Graflex Super Graphic field and press camera

[carl_crosby3]

I would like to buy a Graflex Super Graphic camera, and fit it

with the 150mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar S. Is this a good combination,

and is a cam available to synchronize the rangefinder with the lens?

Does this lens have enough coverage to provide some use of the camera

movements? If not, what would you suggest? It will be used for a

studio camera and field use. What lens should I consider for studio

photgraphy of butterflies and moths, (shades of Jaime Gumb)and maybe

spiders, which I will raise myself? Thank you; C. Crosby

[Troll]

This would be a great combination, but your chances of getting a cam for a 15cm Symmar are just about zero. If you want one, you'll have to make it; there are directions of graflex.com. There is lots of room for movements. If you are going to be photographing little things, you don't want a lens as long as 15 cm. Perhaps one half that focal length. If you haven't already tried it, I can assure you that 4x5 isn't the way to go for macro photography.

[tim_atherton2]

I found a 150mm cam pretty easily. Hunt around on ebay and at the few stores that specialise in graflex stuff.

 

As a last resort I can trace out the cam and you can follow the instructions on www.graflex.org

[richard_ilomaki]

CArl

 

I have a Super Graphic and I must echo Bill's comment about it not being the way to go for Macro.

 

It is possible, but not easy and a 150mm lens is NOT the one to use. Pro Macro shooters with LF(museums, jewellery. etc) use special lenses and special conical mounts, not to mention specialized(Expsnsive!!) lighting.

 

With TTL and the improvements in film these days, there is little reason not to use 35mm and slide film: you can get excellent results.

 

Then only thing missing is the movements, but you can get bellows attachments for 35mm with swings & tilts. The Nikon bellows can do all that AND all the exposure calcs are done TTL whether with floodlights or flash.

 

A Nikon D-100 and the 24mm lens reversed on a bellows and lots of memory would beat anything for practicallity. You can get images on teh film as much as 8 times life size. It is not cheap but would not drive you insane, as would trying to get all the hardware to work for 4x5. The money spent on 4x5 film & processing would soon pay for a good SLR setup, even old fashioned film.

 

Cheers

[wayne_crider4]

Carl I shoot a Super with three lenses all cammed. Cams are available at Midwest Photo Exchange or they will order one from Fred Lustig (http://www.graflex.org/news/lustig.html) in Reno Nevada that has all the parts and some dies for the Graflex cameras. I just got a 203mm cam and it cost me $29.

 

There have been a few threads about macro shooting small objects, flowers etc, recently so look for them in the different categories. Everyone has a different opinion so I think that what it comes down to is, what is your intended output? If it's big and you want to fart around with a camera system not really intended for macro stuff, go for it. I've seen an article in a magazine where 4x5 was being adapted to a microscope and used to shoot, but then there wasn't any subject movement. But if your output is smaller like an 8x10, I think that 35mm would be more practical and easier to use. Of course if you could set a 4x5 camera up and leave it focused on one spot and the "whatever" would land there and stay, then maybe a 4x5 would work. Remember tho that processing and printing 4x5 is a little different. In fact i just got a couple of scans (if you going to do any digital work) that's running me only $15 for a 4x5 scan, for a 36MB file (12 MB per color). That's cheap compared to others. For negs figure about a $1.75 each for processing and anywhere from a $1.20 to $2 to print each. E6 cost me $1.75 each. I personally gave up on the 4x5 macro flower stuff. I'll use my 6x6 SLR instead and shoot 120 for a greater cost savings and my output is small anyways. If you do find that your still interested in a Super, let me know, mines up for sale complete with 135mm lens.

[robert_kennedy]

You need to watch your DOF too with a LF camera. DOF can be VERY shallow on LF. If you are wide open at even 4.6, you might be getting just a couple of inches in focus at best (depending on the lens). I have seen LF portraits done with "standard" lenses (they vary, but nothing bizzare was used...all very normal lenses) where the tip of the subjects nose was well out of focus as was everything from a point just behind their eye. That could be a problem with living subjects as you will be working with smaller apertures and longer exposures. Then again, you might want to try it anyway. One never knows.

[alec1]

Here's another fly in the ointment. Graflex made MANY cams. When you say "150mm", is that a TRUE 150mm? Actually, Graflex made 3 cams for their "150mm" series; the #8 for 150.32, #9 for 151.99, and #10 for 153.49. They considered any of those FLs to be "150mm". You've got to accurate measure the FL of the lens before getting the RIGHT cam. I can't say how much the wrong cam would appear "off" to you, just that there isn't a single "150mm" Graflex cam.

 

Then, there's the question about focusing scales. There were 5 scales made for "150mm" lenses. Just a few notes to say this isn't an easy job to get it right.

[tim_atherton2]

not for the super graphic. They made a 151mm (#43) and a 153.5mm (#44).

 

And the Super Graphic doesn't use focusing scales (though it has one built into the top - mainly for flash)

 

You can phone and talk to Fred Lustig who will reluctantly sell you a cam for the nominal focal length of your 150mm, or I beleieve you can send your camera to him with the lens for a tune up and he will select the correct cam for the lens. (Unless he's stopped doing that these days).

 

The 151 cam appears to work fine with my 150mm schneider symmar s - for hand held work. (A big Linhof grip from ebay bolted to the left side works wonders too...)

 

Schneider quotes the effective focal length at infinity to be 150.3mm (although individual lenses will vary)

[alec1]

Ah, so true, Tim. Just another "Senior Moment". Reinforces my motto: "often wrong, but NEVER in doubt".