I NEED a new drug...

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 25, 2014

Oh, and there's always a baby RB Graflex SLR. You'll be limited to normal/moderately long lenses with it, but you'll have rotating back, focal plane shutter for lenses in barrel, and SLR viewing for focusing/composing. Downside? unless you find a RB Graflex D, you won't have any flash sync at all. The last series of RB Graflexes do have flash sync, but it needs to be modified to sync for electronic flash, and will probably only sync at very slow speeds, or on T or B. Or you could shoot flashbulbs. Overhauled and modified RB Graflexes tend to run a pretty penny - good condition Super D 4x5 Graflexes usually run around $1000 with the auto-aperture lens.

ChristopherCoy · Sep 25, 2014

I've been thinking of selling my Hasselblad 500c/m for a while now, or trading it for an RZ kit.

Terry Christian · Sep 25, 2014

Not all Bronicas are 6x6 square, only the SQ series. The ETR series of SLRs are 645 and have focal-plane shutters. (I have a basic, beater condition ETRSi kit I'm looking to sell, FYI).

John Koehrer · Sep 25, 2014

Wasn't the Bronica GS 1 the only rectangular format they made?. From the manual speed are from 16 seconds to 1/500.
That meets the OP's wants. SLR, Ttl viewing, shutter in body. It misses on short film-flange distance but can be used with longer focal length lenses.

MattKing · Sep 25, 2014

I believe the Bronica Etrs series cameras use electronically controlled leaf shutters in each lens.

Alan Gales · Sep 25, 2014

MattKing said:
I believe the Bronica Etrs series cameras use electronically controlled leaf shutters in each lens.

They do and so does the GS-1 6x7 model.

Dan Quan · Sep 25, 2014

Alan Gales said:
The early Bronica EC's and S2a's are pretty neat if you decide to go back to square images. They have focal plane shutters and helical focusing and can focus really close. I once focused my RZ67 on a cereal box on the table and compared my EC to it. The RZ's bellows focussing is legendary. My EC focussed almost as close.

The early Bronica's are cheap and use inexpensive Nikkor, Bronica and Komura lenses. They also have a huge history of people cobbling other lenses on them. It sounds like this it what you want to do.

Cobbling lenses to the bodies is exactly what I want to do. I have decided when it comes to "cameras" the excitement lies in the lenses and the film/processing. I have no brand loyalty but know only loyalty to vision.

mweintraub said:
The Pentax 67s can't take Polaroid backs.

The Bronica would be out also because of the leaf shutter system. hm.

I know NPC made some, heck I even had one for my Nikon F3!

Dan Fromm said:
As has been mentioned already, 2x3 Speed Graphic with Graflok back and the hard-to-find Horseman 2x3 Polaroid back (KEH seems to have one now) will give you TTL focus and composition, focal plane shutter and the ability to use some Polaroid films. Formats available are nominal 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Graphics' focal plane shutters won't sync with electronic flash at any speed, so you'll have to give up flash with lenses in barrel or find a way to mount lenses in barrel in front of or behind a leaf shutter. I do both (lens in front of leaf shutter, leaf shutter in front of lens) but the adapters needed aren't cheap. To see what I've done, read http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

As have been mentioned already, Bronica S, S2 and EC if you can stand 6x6. No good with short focal length lenses not made for them.

Re flange-to-film distances, 2x3 Century and Pacemaker Crown Graphics' is 34.6 mm, 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic's is 61.9 mm. The shortest lens I use on my Century is a 38/4.5 Apo Grandagon. The shortest lens I've used on my 2x3 Speed is a 1.75"/2.8 Elcan ex-Vinten F95. I rarely use it because it doesn't cover 2x3; it was made for 6x6. These lenses are scarce and expensive. The shortest more-or-less readily available lenses that cover 2x3 and will work on a 2x3 Speed are 65 Super Angulons and clones (Horseman, Ilex and 58/5.6 and 60/5.6 lenses for Koni/Rapid Omega).

Yeah, I am diggin the 2x3 Graphics idea, and I can manually pop a flash during a 1/2 second or so speed. Also, maybe I'll get into wet plate, hmm...

film_man said:
RB67 my friend...

Leaf shutters.

TheFlyingCamera said:
Oh, and there's always a baby RB Graflex SLR. You'll be limited to normal/moderately long lenses with it, but you'll have rotating back, focal plane shutter for lenses in barrel, and SLR viewing for focusing/composing. Downside? unless you find a RB Graflex D, you won't have any flash sync at all. The last series of RB Graflexes do have flash sync, but it needs to be modified to sync for electronic flash, and will probably only sync at very slow speeds, or on T or B. Or you could shoot flashbulbs. Overhauled and modified RB Graflexes tend to run a pretty penny - good condition Super D 4x5 Graflexes usually run around $1000 with the auto-aperture lens.

I'm diggin this Graflex idea too.

ChristopherCoy said:
I've been thinking of selling my Hasselblad 500c/m for a while now, or trading it for an RZ kit.

Follow yer heart and make yer art.

Terry Christian said:
Not all Bronicas are 6x6 square, only the SQ series. The ETR series of SLRs are 645 and have focal-plane shutters. (I have a basic, beater condition ETRSi kit I'm looking to sell, FYI).

Ah the heart of a capitalist! Tell me whatcha got an how much.

John Koehrer said:
Wasn't the Bronica GS 1 the only rectangular format they made?. From the manual speed are from 16 seconds to 1/500.
That meets the OP's wants. SLR, Ttl viewing, shutter in body. It misses on short film-flange distance but can be used with longer focal length lenses.

I was looking at the GS-1 but I'm pretty sure it's also leaf shutter reliant.

MattKing said:
I believe the Bronica Etrs series cameras use electronically controlled leaf shutters in each lens.

According to Camerapedia the ETR uses a Seiko leaf shutter.

Terry Christian · Sep 26, 2014

Dan Quan said:
According to Camerapedia the ETR uses a Seiko leaf shutter.

Mea culpa. I haven't shot with my ETRSi for a couple of years and it has been languishing in a bag, so admittedly I'm rusty on the details.

ChristopherCoy · Sep 26, 2014

Dan Quan said:
Follow yer heart and make yer art.

Easier said than done! When you have a 1977 Rolls Royce sitting in the garage you dont just get rid of it! LOL

Dan Quan · Sep 26, 2014

ChristopherCoy said:
Easier said than done! When you have a 1977 Rolls Royce sitting in the garage you dont just get rid of it! LOL

This is one of my favourite quotes and why I appreciate so much of the work on this site, work I am unable to duplicate.

[video=youtube;GOdAbjebs-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOdAbjebs-g[/video]

Dan Quan · Sep 28, 2014

df cardwell said:
Lore and Legend are very powerful. Both Artists and Scientists understand we tend to get the results we are looking for. Believe in the magic, you'll make magic.

The bold underline emphasis is mine.

As a starting point I bought a beat-up Pentax 6x7 and a Voigtländer Bergheil 6.5x9 with a 12cm Heliar. They are each more than a bit of a gamble and together only barely within my budget, but I am hopeful.

I came across df cardwells' statement from '06 during my research last night and had an "ah-ha" moment; I realized I expect no magic using digital and find almost no magic using digital. Cobbling together mismatched cameras and lenses and exposing film to light is for me at least, romantic and magical and adventuresome. For me, the greater the possibility of failure through in-artful handling of the tools the sweeter is the unforeseen success. Digital can minimize the possibility of failure or speed trial and error and learning. But, simply fleeing failure can lead to the death of creativity.

I like romantic and magical and adventuresome! For me moments with a camera are nothing if not pregnant with fresh, unforeseen possibilities, like a young crush. The mind-numbing homogeneity of repetitive sameness sucks my time away and kills my spirit. Personally, I find bliss in photography only when it is intimate, romantic and magical and adventuresome, like a crush on a moment in time rendered with light through a lens.

frank · Sep 28, 2014

I just made a trade for a Bronica S2a from the classifieds here, for exactly this purpose. These early Bronicas have focal plane shutters in the body and they have a separate focusing helix to aid in the adaptation of interesting old lenses.

Determining exposure will be challenging.

Dan Quan · Sep 28, 2014

frank said:
I just made a trade for a Bronica S2a from the classifieds here, for exactly this purpose. These early Bronicas have focal plane shutters in the body and they have a separate focusing helix to aid in the adaptation of interesting old lenses.

Determining exposure will be challenging.

Nice!

Maybe you can find a pola back, or use a digital camera. I'm going to try a combination of both eventually.

EdSawyer · Sep 28, 2014

Consider a 3 x 4 RB series D, converted to graflok 4 x 5 back. You can use lenses as short as 150 mm, give or take. It's relatively light and small and Easy to use handheld. It covers 4 x 4.5 when retrofitted with the 4 x 5 back. I even fitted mine with an rz 67 prism finder for upright SLR viewing.

frank · Sep 28, 2014

Or a 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. Good for lenses >90mm. With a roll film holder if you like.

Dan Quan · Sep 28, 2014

EdSawyer said:
Consider a 3 x 4 RB series D, converted to graflok 4 x 5 back. You can use lenses as short as 150 mm, give or take. It's relatively light and small and Easy to use handheld. It covers 4 x 4.5 when retrofitted with the 4 x 5 back. I even fitted mine with an rz 67 prism finder for upright SLR viewing.

frank said:
Or a 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. Good for lenses >90mm. With a roll film holder if you like.

Both are on my short list as my next likely purchase. I need to see if I screwed the pooch buying either or both the beater 6x7 and Bergheil. If the Bergheil is in good condition I'm going to look into plates, possibly a dry plate kit.

Dan Quan · Sep 28, 2014

And my next likely lens purchase for these cameras will be either a 150 or 180 Sonnar, preferably uncoated.

Dan Fromm · Sep 28, 2014

frank said:
Or a 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. Good for lenses >90mm. With a roll film holder if you like.

I don't know why people think that 4x5 Speeds can't use lenses shorter than 90 mm. The 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic's minimum flange-to-film distance is 66.7 mm. 65/5.6 SA's f-to-f at infinity is no less than 71 mm. 65/4.5 Grandagon-N's is no less than 68 mm.

That said, in the first post in this discussion the OP said he wanted to shoot "rectangular" on roll film. This usually means 6x7 or 2x3. 65 mm isn't a very wide focal length on either.

frank · Sep 28, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
I don't know why people think that 4x5 Speeds can't use lenses shorter than 90 mm. The 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic's minimum flange-to-film distance is 66.7 mm. 65/5.6 SA's f-to-f at infinity is no less than 71 mm. 65/4.5 Grandagon-N's is no less than 68 mm.

That said, in the first post in this discussion the OP said he wanted to shoot "rectangular" on roll film. This usually means 6x7 or 2x3. 65 mm isn't a very wide focal length on either.

The problem with shorter lenses is the break in the focus rails where the front of the camera hinges, and with the front panel not dropping down far enough to be out of the frame, I believe.

Dan Fromm · Sep 28, 2014

frank said:
The problem with shorter lenses is the break in the focus rails where the front of the camera hinges, and with the front panel not dropping down far enough to be out of the frame, I believe.

The bed drops far enough.

Front standard on the hinge at infinity can make things difficult. When I've hit the problem I push the front standard all the way back, drop the bed and then push the front standard out over the hinge. This trick doesn't always work. The alternative, which I've never tried, is to put the front standard on the outer rails, drop the bed, slide the standard backwards out over the hinge and use front tilt (backwards) and rise to make the front standard vertical and center the lens on the gate.

And, as I think I pointed out, a 4x5 Speed probably isn't what the OP wants if he wants a Speed at all. A 2x3er would be slightly better. Slightly. They're not the answer to every maiden's prayer.

Dan Quan · Apr 23, 2015

Well, I was absolutely intent on getting or having made a bellows for my P67 and that was an unmitigated fiasco! A disaster of near Biblical proportions! On a personal scale of course. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I decided to just get a helicoid extension tube and mount my Xenars to bodycaps. I am finally shooting and just peeked at my first roll which is going into the photoflo in a few minutes, the density looks good. I will likely post my first photo from the camera tomorrow. Thank you to everyone who helped me decide on this camera, I think it is exactly what I wanted.

edit: the density looks GREAT!

natelfo · Apr 26, 2015

Dan Quan said:
Excellent advice! I actually do have at lest 2 tripods and possibly a third if I keep my tall Majestic which might go to 12 or 14 feet. I can't remember which of my Majestics has the extra center extension.

I am also considering a 2000FC/w or such just for the faster shutter...

Would someone please tell me what problems a 2000FCM with a wrinkle in the shutter might pose?

I have a 2000 FC/M which has a few dents ad wrinkles in the curtain, not bad, but definitely visible. I have no issues with the camera. The focal plane shutter speeds are all dead on, no lag, no cranking issues, and the curtains have not gotten any worse in the 30+ rolls that I have put through it in the last year and a half that I have owned it. I love that camera, but it's one of those that once it goes out, it's done, you need to get another camera. I think I would like to replace mine eventually with a 203 or 205, but I hope that isn't any time soon.

Dan Quan · Apr 26, 2015

natelfo said:
I have a 2000 FC/M which has a few dents ad wrinkles in the curtain, not bad, but definitely visible. I have no issues with the camera. The focal plane shutter speeds are all dead on, no lag, no cranking issues, and the curtains have not gotten any worse in the 30+ rolls that I have put through it in the last year and a half that I have owned it. I love that camera, but it's one of those that once it goes out, it's done, you need to get another camera. I think I would like to replace mine eventually with a 203 or 205, but I hope that isn't any time soon.

I have aspired to the 2000 FC/M and series for years but never got totally comfortable with the square format. I think the P67 will be just plain easy to replace when it breaks down, there seem to be plenty available for a relatively low price and since to me it's just a viewfinder and shutter assembly I have no emotional investment in a brand. But, like I said, the FP shutter series of Hassy cams have appealed to me for years.

I would like to correct the post of mine you quoted, my Majestic must only go up to 9 or 10 feet or so I'm sure, but I should measure it before I say anything else.

The film I just shot looks great density wise but my scans are disappointing. I am using an Epson V600 and regret selling my V700. But I think more importantly I am not familiar with the film (Pan F +) developer (DDX) and scanner combo yet. I am reading and rereading Ken Lee's scanner section and other posts on the net to work out my exposure and workflow.

Dan Quan · May 14, 2015

I think I am inching closer to what I want. This is from the third roll through the camera.

P67 with Xenar 240 4.5 wide open. Small (~ 36") octobox with silver insides, no baffles but with Hampshire frost clipped to the front.

k.hendrik · May 14, 2015

Dan Quan said:
Opps! I mean camera.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY miss having an MF'r around and I was going to get another Rollei SL66. Now I'm thinking about trying a Pentax 6x7 MLU ( Mirror Lock-Up) because square always bugged me, I guess I'm more comfortable with rectangular framing. And I would like to experiment again with odd lenses and optics that are not necessarily OEM, like binos and ancient glass.

So, I'm thinking of a rectangular image camera body that:
1) has a built in shutter (of course) including T or B or both.
2) sync's with flash
3) is easy to repair or replace (which the SL66 wasn't)
4) has as minimal a flange distance as possible
5) takes a pola back (preferred but not exclusionary)
edit to add:
6) is an SLR or has TTL viewing so I can see what these freakish lenses are doing.

I really would appreciate any and all input and help with this decision. Thanks.

dear dan; read these lines!
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/percysledge/thedarkendofthestreet.html

I know you're almost there! Get a Sl66SE.

happy hunting

I NEED a new drug...

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

ChristopherCoy

Terry Christian

John Koehrer

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Gales

Dan Quan

Terry Christian

ChristopherCoy

Dan Quan

Dan Quan

frank

Dan Quan

EdSawyer

frank

Dan Quan

Dan Quan

Dan Fromm

frank

Dan Fromm

Dan Quan

natelfo

Dan Quan

Dan Quan

k.hendrik

I NEED a new drug...

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency