Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,837   Posts: 1,582,441   Online: 729
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,878
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mfobrien
    Last night, I decided that all of the "bells and whistles" on my 4x5 crown graphic were not needed for its use as a fild camera... so I spent a considerable amount of time removing all of the pieces needed for the Kalart Rangefinder (complex!), and the external flash bracket, as well as the little quick sight on the back and the body-mounted shutter release. I decided to cover the holes for now, at least with black gaffer tape. Now I have a camera that no longer has strange protrusions and fits in a bag a lot easier. I know it lacks a lot of movements, but for landscapes, I think it will be ok, esp. since the camera was a freebie. It has an Ektar 152mm lens on it. Now I have a very simple camera that I think has been pared down to the minimun needed. Has anyone else done this? I know some Graflex afficianodes might be horrified, but I'm not worried about the value of the camera.
    Well, it's your camera, so you can do whatever you want with it--but you did ask for opinions, so I can only say that I would never mutilate a nice classic camera. Not even to save a few ounces. Someday you may want to handhold a shot and need to focus in a hurry--and where will you be without the rangefinder? Cutting down on your options with such a flexible camera makes no sense to me.

  2. #32
    mfobrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    163
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    Well, it's your camera, so you can do whatever you want with it--but you did ask for opinions, so I can only say that I would never mutilate a nice classic camera. Not even to save a few ounces. Someday you may want to handhold a shot and need to focus in a hurry--and where will you be without the rangefinder? Cutting down on your options with such a flexible camera makes no sense to me.
    Chazzy: I appreciate your point of view...for most of my cameras, that holds true. However, the point to me was that if I were to buy a field camera, it would cost a lot more $$ than the Graphic...and I know if I wanted another press camera, I could easily buy one, since theses days, they sell relatively cheaply on the bay. However, I don't have aspirations to trying to recreate the press photographer with a 4x5 camera. If I were handholding a shot, I'd be using either MF or 35mm. I have a 2x3 graphic, which is easily hand-held, and I don't have any plans at all to mutilate that.
    Mark O'Brien -
    At the home of Argus cameras...Ann Arbor, MI
    http://www.geocities.com/argusmaniac/

  3. #33
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,089
    Images
    159
    I think of the 4x5 graphic cameras as a classic design with added features to make it 'easy' to use. Rangefinder, viewfinder, wire frame, handle flash bracket, 4x5 graflock. But at its heart is a rugged 20-square-inch-film-eating american-made monster of a view camera. Leather, wood, or primer grey makes no difference to me. This camera was not made for the shelf or collectors case. Stripping all the fluff and getting down and dirty with some sheet film is what this camera is all about.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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