Looking at a Crown Graphic on Craigslist, talk some sense into me.

[dehk]

I am looking at a crown graphic at craigslist, the owner doesn't know much about the camera, I was able to talk him down to 150 bucks. I was judging only by photos, I had the impression of it being a 4x5, but after more research they made a lot of them in the smaller sizes. And i wouldn't know if its a 4x5 for sure until I see it in person.

The camera came with 2 lens, first one I cant see its on a grapic" shutter with caps on, the other one is a Schneider Angulon 65mm 6.8 on a synchrocompur, come with a Graphic 22" roll film holder (120 - 6x6cm). < (all things pointing to a 'baby crown')

Now my question is, if it's not a 4x5, should I get still get it and shoot 120 with that thing?
Pros: I could probably afford more 120 than 4x5 in reality, I have everything to develop 4x5 with but not a big enough enlarger, or scanner.
Cons: why on earth I wanna haul that around to shoot 120 when I can just use my TLRs or my 645? ( i know i get the tilt and all with the crown but the effect are not as dramatic as using it on 4x5 film?)

Fire Away, Thank You.

 

[ic-racer]

Have you ever shot 6x9cm (you should be able to get a 6x9cm back for a Baby Crown)? I think of it as half way between 6x6cm and 4x5". I think the 6x9cm negative is a significant step above 6x6cm to make it worthwhile. Your 6x4.5cm negatives will seem microscopic 65mm is a really nice wide angle on 6x9cm.

 

[mopar_guy]

The 65mm Angulon is not a 100% indicator of format. If you had a link to the photos of the camera, somebody could probably tell you if it's a 4x5, 3-1/4x4-1/4, or 2-1/4x 3-1/4. Sometimes you can tell by the location of the body release: a baby Crown has that at the bottom corner and a 4x5 has it somewhat higher.

 

[dehk]

The 65mm Angulon is not a 100% indicator of format. If you had a link to the photos of the camera, somebody could probably tell you if it's a 4x5, 3-1/4x4-1/4, or 2-1/4x 3-1/4. Sometimes you can tell by the location of the body release: a baby Crown has that at the bottom corner and a 4x5 has it somewhat higher.

Right here http://grandrapids.craigslist.org/pho/4076049166.html

 

[dehk]

Have you ever shot 6x9cm (you should be able to get a 6x9cm back for a Baby Crown)? I think of it as half way between 6x6cm and 4x5". I think the 6x9cm negative is a significant step above 6x6cm to make it worthwhile. Your 6x4.5cm negatives will seem microscopic 65mm is a really nice wide angle on 6x9cm.

Yeah I looked up the different backs for it if its a baby crown, I don't see me able to come up the money for it since I already have to borrow some money to get the camera itself.

 

[mopar_guy]

It's a 2-1/4x3-1/4 Crown Graphic. The lens shown with the cap on it is almost certainly a 105mm Kodak Ektar in a Flash Supermatic shutter. A 6x6 120 rollfilm back is shown in one photo. The camera has a Groflock back and what looks to be a Kalart Rangfinder.

 

[mopar_guy]

Some people are willing to pay a premium price for a 105mm Ektar.

 

[dehk]

Well, That s**ks. Should I still get it? To use it, not too concern about reselling.

 

[mopar_guy]

I have seen them sell for more. I have also seen them sell for less. The camera looks to be all there but a bit dirty. The are easy to clean up. You may have to give the shutter a CLA and you would be in business. Also from the photo of the camera you could not really tell the condition of the lenses. If it was me, and I was interested, I would offer them $125.

 

[dehk]

I have seen them sell for more. I have also seen them sell for less. The camera looks to be all there but a bit dirty. The are easy to clean up. You may have to give the shutter a CLA and you would be in business. Also from the photo of the camera you could not really tell the condition of the lenses. If it was me, and I was interested, I would offer them $125.

I talked em down from 250 to 150 already, too late for another offer I'd think. I can CLA the whole camera no problem, that won't be an issue. Just trying to think if its worth hauling around to use it. Hey thanks for all the info btw.

 

[shutterfinger]

$250 for a good Crown with 2 lens in working shutters is a fair price as is $150 for the same needing CLA.
1 inch=25.4millimeters
2 1/4 x 3 1/4 camera uses 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film.
2 1/4=2.25*25.4=57.15mm; 3 1/4=3.25*25.4=82.55mm
A camera that can use sheet film or roll film is capable of multiple formats.
Roll film holders made by Graflex were Graphic 22 (6x6), Graphic 23 (6x9), RH12 (6x6), RH10 (6x7), RH8 (6x9), RH20 (6x7 on 220 film), RH50 (70mm film). (the number after the RH is the number of exposures on a roll of film)
The listing you are asking about has a Graphic 22 roll film holder which produces 12 6x6cm exposures on 120 film.

6x9 roll film holders have a film gate that is 57mm x 72 to 78mm depending on make and vintage; 6x7 roll film holders film gate is 57mm x 62-68mm; 6x6 roll film holders film gate is 57mm square.

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to decide whether the format's OK for you and remember that you can get a 5x4 Crown Graphic with a lens for about the same price.

Other roll film backs aren't particularly expensive and a camera capable of 6x7 or 6x9 with some movements is quite useful. I particularly like the 6x9 format but unless you need movements there are less bulky options.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

some people love smaller format crowns, speeds and graflex slrs, they like'em even more than 4x5
because they are more compact, easier to hold, cart around and shoot. i guess if you aren't sure if you
want it because it isn't a 4x5, and you already have smaller format cameras "that size" and you are asking
people here to talk sense into you because you aren't sure, maybe you should pass, and wait for the format
you had hoped it would be.

they ARE fun though ...

good luck !
john

 

[dehk]

some people love smaller format crowns, speeds and graflex slrs, they like'em even more than 4x5
because they are more compact, easier to hold, cart around and shoot. i guess if you aren't sure if you
want it because it isn't a 4x5, and you already have smaller format cameras "that size" and you are asking
people here to talk sense into you because you aren't sure, maybe you should pass, and wait for the format
you had hoped it would be.

they ARE fun though ...

good luck
john

See. I heard you say "they are fun " and I kinda think they can be!

 

[dehk]

Fine.. I am going to get it. Why not. Its fun and I got 120 film in my fridge ...!

 

[TheToadMen]

If money is an issue, using 120 roll film is easier and much cheaper than 4x5 inch every time you shoot!
So I would give it a try, IF the shutter, lenses, etc. are in good working order.
You can't judge that from an image.

And yes: I think it can be very much FUN shooting with it.

 

[bdial]

It's a fun camera, and your 645 and TLR have no movements.
Plus, compared to your 645, the 6x9 negs will look huge

Beyond that, it's worth the 150. Assuming everything is in good working order, you can sell it for that much easily.

 

[Dan Fromm]

6x9 roll film holders have a film gate that is 57mm x 72 to 78mm depending on make and vintage; 6x7 roll film holders film gate is 57mm x 62-68mm; 6x6 roll film holders film gate is 57mm square.

Charles, are you sure? Mine measure from 78 mm long to 82 mm long, depending, as you said, on make and vintage.

 

[pasiasty]

If you are OK with the format - you can buy it and use it; yet I can't see much purpose of a MF view camera with (almost) no movements if there are SLR and advanced range-finder cameras (most, however, for more than $150, some for much more...).

 

[wombat2go]

Measured with calipers in the frame openings just now
Singer Graflex RH10 58.0 by 67.7
Older Graflex RH/8 57.4 by 77.7
1936 Nettar 56.5 by 85.2

The RH/10 is for the 2 x 3 Graflex
The RH/8 is for the 4 x 5 Graflex

 

[ChuckP]

One advantage of this type of camera over other medium format types is you can use a variety of lenses on it. From old cheap "character" lenses to a modern Apo Sironar S. But for me if I'm going out to use a slow camera needing a tripod I'd rather just use 4x5. The fun part does factor it and everyone should try this type of camera at least once. And the roll film ones make sense for people not setup for 4x5 developing and enlarging. If that is a 105 Ektar in good condition it might be worth around what you are paying for the whole outfit. I'd say 65 Angulons have lost a few steps in price ( I paid $200 for mine a few years back) but it still might be worth $100 in good condition. Any lens problems like glass marks or fungus will drop the prices so check them over using a strong light.

 

[pbromaghin]

I say leave it alone. It comes with a 22 back, which is 6x6. You already have that with your TLR, so you're not buying much functionality that you don't already have. But most important of all, if you have to borrow to get a 150-dollar camera, you have no business buying it. Borrowing money to buy toys is great way to stay broke all your life. Instead, save up enough to buy what you want with cash. Life is a lot easier that way.

 

[ntenny]

One advantage of this type of camera over other medium format types is you can use a variety of lenses on it. From old cheap "character" lenses to a modern Apo Sironar S.

But this one's a Crown, not a Speed, so you won't be able to use barrel lenses easily. Finding appropriate working shutters at reasonable prices is kind of a pain, I've found.

The price seems fair, but not "grab it before it gets away". On purely rational, practical grounds, I think I'd say to let it go and wait for a 4x5 kit to turn up...but it's not a lot of money, it's a cool little camera, and if it speaks to you it speaks to you, right? You might find you really go in for contact printing in 6x9; and if all else fails, you could almost certainly come out ahead by just selling the lenses.

-NT

 

[Dan Fromm]

Measured with calipers in the frame openings just now
Singer Graflex RH10 58.0 by 67.7
Older Graflex RH/8 57.4 by 77.7
1936 Nettar 56.5 by 85.2

The RH/10 is for the 2 x 3 Graflex
The RH/8 is for the 4 x 5 Graflex

"23" Graflex (early version that fits 2x3 Graflex and Graflok backs) 57.6 x 82.5

Adapt-a-roll 620, 57.65 x 82.0

 

[wombat2go]

That's interesting Dan,
I read that the RH/8 replaced the 23 Graphlex, and the RH/8 has the added pin rollers to help with the film flatness.
It looks like those rollers may have reduced the width by 2.5 mm per side.
Anyway the only "true" 6 x9 in my collection is the Nettar and even it is short, however it does have the 1.5 ratio..