Best 6x9 back for Baby Crown Graphic?

[Dan Fromm]

Kerry, I use Adapt-A-Roll 620s and respool exposed film to a 120 spool before sending it to the lab. I have three of them, more by accident than by design. They have a single ridge at the "far" end that mates with a slot in the back of the camera.

Unfortunately people have become aware that they're useful and prices are rising. That's the second-worst thing about them. The worst thing is that frame spacing, although consistent, is very tight.

I also use a Graflex/SubSea RH-8. This is a very late RH-8 made after Graflex closed and sold the tooling to SubSea. I bought it as new old stock, and instantly hated it. 10 exposure (2.25x2.75) carriage with exposure counter that went to 8 (2.25 x 3.0625), and in a 2.25x3.0625 carrier. Bad gears, jammed when I ran scrap film through it to check function. Armatos fixed it, sort of, but I'm reluctant to use it because it still jams from time to time and because its gate, at 3.0625, is shorter than the Adapt-A-Rolls' 3.25. I don't think my disaster is representative of earlier RH-8s, mine seems to have been assembled from randomly selected uninspected parts by people who were, um, somewhere else at the time. Small wonder that SubSea failed.

Frank, how do you think I got a Graflok back for my Speed? I found a $70 Mini Speed with a Pacemaker Graflok, swapped backs between the two cameras, and sold the Mini. There's also a Graflok made specifically for the Mini, with external flash contacts on the upper left and internal flash contacts too. Not what you want for a Pacemaker, even though it will fit.

Now that the secret is out, trashed cameras with usable Grafloks aren't as inexpensive as they used to be. My Mini wasn't trashed, but then I got it 10 years ago.

If you don't need a range finder or a focal plane shutter, your best bet is to get a Century with no RF. Get one with a focusing panel, complete panels are a little scarce.

Cheers,

Dan

[e]

Dan that sounds like a nice combination with the Crown and the 38mm biogon. Do you use a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 back with it or a 6x7 ,or 6x9?

[Dan Fromm]

Emile, I use a 2.25"x 3.25" back. It gives more opportunities for cropping than the smaller ones. I get a good strip 82 mm x 29 mm, but of course the corners aren't there at all. Practically speaking, the lens nearly covers nominal 6x7.

Re that strip, if its all I want then the camera's minimal front rise can be used. If, that is, its had surgery to remove the viewfinder frame from the front standard. As you'd expect, the lens makes infinity well inside the box. Who needs an XPan anyway?

FYI, my lens came from an ex-RAF aerial camera, not from a Hasselblad. I had a bunch, sold 'em all -- where were you when I was selling? More bidders are good for sellers. -- and as far as I know there are no more to be had.

Cheers,

Dan

[e]

Thanks Dan, I always wondered if this lens would cover more than 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. Too bad I didn't buy one of yours when available. Maybe next time. Be Well!

[Chuck_1686]

Concerning Horseman backs on a Century Graphic. My information, based on replies to the question on internet forums, is that the Horseman will not fit without modifications. I've never had a chance to actually try it myself. Also the Crown may be different than the Century. This is too bad as the price of late model lever wind RH-8 backs will soon be approaching Horseman prices.

[Wayne Crider]

I have a Horseman 6x9 that I had machined by Grimes to fit my Century Graphic. I think it cost me about $40 or so 2 years ago.

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi! - I have a Century, and the Horseman back fits without modification. There is a groove for the Horseman rigde on the upper side (in portrait orientation) of the back. Also the film plane register seems OK, as measured with a caliper. - I had to file down the Horseman back on the rear part of the sides, where the slide locks slide on, but that' a different thing. - The serial number of my Century is 504 573.

By the way, in contrast to what I read, there is no fresnel on the lens side of the ground glass, and never seems to have been, since the film plane register fits as is!

Good light!