Graflex.org Forum Index Graflex.org
Get help with your Graflex questions here
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

body depth

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Reflex Help
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Arton



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Holland (the netherlands)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Graflex users, I'm wondering if a lens with 9cm (3,5inch) of room between the film and rear-element will mount on any size Graflex RB. I know the mirror is in the way but i,m planning to install a pellix-mirror (fixed). Still then i'm a little concerned while 3,5 inch isn't much room.

Greetings, arton


_________________
panoramic photographer, trying to get my hands on a graflex for portraits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
t.r.sanford



Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It might work on a 2x3 "Graflex" without rotating back, of which there were a couple (the "Series B" came in simple and RB models, and I don't think the "Graflex Jr." has an RB).

The pellicle mirror sounds like fun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arton



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Holland (the netherlands)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank's for the reply,
I didn't know there were non rb graflex's,great tip!, I guess excluding the rotating back gives me some extra room. The lens i'm trying to mount is a 150mm f2!! Astro Berlin I found in a camerashop. Strangly it has no diafragm and it's impossible to disassemble. It's probably heavier than the graflexbody. Since focusing is extremely precise I hope to shorten the "time lag" (specialy for portraits) by a pellicle mirror. (ordinary piece of glas) Hope the hood's lighttight.

Arton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
t.r.sanford



Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd think you would want a rotating back for portraits, and if you have a 150mm. lens, there's no reason not to enjoy the RB if you get a 2x3 or 3x4 model.

You raise a good point about the need to shield the focusing screen from light if you use a semisilvered mirror. I think the Canon "Pellix" used an internal horizontal blind that traveled across the groundglass to black it out, but I never handled one and can't say for sure.

If critical focusing is your objective, perhaps you will consider rigging up an opaque hood with a fairly high-powered magnifier and a well-made eyecup mounted through it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1891
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2005-01-20 11:19, t.r.sanford wrote:
I'd think you would want a rotating back for portraits, and if you have a 150mm. lens, there's no reason not to enjoy the RB if you get a 2x3 or 3x4 model.

You raise a good point about the need to shield the focusing screen from light if you use a semisilvered mirror. I think the Canon "Pellix" used an internal horizontal blind that traveled across the groundglass to black it out, but I never handled one and can't say for sure.

If critical focusing is your objective, perhaps you will consider rigging up an opaque hood with a fairly high-powered magnifier and a well-made eyecup mounted through it.
Bronica S through ECTL, with "falling" mirrors, also used an internal horizontal blind.

Arton, some 2x3 Graflexes were supplied with 127 Ektars. But the 127 Ektar is a fairly thin lens with back focus close to its focal length. What is your Astro-Berlin lens' back focus (rear of rear element-to-film distance at infinity)?

Good luck,

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
t.r.sanford



Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All good points. BTW, the 2x3 "Series B Graflex" RB model came with 135mm. lens standard, the plain one came with the 127mm. And the plain one's body was shorter, too, but I don't know by how much.

I remember the bellows assembly on the "Series B" adds considerable extension, and the narrow throat into which the lens screws would make it almost impossible to devise a "sunk mount" for a lens of any size, without redesigning the front.

My guess is that there's a good deal of unused clearance in there, if one wanted to build a bed and bellows system designed to accommodate a recessed board -- but accurate measurement would be the indispensable first step!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arton



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Holland (the netherlands)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

accurate measurement would be the indispensable first step!

Yes indeed:
The back focus is 9cm/3,5inch AND the rear element has a 60mm/2,4inch diameter! I could raise/tilt the front element a bit since the lens covers 3x4inch. Maybe that helps to clear from the mirror And yes 'alas a rotary back for portraits is a must there goes my 1/2inch gain So if any 2x3 graflex RB user could size up the interieur that would be a big help. I,ve read an article about the pellix(canon) and they didn't use a secondary groundglas-shutter, i guess the amount of (very diffused) viewfinderlight is so low it hardly is something to worry about.(gives the shadows a punch;-)


[ This Message was edited by: Arton on 2005-01-20 13:59 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Arton



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Holland (the netherlands)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[ accurate measurement would be the indispensable first step!

And off course, the front of the camera is going to be, well...redesigned is the word I guess....


[ This Message was edited by: Arton on 2005-01-20 14:03 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Arton on 2005-01-20 14:04 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
semihemi



Joined: 25 Oct 2003
Posts: 85
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hope I'm understanding your query correctly. If so I may be both the thrower of cold water and the bearer of glad tidings.

First, in the cold water department, I would like to understand the lens in question. If it is a 150 and is designed to cover 3x4 (may I infer this from your post?), then by definition it is not a telephoto, would you not agree? If this is so, then you will likely need an extender to use it on a 2x3 Graflex SLR, rather than worrying about cutting back into the body. For giggles I just mounted a 135mm lens on my 2x3 Auto Graflex Jr. I actually had to rack it out a bit to achieve infinity focus. For portraits, I assume that you will be shooting tight and will need to focus close. With the 135mm I could get only as close as "head and shoulders" at full rack. With a 150 you would be feeling the lack of extension even more acutely.

In the glad tidings department, if I am totally wrong (and this is not uncommon) and there really is a need to get within 3.5 inches of the film plane, then the aforementioned 2x3 Auto Graflex Jr. might be your ticket home. Mine measures 3.5 inches from lens well to film plane. So, for portraits, where you would need to rack the lens out substantially, this distance should be more than adequate. Also, the well on mine is 2.25 inches in diameter. The Series B might be an even better fit, assuming the back focal length is not an issue, because the lens mounts on a flat plate rather than a in a well, and this plate would be easier to modify/replace.

Finally, are you contemplating the pellicle mirror as a way to accommodate the lens, or do you wish to do it anyways for some other reason? If it is only to accommodate the lens, then the Auto Graflex Jr. (and I assume the B) would eliminate the pellicle because the forwardmost mirror swing on these units maxes out at 3 inches from the focal plane, and would therefore give you more than ample clearance. Even with the addition of an RB, you would have sufficient clearance, especially in the case of portraiture.

Hope this helps and further, I hope that I have not totally misunderstood your post!

Thanks, JC

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arton



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Holland (the netherlands)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2005-01-26 20:25, semihemi wrote:
Hope I'm understanding your query correctly. If so I may be both the thrower of cold water and the bearer of glad tidings.

First, in the cold water department, I would like to understand the lens in question. If it is a 150 and is designed to cover 3x4 (may I infer this from your post?), then by definition it is not a telephoto, would you not agree? If this is so, then you will likely need an extender to use it on a 2x3 Graflex SLR, rather than worrying about cutting back into the body. For giggles I just mounted a 135mm lens on my 2x3 Auto Graflex Jr. I actually had to rack it out a bit to achieve infinity focus. For portraits, I assume that you will be shooting tight and will need to focus close. With the 135mm I could get only as close as "head and shoulders" at full rack. With a 150 you would be feeling the lack of extension even more acutely.

In the glad tidings department, if I am totally wrong (and this is not uncommon) and there really is a need to get within 3.5 inches of the film plane, then the aforementioned 2x3 Auto Graflex Jr. might be your ticket home. Mine measures 3.5 inches from lens well to film plane. So, for portraits, where you would need to rack the lens out substantially, this distance should be more than adequate. Also, the well on mine is 2.25 inches in diameter. The Series B might be an even better fit, assuming the back focal length is not an issue, because the lens mounts on a flat plate rather than a in a well, and this plate would be easier to modify/replace.

Finally, are you contemplating the pellicle mirror as a way to accommodate the lens, or do you wish to do it anyways for some other reason? If it is only to accommodate the lens, then the Auto Graflex Jr. (and I assume the B) would eliminate the pellicle because the forwardmost mirror swing on these units maxes out at 3 inches from the focal plane, and would therefore give you more than ample clearance. Even with the addition of an RB, you would have sufficient clearance, especially in the case of portraiture.

Hope this helps and further, I hope that I have not totally misunderstood your post!

Thanks, JC



Thanks a lot, JC
Yes you've understood my question correct and gave me the answers i wanted. good point about the lens not being a telephoto, but the infinity back focus is 8,4 cm as I already anticipated the short focus bellow extension. Still, if the film-mirror distanca on a 2x3 rb has a 3inch clearing I'm happy. Again, thanks for the input.
Arton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Reflex Help All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group