Although words like "best" and "ultimate" are fun to throw around, of course there is no objectively best camera out there for a beginner. But to me, the Yashica Mat 124G is pretty close for a variety of reasons. From its handling to price, there is a lot to appreciate in this little gem. Here are some of my favorite features and why I think a person starting out in film photography might be in hog heaven with the little Yashica.
Fun, fun, fun
First and foremost, this camera is fun. It's all manual except for the light meter, which is practically useless anyway. But as soon as you open a TLR (twin lens reflex) camera, you're almost guaranteed to smile. The world is just different when you're looking down onto the ground glass. And even though, historically, I've been a fan of prisms over waist-level viewfinders, the simplicity of this camera won me over. It's lightweight, simple to load, and easy to grab and go. Just lock the shutter, throw it in a bag, and head out for a day of shooting. It has a sharp, fixed 80mm (50mm equivalent in 35mm style cameras) f/3.5 lens, aperture and shutter speed controls, and a quiet leaf shutter that can sync at all speeds.
Also, I believe the best way to get excited about trying something new is to make sure it's very different from what you were doing before. Using a TLR is novel. The viewfinder is big. The image on the ground glass is reversed laterally. It's entirely different to hold this camera than a 35mm style camera. There's a definite learning curve involved, but the camera is so simple and fun that it should keep you interested.
It's a Conversation-Starter
I don't know about you, but I love speaking to other photographers and people who are interested in photography. I find that networking and trading stories helps build my passion for the art. When you break out this puppy, you're guaranteed to get some looks. People will talk to you about the camera, and because it's so unusual looking by today's standards, people are more likely to pose for you. Seriously. I find that the more unusual the camera, the easier it is to convince a stranger to sit for you. That said, if you're into getting that candid moment, it might be tough because people will see you coming from a mile away.
It's Cheap!
The shop I borrowed the camera from, Englewood Camera, had it for about $250. You just can't beat that. If you're thinking of sticking your toes in the waters of film, a low barrier to entry is a definite bonus. Also, because these cameras are older, they've already depreciated; and should you decide to sell it, you can likely get back exactly what you paid for it.
If you've been toying with the idea of getting a film camera, definitely give a Yashica Mat 124G a chance. You really can't go wrong with it. Check out the video above for my more in-depth review of the body and its workings! If you have any questions or comments about my experience with the Yashica, sound off below!
Does the camera take filters?
Yes, it does. It takes Bay-1 filters, common on TLR cameras. You can also get an adapter so you can use filters you may already have. Keep in mind, though, that if you adapt larger filters you may obstruct the viewing lens.
Yes, as explained above. There are also wide-angle and telephoto adapters, sort of like poor man versions of the Rollei Mutars. They ... aren't that good.
Back when I was shooting professionally (before I discovered computers in the late 70's), I ALWAYS had a Yashicamat 124G in the trunk as a spare. The closest thing to an indestructible camera I have ever encountered. And it's fun!
I still have and use this little beauty. Along with my old K1000, they represent my foot that is still in the old school.
Although the novelty is definitely there, the cost of 120 film and the intimidating TLR system isn't the "best" film camera for beginners. My first film camera was a disposable camera and I quickly moved onto a Pentax p30n because I stumbled upon it in a flea market. It had a functioning light meter and easy to use M mode. I could get my photos developed at CVS (when they had those services, lucky me). Now that there are light meter apps and more tutorials online, sure, this would be an awesome first camera to have, but not too practical.
Well I think if we're being honest, practicality is right out the window with film, whichever format you choose. Practical would be shooting digital. That said, 120 film is pricier, per frame, that's true. But you don't shoot 120 film like 35mm. You're usually more considered in which shots to take. I don't think if I were to get into film today I'd want to take my film to a drug store for development and prints, either. The results you'll get are a crap shoot at best.
Perhaps that's why I think medium format is a better move for someone just getting into it. That novelty is more likely to keep you interested, and the activity of shooting is completely different. Sure, it requires a little research, but if someone wanted their experience to be just like shooting digital, why try it out at all?
Not really. A person that wants to shoot film could buy a late 90s 35mm SLR that would be ridiculously more easy and convenient to shoot with than the Yashica. Good AF, no upside down backward image, good metering, auto film load and advance, etc. Heck my last 35mm SLR even allowed me to rewind the film midroll while leaving the leader out to reload later on. I could switch from slow to fast film as I wanted without having to finish the roll. The only advantage to using something like the Yashica is the crazy sharp and creamy smooth images it produces on a much bigger piece of film. When competently printed the results are absolutely stunning. Much more so on traditional photo paper. Inkjet blows.
You hit the nail on the head there. The Yashica is demonstrably different to a 35mm style camera, both in handling and quality. To me, there's no point to going to 35mm as it's just more of the same. Plus, if you're doing your own scans, it's more difficult to scan than 120.
And just FYI, I know I'm probably in the minority with my distaste for 35mm, so I can completely see why someone would want to go that route first. Different strokes for different folks!
I have to disagree on the scanning part Hans. It is actually quite easy and affordable to get a good dedicated film scanner that will do a better job of scanning 35mm than a flatbed does for medium, used or new. Of course the medium film has an area numerous times bigger so the quality will very obviously still look better, but you're definitely not getting the best of the medium film with a flatbed, unfortunately, and you have fewer options available.
You're not alone in not being a fan of 35mm film. It was fine for me decades ago when there was nothing better besides larger film. Nowadays someone can shoot with a comparitively tiny 1" sensor camera and get similar quality to 35mm film, and better at higher ISOs. Meanwhile the best of APS sensor cameras can actually match the look of medium film with surprisingly large prints. Pretty amazing when you think about it.
If I recall correctly you started shooting large format film. Now that is where film newcomers should venture, especially 8x10, if they really want to see what film is capable of. Of course it's certainly not the easiest and the cheapest kind of film to shoot.
I definitely don't doubt your assertion about dedicated film scanners. I've never had the chance to use one, personally. But I've also never sought one out since medium format ones are expensive and I don't care much for the smaller format.
As for large format, I'm in love with it, but if medium format is intimidating, large formats may cause some soiled pants. Sooo many ways to mess up. I'm sure there are some I haven't discovered yet, but I bet they are coming.
No you are 100% right on the scanning part.
35mm film needs alot more definition in the scanner to properly enlarge a print. The 120 negs are bigger to start with and so the definition needed is easier to find in common scanners. It's basic math.
Nope, I'm with you - MF makes much more sense in the digital era, as when properly scanned it can deliver amazing resolution and color - 35mm film is now thoroughly outclassed by today's DSLRs.
Absolutely, if you have the budget to get this camera and practice with 120 film as a beginner then do so. But the practicality with 35mm / SLR / point and shoot is that when you're a beginner you are likely to go through more film regardless. My takeaway is that film - 35mm is nothing like shooting digital and kept me interested because of the accessibility.
For someone who has no photography experience or only digital photography experience - film will force you to be more conscious of the shots you take whether it be 35mm or 120mm. But 120mm is trickier from the start. Sometimes when you wind it, it doesn't wind correctly and you get a shot on half the slide you were looking for or it gets jammed.
35 mm is more reliable when practicing, offers more affordable camera options - will absolutely give you the experience of film without feeling even more upset/guilty when you get a blank roll back or messed up images, because it will be lighter on the wallet and you took 24 to 36 shots at once, unlike the 12-16 of the 120m (you can get really cheap color film on ebay, don't think there are cheap options for 120mm).
When you're experimenting as a beginner, going to a drug store is a cheap option and the one I went to created great images (for me at the time), for my disposable shots. It all depends on the people that work there, honestly. Below is one of my very first shots in 2009. Those are pretty awesome colors for a disposable camera.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to get their film developed at drug stores, because for the most part that's not a great idea. There aren't many that are doing that anyway.
You have some really good points here. But a lot of it is predicated on the reliability of one format over another. Ive had cameras jam on 35mm and 120mm. Ive seen perfectly good nikon cameras chew through a roll of 35mm for no reason. Then Ive seen Leicas that have churned through hundreds of rolls like butter, not a hitch in sight. Like anything else, you can put as much or little money/time/effort into something as you want. But I think most of us look at film through a lens of familiarity with 35mm. We think medium format is hard because it's unfamilar. The reality is that the cameras are usually simpler to operate. For me, its about the process. What fun is there in a point and shoot? As far as process goes, I mean. And if you're sending it to a lab, at what point are your hands on the work? Why not use a cell phone? Im not being contrary here. It just seems like if we are making it as easy as possible, theres no point in trying something new. I have faith that people can push beyond the familiar. Just because something is easier or more familiar doesnt make it better for them in the long run.
So what you're saying is that you think someone who is a beginner will dive head first into learning how to operate a new format, invest into a lot of equipment and learn how to develop their own film basically at once. The only cameras I've had issues with jamming and loading issues is 120mm -- and I have 15 different film cameras, but that's personal experience. You are a professional photographer and I'm not, so our perspectives are different in that respect. My time and money from the start is invested differently into my passion hobby than your professional career. I still don't know how to process my own black and white film, which I actually just got the basic supplies for now. I never disagreed that your camera of choice is bad or worse than 35mm (obv 120 mm provides higher quality images), I'll just stand by the fact that I don't think its the best but within the context of budget, time-limits and actual level of beginner. Props to any beginner that reads your article and gets inspired by it!
My first photoshoot ever was with 35mm Zenit... with leader improperly hooked. I ended up with blank roll :D On 120 at least you know that the film is moving before you close the back...
35mm was created so photographer can shoot more and faster than with MF and LF. It was made mostly for photojournalists.
Today if someone tries film, it is usually because they want to slow down and think before taking the picture.
haha the Zenit. I loveee Soviet cameras. did you improperly hook the film or there was something wrong with the camera? Yes, so get a Nikon F and you'll definitely slow down and think before taking a picture. :)
It was definitely operator's error
I use RB67 and Crown Graflex 4x5 from time to time.
@Roman "My first photoshoot ever was with 35mm Zenit... with leader improperly hooked. I ended up with blank roll :D On 120 at least you know that the film is moving before you close the back..."
But that's not an issue with a modern 35mm film camera.
"Today if someone tries film, it is usually because they want to slow down and think before taking the picture."
If a photographer is truly serious about slowing down and thinking then he or she wouldn't need to use film, they could continue shooting digital.
I am not compering anything to anything. What's your point?
I never said you were making a comparison. I was simply responding to what you said and the built-in comparison in such a statement.
OK
I've still got a local minilab (MotoPhoto in Paramus NJ) that charges $5 for C41 developing (35mm or 120 - same price per roll). I scan the 120 stuff with an Epson V600.
WARNING: some drugstores now only give you a CD and prints; they THROW OUT the film after developing it. Found this out when I gave my daughter in Virginia my Nikon F2.... was shocked and appalled.
I have the Epson V600 too :)
I had one of those in the early 70s--it was my first money-making camera. They cost now used the same number of dollars (2017) as they cost new in 1972 (and I think the camera was discontinued in 1974). Darned sure wish I still had my old one--but I sold it after a couple of years to buy a Mamiya C330...and I wish I still had that, too.
That was one of my first cameras. My sample produced ridiculously sharp photos, especially when I hand printed them myself in my darkroom with the Fujinon lens I had at the time. That said, I could never shoot with something like that again. Old timer that has no interest going back to something so slow and cumbersome, and now prohibitively expensive to get the kind of prints I would want from them. The young hipsters can have fun with that old stuff if they want.
Are you talking about someone new to photography and film, or someone who is an "experienced" photographer that is new to film? Either way, I don't think I would recommend a TLR to either group, and probably wouldn't recommend any medium format camera. While I personally think 35mm film is a waste of time for me since, I also happen to think that it is the best place to start. Compared to medium format the cost of 35mm is usually cheaper per roll with more frames per roll and cheaper to get developed and scanned at a lab. It is also much easier to load/unload. If learning to develop the film on their own is planned 35mm is both easier to spool and cheaper as you can usually develop far more frames with a given amount of chemicals than medium/large format. Additionally, all of the things I love about most medium/large format cameras (waist level finders, backwards and/or upside down viewfinders, etc) are things that complicate the process for someone just learning to shoot that way. Lastly, I think as far as learning/breaking into film goes the fact that there are so many 35mm film cameras and lenses from major players (nikon, canon, pentax, etc) available for cheap on the internet/ebay is a huge plus for the format when it comes for learning for cheap(er), plus, many though not all of todays lenses are backwards compatible with the mounts of their 35mm film camera counterparts.
I agree that 35mm is a much easier prospect for most shooters. But in the end, I believe a beginner (either to film or photography in general) is enchanted by the unfamiliar. To me, and I'm surely biased on this, there's little incentive to shoot 35mm as it's just more of the same. I know that I'm much more likely to stick with something if I'm seeing some sort of benefit from it. With 35mm, where's the benefit? You work twice as hard for images that are of an inferior technical quality.
I love film, but I'm also busy. I can't justify taking the time to shoot a format that doesn't give me anything extra. Believe me, I've tried!
I dont disagree that 120 is a far superior format than 35mm in almost every way, from shooting experience, to refinement of technique, to final product, and the list goes on. Personally, If I am not shooting digital I shoot only 120 or 4x5 and have no use for 35mm, since I find the benefits of digital far outweigh those of shooting 35mm. Still, solely from an ease of use, cost, and availability perspective I think 35mm is superior specifically when it comes to an introduction and learning. Regardless, that is just my personal opinion, and I am far from an expert.
Yeah, but doing it yourself, that excitement of being in a makeshift darkroom. Where time escapes you, partly due to the heady intoxication of developer and stop bath.
I used to love doing my own D&P. Digital is too easy, with film you have to make every frame count, no deleting and starting over. It certainly made me into a much more conscientious snapper..!
Had one in the 80's. Solid, sharp and made me a true believer in TLRs, MF and full sync flash.
Interesting article. I think if my dad had not given me his Rolleiflex 3.5F , I would have tried the Yashica too. I do enjoy medium format film shooting, but I also like 35mm film as well and I'm not sure exactly what I would tell a beginner to start with. One of the advantages of shooting 35mm film is that you may have built up a collection already of, say, Nikon or Canon lenses for digital purposes, and you can easily find a 35mm film body that will mount these lenses. That's what I did three years ago when I got interested in film shooting - I started out with a Canon Elan 7E and used my Canon lens collection. Nowadays, aside from the Rollei, I also shoot old Nikons with manual focus lenses, most of which are available cheaply - very cheaply compared to modern lenses. But film shooting is much more than what camera or lens you use; it's developing and printing and I do all of that myself too. Going chemical is so different from digital, and much of the pleasure of film work derives from that difference.
Good point - I use my Nikon AF-D lenses on my FM and FE. Unfortunately Nikon's newer stuff doesn't have a manual aperture ring and isn't backwards compatible. Nor are the Sigma Art lenses, alas.
Yes, you're right about the newer G Nikon lenses. There is a way round that for film shooters though, the Nikon F5 and F6 will support Nikon's newer lenses. Not sure about the Sigma Arts though; I wonder if anyone's tried them. On the surface, they should work.
I use to photograph rock concerts when I was in college with one of these. I even took it on a 2 month tour. I still have it somewhere haha
I guess someone would have to school me on what would be the point of shooting 35mm film instead of digital. Going to medium format film, going to a groundglass camera, particular a TLR is an alternate universe of photography, a wholly different experience requiring a different mode of thinking and process. With a 35mm camera, you're still "peerin' through a tiny 'ole" at your subject--the shooting experience isn't significantly different. Anyone shooting digital can simply shoot less, if shot discipline all one is after, and even at that 120 film will demand more discipline than 35mm. If you want the experience of film, medium or large format is the experience of film.
For me its the film itself. To try different films that are available and getting that perfect shot with the right tones, the lighting, and most importantly the colors. I don't get the same feelings from digital that I do from film - be it 35mm or 120mm. I guess to each his own.
To experience the quality of the film itself, again, medium format is the superior experience compared to 35mm. The size difference makes an extraordinary difference in the results--a much greater difference than difference sensor sizes make in digital. An 11x14 print from 120 Ilford FP-4 is exquisite compared to an 11x14 print of the same film in 35mm. Medium format is simply a far superior way to experience film compared to 35mm. That's why professionals who made their living through prints gravitated to medium and large format.
Yes, I'm well aware of this. I'm not a pro. So to each his own in what the individual wants to shoot with, what camera they fall in love with. So to ME, experiencing film in 35mm and occasionally 120mm is a joy and is my art form. To me, its superior to digital in the pleasure I get from shooting with my various film cameras.
I could echo what Natalie P said, but to elaborate, for me, I like the actual cameras themselves. I'm no pro, so i'm just shooting for fun, and part of that is the feel of old film cameras and all that goes with them. (instant shutter feel, winding, film smell through the back door, etc.) I also prefer developing/scanning film to digital editing. I like having actual negatives compared to hard drives as well. Honestly, It could be that I just haven't found a digital camera that I like using yet, but there's still hope I suppose.
plus, I mostly shoot a film Leica M. I can't afford/justify a digital M, so there's that.
I am not too sure that I agree with this. The 124G is horribly overrated. Plastic where metal once was and the meter will be inaccurate, if it works at all. They are also VERY overrated considering one can get a metal bodied for half the price and invest in a good used light meter from KEH and SAVE money. I have a Yashica EM that I have invested $120 into, including the purchase off eBay and a CLA. If you want a TLR, skip the 124G. It is not worth the money. Buy an LM, EM, or a 44 and get the same sharp lens, TLR experience, and a separate light meter that will be infinitely more useful for any camera, film or digital.
I shoot probably more film than digital. The TLR is one of my portable 120 cameras I grab. I am not too sure it is worthy of a beginner camera choice as there are parallax issues at times but they are a solid choice. My other portable 120 go to is a 6x9 Zeiss folder.
I still own a 'D' and a '635'. Haven't used either in a long while. They've been assigned to my collection of old, and interesting, ornaments. You can see them all here. http://s632.photobucket.com/user/FTOeire/slideshow/Vintage%20Cameras
My first "real" camera was a Yashica Mat. With a little help from the guys in the photo department (I was running a newspaper's bureau) and Tri-X film, the Yashica Mat made it easy for a tyro to produce acceptable photos and the results encouraged greater effort and better results. Graduated to a Canon SLR and remained a Canon shooter through various analog and then digital iterations. Still should Canon more than 50 years later--supplemented by Fujifilm X series.
I was an undergrad in the late 80's early 90's and this was my main camera I loved it and still do, although it sits on a shelf now, haven't shot film forever.
The one I'm using now is actually my second, and agree - it's FUN. Plus, if you scan film with a flatbed Epson or Canon scanner, MF works loads better than 35mm. (And if you drum scan, you've got resolution on a par with the very best DSLRs). Their only real flaw is the light meter, which isn't terribly accurate.
But $250?!!! That's literally double what they sold for new in the late 80s. (When I got my 1st one, which I later traded towards a 2.8 Rolleiflex; the one I have now was a gift) For that money there may be better 120 choices, like the 6x7 Koni Omega, the Mamiya 645, or if you shop around, a Mamiya RB67.
The Yashicamat is a zillion times better than the Chinese Seagull or Great Wall cameras, but it's roughly equal to the Minolta Autocord and other Japanese TLRs from the late 50s. If you love TLRs (and you should - they're cool) the Mamiya versions (C2, C3, C220, C3330) feature interchangeable lenses and are well worth checking out; Diane Arbus and Larry Fink used them, among others.
Bottom line: the 124 is great cheap MF camera, but don't overpay.