Graflex.org

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

OK, I am planning to take a nice RF from one beat Century, and install it on another body I have in much better condition. Pre-drilled and all. They are both from the earlier run, '46-54, and all black etc, even the serial numbers are reasonably close. Anyway, the big question is, will the Range finder adjust all the way out to a 135. I have an extra 135 Optar in good condition that I am considering to have commited to this camera if it will work. Then the real work starts in trying to calibrate it, but I will see the directions here on the site when I get the screws snugged down in a few days.
Question #2 Does anyone know where I can get a cam for a 162 Optar for my 4x5 Crown?
regards,
steve

_________________
Anyone can buy tools...

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:23 pm Post subject:

If, as I suppose, the rangefinder on the "Century" is the Kalart kind, then it certainly can be adjusted for a 135mm. lens.

According to the table of "Speed Graphic" cams on this site, the one you want for a 162mm. lens is #13. They do turn up from time to time, but they tend to be expensive. A recent post suggested that Fred Lustig now is willing to sell them; you might give him a call.

If you haven't read the article on this site about making "Pacemaker" cams, I recommend it highly -- very interesting!

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

Oh yes, The RF for the Century is the Kalart, and being a bit of a purist, and a history major, I wouldn't do it if it were not the proper unit. I have one that I have stripped down for backpackin this summer, but all the parts get zip-locked and marked etc...
I tried to reach Lustig a while back, but could not make contact, but as I understand he was recovering from some medical problems, and I did not wish to bother him.

My Crown Graphic has been put into as good a condition as I can mangage. I have the RF light working excellent as well its adjustment, and have since taken a some nice hand-held photos around town with it. I would not call it mint, but it is at least excellent. I picked up the 162 Optar a couple months ago and it works perfect. these old press lenses have a rather nice quality about them, and some of my photos from Whitesands recently would not be as impressive without the "vintage glow" (though some are a bit too glowey). Now that I am getting into shooting people, I am partial to the slightly longer lens and the hand-held thing. I have the body release working as good as new so that one does not torque the camera to release the shutter. I doubt I will ever use the night spot, but it is part of having the camera in near mint cond. this thing was in bad shape when I got it, but it is surprizing what a thourough and careful cleaning will do!
I will check into the making cams article, but would rather have the real part.
I had an idea that getting into these cameras would provide a more appropriate learning tool, but i had no idea how much fun I would have in the process. If I were to have to gotten a digital, or upgrade 35mm I seriously doubt I would advanced so quickly and be in a position that I need to begin attepmts at marketing images. A common response to my Images from the last year are "oh wow," and "you took these with that old camera?" Yup. In the mean time I will keep my day job, but I owe a lot of thanks to the assistance and patience the site here has made available for one who, being sort of self taught, doesn't even no what questions to ask sometimes.
A world of thanks to all.

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:11 pm Post subject:

I asked about the make of the rangefinder because, for all I know, someone might have mounted a Hugo Meyer rangefinder on a "Century" once, although I have never seen one. If someone did, and you wound up with it, you'd have had a more difficult time adjusting it for a different focal length.

I agree with you about the longer lens. The 135 and 127mm. lenses became standard because press photographers liked the wider field -- the images were so much bigger than those made with a 35mm. or 120 rollfilm camera that the relatively shorter focal length did not matter to them. Even a 162mm. lens gives you about the same angular coverage, and apparent perspective, as a 45mm. lens on a 35mm. camera.

The perennially attractive thing about the "Graphics" is that they have so many useful features built in, and you can modify them easily to work the way you want to work.

Henry · Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject:

Let us know if you succeed in adjusting the Kalart for a 135mm lens on a Century Graphic. According to the Kalart manual I have, it only goes out to 105mm on 2-1/4" x 3-1/4".

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

One of the nice things about aquiring the worn out Century for which I am canibalizing (carefully dissassembling) is that I have one to take apart without fear of harming my working stuff. The first thing I was going to do is try and mark the alignment of the long arm inside where I will need to detach it to get the RF off the body. then reinstall it on the better body and see if I can get it working with the 101 or 103 lenses I have based on the marking and positioning of the mechanism on the back rails. Now that I have an extra set of rail stops I can set those for the 135 and add a scale for that on the right side and or find a sweet spot and use the RF for a reference at a given distance etc... I am a bit leary of messing with the calibration of the Kalart. I know how to allign the images, thoug I keep them a bit askewed purposefully. Its all good I think. I have used the Centuries succesfully with the scale but admitedly stopped down to f-11 and 16. But these are the things I was not learning , for there was no real reason to,with a modern 35mm. With a lever wind RH-10 back (my favorite over the RB67 now. I sicerely dislike the RB67 backs, and will carry knobby winders because they are lighter for packing) I can knock off hand-held shots fairly quickly now.

alecj · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama

I presume you do know there's a great deal of difference in focusing scales between lenses of different focal length? Is that the scale you were talking about? And, are you planning to use it with the new lens?

t.r.sanford · Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:42 am Post subject:

My Kalart service manual (a reprint from Craig Camera) deals with "Graphic" 45 and 34 models, in different styles, and other cameras too, but not with any 23 "Graphic."

Kalart rangefinders came in a box; you chose the arm and small accessories you needed to attach yours to the camera of your choice. The only reason I can think of for a limitation on the maximum focal length that can be accommodated by a "Century" is that the arm necessarily is shorter than it is in the larger models, and this limits how far forward it can travel before it rides up over the lug on the track. I'd be mildly surprised if this were a real problem with a 135mm. lens replacing a 100-105mm. one, but I could be wrong.

The problem would work inwards from inifinity. If the coupling came apart when you got closer than (say) ten feet with a 135mm. lens, it would be annoying, as would the need to put the arm back in place before racking in.

It does seem to me that ingenuity could solve this hypothetical problem -- as a starting point for a thought experiment, I am imagining using a taller lug.

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

In answer to the scales, yup, I be aware that there were different scales, but I really don't use them, and would be making one for the 135 using a tripod measuring tape and so on.
On the question concerning the length of the arm, I believe this will be the determining factor. However, I do have a set of Portra lenses that would move the 135 back, and this might be fun to play around with. We can do no wrong. I stacked a couple of these #2 and #3 up today and what a strange image they make. I am not even sure exactly how I will employ them yet, but intend to have some fun with them.
The last thread on the protras was technically over my head, but when I put one on the lens they seem to simply enable a sort of tele effect for less bellows draw (and macro close ups).
I will try them on some flowers around the yard. I have abused one dafodill terribly with many different lenses this last week and will soon have at it with an 8"tele-raptar, I doubt it will hold up much longer under this kind of exposure

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2004-03-21 22:00 ]