Mamiya Universal

[JADoss23]

Have been curious about adding a Mamiya Universal to my collection to shoot both pack film and 120 but was curious about the different models. Have been somewhat confused about the differences between the Universal, Press, 23 and which version if not all have a Polaroid back that shoots on the full frame of the pack film? Any of the models better than the other? thanks

 

[grimp0teuthis]

The Universal is the latest version and the only one that takes instant film adapters. The Super 23 is the only one with a (short) bellows for rear movements. I've only ever used the polaroid back with the now discontinued Fuji FP-100c film and it shot the entire image area. I believe there may be some unexposed image area when you use modern Polaroid Originals film. Here is a good overview: https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera...3-and-mamiya-universal-press-by-kikie-wilkins

It's a great camera! 6x9 negatives are amazing. Just make sure you can stand the weight

 

[ic-racer]

Works for this guy...

 

[xya]

as already said, only the universal takes polaroid film backs. for full size polaroid there are 3 lenses: 127mm, 150mm and a 75mm, which needs an acessory finder. the 100mm 3.5 shows a hint of vignette, as the 50mm, the 100mm 2.8 shows more than a hint. the system is bulky, but gives phantastic results.

 

[Paul Howell]

With the rare multi-back and masks you can shoot 6X9, 6X6 and 6X4.5, The universal has a slide switch to move from 100 to 150 and 250, but needs a finder for wide angles. I have never used instant film or backs. The only thing I'm not a fan of that is that the shutters needs to be manually cocked. Both the Press and Universal are pro level rugged cameras, take a lot of abuse. In the 70s and 80 a lot of wedding photographers used them. Other option is the Konica Omega Rapid system. It was used by the Air Force, has excellent lens, only 3, a wide, normal and short tele, uses 6X7 backs. It was called the rapid because the film is advanced with a push pull arm, that cockes the shutter.

I used the Konica Rapid while in the Air Force, but decided on the Universal for the wide lens. The one lens I don't have is the 250, don't ever recall saying I wish I had one. The lens are found in chrome and newer all black models, folks say the all black lens are shaper. Although heavy with the grip I can hand hold my Universal and shoot as low as a 1/60th.

 

[cullah]

Hi I have a Universal that I have used for years. Very fine camera. I have the 6x7 and 6x9 backs. I use the 100mm lens and also have a 65mm that needs a shutter repair. Besides the two backs mentioned above I also have the ground glass back that can take 2x3 holders. The camera has a couple of incidental issues like a cracked viewer glass that that has been repaired with scotch tape. Workes fine .

 

[John Wiegerink]

With the rare multi-back and masks you can shoot 6X9, 6X6 and 6X4.5, The universal has a slide switch to move from 100 to 150 and 250, but needs a finder for wide angles. I have never used instant film or backs. The only thing I'm not a fan of that is that the shutters needs to be manually cocked. Both the Press and Universal are pro level rugged cameras, take a lot of abuse. In the 70s and 80 a lot of wedding photographers used them. Other option is the Konica Omega Rapid system. It was used by the Air Force, has excellent lens, only 3, a wide, normal and short tele, uses 6X7 backs. It was called the rapid because the film is advanced with a push pull arm, that cockes the shutter.

I used the Konica Rapid while in the Air Force, but decided on the Universal for the wide lens. The one lens I don't have is the 250, don't ever recall saying I wish I had one. The lens are found in chrome and newer all black models, folks say the all black lens are shaper. Although heavy with the grip I can hand hold my Universal and shoot as low as a 1/60th.

I think the Koni had 4 lenses 58mm or a later 60mm, 90mm standard, 135mm(hard to find) and a 180mm. I used a Koni-Omega Rapid for weddings before I bought a Hasselblad. The Konica lenses are really fine pieces of glass, but so are the Mamiya counterparts. JohnW

 

[Paul Howell]

Forgot about the 135, the Air Force only bought the 180, the wide and 90mm, don't know why they skipped the 135. I something get the itch to buy a Horseman or Lendhoff (sp?) 6X9, but the Universal still does a great job. The lens are easy to change, the viewfinder is bright. I have 2 bodies, a chrome and black. Does not replace a MF SLR, I still have my Kowa kit, but for landscapes, the 6X9 negative is great to work with. Before the Air Force bought the Konica Omega they used the Graflex XL system, great lens but what I was told the bodies did not hold up. If you can find a decent body a few lens, still a great system, I think Graflex made a wide range of lens and backs, very similar to the range Mamiya produced. Don't recall the details but the Gralfex was likely the last camera they made before bellying up in the 70s.

 

[MattKing]

The Koni-Omegas are great, but the film transport/film back system requires regular maintenance.
When you advance the film it sounds a bit like a pump action shotgun, which can lead to some interesting reactions.
Koni-Omega and a 58mm lens:

 

[JADoss23]

I like the Koni Omega but main reason I wouldn't go for it is the lack of the Polaroid back compatibility. Part of the reason I want a Universal.

 

[mgb74]

... Before the Air Force bought the Konica Omega they used the Graflex XL system, great lens but what I was told the bodies did not hold up. If you can find a decent body a few lens, still a great system, I think Graflex made a wide range of lens and backs, very similar to the range Mamiya produced. Don't recall the details but the Gralfex was likely the last camera they made before bellying up in the 70s.

Regarding the Graflex XL, the bodies, per se, held up very well. The Achilles heel was the tabs on the plastic focusing mount. 3 tabs mate with the helical on the lens barrel; they eventually wear and break. It was perhaps premature (in the early 60s) to depend on plastic for this part.