New Toy: Miniature Speed Graphic

<p>I gave in and finally bought a Miniature Speed Graphic. The Serial number puts it in the first batch produced in 1945 right after the end of World War II. The 101mm Kodak Ektar lens is dated 1946.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/SG02.jpg" alt="" width="446" height="660" /></p>

<p>Big Brother is watching<br>

<img src="http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/SG01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The rangefinder housing shows plenty of signs of use, but the leather is in good condition. Everything else appears to be working too. ...which is nice.</p>

<p>I've also picked up a "23" roll film holder for this camera, but I need to fabricate two little L-shaped clamps to fix it to the spring-back (or figure out another way to attach it, or get a graflok back).<br>

Perhaps someone else has attempted something like this before and would care to share his/her idea or experience? Drawn out plans would be great hahaha.</p>

<p>Looking forward to use this little Baby SG,</p>

<p>Rick</p>

<p>Another example of, um, rashness.</p>

<p>For a thorough discussion of roll holders, visit www.graflex.org and read the FAQs.</p>

<p>Short form, Graflex sold spring kits for attaching a roll holder to a Graphic with a spring back. These are very hard to find, but you can indeed make your own. Visit www.graflex.org and use the search function. There's a recent discussion on this topic.</p>

<p>This approach works, but there's a cost. Swapping ground glass and roll holder takes time, isn't practical. With a roll holder mounted using a spring kit, focusing and composing on the ground glass is impossible. So to use a spring kit, the rangefinder has to be set up for <strong>the</strong> lens to be used. The Kalart can be set up for just and only <strong>one</strong> lens. Change lens, even for another of the same make, model, and marked focal length and the RF will have to be recalibrated. Doing this requires focusing on the ground glass. If you want to use y'r Mini as a fixed-lens camera, this is what you should do.</p>

<p>After Graflex introduced the Graflok back, they sold retrofit kits for older Graphics, including the Mini. These are very hard to find <strong>but</strong> all 2x3 Graflok backs will fit the Mini. 2x3 Graflok backs without camera are sometimes offered on eBay; they usually go for roughly the price of a back attached to a good camera. I can't see cannibalizing a good 2x3 Pacemaker to make a Mini usable.</p>

<p>Finally, there is the dread Adapt-A-Roll 620 holder, which slips in like a sheet film holder. I wrote the section about it in the Speed Graphic FAQ on www.graflex.org. Go read it. These bon-bons can be found, often at reasonable prices. Busch made an equivalent that takes 120 film, but these beauties are quite rare.</p>

<p>If I were you I'd sell the Mini and buy a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a Graflok back. Better and more useful camera. Next time do your research before buying.</p>

<p>No no no, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing you see.<br /> I've always wanted a baby SG, and I would have preferred to buy one with a graflok back, but these seem to go for a lot more cash. Pacemakers are too young for the kind of cameras I collect and use, otherwise I would have indeed chosen one of those over the Mini SG.<br /> I had seen roll film holders attached to spring backs for 4x5 (like on Jo Lommen's Graflex site) and assumed it would be relatively easy to do the same thing to the 2x3. I do not intend to mount different lenses and rarely use ground-glass focusing, except for calibrating the RF when necessary.</p>

<p>Cutting the L-shaped brackets should not really be a problem, but I was hoping someone might have the measurements at hand, saving me the trouble. ;)<br>

But all the extra links and info is appreciated, thanks you,</p>

<p>Rick</p>

<p>Rick, I have the older Mini Speed Graphic similiar to yours and it has a "23" Graphic roll film holder. This one is different than anything I have seen and, I have not found any reference to it (at graflex.org or elswhere). After removing the two screws (which have been replaced by thumbscrews) and taking out the GG and focusing hood, the roll film holder itself has a pin sticking out the bottom, which fits into a hole in the bottom of the frame where the GG usually sits, and the top of the frame has two spring loaded detents that the holder snaps into. I placed c-clips on the two thumb-screws so that you can easily remove the spring back without having to keep track of the screws. Then you just place the pin in the hole at the bottom and snap the top into place. It really takes only a second longer than removing the GG on a Graflok back.</p>

<p>Rick, thanks for the explanation. IIRC the recent discussion on www.graflex.org re attaching roll holders contains an offer of drawings for the spring kit. That's why I suggested you look at it.</p>

<p>I can see restricting a collection to a range of dates, can't see limiting oneself to using cameras made only within a range of dates. Yes, I know, tastes differ. But seeing you limit what you can accomplish pains me a little.</p>

<p>Dan, I came across the topic you mentioned and I've sent Mr Saunders an email concerning the drawings/measurements.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> But seeing you limit what you can accomplish pains me a little.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, how do you consider this to be limiting what you can accomplish? It seems to me that it would be just as easy to cut 120 roll film into the proper lengths and load it into film holders if you are determined to focus with the GG. There are many ways around this sort of problem and some may take a few seconds longer to accomplish than others but, really, limiting? Doesn't being in a hurry to get your exposure kind of defeat the whole reason that many of us like to use these types of cameras to start with.</p>

<p>The lack of a darkroom means I'm not cutting my own sheet film for a while yet. I am planning to try some 4x5 sheet film in the near future.</p>

<p>So far I've only really shot my 4x5 hand held (with another roll film holder) focusing with the RF and using the sportsfinder or viewfinder for composition. The lack of a ground glass has not really been an issue for me. But I see that it would be a big plus for composing landscapes and portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rick, enjoy your Mini!<br>

Contrary to Dan's thoughts, the Mini makes a great and very usable camera with a 23 roll film back. My Mini came with the original Graflex clips for attaching the roll film back. Certainly that means the camera is not really usable with a ground glass. But it is definitely usable in "press style", with a fixed lens and shooting with the rangefinder and sport/hoop finder. I found this style of shooting very enjoyable and very spontaneous. Folded up, the Mini is quite small and can be taken with you everywhere. It folds open quickly, shoots intuitively, and delivers great results. I much preferred the sharp images from my Mini on 6x9 rollfilm to anything I have gotten from purpose-built 120 format folding cameras. The Mini makes a very sturdy platform and can be brought into very good alignment with no flex.<br>

I so liked this mode of shooting that I replaced my Mini with a Fuji GW690 rangefinder camera, which is just a bit more convenient (and has a more reliable shutter.) But the Mini and the Fuji make equally nice photos!</p>

<p>Tom Scott wrote "Dan, how do you consider this to be limiting what you can accomplish? It seems to me that it would be just as easy to cut 120 roll film into the proper lengths and load it into film holders if you are determined to focus with the GG. There are many ways around this sort of problem and some may take a few seconds longer to accomplish than others but, really, limiting? Doesn't being in a hurry to get your exposure kind of defeat the whole reason that many of us like to use these types of cameras to start with."</p>

<p>Fair question, Tom. I think that using more than one lens on a camera made for interchangeable lenses ought to be easy. It isn't easy with an original-issue Mini Speed. The one I had -- my third 2x3 camera -- had a Pacemaker Graphic Graflok back. If I'd wanted to I could have used it with a Graflex-made rollholder. Instead I swapped backs between the Mini and a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed that had a spring back and sold the Mini.</p>

<p>Re using cut 120 film in a sheet film holder, you're a masochist. Or you've never tried it. I'm not a masochist, sorry. </p>

<p>There are still a few b/w emulsions available in 2x3 cut film. If you want color in 2x3, roll film or cut-down 4x5 are the choices. 120 is easy. Why be a masochist?</p>

<p>I suggested a practical way to use rollfilm with a camera that has a spring back, the Adapt-A-Roll 620. Not only did I write the AAR 620 section of the www.graflex.org Speed Graphic FAQ, I have four of them and use 'em. They have advantages over Graflex-made roll holders.</p>

<p>I shoot my Graphics from tripod. Used that way, they're pretty slow-working. Having to detach the GG and attach a roll holder after focusing and composing is one more hurdle that isn't necessary.</p>

<p>I also use my Graphics with more than just an original-issue normal lens. They really <em>are</em> much more than fixed lens RF cameras. To give an idea, Tom, the shortest lens I use on my Century is a 35 mm. The longest lens I use on my 2x3 Pacemaker Speed is 305 mm. The longest lens I use on my Tandem Graphic is 480 mm. I hope you understand why I see using only a normal lens as limiting.</p>

<p>Rick's new treasure is much more than a larger Canonet with a tiny amount of front rise and a focal plane shutter. If he uses it like a larger Canonet he's short-changing himself.</p>

<p>David, when you got the Fuji you wimped out. Fine by me, easier is better. But you also got past one of 2x3 Speed Graphics' weaknesses. They're not much good with short lenses. The shortest lenses I'm aware of that cover 2x3 and can be used on a 2x3 Speed are around 58 mm. There's a 1.75"/2.8 Elcan, but it covers little more than 6x6. For lenses shorter than 58 mm, one needs a Century or 2x3 Crown.</p>

<p>Dan, not to be argumentative but, you seem to contradict yourself in your last post. You say that David is whimping out by buying the Fuji, because it is the easy way out and yet, it would be masochistic to cut your own film because it is too hard and, "Having to detach the GG and attach a roll holder after focusing and composing is one more hurdle that isn't necessary". Necessity is not really the point is it? It's not really necessary to use a speed graphic at all. There are many other more practical choices if you just want to shoot medium format film. My point was that most of us who use antique cameras are not doing so because it is easy.</p>

<p>Hey Rick that's great.. you got one eh? I hope it wasn't too expensive. Did you date yours based on the lens?<br>

I've had mine since the early 1980s one of the first cameras I got. MY Dad put the bug in me and well it's a long story.<br>

I got the GG and a roll film back. My first results were terrible and everybody told me to forget it! Of course the learning curve on Speed Graphics can be a bit wide.. I did finally find the trouble was a tiny light leak on the lensboard where the coated aftermarket Japanese lens was mounted. I later bought a matching Graphex Optar 101mm. But hand held GG focusing was much like using todays P&S digital cameras at arms length! I've attached some pictures of my spring clips and while I agree with Don it is quite cumbersome, you can swap them out just not on-the-fly. My rollfilm back has been on since at least 1984. After being out of use for 10 years or so I fired it up here in 2007. The spring clips are not especially tightly sprung and this is the only back I have that has a "thumb" wind on. So I managed to leak some light on the first roll as the whole back lifted away a bit when advancing, but careful use is OK. Here's a few photos showing my clips. I write Mr Saunders myself. Great Guy He helped me get my Graflex JR in working order. He's a great man and has helped a lot of people! I hope there's a special reward for him in Graflex Heaven!</p><div></div>

the other one<div></div>

<p>Tom, I couldn't agree less with you. For what I do a press camera is easier to use than a view camera. I have a 2x3 Cambo SC, a fairly modern modular view camera, so I'm acquainted with the joys of using a proper view camera. In many ways the Cambo isn't preferable to a 2x3 Graphic. I treasure both.</p>

<p>That said, slipping an AAR 620 into a Graflok or spring back is easier than removing the back's focusing panel and attaching a roll holder. And removing the focusing panel and attaching a roll holder is easier than removing the entire back and attaching a roll holder. Quicker, too.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot 2x3 and use short lenses, there are few alternatives to a 2x3 Century or Crown Graphic. All of the ones I'm aware of are heavier and much more expensive. </p>

<p>If you don't want to shoot 2x3 with short lenses, well, then the range of choices is broader.</p>

<p>If you have a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography, read what he says about press cameras' place in the universe. If you don't have the book, buy it.</p>

<p>Sorry Dan, I quess I was just having one of those mornings. I closed on my new home today and it has been pretty nerve wracking the last week or so. I didn't mean to take it out on you. Yes, I will agree that the 620 AAR is the easiest way to go regardless of spring back or graflok. I have one for my 4x5 pacemaker (with Graflok) but, I didn't even know they made them for 2x3. I will have to keep an eye out for one.</p>

<p>Very cute Dan. Anyone who has handled the "Texas Leica" wouldn't say I wimped out. That bad boy scares children and longtime photographers alike! :-)<br>

I think it might actually be bigger than a Mini SG... and I often shoot a little fill flash with it, from a Metz CT3. So I still get the "press camera with a ridiculous potato masher flash" feeling! I just don't have to worry about the rollfilm back pulling away from the camera and fogging the film as I throw the thumb winder. (As someone else mentioned, I definitely had to watch that on my Mini SG. The springs on the back weren't that strong.)</p>

 

<p>Chuck, I dated the camera through the serial number on the inside top of the main body. Which was 3544**. The 3 was scratched from the catch on the front door, I first thought it was an 8. That made no sense as that placed the camera in the 1950s and was of the wrong type.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rick, how do you date the camera by the serial number, I dated the lens at 1946 on one and 1942 on the other (both Ektar 101s in supermatic shutters). The serial number on the one with the 1946 lens is 879265, is there a serial number chart somewhere?</p>

<p>Tom, PMFJI. </p>

<p>879265 is not a valid serial number for a 2x3 Graphic. 379265 is in a set of 3,500 serial numbers assigned to Mini Speed Graphics on 1/9/46. Another batch of 2,000 was also assigned that day. The next batch was assigned on 3/8/46. Your camera was probably made by early March.</p>

<p>The late Tim Holden compiled a list of Graflex serial numbers and dates assigned. It is hard to read, hard to use, may not be correct, is certainly incomplete, and apparently isn't in circulation.</p>

<p>This is a link to a document from Graflex.org with a lot of serial number information:<br>

<a href="fotoduo.com/images/Graflex_list_of_serial_numbers_and_dates.doc"><cite>fotoduo.com/images/<strong>Graflex</strong>_list_of_<strong>serial</strong>_<strong>numbers</strong>_and_dates.doc</cite></a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok Dan, the 3 was just as Rick said with his, scarred by the latch and sure looked like an 8. Thanks for the info but please, what is PMFJI? The older 2x3 speed graphic I have looks identical to Ricks and has a serial no of 304424. The lens on that one has a date code of '42.</p>

 

<p>Tom, 304424 was in a lot of 1,000 serial numbers issued on 11/11/41. The next batch was assigned on 1/5/42, so 304424 was probably made in early 1942.</p>

<p>Rick the list you posted is also known as the "Shutterfinger list." I believe that it was compiled from Tim Holden's responses to questions "when was my camera made?" on www.graflex.org. If you look closely at it, you'll find inconsistencies. Even Tim had problems reading his s/n book.</p>

<p>Tom, Pardon Me For Jumping In.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

<p>RE : I've also picked up a "23" roll film holder for this camera, but I need to fabricate two little L-shaped clamps to fix it to the spring-back (or figure out another way to attach it, or get a graflok back).</p>

<p>The 2x3 Speed Graphic here has a serial number of 371XXX with a 1946 101mm F4.5 Ektar; code EO.</p>

<p>The 2x2, 2x3 and 6x7 cm roll backs just attach with the spring steel metal brackets you show in your images.<br /> You attach the roll film back then place the spring brackets on . The ends of the clamps apply pressure to force the roll back against the camera. Yo just screw the brackets on with the 2 wood screws. You already have the clamps. They are shown in your images. The roll holder is held on the camera with the clamps you already have. Thus there is nothing to fabricate. All you need is a screwdriver.<br>

<br /> Cheers<br>

<br /> Like the Wizard Of Oz, just click your heels. You already have the brackets</p>

<p>The photos of you camera's back and spring brackets are the same as mine that has a 2x2 roll back on it right now.</p>

<p>Thanks Veronica,<br>

I have already looked at that option, but though that the little tabs on the metal brackets that normally attach to the ground glass would not be angled enough and might slip past the roll film holder. Also would these not flex a bit too much, with regards to fogging the film when advancing it? (though I've got a knob-advance on my roll film holder and normally have the dark-slide in in between shots)<br>

Will give it a go.</p>

<p>The plans for the alternative brackets have already been forwarded to a friend who can do a bit of metal working. We'll see</p>