PDA

View Full Version : Graflex Crown Graphic Graflock back and Super Graphic Graflock back compaitibility?



meirronaldi
27-Oct-2013, 06:48
I own an really beat but complete crown graphic 4x5 and now have the opportunity to buy a super graphic in pretty good shape but missing the ground glass and part that holds the film holders. The rotating part of the back seems to be in tact and working. Does anyone know if the graflock back from the crown will mount and work on the Super Graphic? I assume that the missing parts for the Super are pretty rare or impossible to find. Thanks!!!

IanG
27-Oct-2013, 07:17
It doesn't, I had a similar problem. The focus frame from a Cambo (Calumet) Cadet will fit and that's what I used until I found a Super Graphic back. You need to be careful because not all Cambo backs are the same and I assumed the frame from a Cambo rotating back would fit but it didn't !!!!

Try placing a wanted advert on this Forum for a Super Graphic back, I did and had to post again, I had to wait a year but I finally found one.

Ian

meirronaldi
27-Oct-2013, 16:46
Ian, Thanks I was afraid of that. I guess I will be hunting for a focusing back. I certainly think the super graphic is a better platform with more movements. I have posted "want to buy" notice on the forum.

meirronaldi
28-Oct-2013, 14:08
Since I am missing the Graflex ground glass and focusing frame and it seems like it might be a long time to locate and procure the actual Graflex part, can anyone tell me what other ground glass frames/backs might work with the rotating back for the Super Graphic? I know that Toyo bought the rights to manufacture these cameras after the US company stopped. Ian mentions that the Cambo/Calumet back fits. Does anyon know if there are others? I found a bunch of different ground glass back on Ebay at mostly reasonable prices. I am after a working camera not a collectors item. I have attached a photo that shows the back of the camera. Thanks!! 103764

EdSawyer
28-Oct-2013, 18:36
Honestly, I would sell it, buy a complete one and move on. They are not that rare...

IanG
29-Oct-2013, 00:50
The issue is the sprung arms that lock the focus frame in place foul the bits that hold the sliders. So on the Super Graphic they are shaped to come up over and clear those parts. So if you look at this Cambo back 151146094535 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cambo-Calumet-4x5-Rotating-Graflok-Spring-Back-with-Grid-Ground-Glass-/151146094535?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item2331025fc7) for sale on Ebay those arms are too straight. None of the other Graflok backs currently listed will fit either.

I was lucky I bought my Super Graphic very cheap knowing it had issues and happened to have a Cambo Cadet spare and the back focus frame worked perfectly on the Graphic.

Ian

DrTang
29-Oct-2013, 07:47
Super Graphic backs are often missing for some reason.. and finding a replacement one is expensive

the last one I bought was about 150 and I was happy to get it for that


but..if you got the rest of it for a good deal - it's worth it to look for one - they are pretty sweet cameras when complete

BrianShaw
29-Oct-2013, 08:20
Put a roll film back on it!

IanG
29-Oct-2013, 09:23
Super Graphic backs are often missing for some reason.. and finding a replacement one is expensive

Mine did come with a back but one of the sprung arms was missing and part of the casting as well but there were also stress cracks, There's a small crack on the replacement back (not likely to ever be a problem)so I guess the casting of the backs fail with heavy use.

Ian

dsphotog
29-Oct-2013, 10:00
Put a roll film back on it!

Or a Grafmatic!

EdSawyer
29-Oct-2013, 14:30
re: grafmatic.... well, maybe if the rangefinder is perfectly calibrated, that would be an option...

BrianShaw
29-Oct-2013, 15:22
Yes, that is a necessity to using grafmatic or roll film back.

Ivan J. Eberle
29-Oct-2013, 15:54
But it's a camera that's entirely natural for handheld shooting with a 135mm and a Grafmatic, for certain.

dsphotog
29-Oct-2013, 18:13
maybe a Super Graphic owner in the St Louis area could get together with the OP so they could check RF calibration with their gg back.

HT Finley
29-Oct-2013, 21:20
Yep, ripe for a Grafmatic. That's what Charles Bronson used on his.

Jim Andrada
30-Oct-2013, 03:09
I think the Super had a 127mm lens instead of the 135 on the Crown (I have one of each)

In a lot of ways I like the Crown better - the internal tracks can focus which is a help with short lenses, and the camera is lighter.

BrianShaw
30-Oct-2013, 06:33
I think the Super had a 127mm lens instead of the 135 on the Crown (I have one of each)...

Not necessarily. Many, if not most, were originally equipped with 135 Optars.

dsphotog
30-Oct-2013, 09:29
Not necessarily. Many, if not most, were originally equipped with 135 Optars.

My Super came with a 135 Optar, my TRF Crown, a 135 Xenar.

BrianShaw
30-Oct-2013, 09:41
My Super came with a 135 Optar, my TRF Crown, a 135 Xenar.

Sure.

I should have written a bit more explicitely (and can't edit now; it's been too long): Many, if not most SuperGraphics, were originally equipped with 135 Optars.

Ivan J. Eberle
30-Oct-2013, 14:18
Wicked sharp at f/16-f/22, those Optar 135mms... Challenge being that the Optar/Raptar 135mms aren't really hitting their stride until f/16, ugly coma or bokeh with color films wider open. Really fugly. I bought a Super just for a beater camera to knock around, and shortly afterwards picked up a Caltar IIN (AKA Rodenstock Sironar N) 135mm f/5.6 for it, thinking the same focal length would mean a close cam... not close at all with the one for the Optar. Never did cut a cam, and jettisoned the camera as the result when downsizing awhile back. In retrospect, I probably ought to have cut a cam and kept it. (Oh yeah, the other thing being the SG is not so hot with wide angles, having no focusing on the inner track as mentioned above).
Commonly whole cameras were selling for $250 here stateside awhile back, though I did a little better and actually made a little money selling mine here (internationally) on LFF.

IanG
31-Oct-2013, 11:56
Ivan, that's true of all LF Tessar and type designs sharpness is best at f22 and OK at f16.

Ian

Ivan J. Eberle
31-Oct-2013, 12:12
f/22 was easily dealt with in heyday of handheld press cameras, either by using very bright flashbulbs (nuking the sun in daylight was not a problem) and/or faster B+W emulsions. By the time the Graflex SG and SSG came into being, though, much of the press had already moved on to smaller formats, TLRs (because offset printing didn't mean a 1:1 neg to print size anymore). And the use of color in print really took off by the late 1960's and early 70's, so lenses that didn't look so great like Tessars (with all their chromatic aberrations below f/16) fell out of favor over Plasmats.

meirronaldi
11-Nov-2013, 11:02
Hey all! I found a Cambo/Calumet ground glass back back that mounts perfectly and works great. See the photos on my blog! http://reimphotoimage.blogspot.com/2013/11/focusing-screen-success-cant-wait-to.html

gleaf
11-Nov-2013, 14:18
Oh yeah!!!!! GE made some bulbs in the 5 - 6 million lumen range. Size of a 100 watt bulb with medium screw base. Fused for up to 125 volts but a 9 volt set them off just fine. Golfcourse fairway on black night. One bulb in a socket. We drew fire trucks and cops looking for the plane crash. They were no longer making them by 1970.
Good old days.... long ago.