by Robert Monaghan
Graflex Minature Speed Graphic 6x9cm Press Camera
Photo courtesy of Greg Kent - [email protected]
Graflex Minature Speed Graphic 6x9cm Press Camera
Photo courtesy of Greg Kent - [email protected]
Q: Describe Press Cameras
Press cameras come in many sizes and formats, although the most popular
series such as the Graflex Crown Graphic and Speed Graphic were 4''x5''
cameras. Most of these press cameras had limited movements, often with a
drop bed design. Besides a 4''x5'' film holder, they could accept a wide
range of medium format roll-film holders, as well as a ground glass
focusing screen in many cases. The size of many press cameras isn't much
larger or heavier than similar coverage panoramic or medium format cameras.
Combat
graphics were even used in WWII combat situations!
Lots of press cameras were made and used professionally, but many are
still around. The design is such that the cameras were very rugged too.
You can buy a press camera for as little as $150 to $250 US and up,
including lens mounted on a lens board. Accessory backs are also
attractively priced.
Besides the 4''x5'' press cameras, a number of smaller format sheet film
and roll-film back cameras were made. Some high quality examples include
Horseman and Linhof Technica cameras. At the high end, these cameras
feature full view camera movements and flexibility in a smaller film
format.
A large number of odd-plate sized and obsolete film cameras were also
made. Some but not all are considered collector's items. Frequently, a
back or lens can be adapted for use on these cameras, often at low
cost.
Photo Notes:
GRAFLEX Miniature Speed Graphic 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Nice little camera. It has a great exterior with a spring back and good ground glass. The focal shutter works. It has a Kodak Anastigmat f:4.5 105mm lens in a Kodak Compur shutter that works at the various speeds. It has a Kalart rangefinder.
From: "Jerry Houston" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Desiring medium format--help!!
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998
This reply makes it sound as if the only affordable choices are Yashica Mats
(or their Rollei or Minolta equivalents) and Hasselblads. What you said
about these is right on, but there's a whole 'nother class of entry-level
medium format cameras that offer many advantages.
The MF rangefinder cameras, like the Koni-Omega, Graflex XL, Mamiya
Universal Press, etc., can often be found in good "user" condition with a
normal lens for $200 - $300. Compared to a typical 6x6 TLR, here's what
they offer:
Much bigger usable negative size for prints made on any standard paper.
Fits full-frame on 8x10, 16x20, etc. EASILY turned for vertical shot if
appropriate. Most are designed to be hand-held easily, and have
vibration-free operation due to their lack of a reflex mirror and their leaf
shutters.
If the shot you want really DOES fit perfectly on a 6x6 negative, it'll fit
just fine on a 6x7 negative too, with very little cropping.
MUCH better viewfinder that you can use comfortably at eye-level, and you
can follow action with it. The image doesn't display backwards, and subject
movement doesn't happen backwards. You don't get disoriented from trying to
frame your subject and look at it without the camera.
Accurate rangefinder focusing that even works pretty well in low light. The
viewfinder of an entry-level TLR can be pretty dismal.
Most of the 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinder cameras have interchangeable lenses.
Of
the budget-priced TLR's, only the older Mamiya C-series do, and lenses for
those are large, heavy, and expensive when they're found in good condition.
Remember, each "lens" has to be two matched lenses.
Most of the MF rangefinders also have interchangeable backs, and some are
even of the magazine type, allowing you to change film in mid-roll without
wasting any. Some even have sheet-film backs available, for even more
flexibility.
Great shots have been made with Yashica Mats, old Rolleicords, Autocords,
Ricohflexes, and so on. But it doesn't make sense to ignore all the
advantages inherent in professional-quality medium format rangefinder
cameras. There are some real bargains out there, if you just look around a
little.
Dante A. Stella wrote in message ... > > >By far the best way into MF is a twin-lens reflex. They have easy >focusing, square (croppable both ways) format, and cheap filters. A MF SLR >is a wonderful thing, but it represents a very large investment. The TLR >has much less vibration and is easier to hold onto. The only drawback is >lack of interchangeable lenses and backs. If you check Hasselblad prices, >a back or a wide or tele lens costs multiples of what a Yashicamat, an >Autocord or a cheap Rollei does. You should be able to snag one for under >$200.
James M. Cate wrote... > >What exactly is a "rangefinder camera"? Is this a twin lens, or SLR, or bellows >type, or what? Sorry for the lack of knowledge about this subject.Also, is it >correct that these rangefinder cameras were made by several manufacturers over >the years, and are available used for around $400. I understand that they may >use one of the medium format roll film sizes still widely available.- What >size?
An optical rangefinder is a device that combines two images into one when it
is adjusted to match the distance to the subject. In the very early days,
rangefinders were sold as small separate instruments that could be used to
determine how far away a subject was, so you could accurately set the
distance on the focus scale of a camera. Some were designed to fit into an
accessory shoe (like a flash shoe) on top of a camera.
Later cameras were designed with built-in "coupled" rangefinders, so that
as you adjusted the focus, a double image seen through the viewfinder
would appear to "come together" when you got the distance right. That's
the kind that most people refer to when they speak of a "rangefinder
camera."
Typically it means a camera that is not a reflex camera, that is, you do not
look through a taking or viewing lens to focus, but look through a
viewfinder instead. Compared to an SLR, a rangefinder camera is usually
quieter and operates with less vibration, since there is no mirror
movement - only the shutter blades operate when you take a picture. (Of
course, SLR's have their own important advantages as well.)
Your other conclusions are correct. Nearly all medium format rangefinder
cameras use 120 film, and many are also able to use 220, which is twice as
long and offers twice the exposures per roll. Typical negative sizes are
from 6x4.5 cm to 6x19 cm, with 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 the most common. They're
all 6 x
Many companies have made medium format rangefinder cameras, and some still
do. Some were designed for amateur "tourist" type use, but many were meant
for hard and critical use, by photojournalists, wedding photographers and
other professionals. Some of the better older ones are available in good
usable condition at very attractive prices today, and those are the ones I
had in mind when I posted that original message.
The subscription is 6ukp and includes newsletters which discuss
use/modification/repair/technique/history the club also holds some
spares and panels.
The press cameras are similar to the speed graphic, the technical
cameras
are similar to the Linhoff. Lenses were German or British .
MPP also made Enlargers tripods and monorails.
regards
Louis
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Gary wrote:
Gary:
Graflex made several: the National Graflex in two series: I and II -
in production from 1933 -1941. Nationals were set to take 120 film
at 6 x 6 format. Then there is the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 "baby" Graphics - Crown
and Speed, designed for 6 x 9 sheet or roll film. These are scaled down
big Graflexes with all the traditional Graflex movements and
adjustments. These are the most common. Probably your best bet is the
Graflex XL system. This was in production from 1965 -1973, eight lenses,
all 6 x 9 film format backs, and both Polaroid and 70mm magazines. The
XLs are still plentiful, relatively cheap, have great lenses and you
literaly custom make a camera that suits you needs. No front movements
however. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Marv Soloff
From: [email protected] (Peter Mikalajunas)
scott [email protected] wrote:
Take a good read of the Graflex site mentioned above. You will find that
http://www.graflex.org/articles/XL.html
the 2x3 Graflex has the ability to be many things with the use of rollfilm
backs and a properly adjusted rangefinder. A good source of graflex
equipment is Midwest Photo. Don't depend on the website, give them a
call.
As for size, yes, it is an exact copy of the 4x5, but scaled down. They
make nice users. Film flatness can be an issue with the "knob wind"
backs, look for the "lever wind" backs as they had pin-rollers.
An even smaller alternative along this line, but with less features is
something like the Kodak Recomar. Fitted with a Rada back, they can be a
lot of fun... they less common however.
From: Alec Jones [email protected]
I believe all the Graflex roll film backs mounted only to Graflok
mounts. You can see both at:
http://www.graflex.org/articles/XL.html
True, the Polaroid mounted via the 4 pins, but the roll film backs did
not [at least I've never seen them - I just looked at some XL catalogs
and the backs shown were the regular ones].
Alec
jjs wrote:
From: Alec Jones [email protected]
Actually, the order is this: the lens [Schneider] is attached to a
focusing ring [Schneider], which is attached to the body which contains
Brooks' name [not otherwise labeled], which is attached to a back panel
[made by, and labeled Graflex] which is the part that actually accepts
the four lug accessory. Graflex seems to have made the parts which
actually lock together [for instance the Polaroid back contains a
Graflex panel which has the four lugs attached].
There is no difference in coverage between the Veriwide and the XL roll
film backs. The negative sizes are the same! In fact, other than the
built in levels of the Veriwide, the XLSW is functionally the same body
as the Veriwide. The body of either camera is nothing but a spacer
between the lens and the back. I've heard the Veriwide backs were made
by Mamiya.
Any back which attaches to a 23 Graflok will work with either camera. I
would suggest that only the lever Graflex roll film backs be used
because Graflex changed the design to include two rollers at the edge of
the film plane for film flattening which the original, knob wind backs
did not have. The two rollers definately make a positive difference.
Marv Soloff wrote:
In response to a query about a comparison of Mamiya Press and
Koni-Omega....
I've used both of these systems. Both are heavy press cameras capable of
superb results.
There are three main considerations if choosing between these two systems
that dwarf almost all other considerations.
1. Koni-omega has interlocks, Mamiya Press does not. Interlocks prevent
you from shooting blanks (eg by forgetting you've wound the film and
winding again, or shooting with the dark slide in place), shooting
double exposures (forgetting to wind the film in between exposures)
or fogging the film. Shooting a Mamiya Press is more like using a
view camera in this regard, whereas a Koni-omega has interlocks to
help prevent user error.
2. The Mamiya Press camera was a significantly larger system and more
successful in the marketplace so that there is a wider range of lenses
and accessories available today on the used market for the Mamiya Press
cameras. You can find 50mm, 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 100mm, 127mm, 150mm,250mm
lenses for Mamiya Press, but only 58mm/60mm, 90mm, 135mm, 180mm for
Koni-Omega, and the 135mm lens is uncommon and expensive. the 58mm
and 60mm lenses for koni-omega are the same optic, just different
marketers used the different labels for the focal length. you can
find an f/2.8 lens (100/2.8) for the Mamiya Press, but f/3.5 is the
fastest for Koni-Omega (90/3.5). Ground glass backs for Koni-omega
are pretty hard to find, and I don't think extension tubes were ever
made for koni, or at least they are rare if so.
3. There are Mamiya Press bodies with rear tilt and swing movements, using
a rear back extension system that Mamiya copied from Linhof. Perspective
control and movements are not possible with Koni-omega. For macro work,
you get the rigidity of an SLR on account of helicoid focusing, together
with rear tilt and swing for controlling DOF like a view camera, making
the Mamiya Press an interesting choice for large negative macro shots.
The above considerations lead me to conclude that the Mamiya Press camera
can better support architectural, landscape, and macro work (on account of
perspective control, back extension, availability of extension tubes and
ground glass backs), and the Koni-omega is better for handheld work,
candids, portraits, street shooting, travel photography etc.
I should add though, that for landscapes, you can only really use the
90mm and 100mm lenses with rear movements with the Mamiya Press on account
of them having a retractable mount that is needed to maintain focus
at or near infinity.
Hope that helps.
Joseph
From: [email protected] (jjs)
(See Joseph's article)
Two more points concerning the Koni-Omega rangefinder:
the film transport is a weak point. It does go out of
alignment, causing irregular spaces between frames and
at worst, overlapping frames. However, it is EASY to fix,
and can even be done by the owner with a modest talent
for mechanics.
Second - the rangefinder itself. Naturally, it can go out
of alignment as well, and it can be adjusted BUT so it is
not a do-it-yourself project. You CAN adjust the rangefinder,
but according to a couple professional repair people many
attempts end up screwing up the mechanism to an extent that
it's almost beyond repair. So, a word of warning: if you find
a KO with a whacked out rangefinder, do _not_ assume a quick
trip to the shop will fix it.
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
Linhof indeed made one, often called the "Baby Linhof". I happen to have
one, and believe me, they are not lightweight, and a real pain to use if
you are used to 35mm. It handles more like a view camera, with all the
swings and tilts. They are very versatile, but not if you are in a hurry.
They are also VERY expensive.
One the other hand, look for a Mamiya press. The Standard is the
simplest, the Super23 has rear movements for perspective control, and the
Universal can take a Polaroid back. The lenses are high quality, and they
are not expensive at all. They are not particularly light or compact,
though. And they can do 6x7 and 6x9, and also 6x4.5 and 6x6 if you have
masks for the viewfinder and backs.
Ed K
Date: 15 Jan 2000
I've yet to see a Cambo SC 6x9 priced anywhere near what used Galvins are
selling for ($2-400)... if I ever do, I'll probably buy it. If you're
willing to sell yours, let me know...
As for the Galvin's other faults, I'd say it depends upon the user ... I
have had no problems whatsoever with mine over the years and because of
its simple design, it should be easy to repair should this ever be
necessary, up to and including fabricating any parts that may be needed.
(If you are aware of any broken Galvins that can be had cheaply, I'd be
interested in buying them as well...)
I communicated with Jim Galvin earlier this month via email and although I
didn't specifically ask about the availability of spare parts, given what
he does for a living these days, I suspect he can provide anything that
might be needed, too.
Mind you, my primary use for this camera is hiking around in the desert,
for which I find its small size and light weight ideal; for product shots
in a studio, I'd also choose something else. Yes, the adjustments are a
little bit fidgety and sometimes not as large as I'd like but the camera,
with all three of my lenses mounted on lens boards, three Graflex backs,
several filters and my light meter, together weigh less than 11 pounds and
fit in a small knapsack ... in fact, the only real complaint I have is
that the 5"x5" lens boards are too bulky, which is why I've adapted one of
my boards to accept smaller Graflex Century boards instead.
JG
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
Norm Dresner wrote:
Hi Norm,
Yes, people did, and still do make 6x9 view cameras. If you're looking
for a monorail, Arca Swiss makes the F Line and M Line, Linhof makes the
Technikardan and M679, Calumet makes the 23SF, Toyo used to make one.
That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. In field
cameras, Linhof makes the Master Technika (and older Technika models),
Horseman makes the VH (and used to make he VH-R, 985, 980...), and Ebony
makes a full line of 6x9 wood fields. I'm sure there are more. Point
is, new or used, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding one to meet
your needs.
Kerry
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999
Bob Salomon wrote:
Hi Lowell,
If I understand your question correctly, you are trying to gage the
market for a medium format view camera that you would design and
manufacture. Is that correct? If it is, pay close attention to what
Bob and others have said. There are already a number of medium format
view cameras from a variety of well respected manufacturers. In
addition to the fine, but expensive, Linhof products that Bob sells,
there is the wonderful Arca Swiss that is a most versatile and complete
6x9 system camera (the system can easily be expanded to 4x5, 5x7, or
even 8x10) and the Horseman VH (and older, discountinued models of
similar design) that are similar to the Linhof Technika (but much
cheaper). In wood fields, there are several models available from Ebony
(very nicely made, but expensive). Finally, for those on a budget,
Peter Gowland makes a little monorail (about 2 1/2 lbs.) that is very
affordable (compared to other new view cameras in this format). In the
mid-piced range is the Cambo SF (I think that's the model designation)
Of course, there are also several choices in the used market, most very
affordably priced. There are several choices in "press cameras"
including older Linhof Technikas, Graphics (Crown, Speed and Century),
several Horseman models (970, 980, 985, etc.), Bush Pressman, etc. In
monorails, there is the Galvin, and Toyo used to make a 2x3 that was
compatible with many accessories for their larger view cameras (although
these aren't too common and tend to be pricy if the seller knows what
he's got).
Finally, a very common solution is to just use a roll film back on a 4x5
camera. There are a huge variety of 4x5 cameras on both the new and
used markets. They range from VERY cheap to ultra expensive and
sophisticated. In other words, something for everyone. There are a
number of inexpesive roll film backs that will fit any 4x5 camera with a
Grafloc back. And for cameras without a Grafloc back, there are slide
in roll film backs that slip in any camera with a spring back (just like
a regular double sided film holder).
I'm sure there are other solutions I haven't mentioned. Those were just
off the top of my head, but I wanted to illustrate a point. This is a
rather limited niche market and there are already several choices from
well known companies. Unless you come up with something that offers a
significant advantage (especially in terms of price and/or weight,
and/or features), the competition will be VERY tough. And even if you
do come up with a solution that is less expensive than the current
models, you will face competition in the budget class from the many
choices on the used market. I too like to tinker with view camera
designs, and am currently building an ultralight monorail for
backpacking. It will be MUCH lighter than anything currently available
(that's why I'm building one and not buying something off the shelf).
It will suit my need perfectly, but will have limitations others may not
be willing to live with. I have no idea how much it would costs to
manufacture, but it's a very simple design with no exotic materials or
hard to machine parts, so probably less than most of the competition.
Still, I have no intention of going into the view camera building
business. It seems to be overcrowded already. If you want to go ahead
and build a camera for your own use, by all means do so. It's fun, and
the best way to get a camera that exactly meets YOUR needs. If you want
to test the waters for manufacturing a medium format view camera, I
don't mean to discourage you. By all means, do a little research, check
out what the competition has to offer, and see if you can come up with
something that has a significant advantage in one or more aspects over
the others currently available.
Best of luck,
Kerry
From Rollei Mailing List;
I don't use 4 X 5 that much any more but used to use them almost daily
and am pretty familiar with them. The Horseman and Toyo are good studio
cameras from Japan. Pretty much equal in quality in my book and many of
the accessories are identical. Toyo has much better USA distribution,
though, since it is sold by Mamiya. Sinar is expensive, but very solid and
operates a bit differently from most others. My current studio machine,
which mostly gathers dust in a studio corner these days, is a Toyo 45G,
a nice, simple 4 X 5 monorail.
I guess the two important things to know are just what you want to do
with it and how much you want to spend. If you are thinking 4 X 5
just for the flexibility of camera movements, you might rethink and look
at some of the medium format studio cameras that use roll film backs.
Many find these more convenient than 4 X 5.
You could even consider the On Topic camera, the Rollei X-Act II, which is
a sort of studio monorail which will accept a wide variety of lenses up
front and the new style Rollei 645 film back (or a digital back) on the
other end. In between is a bellows, and the front and rear standards
offer view camera style movements. Unlike most 4 X 5 cameras, this one is
very automated and quick to operate. I don't own one, but if I found
myself back in the product photography business I would certainly consider
one of these, most likely with a digital back.
Bob
....
From: "Larry Heath" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002
Back to the question at hand.
Try and find your self a Maymia Press or Universal with a 6x9 back. I saw
two nice lenses for this camera go for about $100 to $150 on ebay a day or
so ago. I have one with a 6x7 back and I always liked the crispness of the
photographs. Its a rangefinder camera with leaf shutter lenses, its big and
bulky, but it might fit your bill. I'd like to find a 6x9 back for mine.
Nice thing is you can change backs in mid roll, they have a darkslide, you
can shoot 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" sheet fill using ground glass
focusing adapter. You might look around and find one of these camera's in or
around your price range.
Later Larry
"Kamox" [email protected] wrote...
> I'd like to try the 6x9 format without spending too much cash (under
> $300)... is this possible?
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Graflex XL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003
I have three XL's, one with the Planar 80, one with the Noritar 80, one
with the Planar 100. This is my second go around with the XL's, the
first time I had them (25 years ago), I hated them. It is a "different"
camera - not German, not Japanese - no specific feel to it. It makes
great 6 x 7 photos - crisp, clean, vibrant. I use the Graflex RH-10
roll backs (with the flattening pins) and have no sharpness problems.
The only problem you may have is the focus being too hard. Examine your
focus tips (remove the lens, the three little tits just below the outer
lip of the focus cone spaced 120 degrees apart). If one or more of these
focus tips are gone, you have a major problem (actually THE major
problem) with the XL's. Other than that, the cameras will function
forever under use and with normal care.
Regards,
Marv
Thom Tapp wrote:
> I have been given a Graflex XL with a 100mm Zeiss Tessar. If you have
> experience with this camera and lens, I would appreciate hearing from you.
> Have you had good results? What kind of picture quality? Quirks?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thom
From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: 1 Mar 2003
Bill Martin [email protected] wrote
> Ain't Graphics neat little rascals? In my opinion, one of the best buys
> on the MF market.
>
> Bill Martin
What do you mean, MF? 2x3 Graphics are on the cusp between MF and LF.
On the one hand, they make negatives the same sizes as cameras
generally regarded as MF. On the other, they have the stigmata of LF
cameras and larger Graphics (same design, blown up) are for-sure LF
cameras.
I think of 2x3 press and, yes, view cameras as the smallest LF
cameras. They can equally well be thought of as MF cameras with few
modern features.
Whatever category they fit best, they're great values and I'm glad I
got mine.
Cheers,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to shot LF handheld?
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003
"Maciej Ostaszewski" [email protected] wrote
> Hello!
>
> In near future I will be shoting a rock'n'roll dance contest. I want to use
> Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5, because it is ''rock'n'roll era'' camera.
>
> Oraniser does not allow to use tripod.
>
> I will use Graflex (135mm lens) handheld with attached flash. I don't like
> flash photography -- Is there any chance to do sharp indoor portaits without
> flash using handheld LF camera?
>
> I can't use rangefinder (it is broken), so I have to use ground glass
> focusing, or use distance scale. Do you have any tips for fast focusing?
> Is F16, prefocus at 3 meters, and powerfull flash only answer? What shutter
> time should I use?
>
> I am looking for any tips regarding fast LF camera operation:)).
>
> As mentioned before I will use 4x5 Crown Graphic, sinar 135mm leQns, Metz
> 40MZ-3 flash, HP5 negative, and maybe Polaroid NP55. Contest takes place indoor.
>
> regards,
>
> maciek
> --
> Szybki jak [Romet] Wicher
Actually, by the rock and roll era Speed/Crown Graphics
were being rapidly replaced by 35mm cameras and Rolleiflexes
for press use.
In any case the Speed/Crown was intended primarily for
hand held use. I believe there are some illustrations of how
to hold the camera on the Graflex web site at
http://www.graflex.org
For late Speed and all Crown Graphics you have a handy
body release which allows holding the camera in the palm of
one hand or on your shoulder and bracing it further with the
right hand, which also releases the shutter.
Older Speed Graphics need a flash gun and solenoid to hold
like this. However, you can still rest the front on your
right hand and reach up with your index finger to trip the
shutter. Since the camera is very well braced one can get
surprizingly sharp pictures at slow shutter speeds.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (#Louis Carey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: MPP cameras
Date: 27 May 1998
Andrew Lawson,Forres Scotland ([email protected]) wrote:
: I've just bought an MPP 5*4 press camera which seems to be a copy of
: the speed graphic (identical in the pictures I have seen. Can anyone tell me
: more about the history of these cameras, particularily the lense that would
: have come with it and the rangefinder camming etc...
: Thanks
: Andrew
: --
For information about the excellent MPP users club write to:
Dr. Neill Wright
Copperfield
Leaveland
Faversham
Kent
ME13 OPB
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6 x 9 Graflex
Date: 15 Jan 1999
> Did Graflex ever make a 6 x 9 that used 120 roll film?
>
> Was it smaller than a 4 x 5 graflex.
>
> I would love to get a 6 x 9 with at least front movements.
>
> [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6 x 9 Graflex
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999
>Gary wrote:
>>
>> Did Graflex ever make a 6 x 9 that used 120 roll film?
>> Was it smaller than a 4 x 5 graflex.
>> I would love to get a 6 x 9 with at least front movements.
>> [email protected]
>
>Check out www.graflex.org for all kinds of graflex information. Although
>the movements are a little limited, you might consider a Century
>Graphic. It's not ideal (iffy film flatness, no forward tilt without
>modification, etc.), but it's certainly cheaper than some other options.
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Graflok, grafloc, graphloc, graphlok?
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999
>Marv Soloff
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The Graflex backs with the four pins (one at each corner) are
> > specifically made
> > for the XL series of Graflex cameras. Won't fit any other Graflex.
> > More info can be had at http://www.graflex.org.
>
> That's not the question. Are they not also used on the
> Brooks Veriwide?
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Graflok, grafloc, graphloc, graphlok?
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999
> Mrtest wrote:
>
>> Marv Soloff
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999
From: Joseph Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]
Author-Address: joseph
Subject: Mamiya Press vs. Koni-Omega
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya Press vs. Koni-Omega
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999
From: "Arlo T. Dog" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help, is there a 6x9 camera?
The Thalia Street Gallery, http://edkrebs.com
From: [email protected] (OorQue)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Re: were there any 6x9 view cameras?
>The same price of a Galvin that I strongly do not reccomand (week,
>fragile, no accesories, no spare parts}.
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Re: were there any 6x9 view cameras?
> Did anyone (reputable and competent) make a 6x9 cm (or 6x6) view camera?
> If so, where would be the most likely place to find one?
>
> (Yes, I know all about Speed/Crown Graphics).
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF View Camera, is there interest
> Kenney"
> [email protected] wrote:
> > This brought back a period of time in my life 20 years ago where I needed to
> > use MF and could not give up the advantages of a view camera. My solution
> > for that job and several others of a bulky and crude prototype of a MF view
> > camera that I built. It was successful enough to have photos published and
> > then I moved and set the camera aside as it was crude but if there was
> > enough interest in this type of camera and with some serious changes in
> > materials and manufacturing processes that I did not have access to 20 years
> > ago I might be interested in raising it from the dead so to speak.
> There are many MF view cameras. From Linhof there are the Technika 69, The
> TK 23S, The M679. Arca has at least one model as does/did Cambo.
>
> HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Linhof
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT 4x5
From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
"Kamox" [email protected] wrote:
>I'd like to try the 6x9 format without spending too much cash (under
>$300)... is this possible?
>What should I seek for?
Mamiya Super 23 (takes back in 645, 6x6, 6x7 -- real 6x7-- and 6x9)
Mamiya Universal (same as above)
Graphics in 2.25x3.25"
6x9 chromes are really quite impressive and the Mamiya lenses are
quite sharp
THOM