Best 6x9 back for Baby Crown Graphic?

[Frank Petronio]

I am modifying a Baby (6x9) Crown Graphic to take a 47/8 Angulon and a 6x9 back. Does anyone know if the Crown's back can take other backs such as the Linhof? I'd think the Linhof Super Rollex backs might be better than the old Graflex lever backs (I know to avoid the knob wind backs).

While we're at it, has anybody here ever used a 47 on a Baby Crown? Any issues? I think the focal length flange distance should work OK, and it looks like it should allow the camera to fold up with the lens. But I haven't gotten the lens yet and would like to double check.

Finally, any tips for a good viewfinder? A Russian 21mm? I need to find a screw on shoe mount bracket too.

I grew frustrated with my flakey Veriwides - I think this camera might be more reliable, cheaper, and even uglier!

Thanks,

[george verbryck]

Get a Horseman back they are better than the graflex and not terribly expensive and seem to last forever Cheers George

[Frank Petronio]

You're sure it'll fit?

[Ted Harris]

I agree on the sturdiness of the Horseman backs (I have two of them tha have been through many wars. OTOH I strongly recommend againts ALL the Graphic backs. I used to use the Graflex XL system and the inability of the backs to consistantly maintain film flatness drove me nuts and I finally gave up and sold the entire system....largely because of the backs.

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot, but what do you mean by " I am modifying a Baby (6x9) Crown Graphic to take a 47/8 Angulon and a 6x9 back", Frank?

I have a Century Graphic, a plastic version of the 2x3 Crown, and it takes a 38/4.5 Biogon with no modifications whatsover. Put the lens on a board, put the board on the front standard, find infinity, drop the bed, ... What's the big deal?

And if your Crown has a Graphic back, swapping a Graflok back onto it is no big deal, doesn't count as modification. The hardest part is finding the Graflok. My Century has an integral Graflok back (nyah, nyah, and nyah!), but when I got my 2x3 Pacemaker Speed it had a Graphic (sob, cry, but the price was right). After I lucked into an inexpensive 2x3 Graflok back I undid four little screws, removed the Graphic back, put the Graflok on, and redid the same four little screws. What's the big deal?

Sorry, I can't answer your question re closing the camera on a 47 Angulon. Do you mean 47 Super Angulon? I ask because I've been to Schneider's site and the shortest Angulon they mention is the old 65/6.8. They say the 47/8 SA is 45 mm long. Measure your camera. It might close on your lens, the camera is 3 3/16" thick when closed. On the other hand it might not. Measure your camera.

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks, I'm getting educated. I wasn't sure exactly what a 2x3 Graphlock looked like but now I realize that I have the stupid spring back instead. So before I do anything else I'll have to find a proper back or a whole new body. I like the idea of a Horseman 6x9, but I haven't seen many that are not 4x5 style. Looks like I can have fun searching half a dozen different categories on eBay to come up with all the parts!

It'll still be better than the stupid Veriwides!

[Bob Salomon]

There is no way, without major modification, to attach a Linhof Super Rollex for a 6x9 Linhof Technika to your camera. You could easily attach a Linhof Rapid Rollex for 23 cameras as this is a slip-in back but it is only made in 6x7cm. You could also probably use a 6x9cm Wista back for their shift adapter.

[Dan Fromm]

Frank, having a "stupid spring back" doesn't have to be the end of the world. If you'll go to www.graflex.org, you'll find an article on the Adapt-A-Roll 620. The AAR slips in like a sheet film holder. I drafted that article. Since you can see it there there's no reason to type it again.

Mine have worked fairly well, BUT their frame counters periodically stop working. When this happens a few shots of graphite powder and a little fiddling restore them to good working order. That's a dry lubricant, I'd never oil them.

At one time I thought I had a film flatness problem with one of my AARs. After comparing the transparency and scan in question I found that the problem was in the scanner. Scans are <fill in the expletive>.

Cheers,

Dan

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Dan,

What roll film back are you using with your Century Graphic? I agree, the Horseman backs are great. They are available in 6x7 and 6x9 for 2x3 cameras and 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 for 4x5s. However, I don't think they will fit on a stock Century Graphic without modifing either the camera or the back. Horseman backs have an extra ridge that is not present on genuine Graphic roll film backs. I once tried to mount a Horseman 6x9 reflex viewer on a Century Graphic and it would not fit due to this extra ridge. I no longer have a Century Graphic in my possession, so I can't double check to see if it accepts Horseman backs. Can anyone confirm is this is/isn't a problem?

I have the same issue with my Toho FC-45X and a Horseman 6x12/4x5 back. The spring back on the Toho easily opens wide enought to accomodate the Horseman back, but the extra ridge on the Horseman back prevents it from laying flat. So, I resorted to using a Shen-Hao 6x12 back with my Toho. The Shen-Hao back is thicker than the Horseman, but without the extra ridge, it works fine.

Kerry

[Frank Petronio]

Considering that the Graphic body is the cheapest part of the whole equation, I guess I'd do better to pick up another 2x3 body with a Graflex back already installed. I've seen some guys take apart a camera and resell the parts on eBay for several times what the entire camera costs...

[Dan Fromm]

Kerry, I use Adapt-A-Roll 620s and respool exposed film to a 120 spool before sending it to the lab. I have three of them, more by accident than by design. They have a single ridge at the "far" end that mates with a slot in the back of the camera.

Unfortunately people have become aware that they're useful and prices are rising. That's the second-worst thing about them. The worst thing is that frame spacing, although consistent, is very tight.

I also use a Graflex/SubSea RH-8. This is a very late RH-8 made after Graflex closed and sold the tooling to SubSea. I bought it as new old stock, and instantly hated it. 10 exposure (2.25x2.75) carriage with exposure counter that went to 8 (2.25 x 3.0625), and in a 2.25x3.0625 carrier. Bad gears, jammed when I ran scrap film through it to check function. Armatos fixed it, sort of, but I'm reluctant to use it because it still jams from time to time and because its gate, at 3.0625, is shorter than the Adapt-A-Rolls' 3.25. I don't think my disaster is representative of earlier RH-8s, mine seems to have been assembled from randomly selected uninspected parts by people who were, um, somewhere else at the time. Small wonder that SubSea failed.

Frank, how do you think I got a Graflok back for my Speed? I found a $70 Mini Speed with a Pacemaker Graflok, swapped backs between the two cameras, and sold the Mini. There's also a Graflok made specifically for the Mini, with external flash contacts on the upper left and internal flash contacts too. Not what you want for a Pacemaker, even though it will fit.

Now that the secret is out, trashed cameras with usable Grafloks aren't as inexpensive as they used to be. My Mini wasn't trashed, but then I got it 10 years ago.

If you don't need a range finder or a focal plane shutter, your best bet is to get a Century with no RF. Get one with a focusing panel, complete panels are a little scarce.

Cheers,

Dan

[e]

Dan that sounds like a nice combination with the Crown and the 38mm biogon. Do you use a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 back with it or a 6x7 ,or 6x9?

[Dan Fromm]

Emile, I use a 2.25"x 3.25" back. It gives more opportunities for cropping than the smaller ones. I get a good strip 82 mm x 29 mm, but of course the corners aren't there at all. Practically speaking, the lens nearly covers nominal 6x7.

Re that strip, if its all I want then the camera's minimal front rise can be used. If, that is, its had surgery to remove the viewfinder frame from the front standard. As you'd expect, the lens makes infinity well inside the box. Who needs an XPan anyway?

FYI, my lens came from an ex-RAF aerial camera, not from a Hasselblad. I had a bunch, sold 'em all -- where were you when I was selling? More bidders are good for sellers. -- and as far as I know there are no more to be had.

Cheers,

Dan

[e]

Thanks Dan, I always wondered if this lens would cover more than 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. Too bad I didn't buy one of yours when available. Maybe next time. Be Well!

[Chuck_1686]

Concerning Horseman backs on a Century Graphic. My information, based on replies to the question on internet forums, is that the Horseman will not fit without modifications. I've never had a chance to actually try it myself. Also the Crown may be different than the Century. This is too bad as the price of late model lever wind RH-8 backs will soon be approaching Horseman prices.

[Wayne Crider]

I have a Horseman 6x9 that I had machined by Grimes to fit my Century Graphic. I think it cost me about $40 or so 2 years ago.

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi! - I have a Century, and the Horseman back fits without modification. There is a groove for the Horseman rigde on the upper side (in portrait orientation) of the back. Also the film plane register seems OK, as measured with a caliper. - I had to file down the Horseman back on the rear part of the sides, where the slide locks slide on, but that' a different thing. - The serial number of my Century is 504 573.

By the way, in contrast to what I read, there is no fresnel on the lens side of the ground glass, and never seems to have been, since the film plane register fits as is!

Good light!