How much for a pristine Super Graphic?

Do-Over Decor

A
Do-Over Decor

  • 1
  • 0
  • 9
Oak

A
Oak

  • 1
  • 0
  • 16
High st

A
High st

  • 6
  • 0
  • 56
Flap

D
Flap

  • 0
  • 0
  • 22

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,216
Messages
2,788,004
Members
99,838
Latest member
HakuZLQ
Recent bookmarks
2

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,835
Format
Multi Format
The Super Graphic's rotating back is a poor reason to buy one instead of a Crown Graphic. This because the Crown has a tripod socket on the left side, under the strap. Original equipment straps unclip easily. This isn't just theory, its what I do to shoot my little Graphics in portrait orientation. They can be handheld in portrait orientation too, although IMO shooting handheld gives up the larger format's image quality advantage.

I've read this thread from the beginning, didn't see any mention of the Super's one huge -- IMO -- weakness relative to the Crown. Pacemaker Graphics (these came in two flavors, Pacemaker Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter, Pacemaker Crown Graphic without and with a shorter minimum flange-to-film distance) have linked inner and outer bed rails. This means that short lenses that focus to infinity with the front standard on the inner rails are easy to focus on a Pacemaker Graphic.

The Super Graphic's inner bed rails are fixed. This means that a lens short enough to focus to infinity with the front standard on the inner rails can be focused only by sliding the front standard. Clumsy, imprecise, vulnerable to small unintentional swings.

The Super's big advantage over Pacemakers is more movements.

OP, if you want a view camera get a proper view camera, not a Graphic. You should be able to get a decent 4x5 Cambo SC with international back for under $300. The difference between that price and the asking price for the Super you're looking at will buy a much better normal lens than is on the Super.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
Great points, Dan!

The OP needs to do more research to determine what he needs for what he intends to shoot before buying anything. Like I said earlier, just because something is a good deal does not mean it's a good deal for you.
 

Discoman

Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
123
Format
Large Format
There is always a compromise in this situation, the best of both worlds. Graflex did make a view camera, and I thing it used a reversible, not a rotating back.
:smile:
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Graflex, Crown Graphic, and Speed Graphic can be used as view cameras or hand held. View cameras and monorail cameras cannot be used hand held. If one does not want to shoot hand held then get a view or monorail camera, but that does not make Graflex or Graphics bad cameras. Use the right tool for the job.
 

cyberjunkie

Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
56
Format
Multi Format
Where else are you going to get a rangefinder 4x5 in like-new condition for $650. I'd grab if it is as described.

B&H price on new Wista: $6,959.99
B&H price on new Linhof: $9,975.95


Who is buying new nowadays?
Just a few professionals, and AFAIK the only models that are selling well are the small "architectural" cameras, like the Arca, the Silvestri, and their chinese counterparts, to be used with a digital back.
For any other type of photographic assignment, buying a new technical camera would be a nonsense, both practically and economically.
Let's face it, any professional uses digital, and most monorail equipments are sold as replacements/expansions/upgrades.
Anybody doing advertising work must spend his/her money in a new digital back, and in "digital" lenses.
If some money is left, a nice 6x9 monorail (for which there is a good choice on the second hand market) would be better, for digital use, than any other view camera.
I suspect that the majority of new expensive cameras, especially suited for film photography, are sold to rich amateurs with far more money than common sense.
BTW, modern cameras can be better engineered, but the mechanical quality of some vintage cameras (like a Linhof Bi System or a Sinar Norma) is simply not economically feasible anymore. And a Technika IV or V is almost as good as a brand new Technika.
A Technika V is still a little pricey, but the two monorails i mentioned can be had for a silly price, compared to the cost of a new model (which, i am sorry, i wouldn't exchange for my Bi System).
This is the market. Like it or not, we are in the digital era.
I am happy, as i can afford some nice equipments which were definitely out of my reach when i was younger.
Some were affordable even at that time: when i purchased my like-new Bi-System, 25 years ago, it was already cheap because there were newer models with yaw-free movements.
Very recently i have seen a complete outfit of the same camera, in spotless conditions, with two lenses and plenty of accessories, being sold for about 650 USD.
The same price for a basic camera like a Super Graphic seems a bit over-the-top for my taste. As always, YMMV.

You asked me where: on Ebay.
I am not following any Super Graphic, cause i am not interested, but i have seen a Pacemaker with Graflok back, and with a 135mm Xenar in Compur shutter, sold for about $290.
Not far from my $250 target, for a camera with NO lens!
With a little more of common sense, market price should be even lower (it was, a few years ago).
Unfortunately some buyers brought to large format the same atttude they had when they were buying their digital stuff.
LF needs a little patience, both when shooting pictures and when buying...

have fun

CJ

Sent from my Android tablet
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom