All hail 2x3 Graphics, the Supreme Rulers of Medium Format

[Dan Fromm]

Multi-format: 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, format can be changed mid-roll (just swap roll holders)

Wide range of focal lengths: 35 mm (35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon on Century, Crown) to 12” (12”/4 TTH Telephoto on Speed)

Accept lenses from numerous makers

Two focusing methods: on the ground glass, with coupled rangefinder (but only for one lens)

Three framing devices (ground glass, tubular view finder with masks as needed, wire frame finder)

Front rise (a generous 19 mm)

As many as two shutters: Focal plane (Speed only) allows using lenses in barrel; between-the-lens shutters (all)

Double extension allows 1:1 with a 100 mm lens, higher magnification with shorter lenses.

I could go on, but its clear that nothing else compares. Who needs an XPan? Who needs an Alpa 12? A 2x3 Graphic can do what they do, and more.

 

[Ian Grant]

Are you worshiping false idols Dan ?

You missed the front tilt and shift. I agree about the versatility of the Century & Speed Graphics, I have a similar sized Busch Pressman but the lens board is held by 4 screws so it's no-where near as versatile. Of course there the much more expensive 6x9 Linhofs.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I don't worship my cameras, I use them.

I didn't miss front tilt and shift. In my experience they're usable with only a few combinations of focal length and focussed distance. Present, yes. Useful, no.

In addition to the 2x3 Linhofs, there are 2x3 Horseman press cameras. Also a narsty little 2x3 B&J. As you mentioned, the 2x3 Pressman. What killed the 2x3 Pressman for me was its very small lens throat, which makes it a less practical camera than the equivalent Graphic.

 

[wombat2go]

The latest quirk I learned about the 2x3 is that the front standard can "yaw" when the lock tab is pressed.
Here I had preset the lens to infinity and not noticed the yaw.
If the standard is wound out to focus a bit to less than infinity it might not be so bad, depending on the aperture.
But in this exposure, with the Super angulon 65mm, the left half is less than infinity and the photo is no good.

https://app.box.com/s/38xrkjzk0j97d65i2erakjb03vqf6sz6

Ahh well..., I have it square now, I will have to go back and repeat the photos.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wombat, that's why I use a spacer, also called chinaman, to square up the front standard when it isn't up against the bed stops. You made a cute one, use it!

 

[wombat2go]

Yes, I am using it. But the force to push locked the tab tends to yaw the standard even when holding it against the jigger.
Same on the 4x5
Last night I did a few trials with 0.1 mm ( 4 thou inch) feeler gauge.
I might modify the china jigger a bit
I put the 2x3 on the gauge block here. I measure that the typical "best achievable" side to side squareness of the front of the lens with the body back face to be within +/- 5 thou inch or ( 120 micrometer),
suppose that is OK, as long as the SA 65 lens is not exactly at infinity. Might be better to bring it forward to the hyperfocal or so. ( I have a street light about 50 metre away) .
My focussing loupe for the 2x3 gg is the back out of an old zoom, with fl of about 35mm.

 

[Ian Grant]

I didn't miss front tilt and shift. In my experience they're usable with only a few combinations of focal length and focussed distance. Present, yes. Useful, no.

One of the reasons I switched to a Wista 45DX from a Mamiya 645 in the mid 1980's was I often found myself running out of DOF, I had a heavy De Vere Whole plate/Half plate/5x4 monorail so knew I needed at least front tilt & rise/fall, plus I already had a 5x4 enlarger in my darkroom.

I don't think I'd come across these 6x9 Graphic cameras back then, very few were ever sold here in the UK and the Linhof and Horseman 6x9 cameras were quite expensive. I know from experience with my 5x4 cameras and the small 6x9 Busch Pressman that I'd find the tilts on a 6x9 Graphic useful, mostly with a 105mm standard and slightly with a 65mm or 75mm WA lens.

Because of it's small and to all intents fixed lens board I'm not using my Busch Pressman so maybe it's time I sold it and replaced it with a Baby Graphic.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ho hum. the 2x3 is a baby press camera wantabe. The real press cameras are the 4"x5" cameras.

 

[Paul Howell]

Speeds and Crowns are rugged, you can use great glass, but not on par with either Lindhof or Horseman.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ho hum. the 2x3 is a baby press camera wantabe. The real press cameras are the 4"x5" cameras.

For traveling light a Baby Graphic, a 2nd lens, a couple of backs and some rolls of film plus a small tripod would be very practical

Speeds and Crowns are rugged, you can use great glass, but not on par with either Lindhof or Horseman.

The final images can be though

Ian

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I do like Crowns and Speeds but I LOVED my Horseman VHR. Sadly, that VHR kit was stolen over 30 years ago.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, I am using it. But the force to push locked the tab tends to yaw the standard even when holding it against the jigger.

Design problem, I suspect. Is your jigger's cross section an inverted top hat?

The lower section should be a tight fit between the rails and at least 1" long.

 

[wombat2go]

Yes my jigger presently has a full contact across the front standard. That contributed to rocking the standard as it is tightened down.
I am going to mill a relief across the jigger so that it makes contact on 2 points, like the orginal Graflex stops.

At same time i am trying to work out how to make the one jigger adjustable for use on a few lenses, and on the 4x5 too.
The rails on the 2x3 and the 2x4 are the same, and the spacing on the 2 cameras here is equal within the required accuracy.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wombat, I think we're talking across each other. Please see figures 27 - 29 in http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

Note that figs 27 and 29 show the spacer upside down. It works very well, doesn't allow any swing at all.

 

[wombat2go]

Yes, Fig 27 shows that that Mr. Lustig milled away to allow only two protrusions to contact the front standard.
I know now that that is necessary and I will do it.
The difference with my jigger is that it does not use the Graflex stops, it is longer and it uses the web as a register/stop ( I use an adjustable brass cylinder to contact the web.)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, Fig 27 shows that that Mr. Lustig milled away to allow only two protrusions to contact the front standard.
I know now that that is necessary and I will do it.

I don't agree with your analysis. I have another spacer/chinaman, made by SKGrimes, to fit my Century Graphic. It has no protrusions and it works as well as the one Fred made.

In general I don't use the bed stops with my spacers, just slap 'em down. The first one was made so that I could square up the front standard with a lens that made infinity inside the box using bed stops on the outer rail. That's the only lens for which I butt a spacer up against the bed stops.

If your jigger allows any swing at all then its lower section isn't in good contact with the insides of the bed rails.

 

[juan]

Don't forget the cut film holders and Grafmatics. Plus bikini clad gals on Florida beaches think they're cute.

 

[wombat2go]

Hi Dan,
On the 2 cameras here (2x3 & 4x5) the lower steel plate of the front standard appears to have been folded in a brake press.
Out near the rails, the fold is cut away, ( probably in a shear) to allow clearance for the rails.
So the complete fold exists only in about the center third of the width., and the folded part is protruding in front of the cut away edge, resulting in "belly"
I can't measure it without pulling it apart, but with feelers and a straight edge, i can see at least 0.1mm+ of "belly"
The designers has no need to make the front standard flat crosswise because they used point contact of the stops on the rails
If the jigger is flat ( no protrusions to emulate the Graflex original stop) it will contact the center folded part and the standard can rock on the "belly" when tightened.
So I think the protrusions on the jigger ( per your fig 27) are necessary ( at least on the cameras here)
I will try that next.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wombat, I believe what you tell me but my 2x3 Graphics (2 Crowns, 1 Century, 1 Pacemaker Speed) aren't exactly like yours. What you describe as the folded part doesn't protrude from their front standards. The spacers' edges make good tight contact with the top of the front standards' bases all the way across.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

My baby graphic is not as nice as many, but it has red bellows so that's all right with me.
http://i.imgur.com/IyzsTTT.jpg

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Two focusing methods: on the ground glass, with coupled rangefinder (but only for one lens)
...

Also the distance scale on the front rails. I suspect press photographers would value speed of operation most of all, so they'd stay with a fixed shutter speed, aperture, lock the focus at about 10 feet, and then shoot at the right moment (w/flash).

Has it got the beam-focus of the Pacemaker 4x5 Speed Graphic as well?

Don't forget the cut film holders and Grafmatics. Plus bikini clad gals on Florida beaches think they're cute.

So it's the bikini girls hoarding the Grafmatics. No wonder I can't find them.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Has it got the beam-focus of the Pacemaker 4x5 Speed Graphic as well?

There's a Focuspot attachment for the Kalart RFs usually fitted to 2x3 Graphics. So, yes, with the attachment. Side RF 4x5 Graphics usually have Kalarts, can also use the Focuspot.

 

[Jim Jones]

Are you worshiping false idols Dan ?

You missed the front tilt and shift. I agree about the versatility of the Century & Speed Graphics, I have a similar sized Busch Pressman but the lens board is held by 4 screws so it's no-where near as versatile. Of course there the much more expensive 6x9 Linhofs.

Ian

My older Busch Pressman (so the label says) 2x3 used a 2.5" square wooden lens board just like the Anniversary 2x3. Also, it had unlimited front tilts and swings. Someone retrofitted it with a Graflok back, but it never had a rangefinder or optical finder, only the sports finder. It's not very versatile, either.

 

[StoneNYC]

The "options" for 2x3 are plentiful, but that doesn't mean it's the best format. Sometimes all the options and gear can get in the way of actually shooting.

Of all the formats I currently shoot (35mm, 6x7, 645, 2x3, 4x5, 8x10, 14x17) the 2x3 is the least used because it's the most effort for the least gain.

Developing 2x3 sheets is a pain, setting up the camera vs using 6x7 is a pain, printing 2x3 is a pain to find the right holder or make one, sca***ing 2x3 is a pain. Everything takes longer. Having various roll backs is great, but means more gear to lug, all for the same image size as just using my Mamiya7 instead, with better lenses. And if I want movements I use the 4x5/8x10 which has more image detail gain and less finicky with the rest of the steps.

I wish someone could trade me the 2x3 mini-speed for a 4x5 speed. It's a burden, it's also the only gift I've received from my great step-uncle who recently passed away, so now I feel guilty selling it. Even if he told me I should sell it to further my photo career. I hate seeing cameras sitting on shelves too.

So to me, it's not really as easy to praise this format. But I shoot a lot of film, I think maybe for someone who does this as a hobby it could be a fun format to geek out on the gear and also be able to pack it in smaller packs and easier to manage than larger formats. So I can see the joy too. I wish I had the time/space to enjoy it more.

Enjoy what you can. Just don't let it sit idle

 

[Ian Grant]

Bit harsh Stone. I used to use my 5x4 Wista with a 6x9 back it was fast as using sheet film and using a 6x9 Graphic with a roll film back wouldn't be much different. No-one's suggesting shooting 6x9 sheet film.

Your looking at it as a 6x7 user with a Mamiya 7, but the Mamiya lenses are no better than modern Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon etc LF/MF lenses and your Mamiya 7 has no movements. Nor does the RB/RZ series which I contemplated many years ago. My big issue with MF is lack of any movements with SLRs and Rangefinders except the Fuji 6x8 which is of no interest to me.

I think Dan's right in his opening post, the Graflex backs are quite light I have a pair of RH10s (6x7) and they are quite small, plus you can get 6x6 and 6x9 backs as well. Lenses are also relatively small and light so a complete kit would be very small and versatile. I can think of two overseas trips where taking LF wasn't feasible and in hindsight a 6x9 Graphic would have been ideal. I took a 6x17 camera when we went to South America and a TLR to Spain.

Unfortunately I use my 5x4 Speed Graphics or I'd trade with you One's a specially modified WA pre-Anniversary Speed Graphic camera. I'm in North America in the Autumns an hopefully can have a 6x9 Graphic sat waiting for me, with some film.

Ian