Weight of a Graphic View or Old Calumet?

[dan_brittain]

Does any one know the weight of one of these older mono-rail

cameras? I have found some information on them but could not find

out how much they weigh. I know, heavy, is the answer I will get but

approximate weight in pounds would be more useful. I am thinking

about taking "the dive" and money is very tight. I would like more

movements than a speed graphic offers. I see these older mono-rails

for sale pretty cheap, and hear they are pretty good quality.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[maury_cohen]

If my memory serves me well I'd guesstimate around 10-15 lbs.

The Calumet is the heavier of the two. I shot with a Graphic View before Art Center then carried a Calumet all through Art Center.

[ronald_lamarsh1]

I assume you are talking about 4x5 in which case the graphic is probably a little lighter but it is also not as stout. I doubt the difference in wieght would be more than 2lbs and for that I would definately take the camera that was the most stable and rugged. I see many questions on this forum about folks trying to get the ligthest camera possible, especialy backpackers. I use an old 4x5 technika III and compared to todays lightest its a bit heavier by about 2lbs. For the $1500 plus I'd have to invest in a new camera 2lbs just isn't worth it. In fact you can take that money buy a club membership and stay in shape so that the 2 lbs means nothing and the rest of you r life will benefit! Thats what I have done.

[Troll]

I just put my old Graphic View II on the bathroom scales, and it weighed just under 8 pounds (Graflock back, no lens board). If you decide on the GV, be sure to get the tripod head which attaches to the monorail -- without it you can't use the camera (it was a major selling point when they were new, the Kodak/Calumet didn't have it), but many have been lost or damaged in the last 50 years. If you plan to use a roll film adapter get the Graphic, if not I'd favor the Kodak/Calumet with it's bail for loading film holders. The Kodak/Calumet is probably better made, but the Graphic is more rugged. Even when they were new and competing it was a very rough call between them. Let us know what you decide.

[jon_shiu]

Calumet CC401 is around 6 lbs., I believe.

[robert_davis2]

I just weighed by 401. 3.8KG or I guess 8.25lbs. Feels heavier. I must be getting old-)) That's no lens or lensboard.

 

Neither of these cameras can be called light.

[robert_davis2]

On the point on just ignoring the weight I beg to differ. It's not the weight of the camera it's the total weight. No matter how strong you are [and I've got no problem hauling an idiotic load] you'll have a max amount you can haul easily. If your camera is 2lbs heavier then that's 2lbs less film. Or less lenses. Or less water. I can clearly see why people want the lightest camera possible. They want to carry more then just the camera.

[harold_levie]

I think my first attempt at a response went off into the aether; if so, consider that Robert Davis touched on the right idea: "It's not the weight of the camera it's the total weight." Monorail cameras pretty much require cases, and the total weight---case, camera, len(s), filmholders, loupe, focusing cloth, etc.---gets into a range where the difference in weight between older monorails (or even between new and old monorails) is not of much consequence. A case big enough for a Calumet CC-400 (one of the all-time greats) will hold about four foldable field cameras plus accessories, so if you are considering working very far from your transportation, you probably want to rethink the use of a monorail, regardless of weight differences.

 

For studio use, the heavier camera will deflect more, but "settle" more easily. If the tripod or stand is adequate, a couple of pounds isn't going to make much difference, and if not the savings on an older camera could well be put towards a better support.

 

Also, consider where the extra weight went: I have access to a Calumet /Cambo monorail which seems lighter than the CC400 that it replaced. It should be lighter--one of the things that it doesn't have is the handle on top for picking it up...

[conrad_hoffman]

Agree with Harold. You can pick up an old Calumet 4x5 with your little finger, so it must be 6-8 lbs. The problem is that there's no good way to carry it, except for a carrying case, so system weight is what counts. The old fiberboard cases, plus a few film holders and maybe an extra lens, were awkward, and not suited to walking anywhere. They were really intended for storage or car/truck travel.

[Troll]

You carry it over your shoulder, mounted on the tripod. Dan never said that he was going to back pack into the wilderness.

[claire_curran1]

I have backpacked with an old, long rail Calumet and, later, with an old Cambo. This was before camera backpacks were made. I used an old metal frame Kelty. I would recommend the Calumet for its ruggedness and movements. My Calumet weighs approximately 8 lbs. Its weight is a problem when backpacking, but its bulk is the real headache. The camera is not the easiest thing to get in and out of a pack and takes up lots of room. I also carried the camera around in its very big case. This becomes torture after 2 miles or so. If you shoot fairly close to your car, then the case will work. Forget it on long hikes or rough terrain. If you plan to hike distances, buy a lighter weight view camera.

[edward_burlew]

the weight of the camera body is suck a small psrt of the total weight you are just wasting time and thought.

[brian_kennedy]

I don't know, I've gone on some hikes where I would have killed to be carrying two pounds less, and I'm not in poor shape. Over time, every little savings in weight surely helps.

[jamie_wood]

Hi,

Sorry to add another question rather then an answer, but I ask this because it relates (I think) to the original question.

Is it possible (and I know this will probably sound sacriligious to some) to cut the rail down on a calumet? For instance, if I knew that the only thing I was going to be shooting was landscapes, and that the bellows was never going to be extended further than half the rail distance, could I simply saw the ends of the rail to reduce the overall size of the kit? Would this not make it much easier to fit it into the average pack? I had a calumet rail some years back and it was the rail, not the body, that made packing it a nightmare.

I ask this because I'm thinking of buying a cheap calumet again, and wonder if anyone knows if this would work?