Graflex.org

Graflex Sid · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 221 Location: London,England

I would like to make a point here about changing times-remember when you could photograph your 'personality'up close on press shoots with your Graphic,take notes on the 'stars' background,and remembering you were shooting with a standard lens.

Today,the press are shunted behind barriers with long telephoto lenses from,which looks like,half a mile away...digital cameras that take a million shots per second if the stars twitches his/her face.

Those boys with Graphics would return to the office with well exposed pictures,nice shots on a few sheet films,up close & personal.A PERFECT day's work.

With tighter security,bodyguards,and hands up to the camera,the World of the Graphic is no longer with us for press work...I suppose nor is the Rolleiflex that took over.

More & more,the press are pushed behind barriers,so the lenses get longer by the minute....sorry,bring back the good old day's of press work when photography was photography and the Graphic ruled the waves.

starling · Joined: 05 Jun 2004 Posts: 12 Location: Ottawa, Canada

... and when you really stop to look at the often very poor quality of photographs in newspapers today, it's hard to believe the present is better than the past. It's faster, no doubt about that, but certainly not better.

PumaAnn · Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2 Location: midwest

I got into classic cameras, including my crown, because I love the way they are made. very study, beatiful metal and wood, etc. and the creaminess of the lens is amazing. For color maybe I'd go digital, eventually, but I'm just not that interested in color photography, and I dont like digital black and white except on a monitor. There's something special about the look of a darkroom print,

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

If real cameras equal medium format they are cheaper. The problem is they're still pretty expensive. It's not too bad if you only want a body and a normal lens but once you start adding more to the kit the price jumps.

OTOH LF is relatively cheap. Plenty of classic items that still work like new. You may be stuck buying slower lenses but if you're photography outdoors it's not that big an issue. Even some of the new stuff is relatively cheap when compared to MF stuff.

Rangemaster · Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject:

I have two different complete MF setups that I use, One is a 645 with 3 lenses, two bodies and prisim finder, 2X teleconverto, and I have less than $600.00 in it and use it in my wedding business a lot, my second one is a 6 X 6 with 3 bodies, 5 backs, 5 lenses(Nikkors) prisim, wlf, complete extension tube kit, 2X teleconvertor and have less than $1000.00 in that kit, so if you know what to look for, you can get into MF pretty inexpensivly as well.

Don't get me wrong, I love my LF gear and use it a lot as well, but there are great buys around in both formats also.

Dave

_________________
Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

I guess the 6x6 is a bronica? The difference I see is a person could buy a 100 year old LF camera stick a brand new lens on the camera and have almost everything a brand new camera would give you. Now that's because LF cameras don't have any fancy features. No autofocus-) No exposure meter etc.

Rangemaster · Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:34 pm Post subject:

I understand Nick, but my Bronicas, don't have anything at all, in fact when I attache the bellows unit they are even like a mini-graphic, I have movements on the front standard, in fact the newer crown I just picked up has more electronics than any of my Bronicas, it has the Graflex rangefiner with the batteries and the two dot focus system!

My newest camera in over 20 years old and I have a lot of cameras....

_________________
Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject:

Henry · Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:

Lotsa luck getting your XK serviced from Minolta, Rich. They won't touch my X7A. Thank goodness I have a working XD5, which IMHO is the finest "pro-sumer" SLR 35 Minolta ever made. Also my SRT101 is usable with Minolta's 35mm shift lens, which is a real honey of a hunk of glass.

Sorry about the O/T drift, but I had to commiserate with a fellow Minolta user.

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:15 pm Post subject:

Since when do we stay on topic?

Many of the "early" Minolta's were fantastic cameras. I love my XK's as much as my Graphics.

I was thinking of going to KEH for service. They do sell these and I even bought an AE finder from them a while back. Luckily nothing is broken. Just a sticky shutter. And unfortunately, I can't dip-n-dunk or shoot it with graphite like I can with the LF lenses...

Hey, this will bring the whole thing back on topic! That shows the great advantage to the Graphics. No electronics that can't be repaired after 7 years. Simple do-it-yourself fixing. And they rarely need it unless they've been abused or dropped. And shutters? Lighter fluid & graphite will fix just about all the problems. That's probably one of the main reasons I like LF cameras. I can easily work on them myself and have so much fun doing it... And it's a very gratifying feeling taking an old abused camera and bringing it back to useful life...

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

I figured out how to deal with the repair issue. I just bought several bodies. I've picked up three Ricoh XR-M or XR-X outside the US. All for less money then a CLA would cost. They even came with lenses-) If they ever break I'm just hoping different things break on each one. Between three bodies I figure I can keep one working.

Adrian · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 10 Location: Philadelphia, USA

I have to agree with your above post, Nick.

("if it doesn't leak...")

I see these outrageously expensive LF bodies, and I don't understand. Seriously, if anyone can explain why I would want to pay over $2000 for a view camera, please tell me.

I just don't get it. Even a cheap view camera usually has all the movement a good lens can handle (and more than a cheap lens can), and it seems to me that precise alignment of the front and back is not a big benefit-- you're just going to move them anyway!

I can see why shutters and lenses are expensive, but bodies?

bosseyedoldbat · Joined: 08 Jun 2004 Posts: 4 Location: Canada/ sw Ontario

I must admit my favourite cameras to use are my TLRs (Yashicamat And Rollei Automat), my Contaflex I and my Crown Graphic 4x5. There's something about them that oozes quality, and in the case of the Graflex, the knowledge that a similar instrument was present at some of history's defining moments. I suppose it's the same thing with cars..... My Pontiac XXX is good reliable bland transportation, but I get most driving fun from my 1960 (wife's actually..... a bribe) MGA, which by any standard is not practical in any way.