Graflex conundrum

[erikg]

Tim has a good point, the 3x4 fits in the hands very well, by comparison the 4x5 feels like a big box. A 4x5 roll film holder, which are easier to come by can be cut down to fit the 3x4. A 4x5 Super D will go for a good chunk of change, a plain old Series D may be found at a more reasonable price. That's the thing with these cameras, you get one and then you find yourself with more before you know it. I now have 3.

[roodpe]

Another option would be to modify your camera to use a 4x5 graflok back. A friend has such a camera (3=1/4x4-1/4 Speed Graphic). You do not get the full 4x5 image on the negative but you can still contact print or enlarge the neg. You combine the advantages of a smaller, lighter camera with standard 4x5 holders and 4x5 film.

Pete

[paul ewins]

If you adapted a 4x5 back to any of the 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 RB cameras theoretically you could almost get a 4x4 image in either orientation.

[roodpe]

If you adapted a 4x5 back to any of the 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 RB cameras theoretically you could almost get a 4x4 image in either orientation.

Paul,

I was told the image is larger than 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 on the negative. I can find out the exact size if anyone is interested.

Pete

[ineffablething]

I've had SK Grimes modify a shitload of 3x4 graflexes with 4x5 Grafloc backs. It's the only way to go.

W.

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

Thanks everyone,
i didn't know Weston used a 3x4, that is interesting, I knew Stieglitz used a 4x5. I am inspired to only upgrade to a 3x4 super d with an ektar lens on order. The 3x4 does feel good to hold. Not sure about upgrading the rear to a 4x5 graflock back. I have 8 3x4 graflex holders and 3 plate holders, in mint condition, I like using them.