PDA

View Full Version : Adapting/replacing the back on a 2x3 Technikardan?



David R Munson
13-Jun-2014, 17:53
I've located a couple of used 2x3 Technikardans here in Shanghai, but the fact that they apparently will *only* work with the Linhof roll film backs is a deal killer.

Does anyone know of a practical means by which one might modify or replace the back of the baby Technikardan to work with Graflock standard backs? I already have a couple 6x9 Horseman holders. Is it possible? Would it be a waste of time to try? Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks!

Oren Grad
13-Jun-2014, 18:23
My gut reaction would have been that it's a waste of time to try. And it may well be. But take a look at the back of this Technikardan:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LINHOF-TECHNIKARDAN-6X9-Wide-Angle-Bag-Bellows-/221388802949

Bob Salomon
14-Jun-2014, 04:34
No way but they also work with slip-in holders like the Linhof Raoid Rollex backs. The TK and Linhof Technika 23cameras DO NOT HAVE a Graphlock type back and there is no adapter to make them Graphlock type back.

So sell your old backs off and get the fr superior Linhof backs or sell the Linhof and get a less professional camera that can mount the old becks,

David A. Goldfarb
14-Jun-2014, 05:18
I have a few Linhof 23 backs, and there usually seems to be more supply than demand on these, so the price is fairly reasonable on the used market. Better just to wait for a back or two at a price you can afford than a custom modification of the camera. For B&W, sheet film is also an option. 2x3" sheeet film holders always seem cheap and plentiful, and Grafmatics aren't too difficult to come by either.

David R Munson
14-Jun-2014, 07:48
Selling the Horseman backs and giving up the ability to use RB and other such backs while having to buy into much more expensive (very nice but functionally not much better) Linhof backs isn't what I'd call a good option. Linhof is great, which is why I'm interested, but calling anything that mounts Graflock backs "less professional" is a cheap shot. I'm not ruling it out entirely, but buying into a more limiting system for what is still a big pile of money isn't too enticing.

Dan Fromm
14-Jun-2014, 11:09
Since you haven't bought a TK yet, look into the 2x3 Cambo SF and successors. Also look into 2x3 Arca Swiss.

About y'r attachment to y'r Horseman backs, that's nice but if you decide to take Bob's advice and get (a) a TK and (b) one or more Linhof roll holders to fit it you can, as he said, always sell the Horseman backs.

You've given us a nice example of "the good enough is the enemy of the better." You're not alone in suffering from it, it has got me in trouble too.

jbenedict
14-Jun-2014, 12:38
There is nothing wrong with a Horseman back. It is not the "enemy of the better". One does not "suffer" by using a Horseman back. The Graflok back is an industry standard. The idea that Linhof deviates from the industry standard so users would have to buy the far more expensive product is pretty outrageous.

Bob Salomon
14-Jun-2014, 13:39
There is nothing wrong with a Horseman back. It is not the "enemy of the better". One does not "suffer" by using a Horseman back. The Graflok back is an industry standard. The idea that Linhof deviates from the industry standard so users would have to buy the far more expensive product is pretty outrageous.

Linhof didn't deviate from anything. The Linhof roll film back system for their 23 cameras predate the Graflock design by many years.
For 45 Linhof did go to Graphlok but on 23 they stayed with their quick change mounting system.

Dan Fromm
14-Jun-2014, 14:59
There is nothing wrong with a Horseman back. It is not the "enemy of the better". One does not "suffer" by using a Horseman back. The Graflok back is an industry standard. The idea that Linhof deviates from the industry standard so users would have to buy the far more expensive product is pretty outrageous.

In fact there is something wrong with Horseman roll holders for 2x3 cameras. They don't conform fully to the Graflok specification, can't be attached to, e.g., 2x3 Graphics with Graflok backs, without a little machining.

One doesn't suffer by using a Horseman roll holder but one can indeed suffer by purchasing one that can't be used at all.

wombat2go
14-Jun-2014, 16:42
Here is my latest 6x7 back adaptor for my home built medium format bodies which are solid to the lens register.
This adaptor is milled from 0.25 inch 6061 Aluminum stock.
I try to keep the flatness tolerance much lower than the typical variation I measure
on the 4 corners of the rollers on the old RH10 backs I have here.
Looking at photos of the camera in question, it looks rather wobbly (?) and I doubt that accuracy of the adaptor, or the rollfilm back will be very critical.

Bob Salomon
14-Jun-2014, 17:00
Here is my latest 6x7 back adaptor for my home built medium format bodies which are solid to the lens register.
This adaptor is milled from 0.25 inch 6061 Aluminum stock.
I try to keep the flatness tolerance much lower than the typical variation I measure
on the 4 corners of the rollers on the old RH10 backs I have here.
Looking at photos of the camera in question, it looks rather wobbly (?) and I doubt that accuracy of the adaptor, or the rollfilm back will be very critical.

The TK is anything but "wobbly" assuming that it has not been abused. Just ask George Tice. He uses the TK23.

David R Munson
14-Jun-2014, 17:43
You've given us a nice example of "the good enough is the enemy of the better."

I really don't think I have.

This is turning into one of those sorry I asked situations. My original question was whether or not the TK23 could be adapted to take Graflock-type holders, such as the Horseman rollfilm holders. Clearly it cannot be, which answers my question.

Linhof makes and has made great equipment for a long time, that much is also clear. But this is not a matter of "good enough" vs "better." It's more a matter of "good" vs "also good but more expensive, harder to find, and supported more fanatically by its devotees." Again, I haven't ruled it out, but unless a great deal falls into my lap it seems unlikely.

Something like an Arca Swiss or other quality 2x3/6x9 with a Graflock back is much more likely what I end up with.

Oren Grad
14-Jun-2014, 18:02
Clearly it cannot be, which answers my question.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the TK23 shown in the eBay lot I linked sure looks as though the back may have been adapted in exactly that way. Look at the last picture, which shows Graflok-type sliders holding in a Horseman 6x9 GG frame that was designed for the baby-Graflok fittings on Horseman 6x9 camera backs and accessory rotating backs.

jbenedict
14-Jun-2014, 20:11
In fact there is something wrong with Horseman roll holders for 2x3 cameras. They don't conform fully to the Graflok specification, can't be attached to, e.g., 2x3 Graphics with Graflok backs, without a little machining.

One doesn't suffer by using a Horseman roll holder but one can indeed suffer by purchasing one that can't be used at all.

I admit I was wrong about the Horseman back and Graflok. I'm checking out of this pissing match and going to get another beer.

Bob Salomon
15-Jun-2014, 03:58
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the TK23 shown in the eBay lot I linked sure looks as though the back may have been adapted in exactly that way. Look at the last picture, which shows Graflok-type sliders holding in a Horseman 6x9 GG frame that was designed for the baby-Graflok fittings on Horseman 6x9 camera backs and accessory rotating backs.

You are correct. That entire plate, behind the levels, that has the gg 612 frame is a Horseman frame that has been adapted to fit the TK. What isn't known is whose modification it is. It isn't a Linhof plate as can be seen by the difference in the black finish on the plate and the body. The camera is the original TK23 and not the later, and current, TK 23S.

IanB
15-Jun-2014, 06:51
This all seems to have got a little overheated, however, I'll take the risk...

I use a TK23S, and have done for a long time. One thing which I have found should be taken very seriously is the issue of film flatness in medium format - the necessary standards are far tighter than are normal for 4x5. The great advantage of Linhof-type rollfilm holders is that they do reliably maintain the necessary degree of flatness (well, the Rapid Rollex doesn't without modification, but the others do...), and they do so far better than most sheet film holders.

The modification to the TK shown on Ebay looks like a good piece of work, but it has to be a special, so if you want to go down that route you need to find a very good machinist - that will take both time and money.

I'd hold back from the notion in the original post that the need for Linhof rollfilm backs is a "deal breaker". They are built to very high standards, are solid, have been made for yonks, and there are plenty out there used for reasonable money. Ffordes in Scotland have one for sale for £99 at the moment - http://www.ffordes.com/product/13101011592181. One of these and a used TK can give you a good outfit for reasonable money.

David R Munson
15-Jun-2014, 07:40
I have no doubt that the Linhof holders maintain film flatness very well indeed. What I have trouble with is the suggestion being made that the Horseman holders do not. If the Horseman holders do a shitty or even mediocre job, I haven't seen evidence of it. I'm not even ruling out the Linhof holders doing a better job than the Horseman holders on average, only that if they do, the difference is negligible. An added advantage of the Horseman backs is that they are widely available and for reasonable prices in excellent condition.

But back on track, I think I'll be emailing the seller on eBay that Dan linked to in hopes that he might be able to provide additional information. Unfortunately that particular TK23 is out of my budget for the moment (one must let a teacher's salary accumulate, and throwing USD $2k or so at any camera setup is a serious investment, more than what I'd call "reasonable money"). That said, otherwise it would be exactly what I'm looking for.

Dan Fromm
15-Jun-2014, 08:45
But back on track, I think I'll be emailing the seller on eBay that Dan linked to

Thanks, but credit for posting the link should go to Oren Grad.

More seriously, what do you have in mind to do that requires a TK23's build quality and precision?

Equally seriously, how soon do you need to be out and shooting with a good grade of 2x3 view camera? I ask because the market for these wee beasties is somewhat thin. One has to wait to find many, and one has to wait longer to find a bargain.

David R Munson
15-Jun-2014, 08:58
You're right on the link, Dan, my mistake there.

In terms of precision/build quality, it's more a preference than a requirement. I'll be doing primarily architecture and landscape with whatever I wind up buying. I'm fine with wooden cameras, and the Shen Hao TFC69 would likely serve me well. In terms of local shopping in Shanghai, it's either that or one of the TK23s I've located. Buying from abroad quickly becomes a payment and shipping nightmare, as China likes to keep its money in the country and people don't much like to ship here.

I'm not in a particular hurry, I'd like to have something in hand within six months ideally, so something like the Linhof or an Arca is potentially doable, just a longer wait. I'm also attempting to save for grad school, though simultaneously planning work to potentially present when applying for graduate study, so there are a lot of factors at work. But basically I am approaching this one slowly. Doing research on 2x3/6x9 cameras and everything related is a mix of mostly not being able to find the information I'm looking for and weeding out half of what I find, as it often tends to be centered on the belief that a medium format view camera is a silly thing to get involved with. For some it may be, but I've also spent plenty of time working with commercial photographers using all manner of MF view cameras to support digital backs and know it's an avenue that would work out well for me.

Sal Santamaura
15-Jun-2014, 09:12
I have no doubt that the Linhof holders maintain film flatness very well indeed. What I have trouble with is the suggestion being made that the Horseman holders do not...Horseman roll film holders definitely have flatness issues. See the third paragraph of my November 14 post in this 1999 thread


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jhS

for details.

The only Linhof roll film holder I have experience with is a Rapid Rollex, also used on my Horseman VH. In this post


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?71581-Which-brand-of-4x5-filmholder-is-best&p=681806&viewfull=1#post681806

I describe how it also suffers from bulging, albeit less than Horseman 180 degree reverse-curl designs. I can't comment on whether Linhof's other holders successfully address how acetate roll film takes a "set" on feed rollers and then bulges toward the lens. It would be interesting if someone who has one could attach some pictures of the feed path, including any features that appear to address this issue which Horseman holders lack.

Bob Salomon
15-Jun-2014, 09:15
Horseman roll film holders definitely have flatness issues. See the third paragraph of my November 14 post in this 1999 thread


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jhS

for details.

The only Linhof roll film holder I have experience with is a Rapid Rollex, also used on my Horseman VH. In this post


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?71581-Which-brand-of-4x5-filmholder-is-best&p=681806&viewfull=1#post681806

I describe how it also suffers from bulging, albeit less than Horseman 180 degree reverse-curl designs. I can't comment on whether Linhof's other holders successfully address how acetate roll film takes a "set" on feed rollers and then bulges toward the lens. It would be interesting if someone who has one could attach some pictures of the feed path, including any features that appear to address this issue which Horseman holders lack.

X___________Y

This is the film path of a Super Rollex back. It is straight line.

Sal Santamaura
15-Jun-2014, 09:34
X___________Y

This is the film path of a Super Rollex back. It is straight line.That would certainly explain its reputation for flatness. :D

Oren Grad
15-Jun-2014, 09:35
X___________Y

This is the film path of a Super Rollex back. It is straight line.

Bob, that can't be right. As in the Horseman rollholders, the spools in a Super Rollex sit behind the exposure gate, so the film path has to take a sharp turn before it gets there. But it's possible that there are other design features - the exact geometry of the rollers and pressure plate, perhaps - that help mitigate the problem. That's what Sal is wondering about.

The flattest path pre-exposure that I've seen in a baby-Graflok rollholder is in the Toyos, where the feed spool sits next to the exposure gate rather than behind it. There's still a bit of a bend, but not nearly so severe.

IIRC the flattest pre-exposure film path in any rollholder is in the Sinar holders. But those are big and heavy, require a 4x5 camera, are a bit fiddly to use, need extra care to keep the entire film path free of dust, and tend to be quite a bit more expensive than Horseman holders - though far less now than the astronomical price they used to cost new.

Sal Santamaura
15-Jun-2014, 09:50
X___________Y

This is the film path of a Super Rollex back. It is straight line.


That would certainly explain its reputation for flatness. :D


Bob, that can't be right. As in the Horseman rollholders, the spools in a Super Rollex sit behind the exposure gate, so the film path has to take a sharp turn before it gets there. But it's possible that there are other design features - the exact geometry of the rollers and pressure plate, perhaps - that help mitigate the problem. That's what Sal is wondering about...Yes, I posted too quickly. A bit of searching reveals this:


http://anthonynchandlerphotography.wordpress.com/tag/linhof-super-rollex-manual/

The 180-degree reverse-curl feed roller in those instructions (labeled 5) seems to be of extraordinarily large diameter. In my experience, that alone won't eliminate bulging. Instead, feed roller diameter simply determines how broad the bulge is, with narrow rollers causing a small bulge and larger ones spreading the bulge out over more width. In either case, maximum bulge distance (toward the lens) measures the same.

Linhof may have included other design features to address bulging, such as adding tension between the supply and take-up spools after advancement to the next frame is complete; perhaps that's what item 5 ("Self-adjusting idler roller") means/does. Pressure plate design cannot mitigate the problem; it pushes in the same direction (toward the lens) which reverse-curled film bulges.

I am convinced that Mamiya 7 lens performance is as much a result of the camera's straight-through film path as it is of optical design. :)

Oren Grad
15-Jun-2014, 10:08
Zeiss weighs in:

"Film flatness problems are mainly caused by the combined influence of two factors: the rollers in the camera or magazine that bend the film, and the time a certain part of the film is bent by such a roller. Camera manufacturers usually space the rollers in a way that bent portions of the film will never be positioned near the center of the image. [NOTE: they're talking about MF SLRs here - Hasselblad, Contax, Rollei] Therefore only marginal regions of the image should be affected by sharpness problems due to film flatness errors.

"Since the photographer cannot alter the geometry and mechanics of his camera, he can only influence the other factor: time. A film run through the camera without much time between exposures should result in good flatness and hence sharpness. Five minutes between exposures may be some sort of limit, depending on brand and type of film. 15 minutes are likely to show an influence of bending around rollers. Two hours definitively will."

Last article in this newsletter:

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln10_en_web.pdf

David A. Goldfarb
15-Jun-2014, 12:13
The Linhof Super-Rollex backs (I have them for both 2x3" and 4x5" cameras) have a large roller to prevent sharp bends (Horseman also has a fairly large roller--larger than Graflex, but I haven't measured it in comparison to Linhof), consistent tension, and generally heavier construction than the Horseman backs I've seen, so there is no possibility of any flex anywhere in the system. The downside of being heavier is that they're heavier, which is an issue if you want to carry, say, three of them.

My Sinar Zoom II back for 4x5" has a straight film path with no reverse-curl roller in front of the film gate, and seems to have good flatness as well as offering multiple formats in one back, but it's fiddlier to operate and not as solid as a Linhof back.

David R Munson
15-Jun-2014, 17:31
Aaaaaaand at this point I'm about ready to scrap the whole idea. Sell what I have now, buy an new digital body instead.

jbenedict
16-Jun-2014, 06:43
Aaaaaaand at this point I'm about ready to scrap the whole idea. Sell what I have now, buy an new digital body instead.

I'd suggest just waiting awhile and let things cool out a bit.

Digital cameras such as the Nikon D800s are great cameras and can produce great images. However, if you are a 'view camera person', you might like to contemplate your scene awhile before pulling the trigger. You might want a 1/4" of rise and a little bit of shift to make it look "just so". Maybe a little tilt to adjust the DOF. If that aspect of photography is part of the reason you take photos, the D800s might not really work for you. There are some Nikon PC lenses which allow some rise or shift but I have no experience with them.

Would a Horseman technical camera suit your purposes? Your Horseman backs fit right on. Maybe.

Here's a link from the Large Format Photography page giving general ideas about 2x3 cameras.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/roundup2x3.html

Here's another kink from the same page which compares a Toyo 23 and a Galvin. It's an interesting point of view:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/toyo/toyo-galvin-2x3.html

Jeff