Printable View
I'm thinking about a Graflex Reflex 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 that seems in good shape. Any way to use my 4x5 film holders or 4x5 Grafmatic on this camera . . .even if I lose some area to the smaller format?
I can envision a short extension box to adapt a Graflok back, but how could the viewing ground glass be managed to keep it par focal?
Any ideas that wouldn't keep the camera from being returned to its original condition?
Am I chasing a unicorn through the mist?
hi drew
sorry to ask this, wouldn't adding an extension back and ground glass ( i am sure you can make a board adapter
with grooves, so the sliders grab onto it, and use a graflock back ) just turn the camera into a box with ground glass ?
is the reason you want to use the slr "hull" so you can use the focal plane shutter and brass lenses ?
you could probably find film holders and buy or trim film for that format ( 3x4 ) and seeing you don't mind losing some of your negative
it might be easier and less of a PITA to use the camera as a reflex camera. extending the back to will reduce your image to be smaller than the original format ...
i have a slr ( a 4x5 one ) and prefer it to most of my other large cameras because it is hand holdable,
and you don't need to focus on the back ground glass, or estimate /hyperfocal and add a film holder then shoot ...
instead you just look down, compose and expose ...
good luck !
john
http://www.globalmatter-lab.net/Conv...loc%20Back.htm
I've never dealt with these people, have no idea whether the service is real ...
Drew,
I have a 3x4 Graflex SLR, and the only advantage to using 4x5 film with it might be the availability of 4x5 films compared to 3x4 films, and I don't mean to suggest that advantage is insignificant. I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt a 3x4 Graflex to use 4x5 film holders in the same way it originally uses 3x4. You ought to be able to adapt one to shoot 4x4 on 4x5 film, as well, which would be very cool, I think -- like a big Hassy! In that case, you wouldn't need to worry about retaining the rotating feature of the back, which might simplify the adaptation. It would be a fun project, but one I don't have time for, so I'd probably farm the project out to a qualified technician, like the service linked above.
I have a 3x4 Graflex I don't use enough to justify keeping. It's not in perfect cosmetic condition, but it's not beat up, either, and works as it should. I use 3x4 bag mags with it, which give me 12 shots per magazine, and work essentially like a Grafmatic. The camera is fitted with a very nice 150mm Xenar in a focusing mount. I wanted to trade it for Sinar stuff, but if you're interested, let me know.
I have a few 3x4 Graflex cameras, and really like them, they are significantly smaller than the 4x5s, and are pretty easy to hold. The 4x5s are not easy to hold, they are too big and heavy, especially with a fast lens. My 4x5 Super D with Graflock, f2.9 lens, and film holder weighs in at 12lbs/5.5kg, while a 3x4 D with a f2.9 lens and filmholder is about half of that. The downside as Jay noted is that there is really only one manufacturer of pre-cut 3x4 film, Efke. I have seen 4x4 adaptors built around 3x4 cameras. I would love to modify one of my cameras to this, any experience with the link Dan mentioned?
Funny coincidence. I just bought an Auto Graflex 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 I found on Craigslist. They pre-date the RB and the Super being made between 1909 and 1923. Focal plane shutter seems to work fine although a little slow in the portrait position. This camera's back doesn't revolve.
It came with a "23" 120 back but I will try the EFKE 100 or the Ortho from Freestyle. Any pros or cons on the EFKE?
I was thinking that a film pack adapter might be hacked into a 4x5 film holder but getting to the film plane without moving the ground glass would be tough.
Jason, what is the 2.9 lens? Mine has the Bausch and Lomb 4.5. It only says 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 but I believe it is 5.5" to a 6" lens.
There are no slotted 3 1/4 film holders on EBay. Are they that hard to come by? I would really rather shoot sheets than 120 just for the larger neg.
Mark
The only f2.9 lens I know which came on the 3x4 Graflex D was a 162mm f2.9 Cooke Series XIII, a fast but traditional 3/3 triplet. I havent seen it on any other Graflex camera, but that doesn't mean anything. I have seen f2.9 Dallmeyer Pentac lenses mounted on them too, but these were always aftermarket. I had a late issue 8" f2.9 Pentac mounted on my 4x5 Super D, but this requires machine work. The slotted holders are not easy to find, but someone on the forum had a few 3x4 bag-mags for sale.
Regarding Efke, I had a bad experience with it, and will order some HP5+ from the annual Ilford order.
Anything the Graflex can do, a Mamya RB can do better (and usually cheaper). Except shoot 4x5 of course -- but it doesn't matter because you're not going to contact print anyhow and 6x7 will enlarge to enormous sizes.
Bill, I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that an RB67 can only very roughly approximate the experience of shooting a Graflex SLR, or the results obtained thereby. For some, shooting is means to an end and any decision related to it should be a practical one, but that's not true for everyone, all of the time. Shooting a Graflex SLR is fun! And don't underestimate the significance of the difference in film formats. As good as a 6x7 neg can be, enlarged to 16x20, a 3x4 or 4x5 neg will be noticeably better, all things being equal (which of course, they never are).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_1856
Mark,
I highly recommend the bag mags instead of the double sided film holders. A bag mag holds 12 sheets and on a 3x4 isn't very big or bulky, and is quick and easy to operate. Since you don't need to remove the holder for every exposure, as you would on a view camera, to check focus, re-focus, whatever, the bag mag makes much more sense. I carry 3 bag mags -- one on the camera and two on my belt -- and that gives me 36 exposures of 3x4 film. 3x4 negatives are a real pleasure in the darkroom. Even a humble lens can deliver bitingly sharp, grainless 12x16 prints (4X enlargement) with beautiful tonality. Enjoy!
This is a personal decision. I regularly contact print 3x4 and 4x5, and find both sizes very satisfying for portraiture.Quote:
...it doesn't matter because you're not going to contact print anyhow...