lens and in one point I have to correct me the filter size is of course
49mm and NOT 58mm.


On the other hand I do not understand the irritation on the HOW TO DO IT
ITEM, I have got today
my Omega M and I removed at once the FRONT inner reduction ring with my bare
fingers and it worked perfectly. If this is not possible you have to take a
rubber in form of a fried egg but you have to use it with the flat round top
side and the diameter should be some millimeters more than the rings one.
Hope that helps finally to all



Regards from Germany Olaf


PS: Be careful not to scratch the front lens !





Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999

From: John J Stafford [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filters




Removing the series adapter ring from the 90mm.



I've done a few. Some are easy, some very difficult. Here is what works.



Get a rubber stopper which is a bit larger than the ring.
(Bring the lens into the store with you if you have to.)



Place the rubber stopper inside the front of the lens,
jamming it against the ring. Hold the lens tight in
one hand and turn the plug counter-clockwise with the
other.



One of three things will happen. If you are lucky, the
ring will turn right out. Or the whole front of the
lens will turn out of the shutter assembly. Or nothing.





Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99

From: melhus [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Filters and the ring



Some comments on removing the series 6 ring in the 90mm lens.



As Olaf said, first try removing it by hand.  Some may come out this
way.  But mine wouldn't budge.



The stopper I used is a black rubber stopper, #10 1/2 (that's ten
and a half in words, the fraction being written in the usual print
way that ASCII can't duplicate, with the 1 over the 2, both in a
smaller size than the 10.)  If my memory serves me well, I paid about
$3.00 for it, so Nick's home depot has better prices than mine.
Of course, you could probably bring in the camera, test the stopper
for size by removing the ring, and then leave without buying it, but
that's sleazy.



Finally, Helix is dumping a large lot of old B&W series filters at
$5.00 a pop.  The 180 and 135 would need a retaining ring for the
Series 8 filters, etc.  While that's not an incredible savings
for a UV or 82B filter (although it's a really good price,) there
were also some CC filters, which tend to run upwards of $50 a piece
for the smaller sizes, and more for larger.  That is worth poking
about for, if you're in the Chicago area.  Or you could call them
and ask about availability of a specific filter, if they would
bother looking.  800/621-6471, or in IL, 312/421-6000.



Regards,


Martin F. Melhus     |   PDGA#    |      Welcome to day 23xx of

[email protected]  |   11296    |   "The Truman Show" presidency.





Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Filters



Thanks Nick.



I hope somewhere this e-amil is archived for others to review if they need
to do this.



Peter K


...

>  Hey guys,
>
>  Wasn't it a #20 stopper or something like that from Home Depot that was
>  ideal for removing the 90mm inner step ring?
>
>  Peter K
>   >>
>
> The one I bought at Home Depot was simply called a 15/8 to 13/4 inch one
> and
> it worked great and only cost a $1.47.
>
> Nick Nichols






Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999

From: Olaf Pilling [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] KO Wide Angle Lens



Hi Tracey, I am very happy now because I have bought the 60mm Hexagon with
viewfinder and a 180mm telelens Tele Omegon from a friend for about 475.-
$ and he has bought the lenses from a german dealer for the same prices so
you see the price level here is much lower than in the USA, but the lenses
are very hard to find.(only the case of 180lens was missing). So once
again I offer you my other 180mm lens which is ingood condition except a
little ding at the lens hood and at the front cap (its a black one). Today
I was at a local camera exchange in Rosenheim (You know the film "Out of
Rosenheim" ?), and I met some guy who is writing a small book about all
the Koni Omegas and he is also collecting the 35mm konicas and I told him
that you have bought a case for your Koni Omega and he is very interested
in a picture of this case. Are you able to send me one 10x15 or 13x18 cm
format to put it in that book but only if its original Konica equipment.




Thats it at the moment


Bye Olaf





Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Help! Need advice URGENTLY!!!!!!!!



Lyndon Fletcher wrote:


> 1) How difficult is it to replace the light seals? Can you do it yourself?
> How difficult is it and what is the costs.




Lyndon, fixing the light leaks is a bit tedious, but not difficult. Call
Micro-Tools and get their LBMM-KIT-2 for $5.00. It contains 1"x10" strips of
1mm, 2mm, and 3mm thicknesses of foam with adhesive backing. All you will 
need
is the 2mm strip. I just refurbished four backs and two RO 200 bodies with
nothing more than the 2mm strip in that kit, and I still have some left over!



Minimum shipping is $5.00, so while you're ordering, you may as well get 
their
#1054B slotted spanner wrench for $15.00, so you can remove the rear 
element of your foggy 90mm lens. There's also a #1054P pointed spanner, 
also $15.00, and a
#1054 that consists of both wrenches for $27.00. Check out their website at
http://www.micro-tools.com to find other indispensable goodies on which to
spend your money. Then, from Wal-Mart or Lowe's or Home Depot, get a 1oz.
bottle of Goo Gone to help remove the old foam residue from the backs.



As it happens, I just had the same situation you are facing. I bought the 
items
above, and had no big problems with the job. Use the Goo Gone sparingly and
wooden toothpicks liberally to clean the deteriorated foam from the channels.
Then use scissors to slice the foam into strips that will fit easily into the
channels. (I first tried using an office type swing blade paper cutter, but
that was a disaster; scissors worked much better.)



The final fun part is getting the foam set squarely into the channels as you
peel off the protective strip from the adhesive side. It will tend to 
twist as
you lay it in place. Start with the shorter pieces. Work slowly and 
patiently,
and you'll get the hang of it. If you botch a few pieces, don't worry. 
You will have more than enough material to do the job several times if 
need be.



> 2) This is the second KO lens I've seen with a fungus problem, are they
> especially susceptable for some reason?




Not that I know of. It probably relates more to their age than to anything
else. I have bought four RO lenses, and only one (a 90mm) had fungus.



> 3) Has anyone had any experience in cleaning the fungus from lenses. As the
> thing is in the center of the lens I assume that it's a surface only
> infection (inter element attacks generally come it from the sides.) Has
> anyone taken the KO 90mm apart and successfully put it back together (with
> good optical performance) Has anyone had these lenses cleaned
> professionally and what was the price.




You will have no problem in reassembling the lens; it's like screwing in a
light bulb with very fine threads. When I cleaned my 90mm, rather than 
find the proper size rubber stopper to unscrew the front element group, I 
used my
spanner wrench to remove the rear element group. I then used 99% isopropyl
alcohol and a bunch of cotton tipped swabs to clean the surfaces.



Now, I don't recommend what I'm about to tell you, but this is the way I did
it. I set the shutter to B, then manually tripped it and held it open while
cleaning the rear surface of the front elements. One slip here, and you'll
destroy the shutter, so you may want to take your lens with you to Lowe's or
Home Depot and get that rubber stopper. Or take it to a local repair facility
and ask them to break the front and rear groups loose for you. That shouldn't
cost more than $5; they may even do it at no charge.



> 4) Finally as KO enthusiasts who know more about the value of this
> equipment should I keep it or send it back?  Is what I've described worth
> $300 if the 90mm needs replacing?




Let me assure you you got your money's worth. Estimating conservatively, 
I would say your outfit is worth about this much:


    KO Rapid, 90mm, 120 back    $ 150
    Extra 120 back              $  50
    180mm                       $ 200
    Case                        $  50
    Eyecup, filters, etc.       $  50
                                -----
    Total                       $ 500




Once the light leaks are fixed and the lens is cleaned, I would bet you could
break the system down into several salable units and get an easy 
$600-$700 for it on ebay.



Good luck,



Mel Brown





Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Frame/Negative Spacing

	

[email protected] wrote:

	
> This may have been covered before, (my apologies if so) but is there any
> reasonable answer to the problem of uneven spacing on my KO negatives?  I
> am using a Rapid Omega with a 120 back.
>
> Typically my last shot of the roll is only half the frame, and my lab has
> a nasty habit of placing an ID sticker at this spot on the roll.
> Consequently, I am getting 9 shots per roll.  On some shots the spacing
> between negatives is fine, on others its farther apart, and on some it
> overlaps.


	

Brian, the first thing to verify is that you consistently keep tension on the
film leader while loading. Even then, some minor spacing variation is normal.
Since you're getting only 9 shots, however, it would seem that the mechanism
inside the back is not working properly. It should cause the winding 
lever to
protrude a little farther each time you wind to the next frame; this makes
for a shorter throw that compensates for the incresing diameter of the takeup
spool as each frame is wound onto it.

	

If you are mechanically inclined, you can open the back and fix it yourself.
Or you can send it off to a professional for repair.

	

Mel Brown

	



Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

From: omegaman [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Frame/Negative Spacing


....

Brian:

	

One possible quick fix that did work for me with one old back was to
start it early.  Before the arrow on the film backing reaches the red
start dot; stop the arrow short of the mark.  Making a pencil mark on
the black side of the film backing, or some good guesswork, is required.

	

R. Carlisle

	



Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999

From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Koni Omega Lens Coverage Info



Hi Gang,



I brought this issue up several months ago, and when there was no
definitive response, I promised to investigate further and share the
info.  Well a lot of time has passed since then (so many projects, so
little time), so just to refresh your memory, here's some brief
background on the issue.



I was specifically wondering what the coverage was of the 58mm KO lens.
For those of you not familiar with the terms "coverage" or "image
circle", they refer to the diameter of the image at the film plane when
focused at infinity.  This is not related to the commonly used term
"angle of view", but is a function of "angle of coverage" (which is a
function of the lens design) and the lens focal length.  This term is
never specified for lenses designed for rigid mount camera bodies (all
35mm and most medium format SLRs, TLRs and rangefinders).  It is assumed
in these instances that the lens capably covers the intended format, and
that's that.  There is no need for an image circle of diameter greater
than the diagonal of the film format.  In large format (and some medium
format cameras with movements), this info becomes vital when selecting a
lens.  Too little coverage, and you will experience loss of shaprness,
or even mechanical vignetting in the corners when using camera
movements.  In other words, in a camera capable of displacing the lens
relative to the film plane, you need an image circle of diameter greater
than the diagonal of the film format.  How much greater is a bit of a
personal matter dictated by photographic style and intended subject
matter (in general, landscape shooting puts less strenous demand on lens
coverage than architecture, for example).



What prompted my initial question was the dicovery that the Koni Omega
shutters had the exact same dimensions as the Copal #0 shutters standard
on many large format lenses for the last 30 years (also the same
dimensions as the Compur and Seiko #0 shutters, past and present).  So,
the question is, exactly how much do these lenses cover, and are they
useful on formats larger than the 6x7 of the Koni Omega.  I was
specifically interested to know if the 58mm KO would cover the 6x12
format as I was contemplating a 6x12 roll film back for my 4x5 view
camera.  Using the following dimensions for the various formats (these
are from the specs for the Horseman 120 Roll film holders), here's the
minimum image circle requirements to just hit the corners without
movements at infinity focus:



6x7  (56mmx68mm)    88mm
6x9  (56mmx82mm)    99mm
6x12 (56mmx112mm)  125mm




In theory, the 58mm is a Biogon type wide angle and should have an angle
of coverage of 100 - 105 degrees.  This would yield an image circle in
the range of 138 - 151mm.  Enough to cover 6x12 with some left over for
movements.



This afternoon, I mounted a 58mm Hexanon in a standard Copal #0 and
installed it on my 4x5.  Observing the image on the ground glass has
convinced me that this lens won't come close to covering 6x12.  In fact,
it appears to barely cover 6x9 without movements.  I believe this lack
of coverage is due to mechanical vignetting.  I believe the KO designers
restricted the coverage in order to keep the lens as physically small as
possible (especially the rear element to keep the KO lens mount as small
as possible).  This trade off made sense, since the intended application
was a 6x7 camera without movements.  It looks like this lens could be
adapted for use on a view camera with a 6x7 roll film back and very
modest movements, or a 6x9 body with a rigid lens mount.  Definately not
6x12 (bummer).



I also thought I'd give the KO 90mm a try just to see what it covered.
All current 90mm view camera lenses are Biogon derived wide angles that
cover 4"x5" with lots of room for movement (or 5"x7" with modest to zero
movements).  They are definately not "normal" lenses intended for the
6x7 format.  Much to my surprise, the 90mm illuminated a much larger
portion of the ground glass than the 58mm.  I new this lens was a Tessar
type, so it should cover about 55 - 60 degrees.  This would yield an
image circle in the 94 - 104 range. Tessars of focal length
approximately equal to the diagonal of the film format are usually used
as normal lenses on rigid bodied camera (80mm on 6x6, 90mm on 6x7, 105mm
on 6x9).  So I'd be surprised to learn the 90mm KO could cover much more
than 90mm.  The illuminated image on the ground glass had a diameter of
approximately 125mm.  Unfortunately, the corners of this image were
VERY, VERY soft (soft is too kind a word, they were BLURRY almost beyond
recognition).  On the ground glass, the softness seems to start
somewhere between 90 and 100mm (as expected).  Exactly where is hard to
tell on the ground glass.  So, this lens covers the intended 6x7 format
with no movements, maybe with VERY modest movement, and possibly 6x9
with no movements (although it still may be a little soft in the
corners).



BTW, all these observations were made with the lenses wide open.  The
coverages may increase slightly when stopped down.  The 90mm will
probably sharpen up a little in the corners when stopped down to f11 or
f16.  I doubt if the 58mm will gain much due the limit caused by
mechanical vignetting (although its coverage should also increase
slightly when stopping down due to the geometry of the mechanical parts
that cause the vignetting).



This evening, I will be taking several KO lenses (multiple 58s, 90s and
180s, both Hexanon and Super Omegon, and a single 135 Hexanon) over to
Chris Perez' house to shoot some test charts to determine resolution at
all apertures on a KO body.  We will also be mounting one 58 and one 90
in standard Copal #0 shutters and shooting them on 4x5 sheet film to
determine the exact limits of coverage when stopped down (probably at
f11, f16 and f22, possibly at f8 and/or f32).  I have decided not to
bother testing the coverage of the 135mm and 180mm KO lenses.  There are
plenty of other convential shutter mounted view camera lenses (both new
and old) that cover a lot more (4"x5" - 5"x7" with movements) than the
KO lenses would, and are quite a bit smaller and lighter.  And in the
case of the KO 135, quite a bit less expensive (for the price of a 25 -
30 year old, single coated 135 KO - when you can find one, you could buy
a brand new 135mm shutter mounted, multi-coated view camera lens from
Rodenstock, Nikon, Fujinon or Schneider that covers 4x5 with room to
spare and weighs less than 1/2 as much).



After Chris and I complete our tests, develop the film and interpret the
results,they will be posted at Chris' web site.  I'll post a pointer to
his site once the results are posted.



Kerry





Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Konica Press



The Konica Press is the Japanese version of the Koni/Rapid Omega.  They
could not use the name Omega in Japan due to the Omega watch company patent
and hence the camera was refered to as the Press outside of the US.  I am
not sure if there was a Press M, maybe someone else knows who may have one.



Peter K





Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999

From: omegaman [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Konica Press



...

I think the M version is called Konica Press 2.  The KO without the dark
slide and mid-roll change ability is called "Konica Press"



R.Carlisle





Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999

From: Jim Richey [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Kiev lenses



A better choice might be to try to adapt Mamiya RB lenses since I
believe they use a lens-in-shutter and of course there would not be a
problem with coverage with the RB also using 6x7 format. Even the wide
angles could probably be made to work since the RB is an SLR it would
use retro-focus type wide angles. Should be able to mount on the
Koni-Omega without protruding into the focusing barrel like the
Koni-Omega 58/60mm does. The RB's 37mm f/4.5 would certainly make for
some interesting wide angle shots. The downside is that the RB lenses
are probably too expensive to justify experimenting with.


...





Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: homebrew KO 135mm lens Re: [KOML] Kiev lenses




>First it is my understanding that in terms of resloved lines per mm the
>relationship is 35mm > MF >LF. I understand that LF lenses are not as well
>corrected at MF lenses of approximately the same focal length. Why this is
>I don't know but that was always my understanding.




The designers of a given lens will make numerous compromises. In each case
they need to know the intended application. (coverage, resolution, cost,
size, shutter, mounting, weight, etc.) What you have touched on above is
the typical end result of those compromises. A lens designed for a view
camera had better cover well because of the large negative and possible
shifts used. The user will probably not try to blow up a print to 12X for
viewing at two ft. Thus the designer makes sure that none of the elements
cause vignetting (or the shutter) before anything else is resolved. A
designer working on a Nikon lens has a different set of priorities and
makes different tradeoffs. It costs a lot of money to make big glass
precisely.



>Second goes back to basic optics. All of the light entering the lense does
>so through the front element. All the light leaving it passes out through
>this circle of coverage. Now if the lense is designed to do say 5x4 isn't
>the incident light from the front element spread over the whole cone of the
>coverage area? Wouldn't a lens with the same diameter front element but a
>smaller coverage area produce a brighter image just because all of the
>incident light is concentrated into the smaller circle?




If what you are describing is two lens of different focal lengths you would
be correct. But on the off-chance that you do mean same focal length and
same f-stop, I'll try to show what's missing here.  You have to remember
that not all of the light that hits the front element is used to make an
image. Some of it just hits the barrel, bellows, aperture or other part of
the camera out of the line of view of the film.



So what if a lens designer makes his lens with a WIDE coverage by using big
glass? He makes each element larger than his buddy in the cubical down the
hall who is working on the Nikon lens. He does this to prevent the light
from the wider angles from hitting anything black or reflecting off a
non-working surface. When he makes the element wider, he also makes it
thicker, to because the edges have to have some thickness for mounting. He
can't make the surfaces meet the ideal angles as well as his buddy because
of the huge chunks of glass that he's got now, but that's life. As above,
he has traded off the sharpness for coverage. But the optical path that
light will take exiting his lens is the same as the Nikon designer gets.
The focal length determines the relationship between the incoming angle and
the outgoing angle of the ray of light. (I don't want any comments about
theoretical physics, quantum mechanics or particle/wave discussions) This
is why you can't measure a the speed of a lens by measuring its front
element.





Date: Thu, 27 May 1999

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] I'm In, but have a ?



Frank Earl wrote:



> I recently acquired two Rapid Omega 200's with 4 120 backs and 2 220 backs
> and a sportsfinder.  I finally feel like a member of the group.  I have a
> quick question that I can probably figure out myself, but I really want to
> post.
>
> One of the cameras appears to be trying to push the bottom of the film back
> off when I move the lens toward infinity.  When I removed the back to check
> it, it looked llike a small roller near the bottom center is moveing when
> the focus moves.  At infinity I can't put the back on.  What does the  roller
> do and why is it in the way?




Frank, the roller does move forward and backward when focusing. Its
purpose is to cock the shutter (the chrome lever at the bottom of the back
pulls the roller to the right when you pull the advance handle outward).
The roller, attached to a lever going to the front, should be
spring-loaded to the left side of the body. Most likely, your spring is
broken. 



No big problem; just remove the three screws securing the cowling on the
bottom of the camera, just behind the lens mount. That will let you see
what's going on. If the spring is broken, it will almost invariably be a
loop that has broken off one end. If that's the case, use needle-nose
pliers to grab one turn of the spring and bend it out 90 degrees to form a
new loop. Take care to orient the new loop so that no twisting of the
spring is necessary when attaching it to its post. 



If the spring is not broken, maybe a screw has backed out of the 
mechanism in
that area. It's a simple mechanism, so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
fixing it.



Mel Brown





Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

To: Koni-Omega Mailing List [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Need adivce/help



[email protected] wrote:


> Can someone please repeat the information for repairing the Koni's light
> leaks?  I recalled there was a foam substance purchased at a hardware
> store, but I no longer have the information.  




Sure, Brian, you can get what you need from Micro-Tools. It appears they
have recently let some computer nerd asshole redesign their website, and it
is no longer comprehensible by man nor beast.



So, use their toll-free telephone number, 800.359.2878, to let them explain
their products to you. I recently replaced the foam in two Rapid Omega
bodies and five backs, all with the 2mm strip in their 1mm, 2mm, 3mm
self-adhesive kit, for $5. Later, the 3mm strip renewed the foam in my
RB-67.



Caveat: as I remember, minimum shipping is $6. So you may want to ask for a
free catalog first to see whether you need something else while you're
ordering.



Mel Brown   





Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999

From: JEFF TEICH [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Home Made?



John J. Stafford wrote:


> Just curious - are there any home-made camera or camera accessory
>mavens on this list? For example, I've been making my own handgrips for
>some time in order to accommodate my preference for left-handedness.
>Anyone else? Other ideas?




Hi John,



Being in photography for close to fifty years, any pro during that time
period has always did something to their equip. I also being left handed,
had to modify a lot of equip. That's why, many years ago I started to use
the Konis.  


After one wedding, I knew the original grip was a waste. To use the Koni,
easiest way was to remount the original grip on another plate made of
heavy stock of aluminum, about 1/8th thick. so that the grip is offset to
180 degrees horz/opposed to body. Then remount the cable release to
conform with the grip's new position. Later I picked up two left hand
Linhoff grips and then mounted these. You can hand hold this set up for
hours and not shake from the weight and your wrist will not be in pain the
next day. Yes I know what Linhoff used grips go for today. If you have not
tasted caviar, you will not miss it. You can not believe even today how
many photog's come up to me with their tongues hanging out wanting to try
out this set up.I have used this set up for years and use it with my Canon
35mm's and my Hassy ELX's. With the Linhoff quick release, design that is
older than me, works great. Now I see these used grips go for close to
$250 & up. Since you said that you work with fine wood, I do not have the
time to curve out a hand grip, rather be out shooting. Did make one of
wood but it did split apart. You might want to try a real pistol grip,
Houge Grip that is on the Smith & Wesson guns. I do not want to hear from
the anti-gun lobby on this news group, but I have five of these grips and
they are not expensive, about $ 20 each. Again it is only to fashion out a
metal plate, bend the plate in a U to fit the inside of grip and the other
side of the U is to mount to body. Anyway, If you are thinking to mount
any grip, the trick is a 180 degree offset to the body. 


Hope this helps you out


Jeff T




Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999

From: Lyndon Fletcher [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 220 film magazine



you wrote:


>Hi, I'm new to this list having just become facinated with the Koni. I
>just picked up a
>100 on eBay that is in fairly rough shape.




There are a lot of old KO stuff comming out of military surplus auctions
these days. A none scientific head count of the 10 or so samples I've seen
suggests that 3 are ok, 4 would need work and another 3 are parts cameras
only. If your KO looks really hammered it is probably ex military.



>My question is how loose is
>normal for the
>magazine back to be? This one seems to be really loose. Just got it
>today so I have'nt shot anything through it as of yet to tell if it has
>any light leaks which would surprise me if it had none.




I have both the M (ie 200) and the old Rapid. On my rapid the mag was loose
until the foam was changed and now it seems ok. However, in the M the
locking mechanism etc seems different and the mag didn't rock even when the
foam was soft.



I would suggest that you contact Microtools (Fargo Enterprises) and order
their foam starter kit for $5. You can change the foam and see if that
helps at all. Much better than replacing the camera out of hand.



Does the film advance seem ok on the Mag? What is the lens like? I think a
100 body should be fairly cheap if the Mag and the lens are ok. Likewise a
replacement mag might not be too much if that is the fault.



Change the foam first though.  



Lyndon





>It also looks like all of the felt will need to be replaced in the back
>as well as the body of this thing. I'm thinking should look for another
>one in better shape.
>
>Thanks,
>Vladimir






Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999

From: Don Hensley [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Konica Press & Case



Just purchased a Konica Press set with a Konica leather case. As the case is
unusual I thought I would share the description with you all.  The case was
built by the Ishikawa Trunk Co. for Konica just for the press. The case is
finished in black leather with Konica embossed on one side. Has a two piece
top that swings open and has a solid trunk style latch and lock(alas no keys
for it). Inside the case it has pockets to hold three backs and two lenses
in their cases. The case is form fitted to hold the Konica Press with back
and lens so it could hold four backs and all three lenses. On one of the
open tops it has form fitted places to hold four filters for each lens.
There is also place to put film , instruction book and other accessories.
The dimensions are 18" long by 8" wide by 10" high(when top is open it is 7"
high).




The camera itself is nothing to crow about as it is well used but everything
still seems to work properly. The 90mm lens is fungus free and after blowing
the dust off is relativly clean, though there are some cleaning marks on the
front element. The viewfinder is still bright and the rangefinder is still
contrasty enough that I have no problems in focusing even in a poorly lit
room. It came with two 120 and a single 220 back, all of which needs the
foam replaced. I have a feeling that there will be some fogging on my test
films from this. The camera looked like it has been in storage for a long
time but a good cleaning with alcohol and formula 409 has got the body and
backs looking better. Thanks to this great mailing list I can now tackle the
job of refoaming the camera and its backs. Now cross my fingers that the
rangefinder is working properly.



The best news was the price, $300. The case and backs alone have got to be
worth this.



One thing I have not figure out about the Konica Press is why if it was
intended for Japan use is the name on the camera in English. Also they drop
the Omega name because of trademark issues, but the Omega symbol is still on
the lens mount. The instruction booklet is in japanese except it has Konica
Press in english on the front cover and has the addresses in english for the
Koniphoto Corp. in NY and Konica Europe in W. Germany. Was the press ever
sold by Konica in competition with the Omega in Europe and America?



Donald R.  Hensley, Jr.

Railroad Photographer & Historian





Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999

From: stafford [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Spanner Wrench (correction)




Gave the wrong link! That's the expensive set. No need.
Here, this is what I use:


http://www.micro-tools.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Micro-Tools&Pr
oduct_Code=1054&Category_Code=SPN 





From KO Mailing List:

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Ground glass Back


At 6:31 am -0800 5/11/99, Tom Cogbill wrote:


>It is interesting to note how many variations of the K-O series were
>produced.  It seems just about everybody has something different about
>theirs.  My 90mm lens requires a series filter, and so I just assumed
>the 180 and 58 I recently got would also, but lo and behold, the 180
>takes a standard 67mm!  Is this, 'go figure,' or did somebody make a
>modification along the way?
>
>Clive--
>Thanks for the 'close-up' info--pretty much as I suspected.  BTW, this
>is the second or third time I've heard about this "ground glass
>back"--but I have to confess, don't have a clue what this refers to. 
>--Tom





Tom,




All the 135s and 180s take a 67mm filter.




The 58mm or 60mm wideangle lens (both the same glass etc) takes either a
series 7 filter or a 55mm filter depending on the age of the lens.  The
series 7 equates to a 54mm filter so a 55mm filter would be very hard to
screw in and would then be there for a very long time :-)




You can buy a series 7 to 55mm converter.




The 90mm lens has an insert which can be removed to give you a 49mm filter
thread.  See the archives for various discussions on how to do this using a
rubber bung.




The ground glass back is essentially a dummy film back with a piece of
ground glass located exactly where the film would be on a normal loaded
back.  You can then focus the image on the ground glass screen instead of
using the rangefinder.  This is useful if you can ever find extension tubes
for the Hexanon lenses which allow you to focus closer subjects but make
the rangefinder useless.




Still looking for both the extension tubes and a ground glas back - oh yes
and a 135mm lens as the Omegaflex 135mm is getting dangerously close to
being modified for the Koni, probably with some sort of extension
incorporated :-)  Just seems a shame to cut about a lens in such good
condition.



All the best, 



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk  




Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000

From: "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Omega  


Julia Burrill wrote:


> Anyone know where I can find some info on these cameras? 




Hi Julia,


Information is indeed hard to come by.  I have a Rapid M myself and 3
lenses, and other than the manual, I don't think I have found much
information.  But the camera is wonderful and I highly recommend it.
All models (the M, 200, and 100) are rangefinders.  There are several
interchangeable lenses: 58 mm, 60mm, 90mm, and 180mm.  Imaging with the
90 and 180 lenses is done with 2 rectangles in the rangefinder.  The 58
and 60 mm lenses take an add-on finder.  All use size 120 film and take
6x7 pictures, but a 220 back is available for use with that length of
roll.  Models M and 200 (which are one in the same, just relabelled)
have backs which are interchangeable during use.  A flap on the rear of
the back lets you designate what film is in the back.  Double exposures
are possible.  There is no meter so you will need a hand held one.  The
focussing knob is marked separately for each lens to aid in focussing.
The lenses are coupled by a bar to the rangefinding apparatus to aid in
focussing with each lens.  The optics are impeccable and I have obtained
some of my sharpest images ever with this camera.  A macro attachment is
available as well.  A bracket for flash was manufactured for it and can 
occasionally be found for sale.


Hope this helps.


Francis A. Miniter





Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999

From: Philip Morgan [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Focusing Q with Different Lenses



Greg Weber is the tech in question here and I have found him to be both a
top-notch tech and an upstanding businessman.  I just had my KO Rapid CLA'd
and it's making better images that ever now.



Here's the address information I have for Mr. Weber:


Greg Weber
2022 East 7th Street
Fremont, NE 68025
[email protected] 




--Philip Morgan.



From KO Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000

From: [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Koni Serial Number List


Is there someone to help me building a listing of Koni serial numbers?
If you want, email me your model and serial no to:

 
[email protected]


Is there someone to help me building a listing of Koni serial numbers?
If you want, email me your model and serial no to: [email protected]




Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filter Dilemma



At 12:42 pm +0000 24/11/99, Brian M. Warshawsky wrote:


>Gang,
>
>I recently had Greg Weber remove my 90mm Omegon inner step ring (the
>rubber stopper method would not work).  It was my understanding that the
>inner ring should now be 49mm.  I am not happy with the way my Cokin 49mm
>adapter fits, and I'm considering the idea of cementing in a 49-52mm step
>adapter, so that the lens would forever use 52mm filter threads.  Has
>anyone done this, and is there some downside I'm not considering?
>
>Also, what is the best "Series_ to..." adapter to get for my 60mm
>Hexanon.  I forgot if the size is Series 6 or Series 7 (7 I think) and I
>didn't know what the closest size in milimeters is.
>
>Thanks for any guidance.
>
>Brian




Brian,



The inner thread on the 90mm is 49mm and I have several lenses which have
been converted to 49mm by removing the internal series filter step ring.  
I also use a Cokin type of filter in "P" size and it fits perfectly.  
What exactly is the problem with your adapter? 


The 58mm or 60mm Hexanon usually takes the Series 7 filter which is a 54mm
thread.  A 55mm filter would be very tight in the threads and would
probably be impossible to remove if you did manage to screw it home.  You
can buy Series 7 to 55mm adapters which should do the trick.


The 135 and 180mm lens take 67mm filters.



By the way, I have a 58mm lens which has a 55mm thread just to confuse the
issue.  It doesn't appear to be a modified Series 7 but no one else has
ever reported their 58mm Hexanon to have a 55mm thread...........



I am putting together a KoniOmega FAQ which will be on the CoCam website
at some point in the near future.



Most of the information above is contained in the KoniOmega browseable
mailing list archive on the CoCam web site.



Hope this helps



All the best,


             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk 





Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999

From: Lyndon Fletcher [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Light Baffle Strips from Micro-Tools



Hey no problem, that's what groups like this are for. Ok, the part number
for the kit that contains a small amount of the 1mm, 2mm and 3mm thickness
foam strips is LBMM-KIT-2 according to my Fargo invoice. The price is $5.



You actually only need the 2mm thinkness, you can buy that on it's own but
the cost is about $25 and you would get far too much. Provided that you
don't botch it too many times the 2mm foam in the sampler kits should be
more than enough.



Lyndon 





Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Shutter Advance Mechanism and Fogged Viewfinder on
Rapid Omega 200



Alex Posner wrote:


> Thanks for the great advice Mel.  I will definately try it out.  I'm
> pretty handy with tools, as long as nothing goes flying out when I
> remove the back cover.  You have obviously had much experience taking
> apart your own camera(s) or you sound like you must have worked for
> Konica?




Well, I've taken lots of things apart; even got most of them back
together. Never worked for Konica, though. I enjoy tinkering with cameras,
partly to save a few dollars, and partly to discover the hidden genius of
the designers. I admire those who repair cameras for a living, because it
takes a special combination of patience, dexterity and personality. I'm
content to practice occasional tinkering. 


While you've got the back in hand, check out its foam seals. If they are
mushy and sticky, you should replace them as well. And check the seal in
the camera body that mates with the front of the insert. All you need is a
few wooden toothpicks to scrape out the goo, a 1 oz. bottle of Goo Gone
from Home Depot or Wal-Mart, and the LBMM-KIT-2 ($5) from
http://www.micro-tools.com/restore.htm. Use the 2mm sheet for the backs,
the 3mm sheet for the camera. I did all my backs and two bodies with that
little kit.



Let us know how you make out.



Regards,


Mel Brown 




Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Shutter Advance Mechanism and Fogged Viewfinder on
Rapid Omega 200



Alex Posner wrote:


> Glad you mentioned the seals, because I first noticed that the foam or
> felt type material on the camera body where the lens body connects is
> sort of frayed.  I will definately check out micro tools for the foam
> seals.  Any particular tools that you'd recommend for the Koni?




Alex, the felt in my RO bodies is serviceable, but frayed just a bit. I
don't know whether Micro-Tools has that or not.



Besides the basics of jeweler's screwdrivers, a set of small files can be
very useful. And you can always use spanner wrenches for cameras. Unless
your eyesight is perfect, you will benefit from a loupe or some other type
of magnifier. I've been wanting to get some sort of black touch-up paint,
but don't know which works best. You may want to call Fargo Enterprises at
(800)359-2878 and ask their recommendations. (Please let me know what you
learn.)



Radio Shack has a reasonably decent set of screwdrivers, and I got a set
of Tool & Diemaker's files from Sears many years ago. I use strong
magnifying glasses (about $8 at Wal-Mart) for close-up work. Fargo
Enterprises/Micro-Tools has all those items, along with various sets of
spanner wrenches. Looks like their SP-SET at $35 is as good a deal as any.



Regards,



Mel





Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000

From: Jim Richey [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Omega shutter release



Just to clarify more; The Koni-Omega Rapid is somewhat unique from the
Koni-Omega M, Rapid M, and Rapid Omega 100 and 200. The Rapid uses a
film back that does not work on the other models. The M, Rapid M, 100,
and 200 all use the same film back. The M, Rapid M and 200 all use the
same film magazine. 


....




Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Koni Omega shutter release



Let's take a look at this.



The original Koni Rapid (note no Omega) was like the later M and 200 with
magazine, except the backs are unique to that first model and the film
pressure plate was not activated with the advance plunger but rather by
the shutter release.



The next itiration was the Koni Omega M which had the pressure plate
activated in the film back when the plunger was pushed in. 



The Rapid Omega 200 was very much like the M but with a new name. The
Rapid Omega 100 was the same but did not have film magazines that offered
the ability to change film mid-roll.  It had film backs and was geared to
the Wedding Photographer who needed a fast method to change films at the
end of a roll. 


The backs/magazines of the M are compatible with the Rapid 200/100.  But
bear in mind the 100 only uses the film holder part of an M or 200
magazine.



Hope this helps.



Peter K 




[Ed. note: cable releases are an issue since KO originals are hard to
find...]

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Omega shutter release



Mel:

As a matter of interest, you can release the shutter on a Rapid using a
cable with the lens throat blinds closed.  I have some excellent photos of
the back of this blind somewhere ;-)  You can get so used to the
comprehensive mechanical interlocks of the Koni-Omega bodies.......>



Thanks Mel,



    I see the shutter interlock engage when the blinds are closed, ......
never realized that the cable would defeat this ....Thanks for the tip,
that will save some film. I also see the film back pressure plate move
forward when the shutter button is depressed (sans Lens). I measured my
cable shutter release throw and it's long enough but doesn't have the
strength for the job. Shutter fires fine when a screw drive is inserted.
Peter I may be contacting you for a cable release.



    Any advice on CLA these lenses? I may buy a repair manual if I can
find
one and give them a once over, they are sticky at bulb.



         Thanks Dan 





Date: 11 Feb 2000

From: [email protected] (TheYankeeSnapper)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs TLR - Help


Jim: 


If you can get hold of a "M or 200" model Koni, you'll have the
option of interchangeable lenses and magizines. Buy it with a 58mm wide
angle and a 135mm lens and you'll have no regrets. Only last week did I
see for the first time the 135mm with some B&W 6x7 negs and proofs and
they looked as good as those shot with my M7-11.



On the other hand you must checkout the magizines very carefully before
you buy. Load a roll of film and advance it to the first frame, take off
the lens, and with a pencil, mark the outline of the 6X7 area on the film.
Do this 9 more times.Remove the roll of film and examine the 10 6X7 boxes
you've made, if their reasonably spaced and don't overlap the magizine is
ok. 


Check the rangefinder with a ruler or your best guesstamit.



The problem with the purchase of a Tlr is that they won't have
interchangeable film backs and you may need a prism for it to handle as
fast as the Koni.



One more thought, the 6X7 neg blows away the 6X6 but only after 16X20. The
main thing is to get at least a 30 day money back warranty no matter what
camera you buy.



Bob Mc.

[email protected]



From Koni Omega Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Landscapes and lenses



I have to agree with Clive on the comments of the lenses.
The 58mm (or 60mm, same lens) is a biogon-type and produces exceptionally
sharp results for landscapes.  At a price around $250 used, it is an
absolute bargain.  If you use one, you will know what I mean.



The 135mm is considered the sharpest of all 4 KO lenses. They were only
made for 2 years so they are hard to find.



Yes, it may be difficult to see much of a difference between the 135mm and
180mm lenses unless you blow them up a bit, but the 135mm has a larger
angle of coverage and is often used for portraits (bust and full length)
such as those for weddings. The 180mm of course with its slightly longer
focal length is better for distance shots.



Peter K




Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000

From: [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Koni Serial Number List - Ihagee-infos




---------------

At time a have a lot of serial numbers of Koni's.


Is there anyone in this group willing to help me completing my listing of
Koni
serial numbers (body+lens)?


If you want, email me your model and serial no to: [email protected]



If anyone have questions to Ihagee-cameras, let me know too.





Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000

From: rick gordon [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Shutter Advance Mechanism and Fogged Viewfinder on
Rapid Omega 200



I still have 2 copies of the Koni Omega M repair manual left. Should be
appropriate. $20 + postage. If you want more info, email me privately.


-rick





Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Shutter Advance Mechanism and Fogged Viewfinder on
Rapid Omega 200


Alex Posner wrote:


> I just recently purchased my first Rapid 200 camera w/90mm lens in mint-
> condition from Wall St. Camera.  First two rolls were fine, except the
> third developed a wider spacing between each frame, evenly spaced though
> at about 15mm each.  I read about this problem many times, but usually
> the spacing increases.  Is this something I can repair myself, even if
> it means taking apart its guts or should I leave it to a professiona?
> Is it worth the rapair bill or just buy another?


Alex, frame spacing is the nemesis of most all MF cameras. Even when
working properly, no two rolls of film will have exactly the same spacing,
but it seems yours needs internal attention. You might ask Wall Street
Camera to swap it out for you, but there's no guarantee the next one will
work better.



If you're the patient sort, and reasonably adept with small tools, take it
apart and poke around. There's not much in there you can break that can't
be fixed. I'll go ahead and tell you how to open the back, in case you
want to have a go at it. First, remove the four screws securing the black
plastic film advance knob, and slip the knob off. Next, you need to remove
the locking knob (the one that holds the back and insert together). Inside
the back, find the slotted screw through the hole in the center of the
pressure plate. Remove that screw using a screwdriver the same width as
the screw head. The screw has a rather narrow slot, so you may have to
file your screwdriver tip to get it to fit. It's been a while since I had
one apart, but I'm thinking that screw may have left-handed threads. Try
it both ways, carefully.



You don't have to remove the pressure plate, but you may want to do so
because it's in your way, or because you want to see what's going on in
there. You'll see that it rests on two screws, one at each end. Remove
either screw to remove the pressure plate. CAUTION:  be very careful to
note EXACTLY how the pressure plate forks attach in relation to those two
screws, their washers and springs. If you don't put it back right, it
won't work right! Scared? Leave it in place.



Then peel back the leatherette on each side of the back to expose two
Phillips screws on each side. Peel back the top center to reveal a fifth
such screw. Remove all five. You can now separate the halves of the back,
and the biggest surprise is that nothing will spring out at you.



The first step is to look for the obvious, such as broken springs or
blinking lights to show you where the problem is. (Sorry, it don't got no
batteries, so the latter is unlikely.) Then, to get a feel for how all the
gee-gaws in there work, put the advance knob back on temporarily and spend
some time exercising the advance mechanism and observing the whirligigs in
action. If you find this to be terrifying, put it back together and pay
someone like Greg Weber to fix it. Ask again in this list for his
address/phone number. But if you find that you're having at least a little
fun, and you are a fan of Rube Goldberg, by all means continue! The worst
that can happen is that you will develop a huge respect for the designers
of the back.



The most likely source of your problem is the "foot" in the lower left
quadrant, or perhaps the vertical track it grips and runs on (along the
lower left side). It could be a simple case of gummy grease, or the
grooved surface of its sole may be worn down so that it does not grip the
track reliably. Second most likely would be the cam in the upper right
quadrant. You can't really see the cam; it's hidden by a large washer-like
cover. But you can see the long shiny lever leading to it from the "foot."
That lever is made of very hard steel, but the cam is relatively soft. So,
if the back has seen heavy use, the cam lobes could be worn enough to
cause your problem.




The reason I know this is that I had a problem with the first back I
bought. The edges of a land (flat spot) on the cam had worn into a rounded
shape, causing the spring-loaded pressure of the aforementioned lever to
rotate the cam to the next step inappropriately. That caused the frame
counter to get out of step, and everything else went downhill from there.
(By the way, I'm not a MENSA candidate, so I probably poked around in
there for four hours to figure all this out!) I first tried to file a
small flat spot on the end of the lever, but that thing must have had a
3-digit Rockwell number, because my garden file never even put a polish
mark on it. So, I removed the cam and with a jeweler's file, carefully
restored a land to the rounded lobe. Kinda like playing dentist, but with
no amalgam for fillings. No anesthetic, either, but with no batteries, my
patient didn't care!



In addition, the gripping grooves of the foot were worn, causing erratic
operation. For a crude analogy, think about the ubiquitous automotive
bumper jack. If its ratcheting action malfunctions while you're jacking
up, well er..., you don't want a loved one to be under the car right about
then! Back to the RO back now, I worked for hours at filing the sole of
the foot to get it to grip its track once more. Machinists the world over
are laughing at me now, because they could have done the job in 2 minutes
flat! The good news is that, of the five backs I have, only one had a
problem, and it now works perfectly. So, take heart.



Sorry about going on so, but I thought sharing my experience might help
others, or perhaps they could give me suggestions that could help me next
time.



> The viewfinder was also somewhat clouded when I bought it, but not to
> bad. How hard is it to clean the viewfinder/rangefinder?




Aah, an easy one! You can pop the top by removing a screw on its right,
two on its left, and another underneath, just right of center (remove the
back to see it). A few cotton swabs and some 96% isopropyl alcohol and/or
lens cleaner and tissue should improve things in that area.



> Anyone out there willing to sell a rapair manual for this camera?




I have one, but you don't need it for the problem you have. Trust me now,
believe me later, you will learn much more by observation than from the
manual.



> The camera seems to be a real novelty, I just have to get used to all
> the quirks it has.




Like most cameras, Konis have a couple of quirks, but you'll find yours to
be much more than a novelty. The Koni design elevated the status of MF
rangefinder cameras to a true art form. Simple, yet sophisticated, capable
and reliable. You can crack macadamia nuts with one all morning, then
shoot weddings with it all afternoon! Try that with your average
point-and-shoot, and by noon, all it will do is point....



Best of luck to you,



Mel Brown





Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 

From: Geoff McAuliffe [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Newbie seeks advice



Aric Rothman wrote:


> I am a MF newbie (don't have a setup yet, shot a C330 and loved it).  I've
> read raves about the Koni-Omega lenses, and how their quality to price ratio
> is very high.  Any recommendations on getting set up with a K-O?  Any
> recommendations re other budget MF setups?  My primary interest is in nature
> photography and some informal portraiture.
>
> TIA,
> Aric





I have both cameras, a K-O and a Mamiya C-220, both are good low-budget MF
cameras. I prefer the 6x7 format of the K-O and it is faster and easier to
focus than the TLR (unless you have a brighter screen installed). Also the
K-O is much easier to use at eye level. However, for portraiture the 135mm
for the K-O is very expensive and hard to find, more than twice what a
135mm costs for the Mamiya. The 180 mm for the K-O only focuses to 12 feet
(I am told) and is not so useful for portraits. If you want to do any
close-up work the TLR is easier, as long as you remember to raise the
camera (after focusing and framing) 50 mm to compensate for parallax. Also
the bellows exposure correction on the side of the Mamiya is not known for
accuracy, do your own tests. There is a wider choice of focal lengths for
the Mamiya.(55, 65, 80, 105, 135, 180, 250). Avoid the chrome lenses,
parts are no longer available. I don't know whose lenses are sharper, both
are more than sufficiently sharp for my needs.



Good luck!

Geoff

--

Geoff McAuliffe, Ph.D.

Neuroscience and Cell Biology




Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Newbie seeks advice



....


Hello Aric,




Welcome to the list.



Using the KOs for informal portraiture is fine as long as you are happy
with the minimum focussing distances of the lenses.  The 180mm is the most
easily obtainable and affordable long lens and it has a minimum focus
distance of around 12 feet.



At these distances with the focal length of the lens all you will manage
is a three quarter size portrait.  So as long as you are happy about this
limitation then all is fine. 


When you say nature I assume that you mean animals and other critters out
there in the wild.  Well the KO is not a good coice for this type of
photography - the lens speeds are too slow and the focal length too short.
You would better off with 35mm.  If you mean landscape type photography
then the KO is a very good choice.


 

So having encouraged you thus far - suggest you find a well used but cared
for Rapid Omega with a 90mm Hexanon and give it a whirl before deciding to
part with larger sums of money for those KOs with mid-roll back change
facilities.



My bet is that it will grow on you and even if you part with it later, you
will still have fond memories.



Look out for the usual things - shutter speeds, clean glass, smooth
wind-on action etc If possible check picture frame spacing using a pencil
and the paper backing on a used reel of film.  The foam seals are worth a
look as they tend to rot at age 20 years :-) Otherwise buy from a
reputable dealer who will give a guarantee. 


All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk





Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999

From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Trouble With 180mm Diaphram



Vladimir Charchuk wrote:


> I just picked up a 180mm lense for relatively few dollars. The only
> problem is the
> diaphram does not operate.
>
>  My question is this something a camera repair shop will be able to
> repair fairly easily
> or will parts be a problem?   
>   I have checked the database and found 2 shops mentioned that repair
> the KO's.
> My local repair asked "is that a 35mm camera"? I guess thats not the
> place to send it.
>
> Thanks
> Vladimir





A fellow by the name of Paul Ebel of PO Box86, W230 Terrace, Spring
Valley WI54767 fixed my 90mm shutter satisfactorially for $75 plus
postage. He said that he has some KO parts.I talked to him yesterday and
he is quite busy .. 4 weeks.



Roger Wiser

Whitewater, WI 





Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 1st omega



GRAYS wrote:


> I wanted to buy an omega & was overwhelmed by the choices between the
> different models . If you could start over which model would you buy &
> why ? Is there a model I should avoid ? I shoot architecture , landscape
> & portrait .
> thanks for any suggestions ,
> Chip Renner




Tough question, because I'd choose a different type of camera for each of
those three applications. 


First, though, let me suggest that you narrow your search to the later
Rapid Omega 100, M, and 200 models. The latter two allow mid-roll film
changes, and I think the only difference between the M and the 200 is that
the former has no viewfinder frame for the 135mm lens. All three are very
affordable and in abundant supply, so I'd go for the 200.



For landscapes, your choice of a Rapid Omega model with 60mm, 90mm, and
possibly 180mm, lenses will do just fine. For architecture, movements and
wider angle lenses are virtual necessities, so I'd go with a 4x5 monorail,
or if budget were a big consideration, maybe a Crown Graphic, even with
its limited movements. None of those cameras are particularly suited for
portraits, however. The ROs can't focus close enough for a headshot (sad,
because that's the only thing that keeps them from being my overall
favorite of cameras). For portraits, I would find 4x5s too slow to use in
all but the most static of studio environments. So my choice would be
easy: Mamiya's RZ67 and RB67 are the only ones with a rotating back that
allows switching between horizontal and vertical formats with a twist of
the wrist. And if you are prepared to use a pack mule to haul them around,
they can serve very well for landscape use because a wider range of lenses
is available than for the ROs. I've left square format cameras off my list
because not many people want square portraits, and if you have to crop a
6x6 neg, you may as well use a 645. The latter is not a bad choice at all,
but I've become spoiled by the big 6x7 negatives. 


I'm afraid I may have created more questions than I've answered, but
unfortunately, there is no 18-wheel Porsche that gets 80mpg!



Regards,



Mel




From KO Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999

From: Colin Thomas [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Depth of Field



Not all of the 90mm lenses have a dof scale on the lenshood, my own
doesn't. Presumably the bellows focusing prohibited a usable dof scale
being provided for the other lenses. Using the dof scales in the
instruction manual I made my own table (using Word 97) for the 90mm and
58mm lenses, printed them out, trimmed and placed them back to back and
laminated them so I have a waterproof card measuring approx. 5 x 3 inches.
It's not ideal (especially when I forget to take it with me!) but it's
usable.



Colin





From KOML Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Depth of Field



Tom Cogbill wrote:


>Returning to the Depth of Field Question on Koni-Omega Lenses...
>
>apparently there is some misunderstanding as to what I am talking
>about.  On my 90 mm K-O lens, if you pull out the lens hood at the end
>of the barrel, a scale is revealed which correlates f-stop settings with
>distances.  This is a depth-of-field scale which, to my knowledge, most
>lenses with a fixed focal length have.  But not, unfortunately, the 180
>mm lens (nor the 58 mm, though DOF is generally large on W-A lenses,
>which is evidently why there is no separate focusing mechanism for it.
>The scales on the focusing knob simply indicate focusing distance).   I
>was just wondering why these lenses have no DOF scales.
>
>Thanks much to George for the link to the K-O manual.  It is far more
>informative than the rather silly "manual" that accompanied the version
>I bought.  (My camera, incidentally, has some slight variations from
>what is described in the on-line manual.)  I note that it gives DOF
>tables for all the lenses, so I guess they expect you to memorize these
>if you  want that info for the lenses other than the 90.
>
>Incidentally, does anyone have the "close-focus" adapters, and if so,
>are they worth a damn?  I've heard extension tubes were made for the K-O
>models, but that hardly anyone bought them, suggesting they may be
>impractical or of too limited value.
>
>--Tom




Tom,



Yes it is a bit of a planning failure rather than design flaw.  Maybe the
cost of adding the scale to the larger lenses was just more than the
accountants could bear at the time ;-)

There is a DOF calculator available through the front page of the CoCam
website which will allow you to calculate DOF for many different formats
and any lens focal length.  The last update was to add a print button for
those too lazy to make more than one key press or mouse click :-)  I carry
a few of these print-outs tucked into the camera bags for various cameras.



The calculator is in the pop-up menu for "CoCam Photo Tools".  See sig.
file for URL.



Yes the close focus adapters do work, however they require the original
"series" filter ring to be in the lens - most of these have been removed
to allow use of contemporary 49mm fittings.  Given the hassle of setup
it's probably only worthwhile if the K-O is your main camera and you have
no other close-up alternatives with other camera equipment. 


Using extension tubes requires the use of a groundglass back to focus.  I
have been looking for a set and the ground glass back for a couple of
years......



As to whether they are impractical - well the camera would no longer be
rapid and accurate focus portraiture would be a challenge in the same way
that it is for large format photographers who like to overflow the frame
with head shots.



All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk





Date: 26 Mar 2000

From: [email protected] (TheYankeeSnapper)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega 60mm Lenses


>Subject: Re: Koni-Omega 60mm Lenses




Years ago when I was shooting weddings with my cousin RJ Naddeo in
Brooklyn, I used a Koni with a 90 mm lens. This lens had an adapter ring
so as, a series type filter would fit, ( I think it was series 7?) I
remember, that I removed this series adapter and the thread that remained
was 49mm. My point is, if you see a similar adapter ring, then try to
remove it, I bet you'll be presently surprised. 


The 60mm lens very sharp. But I think that the Hexanon lenses were a bit
better.



I used my Koni's up until about 10 years ago, when I switched to the
Mamiya 6, and more recently last year I went to the M7. Your Koni lenses
compare very well; and if you're a die hard B&W street photographer type
dude, like myself, the only upgrade you might consider is a Rapid M, or a
200 body for the removal of it's magazine. 


Being of French decent I've made several trips to Paris and have started
to dupe Monsieur Atgets "Paris" with my family, with at least 60% of my
prints made with the Koni. The B&W M7 prints are only marginally sharper.
Not enough to trade in a system for. 


Bob Mc.

[email protected]   



From KO Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000

From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] KO lens lpmm tables - outstanding performances... and
reviews..




See http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html for complete set of
Koni Omega lens tests results, and comparisons to other medium format
systems. The KO 90mm lens was one of only 2 lenses (the other being
mamiya 7 normal lens on 6x7 too) which scored in the 90 lpmm range,
beating
zeiss and schneider and bronica and ... right out of the water etc.



Not bad for a lens you can buy with the camera and back with RF for
$150-250 US ;-)



I was rereading Leif Ericksenn's medium format guidebook, and he noted
how exceptional and outstanding the Koni Omega was, and also how he did a
lot of shooting of images around the world for movie stills photography
using just 2 KOs which never let him down over years of professional
use and abuse etc.



grins bobm




From KO Mailing List;

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 

From: Lyndon Fletcher [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Getting out of the KO biz



....



Well I also have the 100mm Kodak Heliar from the Medalist Camera. I figure
that between that and the Hexanon I have things covered :)



Part of the reason for moving from the KO is a lack of lenses, expecially
in portrait focal lengths. A 127 Ektar can be had for $50-$150. That gives
you a lot of change and the lens focuses fairly close in. I think I will
still look out for a cheap 58mm Hexanon for mounting on a Graphic lens
board to cover my WA needs. Add in GG focusing and the option of 6x7 and
6x9 and we have a winner. About the only thing I won't be able to do is
shoot Polaroids.



BTW. I think I know how to do a Polaroid back for a KO, the only problem
is that the print would only be 6x7. 


Amazing how all this stuff comes about just when you give up on
something...



Lyndon




From KO Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 100 vs 200 ?



GRAYS wrote:


> I am new to the koni world- what are the differences between the 100 & 200 models ?
>
> Is there a model that is considered the elite of koni's ?
> Gray




Gray, the main difference is that the 200 uses a 2-piece back that can be
changed mid-roll. (The outer piece of the 200 back can be used on the
100.) There is also a model "M" that fits between the 100 and 200. It is
like the 200, but has no finder frame for the 135mm lens. I don't think
the 100 does, either. 


They're all equally good, but the 200 was the last of the series, with the
most capabilities. 


Mel








From KO Mailing List;

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 

From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 100 vs 200 ?



The most important difference is the way film can be utilized.  Both Rapid
models can be used with a 120 and 220 back only.  However, there is an
optional magazine, which allows film changes in mid-roll, for use
Koni-Omega M and Rapid Omega 200, .  A darkslide inserts in the front of
the camera into the front of the magazine.





Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 100 vs 200 ?



GRAYS wrote:


>I am new to the koni world- what are the differences between the 100 & 200
>models ?
>
>Is there a model that is considered the elite of koni's ?
>Gray




Hello Gray,



Welcome to the list.



The 200 allows mid-roll back changes whereas the 100 does not.




Have always thought that the best model is the early Koni-Omega Rapid
which is slightly smaller and lighter than the later models. It does have
a couple of drawbacks though - no mid-roll back changing and a pressure
plate system which uses the shutter release to tension the film.  This
latter feature soon makes short work of any cable release attached to the
camera. 


The Koni Rapid-Omega 200 is the model of choice for most people



The earlier version of the 200 was the Koni Rapid-Omega "M" which is
essentially identical to the 200 except for a silver face rather than the
black of the 200. There is also the Press 2 model which was a late Mamiya
rebadge job on the 200 for export reasons.



You may be interested in having a look through the KO list archives which
are on the CoCam website (URL in sig. file). They are browseable by date
or thread and searchable - however give me a few hours to tweak the search
engine as I have just noticed that it has a small problem since an update
last night :-) 


Am slowly working on a project which should be a useful resource to all on
this list - more on that later :-)



All the best,


             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk




From KO Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000

From: Vincent Aleven [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] trouble getting started



Hi,



I am new to the Koni Omega and also fairly (although not entirely) new to
medium-format photography. 


I recently bought a Koni Omega Rapid M on eBay, inspired by the good
things that Lief Erickssen in his book says about the Koni Omega, and by
reports that the lenses for the Koni Omega are very sharp, and by the
first 16x20 prints that I made (but from 35mm negatives). 


I was struck by how sturdy a camera it seems to be. However, after loading
a roll of film, I have not been able yet to shoot even a single frame of
film. I cannot get the camera to fire. So - is it me or is it the
camera? I would much appreciate your help in getting started!




The manual says:


If the camera will not fire:
   be certain that the Body Release is unlocked
   be certain that the Dark Slide has been fully withdrawn
   be certain that the shutter is cocked




So I made sure that the Body Release is unlocked (the two indicator dots
are aligned) and that the Dark Slide has been removed. Also, I made sure
that the shutter is cocked. I do see a red dot at the location where the
manual indicates the Shutter-Ready Indicator is. Also, the Film-Ready
Indicator on the top of the flm back shows a green dot. But I cannot push
the Body Release. When I remove the lens from the camera body, I can
release the shutter, so the problem does not seem to be with the lens. So
if anybody knows what I might be doing wrong, I would much appreciate it
if you could let me know. I did some searching of the mailing list
archives but did not find the answer to my question. 


Thank you,
Vincent Aleven



Vincent Aleven                         phone:  (412) 268-3409
Human Computer Interaction Institute   fax:    (412) 268-1266
Carnegie Mellon University             e-mail: [email protected]
5000 Forbes Ave
web:    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aleven
Pittsburgh, PA 15213                   office: 3723 Wean Hall





From KO Mailing List;

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 

From: "Carl Wegerer, III" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] trouble getting started



Vincent:



I have been there and understand your frustration.



You should hear two clicks after you press the shutter release.  One when
press the release, and the second when the shutter fires.  I found that
for some reason when my shutter was already cocked it would fire that time
but would not recycle afterwards.  After a while, I learned to make sure
the lens was not cocked when putting it on my camera.  I would always fire
it once before loading film. 


Hope my story helps.



Regards,

Carl




From KO Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000

From: Barbara Lee Spinnenweber [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] trouble getting started



Two questions:



Is the lens seating itself properly? (mine was sort of of kilter after I
had taken it in to get in CLA'd then we figured out that the lever for the
lens has to be finagled to get the lens it correctly) then the shutter
worked after we figured that one out. 


I'm not sure about this one, but is it possible for the dark slide switch
inside the camera to be gummed up and sticking?  Maybe after you take out
the dark slide the switch stays? (I dunno, just a thought)




The camera is purely mechanical, so I bet that's it's an easy problem to
fix if someone knew what they were doing. ha ha ha 


I'm at work and don't have camera with me, but that's what I could think
of off the top of my head. 


I've only been at this for about a month.



If you can't figure it out call Greg Webber. (I don't have his info with
me, I can email tomorrow with it if you want it)  He's a good Koni repair
guy. He's very friendly and if you mention your problem he could probably
tell you what to do to maybe even fix it yourself otherwise send it to
him. He's also mentioned in the archives. 


Barbara L. Spinnenweber





Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999

From: Evan Ludeman [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 180 minimum focus?



The 180 close focus limit is definitely mechanical extension.  With the
180 mounted, the 180 viewfinder frame never disappears.  With the 90
mounted, it does, but whether this is a bug or merely a totally useless
feature is up to you to decide :-). 


Your camera should have separate distance scales for the 90, 180, 58 and
(on some cameras) 135.  On mine, the 180 scale indicates 12' at the
mechanical stop and the scale is accurate.  Be aware that many KO
rangefinders have been fooled with by amateurs and one that is accurate
with one lens may be waaaay off with any of the others.  If the RF agrees
with the distance scale at 12' and infinity, it probably isn't too bad if
you shoot at f16 or smaller.  For critical focus with large aperture at
close range, ground glass will save a lot of headaches.




There are extension "rings" around for close focus work with GG focusing,
but they are few and far between.  I've never used them, so don't know how
much closer they would allow you to go.



The 135, if you can find one, is generally said to be a superior portrait
lens.  Minimum focus is more like 6'.



>Uhm, I thought the 180 reached the 12-foot focus point before the
>rack-and-pinion ran out of travel; that's what the focusing scale on the
>knob indicates, and that's what the stated rationale for the 180 frame in
>the viewfinder disappearing before max travel is reached is, in the
>manual...Am I missing something simple here? Maybe I should just see about
>acquiring a 135 instead? :-) This is on a Rapid Omega M, BTW. (That's what
>the camera says: it has a R-O nameplate, and an M on the body next to the
>rangefinder window. One or the other has probably been replaced, but how can
>I tell? Serial number? It's either an M or a 200, though, since it does
>havemid-roll interchangeable backs.)
>
>Perhaps I do need to improvise a ground glass on the focusing plane and do
>some experimenting here. What I'm trying to accomplish is a portrait of my
>sister for her upcoming wedding, and so the limitations of ground glass
>focusing and such aren't an issue, since I'll be working in a
>well-controlled environment.





From KO Mailing List:

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 

From: Jim Mydosh [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Light baffle strips


I have a Koni-Omega 100 and want to replace the light seal tape on the
body where the lens attaches.  It's deteriorating and flaking off a little
bit.



I found light baffle strips at:


http://www.micro-tools.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Micro-Tools&Pr
oduct_Code=LB-STRIP-1



but I am not sure what size to get.  It's offered in 1.75 by 1 and 2 mm.  
Is this the correct stuff to get? 


If someone could please advise me on this I would be very appreciative.  I
do not currently have a light leakage problem.



Regards,  Jim




Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Light baffle strips





Jim, I can't say for sure this is the CORRECT stuff, but what I got is
their LBMM-KIT-2 for $5, and it worked for me. The kit contains small
strips of adhesive-backed 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm baffling. I used the 2mm for
my backs and 3mm in my RO200 bodies for the seal to which the front part
of the backs mate. Cutting carefully, I fixed up two bodies and five
backs. 


To cut the stuff into strips, I first tried using a blade-type cutting
board, but that was a disaster. Good sharp scissors worked best. For
cleaning out the old gooey foam, I used round wooden toothpicks shaved
down into a screwdriver point, along with a small amount of Goo Gone,
available in 1 oz. bottles (a lifetime supply) from Wal-Mart. 



Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Light baffle strips



....



I've resealed two bodies (an M and a 200) and Mel is correct in
recommending their Kit 2 for $5.00.  There's enough foam to seal a couple
of backs and two bodies.  To reseal the bodies I used the 2mm foam for the
lens mount and the back to body seal.  I didn't have to do any cutting
except for length since the Kit I received was already in strips 1.75mm
wide.  The Goo Gone is great stuff too. 


Nick Nichols





From KO Mailing List:

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000

From: Stan Schaefer [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] trouble getting started



Sorry to hear of your troubles.  At least you've got a manual, I had
to figure out the details on my 100 myself.  I had a couple of things
on mine that might be related to your problems.  On mine, there's an
interlock with the dark slide, it blocks the body shutter release when
the slide is in, you should be able to see a little silver dog from
the front that slides into the shutter release housing.  Mine was
gummed up and stuck.  Mostly open, which meant that all I had was a
hard release, things still worked.  I managed to free it up and it
works a lot better now.  I just applied pressure to it alternately
from both sides of the lens mount with the dark slide inserted and it
freed up, Probably old gummed up oil.  You have to do a pretty
complete strip of the front section to get to it, so I didn't remove
it for cleaning as long as it moved at all.



I also had problems with the cocking linkage, one of the springs was
missing.  I could use the cocking lever on the bottom of the lens to
manually cock the thing after operating the film advance but the
cocking linkage wouldn't quite cock it far enough so I could trip it
with the shutter release.  Fortunately, one of the listees was kind
enough to make copies of the repair manual some time back, I bought
one and I could see what spring was missing and how to get to it.  It
isn't very hard to get to it if you're handy with a jeweler's
screwdriver set.  Just take the bottom section of the lens mount cover
off and the linkage is all right there with two springs, not one.  I
went down to my local hardware store and found an extension spring
that could be shortened enough to work, it doesn't have to be very
stiff.  Might be yours has the same troubles.


....




Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000

From: Mel Brown [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] lens questions



Vincent Aleven wrote:


> Many thanks for the reactions to my post about my Koni Omega Rapid M not
> firing ("[KOML] trouble getting started"). I haven't had the time yet to
> look into this carefully - but it does appear that the problem is in the
> body of the camera. I will look into this further and will keep you posted.
> And hopefully you will put up with any further questions to which that will
> lead.
>
> And indeed I already have more questions ....
>
> I have a Hexanon 60mm lens (from a different seller), which seems to be in
> fine shape. When I cock the shutter, the cocking arm stays in the "cocked"
> position. It jumps back to its "relaxed" position only when the shutter is
> released. Is this the normal behavior? The lens that came with the camera,
> a Hexanon 90mm, seems to behave differently. When you cock the shutter, the
> arm moves back to its relaxed position immediately.
>
> Second, at first when I tried to release the shutter of the 90mm lens (with
> the lens off the camera), there was a delay, and then when the shutter
> opened it seemed to be open longer than it should be (at 1/2 second). I
> didn't measure this, but it seemed that way. But after repeating this
> procedure a couple of times, it got a lot better. I believe I read in the
> archives that this happens when the lens (or shutter?) is not clean. Does
> this sound like the lens needs to be cleaned?
>
> Third, the ring for controlling the aperture on the 90mm lens seems kind of
> loose. It does not click crisply, as does the 60mm. Does anyone know if
> that can  be adjusted easily?




Vincent, your 60mm is operating properly (otherwise, yours and mine are
broken in exactly the same way!) You are right about the 90mm lens; it is
exhibiting classic signs of gummy lubrication. Exercise frequently
alleviates the problem for a while. You may choose to get it and the body
fixed together so you'll have a complete system you can rely on. Or you
can save money by using it until it eventually gets worse; your choice.
The loose click stops cannot be adjusted externally, maybe not at all. The
detents inside the ring may be worn out, or the spring may be too weak.
The good news is that it's really not a problem unless there is hysteresis
(slack in the wheel) that causes the aperture to get set to a different
size, depending on the direction of rotation of the aperture ring. Try
setting to f:16 from both f:22 and f:11, looking for a different aperture
size in each case. 


You seem to be having a lot more trouble with your first RO than most of
us have experienced. You may have just gotten a very worn system, or one
that was used in dirty working conditions for a long time. Usually, it's
the film back that gives the most trouble; I hope yours is working Ok.



Good luck,



Mel




Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] lens questions



.....



Vincent,



    I too am relatively new to the KO system. Your lens problems are
classic to leaf shutters. The shutter gets progressively slower and worst
of all not consistent from firing to firing. I sent my 60 mm 90 mm and 180
mm to Greg Weber to be CLA'd. My 60 had the loose aperture ring the others
just slow and inconsistent. I can't tell you how nice Greg is and his work
is fast and impeccable as well as very reasonable. I would Most Highly
recommend you give him a call and send you lens and body over to him, you
will be rewarded with a perfectly functioning system. My KO photos are
just unbelievable. 


                             Dan Reardon




From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: [Rollei] OT: Best 6x7cm camera



OK.  Since we are on the topic, when not using my Rollei TLRs, the best
6x7cm camera IMHO (esp for the money) is an old Rapid Omega.  I have an RO
100 and the 90mm lens is phenomenal.  The 135 is one of the sharpest if
not the sharpest lenses I have yet to come across.  It was made but 2
years, and is rare, but what a performer.  The downside is that the camera
is a rangefinder and not and SLR, but with leaf shutters I can handhold it
at 1/30 without a problem and still get great results.  Of course at 1/60
and faster the results of the RO lenses make others pale by comparison.  
There is a biogon-llike 58mm lens that produces wonderful results and is
probably one of the primary reason I hold onto the RO. 


Peter K





Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999

From: Philip Morgan [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Filter adapter question



Since I could get several for an attractive price, I purchased some Series
7 filters for use on my KO 60mm lens.  These are unthreaded filters that
came without a Series 7 retaining ring, so I've got one of those on order.  
Now with the questions: 


* Will there be vignetting problems with these Series 7 filters? (The
inside of the metal ring surrounding the filter is just barely larger than
the front lens glass.  They're older filters, at least 3/16" thick.)



* Any thoughts on whether I should get a 49mm --> Series 7 adapter ring so
I can use these filters on my 90mm lens?  I'd like to maximize my
investment in filters and this seems the best way to do that. 


Thanks for any input,

--Philip Morgan.




[Ed. note: too late for this special offer, but manual details may be of
interest?...]

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999

From: rick gordon [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] fs: Koni Repair Manual copies



I finally took the repair manual down to the local print shop to get an
estimate. it's a bit over 100 pages double-sided plus numerouw 11x17
gatefolds. The gatefolds contain numbered exploded diagrams which
correspond to the parts lists. 


Manual Title: Koni-Omega M Technical Illustration with Parts List

Language: English and Japanese

Contents - 3 major sections containing the following:
  General Camera - Parts lists and diagrams;
  Lenses - Parts Lists and diagrams (60,90,180mm only);
  General description, assembly process, troubleshooting, adhesives and lubricants,     
  dismantling & reassembling cautions,  dimensions &  tolerances.

Quality: diagrams are first rate. text appears to be typewritten in a
monospaced typeface (not surprising given it's age!). Card-stock covers.




I will be having the local printer do the duplication, including the
gatefolds, and using the same kind of plastic binder that's on it now.
Total price will be US$15 + postage. (I haven't checked postate rate yet
but I don't imagine its that much.) 


Respond to this email, I'll collect all the names for a few days, let's
say by end of next week, then I'll send out ordering specifics via private
email. 


This will let me know how many copies to order and avoid cluttering the
list further.



-rick




From KO Mailing List;

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Reality and goals



Carl,



You can order Koni Omega screw threaded sync cords from


http://www.paramountcords.com 



They can make just about any cord you want.



Peter K




From KO Mailing LIST:

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 

From: JEFF TEICH [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] 180 & Cable release



Hi Carl, 



As per my last post about the history and concept of the Koni's.
Now knowing what you were up against when you tried the 180 lens. As my
post stated, if you can live with the few limitations of the Koni, it
being apprxly a 35 year old design, for me it can take 90% of the photos
that I encounter. Yes, the major fault with the 180, is the lack of min
focus, I use it for small groups. Also, the Koni does not have a lens
wider than a 58. Now the RF Mamiya 7 has a 43.  Many of the other med
format system SLR's over come these drawbacks of the Koni. 


The limitations that is set in place by your shooters group, by shooting
indoors, does put a crimp in your shooting. Try to convince the group to
have and outdoor meeting. Then use the 180 in the shade "wide open". Bet
you after you see the results, you will not want to get rid of it. 


One of the tricks I use when I use synch cords, is to use a wide rubber
band that is double knot at the plug and loop/wrap the other end around
the lens to prevent it from popping off. If you use the Koni type screwed
down pc cord. I also I put a drop of oil on a old tooth brush and rub the
outside threads of the connection. I said one drop of oil. Then air blow
out the inside threads of the pc plug. This usually gets any dirt out and
gives a little lube job so that the mounting of the pc cord goes on nice
and smooth. 


Hope that helps you out.



Jeff Teich





Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999

From: framer [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Rapid & Rapid O 100 question




> A friend of mine broke the glass viewfinder window in his Koni Rapid.
> (It's the piece on the front that is half etched and half clear.)




Fast fix get a microscope slide its the same thickness.  Carefully pryoff
the front cover that hold the glass in.  Clean it out and get ready to
install.  Cut the slide to fit, only one side needs triming.  Clean the
slide and put a piece of frosted tape to cover 1/2 the slide.  Now spray
the exposed half with a matt lac spray like krylon clear matt spray paint.
After it drys remove the tape and install.  Use a double sided tape on the
back of the front plate to re-attach.  Total cost about 3 bucks and 30 min
time. 


Good luck

Bill McKay

[email protected]




Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] KO Repair FELT



you write:



 Yep,

 Here it is:


 http://www.fargo-ent.com/



 Someone on the list did advise on the particular packs to order.  Perhaps
 they could post this information again?
  



Yes, you need their LBMM-KIT-2 for $5.00, which is enough foam to do a
couple
of bodies and backs.



Nick






Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999

From: Lyndon Fletcher [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] KO Repair FELT



you wrote:



>Please advise where to purchase the replacement felt for the Koni
cameras.



	
Someone already sent the link for Fargo Enterprises, the part number for
the kit that contains a small amount of the 1mm, 2mm and 3mm thickness
foam strips is LBMM-KIT-2 according to my Fargo invoice. The price is $5.



You actually only need the 2mm thinkness, you can buy that on it's own but
the cost is about $25 and you would get far too much. Provided that you
don't botch it too many times the 2mm foam in the sampler kits should be
more than enough.



The foam is self adhesive. You need a strip perhaps 2mm wide to fit the
channels on a KO M. You have to get rid of all the old foam first. I'm
told that in the US you can get something called "Gunk be gone" (or
something) from HW stores that does the job quite well. I picked my old
seal out of the groves with tooth pics because the wood won't damage the
castings like metal tools could. 


Cutting the foam is the hardest part.



 Be aware that the M has more light seals than the standard Rapid backs
and will take more foam..... I think there should be enough for 4 or 5 "M"
magazines if you cut it carefully. 


Lyndon





Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



Ted Llewellyn wrote:



>  I have the Koni Omega 200 and all of the lenses.  I have a real Koni
>lens cap for the 90mm, but I have no caps for the other lenses and no rear
>caps at all.  I figure the lack of caps is not fatal for when I have the
>lenses in ziplocs in their cases (I have the original cases for the 180
>and 135, and a Zing around the 58), but walking around without a lens cap
>on them when they are on the camera makes me nervous.  Those silly
>spring-clip caps you buy that don't really fit and pop off when you really
>need them make me nervous, too.  Is there any place you can get real lens
>caps?
>  I'd also like to have some kind of case around the camera for when it's
>out of the camera bag and hanging from my tired neck (heavy sucker that it
>is).  Something like an eveready case.  All of the Zing cases look too
>small.  Anyone else come up with solutions to these problems?
>
>Thanks,
>Ted




Hello Ted,



Well you may have a long search for the original caps but there are
plastic
slip on caps which do a good job.  These are available from many
photographic kit outlets. Try B&H if you are in the US.



Have never seen an eveready case for a KO - but it is quite possible that
one was made for the camera.



The only solution I have is to use the spring-clip caps whilst keeping
camera on tripod and resting on a shoulder in a similar way as a rifle is
carried. The top of the tripod head keeps the weight on your shoulder
rather than in the steadying hand on the tripod legs.



I find it a lot quicker to remove lens cap and fire the shutter with the
spring clip caps.  I use the slip on caps for occasions when the lens will
be off the camera for a while.



Please feel free to use the Classifieds section on the CoCam website to
post a WTB ad.



All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk





Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 

From: Douglas Braun [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



When I had this problem with lens caps, I stopped at a couple of peoples'
junk boxes at swap meets.  After a few minutes of grubbing around, I
found ones that were good enough.  The only
problem is that they say "Minolta" :-)



Doug Braun





Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



Ted Llewellyn wrote:



>Clive,
>  Perhaps I should have explained why I was looking for a case.  I just
>want to keep dust and such off the camera.  I was thinking of something
>like an eveready case because they are usually light, not because I want
>to fire the shutter as quickly as possible.  When I want to waste film
>like that, I grab a 35mm.  ;-)
>
>Ted




Ted,



Well if you ever find an eveready case please let me have a photo for the
current project :-)



The decisive moment also happens in landscape photography - I prefer to
have a rig which has minimal setup time allowing maximum time for
compositional thought.



When shooting in dusty conditions I simply wrap a T-Shirt around the
camera (still on tripod). Have also used plastic bags in the past but
these tend to attract fine dust.  For more lengthy periods when the camera
is to be carried but not used the tripod goes into a sling bag and the KO
into a reporter style shoulder bag which takes just the body and 90mm or
58mm ie one non-tele lens. 


You can trudge around for several miles with this setup before noticing
the pain ;-)



All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk






Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000

From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/bags.html alternative camera bags
I recommend coolers, rarely stolen, sturdy, cheap, cool in hot weather
(Texas), easy to clean, dust/water sealed...



I drop my RO 200 into a polaroid carry case ($3); the trick is to put the
strap around your shoulders but over arms, so bag is in front (not to
sides)
at mid chest level, takes weight/strain off neck, easy to drop into bag,
then pull up...



see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/flare.html on making exact sun
shields/hoods to match format etc.



there is a lot of info/posts on using common items such as pringles
potato chip tops for caps on hoods and so on; see posting for more ideas



finally, see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/beat.html Beat This! -
ridiculous prices for simple stuff - $300 straps, $600 lens hoods etc.



grins bobm





From Contax Mailing List;

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000

From: Len Eckel [email protected]

Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Anyone familar with these items?



Hi, the Koni Omega M is a great camera, with four lenses available, good
sharp Konica lenses; 58mm, 90mm( regular), 135mm(scarce) and 180mm, a
great lens. Besides, the M ( or 200) model has interchangeable film units,
you can change film in mid role. If you buy a 58mm, you really don't need
the viewfinder, just use the entire range finder space, it works well.  
Have fun; you need the handgrip to make it comfortable.  Items are
available on E-bay regularly. For mediym format, Koni is cheap. Len





From Contax Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000

From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Anyone familar with these items?



If it has not been abused this should be a good camera.  The lenses
are excellent.  These were built in Japan by Konica but designed in
the USA by the Omega division of Berkey Marketing Corp.  My old friend
Henry Froehlich, now the retired President of Mamiya America, designed
the rangefinder and still holds the patents on it.



The only thing to be careful about is film advance.  Pull the lever
out and push it back GENTLY.  If you do the pull-push action hard, in
time it will bend part of the mechanism and the film frames will get
closer and closer together until they begin to overlap.



If it works at all it was a real bargain for a hundred bucks!!!



Bob




From KO Mailing List;

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 

From: Vladimir Charchuk [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



Ted,



 I have Doskosil cases for all of my equipment. I have a bit of OCD with
regards to my photo equipment. They are great for transporting your stuff
but a bit on the heavy side. 


When ready to shoot, I put whatever I need in a large Tamrac Pro bag. I
play golf allot so I'm used to carrying a heavy bag:-) 


Vladimir




From KO Mailing List:

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] camera cases and lens caps



Hi Ted,



I keep my stuff in a camera bag with zip top.  Always worked well for me
and let's me access the camera far quicker than a camera body case.  If
you really shoot in harsh conditions (deserts, storm chasing, etc.) then
perhaps you need to use a plastic bag over the camera and remove it when
needed. 


Peter K




Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] rubber stopper for filter threads



FWIW, a pair of rubber gloves gave me plenty of traction to remove the
filter adapter.  Either turning it normally with two gloved hands, or kind
of making a loose fist wearing a glove & pushing it into the adapter ring
& turning (definitely need supporting illustrations here...!) 


Steve Rees





Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000

From: "Martin F. Melhus" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] rubber stopper for filter threads



Alex Posner wrote:


> One other quick question.  What is that extra horizontal line I see in
> the upper part of the detachable viewfinder for the 58\60mm lens?




Parallax correction.  I think that's the bottom of frame at the minimum
working distance of the 58/60 mm lens.  If anyone else knows differently,
please correct me on this.  The standard suggestion for use is to
compose the image, and then change the tilt so that what was on the
very bottom of the composed image falls on the parallax line.



My own preference is to use the same trick that I was taught to
correct for parallax underwater with the Nikonos 15mm lens.
Compose the image in the regular viewfinder, and then move the
camera up so that the main lens is exactly where the viewfinder
was.  More reliable, and works at any distance.  However, you
still have to remember that the frame gets a little larger as you
focus closer (or the lens acts like it is a bit more of a W/A lens.)



Regards,

--

Martin F. Melhus   



From Koni Omega Mailing List:

Date: Sun, 14 May 2000

From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni-Omega/Kowa



[email protected] wrote:



> Is it true that some Kowa lenses share the same PC-locking connector as the
> Koni-Omega lenses?




  Hi,



  Here's the # 6 Koni-Omega cord from Paramount:


http://paramountcords.com/koni-ome.htm



  Paramount's #6 cord is shown as a "Koni-Omega Kowa" cord on this page:


http://paramountcords.com/synccords.htm



--

R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user)

mailto:[email protected]

http://homepages.go.com/~rjbender/home.htm





From KO Mailing List:

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000

From: "Martin F. Melhus" [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filters for 58mm



I use a series VII to series VIII step up ring, and then use
my 67mm filters in the series VIII.  They fit nearly perfectly,
and are also good on my 180 mm lens(and if I had one, the 135 mm
lens.)



I can check from inside the camera and see no vignetting with this
setup.  If I put 3-4 67mm filters on, then I start to get some.



Regards,

--

Martin F. Melhus     

[email protected]  



From KO Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filters for 58mm


....


Hello Nick,



Have not tried this out as I have one of the 58mm lenses with 55mm threads
- there are a few more owners of similar lenses on the list.



CoCam (URL in sig. file) can supply the series VII to 55mm step up ring
and
may be able to supply a series VII to 67mm step up ring. Please contact me
at [email protected]



CoCam will be supplying a whole range of filter adapters shortly. We are
currently finalising a manufacturing deal for various accessories.



All the best,


 Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk



FRom KO/Rapid Mailing List:

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Filters for 58mm



check with Calumet for adapter rings.  they used to have step ups from all
the series mounts to threaded mounts.



i use 67mm filters for everything so i only need one set of filters, and
just buy the apropriate stepup ring for a new camera.  in addition, as has
been stated, 67mm almost always will screw into series VIII.  my bronica S
lenses are series VIII and i just use 67mm on them.



alan





From KO Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000

From: Don Hensley [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 220 back



GRAYS wrote:


> can you use 120 film in the 220 back ? I figured you would just have to
> crank the handle a couple of times extra at the end . would the film
> space correctly ?
> chip renner




Yes you can, I use 120 all the time in mine with no problem.
But when you load the film, roll the arrows to the same place you would on
the 120 back and not to the marking on the 220.



Don Hensley





Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000

From: Wendell Stanley [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Close up with the 58mm lens.



On June 26, John Stafford asked the following:



"Oh, has anyone else discovered how CLOSE one can get with the 58mm lens
when you go beyond the rangefinder scale?"



With my Rapid Omega 200 and my 58mm lens racked all the way out (off
scale, of course), it is in focus at exactly 20 inches from subject to
film plane.  It covers an area of 12.5 inches by 16.5 inches.  The
viewfinder image is not correct, however.



If anyone is interested, I can e-mail you a crude diagram of the area
covered relative to the viewfinder image.  It is a jpeg file of about
60KB.  I could have attached it to this e-mail, but John warned that not
everyone has a fast connection to the internet.



Wendell Stanley

[email protected]





Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements



johnstafford wrote:


>----- Original Message -----
>From: Clive Warren [email protected]
>
>> [...] Maybe I need therapy but I keep looking at the 58mm
>> Hexanon and a spare Crown Graphic lens board :-)
>>
>> Anyone ever thought about grafting a KO film holder on a Graflok back?
>
>    Does the 58mm have enough coverage to permit rise/fall?




John,



On a 6x7 back the answer is "yes but limited movements".  Kerry Thalaman
tested this out a while back hoping that the biogon design of the Hexanon
58mm would allow coverage for 4x5. Alas, it will not cover 4x5 but it
certainly covers 6x9 without movements :-)



The lenses were tested wide open by Kerry, so stopping down may improve
the coverage. The 58/60mm does have mechanical vignetting, most of which I
guess comes from the design of the rear elements. 


John, weren't you the chap with the optical bench who was going to test
the coverage about a year ago? :-) 


Just had a quick trawl through the KOML list archive (on the CoCam
website) and found the following posted by Kerry: 


>This afternoon, I mounted a 58mm Hexanon in a standard Copal #0 and
>installed it on my 4x5.  Observing the image on the ground glass has
>convinced me that this lens won't come close to covering 6x12.  In fact,
>it appears to barely cover 6x9 without movements.  I believe this lack
>of coverage is due to mechanical vignetting.  I believe the KO designers
>restricted the coverage in order to keep the lens as physically small as
>possible (especially the rear element to keep the KO lens mount as small
>as possible).  This trade off made sense, since the intended application
>was a 6x7 camera without movements.  It looks like this lens could be
>adapted for use on a view camera with a 6x7 roll film back and very
>modest movements, or a 6x9 body with a rigid lens mount.  Definately not
>6x12 (bummer).




All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk



Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements


johnstafford wrote:


>Clive Warren:
>
>> Your 47mm 4x5 sounds interesting - is it finished yet?
>
>Yes. See:  http://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/SANDWICH-4X5/SANDWICH.HTML
>
>> Have been considering pano. photography for some time using a 5x7 camera
>> and a homemade back for rollfilm to give 6x17 although it may be more
>> sensible to go for 6x12 given the problems in keeping the film flat......
>
>I have similar reservations regarding film flatness. Some people are
>experimenting with the US Navy surplus "Torpedo Camera" back, but it seems a
>hassle to adapt it to 220/120 spools.




John,



Thank you for the URL - looks an interesting beast :-)



Have seen those torpedo camera backs for sale in various places and
considered the conversion.  As you say it is probably a hassle to do the
work required, particularly to arrange a darkslide.



Am considering simply chopping a hole in a 5x7 darkslide and using 5x7
film with a 203mm Ektar but we are getting dangerously off topic here....



It's a real shame that the KO 58/60 lens doesn't do the job for larger
coverage as it does produce excellent results on a KO - maybe that is
where it should stay :-) 


All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk

                     Photographic Services, Filters and Equipment,
Infrared FAQ





From: "John Stafford" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000

Subject: Re: cautions.. Re: Fuji RFs vs. Plaubel Makina


Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote 


> [...] Koni Omega optics and 6x7 RF cameras with
> interchangeable magazines (RO200) - with $250 or so invested, I have both
> the 90mm and 58mm biogon optics, which rival the Plaubel's nikkor 80mm for
> resolution -and even the much pricier Mamiya 6/7 optics (note the RO was
> made by mamiya..). [...]





True, the KO optics are surprisingly great, and if I could get a body and
two lenses (especially the 58mm) for $250 in EX condition, I'd by two more
of each (and I already have a full KO system)! Maybe someone will get
lucky, but he's got to buy from someone not net-connected to get such a
deal. 


(The KO is especially good for night, low-light and infra-red photography
because you can focus and see the scene.)





From: [email protected] (MPS)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000

Subject: Re: cautions.. Re: Fuji RFs vs. Plaubel Makina


....



>True, the KO optics are surprisingly great, and if I could get a body and
>two lenses (especially the 58mm) for $250 in EX condition, I'd by two more
>of each (and I already have a full KO system)! Maybe someone will get lucky,
>but he's got to buy from someone not net-connected to get such a deal.





Yeah, no DOUBT! The only KO's I've ever seen in person have been truly
beaten beyond usefulness and were still selling for amazingly high
prices just as parts bodies. Price is an issue for me, but I don't
want to settle for something just because it's inexpensive. I've
played around just enough to have a better idea of what I want, and
part of it at least is high quality optics in a lighter weight, more
portable package. Thanks to various inputs here, I've pretty much
ruled out the Plaubels due to expense and repair issues.



mps





[Ed. note: Oh Nooo!!! Collector's are snapping up KOs ;-)...]

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000

From: Bob and Amy [email protected]

Subject: [KOML] Omega 120 Info?



If anyone can help, you'd be the group that can.  I spent 30 years in
photography and retired!  Sold off almost all of my equipment.  Now I
have gotten into collecting.  I am getting close to completing my
Koni/Raid Omega display.  I have my K/O Rapid and Rapid M, my R/O 100
and 200, all the lenses (both Omegon and Hexanon).  All I need now is a
Simmon Omega 120 (Exc+ to mint) to get it where I want it.  Any thoughts
on availability and price for one of these?  I know they are around, but
I have never seen one in person.  Thanks.  Bob.




Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [KOML] Omega 120 Info?



Best bet is to keep searching ebay.  I have 3 in the last year and one has
been mint+ condition.





Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Hexanon vs. Super Omegon Lenses



BOB KRAMER wrote:



>I am interested in getting into some medium format photography, and the
>Koni-Omega seems like a great way to do it on a smaller budget.  I do have a
>question I am hoping you all can answer for me.  What is the difference
>between the Hexanon and the Super Omegon lenses?  Is one or the other
>sharper or better designed in some way?
>
>>From looking at the cameras showing up on ebay, it seems like the Hexanon
>lenses are much more common.  Any reason why I might want to hold out for
>one of the Super Omegon lenses?
>
>Thanks for your help!
>
>Bob Kramer




Bob,



Essentially the glass is the same in the Hexanon and Omegon lenses. The
only differences are in the shutters of some lenses.



Below is a post I found in the archives and have edited, from one of our
expert list members Peter Kotsinadelis.



The Omegon and Hexanon are identical optically.  The shutters are
different in the Omegon since they were manufactured later. The factory
was originally a Konica factory and hence the Hexanon lens name. Later the
factory was transferred on paper to Mamiya and nothing changed in terms of
tooling. 


The 58 and 60mm lens are the same optically, but for a period Mamiya
decided to relabel it 60mm.



The 90mm Omegons and Hexanons are the same, however the Omegons have a
newer (perhaps some would say better) shutter.



The 135mm was only made for a period of two  years, probably when Mamiya
had the company.



The 180mm was originally Konica Hexanon and later relabeled Omegon and
given  a revised shutter.



Quality control was not as tight as it is today with computer designs and
manufacturing, so sometimes you will get a superb Hexanon or Omegon and
some times (albeit rare, Konica was considered to have the best Quality
Control of all the manufacturers.



I have used Hexanon and Omegon lenses and have found them all excellent
performers. Given the age of the kit, I have not experienced any
differences  in shutter performance or reliability after a good CLA.



All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk

                     Photographic Services, Filters and Equipment,
Infrared FAQ





Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Hexanon vs. Super Omegon Lenses



Bob, 



I have several lenses of both types. I can tell no difference. I am
told the variability between lens to lens is greater than from model to
model. This seems to be reflected in all of the test data I have seen.
Both the hexanons and the omegons are fantastic lenses. I will put the
58mm up against any 6x7 lens I have ever seen. I have a photo of my kids I
made a couple of years ago with the 180mm Omegon that is stunning. It is a
20x24 print. Took 1st in the state fair. Great camera system with second
to none lenses. 


Bill






From KO Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

Subject: Re: [KOML] Hexanon vs. Super Omegon Lenses



BOB KRAMER wrote:



>Thanks for the info on the Hexanon/Omegon lenses!   I will also go through
>the archives thoroughly to look for any other issues that I need to be aware
>of while I look for a camera.  I think I will stick with the 200 series, so
>I can change film in mid roll.  I guess you can also do that with the Rapid
>M as well, but I kind of like the all black look of the 200.
>
>Anyway, thanks again.  I will stick around and lurk on the list for now, but
>I am sure I will be back with more questions once I get one of these babies
>in my hands!  :-)
>Bob Kramer




The kit is fairly robust generally - some would say "built like a tank"
:-) There are the usual problems with light seals which you get with any
camera over 20 years old.  These can be replaced easily and inexpensively
yourself. 


Film spacing can be a problem on backs which are out of adjustment or have
serious cam wear (unlikely).



The 200 is the model most people go for - it represents the pinnacle of
design for the Rapid Omegas.



I tend to use an old battered Rapid Omega as my everyday camera. The film
spacing isn't perfect and the shutter release operates the film pressure
plate mechanism making a heavy duty cable release essential (later model
backs were redesigned).



In tests, the lenses beat most others including Hassleblad.  Having
possibly the best mechanism around for ensuring film flatness probably
helps in those lens tests :-)




All the best,



             Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk




Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 

From: Peter Lanczak [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Koni-Omega websites



Updated Koni-Omega websites: http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni.htm
(main site) 


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni1.htm (product site)


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni2.htm (serial number list)


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni3.htm (price guide)


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni4.htm (instruction
manual/prospects) 


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koniflex.htm
(Koni-Omegaflex site)


http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/omega120.htm (Simmon Omega 120 site)
Coming soon: Combat Camera (Simmon Bros.) 


Regards, Peter from Germany/France mailto: [email protected] 





Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000

From: "pico" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega websites



Peter Lanczak [email protected] wrote


> Updated Koni-Omega websites: http://www.uuhome.de/Peter.Lanczak/koni.htm




I'll look at your excellent site some in depth when my local network
lightens up a bit.



Have you ever seen the multiple-bulb-flash unit someone came up with for
the KO Rapid (or later)? It was wild. It had a magazine of three bulbs so
the photographer could shoot three rapid-succession flash photos. I saw it
in 1968 or so. I may even have a picture of it here. I'll look later.  




rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

From: ajacobs2 [email protected]

[1] Re: Pentax 67II vs. Mamiya 7II for quality aerial work?

Date: Wed Jan 03 2001




The Pentax 67 series has been a winner in this arena. One respect, it's
got weight, size, and for some of the bigger guys like me something to
grip, even with light gloves on.  And as stated by others with enough
film and aperture speed, the vibes didin't matter.  Most of those I know
like the beast for this kind of work.  They usually have a pair of them.
Also if you do a lot of 35mm, Its an easy transition. I wouldn't
recommend it for weddings, my Bronicas and six backs do that. For PR
work, the Mamiya is fine, too slow on the film change for weddings.
Each camera has its virtues...actually the Koni-Rapid-Omegas were tank
killers for aerial work, I wish someone would resurrect that line. I
think my last one had the Hexanon 180 or something like that. The pull
push was easy to use.





From Rollei Mailing List;

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [Rollei] Camera choice



Eric Goldstein wrote (edited):



Just saw a beautiful set (Koni-Omegaflex) for sale in October at the PHSNE
show: body, 90, 135, paramender, spacer for close-up work, eye-level
finder, etc (a little too pricey for me)... beautiful camera and suberb
lenses, a number of which were based on Zeiss designs... 


Eric Goldstein



As with many Japanese lens makers the Koni-Omega and 'flex used lens based
on Zeiss designs.



The 58/60mm lens was a Biogon, the 90mm a modified Tessar, the 135mm
actually a Heliar design and the 180mm a Sonnar.



I have all 4 lenses with a RO100 (the smaller rangefinder camera not the
larger Omegaflex) and I can honestly tell you the lenses are superb.  The
135mm is among the sharpest lenses I have ever used.  The 58mm is a beauty
with no noticeable barrel distortion (nice for scenics and group shots).
The 90mm is incredibly sharp at middle apertures and forces one to use a
Softar filter if you use it for people shots.  Especially older folk since
it shows far too much detail (wrinkles, blemishes, etc.) and usually does
not make people (especially women) happy when they see the result. 


Its probably the least expensive way into Medium format plus
interchangeable lenses. 


Peter K





From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]

Subject: RE: [Rollei] Camera choice



Bob,



You are half right.  The lenses were not Mamiya designs, they took over
the factory and that included the lenses. They disco'd the 135mm lens, and
modified the 58mm making it a 60mm, but not really a redesign in the
optics. 


I you take apart any old Hexanon lens from the Rapid and compare it with a
newer Omegon from the Mamiya factory you will find all identical (true
fact) except the shutter mechanisms were an improved design in the newer
lenses from Mamiya. 


Peter K



-----Original Message-----

From: Bob Shell [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001

Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice



> From: Lucian Chis [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice
>
> I think the Mamiya 7 is the descendant of the Koni-Omega (I
> seem to recall Konica selling the line to Mamiya or something like
> that).





When Konica lost interest in the cameras all of the tooling was moved
to Mamiya who continued production, but with lenses of their own
design.  Most think the Konica lenses were better.  The camera was
an American design, built in Japan.



Bob





From Rollei Mailing List:

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001

From: Bob Shell [email protected]

Subject: Re: [Rollei] gettn kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mm Focal length



> From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] gettn kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mmFocallength
> The lens alone is worth the price
> i remember from the 60's.n kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mm
> Focal length
> But Rangefinders? This is their first year with this camera...
> against Leica whose been refining there's since the 20's...
> and has glass second to none!!!!




Yep, The lens alone is worth the price.  That slogan was written by my
friend Henry Froehlich, now retired President of Mamiya America.  Before
Joe Ehrenreich got the twinkle in his eye to import Nikon cameras into
the USA Henry was already importing Konica.  It was the first Japanese
camera imported in serious numbers after the war.



Speaking of Konica and rangefinders, they were the ones who built the
Koni Omega cameras, which had one of the best optical rangefinders ever.



I don't see that the Hexar RF is less well built than the Leicas in any
way.  It is an exceptionally well build camera and the lenses are
super performers.



Bob





rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

From: "James W.\(Jim\) Simmons" [email protected]

Date: Wed Feb 14 14:59:56 CST 2001

[1] Re: Koni-Omega's



I have a Koni-Omega Rapid-M and also the same as a spare back-body. I have
a 35 mm from a range finder to the SLR, a TLR 6x6cm, ~3 4x5"s (both field
and studio), even a 8x10". My Koni-Omega receives more use than all the
others combined. I have all the lens; 90, 58, 135 and 180 (all are Konica
Hexanon Lenses, just my personal choice). I would rate the lenses as
follows; 


90mm Excellent
58 mm Excellent ++
135mm Excellent ++++
180mm Excellent +




I use a Jobo processor when developing the film to insure uniform
processing, so my results are fairly accurate.



You will ether Love or Hate this camera, there is no in-between. You
should take in account that the lens will cost you some bucks, the 135
cost over half the herd. 


Make you get yourself or you already have a good, accurate, light meter.



Remember, this is just my option!!



Jim


...




Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 

From: "Namexa" Namexa@**adelphia.net

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega's



Hey,



I used one for years. It was a great 'candid' wedding
camera. Light weight, easy to use, and the bright
rangefinder was excellent for dark reception halls. I never
did much else with it but have been toying with the idea of
breaking it out of the closet  and trying some landscape or
journalism type photos. I really think it is a great press
type camera. When it was first introduced (that is when I
got mine) the 35mm SLRs couldn't hold a candle to it's image
quality, and it sure beat carrying the crown graphic and
it's film holders to a wedding. Yeah, photographers used to
use Crown Graphics and such at weddings.



--

Never Forget Your Dreams

Namexa





From: "Robert E. Smith" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega's



John Yeo wrote:



> I had never heard of this camera until your post.  I looked them up online,
> and they looked great.  I was even thinking of getting one.  Today I asked
> the guy at the camera store what he thought of them.  He said that they were
> very finicky.  Apparently, the thing mechanism that advances the film gets
> out of sync very easily, and you end up with overlaping frames.  He said the
> rangefinder also got out of whack frequently.  From what I read online, the
> 58mm lens is one of the best mf lenses made.
>
> John
>
> "greg" [email protected] wrote 
> > These cameras seem to be an amazing deal for the money. I have a line on
> > a good one in a private sale at a very good price. I've read about them
> > but have not yet played with one. I understand the lens quality is
> > superb. Can any owners give their impressions of the ups/downs of these.
> > Is there anything that I should be concerned about when purchasing. The 
> > one I am looking at is fairly basic with a f3.5 90mm and 120 back. What
> > accessories should I later consider. Thanks in advance.
> >




There is nothing "finicky" about my Koni Omega Rapid.  There are
operational issues:  there is nothing to prevent one from overlaping
frames if the film advance handle is not pulled fully out.  There is
nothing top prevent one from advancing the film before exposure (been
there - done that - many times :-)_).  In other words, one must give a
more thought to the photographic process than, say with an all-automatic
35mm super thing.  There is double exposure prevention, but this can be
defeated if necessary. 


If there is one disadvantage using a Koni Omega, it has to be the weight.  
With the 150mm Hexanon lens they are quite heavy - more so than 4x5 or
even 8x10 large format cameras.  Many of my most rewarding images have
resulted with the KO. 


Truly, dr bob.





From: [email protected] (DaveHodge)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Date: 17 Feb 2001

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega's




I have used several R-O cameras for about 10 years.  I got them primarily
to shoot Konica 120 IR film because I found that a 6x6 negative was not
large enough to get the results I wanted.  The 6x7 negative works great.  
The only problem I have had is that the back seals dry out, and there does
not seem to be any source for do-it-yourself replacement seals.  So with
my present cameras I have several strips of black photographic tape at
strategic places, and no light leaks.  I have used the 58, 90 and 180
lenses and got good performance from them.  I am selling 16x20 pictorial
prints made with the cameras. 


Before I retired from the government I had an exciting experience.  (I was
a scientist and program manager, not a photographer.)  Due to a
reorganization we needed to photograph all our agency's buildings at
Aberdeen Proving Ground. So, since the staff photographer and I had the
same type camera, and our backs were interchangeable, we loaded up all the
backs we could find with 400 speed color negative film, and we each rode
in a machine gunner's seat on both sides of a Huey helicopter.  We flew
all over Aberdeen Proving Ground at an altitute of perhaps 500 feet and
photographed all our buildings in an hour or so.  I had ridden Hueys to
and from Washington a number of times, but this trip was by far the most
interesting. 



Best regards--






Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001

From: Clive Warren [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: Koni-Omega Web Site and Mailing List URL



Hello Bob,



Hope you are well and enjoying life.



Thought you may like to add these URLs to your Koni page:



The Koni-Omega Almanac.  

http://www.koni-omega.org/

Will be a repository for all things KO - currently has the complete mail
archives (searchable and browseable) from the old mailing list and also
has a link to the new KOML list which is at 



http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/koml



The archive for the new KOML list is at:




http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/koml/



Thanking you in anticipation,


--

All the best,


              Clive   http://www.cocam.co.uk

                      Photographic Services, Filters and Equipment, Infrared FAQ

                             http://www.f32.net

                             Large Format Travel and Stock Photography





Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001

From: "Robert E. Smith" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Omega - opinions?




John Blodgett wrote:


> I've a chance to buy a Koni Omega with 3 lenses, two backs and a finder  from
> a friend of mine at a great price. Any opinions on this camera? I enjoy
> handheld documentary work (I use three Holgas, a Speed Graphic and soon  a
> Crown Graphic), but also am looking for a system camera for portraiture  and
> perhaps even travel photography.




Please, If you decide not to continue the purchase, reveal your friend's
email to me _personally_.   Shhhh!  Don't let the rest of "them" know.
Actually there have been some good looking "bargans" of Koni Omega on
Ebay, but you never know how much misuse ther may have been.  If you can
assess your friend's equipment first hand, I'd go for it.



Seriously, they are very good cameras with significantly superior
lenses.  I have had my lens(es) cla from time to time but they are
excellent and well worth the expense.  IMO. Koni Omega cameras are
probably the most under rated mf camera in the obsolete market.



Truly, dr bob.





Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001

From: "C.L.Zeni" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Omega - opinions?




John Blodgett wrote:


> I've a chance to buy a Koni Omega with 3 lenses, two backs and a finder  from
> a friend of mine at a great price. Any opinions on this camera? I enjoy
> handheld documentary work (I use three Holgas, a Speed Graphic and soon  a
> Crown Graphic), but also am looking for a system camera for portraiture  and
> perhaps even travel photography.




If it's not been flogged, snap that sucker up.  The Konis are super
cameras - nice 6x7, easy to load, quick advance, super lenses.  Not
nearly as heavy as a Pentax 6x7.  The wide angle 58/60mm lens is
wonderful.  I paid $200 for my Koni with the 90mm and 58mm w/finder,
spent that much having it gone thru properly with CLA and repairs, and
find it just a joy to use.



--

Craig Zeni

http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html





Date: 15 Jul 2001 

From: [email protected] (Silverman)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Omega - opinions?



John Blodgett [email protected] wrote 


> I've a chance to buy a Koni Omega with 3 lenses, two backs and a finder 

[...]



I used KOs. They were designed to be press cameras, and are very good
in that respect. Fast focusing and advance, bright finder, light,
built to be used at eye-level (as opposed to the 'blad, for
example)and fairly rugged. The lenses are good, but not as miraculous
as so many claim, but certainly good enough and under-priced. Typical
problems occur in the advance mechanism, but it is easily fixed and
people still work on them.



So buy it already and stop teasing us.






Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001

From: [email protected] (Lyndon Fletcher)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni Omega - opinions?



John Blodgett [email protected] wrote:


> but also am looking for a system camera for portraiture and
>perhaps even travel photography.




Koni's are great cameras and very underrated. However there isn't
really a head and shoulders "portrait lens"  in the system.



The most common telephoto, the 180mm f/4.5, doesnt focus close enough
for a head shot. The much rarer 135mm I am told has the same problem
(though I was never lucky enough to find one.)



Originally there were 2 big markets for this camera, one was the
wedding photography market (where the 6x7 negative and bright
viewfinder were better suited for the job than a 6x6 TLR) and the
other was the US Military. Ex US Navy cameras and lenses are cheap
though it is hard to find a nice one, in general ex-pro equipment is
in good condition.



Things to look for.



1) Fungus, I bought 2 different KO's and both had a touch of lens
fungus, I dont know how common this was or if I was just unlucky.
Fortunately there was no glass extching and the lenses were still very
sharp when cleaned.



2) Foam light seals tend to turn to sticky goo. These are easy to
replace yourself but check them to be sure.



3) Make sure that the RF is accurate. It is a very complicated
arrangement with brightlines and lens sensing, far too complex to fix
yourself.



4) lubricant tends to dry out. The 2 places this is most obvious is in
the "wedge" system that controls the frame spacing in the magazine and
in the shutter button/pressure plate area. One of the best features of
the KO design is that it has an active pressure plate that moves out
of the way for film winding then clamps down on the film when the
picture is taken. In the early models pushing the release button
forces the pressure plate against the film, from the Rapid M the
pressure plate tensioning forms part of the film winding mechanism.



 For the Rapid the extra mechanism for tensioning the pressure plate
can become clogged with dry lube making the shutter release hard to
press.



That said it is a great camera and most of these problems would be
dealt with in a full CLA.



Lyndon




Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001

From: John Blodgett [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Koni Omega



Thanks all for your feedback - I just picked up:


200 Rapid body
(2) 120 backs
58 (w/ finder), 90, 180 lenses
Sportsfinder
Instructions
Backpack for gear
Groundglass (small crack)
Extra darkslide




For $400. A good deal, I think...





Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

From: "Mike" [email protected]

Subject: Re: Koni Omega - opinions?




I worked as a repair tech with Berkey Marketing back in the OLD days
servicing the RO systems.



Most of the cameras we received for repair were from wedding photographers
in the mid west.



The Rapid and Koni's are still fine systems.


Mike


www.mfcrepair.com


...





Date: 20 Jul 2001

From: [email protected] (John Stafford)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: battery independent MF camera?




[email protected] (Blad Nut) wrote 



Koni Omega is 6x7. Lenses are very good. You mentioned the SWC and
also 6x9, so perhaps you could appreciate the Brooks or Plaubel
Veriwide. The early Plaubel Veriwide is 6x9, the Brooks is 6x8.
Caveat: I am not confident that the 47mm Super Angulon lenses for
these particular cameras can favorably compare with the SWC. (There
were two such lenses, an F5.6 which I use, but most came with the F8.)



> Would anyone like to tell me if there are any such cameras in 6x7+ size
> rangefinders?High quality optics are a must. I am sure there are older  ones,
> any recommendations would be appreciated. I can think of some in 6x6   like a
> SWC which I miss, but  anything in a larger format  besides the Fuji  6x9's that
> I can think of??? The newer ones all seem to be battery dependent for  the
> shutter to function as well as the meters. TIA- don weston






Date: Tue, 15 May 2001

From: "Robert E. Smith" [email protected]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Subject: Re: Koni-Omega v Mamiya C3



RAD wrote:


> I'm using a C3 for landscapes and find it a burden hiking through the  bush
> with this, plus tripod.
> Looking to buy a Koni Omega (perhaps) as a substitute but can't get an  idea
> of dimensions and weight from web sites I've looked at. How big is this
> camera?
> Thanks in advance.
> Rob




     You can hardly do better than the Koni Omega (KO).  I have a rather
long story about entering mf after a long lay-off involving a search for
a KO and finding a C330f in the process.  I purchased both.  They are
used about equally.  The KO is a little more portable and handier to
hand hold - but I have made some award-winning images with the C330
slung at waist level with a foot lanyard attached at the tripod socket.



     The KO yields "better" contrast (less flare) and is easier to focus
but portrait orientation is a bear.  The C330f requires more attention
to formatting and focus.  The KO has the most unique film transport of
any mf camera I have used:  The film runs from the supply reel directly
to the take-up reel without touching _anything_ , no rollers, no light
seals, nothing!  At exposure, a system of levers connected to the
shutter release button, moves a pressure plate and film against the film
plane stops prior to shutter release.  This adds travel distance and
increases the pressure of the release.



     The camera weight is roughly equal.  Handling is similarly
difficult.  I like the KO for hand held work in the field.  Tripod
mounting is somewhat clumsy.  The C330f is a much better tripod camera
and easier to use for portraits.  A great site for Koni Omega technology
and personal observations can be found at:



      http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/korapid.html



I think this site also contains information and links on many other mf
camera systems.



Truly, dr bob.








      

      

      

      

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT:  Opinions on Value/Performance of Koni-Omega 200
	 6x7 Rangefin der?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 

Hi Robert,

I have a Rapid 100 with all 4 lenses.  The cameras are very well built. The
200 has magazines for mid-roll film changes. If it is a 200 then it is a
Rapid-0mega 200 which is when Mamiya was running the factory manufacturing
those cameras. Originally it was made by Konica and was first the Rapid,
then Koni-Omega M, then later Rapid-Omega 100/200. Outside the US the 100 &
200 were named Press 1 and Press 2 because of the Omega watch name and
trademark issues.

Sorry to go off on a tangent there. Optics are first rate. The 90mm is a
modified tessar with 6 elements (possibly a better Heliar?) The magazine
separates and the backs are where the gears are that advance the film.
Somtimes they have spacing issues, sometimes they do not. The spacing is
very narrow between frames 1 and 2 then increase gradually through the rest
of the roll. Backs can be repaired (Greg Weber 402-721-2873) reasonably. If
you like using the camera, there is a very good 58mm wide angle lens (may
also be labeled 60mm depending on manufacturer and year made).  It is a
perfect duplicate of a Schneider Super-Angulon (Biogon-type). I have one and
it among the best wide-angle lens I have ever used. No distortion and sharp
edge to edge.

Peter K


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fox, Robert [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:23 AM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: [Rollei] OT: Opinions on Value/Performance of Koni-Omega 200
> 6x7 Rangefin der?
> 
> 
> I have the opportunity to buy a nice looking Koni-Omega 200 
> with the Hexanon
> 3.5/90mm lens for $75. The camera looks to be clean, although 
> the seller
> doesn't know much about it.  I've read that the Koni's have excellent
> optics, and are generally good performers. I'd like to try it 
> out as a carry
> around camera for b&w street stuff (I know that it's heavy).
> 
> Any user comments, recommendations, or warnings?  I've read 
> the info on the
> medium format page and lots of other personal pages on this 
> camera, nearly
> all of which are positive.  
> 
> Thanks,
> R.J.



Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 
Subject: [Rollei] Re: OT:  Opinions on Value/Performance of Koni-Omega 200 6x7
	Rangefin der?
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

> I have a Rapid 100 with all 4 lenses.  The cameras are very well built. The
> 200 has magazines for mid-roll film changes. If it is a 200 then it is a
> Rapid-0mega 200 which is when Mamiya was running the factory manufacturing
> those cameras. Originally it was made by Konica and was first the Rapid,
> then Koni-Omega M, then later Rapid-Omega 100/200. Outside the US the 100 &
> 200 were named Press 1 and Press 2 because of the Omega watch name and
> trademark issues.
> 
> Sorry to go off on a tangent there. Optics are first rate. The 90mm is a
> modified tessar with 6 elements (possibly a better Heliar?) The magazine
> separates and the backs are where the gears are that advance the film.
> Somtimes they have spacing issues, sometimes they do not. The spacing is
> very narrow between frames 1 and 2 then increase gradually through the rest
> of the roll. Backs can be repaired (Greg Weber 402-721-2873) reasonably. If
> you like using the camera, there is a very good 58mm wide angle lens (may
> also be labeled 60mm depending on manufacturer and year made).  It is a
> perfect duplicate of a Schneider Super-Angulon (Biogon-type). I have one and
> it among the best wide-angle lens I have ever used. No distortion and sharp
> edge to edge.


I have the Omegaflex-M (a 67 systems TLR) with all four lenses, the same
glass as used on the rangefinders. I find the system excellent, very well
engineered, and the glass just wonderful. I think though that the standard
90 is a very well executed Tessar-type, 4 elements (in 3 groups) and not 6.
I agree with Peter that the 58 is particularly fine, as is the 135/3.5,
which seems to be a Sonnar clone. A 180/4.5 rounds out the list...

I would not hesitate to buy this camera, particularly for $75...


Eric Goldstein


From: greg [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 

Photobo wrote:

> No?  I know enough about optics to know that shooting a photo through the
> bottom of a Coke bottle and claiming that just because the negative is
> bigger the photo will come out better than if shot with a Leica lens onto a
> smaller format is utter nonsense.
>

I don't have the url in front of me, but do a search. Koni-Omega lenses were
found to be comparable to to modern 6x7 Mamiya and Pentax lenses when tested. I
haven't done this comparison myself but have against a Hasselblad and was amazed
with the ancient Koni-Omega quality. But then nothing could possibly compare to
a 35mm Leica. Guess all those wedding and portrait photographers should dump
their medium format cameras for a Leica M6.



To: [email protected]
From: Frank Weir [email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Subject: [medium-format] What MF?

John:

I just read your post and wanted to also mention that
the Koni Omega has been a wedding mainstay for years
and would fit into your wedding work perfectly!!! See
my note to Sam Sherman too. Think seriously about it.
It's Koni Omega and they are on Ebay all the time.
Dealer prices are usually ridiculously high and I
think its worth it to take a chance with Ebay because
you'll save hundreds of dollars literally. I paid $175
plus shipping for mine. Its a 6x7 neg. size which is 2
1/4" x 2 3/4". Huge size and the images it gives are
breathtaking...tack sharp. Better than anything you
would get with Canon or Nikon or Leica even....I mean
the neg is many times larger than 35mm...it can't help
but be sharper and better tonality...

frank weir



Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: Long throw cable release
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

> "Bob Salomon" [email protected]> wrote 
> 
>> Gepe Pro Releases have up to about 19.3mm of throw. Is that enough?
> 
> Could be.  But I can't seem to find anyone that sells them online.  Any
> clues?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim
> 
BTW, The Gepe Pro release with long throw are available with either a T lock
or a Zeiss Disk Lock in cloth, PVC, steel mesh, Spiral Stainless steel or
black anodized stainless steel. Most types are available in lengths from 12
to 40" and cloth start at shorter lengths. All are made in Germany.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com




From: Craig Zeni [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 


RH wrote:
>
> Howdy all,
> I'm a college student who was looking for a 6x7 camera and couldn't find one
> under $1000. I just saw a Koni Omega with a 180mm lens,back and grip for
> $250. Are these any good? I read a few reviews of people who said they were
> very sharp and worked great,I am just leary of buying a 25 year old camera.

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/cameras.html - scroll halfway down for
the Koni links - lots of info.


As I've been able to comprehend, the system came in four variants from
two manufacturers:

The Rapid and Rapid M were from Konica.  Difference between the two is
the M allows midroll back changes; the Rapid does not.

The 100 and 200 were from Mamiya.  200 allows midroll back changes, the
100 does not.

>From what I've been able to gather, the Rapid has a unique back - I know
my Rapid backs do not fit a 100.  I *believe* that the Rapid M, 100 and
200 share the same back.

The lens available were a 58mm wide angle that came with an aux finder
(also labeled as a 60 mm later on, but there is no difference between
them - was done for some import duty reasons); the 90mm normal (dead
nuts on view match for a Nikkor 50mm on my F2); a 135 mm (portrait lens,
scarcest and thus most costly) and a 180mm (fairly common).  The aux
finder for the 58/60 often gets separated from the lens and can cost as
much as the lens does!  Only caveat is that the Rapid viewfinders do not
have framelines for the 135mm; the 100/200 does.

Great cameras, rugged, a bit goofy looking this day and age, and not too
idiosyncratic.  I have a pair of Rapids with the 58 w/ finder, a 90,
extra backs, and a borrowed 180mm.  I use mine regularly and find them
reliable and capable of making a great image.  I had a Pentax 6x7 and
sold it, keeping my first Koni and buying another.  I found the Pentax
fussy to load and the lenses, while great, can be brutally expensive.
Very little Koni stuff can get that costly...check out ebay and Midwest
Photo www.mpex.com for Koni goodies.

On the one you're looking at, check shutter at all speeds; make certain
that the rangefinder isn't sluggish or sticky (eg the split image moves
as quickly as you move the knob); that the film advance moves smoothly
and pretty easily.  Feel free to email me off list if you have more
questions...
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html



From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 

 "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected] wrote:

>RH wrote:
>
>> Howdy all,
>> I'm a college student who was looking for a 6x7 camera and couldn't find one
>> under $1000. I just saw a Koni Omega with a 180mm lens,back and grip for
>> $250. Are these any good? I read a few reviews of people who said they were
>> very sharp and worked great,I am just leary of buying a 25 year old camera.
>> Any comments?
>> Thanks
>> Rob


I've used a number of these over the years.  When I pull out old work
from them, I am amazed at the quality and should have appreciated it
more when I had them.  I currently use Fuji RF's and hve a rather
complete P67 system....  I don't feel that I've really gained anything
optically and sometimes miss the old Koni's.  Both the Fuji's and
Pnetax are well regarded optically.

Don't rule out the Omegaflex series.  I owned both systems at the same
time and found myself using the TLR more and more.  The fabulous
Hexanon 135 is easier to find and afford in that version, too.  Once
acclimated to their layout, they're surprisingly manageable and
versatile.  One stop down, these lenses rival anything ever made for
the medium format world, period.  They are easily the best value out
there.  If I keep going on here, I'll have myself back on eBay,
looking for another Koni rig!

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com




From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: viewfinder medium format
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002

> I'm looking for a portable medium format viewfinder camera, I've found
> these brands
>
> fuji  645zi...
> bronica
> mamiya 7II
>
> do you know other brands that make what I need?
> thanks

 One outstanding older camera is the 6x7 format Koni Omega which was
made several models.  Some had magazine backs which could be interchanged
mid-roll.  The one I use is the Rapid with "standard" removable backs.  I
carry two loaded backs and use them consecutively.  They load _very_
quickly.  The lens system is "Hexanon" which are some of the sharpest
available.  Robert Monaghan (sp?) has a web site with loads of data on this
and other range finder cameras.  Recommended!

     The lens system is compensated for parallax and when changing lenses
from 90mm to 150mm the compensation is maintained by mechanical means.
There is a wide angle lens with a special finder, and a lens with focal
length between the "standard" 90mm and the "tele" 150mm. I think.  No zooms.

     The film transport is unique.  The film moves from the supply reel to
the take-up reel without touching _anything_.  When the shutter release
button is depressed, a system is levers presses the back firmly against the
film plane prior to activation.

     Some advantages:  no battery(s).  quick film advance.  Quick
loading/unloading.  Ergonomic handle and controls (IMO).  Coupled and very
accurate range finder.  Fantastic lenses.  Built-in lens hoods.  Double
exposure prevention - shutter cocking via film advance lever.

     Some disadvantages:  Heavy.  No coupled light meter (there are shoes to
which I can attach a small meter).  90mm lens take Series 7 so an adapter
may be required for filters.  Ability to leave the lens cap on. Been there -
done that.  No "frame skip" prevention.  Done that too.

      Several have made it to Ebay with prices around $150 per body $100 per
90mm lens or $300 system of body and a couple of lenses.  Beware!  Backs are
subject to damage so inquire.

Truly, dr bob.


From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder


I just put a first roll through mine (Omega Rapid 100) myself, and am very
much looking forward to seeing the results.  Quite a remarkable and
intelligent design, and beautifully made, though loading film is rather
inconvenient.  It's a prime candidate for a Gandy profile, if he ever can
find the time!  (And I was actually able to adjust the rangefinder myself,
which gives me a feeling of accomplishment.)  Any other K-O folks on the
list?

Nick


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder

I bought one of these for Davidde, and shot some test film with it.  Holy
frijoles!

The 90/3.5 Hexanon is incredible, aided in no part by the special pressure
plate.  I checked the negs with a 15x loupe (these were VP), and it was
sharp as anything i have seen in 35mm (or medium format, for that matter).
The center is quite sharp at f/3.5.

The loading is not easy to learn (and goes quickly once you find the red dot
and figure out the counter), but the operation is smooth and quick, and the
camera is solid.

I ended up with the model that takes interchangeable backs (Koni-Omega
Rapid, not mid-roll changeable), and although you can't stick a darkslide
in, you can speed loading by having a couple backs ready (they actually come
with cool aluminum covers so that you can pre-load them).

The finder is interesting, with what looks like an ND filter to equalize the
yellow square with the field.  Nice, parallax-corrected field.

Too bad I have to send it to France, but too much MF in the stable here!
Look for this to show up on Davidde's page.

------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com
RFList Home Page: http://www.cameraquest.com/rflist.htm


From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder

...

I had one when I did weddings, it was a fantastic camera. I hope to get
another one some day when finances permit.
...


From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: Daniel Ng [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder


I've owned a Rapid 100 for many years now.  Very rugged, solid
camera!  I got it in a great deal soon after getting my Pentax 67.  I
ended up using it more than the Pentax.

I mostly use it with the 58mm Omegaron (the whole deal was much  less
than a 55mm for the Pentax).  Absolutely sharp.

Much easier for hand-holding than the Pentax.  When I was teaching a
medium-format class, I would bring in different cameras so that
students could get an idea what to start off with.  I always
recommend starting off with the Omega - tons less expensive than an
SLR, easier to focus and shoot than a TLR.   But nobody listens to
me, probably because the Omega is so clumsy-looking. The prime
example of not judging a book by its cover.

I get the models and names mixed up, but I do know that the Rapid 200
has interchangable backs.  I don't need mid-roll switching, so the
100 is fine for me.

If anyone is interested in trying out MF photography, and wants
interchangable lenses, I don't think that there's a better, cheaper
way to get your feet wet.

Dan


From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder


Dan -- I have to agree.  A TLR can be cheaper, but for interchangeable
lenses it's the best deal in medium format by a long shot.  What I need are
that 58mm lens and the 180 also, and an appropriate flash -- I guess a
Vivitar 285 would work fine, but a nice big "potato masher" style would look
best, since I have the proper bracket for it.

...


From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] SLR v. Rangefinders

Frank Dernie wrote (edited):
> Hi Marc,
> I am a reasonably seasoned Mamiya 7 user and have had a 6008i
> for about 12 months.
>  First a confession, I prefer rangefinder cameras in general
> because of their low weight and quietness. The Mamiya
> is great for climbing trip landscapes because of the
> weight. The shutter is amazingly quiet and I can
> hand hold it easily. However rangefinders are useless for
> closeups and not ideal for longer lenses, hence my
> purchase of the 6008i, for macro it is IMHO unsurpassed
> the metering and in-lens shutter being, I believe,
> unavailable elsewhere.

Add to that lack of a zoom and you have the reason I sold
off my Leicas and only use a Canon EOS SLR for 35mm.
Yes, I still have a small rangefinder collection but
realistically do not use them for 35mm work.
Medium format is another story. I prefer a TLR as I can
always see the subject and know if someone blinks. BUt I
must confess I also use a Rapid Omega primarily because of
the quality of optics at affordable prices.

Peter K



From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Konica Omega cameras - a bargain?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002

[email protected] (FelineRangers) wrote:
>>From: "Howard Jones" [email protected]
>
>> What do you all thinkabout the
>> 6x7 cameras from konica
>> omega like the rapid m
>> or rapid 100?
>>  I've heard the system is pretty good
>> and the lenses are top notch.
>> They seem reasonably priced at ebay.  Is
>> this a system i should get into?
>
>I have only good things to say about the Omega cameras I have.  I have both the
>Rapid M and the 100.  Both solid performers and, as you mentioned, they are a
>definite bargain out there these days.  Go for it.
>Bill.


I'll echo that.  I don't own any of these any more but have great
respect for the optics and general function of this system.  I owned
the Omegaflex TLR at the same time as the Rapids and found myself
using the TLR more and more.  I had the 135 Hexanon in the TLR and it
was absolutely spectacular.  One to two stops down and these will
stand with any of the fabeled Euro brands in fidelity, contrast and
resolution.  I've owned many systems over the years (to feed my
addiction) and some of my favorite work is still from those Koni's.
Be patient and find a good package on eBay.   If you find you might
prefer something else, just peddle the stuff and try something else.
I haven't tracked it, but I believe I've actually made money by trying
eBay items.

I've often bought multiples of a lens and kept the best performer.
You can see why I've never dared to try cocaine...  I can't even
control my medium format habit!

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com




From: "fbearl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002


I have had and used a couple of Rapid Omegas. Mechanically the cameras are
robust and relatively simple.  If possible, check the rangefinder for
accuracy.  The backs are extremely important.  They (or it) should be smooth
to operate and the counter should work.  You can overhaul the back yourself
if you are mechanically inclined.  The instructions are somewhere on the
net.  It seems they used the same green grease that was used in many other
cameras of the period.  It dries out and turns into a solid.
+ Check the back for light leaks and easy mating with the camera.
As a system, it is very versatile but with few choices of lens.  The 200
model allows changing backs in midroll (make sure you have the dark slide)
and you can cock the shutter manually for double exposures. If you want to
do zone system you can have a back for N, N+ and N-.  And two more for color
negs and transaparencies. One of the reasons I think it is so sharp is that
the back has one of the best methods for keeping the film flat.  As you
advance the film, the pressure plate releases, the film advances, the
shutter cocks and the pressure plate presses the film flat.  This is
probably as good as any system except a vacuum back.  If you buy it you will
want a normal lens (easy to find) and the wide angle lens (pricey).  None of
the lenses focuses closely.  This is not a good tight protrait lens (the
180) and the RO is almost useless for macro work. And they are large and
heavy.
The reason I sold mine and bought a Pentax 645 is because although the
rangefinder worked well and was adjusted carefully, I wanted to see the
picture I was taking.  Depth of field seems to be more important in medium
format than 35mm.
I have seen stunning work done with the RO's.  As a collector, I wish I had
held onto one.

"RH" [email protected] wrote ...
> Howdy all,
> I'm a college student who was looking for a 6x7 camera and couldn't find one
> under $1000. I just saw a Koni Omega with a 180mm lens,back and grip for
> $250. Are these any good? I read a few reviews of people who said they were
> very sharp and worked great,I am just leary of buying a 25 year old camera.
> Any comments?
> Thanks
> Rob



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder



I bought one of these for Davidde, and shot some test film with it.  Holy
frijoles!

The 90/3.5 Hexanon is incredible, aided in no part by the special pressure
plate.  I checked the negs with a 15x loupe (these were VP), and it was
sharp as anything i have seen in 35mm (or medium format, for that matter).
The center is quite sharp at f/3.5.

The loading is not easy to learn (and goes quickly once you find the red dot
and figure out the counter), but the operation is smooth and quick, and the
camera is solid.

I ended up with the model that takes interchangeable backs (Koni-Omega
Rapid, not mid-roll changeable), and although you can't stick a darkslide
in, you can speed loading by having a couple backs ready (they actually come
with cool aluminum covers so that you can pre-load them).

The finder is interesting, with what looks like an ND filter to equalize the
yellow square with the field.  Nice, parallax-corrected field.

Too bad I have to send it to France, but too much MF in the stable here!
Look for this to show up on Davidde's page.

------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: "Jeffery Smith" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni Omega Rapid 6x7 rangefinder


My uncle used to shoot weddings, and he used the Koni-Omega instead of his
Hassie because it was easier and he couldn't tell the difference between
images taken with either.

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA




Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 
From: "C.L.Zeni" [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Koni-Omega manual

Robert Monaghan wrote:
>
> Thanks for your kind offer - I do have a KO Manual online:
>
> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/komega/komanual.pdf rapid 100/200
>
> looks like James Watne has dropped his older Koni Omega manuals; from
> mf/manuals.html pages links (drat)
>
> do you think the differences would merit posting both manuals?

Yes and no - my Rapid doesn't have a dark slide but rather a 'safety
shutter'; the backs are different too in the way that the pressure plate
is activated against the film.  Also has DOF tables for the 60, 90 and
180mm lenses as well.  The fully decked-out 200 on that .pdf file looks
positively diabolical :)

Having also futzed around with a rather weary 100 that used the dark
slide but was otherwise pretty darn similar.  Let's face it - they're
simple if quirky cameras.  If you'd like it, it's a standing offer from
me...just say the word.

Meantime, am resisting the siren song of a Hartblei.  I'd like a wide
angle but the Pentax ones are mighty pricey.  I also find the 6x6 image
pleasing.  I figure a Hartblei hot-rodded Kiev 88 with the Pentacon
mount for the Jena glass and I'd be in the tall cotton indeed.  Have
considered a used 'blad which would be priced fairly close to the Kiev,
but that goes bad the instant one looks at any lenses.

No matter - it's not in the budget right now anyway :)

Cheers,
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html


From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

People tend to get hooked onto things easily. The proper url is
http://www.graflex.org/

If you want a 6x7cm camera the best around for the money is a Rapid Omega.
While I use my Rollei for 6x6cm, when i need a rectangular image I use the
RO.  The lenses (there were only 4 focal lengths made) are nothing short of
amazing.
The son of the RO (SOR?) is the Mamiya 7. Another camera with 1st rate
lenses, but several times the price of the mechanical RO.

Peter K



From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
> The son of the RO (SOR?) is the Mamiya 7. Another camera with 1st rate lenses,
> but several times the price of the mechanical RO.

Not really.  They're completely unrelated designs.  In fact the Mamiya 7
(and 6) rangefinder isn't as good because the Mamiya Company was too
stubborn to license the Omega rangefinder design from Henry Froehlich, who
holds the patents.

Bob



From Rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Large Format

 Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:

> Bob,
>
> Do you think the RO rangefinder is any better than the one in the Mamiya 7?
> Just curious.
>
> Peter K

It is brighter, and particularly has much brighter projected frame lines.
The tricks which make it brighter are what Henry holds the patents on.

Not saying the Mamiya 7 (or 6) rangefinder is bad, it just could have been
better.

Bob




rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Al Hoel)
[1] Rapid Omega lens fungus
Date: Wed May 22 2002

I recently retired and with renewed interest in photography, got out
my old Rapid Omega system and discovered what looked like hopeless
fungus on the  lenses after long storage. Tried
"[email protected]" and want you to know that if you have a
similar or any other problem with such equipment to contact him. I
found him honest,friendly and very competent. I noticed as a newbee to
this site that he has a webpage. Check it out:  fridaycreekcamera.com


From koni omega mailing list:
From: Barbara Lee Spinnenweber [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Flash for Koni Omega
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 

I bought a custom sync cord from Paramount. It's very similar to a normal
one, only it screws in to the lens so it's a little harder to slip out.
Otherwise, you can just use a generic sync cord and make sure the other end
matches your flash end.
http://www.paramountcords.com/Default.htm

I have a sunpak 555, which is a beast to use with this camera. And I now
have a Vivitar 283. If you go the Vivitar route, you might splurge and get
the 285 instead. It has a zoomable head. I don't recall the guide numbers
for either of these flashes. I tend to use my digital camera as a polaroid.

Barbara


From koni omega mailing list:
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 
From: Nancy Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] 90mm filter ring removal question

For future reference: here`s a tip to make this procedure easier.Around the
lens is a collar that keeps the sliding lens hood in place. Close examination
of said collar will reveal 3 of the tiniest screws ever created around the
circumference.Using an appropriately tiny screwdriver, loosen & remove these
screws.WARNING! Do this on a white towel,because if you don`t, these little
suckers will beat a hasty retreat into the next zip code,and I can just about
guarantee that you won`t find replacements at your local Ace hardware
store.The lens hood, collar, and Series 6 ring will all come off
together.Slide the hood off.Place a wide rubber band around the collar(the
size that holds a bundle of broccoli together is cool)Now stick that #10 1/2
plug into the ring and give that mother a healthy counter-clockwise
twist.(that`s ANTI-clockwise to all our friends across The Pond).This
alternative technique will prevent damage to your valuable glass, and will
prevent inadvertant disassembly of the lens.Save that Series 6 ring, if you
ever decide to buy an Auto-Up (close-up attachment), you`ll need it.
Robert

Jonathan King wrote:

> Ok, I just bought a RO200 last week(yeah!).  I've read through much of the
> archives at koni-omega.org and on R. Monaghan's web site.  After I put my
> first roll of film through it, I made my first modification - removing the
> Series 6 filter ring, so I can attach 49mm accesories.
>
> Based on the archives, I got a trusty No. 10 1/2 stopper and twisted.  The
> whole front of the lens rotated, not just the adapter!  Figuring that any
> damage was done, I kept at it a bit and got the adapter loose.  Now, when
> I went to tighten the front elements, the DOF scale on the front will not
> line up quite at the top of the lens anymore, probably between 10 & 11
> o'clock.  I'm pretty sure it was at 12 O'clock before, but it was one of
> those things you don't notice until it looks different.
>
> So the question:  What sort of problem is this?  Is it get to a real
> repair person, don't worry, or somewhere in between?  I've done small to
> moderate mechanical repairs on camera bodies, but I've stayed away from
> lenses.
>
> Thanks for any ideas,
>
> Jon King


From koni omega mailing list:
From: "Eve Girard" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [KOML] film advance
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002

And if you're feeling ambitious, try
http://members.tripod.com/randamteagarden/id31.htm
Great directions on clutch lubing.  I've done a couple of backs for friends
via this technique.

Worked for me.

Eve



From koni omega mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 
From: Nancy Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] film advance

Jon,

This might be a good time to sacrifice a roll of film to the Koni Gods.Try
this: Load the film in the normal manner, then remove the lens and dark
slide.With a felt-tip pen, reach in thru the
darkslide opening and trace around the opening with the pen.Advance to frame 2
and repeat.I have found that it is best to use a relatively quick, "snappy"
(but not too forceful) stroke on the advance
knob, trying to duplicate that stroke every time.Work your way thru the entire
roll like this.After frame 10, wind off the end of the film and remove it from
the camera. Unrolling and examining the
film will reveal any deficiencies in spacing. Good luck!

Robert


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

Bob,

Does this mean 'blad is furthering their relationship with Fuji?
Fuji's medium format lenses are superb so one would only hope so.

Peter K

PS My favorite medium format lens for pure sharpness is the Hexanon 135mm
F3.5 for the Rapid Omega.

I have not seen a lens sharper than that and that includes the infamous
Ektar (but bear in mind the 135mm I mention is an interesting copy of a
Planar/Heliar type.  If anyone is interested I can send a diagram of the
lens construction).
....


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 
From: Daniel Ng [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Medium format rangefinder


I'd recommend getting a KoniOmega or RapidOmega.  Great rangefinder
6x7 cameras.  Though big, they handle very quickly.  They were THE
wedding cameras for a couple of decades.  Interchangable lenses.  No
meter, though.
I pulled mine out recently for some dance photos, and was reminded
again on how well they handle, and the sharpness of the 58mm lens.
They can be found less expensively than a Fuji.  Though someday I
would love to handle a Fuji 6x9 BL.

Dan
>Arthur Schlaman wrote:
>>   I have been thinking about getting a medium format rangefinder camera.
>>  I did have a Fuji 645 with a 60mm lens. It was a nice camera but
>>  difficult to focus. I know of only three other cameras the Bronica, the
>>  Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7. I am wondering if anyone has had experience with
>>  these cameras and could give recommendations. I am mainly interested in
>>  using it for weddings and maybe some landscape work.


From KO mailing list:
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 
From: Geoff McAuliffe [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Test Drive

    As someone else mentioned frame spacing in the film backs is a
potential problem. If the back has such problems you can send the back to
Greg Weber for repair or try it yourself, there are instructions on line
somewhere.

    If the shutter speeds are off send the lens to Paul Ebel in Wisconsin
for a CLA, about $65. There are other good repairmen but Paul has a stellar
reputation.

    Enjoy!

Geoff


From KO mailing list:
From: Barry F [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Test Drive
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 

Hi, Jack,
The quickest way to verify anything with the Koni is with a roll of film.  You
will be able to tell if there are light leaks, and you will be able to tell if
your back is working right with the frame spacing.

On the 200, it's good to remove the magazine and check it for cracks (if you
try to put the magazine on with the dark slide handle facing the wrong way, you
can crack the magazine).  By the way, the magazine is what holds the back. The
back is what holds the film.  You can come close to checking the rangefinder by
simply focusing on something on a vertical wall, seeing what distance is
indicated on the focusing ring, and seeing how that compares with actual
distance.  Then focus on something far enough away to focus on infinity and see
how it lines up.  Often, the focusing knob will move a little past what appears
to be infinity in the viewfinder.  That's normally OK, unless it's a long way
off.  You'll be able to tell with a roll of film.  Write down your settings for
each frame you take with your roll.  Is the shop replacing all the seals or
just the seals on the back?  There are dark slide seals and seals between the
lens and camera, also.

The Koni will not require the dark slide to be in place when frames are not
being shot.  If your 200 is working right, there is an interlock that will not
allow the shutter release to be depressed with the dark slide in. I think
there's also one that will not allow the lens release to function without the
dark slide in.

And, last but not least, don't forget to remove the lens cap before shooting
that once-in-a-lifetime photo.  That has happened to more than one pro.  I
think you'll like the RO200.  Take a picture and post it on the forum.


Best,
Barry
...


From KO mailing list:
From: Barry F [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Flash for KO200
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 

Hi, Jeffrey,

The flash bracket for the Koni was made specifically for the Honeywell and
Graflex battery cases, which had clips that fit the bracket.  You can probably
use your bracket for the Sunpak just as easily - or maybe some kite twine tied
in a big square knot.  I don't know if automotive screw-type clamps would work
or not.

Best,
Barry


From KO mailing list:
From: "J. Long" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: [KOML] Flash for KO200

Speaking of flash, there's a thread in the archives that discusses
the problem of using a non-Koni flash with the Koni coldshoes.
Apparently, the metal surface of the shoe will short the contacts at
the foot of a later model flash, preventing proper operation.

One of the participants says he used a plastic shoe to eliminate
the problem. I assume he was referring to something that would fit
into the existing coldshoe, but I don't know for sure.

Does anyone know what this is, and maybe where to buy one?

Thanks!
Jack


From KO mailing list:
From: Barry F [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [KOML] Flash for KO200
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 

You can use a Sunpak flash with a standard module, like the 444D.  The contact
on the bottom of the module is disconnected when the synch cord is plugged in.
Failing that, you can simply put a piece of tape between the contact and the
shoe.

Best,
Barry
...


From KO mailing list:
From: Barry F [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Film fog
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002

Hi, Jeffrey,
I don't know why we're not getting anyone else to jump in here - seems to be
dead lately.  So if there are some experts out there, how about a little help?
There are several possibilities:

1.  Light leak - In these backs, light leaks might not be consistent, since you
kind of squeeze the camera, and everything inside the back moves when advancing
the film.

2.  It could be a cracked manifold.  On the RO200, even if the back is good,
the manifold (the part the back goes into) can be damaged, allowing light in.
The most common place for this to happen is at the manifold rails, and
sometimes the damage happens when you try to insert the back/manifold unit into
the camera with the dark slide handle pointed back toward the manifold instead
of toward the front of the camera.

3.  The backing plate may not be operating correctly.  It should come forward
when the film is positioned and hold the film flat for exposure.  If it's not
hitting the whole film, it could cause this condition by allowing the bottom
edge to flap in the breeze, so to speak.

4.  Light leak between the lens and body.  Check the seal.  Also maybe light
leak at the dark slide slot.

You might want to waste a roll of film, put it in the back/manifold unit,
remove the unit from the camera, remove the dark slide, and load and advance
the film, watching to see how it operates.

Do you know how long it's been since the camera was serviced?  Maybe time for
an inspection.

Best,
Barry
>
> From: "R. Jeffrey Grace" [email protected]
> Date: 2002/09/18 Wed PM 
> Subject: [KOML] Film fog
>
>
> Can anyone help me identify what the sorece might be of some film fog on
> a roll of 120 that I just ran through a KO200?  It's not consistent and
> it's heaviest at the start and at the end of the roll... It's all on the
> "bottom" of the roll and some frames have very little to no fog.  I'm
> guessing I didn't get my roll tight enough rather than it being a light
> leak in the holder.  This is my first test roll through a newly
> purchased KO.
> TIA...
>
> ---
>    R. Jeffrey Grace   [email protected]


From: [email protected] (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 

"rj" [email protected] wrote:
>That reminds me... I'm still looking for a 220 back for a Rapid (not a Koni)
>Omega 100.  If such a creature exists.

They do exist, and I've seen them on eBay. The Rapid 100 backs also
fit the Rapid M and Rapid 200.

>Other than the gear wearing, which causes the spacing
>between negatives to advance.  (it's now a 9 shot camera)

Do you mean that the spacing between negatives increases as the
gearing wears out? I'll take your word for it, but I don't understand
how that could happen. I would have thought the frames would begin to
overlap as the gearing wears, due to slippage and insufficient
movement..

I just bought a 200, and there's a problem with the back, but I don't
know if the spacing is affected. I'm still waiting for the first test
roll to come back. The problem in mine is that the frame numbering
mechanism occasionally gets stuck, usually between numbers, so it
won't show anything for several frames. With the back off, there seems
to be plenty of torque on the takeup spool, so I think this problem is
in the numbering mechanism only. Ever heard of this problem?

>As I've been able to comprehend, the system came in four variants from
>two manufacturers:
>The Rapid and Rapid M were from Konica.  Difference between the two is
>the M allows midroll back changes; the Rapid does not.

Also, in the Rapid, the system that lifts the film off the film gate
during advance is supposedly contained in the body. That's why the
backs are different. The shutter release in the Rapid not only trips
the shutter, but drops the film onto the gate. The shutter button has
a longer throw for this reason, and requires more force to activate. I
hear they wear out the release cables on a regular basis.

JL



From: The Man Who Sold The World Yoomp N. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002


RD wrote:
schnipps

> >As I've been able to comprehend, the system came in four variants from
> >two manufacturers:
> >The Rapid and Rapid M were from Konica.  Difference between the two is
> >the M allows midroll back changes; the Rapid does not.

Sort of.  Rapid Ms and 200s allow midroll changes; Rapids and 100s do
not.  I have two Rapids and one Rapid M...a buddy has a 100 (which got
me going on Konis to begin with) and I've seen a couple of 200s.

> Also, in the Rapid, the system that lifts the film off the film gate
> during advance is supposedly contained in the body. That's why the
> backs are different. The shutter release in the Rapid not only trips
> the shutter, but drops the film onto the gate. The shutter button has
> a longer throw for this reason, and requires more force to activate. I
> hear they wear out the release cables on a regular basis.

The straight Rapid backs do not have the mechanism that pulls the
pressure plate back when you advance the film.  Rather, the pressure
plate 'flops' around until the shutter release is pressed.  When the
release is pressed, there is a rod that extends from the innards of the
body that presses against a fulcrum lever in the back. This fulcrum
lever then moves the pressure plate forward to push the firm against the
rails.  Works very well in practice, and the backs are rather less
complicated than the M/100/200 backs.
--
Craig Zeni [email protected]


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] rapid omega rf 6x7cm..

I didn't see the original posting, but now I know who beat me to that 135 I
saw advertised for $150!  I marvel every time I use mine at the "clean
slate" approach of this camera -- it's so different from our 35mm
rangefinders, and very easy to use, albeit big.  As Bob says, the lenses are
great.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Monaghan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [RF List] rapid omega rf 6x7cm..

great lenses, and well thought out if heavy cameras (rugged enough for use
as a military camera..). I just picked up the 135mm lens (one of 4 lenses
for the KO/RO series) only produced for 2 years, so relatively rare, from
a dealer for $150 - about 1/4th what they used to be 2-3 years ago. You
can get a 3 or 4 leaf shutter lens kit with interchangeable backs/mags for
$600 -$750 or so. These are the #2 rated medium format lenses in
independent tests (by Chris Perez et al) after the Mamiya 7/6 optics (not
surprising since mamiya made the last series of these MF 6x7cm RF cameras
and lenses, see details at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/korapid.html and
carried that over in their 6x7 kits). a best buy...


From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Rapids-Any good?
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 


The spacing is not controlled by the clutch but by the spacing lever which
controls the amount of return the pawl rack ( the lever used to advance the
film).  *If* the clutch is gummed up then it *might affect the spacing.

Mike
www.fridaycreekcamera.com


"RD" [email protected] wrote
> "rj" [email protected] wrote:
>
> >That reminds me... I'm still looking for a 220 back for a Rapid (not a Koni)
> >Omega 100.  If such a creature exists.
>
> They do exist, and I've seen them on eBay. The Rapid 100 backs also
> fit the Rapid M and Rapid 200.
>
> >Other than the gear wearing, which causes the spacing
> >between negatives to advance.  (it's now a 9 shot camera)
>
> Do you mean that the spacing between negatives increases as the
> gearing wears out? I'll take your word for it, but I don't understand
> how that could happen. I would have thought the frames would begin to
> overlap as the gearing wears, due to slippage and insufficient
> movement..
>
> I just bought a 200, and there's a problem with the back, but I don't
> know if the spacing is affected. I'm still waiting for the first test
> roll to come back. The problem in mine is that the frame numbering
> mechanism occasionally gets stuck, usually between numbers, so it
> won't show anything for several frames. With the back off, there seems
> to be plenty of torque on the takeup spool, so I think this problem is
> in the numbering mechanism only. Ever heard of this problem?
>
> >As I've been able to comprehend, the system came in four variants from
> >two manufacturers:
> >The Rapid and Rapid M were from Konica.  Difference between the two is
> >the M allows midroll back changes; the Rapid does not.
>
> Also, in the Rapid, the system that lifts the film off the film gate
> during advance is supposedly contained in the body. That's why the
> backs are different. The shutter release in the Rapid not only trips
> the shutter, but drops the film onto the gate. The shutter button has
> a longer throw for this reason, and requires more force to activate. I
> hear they wear out the release cables on a regular basis.
>
> JL


From KoniOmega Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 
From: "R.J. Bender" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Cleaning question

Blow off any dust with compressed air.

Take a cotton tip applicator ( or Q tip) and dampen it with rubbing alcohol.
Apply light pressure when cleaning the glass and mirrored surfaces.
...

> Question on cleaning the finder - I've taken off the top cover and seen
> that most of the cloudiness is on the half-silver mirror.  How does one
> clean this?  I ask as I ruined a Mamiya 23 finder that way - rest of camera
> was junk and it was a gift to learn with, whereupon I learned half-silver
> mirrors can be delicate :)
...



From: [email protected] (KoniLuvr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Magazine Frustration
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 

John Garand [email protected] wrote:

>Precisely what I needed.  Thus far it has weeded out all the
>prospects, but that is better than spending money on something which I
>can 't use.

The Rapid backs appear on eBay fairly often. If memory
serves, they typically sell for less than the M/100/200
backs, probably because there are fewer Rapids around.

My advice is to take your time and wait for one in the best
possible condition, even if it costs a little more. The
backs tend to wear in ways that are repairable, but access
to the interior mechanism is time consuming and not
inexpensive.

Consider  that the back of the Koni Omega series is 9/10 of
the camera in terms of moving parts. The back advances the
film by means of  a sprocket-driven clutch, adjusts the
rotational movement of the takeup spool for each frame to
accomodate the changing diameter of the film on the spool,
counts the number of frames, moves the film pressure plate
in/out during advance, resets the green "ready" indicator,
and actuates an end-of-roll lockout. Then there's the
mechanism (also contained in the back) that locks the back
onto the body, plus the film tab door and its spring and
latch.

All in all, the film back is a busy place where levers,
cams, springs, and gears are worked hard. Most of its
functions are absolutely necessary to the process of
shooting, and it can make or break the camera. Get a good
one and you'll be miles ahead.

Have fun!



From: John Garand [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Magazine Frustration
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002

...

Thanks again.  Next best thing I have is a copy of the repair manual I
downloaded  from Manuals2go.  Now I also know how the adjustment is
made for frame spacing with the difference in roll diameter (varying
slide distance) and the specific distances the slide handle is
supposed to move.



From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Magazine Frustration
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002


As you can see in the repair manual the spacing is controlled by the spacing
lever, an inverted wedge of sorts that rides up & down the left end of the
back.  The spacing lever is moved by a cam under the counter. There is one
short coming to this system.  Both the pawl rack (what you pull to move the
film) and the spacing lever are serrated.  The serrations keep the spacing
lever from moving *up* ward when contacted by the pawl rack which could
cause the frames to overlap. When pushing the pawl rack into the back do not
slam it home but use gentle pressure.

The clutch keeps the take up spool from moving when you pull the pawl rack
out.
...


From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why MF won't get better ;-) Re: What is depth of focus?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 


Thank you Robert - that at least partially answers the question I have had
for years as to just why my KO Rapid could make such great images compared
to my other MF types.  I often marveled at the design of the film transport.
It is apparently unique to Koni Omega cameras.  If only I could shorten the
cable release throw and relieve some pressure :-)

Truly, dr bob.

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote 
>
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flat.html
>
>  {lots of cuts}  
> In short, the top scoring cameras in resolution are those which have flat
> film paths (Kowa, rolleiflex) and accurate focusing systems (RF) or both
> (koni-omega), rather than the best or most pricey optics (e.g. Zeiss).
>
> Depth of Focus is thus critical to understanding a number of limitations
> in MF cameras and optics, and why some techniques like hyperfocal shooting
> don't work well without conservative fudge factors (1-2 stops
> conservative) to offset the problems of film bulges etc....
>
> hence my interest in these topics. In the end MF lenses won't get "better"
> or higher resolution because the limit now is not the lens but the film
> and keeping the film flat etc. MF lenses won't get much faster because DOF
> is so shallow, and DOFocus is so limited, that film bulge errors wide open
> render these fast lenses useless for reliable shooting. On top of which,
> focusing systems in use are not accurate or repeatable enough to get the
> maximum performance out of the lens. Tests using focus bracketing often
> show just how great many lenses really are - but how most of our focused
> shots fall short of achieving that maximum due to our poor focusing
> ability.
>
> bobm


From: The Man Who Sold The World [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Magazine Frustration
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 


KoniLuvr wrote:
>
> John Garand [email protected] wrote:
>
> >As a new owner of an as yet to be delivered K-O Rapid, I've been
> >looking at various on-line sources of magazines.  I know there is a
> >difference between the Rapid mags and the 100, and 200/M mags.  I
> >don't know, by looking at a picture, what that difference is (OK, if
> >it is marked "220", I know it isn't a Rapid mag)
>
> Check this site:
>
> http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/korapid.html
>
> The first set of photos show an Omega Rapid 100, including
> its back. Now scroll down the page until you come to the
> photo of the Rapid (red background). This shows the film
> back for a  Rapid. Note in particular the placement of the
> frame counter and the film tab window.
>
> >Problem is even shops don't always know which mags they have.  Photos
> >aren't much help if you don't know how to tell the difference from a
> >photo (if there is a ready way to do that).

There is - the diffo between a Rapid and a Rapid M/100/200 back is quite
pronounced.  I have both and oughta get off my duff and take some
digisnaps of either for folks to see.

>
> I think there's a problem with the nomenclature you're
> using. Only models M, Rapid M, and Rapid 200 have a
> removable magazine. It is the removable magazine that allows
> changing film in mid-roll, and the magazines are the same
> for all models.
>
> The other models, including the original Rapid, only have a
> removable film holder (the "back"). There were also a few
> models that I believe were sold only in Japan, labeled Press
> or maybe Press 2. I'm not certain whether they use removable
> magazines, but I think not.
>
> >I believe the Rapid does not mount a dark slide on the mag (hence no
> >ability to change mags in mid-roll).

Correct - no dark slide.  There's a knob on the side of the lens mount
that flips a trap door shut to allow the lenses to be changed.

> There is no removable magazine in the Rapid. The dark slide
> fits into the body to allow lens changes mid-roll.

No dark slide - just that door.

> >I'm guessing that if I see a
> >dark slide mounted on the mag, it isn't a Rapid mag, but that isn't
> >necessarily a good indicator as dark slides often are lost (I've read
> >- or are those Rapid mags which people thought the dark slide should
> >be on?) and I've seen pix w/ the dark slide laying off to the side.
> >
> >Any helpful suggestions as to how to tell which mag is which from
> >photos?
>
> The site I mentioned will help you distinguish the Rapid
> film holder from the others. Again, for those models that
> have a separate magazine, the magazines are all the same.

The Rapid back is dead flat across its backside - the Rapid M/100/200
backs bulge outward.  Also, the back latch on the Rapid is not covered
by the film reminder holder; it is covered on the M/100/200 backs.

> Incidentally, you should be prepared to have the lens
> elements cleaned internally and maybe the light seals
> replaced when you receive the Koni. Unless it's been
> serviced in the recent past, the foam seals in a Rapid are
> at the age where they are crumbling and falling apart.

Yes...

--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni666 at mindspring dot com
Remove the Sign Of The Beast to reply!
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html


From: [email protected] (KoniLuvr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega Magazine Frustration
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002

John Garand [email protected] wrote:

>As a new owner of an as yet to be delivered K-O Rapid, I've been
>looking at various on-line sources of magazines.  I know there is a
>difference between the Rapid mags and the 100, and 200/M mags.  I
>don't know, by looking at a picture, what that difference is (OK, if
>it is marked "220", I know it isn't a Rapid mag)

Check this site:

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/korapid.html

The first set of photos show an Omega Rapid 100, including
its back. Now scroll down the page until you come to the
photo of the Rapid (red background). This shows the film
back for a  Rapid. Note in particular the placement of the
frame counter and the film tab window.

>Problem is even shops don't always know which mags they have.  Photos
>aren't much help if you don't know how to tell the difference from a
>photo (if there is a ready way to do that).

I think there's a problem with the nomenclature you're
using. Only models M, Rapid M, and Rapid 200 have a
removable magazine. It is the removable magazine that allows
changing film in mid-roll, and the magazines are the same
for all models.

The other models, including the original Rapid, only have a
removable film holder (the "back"). There were also a few
models that I believe were sold only in Japan, labeled Press
or maybe Press 2. I'm not certain whether they use removable
magazines, but I think not.

>I believe the Rapid does not mount a dark slide on the mag (hence no
>ability to change mags in mid-roll).

There is no removable magazine in the Rapid. The dark slide
fits into the body to allow lens changes mid-roll.

>I'm guessing that if I see a
>dark slide mounted on the mag, it isn't a Rapid mag, but that isn't
>necessarily a good indicator as dark slides often are lost (I've read
>- or are those Rapid mags which people thought the dark slide should
>be on?) and I've seen pix w/ the dark slide laying off to the side.
>
>Any helpful suggestions as to how to tell which mag is which from
>photos?

The site I mentioned will help you distinguish the Rapid
film holder from the others. Again, for those models that
have a separate magazine, the magazines are all the same.

Incidentally, you should be prepared to have the lens
elements cleaned internally and maybe the light seals
replaced when you receive the Koni. Unless it's been
serviced in the recent past, the foam seals in a Rapid are
at the age where they are crumbling and falling apart.

Good luck and have fun!


Subject: Re: Omega 120 - interchangeable lens ?
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002

R.M.Pruitt at [email protected] wrote 

> Does the original Omega 120 have interchangeable lenses like on the
> later Koni Omega Rapid and M series, or are they fixed ? If
> interchangeable, do the newer Hexanon lenses fit. Also, is the Omegon
> lens the equal of the Hexanons ? I believe the Omegon was a 4 element
> coated Wollensak.     Thanks much,  R.M.


The original was a fixed lens. The versions made later by Konica and then
Mamiya had interchangeable lenses.



From: milgs*nospam*@mail.travel-net.com (georgio)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cost of Medium Format entry
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 

i started with one of those un-foldeable cameras..
a kershaw penguin..

2 speeds.. bulb and slow... but it was fun..

now..i use a Koni omega rapid... picked it up on ebay for under $100 and
i can't believe the quality i'm getting from this old camera

of course, i have to use a hand held meter..but i would compare my
positives ( i go e6) with anyone who has an hasseelblad and i bet you counldn't
tell the
difference on quality..

my enlargments are just simple awesome... unfortunatly, i only have the 90mm
lens..;(

georgio

"true" [email protected] wrote:

> how much would it cost me to get into MF, with low end used manual gear?



From rangefinder mailing list:

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:46:08 +0000
From: Douglas Green 
Subject: RE: Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


Actually, the Koni-Omega Rapid-M is one of several medium format
Rangefinders that had interchangeable lenses and backs:

Among the others, the Mamiya 23 Universal is very similar in concept to
the Koni Omegas.  Mamiya stopped making the 23 Universal when they
actually bought the Koni-Omega line from Konica, and re-named the
cameras Rapid-Omegas.

And there are several 6x9 Press/View cameras that also had
interchangeable lens boards, bellows, and had front tilt and shift
movements.  These included several cameras from Linhoff, known as Baby
Technikas,  The Graflex Speed Graphic,  as well as the Horseman 6x9.
These cameras were the mainstays of professionals needing folding field
cameras in the 1930s through 1950s

BTW, the Koni-Omegas are great cameras, - Very rugged and reasonably
easy to get stuff on ebay for them.  The main weakness of the system is
that the lenses don't focus very close, especially the 180mm telephoto.
But other than that, they are very sound cameras.  You should check the
camera for light leaks, especially where the interchangeable backs mate
with the body,  but those would be easy to fix.

I had gotten my hands on a used but far more current Mamiya 7 for around
$1100 including the 80mm lens, and I ended up selling the Mamiya for a
slight profit, because after using it in earnest, I felt that the
capabilities were not all that much more than my ~ $125 used Koni Omega
Rapid M.  And the other new Mamiya 7 lenses would set me back $1000
each, while Koni Omega lenses could be gotten for far less.  After I
sold off the Mamiya 7, I decided to invest in the 58mm and 180mm lenses
to compliment the standard 90mm lens.  Those two lenses each tend to go
for ~$250-300 on ebay in excellent shape when they turn up.  The lenses
are excellent, and overall, the Koni/Rapid Omega is a VERY capable 6x7
system.  It's a shame it's not supported any more.


Karen Nakamura wrote:
>
> I had the pleasure today of obtaining a Koni-Omega  Rapid M for a
> very reasonable price (<$200).
>
> Are people familiar with it? It's a mono large interchangeable lens,
> interchangeable back medium format *rangefinder*. Am I correct in
> stating it's the ONLY interchangeable lens/back rangefinder?
>
> It came with a Hexanon 90mmf/3.5 and a spare back.  The horizontal
> rangefinder alignment looks good, but it's vertically off a bit.
>
> I have some Qs if anyone knows the answers:
>
>    * Is there a vertical RF adjustment screw?
>    * How do I reset the backs to 0?
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Karen Nakamura
> http://www.photoethnography.c


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


BTW, the film counters should re-set to zero when there is no film in
them, but the counters break easily.  Don't know about the RF adjustment
screw.

BTW, does your camera have a dark slide?  (this would either be sticking
out the bottom of the back (when you want to have the film get exposed),
or it would be sticking out the side just behind the lens mount (right
side when behind the camera, left side when facing the camera).  You
can't remove the lens unless there is a dark slide installed behind the
lens, as there is an interlock mechanism.  These tend to get lost quite
easily.  My Rapid-M was missing the dark slide, but I got one when I
picked up another back for the camera.

Dougmant



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


Karen -- these are GREAT cameras; a brilliant design.  (Not compact by any
means, though!)  I have an Omega Rapid 100, a later and somewhat simplified
version of yours, if I recall the M correctly.  Others' comments about the
lack of close focusing of the lenses are true, and the lenses aren't fast,
but that's also true of the lenses for the Mamiya 7.  It may be that's the
way it is for 6x7 cameras.

There's no way to reset the backs to 0 except by cycling through to the end
of the counter -- pull and push the advance lever until you get to "load."
(I am assuming it's the same for your M, since the back are interchangeable
among these cameras.)  When you get to 10, the mechanism locks; there's a
release lever by the film counter that you push up to unlock the counter.

As for vertical adjustment of the rangefinder, if memory serves it's an
upward-facing screw that's reachable by removing the middle accessory shoe.
But it's also very strightforward to remove the top cover of the camera --
there are five screws, all easily reached.  One is underneath the back of
the top cover, which is reached by removing the camera back.  The horizontal
adjustment is a screw that faces the rear of the camera -- clearly seen when
you remove the top cover, but also accessible if you remove the plug on the
middle right of the camera back.  You need a special pin spanner to do this,
though; easier just to remove the whole cover.

Hope this helps -- I was just now looking for the instruction booklet for
the Rapid Omega 100 and 200, which was out there on the web somewhere but
which I can't seem to find just now.  Let me know if you have any other
questions.

Nick
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: Paul [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


I appreciated Doug Green's comments on the Koni Omega.  I have been considering
a 6x9 for a very long time.  (I know several have heard from me off list about
various models over the last 2-3 years.)  While there are some very good
choices like the Mamiya Universal, Koni Omega, Kodak Medalist and even a baby
graphic, I was always been "confused" by the more expensive choices like the
fuji 690 or Mamiya 7.  Having read Doug's post, I am going to get a little more
serious and decide between either the Mamiya Universal or the Omega and bank
the extra money for my kids' college fund.

For what its worth, I have also been following the thread about the thread
about the Fuji ga645zi cameras.  Several have said buy the Bronica.  I think I
will apply the same logic, take Dante's advice and get a ga645 (no, not the
zoom zi model).  That coupled with the 6x7/6x9 should make for a pretty darned
good travel setup.

 Douglas Green [email protected] wrote: 

Actually, the Koni-Omega Rapid-M is
one of several medium format
Rangefinders that had interchangeable lenses and backs:

Among the others, the Mamiya 23 Universal is very similar in concept to
the Koni Omegas. Mamiya stopped making the 23 Universal when they
actually bought the Koni-Omega line from Konica, and re-named the
cameras Rapid-Omegas.

And there are several 6x9 Press/View cameras that also had
interchangeable lens boards, bellows, and had front tilt and shift
movements. These included several cameras from Linhoff, known as Baby
Technikas, The Graflex Speed Graphic, as well as the Horseman 6x9.
These cameras were the mainstays of professionals needing folding field
cameras in the 1930s through 1950s


BTW, the Koni-Omegas are great cameras, - Very rugged and reasonably
easy to get stuff on ebay for them. The main weakness of the system is
that the lenses don't focus very close, especially the 180mm telephoto.
But other than that, they are very sound cameras. You should check the
camera for light leaks, especially where the interchangeable backs mate
with the body, but those would be easy to fix.

I had gotten my hands on a used but far more current Mamiya 7 for around
$1100 including the 80mm lens, and I ended up selling the Mamiya for a
slight profit, because after using it in earnest, I felt that the
capabilities were not all that much more than my ~ $125 used Koni Omega
Rapid M. And the other new Mamiya 7 lenses would set me back $1000
each, while Koni Omega lenses could be gotten for far less. After I
sold off the Mamiya 7, I decided to invest in the 58mm and 180mm lenses
to compliment the standard 90mm lens. Those two lenses each tend to go
for ~$250-300 on ebay in excellent shape when they turn up. The lenses
are excellent, and overall, the Koni/Rapid Omega is a VERY capable 6x7
system. It's a shame it's not supported any more.
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?

> How do you store the ten frames of 6x7 images, and how do you contact
> print them on a single sheet of paper?
>
> Allan Ostling

When I moved from 6x6 to 6x7, I noticed that ten frames wouldn't fit on a
single 8x10 sheet of paper. I compared the cost of printing on a second sheet
or wasting one frame per roll. Wasting a frame is cheaper.  If you shoot a
lot you have to carry a bit more film, but even on a two week trip for me
it's a matter of  two or three rolls.

Farron


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?

Paul,  Don't forget to get a good hand held meter, if you don't already
have one.  If I were a working pro, I'd get the Mamiya 7.  But for a
serious amateur hobbyist, the Koni-Omega or Mamiya Universal is a much
more rational choice.
...
Dougman


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: John Pendley [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


Nick wrote:

>My problem is that my local lab will only do 3.5x5 for 6x7 -- I'd really
>like to see what a 6x7 print looks like, enlarged the appropriate amount.
>What is a standard print size for 6x7?  How about for 6x9?

Hi Nick,

As I understand it, 6x7 is "ideal" format.  That is, it translates to 8x10,
etc.  6x9 is the same 2:3 ratio as 35mm.  IOW, enlargements are more
elongated.  For me, there are two advantages to the latter.  First, I
prefer the more elongated format to "ideal" format, which looks somewhat
squat to me.  Second, you can always crop a 6x9 to 6x7 if you
like.  "Stretching" a 6x7 would involve taking away information from the
long side of the neg.  I have never seen a mammoth print from such a
negative, but I did see some unmounted slides, made with a Mamiya 7II, on a
lightbox, and they were absolutely stunning.  I've been following the
Koni-Omega/Mamiya thread with some interest, as I've been mulling over the
purchase of a MF camera.  The cheapest way appears to be a Pentacon Six
(OT).  But I've always been intrigued by the Koni-Omega.

John


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder?


John -- I'm thinking I need to find another lab!  Or maybe I should just
review the contact sheet while in the store and order selected enlargements
right then and there.

The K-O is the way to go, I think.  But be leery of "war weary" ones --
these are professional cameras and many have had a lot of use.  But a good
overhaul by a guy like Greg Weber (the top man for all things Konica) will
make it 100%.  That said, they are plentiful and quite a remarkable value,
when you see what results you can get with these cameras.

Nick


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder? (Now OT)


Lugging around a Koni Omega is probably little different from lugging
around a Pentacon Six.  But the cost is probably similar, and the Koni
Omega adds interchangeable backs, the larger 6x7 format, and probably
far greater mechanical reliability to the fray, along with a pretty
darned good coupled Rangefinder viewing system, as opposed to a very dim
SLR viewing system.
...
Dougman


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Koni-Omega - the mega rangefinder? (Now OT)


The viewfinder for the 58mm wideangle is about the best accessory finder
I've ever used.  A lot of original thought and first-class construction went
into the Koni-Omegas.
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 
From: Karen Nakamura [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Back on RF Topic: Medalist


>I have just brought a koni-omegaflex. Yes, it says flex but it isn't really,
>more like a 6x7 rangefinder I think. Anyway, it has a 135mm Hexanon lens and
>I have read that this may be similar to a Heliar, which I am told is a
>Voigtlander lens that Kodak copied to create their "legendary" Ektar lens
>for their early
>medium format cameras. I am not really very knowledgeable about all this
>myself, I don't even know if an Ektar lens is really "legendary" but would
>like your opinions on like koni-omega(flex)? and its lens, I have the 58mm,
>90mm and the 135mm.
>Thanks.

I just bought a used Koni-Omega Rapid M myself. I only have the 90mm
lens, if you get bored of your KO and want to sell the 58mm / 135mm
please let me know.

I have a page with some info and links here:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/KoniOmegaRapidM.html


Enjoy!

Karen



From: "M Melton" [email protected]
To: "Koml" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 
Subject: [KOML] Close-up Kit

Afternoon Everybody!

I found the spacers I said I had. They were part of a kit. I have the
complete kit in the original box. The name on the box label is CLOSE-UP KIT
for Koni-Omega 'M' (this is the exact wording). The catalog number for the
kit is 706-043.

The label reads:

CONSISTS OF:

Cat. No. 706-016 2-10 mm SPACER ATTACHMENTS

Cat. No. 706-015 1-GROUND GLASS ATTACHMENT

Cat. No. 706-091 1-EYE LEVEL VIEWER


The kit box is about 6in X 6in X 4in. The spacers and the ground glass
attachment are in their own boxes inside the larger box. The eye level
viewer is in a case out of material like a lens case.

Hope this answers some questions.


Maurice


Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003
From: Paul Reese [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Close-up Kit
To: [email protected]

>
> Afternoon Maurice, well it's late evening here, but
> it should be afternoon.....
>
> Thanks for the additional info., great stuff. I have
> seen the first
> two items and have a home-made ground glass back.
> The eye level
> viewer is a new phrase in my KO vocabulary. Please
> describe this
> gizmo - is it a mono or bino back to fit the ground
> glass back?
>
> Cheers,
> Clive
>

Greetings Clive & all,

This sounds a lot like the kit for close-up work with
the Omegaflex. I've got all the pieces thereof,
acquired separately.

Clive, the eye-level viewer is a
pseudo-pyramid-shaped, loupe-like device which fits
onto the ground glass assembly. It has an eyepiece on
the small end which I believe has 2.8x magnification,
vs. 3x for the reflex viewer -- or vice-versa. 

RE the spacers, those described by Maurice have the
same thickness as the Omegaflex spacers (though of
course a much different design). Can anyone post a
quick primer/reminder on exposure adjustments when
using these spacers? Or am I confused -- maybe no
adjustment is necessary?

Maurice, maybe you have a manual for the kit that
addresses this?

-Paul Reese


From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega questions
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 

It's been said that the latest of Mamiya production were slightly
improved but in the samples I've used, I couldn't tell any difference.
They all were exceedingly sharp with great color rendition. 

As I write this, I'm looking at a recent enlargement I did from an old
FP4 negative. It was done with the 90mm Hexar on a KO-200 and
enlarged to 11X14. If it was from a top grade 4X5, I'd be more than
pleased with it. They have their quirks but I don't feel that they
give up anything, optically. The old pro that did our wedding many
years ago was using one and he still speaks fondly of his KO days. He
won many high level awards and a large amount of his work was with
these old rigs. 

 "The Dave�" [email protected] wrote:
>> The 100 and 200 were coming
>> in to Berkey Marketing from Mamiya just before I
>> BMC in late 1973. I still see a few of the above for
>> repairs though not nearly as many as 4 - 5 years ago.
>
>Interesting. I've always had an eye on these, and am still interested. Is
>either one considered better then the other?


From: [email protected] (n.t.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega questions
Date: 21 May 2003 

Yep - but it is (almost) purely conjecture.

The Koni is supposed to be sharper in the lens department. And if I
remember correctly the Mamiya shutters are supposed to be better.
From my experience. The Hexanon lenses I have are *unstoppable*.
Compared to Mamiya lenses I've had (same era, not Mamiya 7) which have
performed average at best.

Also the shutters in my Konis are accurate to 1 sec and are very
consistant. So, I suppose it's like all *old* gear, it depends on the
sample you get (and how it's been treated) more than the type. To a
degree anyway.

"The Dave�" [email protected] wrote
> "Mike" wrote
> > > Hmm... so there were Koni-Omega Rapids and
> > > Rapid Omegas? I'll have to research this a bit
> > > more. Thanks!
> >
> > Memory not failing me, there was the Koni Omega
> > Rapid and Rapid M built by Konishiroku (Konica)
> > than the Rapid Omega 100 and 200 which were built
> > by Mamiya. Mamiya begin building the 100 and 200
> > when Konishiroku (Konica) decided the camera was
> > no longer profitable. The 100 and 200 were coming
> > in to Berkey Marketing from Mamiya just before I
> > BMC in late 1973. I still see a few of the above for
> > repairs though not nearly as many as 4 - 5 years ago.
>
> Interesting. I've always had an eye on these, and am still interested. Is
> either one considered better then the other?


From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Omega questions
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 

Karen Nakamura" [email protected] wrote
> n.t. [email protected] wrote:
> > Karen, I don't want to be a stickler...
> > On your site it says the Koni is made by Mamiya. That is true, but for
> > the fact, it was named Rapid Omega. Koni Omega's were made by Konica
> > and the Rapid Omega's, Mamiya, the lenses too. Apparently the whole
> > factory and tooling were transferred over to Mamiya due to shutter
> > manufacturing (as per Bob M's site)...
>
>
> Hmm... so there were Koni-Omega Rapids and Rapid Omegas? I'll have to
> research this a bit more. Thanks!
>
> Karen

Memory not failing me, there was the Koni Omega Rapid and Rapid M built by
Konishiroku (Konica) than the Rapid Omega 100 and 200 which were built by
Mamiya. Mamiya begin building the 100 and 200 when Konishiroku (Konica)
decided the camera was no longer profitable.
The 100 and 200 were coming in to Berkey Marketing from Mamiya just before I
BMC in late 1973.
I still see a few of the above for repairs though not nearly as many as 4 -
5 years ago.

Mike Jenkins
www.fridaycreekcamera.com
toll free 877-557-6660



[Ed. note: Chris Perez is a noted MF/LF lens tester...]
From: Christopher Perez [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

Does it get any better than this? No.

Your Koni lenses are world class, even by today's standards. And you
get a nice sized negative/slide to work from. Enjoy it all. Koni
equipment is shockingly good by anyone's standards (including German Zeiss).

Seriously, Koni optical performance is on par with Hasselblad Zeiss and
more modern Mamiya 7 lenses. Amazing but true.

- Chris

gsk wrote:
> Picked up a nice old Koni-Omega Rapid M. Amazed at the photo quality. Just
> wondering if any of the new medium format cameras/lenses have actually
> improved on the quality of this great old camera. In 35mm I feel that my old
> Olympus OM-1/Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as my new Nikon stuff. Just
> wondering if those more familiar with medium format would say the same about
> the Koni-Omega when compared to the new stuff..


From: "gsk" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

Picked up a nice old Koni-Omega Rapid M. Amazed at the photo quality. Just
wondering if any of the new medium format cameras/lenses have actually
improved on the quality of this great old camera. In 35mm I feel that my old
Olympus OM-1/Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as my new Nikon stuff. Just
wondering if those more familiar with medium format would say the same about
the Koni-Omega when compared to the new stuff..


From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

...(quotes query above)
The 90mm Hexanon lens on the Koni Omega cameras are about as good
as it gets in terms of b&w MF images. I would rate the other KO lens
systems as excellent as well. I cannot comment about their color quality as
I have done only a limited number of 6x7 transparencies and then only with
the KO. My introduction to KO equipment came via contact with the
photographer who made my daughter's wedding pictures. They are as good as
any I have seen from any other cameras including the newest MF SLRs. As
long as the film transport works well, I don't think one can do better as
far as image quality is concerned. There are limitations and weight.

Truly, dr bob.



Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?

I love my Rapid M. The lenses give some the best negatives I have. I
backpacked this camera to Salzburg. As one other person noted, the
transport is the weak link in the system. Be careful about the backs
you acquire. Run a test roll on each. 

Francis A. Miniter
...


Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 
From: bill martin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?

Of course the KO lenses can be used on 6x9 graphics too, at least I used
the 58mm on mine. Beautiful lens, but I kept getting a light-colored
spot on my prints, figured it was flare. sure enough, I found a tiny
scratch on the glass and sent the lens back for a refund, much to my
regret, because afterwards I noticed I was getting the same spots on
negatives made with other lenses too. I found a dead fly on top of one
of my enlarger's condenser lenses. And I got such a great price when I
bought the KO lens, sob.

Bob Monaghan wrote:
> the KO/RO optics are amazing buys IMHO, and as Chris Perez's tests have
> shown. I find the 58mm and 135mm lenses to also be very sharp and
> contrasty with various slide films (esp. fuji). Great people and landscape
> camera kit (though heavy body, the kit is light, and you can have
> interchangeable backs (e.g, RO200). Rugged and fast action, hence a
> favorite with wedding shooters locally. The biggest complaint of one user
> was that his Mamiya Cabin 6x7cm slide projector (at $400+ overseas, about
> $1,400 at Mamiya/USA) cost more than his KO kit with three lenses ;-)
>
> grins bobm



From: Craig Schroeder [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003

"gsk" [email protected] wrote:
>Picked up a nice old Koni-Omega Rapid M. Just
>wondering if those more familiar with medium format would say the same about
>the Koni-Omega when compared to the new stuff..

I've been printing some old negatives in the last few months. Many
were taken with KO equipment and I'm still amazed at the quality.
Down a stop or 2 from wide open, I'd put them up against anything I've
ever shot with or had experiences with. I also had an Omegaflex
system that was bulky but quite manageable and relatively lightweight.
The 135mm on that was phenomenal. Treat the backs gently and the rig
should last for a long time and give you many pleasing images.


From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Re: 120 in 220
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003

Greetings,

Yes, it is possible to use 120 film in a 220 RO back. The frames do not
overlap, but the spacing gradually decreases from 13 mm between frames 1 and
2 to 3 mm between frames 9 and 10. There is about 35 mm of film leader and
trailer at the ends.

Advancing one frame requires about 1 and 1/2 turns on the take up spool.
Due to the thickness of the paper backing, 1 1/2 turns on the take up spool
will pull more 120 film across the film gate than the 220 film for which
the counter was designed. Just remember to advance to frame 20 before
removing the back from the camera.

Most of the 220 backs I've seen are usually in great shape and cheap. No
one seems to want them.

R. J. Bender


From: "Archer Enterprises" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Re: 120 in 220
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 

And start shooting on the last set of green dots (before number 1 comes up),
the 220 back has 4 sets as opposed to 3 on the 120. I`ve seen quite a few
220 backs that were damn well beat up by wedding photogs who used/abused
them every weekend.

Robert
...(quotes above posting)





End of Page