dan_fromm2

This answer is from a man who owns one. No. You have to replace the shutter. The 58/5.6's cells will fit a #0 Press shutter, the 60/5.6's won't and must have a cock-and-shoot #0. I hope you didn't pay too much for your poisoned gift. Why can't you use it, once reshuttered, on your 2x3 Pressman?

JDM, Graflex Inc. and successors made roll holders to fit 2x3, 3x4 and 4x5 Graflok backs. The standard Graflok back (not all international backs) accepts these roll holders, also sheet film holders, Grafmatic sheet film holders and insertion type (sized for the camera, of course) roll holders. The OP has a 2x3 Busch Pressman with a spring back. He's a bit slow, doesn't seem to understand that lenses in K-O mount have to be reshuttered to be usable on other cameras.

My point, which you seem to have missed completely, is that the two systems have only interchangeable lenses, rangefinders, and 120 film in common. Weight, too, since you mentioned it.

Stop asking, start tinkering.

Use the FPA for focusing/composing, use strong rubber bands to hold sheet film holders or roll film holders in place. Or find a 2x3 mug shot camera that has a proper Graflok with spring-loaded focusing panel and all and use its back. Or just use your Pressman C with an insertion type roll holder. RJ, I b'lieve the OP has a 2x3 (6x9 in metric) fixation. Koni-Omegas are 6x7 cameras. Mamiya Press cameras are natively 2x3 but roll holders for smaller formats that fit them are available. K-Os and Mamiya Press are very different cameras with quite different mounts for lenses and roll holders. Scamper over to butkus.org, download the manuals and educate yourself about them. By most definitions they and the OP's proposed home made camera are all medium format.

Jens, thank you (NOT!) for the incorrection. You should check the facts you assert before you post them. If you check nominal 6x9 roll holders' gates (look at specifications, get some and measure) you'll find that their sizes are 56 or 57 mm high and 78 to 84 mm long. 57 isn't 60, 84 isn't 90. Measurement systems have nothing to do with precision. Calculations are easier with the metric system than with the Imperial, that's all.

A lens that is normal for a format has a focal length that is approximately the format's diagonal. 2.25 inches x 3.25 inches' (6x9 is a poor metric approximation) diagonal is 100 mm. 6x6's (a poor metric approximation to 2.25 inches by 2.25 inches) diagonal is 80 mm. I understand that you're not a native speaker of English, but you should be a native speaker of photography.

Best? Best for what? There are many good modern 100 - 105 mm lenses. You can't go wrong with one from, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider. If, that is, the lens is in good order.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/prof_pdf/toyo_field_45aii.pdf See p. 9

I dunno. That thing is probably 24" x 30", not that large in the scheme of things. I was just looking at a lens catalog from 1908. Don't ask. The largest format mentioned in it is 120 x 160. That's in centimeters. Twice as large in each dimension as that tiny little thing that takes two to carry.

1) The pins are part of the shell. Load the film in the insert, put the insert in the shell. Get the manual. Read the manual. 2) Inserts fit all shells. You may have an older insert in a newer shell. I've seen 'em. Or you may have a late knob wind roll holder. Graflex came up with the pins before the lever wind insert. 3) No. You're a cheap <obscenity deleted>. If you want to squeeze nine shots out of a roll, use an Adapt-A-Roll 620 roll holder.

Try Nippon Photoclinic in NYC.

Technique first, because until you can control the process you won't be able to realize y'r artistic vision, whatever that is. I shoot film, haven't gone digital yet, so am not acquainted with books on operating digital cameras or manipulation of digitized images. They exist. If you want to learn the technique of shooting film, buy a copy of A. A. Blaker's Field Photography and study it. If you want to learn what shutter speed and aperture controls do, buy that book. Can't give advice on learning about the rest of digital. Art? When I started I took terrible pictures. So I looked at them, analyzed what didn't please me, figured out how not to do that, and improved. Self criticism is painful, helpful.

Art, as Chauncey said, as close as possible. This means removing the strap and associated hardware from one of the cameras and the RF and associated hardware from the other. I'm not sure that 4x5 Pacemaker Graphic boards are large enough for Chauncey's two lenses plus divider solution to work. Perhaps two small lenses in barrel hung in front of a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Yes, I read that you have Crowns. Have you thought about using a pair of 2x3 Graphics, if you must use Graphics? Have you thought about matching lenses on focal length?

Thanks for the correction. Yes, the lens covers 2x3. I've used mine on 2x3 Graphics. If you like the effect, use the effect. If you don't, don't.

It is a matter of personal preference. Most users find a center filter necessary for lenses shorter than around 90 mm on 4x5. All that a recessed board does is increase the length of bellows needed to focus at a given distance. Since movements are difficult with a compressed bellows, using a recessed board with a short lens often makes good sense. The only thing that changes coverage is magnification. The typical ground glass is quite coarse, therefore has low resolution and gives a poor indication of what resolution on film will be. You can see serious fuzziness on the GG but not sharpness. The lens won't cover 4x5 on a Pressman C either. Y'know, these lenses and their 60/5.6 brothers aren't that expensive. No one uses them on 4x5 cameras. There's a reason. Its the same reason why no one uses 65/6.8 Angulons and Raptars/Optars on 4x5. They don't cover.

Bob, I'm blind -- most recent measurements 20/15 -- or you're hallucinating. I just put my 58/5.6 KH on my 4x5 Cambo. At infinity at f/5.6 it barely puts light in the corners of the 6x9 grid on the GG. This isn't just optical vignetting (cos^4). Cos^4 puts 6x9's corners 1.6 stops down from the center, 4x5's 2.8. To which you can add the effects of mechanical vignetting. I understand "covers x" to mean "puts good image x/2 off axis," not illuminates x. The only way to find out whether a lens covers a format is to shoot it and examine the negative closely. "Covers at certain focal distances" is weaseling. The circle covered expands the closer a lens is focused. That's nice, and a big "so what?" for the lens' general usability. If the lens did cover 4x5, you'd need to use a center filter with it. What does the lensboard have to do with coverage?

Bill, be patient. You can measure the lens when it arrives. If you can't be patient, ask y'r question on Large Format Photography Forum You're much more likely to find someone who can help you there than here. The I-37 is a copy of a 300/4.5 CZJ Tessar. The I-11m (all of them, there are many focal lengths) are copies of CZJ Apo-Tessars. Apo-Tessars aren't versions of jes' plain Tessars, they're new computations. Apochromatic, low distortion, low coverage, ...

RJ, that's too direct. Asking people who don't know either is a much, much better way to find out.

The lens' rear tube is relatively long and its rear element is relatively small. Mechanical vignetting limits its coverage.

Sixteen years later,

No, its limit is 2x3.

Its too easy and it wastes film. Please don't ask how many shots it will take for the investment in a 617 roll holder to pay back.

RJ, see Build an Anamorphic Pinhole Camera From https://www.etsy.com/listing/113838722/vermeer-6x17cm-anamorphic-pinhole-camera Words don't always mean what they usually do. Now that I've looked this stuff up, I think that the OP's idea is unworkable.

Hmm. If you paid Paypal by credit card refusing the charge is still possible. That's why I always pay Paypal with a CC.