How much does a Graflex View Camera weigh?

[pbromaghin]

I have decided to get back into 4x5.

I originally screwed up by getting a Cambo Legend rail camera that was way too heavy for how I want to shoot. I also decided that, at 64 years old, my remaining life in retirement is just too short to deal with all the endless errors available in large format, each of which must be found, one at a time, at $3 a pop. I was going to go ahead and include color film in 35mm in the cheapest way possible - Kodak Vision 35mm in 400ft bulk rolls and home processing.

That was 2 years ago.

Recent threads on the use of color film (strongly reinforcing Ansel's statement that looking at a color photograph was like listening to a piano that is just slightly out of tune) have convinced me that it would be sheer madness to use my limited time on this earth to try to tame the beast that is color print photography.

I have decided that, with a lot more patience and care than I have exercised in the past, successful large format Black and white photography will be possible.

However, light, high quality field cameras are way too expensive for me. A Graflex View camera, in good shape, appears to be a very viable option. They are simple, but sophisticated. They fold up into a nicely small package that can easily fit into a photography backpack. Having held one in my hands a few years ago, I dimly remember it as not being too heavy. I've searched, even on graflex.org, but haven't been able to find its weight. Does anybody know?

 

[B.S.Kumar]

I've never seen a Graflex View camera, so I don't know the weight. I also don't know your budget. But the Arca Swiss I'm selling here weighs just over 2 kilos ~4.5 pounds, and costs only 45,000 JPY / ~315 USD including shipping.

Kumar

 

[mshchem]

The Graflex view is a pretty camera, but it's a little different. Comes with part of a tripod head built in, just gets in the way.

The lightest 4x5, gives you a big beautiful negative, some perspective controls. Is a Crown Graphic press camera with a simple 135mm Xenar or other humble lens.

The Crowns are wood covered with vinyl and edged with aluminum, makes for a handsome and very functional camera. You can even use the rangefinder and shoot handheld. The Crown is light.

 

[Dirb9]

As a coincidence, I just had my Graphic View II out. Weight with the dedicated tripod head and a lensboard, but no lens, is 8lb 4oz/3.7kg.

The Graphic View does compress down pretty small, but bear in mind for packing, the monorail doesn't come off (at least I don't see a way to remove it), so you're stuck with a box with a long rod at the end of it.

 

[reddesert]

From the OP's description of "They fold up into a nicely small package that can easily fit into a photography backpack," I am not sure which camera they are talking about. That doesn't sound like a Graphic View monorail, it might describe a Speed/Crown Graphic, or maybe the less common Crown View. If the OP could make some clearer indications of what they are seeking, those with experience might be able to make suggestions.

 

[awty]

It weighs too much.
I have a Cambo Legend and a Graphic II, they are both too heavy for field work, but not as heavy as my C1 8X10 and I have seen people using them in the field.
Get a press camera, or a wooden camera.
I use a Linhof Technika in the field, which is around 1kg and very compact.

 

[Don_ih]

It weighs too much.

I agree. And it definitely doesn't fit in a backpack.
A decently light monorail - Toyo or Omega View (exact same camera). Does everything anyone would need, is relatively robust, everything locks nicely (better than a Graphic View does), and it's pretty cheap. As in, there's one on ebay for $130 right now.

But if you're concerned about weight and overall size, a Crown Graphic or other folding camera is a better choice.

 

[L Gebhardt]

My first 4x5 was an anniversary speed graphic. While not heavy, it wasn’t light either. I picked a Graphic View 2 for movements. It proved to be too bulky 20 years ago when I was in my early 30s. Somewhere along the way I bought a darkroom for just a few items. It came with a Crown Graphic, which is lighter than the others, but not really a fully useable view camera if you wand movements without a lot of hassle. I would recommend searching out a field camera with a decent set of movements. I’ve tried a bunch over the years and so far the Chamonix 45N has stuck as the best compromise for me. There are plenty of other choices, and if you can wait for bargains to appear you can sell the old one off for around what you paid for it.

Try to figure out what movements you require first to avoid to many switches. For me it’s front axis tilt, front rise and shift and I take mostly landscapes, nature, and some buildings. The Chamonix is good for that with the exception of macro since it focuses by moving the front standard.

 

[Nopo]

I think the OP is looking for a Crown View

Graflex

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have both a Graphic View and a Graphic View II. They weigh about the same, unsurprisingly since the frames and rail are almost identical (only significant changes to the II were centered movements, Graflok back option, and a different color and slightly different length of bellows). With the tripod adapter mounted on the rail and a 150 mm Componon, the camera weighs around 8 lbs.

 

[pbromaghin]

Shoot. I thought the standards were detachable from the monorail. 8lbs is too much, too. It seems I want a field camera. And yes, the realization did hit this morning that a Crown Graphic would probably fit the bill. There is no real budget yet, but $1000 with a lens would be a good working guide.

This may just be an unexpectedly sudden and serious GAS attack. 35mm and MF are really challenging enough, and the equipment I have will do everything required for at least the next couple years.

Thank you all for your kind consideration of the question and your really good advice.

 

[Jonathan-sv]

I have a Graphic View and it doesn't get short enough for my 90mm Super Angulon. I certainly wouldn't want to put it into a backpack, and it is definitely a 'stay at home' camera. I'd rather take my Kodak 2D (5x7).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought the standards were detachable from the monorail.

They are, though it's not something I'd want to do over grass or ground cover (too easy to drop stuff you'll want again). You have to remove the drive gear shaft, IIRC. The tripod adapter, OTOH, comes off the rail quickly with one screw. Push the standards together and the standards and rail will fit in a large Gitzo with room for the tripod adapter and a lens board or two (depending on how bulky the mounted lens is).

As noted, minimum practical lens is about a 105 mm (I have a 105 Agnar that works, but wouldn't want to try anything shorter). Recessed lens boards do exist (or can be 3D printed or fabricated, of course), but I'd rather carry my (heavier) RB67 if I'm going any distance -- more choices of lens and viewfinders and I have multiple roll film backs, even though it's heavier. A wood field camera and a mounted lens ought to be available under $1000 -- there was a kit in the classifieds that included several film holders as of a couple days ago.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I've actually packed with a Graphic View II. I replaced it with a wooden folding field camera as soon as I could. I still have the Graphic View II and use it indoors. I had a custom tripod mount made for it so I didn't have to use the old and unreliable tripod mount/pan head that originally came with the camera. It's a good machine, but I wouldn't want to carry it around in the field.

OP, I see some Tachihara and other similar wooden folding cameras on eBay for ~$500 or so. They would work for starters. Also, keep your eyes open for new listings everywhere. Wooden folders don't come up for sale used that much anymore, so patience is a virtue. All of my (five now) wooden folders cost me under $550. Three different Wistas, a Horseman Woodman and a Zone VI (late model).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pioneer]

I kind of like the Graphic View. It is a heavy old beast but it is very stable when you get it locked down. Certainly no camera shake if you have the right tripod.

Ansel would not have minded it but he would have brought his pack mule!

 

[xya]

...I use a Linhof Technika in the field, which is around 1kg and very compact.

I would love to know which one that is. My Technika IV weighed 3kg, that's why I sold it. My Pacemaker Crown Graphic weighs 1.9kg without lens. And I had an old Linhof Standard 4x5 Monorail that was 1.9kg as well. I used it in the field for quite some time, the standards shifted to one side, a light tripod strapped to the rail, easy to carry.

 

[awty]

I would love to know which one that is. My Technika IV weighed 3kg, that's why I sold it. My Pacemaker Crown Graphic weighs 1.9kg without lens. And I had an old Linhof Standard 4x5 Monorail that was 1.9kg as well. I used it in the field for quite some time, the standards shifted to one side, a light tripod strapped to the rail, easy to carry.

You are right, the Linhof Technica iii press is 2.5kg with lens, but very compact. The Graflex ii view is 3.5kg without lens, but also not very compact. The Cambo legend is 7kgs, big and bulky. My antique Thornton is just under 2kg and folds up to half as big as the Linhof.
The press cameras are very compact and quick to set up.

​

 

[hsandler]

They are, though it's not something I'd want to do over grass or ground cover (too easy to drop stuff you'll want again). You have to remove the drive gear shaft, IIRC. The tripod adapter, OTOH, comes off the rail quickly with one screw. Push the standards together and the standards and rail will fit in a large Gitzo with room for the tripod adapter and a lens board or two (depending on how bulky the mounted lens is).

As noted, minimum practical lens is about a 105 mm (I have a 105 Agnar that works, but wouldn't want to try anything shorter). Recessed lens boards do exist (or can be 3D printed or fabricated, of course), but I'd rather carry my (heavier) RB67 if I'm going any distance -- more choices of lens and viewfinders and I have multiple roll film backs, even though it's heavier. A wood field camera and a mounted lens ought to be available under $1000 -- there was a kit in the classifieds that included several film holders as of a couple days ago.

I have a Graphic View II and have managed to use a 90mm Fujinon (99mm flange tofocal plane distance) on a standard lens board with just enough slack in the bellows for some movements. I actually purchased an old recessed lens board and found it didnt have enough room to accomodate the Seiko shutter levers.

But it’s not a good field camera. I have the original case. It’s a Vulcanoid box where the rail sits on some raised pillars and the whole thing hangs upside down from the rail. Not for backpacking.

If the O/P looks at the Graphic press cameras, the Pacemaker Crown is the lightest and has a bit of tilt. For normal or long lenses, this works best if you reverse the front standard so you get forward rather than reverse tilt, useful for landscapes and still life. Still, it can be a frustrating experience, and for a $1000 budget you can probably find a more versatile field camera. I don’t know the metal Super Graphic well, but I understand it may have more movements.

The O/P might also consider medium format field cameras like the Century Graphic or Horseman 985. All the fun and movements of large format with less size and weight and the economy and ease of development of roll film. 6x9 is still a pretty big negative.

 

[Paul Howell]

If for hiking, backpacking, or just shooting next a car on the road? For hiking I use my Crown press, downside is limited movements, + side, if you get one with a graphlock back you can use a variety of film backs, if the rangefinder is in working order it is easy to use hand held or on a monopod. Another downside is that when using the rangefinder the lens are matched to the trailing foucing arm, so need to use on a tripod when using another lens. When shooting next to or not far from my SUV I use a very old Brand sometimes sold as New View which is light, made out of aluminum, but bulky, does not fold up or brake down. Has good movements, will take up to 210, with extension rails, it is not a monorail, will take up a 300 or so. If you plan on using when hiking I would look for a field camera. On the other hand a Hoseman or Lindhof technical cameras have interchanaghle cams for different lens and much more movement than an old crown or speed fold up, just expensive.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don’t know the metal Super Graphic well, but I understand it may have more movements.

The Super (and Super Speed, same body with a 1/1000 leaf shutter) has a LOT of front standard movement for a completly enclosing folding camera. RF cams are very hard to find, but not impossible to make, and since they have Graflok backs, they're as versatile as a 4x5 is likely to get. You don't really need/want the RF if you're using it like a view camera anyway.

I have a Century; it has about the same movements (relative to format size) as my Anniversary Speed: modest rise, very limited shift, and little tilt in the wrong direction to be useful for landscapes.

 

[hsandler]

I have a Century; it has about the same movements (relative to format size) as my Anniversary Speed: modest rise, very limited shift, and little tilt in the wrong direction to be useful for landscapes.

I picked up a Century for cheap a couple years ago. For lenses long enough to sit on the front rails, or macro you can get forward tilt by dropping the bed to the wide angle position, raising the front standard to compensate for the drop, then adjusting the back tilt to less than full to keep some residual front tilt. It's a pain because then focus and rise interact, but it can work for still life. Mine came with a home-brewed lens arrangement of an Agnar 105mm from some folding camera glued in. So I always stop down to around f22 and don't have to be too precise on the amount of tilt.

Minerals by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[Donald Qualls]

For lenses long enough to sit on the front rails you can get forward tilt by dropping the bed to the wide angle position, raising the front standard to compensate for the drop, then adjusting the back tilt to less than full to keep some residual front tilt.

Which is exactly the same my Annie Speed (or an Annie Crown) has. But yes, it's a bit ahead of most plate cameras, anyway.

BTW, if stopped down to f/16 or smaller and focused to 12 feet or closer (which is hyperfocal at f/16), that Agnar will barely cover 4x5. I've got one on a board that fits my Speed and Graphic Views, and I've gotten some fine results out of it. Makes a nice cheap wide angle, about equivalent to a 35 mm on full frame 35 mm film. And plenty sharp; my first negative from the Agnar (at hyperfocal, mind) is sharp enough to read a license plate a block away in the negative.

 

[hsandler]

Which is exactly the same my Annie Speed (or an Annie Crown) has. But yes, it's a bit ahead of most plate cameras, anyway.

Did you mean Pacemaker Speed or Crown? My understanding is that the Anniversary models (used 4 inch square lens boards, usually of black wood, and date from 1946 or earlier) had drop bed but no back tilt and there was no Crown model without a focal plane shutter. But I've never handled one. If no back tilt, then the drop bed on that model could only be useful with wide angle lenses where the standard sat on the rear rails. The Pacemaker models had aluminum lens boards with a curled lip, and there was a body shutter release button on the edge of the box.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Did you mean Pacemaker Speed or Crown?

No, I have an Anniversary Speed, which (you are correct) has no back tilt (though the tripod socket is on the body so you can tip the body back with the bed lowered). My Century (Bakelite with Graflok back, otherwise similar to a Baby Crown) also has no back tilt; its movement setup seems identical to that on my Annie Speed.

 

[hsandler]

No, I have an Anniversary Speed, which (you are correct) has no back tilt (though the tripod socket is on the body so you can tip the body back with the bed lowered). My Century (Bakelite with Graflok back, otherwise similar to a Baby Crown) also has no back tilt; its movement setup seems identical to that on my Annie Speed.

Ah, I think my use of "back tilt" was an unfortunate choice of phrase which caused misinterpretation. I meant tilting of the front standard backwards, not tilting of the back (box and film holder) of the camera. Here is my Century Graphic. There are two knurled knobs at the bottom of the front standard. They are for tilting the front standard backwards. These can be used to compensate for the forward tilt induced by dropping the bed, and therefore by undercompensating or not tilting the front backwards at all when the bed is dropped, one can achieve front forward tilt, useful for landscapes and still lifes when the back of the camera is vertical and the plane of focus desired is more like horizontal. The Pacemaker Speed and Crown have the same movement. The Anniversary Speed (there is no Anniversary Crown) don't have this movement. The front standard only has a rise movement, and maybe some left-right shift (not sure; the Pacemaker has a bit of shift).

So in brief summary in case I've confused everyone, the Anniversary has drop bed and front rise as the only movements, although on a tripod one can tilt the whole camera too; the Pacemaker and Century models also have front backward tilt (and the standard can be reversed to get front forward tilt with some limitations), and the Super models have more full front movements.

Century Graphic by Howard Sandler, on Flickr