Busch or Graflex? A possible silly question.

So, here's the thing.

After years of dithering and excuses why and why not think I'm finally getting ready to take the plunge into large format. I've been looking at old press cameras, from a portability standpoint, as well as cost; it just seems like a good, inexpensive route to get into large format outdoor photography (while I'd love a Linhof field camera, that's not going to happen at least until grad school is done)

I've been bouncing back and forth between a Busch Pressman D and a Crown Graphic. I'd pretty much settled on getting the Crown Graphic, but there are quite nice examples of the Pressman that keep popping up on That Auction Site, for quite a bit cheaper than the Graflex cameras are selling for, and they continue tempt me.

So, I guess what my question, oh all knowing list, is just how hard IS it to find lens boards for the Busch? And, while I can take or leave the idea of roll film backs, the idea of a Polaroid back does have a certain appeal, so, how much of a hindrance would the lack of a Graflok back be?

Any help and information you can throw my way would be quite welcome!

Thanks!

I have used neither of these cameras, so take this for what it is worth. For me the polaroid Issue would be a deciding factor for me. I am lighting nearly everything I shoot, and i very regularly see things on the polaroid (fuji polaroid, what ever) that i don't notice while looking at the ground glass (both in terms of lighting, composition, and things that are actually in the frame). An other thing to think about would be which camera has a brighter standard ground glass. Hope this helps.

The Busch is a little jewel. Very compact and sturdy with a rotating back. Great for backpacking. The lens boards are smallish but work well for the usual kit of a 90, 150 and 210. They can be fairly easily constructed from hobby shop aluminum and epoxy using hand tools. The Crown is a nice camera but usually pricey. Between the two is the Burke and James Watson Press. All aluminum, rotating back and larger lensboards and usually very reasonable in price. You might also want to consider a Speed Graphic as the focal plane shutter will allow you to use cheap barrel lenses.

Don't forget the little known B&J Press camera.
Better movement than the Busch, which is better than the Graphic, and a larger lens board.

Thanks for the replies.

BenZucker said:

For me the polaroid Issue would be a deciding factor for me. I am lighting nearly everything I shoot, and i very regularly see things on the polaroid (fuji polaroid, what ever) that i don't notice while looking at the ground glass .

Click to expand...

This is precisely why I'm wondering about the usability of polaroid backs. I don't ever really use lighting in my shooting, but it's still nice to know how accurate your exposure is before you make a keeper. So, I guess I was wondering if anyone out there knew if any of the instant film holders would fit into the Busch's spring back.

outwest said:

The Busch is a little jewel. Very compact and sturdy with a rotating back. Great for backpacking.

Click to expand...

This would be my primary use for such a camera. Something to haul around with me as I tramp around the out of doors. Something compact, and light(ish), that won't being packed away in the bottom of a back-pack.

outwest said:

Between the two is the Burke and James Watson Press. All aluminum, rotating back and larger lensboards

Click to expand...

That's a new one on me! I'll see what there is to be found. Thanks.

outwest said:

You might also want to consider a Speed Graphic as the focal plane shutter will allow you to use cheap barrel lenses.

Click to expand...

The Speed Graphic is actually another camera I've been eying. Half the time I've decided that I won't ever use the focal plane shutter, and that I should get the Crown, and half the time I'm convinced that I should get the Speed, because it would be foolish to limit my options. My opinion waffles based on the availability of nice examples of either specimen.

Again, thanks for the replies. It's given me more to think about, and at least one more option to keep an eye out for.

Waffling again?
The nicest thing about the Speed is the ability to use shutterless lenses. It weighs slightly more than a Crown though.
Think of the Busch as an all aluminum Crown.

Each of the cameras in question has it's points.
The Speed is easy to find, easy to make lens boards for (4x4 masonite works fine), easy to carry around and has the built in ability to use just about any lens you can imagine that doesn't need a lot of bellows. I am using a magnifying glass and some lenses from overhead projectors right now for projects with my students. A Graflock back would be the most important option; the spring back is frustrating to no end. Not only does the Graflock allow the use of different adapters (roll film, polaroid, etc.) but it also may have a GG that includes a fresnel lens beneath the glass- very bright image. Down sides? No rotating back, very limited movements and, commonly, rangefinders that are only good for the one lens that came with the camera. (I may be wrong, but I believe that Hugo Meyers cannot be easily reset)

The Busch is metal, has a rotating back, more (but still limited) movements and is very nicely made. The lensboards, while possible to fabricate, are more complex and more expensive to purchase. The standard back is similar to a Graflak and will take any adapters that you have.

I have never owned/tried a Watson, but they do appear to be interesting cameras.

As said before, the individual camera that comes available may be deciding factor here. A good example of one will trump a worn out version of the other, hands down.

There was a 4/30 posting here in the classifieds for a B&J Press.

I've had a crown graphic for a long time, along with several other 4x5's. I've kept it with the idea of doing portraits and other shooting where quickness and portability become important.

But when I do put it into action, I'm not always thrilled with its operation, compared to my other 4x5's. Its only slightly easier to set up and has a very limited range of movements, so the tradeoff is not all that favorable in my opinion. Wide or long lenses are not really usable, either.

Having said that, there are a lot of great deals, and I would highly recommend a crown graphic for getting your feet wet. I just wouldn't rule out a nice wooden folding camera if you came across one.

John

Whiteymorange said:

Each of the cameras in question has it's points.
The Speed is easy to find, easy to make lens boards for (4x4 masonite works fine), easy to carry around and has the built in ability to use just about any lens you can imagine that doesn't need a lot of bellows. I am using a magnifying glass and some lenses from overhead projectors right now for projects with my students. A Graflock back would be the most important option; the spring back is frustrating to no end. Not only does the Graflock allow the use of different adapters (roll film, polaroid, etc.) but it also may have a GG that includes a fresnel lens beneath the glass- very bright image. Down sides? No rotating back, very limited movements and, commonly, rangefinders that are only good for the one lens that came with the camera. (I may be wrong, but I believe that Hugo Meyers cannot be easily reset)

Click to expand...

Whitey,

Why is the spring back so frustrating? Because you can't use different backs with it? Or something about the design?

Sully,
Adding roll film backs is very difficult. Calumet and Adapt-a-roll backs can be made to fit, but it's a tight squeeze because the springs are set to expand only within a certain range, that is, only materials that are thin enough can be inserted. A Polaroid pack film holder (for either 3.25x4.25 or 4x5) will not fit. I jury rigged one by adding washers under the screw that holds the spring down, but it was a poor job at best- the screw needed to be longer, etc. The other thing is that the spring backs do not have a fresnel lens under the glass- not a really big deal if you are using fast lenses, but a pain if a copy lens starts at f9 or so. All in all, I found it worth my while to buy a junker that had been partly stripped and had broken glass, replace the glass and screw the entire Graflok back on to my old camera. Fortunately, it was not a problem.

Whitey

I have an old Speed Graphic Anniversary model and love it. The focal plane shutter makes it a bit heavier but its worth it. The lenses I have need CLA's so I just open them up and shoot away with the focal plane. Amazing how sturdy this camera is. It was used by my step mom's 1st husband professionally from 1946 till the mid 70's when he passed on.

I have owned a Bush Pressman and a Crown and Speed graphic.

Neither are perfect, but I would reccomend one of the graphics over the BP.

The BP 1. has a small lensboard opening, making modern plasmats and super angulons hard/impossible to use.
2. does not have a inner focussing rail, making wide-angle lenses hard to use.
3. the front standard is not as rigid as the graflex.
4. The lensboards are impossible to find so you will have to make them.

On the graflex cameras, the only issue is that the front standard does not tilt forward. You can drop the bed to get around this in some focal length lenses or you can dissasemble it and reassemble it backwards. (loosing the back tilt and thus the drop bed).

I dont really see the spring back as a problem because I only use 4x5 film holders. I dont see the point in using a roll film back on a 4x5 camera.
If you find a speed or crown with a spring back you can probably get it cheaper than one with a graflock back.

Keep in mind no one camera can do all things perfectly. Press cameras almost all shoot quickly and efficiently with a normalish lens of about 127mm to 135mm. Rotating backs are especially useful when shooting off a tripod or whenever using moves shooting both verticals and horizontals of the same scene.

If you want to shoot Polaroids as your final product, that's great, but instant film is generally considered an unnecessary expense for verifying artificial lighting nowadays, with DSLRs replacing it. It's almost completely done away with for such commercial use--but that application was once huge. It's primarily why instant film in sheet sizes has become extinct, and why it had been teetering at the brink for some years. Pack film from Fuji is yet available, however, and there's a project afoot to revive other extinct Polaroid sizes. Sheet film might be revived someday but don't count on it. AFAIK, all that's available now in sheet is hoarded old stock-- at a premium price.

This Polaroid use was also more of an issue when pretty much everyone shooting color commercially was shooting transparency film. These days there are terrific color negative films like Fuji Pro 160s, Kodak Portra 160 VC and Ektar 100 available in sheet sizes (and 120 roll) that aren't nearly as exposure-critical, and reasonably easy to home process in C41 chemistry.

The Spring back isn't so much of an issue except for swapping out roll film backs. That's not as big a deal as you might expect, because if you're shooting roll film with regularity, swapping out the fresnel portion of a Graflok is a PITA because you've got to put it down somewhere, and GG focusing becomes a chore. Chances are you'll soon want a camera dedicated to the task of 6x9 or 6x7 because a 4x5 is considerably bigger than it needs to be. A baby Busch or a Baby Crown could be about perfect in this regard. Caveats are that without a Graflok back the roll-film holder will need semi-permanent mounting, which might be as simple as a couple of thumbscrews and some washers on the Busch. For any dedicated roll-film camera you're going to want a well-calibrated rangefinder, and a viewfinder that closely approximates your lens.

(A Kalart Synchronized RF can be adjusted to most focal length lenses, but the Hugo Meyer and Viewfocus ones cannot. Top-mounted RF Crowns and Speeds use pre-cut cams as do the Super Graphics--different cams, though--and these can't be otherwise adjusted. Cams are difficult but not impossible to find. Too, a lot of more modern lenses aren't exactly their stated focal length, and won't fit the old cams.)

Might also look a the Graflex Super Graphic and the Meridian 45B (though these might be a little more expensive either ought to be available for <$500 with a decent lens).

If you get into lenses wider than 90mm, seems worth mentioning that the Crown has internal rail focusing, as does the Meridian 45B.

darinwc said:

The BP has a small lensboard opening, making modern plasmats and super angulons hard/impossible to use.
...
4. The lensboards are impossible to find so you will have to make them.

Click to expand...

These are both true. My 210/5.6 Symmar-S didn't initially fit in the Pressman - it's about 2mm too tight. No problem, I got a dremel and took a little off the bellows mount and now it fits. Ditto for the 90/8 Super Angulon. Don't try and put any XL lenses on this thing, it won't fit. It JUST folds with a 150/5.6 Symmar-S, too.

Advantages over the Graphics:
More/better movements
Rotating back (HUGE as it allows movements in both directions on the film plane, albeit only one direction at a time)
IMO better built, feels indestructible
Quite a bit smaller, compared side by side
Rangefinder is adjustable for any lens

I owned both and sold the Graphic. It more than paid for the Pressman.

I can work my Nikon 90/8 into my Busch Pressman fairly easily after some practice. Sort of have to insert the rear element at an angle at first.

Anyone seriously thinking of buying or using a Speed Graphic should get a copy of Graphic Graflex Photography by Morgan & Morgan (or Morgan & Lester in earlier editions). The 11th edition of 1958 covers up through the Super Graphic. The 8th through 10th editions cover up through the Pacemaker Crown and Speed Graphic side rangefinder models. Early editions also have articles by some of the great experts of those times: Ansel Adams, Barbara Morgan, Bernice Abbot, Harold Edgerton, Rudolf Kingslake, etc. While the Busch and the B&J are good cameras, they aren't part of an extensive and well-documented system like the Graphic and Graflex.

Bob Eskridge said:

I can work my Nikon 90/8 into my Busch Pressman fairly easily after some practice. Sort of have to insert the rear element at an angle at first.

Click to expand...

I had my BP setup for use with a Super Angulon 90mm f8. Same as above, if I inserted the rear at a bit of an angle it would fit.

I would say go for a Pacemaker Speed Graphic. The lens panels are easily available. Just go go for an example with a Graflok back.
I wish I had bought the Pacemaker Speed Graphic rather than the Crown Graphic. I have paid hundreds of dollars to get a old 6" Beck Biplanat re-mounted into a Copal #1. It would have made things easier when using the old lantern Petzval I have (wonderful swirlies).

It's nice to see a thread where the B&J Press gets plugged. I've often wondered why they're so little regarded. I picked one up for $50 with a pinhole lens board (the board is just the standard 4" square board, same as Anniversary Graflex). It weighs a ton but it's built like a tank. The back rotates, which is a nice feature, and the front standard has a good bit of movement, which also trumps the Crown/Speed. I use my Speed most often, but that's because of the FP shutter.

Dan

I have a Busch C 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and it has a small lens board that was not made to take off, in that it has four screws that hold it in and not a slide. The original 101mm lens is very clean and I believe the camera wasn't used much at all. The Kalart is set correctly and accurately and I converted the spring back to a Graflex 23 back so I can used my roll film holders and Grafmatic holders without the ground glass component. I can use film holders which I have plenty of with it as normal. The nice thing about this camera is I can rack it right out for some extreme close ups. It feels right in use too and is easy on the eyes as it is a piece of history that's passing. Bring it out and I get a lot of questions to field. Like where is the battery and how many megapixels does it have.