The Graflex XL is apparently quite a strange beast. On one hand, it is renowned for its superb (and interchangeable) Zeiss lenses, and on the other, it is reviled for somewhat slipshod design (lensmount) and overall unreliability. You might want to preface this entire document with a trip to graflex.org to see what they have to say about the Graflex XL. I might as well say it now: I have no personal experience with the Graflex XL. On the other hand, I can collect information, which is what I've done here, along with my take on the Graflex XL, based on what I learned from the various MFD postings I dug up (it's at the end of this document, for those who like to scroll and browse like me).

All reprinted articles are copyrighted to the authors. I'm currently working on getting permission to reprint the articles as shown below. I'm having trouble reaching the authors of the last two articles listed -- my email bounces from the first, and I'm not sure how to reach the second one. If I'm unable to reach them after a week or so (today is 24 Oct.) I'm going to pull the articles and leave just the pointer to the appropriate MFD (along with the subject line of the article). All right, so I lied -- I apologize to the authors, but I think that I'll instead leave the articles up intact, unless anyone has any objections.

This is a review submitted to MFD Vol. 6 No. 18, for 4 June 1996.

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:12:05 -0500
From: [email protected] (STUEBBEN, GERHARD)
Subject: Review: Graflex XL

The Graflex XL has been receiving a fair amount of attention in MFD recently; perhaps others would benefit from my own lengthy (since 1976) experience with the camera. The XL is a metal bodied press camera available in both black and chrome versions. It looks and operates *very* much like the Mamiya Press. Every example I have seen is the "XLRF" top mounted rangefinder / viewfinder version, although ads have appeared in Shutterbug for the non-rangefinder variant. What looks like a hot shoe is fitted on top of the rangefinder / viewfinder into which slips an optional sportsfinder. The camera is usually found with a hand grip attached to the left side; a cable release is fitted to the hand grip, allowing the shutter to be fired with the index finger of the left hand.

The rangefinder is contained in the same housing as the viewfinder, along side the viewfinder. The viewfinder has three sets of yellow brackets to delineate wide angle, normal, and telephoto coverage. The lenses used are typical press camera-in-copal shutter type, although they are mounted on a "lens cone" (more like a closed off cylinder). The rear end of the cone slips into the camera akin to a bayonet mount SLR, except instead of turning the lens to lock it in place, the photographer turns a "focusing collar." This collar has three focusing lugs which ride in slots in the lens cone. As the photographer twists the focus collar to the right for a close-up, the lens cone is pushed away from the camera body to achieve focus. Each lens cone is designed for a particular focal length of lens and comes with an integral focusing cam. After switching lenses, the photographer must push a silver button on top of the rangefinder housing. This resets the rangefinder for that particular lens.

Normal lenses are available in both 80mm (for 6x7 cm format) and 100mm (for 6x9 cm format). Telephoto and wide angle (including Grandagon) lenses were also available.

The standard "Graflok" (a.k.a. "international") back back is attached to the camera via four steel pins, so any generic roll back or cut film holder holder can be used. Graflex manufactured 120 roll holders in 6x6 (12 exposure "RH-12), 6x7 (10 exposure RH-10), and 6x9 (8 exposure RH-8). A 220 holder was made in 6x7 (20 exposure RH-20), and a 70mm holder (also 6x7 cm) afforded 50 exposures per roll (called ... you guessed it, the RH-50). The RH-50 was designed for use with a 4x5 back, so the XL version came with a special mounting plate (with the four steel pins). To use it, the photographer would first remove the Graflok back and then mount the RH-50 directly to the camera body. Polaroid backs also mounted directly to the camera body using the same four pin system.

The camera has always been advertised as being 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 in. format. The actual image area at the film plane is much larger (approx. 3 1/4 x 4 1/4), but for practical purposes, the larger area is unusable (at least with the normal lenses) because the lenses do not cover the entire frame (big vignetting problem). A 4x5 in. back was available but is extremely scarce (I have only seen one example in my 20 year association with this camera).

My overall impression of the camera: brilliant concept, but not well executed:

1. The camera is fragile! The focusing collar (and its three lugs) are made of plastic! A replacement collar is not available, and even if it were, I've been told it would have to be specially fitted. These lugs will break under normal field use and are a real pain to fix.

2. By reputation, results from the 100mm Planar my XL came with should have been dazzling. They weren't. The negatives look fine to the naked eye, but when enlarged to 8x10 in., are not as sharp as those from a Pentax 67. Whether the problem is with the camera, lens, rollback or me, I don't know.

3. The viewfinder lines are not particularly bright. Maybe it's a problem with age (either the camera's or mine).

Recommendation: Leave this camera to the collectors. Despite my criticisms above, this is really not a bad camera -- I still fool around with one on occasion and I love the "feel." I have even fabricated accessories not otherwise available. But the XL is not a cheap entry level MF camera, with bodies around $150, normal lenses at $200+, and rollbacks around $100. Plus, it's been out of production so long that accessories and parts are hard to come by. If you need a 120 rangefinder, get a Fuji 670 or 690. If you need something with interchangeable lenses, save up your money and get a Mamiya 7.

Some feedback to this review can be found in MFD Vol. 6 No. 19, for 5 June 1996.

Date: 04 Jun 96 23:46:50 EDT
From: Ed Scott [[email protected]]
Subject: RE: Graflex XL Review

The review of a Graflex XL brought back some memories. I was a combat photographer in Vietnam and the standard issue 120 camera was a Graflex XL. We had a choice between a 4x5 Speed Graphic and the only slightly smaller Graphlex XL. The Army photo labs were unable to print 35mm which is the only logical choice for a combat camera. I did have a Leica M3 but was only supposed to use it for jobs which called for 35mm slides. I have in front of me a B&W photo of a skinny fellow I hardly recognize with a Graflex XL slung over his shoulder.

I have not held one in 26 years having left Vietnam in 1970 after two consecutive tours. It was a delight to read this review and I find nothing to disagree with. I used to curse the camera and it got back at me at every opportunity! In many ways it was close to being a very good camera but there always seemed to be so many little ways that it could trip you up. Not what you want in a combat camera. The Leica was its exact opposite. Always dependable, easy to operate when you were scare out of your skin and never fussy about getting slammed into the ground or drenched in monsoon season.

I did a quite a bit of aerial photography from the backseat of a Bird Dog recon plane. One assignment I particularly remember. We had to map section of some highways. I borrowed all the film backs I could find which was 9 as I remember. That gave me 90 shots - 10 per roll if I am not mistaken. We flew a series of repeating "D" patterns. I would click off 10 shots trying to keep some amount of overlap on each. Then Lt. Smallwood would loop back while I switched film backs. After 90 shots, he flew a big loop so I could reload the film backs. We must have shot almost 1000 frames this way. The lab guys were busy forever printing the job. I think we only found one gap to reshoot which amazed me and any credit is due Lt. Smallwood who was a fantastic pilot. On that particular assignment I do not remember the XL acting up at all - quite unusual!

Thanks for a review that I can verify was *exactly* accurate. It is good to know the old lady has not forgotten any tricks ... but my advice is to hang on to your Hasselblad, Bronica, Fuji, Mimaya, Kiev or just about whatever else you have got!

Ed Scott

Of course, on the other hand, some people have extremely good experiences with the XL. Check out MFD Vol. 6 No. 16, for 31 May 1996.

From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 05:00:42 -0400
Subject: Graflex XL

Back in the 70's I owned and used the XL and found it to be of excelent quality. The 58mm Grandagon lens was outstanding. Very sharp and superior contrast. The 80mm Planar was of equal quality. The lens that surprised me because of it outstanding quality was the 240mm Rotelar. These were the only lenses that I owned and used. The major problem with this system had to do with the focusing apparatus. Each of the lenses is mounted in what is in essense a plastic tupe. The "tupes" have grooves running from top to bottom.

This was how the lense could be focused. The body of the XL camera itself had these protruding nibs in the interior that the grooves of the lense fit into. As you focused the lenses by turning the focusing ring on the body, the nibs would move within the grooves of the lenses mounts thereby extending or retracting the lens for focusing. The system was quite accurate except that because of the plastic construction, the wore out in short order. This required a trip to the camera repair shop. At that time Graflex and Kodak had a working arrangement so that replacement parts were readily available.

I don't recall whether Graflex ever corrected this structural problem or not. I doubt whether replacement parts are readily available today. If you buy the system, be sure that these plastic nibs or guides within the lens opening of the camera body itself are not worn down. Test the focusing ease of each lens to be sure that there is not a lot of "play" in the focusing. A sign of problems. I hope this helps. GSD

One thing that might be worth mentioning is that the Graflex XL (or at least some of its rollfilm holders) doesn't have a sterling reputation for film flatness. Check out articles from MFD's Vol. 4 No. 17, Vol. 4 No. 20, Vol. 4 No. 21, and Vol. 4 No. 22, which are presented in the four selections below.

From: [email protected] (Thorn Roby)
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 10:01:28 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: 6x9 Graphic Backs

All the 6x9 Graphic (Graflok) backs I've seen have been the old round knob style lacking the two film edge rollers that appear on the newer lever-wind (6x7, 6x6) types. These rollers make a big difference in film flatness - It's been a while since I actually blew a frame of film and looked at how much variation there is over the 6x9 opening, but it seems to me it was about a millimeter. For this reason I avoid the 6x9 back unless I really need it, and usually stop down to f/32 whereas I try to shoot at f/16 in general. I'm not certain that 6x9 backs with rollers were never made - I've just never seen one. If you find one for a 4x5, it may be possible to cut it down to fit the Baby - I looked into this once and it seemed like it would take some pretty careful machining, but could be done. Most of the newer backs I've found have been for 4x5 (my camera is a 3x4, so cutting the 4x5 backs down isn't too hard). You have to trim off the edges, then slice off the raised lip on the front surface using a router, and glue on a piece of brass or plastic to relocate the lip where the notch in the smaller body is located.

If I remember correctly, the film bulges up at the center, which makes the problem even worse for the typical scene where the center of the image is likely to be closer than the corners. I added a thin strip of old film, covered by a smooth layer of brown cellophane packing tape, in an attempt to simulate the rollers, but I'm not convinced it made much difference. I had previously tried gluing in pieces of music wire, but ran into problems with scratches.

Thorn Roby [email protected]

*******

From: Tim Takahashi [[email protected]]
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 13:38:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Lever-wind 6 X 9 Graphlok backs

One thing to note, is that the RH8 Lever Wind backs from Graflex have a 2-1/4" x 3-1/16" opening vis-a-vis the 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" opening of the early "2x3" knob winds.

I've been burned by the knob winds in the past, and currently am happy with a pair of 2-1/4" x 2-3/4" RH10 lever winds.

The film flatness using modern film in the early backs is unacceptible. Should I say, film UN-flatness? The center of the film bows maybe an 1/8" of an inch forwards. Flat field focusing? hardly. The later lever winds are MUCH better.

-tim

*******

From: [email protected] (Edward Meyers)
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 09:38:27 EDT
Subject: graflex roll film holders

When Graflex was to introduce the XL camera, super Graflex designer Hans Padelt (I think that's the spelling) designed a new roll film holder which holds the film much flatter. Graflex, to save money, didn't make it. Hans (now deceased) once advised me on how to get flatter film with the current backs. Here's how: Place an eight-exposure insert into a 6x7 holder. Then, instead of ten 6x7 pictures, you'll get only eight. But the eight will be much sharper because of how the film is positioned in regards to the rollers. Seems to work for me. I think that this works with the older holders. At least I've been doing it with the older ones.

Ed Meyers

*******

From: Tim Takahashi [[email protected]]
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 13:01:49 EDT
Subject: Re: graflex roll film holders

Ed Meyers writes :
>When Graflex was to introduce the XL camera, super Graflex designer
>Hans Padelt (I think that's the spelling) designed a new roll film
>holder which holds the film much flatter. Graflex, to save money,
>didn't make it.

Hmm... the lever wind holders with the extra rollers came out about the time that the XL did.

>(to get) flatter film with the current backs. Here's how: Place an
>eight-exposure insert into a 6x7 holder. Then, instead of ten 6x7
>pictures, you'll get only eight. 

Yes... the 6x7 holder has the extra rollers. I dont think there was a knob wind RH10. The later RH8's are 2-1/4" x 3-1/16" not 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" - the little bit of width given up is due to the presence of the rollers.

> Seems
>to work for me. I think that this works with the older holders. At
>least I've been doing it with the older ones.

Sounds like it would work... but I wonder why a regular RH10 insert in a 6x7 (RH10) holder wouldnt work just as well?

-tim

(who greatly prefers results from the RH10 to that of the 2x3 knob wind)

Ed: Gary Stuebben sent me this correction on 31 October:

From: [email protected] (STUEBBEN, GERHARD)

I discovered one small error in the material placed on your web page. Your sources are right in that the later lever wind backs (containing rollers) are better than the earlier knob wind backs. But despite inferences to the contrary, the RH-10 (6x7) is NOT a replacement for the RH-8 (6x9). Both backs were in production at the same time, and early and late examples are available for both. My RH-8 is a late model by "General Precision" with rollers. Also, the RH-8 and RH-10 holders look identical to me -- the only difference being different gearing giving different amount of film advance for each exposure. The idea of putting a 6x9 insert in a 6x7 shell does nothing but waste a lot of film (lets see ... a waste of 20% of each roll ... that's 40 cents per roll film cost alone ... payback for a newer roller-equipped roll back would be 300 rolls).

Some other good articles dealing with the Graflex XL from MFD:

From MFD Vol. 2 No. 53:

From: Bill Theis [[email protected]]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 7:32:49 PDT
Subject: response to field question on 58mm

i responded to the individual requesting info on 58mm on 6x9:

turns out there is an interesting (though little known) combination that is probably just what you are interested in: A standard Graflex XL body with 58mm Rodenstock Grandagon and Koni-Omega finder. I use view cameras (2x3 - 8x10) exclusively except for this combination. Your'e right about the bellows being a problem for a 58mm and in fact they aren't needed since you NEED not swing or tilt a 58mm... so this is a helical focus camera, lightweight and sturdy... and you can interchange the lens easily for a 100mm Zeiss Planar or a series of Telephoto designs (Zeiss Sonnars). Best of all the entire combination complete with several interchangable rollfilm holders will set you back less than $500!

From MFD Vol. 2 No. 70:

From: Tim Takahashi [[email protected]]
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 23:50:06 EST
Subject: Re: TLR & Graflex Questions

The XL is a modular 2.25"x3.25" Press Camera. It is reminiscent of the Linhof Press 70, and was cloned in the Mamiya Universal Press. It is big and chunky, but takes inexpensive Graflex roll film holders in 6x6,6x7 or 6x9. Lenses go from a 47mm wide angle to a 180 tele. There was a 100mm Zeiss Planar made for the XL. Nice setup.

tim

*******

From: Bill Theis [[email protected]]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 8:18:12 PST
Subject: info on Graflex XLRF

The Graflex XLRF is a press camera with cammed interchangeable lenses made by Zeiss or Rodenstock from 47mm Angulons, 100mm normal Zeiss Planars, Tele-Tessars, etc. (Hasselblad lens quality for 1/100 the cost!) It is similar to the KoniOmega Rapid or Linhof press cameras but has no double exposure prevention on its interchangeable backs which are 120 or 220 rollfilm (2x2, ideal format, or 2x3), polaroid, 70mm (ideal format) or 4x5 [but these adapter backs are rare]. There are no movements (swing/tilt/rise/fall). It is an extremely robust camera capable of making excellent images and I have used one throughout the years for anything from macrophotography, landscape to commercial/wedding. [I have also used 'blads, Rolleis, etc *BUT I STILL OWN THE GRAFLEX!!!*]

Another compromise to consider is to carry the (less $, less weight) using a Graflex Standard body (no rangefinder, no finder: must use ground glass or KoniOmega finder) for the 58mm and the ground glass for the normal and longer lenses. I DO HAVE a lensboard for the 58mm for my viewcamera as well; but this is not the "hot" setup.

As for the price, realize that this camera does not enjoy much popularity (for what reason, I am not sure) It is available as used and went out of production about 10+ yrs ago: I saw from Midwest Photo [where I got mine] in Shutterbug (phone#614- 261-1264; talk to Stu Applebaum; tell him hello from me!) a Graflex XLRF (with rangefinder) for less than $100, a 58mm Grandagon for $420, rollholders are $50 for a 70mm or $100 for a polaroid or $65 for a 120 or $4 for 2x3 sheet film holders (good luck)...and so forth. When you buy a Grandagon, watch out for edge seperation (discoloration within the lens where the elements are becoming uncemented); if its there it can only get worse but the lens may have a much reduced price tag. I had one and it only made a difference in photos at wide open aperatures which I rarely needed to shoot anyway. Certainly $1000 would set you up with almost anything you can think of, including extension tubes, etc. Another source is Columbus Camera Group (1-800-325-7664) which was formerly part of Midwest Photo or vica versa.

If you need more info please email...

Bill

From MFD Vol. 6 No. 15:

From: [email protected] (Redmond Young)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:59:01 -0800
Subject: Re: MF recommendation sought

>Among my arsenal is a Brooks Veriwide 6x10 camera. I find the
>size/weight of this camera to be ideal for my purposes, however, the
>47mm Super Angulon produces an image that is indeed VERY wide. I'm
>looking for a recommendation for a camera that offers similar
>portability, quality, and negative size (i.e. 6x9 or 6x10) but which
>offers a less extreme angle of view. The catch is it has to have a
>wide angle lens . . . around 70-80 mm. Was there such a beast made?

There's a few choices available. The one that meets all your criteria is a Mamiya Super 23 or Universal. It's also a rangefinder, with interchangeable backs and lenses. A 6x9 back is available, as well as a 65mm and 75mm lenses (with aux. finders). What's more, they're CHEAP! The Super 23 even has some rear movements.

Next, there's the Graflex XL rangefinder. It's very similar to the Brooks Veriwide .. I think some of the backs are interchangeable too (probably Polaroid back, Graflock back, groundglass/viewing hold). There's a 58mm Grandagon and two 80mm, a Planar and a Heligon. However, it only goes to 6x7cm.

There's also a Century Graphic with a 80mm Heligon. This camera is like a baby Speed Graphic. Will take interchangeable lenses, but you'll have to use cams for the rangefinder. Backs include a 6x6, 6x7, and a 6x8 (not quite up to your 6x9 tho').

Red Young

Lastly, from MFD Vol. 6 No. 22 comes this experience with the XL.

From: Randy Stewart
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 08:12:06
Subject: Graflex XL (May 31, 1996)

Being new to the Digest and having had some experience with buying and using a used Graflex XL system as my first introduction to medium format, I will add a warning to the previous post concerning worn focus pins in the Graflex XL body. There are some repairmen out there who make a specialty of replacing these focus pins.

Note that when you install an XL lens, you rack the lens to infinity and push a button which indexes the rangefinder to the lens - very neat and reliable in concept. My problem was that indexing aside, most of the four lenses i bought as a package were slightly out of focus. After several in effective trips to the shop, I hit on the problem which the repairman had overlooked. When mounting lenses to lens barrels, the factory used thin shims to adjust small tolerance differences in focal lengths of individual lenses. A prior owner had removed the lenses from their barrels for other use and not reinstalled the shims when assembling the system for sale.

I gave up on XL at this point, stripped the lenses for use in a very fine 6x9 view camera and sold off the rest of the system. I did go back to an XL-type system: a Koni Omega-M, which I like very much and has a more convenience and reliable roll-film back.

Randy Stewart 3714 Columbia Street

The other two cheap press cameras have comparable accessories and weights, so given that the XL has a poor reliability record (although that was during a war; your mileage may vary), you're probably better off with one of the other two. All three cameras are at least spiritual descendants of press cameras dating back to the Second World War, so camera manufacturers had had plenty of time to refine their designs by the early 1970s. Another possibility, if you don't mind giving up the interchangeable lenses, would be the Fuji Rangefinder cameras. These are newer and have better (but fixed) lenses, and you can take your pick of either 6x4.5, 6x7, or 6x9 formats, as well as the monstrous Fuji 617, which is reviewed at photo.net. Fuji even made the world's first autofocus medium-format camera, to the best of my knowledge: the GA645. The lenses on the Fujis are reputed to be the equal of the best in just about any format. Fujis aren't as cheap as these cheap press cameras, though, but they are cheaper than most "system" medium format SLRs, such as Hasselblad. Then again, just about anything is cheap compared to Hasselblad, including Leica.

One last thing to consider is that the Graflex XL was essentially the last gasp of a wonderful company, which has its own support group now at graflex.org. If you think the back movements of the Mamiya Super 23 are nice, if you like interchangeable lenses and backs, and if you like to intimidate small children with relics of the past, maybe you should also check out a Speed Graphic -- the bigger brother of these medium-format press-cameras. It's a fairly cheap way to get into the world of press/field large format cameras, but that's for another time ...

I think that the last article above has the best recommendation: keep the lenses, but think twice about the camera. It's possible to go overboard and not invest enough in a camera, thinking only about the lenses, although the lenses should probably be the most important decision. From what's been bandied about the MFD, it looks like all three cheap press cameras have good lenses. I see all three cameras as being entry-level medium format (along with the many fine TLRs around) cameras in much the same way that the Speed Graphic provides a good introduction to large format photography -- they're cheap, rugged, and fairly versatile.

I am deeply grateful to the authors and the Medium Format Digest for providing the information above.