Rotating back on the Pacemaker

[Jbuck]

hello!
Does anyone know if there is an option or a modification to be able to use a rotating back on the Pacemaker?
I found on the Internet that someone attached the Cambo Rotating back to it...
but do u have to mod the back standard in this case? or can u use the Cambo Rotating back just as an attachment after removing the Pacemakers graflock?

and are there any alt. to the Cambo Rotating back?

thanks!

[Bill_1856]

I've read that wasn't uncommon to fit a 3.25x4.25 back to a 4x5 camera which would allow it to be reversed.

[Sirius Glass]

A rotating back would not make sense on a Pacemaker because the portrait position would just produce a square negative. You can turn the camera on its side and then you will not need a rotating back.

[Jbuck]

when turning it aside im always afraid the heavy lenses will somehow drop. but what u say makes sense.
thanks.

[Lachlan 717]

Both of my Speeds have tripod sockets on the bottom and on one of the short sides.

As such, I don't think that Graflex had your fears of lenses dropping off!!

[mdarnton]

If it's going to fall off one way, it's going to fall off the other--there's no difference as far as anything on the camera is concerned. Mine's sitting four feet away from me right now with a huge shutter-mounted tele-Raptar on it. . . . mounted on a tripod by the side hole. I'm not scared.

[Jim Noel]

A rotating back would not make sense on a Pacemaker because the portrait position would just produce a square negative. You can turn the camera on its side and then you will not need a rotating back.

Agreed!

[BrianShaw]

There is always the SuperGraphic...

[RichSBV]

There is always the SuperGraphic...

Funny thing about the Super. I almost always shoot mine hand-held. If I need a vertical shot, I rotate the camera, not the back...

[EdSawyer]

While true that the pacemaker speed with the focal plane shutter would prevent a portrait orientation back from making sense, it would probably be a viable option to have a rotating back on a pacemaker crown graphic. It would really just be a matter of unbolting the stock back and bolting on a cambo or other rotating back. (I have a spare cambo rotating back if someone is in the market for one).

[Kevin Crisp]

There is a cheap B&J press-like camera with a rotating back. The bad news is I had to tape mine up since it leaked light.

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is a cheap B&J press-like camera with a rotating back.

That could be the Busch 4x5 press camera. It is more compact than the Pacemaker or other Graflex 4x5 and remarkably robust. I do have this camera. EDIT: Nudged by other comments, the Busch's optical viewfinder mask does allow insertion to accommodate portrait orientation.

There is also the M.P.P. Micro Technical Mark VII, but I cannot comment in detail because I do not have one.

[Bill_1856]

While true that the pacemaker speed with the focal plane shutter would prevent a portrait orientation back from making sense, it would probably be a viable option to have a rotating back on a pacemaker crown graphic. It would really just be a matter of unbolting the stock back and bolting on a cambo or other rotating back. (I have a spare cambo rotating back if someone is in the market for one).
You'd also have to replace the bellows with a square one.
Personally, I find the "portrait" position easier to use than the normal "landscape" mode.

[BrianShaw]

Funny thing about the Super. I almost always shoot mine hand-held. If I need a vertical shot, I rotate the camera, not the back...

Me too, actually. It's because the optical viewfinder doesn't rotate. I always wondered why they never made optical viewfinder masks in portrait orientation too. I could use one for shooting pirtraits with 6x7 roll film back.

When on tripod, though, that rotating back is quite convenient.

[Jim Jones]

That could be the Busch 4x5 press camera. It is more compact than the Pacemaker or other Graflex 4x5 and remarkably robust. I do have this camera. EDIT: Nudged by other comments, the Busch's optical viewfinder mask does allow insertion to accommodate portrait orientation.

There is also the M.P.P. Micro Technical Mark VII, but I cannot comment in detail because I do not have one.

The MPP is the poor man's Linhoff. My older one has generous front slide and geared rise. It also has back tilt that can become front tilt when used with the drop bed as in the Graflex Pacemaker series. The rear tilt and shift are up to 10 degrees. The rangefinder cam is readily accessible, although they must be scarce. The bellows extension is about 13.5 inches to the 4" square lensboard. Mine has a sports finder, but no optical finder. The spring back rotates. Build quality seems better than the B&J; more like the Busch. The Meridian is another versatile press/technical camera. The Graflex series of press cameras remains the most complete and available system.

[Kevin Crisp]

It came to me. The B&J camera I had was called The Watson. It had a fairly complex built in metal rotating back, but mine leaked like and I had to tape it up.

[RichSBV]

Me too, actually. It's because the optical viewfinder doesn't rotate. I always wondered why they never made optical viewfinder masks in portrait orientation too. I could use one for shooting pirtraits with 6x7 roll film back.

When on tripod, though, that rotating back is quite convenient.

The front of your viewfinder doesn't rotate??

Just kidding. Makes me think though. All that time and money they put into the rotating back and noone at the company stood up and said "Hey, what about the viewfinder?". Would have been a fairly cheap mod for them...

Yep, rotating back on a tripod is wonderful. But I always forget that if I rotate it to the left, it blocks the rangefinder and have to then rotate it 180. I like the rangefinder...

[mdarnton]

My B&J had sort of a cross mask in the finder; confusing to see, but it did work for H and V. I don't find the B&J to be a "cheap" camera at all, as others have said. It's well made, just very basic. But it does have a lot of front movements, as opposed to the later Grafics.

[EdSawyer]

Agreed re: meridian - that's really the Linhof alternative. (better in some ways, esp. with wide-angles.) a great camera and really well made. The Achilles heel of it though is the lack of a Graflok back, IMNSHO.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you'd paid $70 for your Watson you would consider it cheap, I suspect.