Koni-Omega Rapid

[Bikerider]

Does anyone know anything about these cameras, apart from being very large?

I have an option on a late unmarked version complete with 2 6x7 backs, 90mm standard lens, 180 telephoto and a 58mm wide angle. It looks very good cosmetically with no 'nasties' in or on the optics.

I am assuming the viewfinder bright-line changes depending on the lens in use. I have never even handled one before but the price is enticing if it produces the goods from the 6x7 negatives. (Appro $750 - $800 complete with everything)

 

[Paul Howell]

I used one on occasion while in the U.S Air Force, early to mid 70s, lens are very good, Konica made really good glass. The only weakness is the ratchet film advance. When you pull the film advance plunger in and out the film is advanced and shutter cocked, which is why the system was called rapid. With my Mamiya Universal I have to advance the film with two stocks of the level then manually cock the shutter. The Konica advance takes a lot of stress and is prone to warning out. I had a boss who used the one hand method, he would hold the camera by the advance lever, really more of plunger and snap the camera with a flit of wrist and arm, really quick. There are no replacement parts, although a machine shop could make one. I think you need a finder for the 58mm but not the 180.

Here is link the manual.

https://www.cameramanuals.org/prof_pdf/rapid_omega_100-200.pdf

 

[Frank53]

I had one for some time, it's heavy, but lenses are great and I loved the film advance.
Had the rangefinder cleaned because there was some dirt in it.
Price seems reasonable for a complete set.

 

[Dennis-B]

Superb glass, and as PAUL HOWELL well noted, the weakness is in the ratcheted film advance. I've owned a used Rapid 100 for about six years, and it's worked very well. I have three lenses, along with the auxiliary finder for the 58mm. I used one as an assistant to a wedding photographer in the 70's, and he did the same thing. I always cringed when I saw him do this. BTW, he had a Honeywell Stronobar hung off the left side, adding more stress to the gears.

I alternate between my Rapid 100 and a Mamiya Universal Press. Both are a handful, but they produce superb images.

As to the film advance, I use a "pastey" silicon lubricant, and very sparingly.

 

[gone]

Great viewfinders, pretty odd looking compared to other cameras, some of the best lenses in MF. The film advance feels strange, I never really got on w/ that aspect, but the positives of the camera were impressive. You will get some stares when: 1-the shutter fires, 2-when people see the camera pointed at them, and 3-for sure when you advance the film.

 

[MattKing]

I don't recall that the bright lines in the viewer change. Everything is so large on the camera that even the 180mm bright lines probably still leave you enough room to see what you are photographing.
I would be wary of buying the camera if you don't have an auxiliary finder for the 58mm/60 mm lens.
I really liked mine - the negatives were wonderful - but the film advance and control layout was particularly unsuitable for mostly left handed me, so I sold it.
And the Rapid film advance is the weakness of the cameras. That, and the fact that it sounds like a pump action shotgun when you advance the film!
This was done with the 58mm lens back in 2012:

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I purchased a Rapid Omega 100 brand new in the early 1970s and used it for weddings. As others have noted, the film advance system is a weak point. Unless babied (and perhaps even then), it frequently ended up causing overlapping frames.

The lenses' performance are, in my experience, accurately characterized here (scroll approximately 3/4 down the page):

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html​

 

[OrientPoint]

I have a Rapid Omega 200. It's a great camera, but take note that there are a few different versions. The Koni Rapid M and 200 are the ones with reloadable film inserts, which would allow you to change film mid-roll (I think the "M" – no "Rapid" – also has reloadable inserts). The inserts are the standard back shared by all versions with a separate front attachment and dark slide. Whether this matters to you or not, I don't know, but it's a nice option to have. They're the same backs as used on the Omegaflex (a TLR-ish version of the Koni Omega).

All Koni Omega versions use the same lenses which, as others have mentioned, are very good. The 58mm uses a very large and very bright external viewfinder, which shows up on auction sites relatively frequently for $50-$100 if your copy is missing it.

It's a fun camera and I'd recommend it if you're looking for a metal brick that produces 6x7 negatives. As others here have noted many of the backs have seen a lot of work, and if they've been sitting unused for a while lubrication and exercise is recommended. It's not that hard to find additional backs for sale if you need another.

The price you mention seems high, at least here in the US. I bought one less than a year ago for $100 with a clean 58mm lens (no viewfinder though) and a working back. I've seen a clean 90mm lens go recently for $25. With a bit of patience you can probably put together a very nice outfit for $250-$300. Konica made a lot of these cameras, and most of them seem to have survived.

 

[Bikerider]

Thanks guys. Your comments on the wind on makes me want to see and handle it before | hand over any money. If I work out what field of view the 58mm lens takes in It is possible to find seperate viewfinder from a 35mm camera which may do at a push. A 35mm Leitz finder won't be far off the mark. The large negative is what attracts me for B&W work. with Pan F there should be no grain visible even on a 12x16 .

 

[Paul Howell]

For gainless, Tmax 100, I shoot Tmax 100 with my Mamiya Universal, both 6X7 and 6X9, I've printed up to 20X24, with Tmax 400 some grain but will push to 800 without much effort. For that matter a 6X9 Foma 400 negative is pretty gainless. I think the 58mm is somewhere in the 35mm view of a 30mm?

 

[throneking]

They are a rugged camera and were the wedding photograhers standard back in the day. probably still the best bang for the buck when it comes to a quality 6x7. overall. they are great cameras and the glass is top notch.

 

[Bikerider]

I have actually had a close and personal check on the camera I was looking at. Not for me I'm afraid just too heavy . I find my F4 plus lens a chore and this one is heavier. A lot heavier! The film wind on was sound and worked perfectly and had a receipt for a full service dated only this last January. I was seriously tempted, but the weight was the final persuader. Sadly I turned it down.

 

[Arthurwg]

Love Matt's picture.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have actually had a close and personal check on the camera I was looking at. Not for me I'm afraid just too heavy . I find my F4 plus lens a chore and this one is heavier. A lot heavier! The film wind on was sound and worked perfectly and had a receipt for a full service dated only this last January. I was seriously tempted, but the weight was the final persuader. Sadly I turned it down.

Yeah, find myself caring a Yaschica D and 124 more and more, my Mamiya is even heavier. For light MF, Mamiya 6.45 with 3 lens.

 

[Ian C]

Filtering is an important consideration with the excellent Koni-Omega lenses. They are threaded for series-filter holders. These thread diameters and pitches are different than the common threading on standard threaded filters.

One of the series-holder threadings almost—but not quite—fits the standard 67mm x 0.75 mm threading. A 67 mm filter threads in but fits too tightly to properly seat all the way into the lens’s threads.

Using a polarizer or any filter that requires a particular rotational orientation is a bit tricky to adjust because of the construction of the filter and its holder. I have an old Petersen Publications booklet on using filters that discusses and shows a photo of using a round toothpick to reach in and adjust the orientation of a series polarizer in its holder. To do so, you first slightly loosen the forward retaining ring to allow the polarizer to rotate freely within the holder. It’s tricky but can be done.

Alternatively, you could simply hold a properly oriented polarizer against the front of the lens barrel with one hand and fire the shutter with the other. I’ve done so with good results. I usually did this with a conventional Hoya polarizer.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have actually had a close and personal check on the camera I was looking at. Not for me I'm afraid just too heavy . I find my F4 plus lens a chore and this one is heavier. A lot heavier! The film wind on was sound and worked perfectly and had a receipt for a full service dated only this last January. I was seriously tempted, but the weight was the final persuader. Sadly I turned it down.

When I was a wedding photographer I used a Koni 100 and Rapid M for a brief period. It was a dream come true for me since it was my first interchangeable back camera. It was a little bulky compared to my later Hasselblad cameras, but much, much quieter than my Bronica S2a. From what you are saying about bulk means a lot of medium format cameras are ruled out. You don’t say you have any preference as to size such as 6.45cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 6x9cm. Actually it sounds like you might be a really good candidate for a high class glass folder. That way you could use both your Nikon F4 and the folder on the same outing, which is what I do often. The selection of older folding cameras is almost limited, but finding the right one for you is another matter. I’m a hoarder/collector when it comes to cameras and have a fair amount of knowledge about them as well. I have 50+ folders in my stash and have ran film through many of them. Some are as good as any camera made now and some are certainly not. I also have Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Koni-Omega, Mamiya, Rolleiflex as my more modern medium format cameras, but find myself using some of my older folders just as much. My all time favorite cameras are the Kodak Medalist II, Kodak Monitor 620 w/ Kodak red Special lens, Zeiss Super Ikonta C with coated Opton Tessar lens in that order. The nice thing about some of the older folders is you can still try them out fairly cheap. The one area they are lacking in is for shooting wide angle and tele. Of course a nice 6x9cm/2 1/4x3 1/4” negative will give you a wider looking view and a crop will give you the tele view. If you find something in the old folder line and have a question you can PM me and I’m always willing to help. JohnW

 

[MattKing]

We had a family friend when I was growing up who had a studio and did a lot of weddings. I was entertained by his description of his new to him Mamiya RB67 and Koni-Omega wedding camera kit as his small cameras. Of course, he had transitioned from his previous kit - the formals from 8x10 in the studio to RB67 either in the studio or on location, and casual and reception photos from Speed Graphic to Koni-Omega.
So everything is relative .

 

[John Wiegerink]

We had a family friend when I was growing up who had a studio and did a lot of weddings. I was entertained by his description of his new to him Mamiya RB67 and Koni-Omega wedding camera kit as his small cameras. Of course, he had transitioned from his previous kit - the formals from 8x10 in the studio to RB67 either in the studio or on location, and casual and reception photos from Speed Graphic to Koni-Omega.
So everything is relative .

Matt
Yes, people’s perceptions change right along with the times. It’s fun to look at photo equipment ads from the past and see descriptions that certainly don’t fit today. A good example is the word “pocket” from the late 1800 to early 1900. The pocket cameras from that era won’t fit in any pocket that I know off. If I were shooting weddings today it would probably be with something like my Sony A7RII with wide to medium tele zoom. My whole wedding kit could fit in one small to medium size bag. When I stopped shooting weddings my kit was a Hasselblad 500cm, 553elx, SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 5 film backs, Nikon FE2, SunPak 555 flash, complete portable studio lighting kit and power supply. Try and fit that in one small bag! Of course back then it wasn’t considered that it of a kit for weddings, but it sure would be now. JohnW

 

[MattKing]

A good example is the word “pocket” from the late 1800 to early 1900. The pocket cameras from that era won’t fit in any pocket that I know of

I always figured that the "pocket" there meant long outer coats or saddlebags.

 

[Bikerider]

When I was a wedding photographer I used a Koni 100 and Rapid M for a brief period. It was a dream come true for me since it was my first interchangeable back camera. It was a little bulky compared to my later Hasselblad cameras, but much, much quieter than my Bronica S2a. From what you are saying about bulk means a lot of medium format cameras are ruled out. You don’t say you have any preference as to size such as 6.45cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 6x9cm. Actually it sounds like you might be a really good candidate for a high class glass folder. That way you could use both your Nikon F4 and the folder on the same outing, which is what I do often. The selection of older folding cameras is almost limited, but finding the right one for you is another matter. I’m a hoarder/collector when it comes to cameras and have a fair amount of knowledge about them as well. I have 50+ folders in my stash and have ran film through many of them. Some are as good as any camera made now and some are certainly not. I also have Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Koni-Omega, Mamiya, Rolleiflex as my more modern medium format cameras, but find myself using some of my older folders just as much. My all time favorite cameras are the Kodak Medalist II, Kodak Monitor 620 w/ Kodak red Special lens, Zeiss Super Ikonta C with coated Opton Tessar lens in that order. The nice thing about some of the older folders is you can still try them out fairly cheap. The one area they are lacking in is for shooting wide angle and tele. Of course a nice 6x9cm/2 1/4x3 1/4” negative will give you a wider looking view and a crop will give you the tele view. If you find something in the old folder line and have a question you can PM me and I’m always willing to help. JohnW

I prefer a camera with different focal length lenses so a folder is not really what I could work with. It is not the bulk, I can get around that, it was the weight. 8 pounds wether it is a small camera + lenses, or a large camera with lenses is still 8 pounds. Besides, the folding cameras you suggest are at least 60 years+ old and will have seen better days. My F4 goes with me when I am out walking goes with 3 Nikon lenses a 20/35. 28/85 and a 80/200. You can probably get lighter ones but unlikely to have Nikon optical quality or the same focal length range.

No perhaps the Koni-Omega was a temptation but really would not fit in with my preferences.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I always figured that the "pocket" there meant long outer coats or saddlebags.

I agree Matt. I remember seeing ads of a heavily mustached man with a bicycle wearing a long overcoat with big, I mean big, pockets. In his hand looked to be a camera the size of a Kodak 3A and the ad mentioned pocket. I wonder what the term “mini” meant back then? JohnW

 

[Bikerider]

I agree Matt. I remember seeing ads of a heavily mustached man with a bicycle wearing a long overcoat with big, I mean big, pockets. In his hand looked to be a camera the size of a Kodak 3A and the ad mentioned pocket. I wonder what the term “mini” meant back then? JohnW

What you are describing sounds very much what we would call a poachers coat. Big multiple pockets to carry the wild game (rabbits, pheasants etc) that they had shot illegally.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I prefer a camera with different focal length lenses so a folder is not really what I could work with. It is not the bulk, I can get around that, it was the weight. 8 pounds wether it is a small camera + lenses, or a large camera with lenses is still 8 pounds. Besides, the folding cameras you suggest are at least 60 years+ old and will have seen better days. My F4 goes with me when I am out walking goes with 3 Nikon lenses a 20/35. 28/85 and a 80/200. You can probably get lighter ones but unlikely to have Nikon optical quality or the same focal length range.

No perhaps the Koni-Omega was a temptation but really would not fit in with my preferences.

I agree that some older cameras have seen better days, but some of the much better built older cameras, like the Medalist I and II will be working long after I’m gone. They are like the famous TimeX watch ad, “Take a licking and keeps on ticking”. Everyone has their preference when it comes to photo gear and for me there is not one camera that tics all the boxes. Some come close, but none are perfect. It is certainly fun trying to find that perfect camera Combo. JohnW

 

[c t b]

great cameras, with some gem lenses, but oh boy is the film advance sensitive

 

[Dennis-B]

Thanks guys. Your comments on the wind on makes me want to see and handle it before | hand over any money. If I work out what field of view the 58mm lens takes in It is possible to find seperate viewfinder from a 35mm camera which may do at a push. A 35mm Leitz finder won't be far off the mark. The large negative is what attracts me for B&W work. with Pan F there should be no grain visible even on a 12x16 .

The 58mm lens has an angle of view of 61º. It also takes Series VII filters. Mine came with the auxiliary viewfinder for the 58mm lens.