Graflex.org

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

I know the 80mm planar was sold for the Century and also used on the Graflex XL.

I thought I could put it on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed, but I can't get the rangefinder to find the range below 8ft.

The Finder is a black Kalart, as pictured in the instructions on this site. It also has a prism instead of a lower mirror.

I got the finder to work from infinity to 8ft using the back slide and it's dead on, Using a pocket microscope and float glass to inspect the aerial image.

But the front scale won't move far enough to bring in the close objects. I have it set at 1 and it just isn't enough. I'm tempted to remove the top screw and see if there is more movement in the mechanism

Now I haven't set up the described target, so paralax could be setting in, but I could that really be the cause?.

While I have no logical basis for this idea, I'm wondering if the thickness of the speed's body won't allow it to focus, and that it would focus on a PM 2x3 Crown.

Anybody else have any theories as to why this combination won't work and/or potiential ways of making it work?

_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

cgoff · Joined: 24 Aug 2001 Posts: 18 Location: Connecticut

I'm certainly not an expert on this, but it sounds like you've run up against the limit of the mechanical movement of the rangefinder innards. Just a gut feeling.

Out of curiosity, why would you want to use the rangefinder instead of the groundglass at less than 8 feet anyway? I'd guess that you would have problems framing through the viewfinder unless you've come up with some kind of custom mask. I would be interested in knowing, because until I recently bought a 2 x 3 Century, I never even considered shooting without a tripod. But when you attach a handgrip to the baby Graphic, it seems comfortable to use handheld. I just have some doubts about accurate framing using the viewfinder.
________
vaporizer reviews

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

I agree, I've hit the mechanical limits of the rangefinder, but why then can the same rangefinder focus the same lens on a Century?

My gut says it's the difference in the depth of the body, my mind says nonesense, so I remain frustrated.

I wanted to use the rangefinder so I wouldn't need a tripod to focus the ground glass. I was trying to get this to be my rough and ready medium format that I could take anywhere. I had an 80mm WF ektar on it, (and thought I had set the RF for it, but apparently not) but the wf Ektar was way to slow a lens to shoot handheld, so I got the Planar. I've since learned that the Xenotar would have allowed the camera to close, or at least it does on the Century.

With the loss of sheet film, the 2x3s get to be a pain to shoot using the ground glass, and if I'm going to the bother of a tripod and GG, then I'll take the 4x5, or the 5x7 or the 8x10

I can get the rangefinder to focus dead on @ 15ft, slightly off @8ft. If I could get it dead on at 8 and slightly off at 4, it would be useable. As for the viewfinder, I've learned that you need to crop very tightly when shooting 35mm, but not nearly so shooting with a speed and even less with 4x5 and 8x10. I can 'crop very tight' with the wire finder and the pictures turn out very well.

cgoff · Joined: 24 Aug 2001 Posts: 18 Location: Connecticut

I'd think it has to be the body depth. You might try using another rangefinder (if you have one) mounted at various points on the body. Don't know how you'd couple the RF if it turns out that it has to be mounted farther back on the body, but instinct tell me this might be the answer, since the lens IS focusing on the groundglass up close.

If I wanted to shoot "rough and ready" I'd fall back on the old method of fast film and small aperture for best depth of field, and seting focus by best guess at distance. Works on 35mm, and I suspect that's what the reporters used to do when they needed to make snapshots (in the old sense of the word).
________
herbal vaporizer

ricksplace1 · Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

You might want to try adjusting the screwhead cam on the body that actuates the lever for the Kalart. The cam on my Century was way out of whack when I got it, and after fiddling with the Kalart adjustments, and the screwhead cam, (and inventing some new colourful words in the process) I finally got the Kalart to be accurate to about 4 feet. The information on this graflex site is what I used.
See my other answer to your question about lens'.

bertsaunders · Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:05 pm Post subject:

Les--The RF in my experience, has no Limits.
And have never run up against a Kalart, that could not be focused below 8 feet--good one or bad one! If the RF is adj correctly, then I suspect the LENS is NOT!!! Have you adj or re-adj the inf stops on the rails, and focused the LENS with the Ground Glass--
independant of the RF?
Sounds to me like your RF and LENS may be out of sync! Bert

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

Bert,

the camera I had was set up with scales for two different lenses ( I usspect a 101 and an 8", but that's useless information)

With the 80mm you have to set one stop behind the standard. So I focused on a bright image about 1/2 mile away (and since infinity is usually equal to 2000xthe focal lenght this was good enough). I then used a pocket microscope (50x) to focus the image on the GG.
Set the infintiy stops so that they were indeed RIGHT ON when the rails were fully back. I then set up a 25ft target with a measuring tape from the GG and adjusted the far scale. Went back to infinity and adjust the infinity cam, back to 25ft and it looked great.

Then went to 15ft. Very slight adj needed, checked again with the microscope at 25 and inf.

Then I did some trials by focusing with the RF and checking the GG. Then Focus the GG and check the RF.

All was great. Infact it was the best adj camera I had. The 15ft had the slightest bit of missed focus--That is I couldn't quite make out the threads in the fabric of my target at wide open, something that dissapeared by f4.5

Okay the inf stops and the far scale are, in my mind right on. Now for the close focus.

I set up my target @ 8ft focus with the GG and move the front scale until the image is coincident. The problem is I've got the scale on 1, the slots on the slider have hit their respective screws and the image still needs to go a bit farther!

Hence the idea that I've hit the "mechanical limits" of the RF.

And yet we have confirmed witnesses (that didn't come out right) that have a Century with the same design/focal lenght lens can be RF focused. The only differences I can come up with is

A. A Xenotar may have a different backfocus

B. The thickness of the Speed Body vs the Century Body.

I do know where a PM Crown is that I could buy, and I suspect that the dimentions of the PM Crown and Century are the same or close enough (?)

I can't do much about the Planar/Xenotar differences if any.

bertsaunders · Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:45 pm Post subject:

Les--The aprox 3/4" diff in body depths, could account for the problem--sounds like
you explored all the other possibilities!
Bert

ricksplace1 · Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Les..
In the continuing saga of adjusting the Kalart...
On my side-mounted Kalart, the shaft that goes through the body of the camera is attached to a lever that rides on a screw head cam mounted on the back-most part of the focusing rail. With the focusing rail racked back to infinity, the cam/lever assembly should actuate the Kalart to the end of it's infinity adjustment. When I first got my Century, this was not the case, so I found that when I adjusted the Kalart to be accurate at infinity, it didn't have enough adjustment to be accurate at the closer ranges. I was lucky enough to have enough adjustment on the slotted screw head cam to correct this. As the web page on adjusting the Kalart says, you may have to adjust the setting of the set screw where the actuating lever meets the shaft as it comes through the camera body from the Kalart. Hope this makes some sense..

bertsaunders · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2001 4:24 pm Post subject:

Les--Several things are missing on the instructions for adjusting the Kalart--one important one is the location of the arm on the shaft! The old ones had a "A" shaped override spring at the connection between arm and shaft. Have several cameras that do not have this override!! In any case, it has always been a hassle to get the arm in the right position on the shaft---mine have varied--(@ lower arm)-1/2" "Pace" to flush with body, to + 1/8" on older models!
The shape of the "Pace" arm is such, that the arm itself fits flush to the inside back of the camera in the extreem retracted position! And if the bed rails are racked to far forward the arm will hang up on the struts!! It appears to me, to get the "MOST"
out of the Kalart, on the Pace, the vert arm, and the fully retracted shaft must coincide!!!
Does that make sense?????? Bert

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

I think this makes more sense than the thickness of the body.

Right now it's 45° out cold and rainy. Not really inticing weather to go out and re-configure an Kalart RF!

bertsaunders · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:33 pm Post subject:

Les--for what its worth---I have measured old and new Kalart RF---the "TOTAL" swing
on the arm is 15 degrees! Bert

fats9 · Joined: 06 Mar 2002 Posts: 2 Location: europe

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

Les, I can confirm that the 80mm Planar on the Century would focus just fine, right down the focus scale, with the rangefinder right on. It didn't drop off at all. Although Graflex Rochester set it up for me [I don't believe they sold the Planar with the Century, but would set it up if you bought the two and sent them back to the factory], that didn't affect the original settings the camera came with, namely the 101 Graftar lens [boy, what THAT thing sharp- and it covered 6x9, unlike the Planar]. Using the infinity stops for each lens, the rangefinder would be dead on for each. I don't know what they did to achieve that, just that it worked. I, too, thought it might be the depth of the body. I'm sure you'll keep at it until you give us the definitive report!

Alec