Speed graphics, thoughts on large format as economical upgrade

Bosaiya · Aug 25, 2009

I prefer working with a view camera on static subjects even when movements are not required because I find it easier to compose and light on the larger ground glass. For me it makes it easier to avoid any little surprises.

I still shoot a lot of MF for convenience, but it always feels like a compromise when I compare the negatives.

BetterSense · Aug 25, 2009

You seem to be saying that you want a camera that is sharp, lightweight, and portable., and you are on a budget.

Yes, but with emphasis on sharp, and budget. I already have lots of very portable cameras; but what I don't have is what I feel to be knock-socks-off IQ capabilities. The best IQ I can do right now comes from my 35mm cameras. The idea was rather than lust after a far-out-of-budget MF system and lenses (hassy etc.) maybe I could get a LF for much less, that would fulfil my static/deliberate photography requirements better than a MF camera anyway, and I like my current MF folders for portability.

After looking closer at TCO it looks like even a press-camera-based LF setup is going to be several hundred dollars anyway so at this point it's just a decision over what to lust over.

Venchka · Aug 25, 2009

Random used stuff I have seen lately:

Bronica C body & Nikkor lens. $150 @ Houston Camera Co-op.
B & J Grover 4x5 monorail with 127mm lens, 6x9 rollfilm back, sliding frame for rollfilm back, carry case. $250 at Large Format Photography Forum.

Sign up at the Large Format Photography Forum. In 30 days you'll be able to shop there. Bargains abound. They sell fast too.

John Kasaian is spot on re: 127mm Ektar lens. A tiny gem of a lens.

domaz · Aug 25, 2009

Don't forget the recurring cost of large format. The film is not cheap at $1 a frame. The development is not cheap either, even if you do it yourself. On the plus side you probably will find yourself actually using up all your developer and fixer before it goes bad. If you are trying to accomplish something on a budget, look elsewhere than LF. If you want image quality that blows everything else away and the possibility of using literally thousands of lenses on your camera, than LF is for you.

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 25, 2009

THIS is a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 model - you can't get film for it any more, additionally, it's pre WWII camera and 60+ years old, the Tessar lens is uncoated and will flair a lot more than you are used to if you like having light sources in the picture -- all these add up to why the price was so low. OTOH, it is in reasonably good shape, the old rim-set Compur shutters hold up very well and likely the most it would need is a good wash in some Ronsonol and a microscopic drop of watch oil on the slow-speed train, you can always cut down 4x5 film, and the smaller models are quite a bit lighter and handier.

If all that sounds reasonable then you can find more cameras like this at these sorts of prices.

If you want 4x5, then figure around $250-350 for a Pacemaker Speed with a good lens like a 152mm Ektar.

Dave Wooten · Aug 25, 2009

I think Freestyle has 3.25 x 4.25 film...

2F/2F · Aug 25, 2009

There are also medium format roll film backs made to fit 3x4 cameras.

Ian Grant · Aug 25, 2009

2F/2F said:
There are also medium format roll film backs made to fit 3x4 cameras.

Still made ?

Or do you mean were

It would be interesting if someone could devise a way to make reliable home-made film packs. I've looked at a few Patents in the past.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Aug 25, 2009

BetterSense said:
Yes, but with emphasis on sharp, and budget.

If you are on at budget consider that the start up costs [non recurring costs] of a 4x5 may be low if you get lucky but the reoccurring costs of repairs, film and development will outstrip any savings.

The non recurring costs of a sharp MF system, Mamiya, Yashica, ... [insert the usual subjects], will be higher than a Speed Graphic, but the recurring costs of the repairs, film and development will be less.

In short, if your budget is short, work on MF until you can afford to do LF with the right equipment for you and with the equipment in good shape from the start.

Steve

2F/2F · Aug 25, 2009

"Are" meaning that they do exist today, regardless of when they were made, and "made to fit" meaning that they fit 3x4 cameras, and having nothing to do with the use of the term "are made" to mean "are currently produced." "Made" as I used it was part of the phrase "made to fit", not part of the term "are made". The addition of "that were" before "made to fit" would have made it more clear.

mhcfires · Aug 25, 2009

I have 120 backs for both my Graflex-backed SLR's and Graflok back press cameras. The nice thing is that the newer inserts will fit into the older backs. I use a 6x9 lever wind insert in my 2x3 Graflex SLR. The older insert was wearing out, I was able to find a near new one on the 'bay for very little (<$30) and it works great. I also have a few roll film backs for my 3x4 cameras. My 3x4 Speed has a Graflex back, so I can use the backs for my SLR on my Speed. I guess I have a thing about old cameras. I am an inveterate tinkerer, the challenge of getting a basket case to work and work well is what keeps me going.

Don Wallace · Aug 25, 2009

Some of you have suggested that a 4x5 is the better tool. Well, it depends on the job. Just for the record, I shoot mainly 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, and my Mamiya is no substitute for these. They are quite different things.

I also have a Crown Graphic and Super Graphic and have shot with both, hand-held and as a substitute for a full view camera. It is of course quite possible to use either of these hand-held, but you shouldn't minimize the difficulties. The OP was getting the impression, I think, that you just pick it up and shoot. As you guys know, this isn't true. If it isn't cammed, you have to find the proper cam and you have to set it up. Getting good with a press camera is not trivial, and, to me at least, it didn't sound as if the OP was aware of the level of dedication involved.

My reading of what the OP had to say led me to suggest that he would be happier with a medium format camera. He is also on a budget and a box of sheet film, especially when you are learning how to use the camera, is a lot more pricey than rolls of 120.

Having said that, he may just love shooting a Speed Graphic and can afford three boxes of 4x5 an hour. I shoot large format all the time I and sure couldn't afford it.

Venchka · Aug 25, 2009

Another data point. Pentax 645 with 3 lenses for $200. Listed at The Rangefinder Forum.

Dead Link Removed

Sirius Glass · Aug 25, 2009

Venchka said:
Another data point. Pentax 645 with 3 lenses for $200. Listed at The Rangefinder Forum.

Dead Link Removed

Great find! For $200, jump in and have a great set of lenses. This would give the OP a good kit to start MF. Later, when he has money, he can move into LF.

Steve

cblurton · Aug 26, 2009

You can find a lot more information about these cameras at:

http://www.graflex.org/

sangetsu · Aug 28, 2009

There are lots of Crown and Speed Graphics out there, but I prefer the Super Graphic and Super Speed Graphic. The Super and Super Speed were made more recently, and built from metal instead of wood. They also have a larger range of movements than the old Crowns and Speeds. The prices for the Super and Super Speed are roughly the same as with the older model cameras. They are worth considering.

ntenny · Aug 28, 2009

I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone else's GAS, so I mention this as a complement to the LF discussion rather than as an alternative solution: I've found that an accessory rangefinder is a HUGE upgrade to a scale-focussing MF folder, especially in terms of sharpness, and they can be found quite inexpensively or made at home with a little effort. So I'd encourage the OP to try that out and see what the effect on the negatives from the folding cameras is.

The answer may be "not enough", especially if the folders have lower-end lenses, but it does seem like the cheapest and easiest thing to try while waiting for the right LF camera to come along.

-NT

Ian Grant · Aug 28, 2009

Given a chance I'd swap my Speed or Crown Graphic for a Super Speed/Super Graphic. The lack of movements with the older Pacemaker Graphics is somewhat frustrating at times particularly in portrait mode.

Another good alternative is a British MPP MkVII but these seem to be fetching more than they are raelly worth these days, and some people are trying to sell Graphics at equally high prices. Super Speed/Super Graphics are a lot less common but if you can find one a lot more versatile, there's also the Toyo version.

Ian

Anscojohn · Aug 28, 2009

BetterSense said:
THIS is the one that got me thinking about the whole thing. I saw it on but then I was too busy to buy it. Considering it came with a Zeiss tessar lens and 5 film holders, I figured you couldn't really go wrong.

What do you give up in terms of movements with a camera like this?

Are "field cameras" the kind that fold up into a box? Monorails have more movements but are harder to transport etc?

Is a crown graphic like a Speed graphic but without the focal plane shutter?

*******
With that lens it might be a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. If it is a 2 1/4 3 1/4, you might get a roll film holder for it; but why bother.

Speed graphics, thoughts on large format as economical upgrade

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency