Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,528   Posts: 1,572,418   Online: 1159
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Directions for modifying a Graphic to allow forward tilt have been published in a number of places. But when I've tried to use drop bed plus back tilt and front rise to get fall or forward tilt I've found that the range of focal lengths over which the combinations work is quite limited.

    It might help if we defined which size of Graphics we're talking about. Darin gave, I think, limits for 4x5s. You are clearly thinking of 4x5s too. I shoot 2x3s, which are smaller and have less.
    Hi Dan,

    Yes, that's my confusion (sorry) - I'm talking about a 4x5 Crown. I've only just got mine recently, and when it came with the front standard reversed to give forward tilt without the dropbed (and all rangefinders removed).

    But after using it a couple of times, I re-reversed it, and now use it as originally designed. Only mod I'm thinking of is to put a tripod bush on the top.

    I mainly use a Nikkor W 135mm, which seems to me to be an ideal lens for the graphic, as it is light but with enough coverage that full movements can be used.

  2. #12
    Lachlan Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    607
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Lachlan, what size Graphic are you fantasizing about today?
    I now am the proud owner of a Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a Kalart rangefinder coupled to a Kodak Ektar 127mm f4.7 - just like the one on the left hand side of the page HERE.

    Hope this helps,

    Lachlan

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
    I now am the proud owner of a Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a Kalart rangefinder coupled to a Kodak Ektar 127mm f4.7 - just like the one on the left hand side of the page HERE.

    Hope this helps,

    Lachlan
    Great! Good for you, I'm sure you'll get good use out of it.

    If you have the money for one and are willing to hack your camera, the shortest lens you can use on it that will cover 4x5 is probably the 44/5.6 Super Aviogon. One of my neighbors has one, I've held it in my lap. A while ago someone in Japan posted an image of a 4x5 Graphic with a 44 SA, Google might find it for you. Very rare lens, not inexpensive.

    Otherwise, if you're interested in stretching the limits you'd best do your own homework. The 4x5 Pacemaker Speed's minimum flange-to-film distance is 2 5/8". Of modern lenses, Schneider's and Rodenstock's are the best-documented. The shortest they offer that covers 4x5 and has minimum flange to film distance at infinity >= 2.625" is the one for you. In tele lenses, the 15" (381 mm) Tele Raptar is close to your camera's limit and not too expensive.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  4. #14
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,084
    Images
    159
    Monomon,
    while you just have the one lens, I suggest you keep the front standard reversed. Using the front axis tilt on the crown is so convienient with the standard reversed. Also, if you are looking for a really wide lens that will go on the inner rail, you can also keep the front reversed.

  5. #15
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Lachlan -- That nice little Ektar 127mm doesn't really have enough coverage for much use of front rise or tilt. You can have somewhat the equivalent of back tilt by using the drop bed, rising front, and the front standard tilt. It isn't as convenient as a view camera, but certainly beats nothing. A fascinating source of information on this camera is Graphic Graflex Photography by Willard D. Morgan and Henry M. Lester. Get at least the 8th edition to cover the Pacemaker. This book is usually available online from used book dealers.

  6. #16
    Lachlan Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    607
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    If you have the money for one and are willing to hack your camera, the shortest lens you can use on it that will cover 4x5 is probably the 44/5.6 Super Aviogon. One of my neighbors has one, I've held it in my lap. A while ago someone in Japan posted an image of a 4x5 Graphic with a 44 SA, Google might find it for you. Very rare lens, not inexpensive.
    I think I have found it 2/3 of the way down THIS page (while you are there check out some of the other wacky lenses - especially the second from top) - the Aviogon looks very heavy and very expensive!

    Thanks for all your help,

    Lachlan

  7. #17
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    I just checked my top-rangefinder 4x5" Crown Graphic. Without movements, a 65 mm Nikkor focuses at infinity at the front of the rear track with this racked forward about 8 mm, I think a 47 mm would focus OK with no movements (haven't got one to try).

    I can never understand why people want to modify the tilt movement, this works great as it is with lenses of 135 mm and more, for shorter lenses on the back focusing track, it is REALLY not hard to use the side tripod bushing and a ball-and-socket head to mount the camera upside down. I just did this and easily got front-to-back sharpness with the camera about 5 1/2 feet off the ground with the 65 mm lens with just a couple of degrees of tilt and the camera standard at front of the rear track. Rising front with a 65 mm would be very limited, but it would be with any camera without a wide-angle bellows.

    As regards telephoto lenses, I have a 360 mm Tele-Xenar which seems to have a back focus of about 200 mm and focuses very easily on the Crown Graphic with lots of bellows draw to spare. My longest lens is a 500 mm Osaka, with a huge barrel that projects around 6 inches forward of the lens panel. This will focus on the Crown to about 40 feet. If this was a problem for me, I could easily make an extension box about 2 inches long which would of course give a closer minimum focus (I guess about 20 feet).

    Regards,

    David

  8. #18
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,084
    Images
    159
    "Without movements, a 65 mm Nikkor focuses at infinity at the front of the rear track with this racked forward about 8 mm."
    "I can never understand why people want to modify the tilt movement"

    David, reversing the front standard does not damage or cut the camera in any way. It allows for the use of schleimpflug without any fussing with dropping the bed and using full rise. And it is way easier than using "the side tripod bushing and a ball-and-socket head to mount the camera upside down."

    Unless you need to drop the bed and have a lens on the front rail (a 90mm lens would require this), I dont see any reason why you would NOT reverse the front standard.

  9. #19
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by darinwc
    Unless you need to drop the bed and have a lens on the front rail (a 90mm lens would require this), I dont see any reason why you would NOT reverse the front standard.
    I take your point, but one problem I do have with my Graphic is that I have a Beattie screen fitted (in general a very good idea) which does such a great job that I have trouble seeing vignetting. A further factor with the 65 mm lens is that it really needs to be stopped down to f16 or f22 to cover 4x5" fully, which makes it difficult to check coverage, as a general principle I don't really like a situation in which the lens will end up "looking at " the baseboard if I apply too much of a movement. It may be a matter of taste, but turning the camera upside down is only a matter of detaching the snap fitting on one end of the strap handle and mounting the camera via a second quick-release plate I keep attached to the side - it takes about 5 seconds!

  10. #20
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,084
    Images
    159
    "I don't really like a situation in which the lens will end up "looking at " the baseboard if I apply too much of a movement"
    well, if the lens is on the inner rail you can still drop the bed to get it out of the way. Though on a really wide lens like a 65mm, it may still show. Turning the camera up-side down wont make a difference, the bed may still show on the top instead of the bottom.

    Also, no matter how much you tilt the lens (using axis tilt), it wont make a difference in whether or not the bed shows.

    "It may be a matter of taste" I guess so. Nice things about an up-side-down graphic is you get lens shade. And you also get fall, which is nice to have of your lens is running out of coverage.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin