dan_fromm2

That's a Seiko shutter, not a Copal. Cock the shutter, then pull the preview tab out. Push back in to close the shutter.

Ben, Gary, my first Graphic was a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed. Fine camera, nowhere near as difficult to use or problematic as Ben says. It has only one shortcoming relative to the 2x3 Crown and Century. Minimum flange-to-film distance 61.9 mm. The 2x3 Crown and Century's is 34.9 mm. So what? The shortest original issue lens for the 2x3 Pacemaker Speed is the 80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. The shortest original issue lens for the 2x3 Crown and Century is the 65/6.8 Optar/Raptar, functionally equivalent to the 65/6.8 Angulon. The shortest modern lenses that cover 2x3 and will make infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed are the 58/5.6 Grandagon and 58/5.8 Konica Hexanon/Omegon (ex-Koni Omega). The shortest modern lens that covers 2x3 and makes infinity on the 2x3 Crown and Century is the 35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon. That's so what. The Pacemaker Speed has more extension than the Crown/Century. And, as mentioned, with its focal plane shutter it can be used with lenses in barrel. The longest lens I'm aware of that's comfortable, as in makes infinity with the front standard inside the box, on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed is the 12"/4 TTH telephoto originally fitted to Vinten F.95, Williamson F.134 and AGI F.139 aerial cameras.

deleted

I've never dared buy any of them because they're in Seiko shutters that don't have a cable release socket. They were made for Horseman's range of 2x3 cameras, were delivered on boards that fit these cameras. The boards have a gadget that accepts a cable release and, by hook or crook, presses the shutter's release lever when the cable release is pressed. To be used as is on other cameras the lenses have to be reshuttered or the other cameras' boards have to have similar gadgets. Or (big or) they have to be released by, um, finger. I have several w/a lenses for my 2x3 Graphics, use a cable release with them because I can't fire their shutters by finger and be sure that my hand isn't in the frame. These lenses are attractive propositions because of their low prices relative to other modern lenses for 2x3. I think the low prices reflect the cost of making them usable. If you have a Horseman, get the lenses and try them. If either doesn't please you can resell it. If you don't have a Horseman, you should probably look elsewhere.

Ben, to repeat myself with a little amplification, 2x3 is an abbreviation for the more cumbersome 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. 2x3 sheet film's nominal size is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4". It isn't exactly that, here's a link to the ANSI standards for sheet film holders. http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html large format camera film holder specifications You'll see that the exposure area (film holder's gate) is lower than 2.25" and longer than 3 1/4". The film has to be a little larger. 2x3 is also a roll film format. 120, 220 and 620 roll films are 60 mm high. As I've said, 2x3 roll holders' gates' sizes vary a little. 6x9 is a poor metric approximation to 2x3. The formats are identical. 6.5x9 is a European sheet film format. Nominal 6.5x9 sheets are larger than nominal 2x3 sheets. Your 2x3 Crown Graphic is, like mine, a camera whose back accepts 2x3 sheet film holders and insertion type 2x3 roll holders. AFAIK, there are two such for 2x3 cameras, the Adapt-A-Roll 620 and a Busch holder whose name I've forgotten. It takes 120 film. If, like mine, it has a Graflok back it will accept clip-on roll holders with nominal 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4, and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 gates.

Oh, dear. The common language and Graflex-speak share little. In Graflex-speak, mini means Miniature Speed Graphic. This is approximately the first 2x3 Speed Graphic. In the common language, mini means any 2x3 Graphic. In Graflex-speak, a Graflex camera is an SLR, a Graphic is a press camera. In the common language Graflex means any camera made by Follmer & Schwing and successors. No wonder that we confuse each other.

The metric formats 6x9 and 6 x 4.5 are poor approximations to reality. AFAIK, there's no 6x9 standard. nominal 6x9 roll holders' gates are all 56 - 57 mm high, lengths range from 78 mm (2x3 Graflex with pin rollers at the ends of the gate) to 84 mm (Linhof Super Rollex, Toyo). Ben, I think you're mistaken about "2x3" sheet film. You may be confusing it with 6.5 x 9 sheet film. The two formats are not the same.

Almost but not quite 2x3 Cambo. Go here Lens Boards « SKGrimes, hover over lens boards on the left and work your way through the list.

A suggestion. If you buy a Windows laptop with a solid state drive, pay the price and get a big one. I recently bought a Dell XPS laptop (13" screen, as Mr. Ingold suggested) and a 128 GB SSD. With not that much software and data on-board -- I do have a moderate number of ~ 70 mb radiographs on it -- there wasn't enough room for Windows to update itself. I replaced the SSD with a 500GBer and all's well.

The 105/5.6 NW and CM W Fujinons aren't plasmats. CIs 162 and 174 mm respectively. Don't snipe in ignorance, read the specs. Link above still works. The OP has a camera with a small lens throat, has to accept what will fit.

W and NW, Joe, not SWD. Follow the link I posted, receive a little enlightenment.

105/5.6 and 125/5.6 Fujinons all cover 4x5, some with more movements than others, and should clear an MPP Mk VII lens throat. I have a 105/5.6 NW (badged W) and a 125/5.6 NW. Both have small rear cells, mount easily on 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics, lens throat 48 mm square. For Fuji lenses, see FUJINON LARGE FORMAT LENSES SORTED BY FOCAL LENGTH For links to information on most of what's available, see Where to look for information on lenses.pdf

Bob, AFAIK the 127/4.7 Tominon was the standard 5" lens on Polaroid's GelCams (various designations) and was never sold for the MP-3 or MP-4 copy stand. The MP-3 had mainly Ysarons in Prontor Press shutters, the MP-4 Tominons in barrel screwed into a diaphragmless Copal #1 Press. The longest standard lens for the MP-4 was the 135/4.5 Tominon in barrel. Much worse lens than the 127/4.5. I have no Sironars, do have a slightly hazy 135/5.6 jes' plain Symmar. On 2x3 (remember, the largest I shoot is 6x12) the Tominon is no worse than the Symmar. The 127 Tominon is a surprise. I fully expected it to be mediocre, like the MP-4 tessar type lenses. Rodenstock made tessar types. I have no idea how the 127 GelCam Tominon compares with the 135/4.5 Rodenstock sold Graflex Inc. for use on 4x5 Graphics or with the 127/4.7 Ysarex Rodenstock sold Polaroid for the 110.

You don't have to be home or awake to bid on eBay at the last minute. That's what sniping engines are for. I use Hammersnipe. HammerSnipe - HammerSnipe - FREE online auction site sniping software esniper ebay snipe site e snipe auctions ebay auction sniper site bid sniper free auction Free, works well.

John, I have one. I shoot it on 2x3, where it does very well at all distances. As far as I know it is a perfectly fine 127/4.5 Tessar type like all of the other 127/4.5 (or so) Tessar types including the well-regarded 127/4.7 Ektar. They all just cover 4x5, Bob is mistaken. Not like him, but there it is. If you have one, mount it up and try it. If you don't and want to use electronic flash, which shutter is y'r 130/7.7 KA in? I ask because if it has "X" class flash sync there are bipost-to-PC adapter cables. Paramount makes them, use Google to find them. I use one with the Flash Supermatic my 101/4.5 Ektar is in. I just looked at 127/4.5 Tominons on eBay. There's one for $25, all of the others are in or the price range of 150/6.3 and 150/5.6 Fujinons. No question that they'll cover 4x5. I too am retired and on a more-or-less fixed income so I understand y'r situation. I got my 127 Tominon years ago when they were very inexpensive. If you want a widish normal lens for 4x5 that can be used with flash, first check whether y'r 130/7.7's shutter will sync properly with electronic flash. If it will, get the cable. If not, go for a cheap 127/4.7 Tominon. If Bob's scared you away from that, give up on 5 inch lenses and go for a 150/6.3 Fuji. Good luck, have fun, Dan

Agreed. The only time that nonsense matters is when reality, i.e., what the products can do and how well they do it, changes. For all practical purposes, a Dagor is a Dagor is a Dagor. Coating makes a difference, but not a major one. The one exception is that f/9 and f/10 wide angle Dagors have more coverage than regular f/6.8ers and f/7.7ers.

RJ, you is a furriner, UK type I b'lieve. As such you're not well placed to follow the twists and turns of the corporate histories and product slates of amurrican lens makers such as C. P. Goerz American Optical Company (not to be confused with American Optical Company) and its successors. Goerz American and successors made Dagors from the beginning to the end when, as Bob mentioned, Schneider, a German firm, owned the name, trademarks, ... I'm sure that the Dagor design was recomputed many times from beginning to end. Towards the end Goerz, still under American ownership, sold the same old Dagors as Golden Dagors. See, e.g., Pacific Rim Camera Reference Library, look at the 6/59 catalog. Read the over-the-top marketing fluff in the catalog. Goerz When Schneider took over Goerz, they continued the Golden Dagor line for a while, subcontracted manufacture to Kern. It isn't clear when Goerz started coating their lenses, they should have started in the late '40s like everyone else, but Schneider's Kern Golden Dagors are coated and are said by some users to be too contrasty. Point is, the Golden Dagor isn't a resurrection. Its the same old thing. I don't have any Dagors (so-badged) may by any of the Goerz companies. My 45/9 Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor, computed after CZJ took over Goerz (German, not American) is an ok little lens. My coated Boyer Beryls, all Dagor clones if not outright copies, are all very good. So are my f/14 SOM Berthiot Perigraphes, extreme wide angle Dagor types. Many other makers made Dagor types.

Usable? Yes. Amazing? Not everyone agrees. Chrise, Dagors are not particularly vintage. You've asked a couple of short questions that require a book length answer. Or several. Buy the book. Or books. Here is a link https://1drv.ms/b/s!AggQfcczvHGNkGG_P2z8Qiyc8Qo- to a list of links to many kinds of information about, mainly, LF photography. It includes recommendations of books on LF photography. Go there, select a book or books, read it or them.

Ed. Ben thanks for reminding me that there's more to macro than flowers, insects and such, mainly in the field. Also for reminding me that although my preferred lighting techniques work well with my subjects there's an art to lighting that I usually don't think of. Funny thing that in the lab I use a digital Nikon with focus stacking to shoot preserved specimens. For some reason even though I'm convinced that where it is practical focus stacking is preferable to "one shot and done" I have trouble thinking of it as macro.

Studio flashes for closeup work? In general, not the best idea. In some situations, though, large flashes far from the subject can give better results than the small flashes close to the subject that I use. No one talks about depth of illumination, but it is a consequence of the inverse square law. With my rigs a background far behind the subject is always much darker than the subject. This doesn't make good sense for every situation. Large flash far away can fix this. In the field, however, large flash far away can be difficult to set up. I've tried this approach, with trepidation, for shooting hummingbirds. Never had good success, my most powerful flash wasn't bright enough to overpower bright ambient. Ben, if you're working in the studio with immobile subjects, why do you shoot handheld? If you suffer from tremor, using a two-axis focusing rail will give better control over focus and framing than shooting handheld. For mobile subjects, though, its handheld or don't bother.

Ed, low powered electronic flashes have very short flash durations and stop motion -- photographer's and subject's -- as long as there's no significant exposure from ambient. That's why slow film or the lowest possible ISO plus ND filter are essential.

Ed, I haven't been in the Shedd for decades. I spent time there centuries ago when I was a student. Anyway, if they still have their small aquarium room, that would be a good place to shoot fish with flash. Larger tanks are difficult, the flash-to-subject distancesare usually too large. About modern conveniences, e.g., TTL autoflash. It doesn't always work consistently when working closeup. I prefer to use pre-calibrated flashes. This is equivalent -- think about it -- to metering incident, which gives more consistent results than metering incident. I also adjusted flash power or aperture for especially dark or light subjects.

Ed, that your results have been less than stellar is a message. Its time to break out the KM and learn how to use flash closeup. Yes, I know, Kodachrome processing is gone and won't come back. So its time to grit your teeth and break out the ND filters. Alternatively, go up in format, shoot ISO 100 E6 with cameras that have leaf shutters that will sync at, ideally, 1/500. And learn how to use flash closeup. Guide number arithmetic adjusted for magnification works well.

Ed, I have thousands of shots at 1:1 done handheld out-of-doors with KM and 55 or 105 MicroNikkors on Nikon SLRs. The subjects were flowers, insects and such. The trick was to use flash illumination to stop motion, both mine and the subjects. And that many handheld shots of un- or lightly constrained live fish in aquaria, some out-or-doors in a portable photo tank, others inside. Also with KM and flash. It all worked because with KM I could shoot between f/11 and f/16 set (that's f/22 to f/32 effective) at 1/125 (Nikkormat) and, later, 1/250 (FM2n). There's a delicate balance between overpowering ambient, loss of image quality in the plane of best focus to diffraction, and loss of image quality outside of the plane of best focus to diffraction (again) and shallow depth of field. My setups killed ambient, forced stopping down a little too far. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. This is uncomfortable to do when the image capture device, film or chip, is too sensitive. With ISO 100 a two stop ND filter is needed if ambient is to be overpowered. Three stops might be better. I dislike this so much that I've stopped shooting flowers and such. Turning up a digicam's ISO isn't what's needed for full control, low ISO with flash is better.

You're thinking of the autofocus 200/4 MicroNikkor. The manual focus ones (AI, AIS) go to 1:2 on their own mounts. The 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AI and AIS increase magnification by a combination of adding extension and reducing focal length. They go to 1:2 on their mounts, to 0.88:1 on their PN-11 (I think that's it, could be mistaken) extension tube. I can't speak to the AF versions, don't have any. I do have 55/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4 MicroNikkors, all AIS. Why don't you look up the AF 105 MicroNikkor's properties and share with us?