PDA

View Full Version : Factory Misaligned Super Graphic Viewfinder



HT Finley
18-Jan-2018, 16:44
I have posted a photo of my Super Graphic. It may not be readily apparent in the photo, but hopefully so, that the viewfinder is slightly cocked to the right (at front). And for all examination, this is a factory installation. Properly threaded screw holes in the top of the body, correct mounting block for this viewfinder, everything looks as if to be a factory job. And I might add that the mounting block has no slotted holes for adjustment. The thing is all fitted to mount with no adjustment capability. Yet as you might be able to tell, it is a bit crooked. I can tell the difference in aiming between the viewfinder and the wire framefinder without even having to use a tripod. There's no question about it--it's crooked alright. But from the factory? Had American manufacture become this sloppy by 1957? We all know of American cars not having perfect sheet metal fitting, and other ill-fitting manufactured goods. But if I use the finder on this camera, my photos will certainly be off-center to a very unsatisfactory degree. Any comments? Thank you.

173859

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2018, 17:30
Hi Henry... welcome back. From here the viewfinder looks misaligned. But are you sure they were factory installed. I have a vague recollection that they were delivered without the viewfinder. But I can’t recall where I got that impression. Have you compared the viewfinder with ground glass to determine how much Kentucky windage you’ll need? How’s the real estate market? Ours is booming at this time.

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2018, 17:31
By the way, I’d consider grinding the mounting plate hole from round to elongated...

HT Finley
18-Jan-2018, 18:36
By the way, Id consider grinding the mounting plate hole from round to elongated...
Hello Brian Good to see you. Thank you for answering. It sure looks like a factory job to me in every respect. And I had always thought the camera was ordinarily marketed with no finder. Other than being gray to match the camera, it bears much resemblance to an ordinary Pacemaker The mounting clip is different, in that the spring finger is to be lifted up rather than pushed down to removed the finder, and the mounting block is obviously a factory-dedicated piece for this finder. The screwholes in the camera body are done to perfection, the screws are obviously factory screws. If this isn't a factory job, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
Curiously, neither hole in the mounting block is ovaled or slotted in the least to allow adjustment. Almost as if the factory used a jig to hold the camera while the drill machine bore the holes, the block mounted, and that was that. Par for the course with a lot of American manufacturing of the day, not to disparage. We all remember cars with ill-fitted doors and hoods and the like.
Anyway, truth be known, I like it "finder-off" and a grafmatic back like Charles Bronson.;)
As for real estate, it's tough going. The market's too good. Too many agents and too few properties. But some of them are cooking. Just sold a house in 1 day at full price though. 1300 for me. Regards.

ic-racer
18-Jan-2018, 19:13
You compared the viewfinder to the ground glass image and they did not match? Did you have the parallax distance set correctly on the viewfinder? The correct viewfinder mask is attached to match the lens and it is not bent or damaged?

Tin Can
18-Jan-2018, 19:51
You asked for 'any comments'.

You are complaining about 'American' products 60 years late. You did it twice.

'American' includes many countries.

And yes the darn thing is off. My 1951 Speed is perfect.

Jim Noel
18-Jan-2018, 20:27
Some news photographers used to have their finders set at a particular angle to view the subject at their normal shooting distance. This looks like one of those cameras. Cameras were set for a particular distance, exposure with flash was computed for the same distance, the finder was set to match.

Tin Can
18-Jan-2018, 21:48
I'll buy that Jim. I recently read that Weegee had his set at 10' for almost everything.

Of course, other distances could be used for a different specialty.

HT Finley
18-Jan-2018, 21:49
Excellent post. As for any perceived complaint about America goods in that era, they were not perfect. But they were still the best in the world. I'd have a '57 Chevy or Ford Fairlane before I'd have any dozen of the import jobs, then and now. Graflexes weren't perfect. But they still rule.
As for my crooked factory viewfinder, it's decided. Slide it off, put it in a place where my heirs can find it for resale, and enjoy the camera with the wire finder. Thanks.
You asked for 'any comments'.

You are complaining about 'American' products 60 years late. You did it twice.

'American' includes many countries.

And yes the darn thing is off. My 1951 Speed is perfect.

dsphotog
19-Jan-2018, 10:55
My Super Graphic never had a viewfinder, my theory is they didn't come with one because of the rotating back, the finder doesn't frame a vertical composition.

HT Finley
19-Jan-2018, 11:16
Thanks dsphotog. And you're right, the viewfinder does interfere with the rotating back. So in their infinite wisdom, Graflex put 2 slots in the mounting block. You lift up the spring clip in the finder and slide it forward to the front slot so you can turn the rotating back to vertical. I guess their logic was that if your rotating back was in vertical mode, you'd be on a tripod with a dark cloth using the camera as a field/view camera.173869

Louis Pacilla
19-Jan-2018, 11:17
Absolutely an option not stock on the Super/SSuper Graphic.

From a Super Graphic Catalog.http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/graflex_6.html

HT Finley
19-Jan-2018, 11:30
Louis Pacilla is the man. Filled in the blanks. So the holes in the body WERE factory drilled and tapped, but hidden by the leather covering. When you bought the optional finder, you pierced the leather and mounted the block. So it seems the factory was the culprit in this viewfinder being mis-aimed. Thanks. Now I've gotten to the bottom of it.

LabRat
19-Jan-2018, 14:10
Maybe replacing the screws with flat, non-countersunk ones will allow some wiggle room to correct the angle...

Wasn't this series of camera made by Toyo in Japan???

Steve K

Bob Salomon
19-Jan-2018, 14:40
Maybe replacing the screws with flat, non-countersunk ones will allow some wiggle room to correct the angle...

Wasn't this series of camera made by Toyo in Japan???

Steve K

They were made originally by the various US Graflex companies. Toyo bought the rights to manufacture after the last US company in FL went bust.
Linhof is still owed money for defective Grafmatic holders that were returned to them, through us, as they were running a better then 70% defect rate! Linhof had complained to them so much that they refused to talk to Linhof and we ended up as the middleman between the 2 companies. Graflex in FL would not honor their obligations and went belly up and neither we nor Linhof ever received any money from the liquidation as neither of us were secured debt holders.

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2018, 16:30
That’s an interesting tidbit of history.

ic-racer
19-Jan-2018, 17:06
No one is perfect...even in the USA

HT Finley
19-Jan-2018, 23:13
BTW If anybody is interested in these Supers, I have a fairly recent thread on photo.net concerning replacing the electronics of the Super with some other idea to trip its solenoid without having to deface the camera. If so, remember the battery bay will not accept 4 AA's, but will accept 4 AAA's. It may also accept 2 9V's, but I have not attempted them for fit personally.. And a new battery door can be made with a slide-type switch. Thank you. PS. Thank you for the photo of the engine plate. I was in the VAB in the summer of '68 as an 11 year old with my family as tourists, and saw the Apollo 8 rocket up close as they were stacking it. I tried taking pictures, but my Instamatic 104 flash wasn't bright enough. It was a big building and a big rocket, and my flashcubes couldn't compete.

ic-racer
20-Jan-2018, 09:12
I was a little younger when I went to see the VAB. I also have no pictures, I think I did not have my first Instamatic yet.
I did have a telescope and on 21 July, 1969 I recall how a child's imagination can be stronger than reality. To my eye, I could see them up there as much as I could see Armstrong via the fold-out camera on the side of the LEM than night.

I also recall my Revell Saturn V model, which was I had disassembled in pieces following the sequences of operation of the mission.

173918

LabRat
20-Jan-2018, 16:26
BTW If anybody is interested in these Supers, I have a fairly recent thread on photo.net concerning replacing the electronics of the Super with some other idea to trip its solenoid without having to deface the camera. If so, remember the battery bay will not accept 4 AA's, but will accept 4 AAA's. It may also accept 2 9V's, but I have not attempted them for fit personally.. And a new battery door can be made with a slide-type switch. Thank you. PS. Thank you for the photo of the engine plate. I was in the VAB in the summer of '68 as an 11 year old with my family as tourists, and saw the Apollo 8 rocket up close as they were stacking it. I tried taking pictures, but my Instamatic 104 flash wasn't bright enough. It was a big building and a big rocket, and my flashcubes couldn't compete.

Funny, because my first photo was of Apollo 8 on the launch pad (with an ominous dark sky above), shot with an Instamatic... I remember that even then, they were very security conscious spooked, even with an 8 year old taking a picture from a quarter mile away...

Steve K

HT Finley
20-Jan-2018, 16:44
After reading labrat, I had to recall, to make sure of my recollection. I do remember that it was an Instamatic 124, not my 104 that I got for Christmas 1965. My cousin caused it to fall in '67, and it jammed all the time till we stopped on the way to Florida and I bought that 124, which was basically the same camera. But I do remember at the cape I had a roll of 20exp. Kodachrome, and 2 rolls of Ansco B&W. To me, film was as prized as ammo. I don't recall any security problems in the VAB, at least not beyond ordinary for the day and time. I remember before the guide lady took us in, she told us the building was so big it had it's own weather. But I didn't see any clouds up there. I was just amazed at the size of the rocket. I had one of my rolls of B&W Ansco in the camera, but all my shots were so dark they were worthless. All my shots was only about 5, because I didn't want to risk any more of my precious film. I paid 44 a roll at the Kmart for that film, out of my own money. Sorry, dumb recollections.

LabRat
20-Jan-2018, 16:55
After reading labrat, I had to recall, to make sure of my recollection. I do remember that it was an Instamatic 124, not my 104 that I got for Christmas 1965. My cousin caused it to fall in '67, and it jammed all the time till we stopped on the way to Florida and I bought that 124, which was basically the same camera. But I do remember at the cape I had a roll of 20exp. Kodachrome, and 2 rolls of Ansco B&W. To me, film was as prized as ammo to me. I don't recall any security problems in the VAB, at least not beyond ordinary for the day and time. I remember before the guide lady took us in, she told us the building was so big it had it's own weather. But I didn't see any clouds up there. I was just amazed at the size of the rocket. I had one of my rolls of B&W Ansco in the camera, but all my shots were so dark they were worthless. All my shots was only about 5, because I didn't want to risk any more of my precious film. I paid 44 a roll at the Kmart for that film, out of my own money. Sorry, dumb recollections.

But it was enough to get you hooked!!!! But the first thing was to improve your shooting ratio!!!

Hated the Instamatics (even though the spring wound 400 (?) had some crude AE), because you were limited by a narrow set of lighting options... (I really wanted a camera that had B or T!!!) Then down the rabbit hole figuring out how to not move the camera during those long exposures... (Had to meet a 3 legged new friend...) ;-)

Don't you wish you can develop/print all that stuff from back then on that mental memory "film" ???

Steve K

HT Finley
20-Jan-2018, 17:34
What neater than that is something that happened just today. I'm a realtor. I went to preview a house today and when I got to the upstairs I notice 1 bedroom had Apollo posters on the wall. I asked the man about it and he said it was his 10 year old kid, who was crazy about the old missions. I then recalled this discussion to him, and probably got too far afield from the subject of real estate. Good to know a 10 year old boy out there is a big Apollo buff.

LabRat
20-Jan-2018, 18:07
What neater than that is something that happened just today. I'm a realtor. I went to preview a house today and when I got to the upstairs I notice 1 bedroom had Apollo posters on the wall. I asked the man about it and he said it was his 10 year old kid, who was crazy about the old missions. I then recalled this discussion to him, and probably got too far afield from the subject of real estate. Good to know a 10 year old boy out there is a big Apollo buff.

That's really cool!!! Great kid!!! But space travel seemed more exciting back then, despite so many advances since the moon...

I'm currently applying for a tech job at JPL (though the project is called "Mars Impact", what could they be thinking of doing, but for one thing, Marvin is gonna be pissed!!!)... I thought at worst, the spacecraft could smash into an asteroid after I work on it, but that might be good because at least it hit something, rather than floating dead in space...

Got my first 2X3 pre-anv SG not long after seeing Apollo 8, and am still shooting that camera, and even today (out of town), great day, was gonna shoot it, but way too windy, so stuck drooling over this keyboard...

Steve K

HT Finley
20-Jan-2018, 18:41
Just in case nobody knows about the Vintage Space channel on youtube, try not to get hooked. The girl knows her stuff. More power to Amy. Good work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGD0zEbiDPQ

ic-racer
20-Jan-2018, 21:40
This thread go me lost in Apollo web surfing. I got caught up in the F-1 Engine pages. All these years, after I built the model F-1 engines, I never know what that fat band around the nozzle was for. Now I know, exhaust manifold for the rocket powered fuel pump. Now when I look at the engine I can see what it really is. A rocket powered, two-sided fuel pump and a shower head inside a nozzle.