View Full Version : Obtaining a "Universal Back" for a Linhof 4x5?

10-Jan-2007, 12:50
I was lucky enough to inherit some gear from my grandfather. As part of the gear I have a Linhof Technika, several lenses, and a Super Rollex 56x72 (apparently the older vintage w/ tan leatherette), and the various support gear. Unfortunately, I don't have any of his Graflex backs, but... ;)

I'm extremely new to large format photography, so please bear with me. Using the Super Rollex would be a nice thing, for me, as I have other cameras that take 120 film, and scanning 120 film is much easier (and cheaper) for me, at this point.

I notice that there appears to be no way to attach the Super Rollex to the camera, but I've read here and elsewhere that the back was made to pop into some sort of Universal Back ??? In fact, with the GG removed, the back is too wide (just barely) to fit in the space at the back of the camera. There appears to be a plate on the camera side of the back that has two ball bearings, and a round "adapter" kind of thing - it obviously belongs with the back (painted the same color on the outside, etc). Its attached with 8 small screws to the rest of the back.

Sorry if I'm mangling terms, or I've totally misunderstood something. Any help would be greatly appreciated :)

David A. Goldfarb
10-Jan-2007, 12:55
The Super-Rollex back should fit any Technika III or later. They all have an "International" back (which functions the same way as a "Graflok" back). Slide off the groundglass panel by pressing the two spring loaded silver arms and sliding the panel in the direction of the opening where a filmholder would be inserted. Move the two sliders to the "off" position, put the Super-Rollex in place, and lock it by moving those sliders to the on position.

You do not have to remove the entire rotating back to use a rollfilm holder, just the groundglass panel.

10-Jan-2007, 13:03
Unfortunately, its not that simple. I remove the GG holder, as you say, and insure both sliders are moved to the "off" position - so that the locks are out of the way. The back is still too large to fit in the gap. Perhaps a picture would help?? I can snap a few a little bit later today...

David A. Goldfarb
10-Jan-2007, 13:45
Wait--the Super-Rollex back has a round circular thing on it? This is a rollfilm back for a Technika 2x3" camera, not a 4x5" camera. Look at this auction--


That's a Super-Rollex back for a Tech 23.

So if the back is for a 2x3 camera, are you sure you have a 4x5" camera?

10-Jan-2007, 14:35
That would certainly explain it - yes, this looks exactly like the 23 back, but tan and in 56x72 instead of true 6x7. Hmmm.... That's interesting. Now that you mention it, I see the 2x3 camera diagram on the back of the instruction booklet, and this would appear to mate up to it perfectly.

The camera is definitely a 4x5 camera - I'm not even certain if my grandfather ever owned a 2x3 camera. Certainly there aren't any 2x3 negatives in his archives, anyway.

I don't suppose there's a way to convert a 23 Super-Rollex to a 45?? :) That's probably hoping for too much...

Thanks for your help, David :)

David A. Goldfarb
10-Jan-2007, 14:42
The easiest way to "convert" it would be to sell it on eBay and buy a 4x5" back or just trade it with a dealer who has both. You might try Photo Gizzmo in New York (they have a website, but phone is better--212-463-0130). He usually has backs and cameras of both types on the shelf.

Gordon Moat
10-Jan-2007, 14:52
KEH (http://www.keh.com) in Atlanta have a few Linhof Super Rollex backs. You might see about either a trade-in, or just sell yours on EBAY, then buy one from them. I have one of these backs, and it is a nice addition for any 4x5 camera (my opinion). I use my Super Rollex as a cropping tool, and when wanting to do several successive shots of the same subject (people, lifestyle, fashion, et al).


Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

10-Jan-2007, 15:13
Thanks, guys :) I'll look into one of those options, anyhow. I've done business w/ KEH before, and I'm comfortable there. Photo Gizzmo looks like an interesting option, as well.