Drew, the early Auto-Graflexes had a mirror in the front of the chimney with a hole in the back and could be used eye level, though the image is upside down. (like a real camera!)
Drew, the early Auto-Graflexes had a mirror in the front of the chimney with a hole in the back and could be used eye level, though the image is upside down. (like a real camera!)
James
Some more info on my camera I posted a couple pages ago. I did the conversion on my camera, I was inspired by John Minnicks' Aero Ektar conversions onto RB SuperD 3x4 cameras. I have a spare 7" f/2.5 Aero Ektar, along with a 6" f/2.5 Bell and Howell Aero-ektar type lens. I had considered using either of those too, before I settled on the Pentac. The 7" aero ektar would require a little modification to the inside of the camera to get it to focus to infinity, I think. The pentac doesn't require any modification to the camera, to get to infinity, which is a nice plus of this conversion.
The prism I used was from an RZ67, and shows about 60% of the covered area. If I was doing it again I'd probably use the prism from a Fuji GX680 as it's a little larger coverage.
For the back, I removed the rotating part of the SuperD back (the 3x4 part), but kept the brass baseplate that it mounts to. I redrilled holes to match where that mounts into a 4x5 Graflok back, so I could mount the graflok using the same holes as the original brass plate, using slightly longer screws. The Graflok doesn't rotate, I set mine up in vertical format, as it netted the most film coverage that way. I cut down the sides of the graflok with a dremel, to reduce the overall size of the back.
I had to use a little black silicone sealant to seal a few minor gaps where the graflok back met the brass baseplate, where the gaps that would have leaked light.
I built a new front standard from mahogany, and mounted the original bellows to that. In the front standard I inserted 4 1/4x20 threaded inserts. These are used with some allen-head bolts to hold on the new lensboard, which I made from 1/4" hardboard (HDF). I lined the back of the new front standard and the lensboard with some black adhesive flocking from a telescope supply place, to cut down any stray light bouncing around inside the camera.
With the exception of a minor (cosmetic-only) cut I had to make on the brass baseplate, everything is reversible to original configuration if desired, so it could be put back to stock. Not that I ever will do so in this case, but it seemed like the right way to do it, if possible.
-Ed
Great work on the camera Ed!
I just wonder why did you decide to put so small finder on the top that doesn't cover whole image area? Can't you find or make some that covers more? There are few more options for that… as discussed in the Braca's topic hear dealing with Polaroid MP-4's finder on Pacemaker.
And I am glad that we both decided to go for vertical frameMost of the people go for horizontal one!
When I get back to my project of adjusting camera for my Xenotar 150 - I think I will also have to build custom new Front standard. I might try to do it out of Aluminum… we will see. Wood is for sure looking more pleasant.
hi Misko -
Thanks for the note. I used the RZ67 prism because I had it lying around. If I was to do it again, I'd probably get a prism from a Fuji GX680 - it should be a little bigger. I could have used any number of other viewfinders but I wanted an upright correct-reading image and a prism is the only way to get that that I know of. If you know of a prism that covers 4x5 it would be ideal, though probably overly heavy... Besides, this is really a handheld portrait camera for me, and I can imagine what the rest of the frame looks like well enough. Most portraits will have the focus/framing with the subject relatively centered, so the smaller prism coverage doesn't bother me too much.
Vertical made the most sense to me for coverage, too. the back fit better that way, and gets the most use out of the film gate area I think. (about 4 x 4.5" or so).
I have 1/4" aluminum plate I was going to use for the front standard, but was too lazy/impatient to deal with making it that way. Wood is more forgiving. ;-) And I had this nice piece of mahogany around, so I used that (shame to paint it black though...). I think a new front standard is a must on a camera like this, if using something other than the stock lens. It's pretty easy to do, fortunately.
As you know, Xenotar won't get to infinity without massive changes to the mirror, etc. For me, I'd live with that if I had to (it should get out to about 20ft distance in stock form) - these cameras are best for up-close portrait type stuff, I have plenty of other cameras and lenses for landscape/infinity shots.
keep us posted on your project,
-Ed
Hello Ed,
Just 2 posts below this one in this same part of Forum (DIY) there is discussion about the finders (Prism / mirror ones…) There are options that would cover 4x5 for sure. I think Chinese companies are making now lots of them. Just search "Reflex 4x5" on evilBay. And they are even foldable
And yes - I think on infinity we will be getting even 1-2mm more than 4.5" in vertical format (with slightly blurred edges). on portrait distances I suspect it is gonna get touch smaller because of the bellows extension & light projection obscured by internal structure - but still good
I was even thinking to create some kind of John M. style front standard which would have movements. We will see… Problem is that I have moved far away from home on the other end of the world & my 3x4 camera remained back home in Serbia. I only took Pacemaker & Series D 4x5 with me (with two different front standards).
And true. These cameras are great for portraits, but somehow for me 3x4 size SLR could be great for a street photography camera - wouldn't it? And like such - it would be awesome to have possibility to focus to infinity. On the other hand I still believe that even stock lens would come handy for that or any other cool slower lens than Xenotar which doesn't protrude so much behind the front standard with it's rear elements… but we are damned - we always want what we cannot have, don't we?
hi Misko -
I saw the post I think you are referring to. I actually have one of those straight Cambo viewers, it works pretty well for ground glass viewing, though I rarely use it these days. All the folding and reflex viewers like Mp4 are still reversed left-right, correct ? The Prism from the RZ67 corrects both vertical and left-right viewing, so it's really the ultimate accessory for handheld 4x5 SLR, I think. I wish it covered the whole frame, but ah well... ;-)
I consider the 3x4 SuperD with 4x5 back more like a 4x4 SLR, - composing in a square is a actually a fun challenge.
I saw your cameras on Flickr links from yesterday - nice work! Some really creative efforts there on your behalf and that of your friend. (fitting Xenotar and AE to the 3x4 superD)
front standard with movements: I considered that too, but it was more effort than I wanted to deal with at the time. Maybe in the future I will retrofit something like that.
I use my 3x4 SLR for handheld stuff, sports, portraits, etc. I haven't used it for street much mostly since I don't shoot that all that often. But it would be great for that, no doubt. Combined with a Grafmatic it is fast and quick to compose, shoot, and cycle film.
For me, the 2 lenses I use most on the 3x4 SLR are an 8" f/2.9 Pentac, which focuses to infinity fine, and a Nikkor-T 270mm f/6.3, which also focuses to infinity just fine. I'll post some pics sometime soon. Neither interferes with the mirror in stock form. I think the 270 T is about as long a lens as can be fitted without a lot of hassle and still get infinity along with reasonable closeup. (maybe a 300 tele might work too). Ironically even though the 270 is longer focal length, the pentac is better for closeups/portraits as it will focus closer. The bellows draw is the limiting factor in that case.
-Ed
I wish I had one of those straight Cambo viewers
And yes MP4 viewer is reversed on the horizontal axis. True. I didn't know that Mamiya one is corrected on both axes. How they did that?
I still didn't try shooting my 3x4 Super D so I am not sure if I will consider it square or not, though I think you are right on that. It is pity it's not full format.
Regarding my cameras - I was working with what I had. In Serbia it's not easy (and not cheap) to lay hands on LF equipment so one has to find ways to do things on his own… I combined my and skills of my friends and did what I could. I have now 3 SLRs that use International 4x5 backs
I live in China now so street portraits are something I would like to do if possible… and I've did it so far with Series D 4x5 and it was fun when people around moved away & allowed me to look into my finder
As for the lenses - I have few of them for my 4x5 camera but I am still testing most of them to see which ones I like the best. Thing is that I have 2 front standards for my 4x5 camera: one with universal iris & other normal, original one. Iris extends the length of the camera and demands longer lenses for infinity focus (around 9") but I have with it extension on the bellows when it comes to longer lenses usage.
Still I can quite fast change the standards & get the normal one there which can work with other lenses well… and I plan to make one which will accept a bit wider barrels further in and then drop the universal mount from the camera as an option. but this is more work and I am kinda lazy nowadays.
Cheers
Misko
I have one of each -- in-line and reflex -- and find the reflex viewer very useful when the camera is on a tripod with the legs not extended. I agree, the view through the in-line is better.Originally Posted by Misko
I wish I had one of those straight Cambo viewers
Problem is that those "inline" ones are a bit expensiveI might sit down & make one from Graphic Film Pack Adapter, Polaroid MiniPortrait camera body and some magnifying glass & some plastic too…
It is a prism, not a simple first surface mirror. Just like the prism in a 35mm SLR corrects for left/right and vertical.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks