rick_koo

One thing to note if you plan on using a Copal shuttered lens with the body release: the stroke required to fire the modern shutter is pretty long and the body release may not work, or at least may not be plug(mount?)-and-play. When I put on a 150 mm Apo-Sironar-S in Copal, I couldn't get the body release to fire the lens with a few minutes of fiddling, so I just resorted to a cable release. Works perfectly with the Optar that came with the camera, though. Maybe someone else has figured out a way to make it work (I'd be interested in hearing if so).

I think you've received answers to most of your questions. The Kalart (side) rangefinders aren't too difficult to adjust if in good condition, but it's an iterative/tedious process that does take time. Instructions available at graflex.org. I would recommend setting it for your main hand-holdable lens and leaving it there. Things I would ask about before purchasing:

 

Are the bellows light tight and otherwise in good shape?

 

Are the focusing rails inside the box intact and unbroken (can be snapped if closed improperly)?

 

Is the rangefinder bright, with two clear superimposed images?

 

What kind of back is on it - Graflok, spring...

 

Are both the ground glass and fresnel intact (stuff gets lost or rearranged over the years, changing the ground glass alignment)?

 

What mask is on the viewfinder (kind of nitpicky - masks for different focal lengths were available for the top mounted viewfinder)

 

All the normal questions about any lens that might come with it....

 

Best of luck, they are fun cameras.

A Crown Graphic makes for a great introduction to large format if for no other reason, because it eases the transition - fewer things to set up and check compared to a view camera, you can often get away without using a dark cloth, there's the possibility of using it handheld, etc. The impact of limited movements can be mitigated somewhat through camera and tripod contortions (examples are out there on the web) - there's some value in those exercises as well, since they really make you think about how badly you need the movement and what you have to do to get it. You can always resell the camera if you grow out of it. I still have mine and regularly choose to take it instead of my Arca-Swiss; the Crown is just a fun camera and all that's needed at times.

I think you're referring to flange focal distance - this would affect the infinity setting and the position of the infinity stops, if you use them. I think you're also correct in that you'd need a flange focal distance on the new lens close to that of the Optar, in order to use the same cam. B&H lists flange focal distance for some new lenses, but I have no idea what it is for the Optar (despite owning the same lens). Best of luck, hope it works out.

I have the new version Arca field and use the Nikon 90/8.0 with it. I'm not sure if it's my eyes, the good ground glass, or that I've been lucky to have enough light - or a combination thereof - but I've not yet run into problems with seeing the corners.

 

This lens is (relatively) cheap, light, and available used. It also has good coverage. Especially if cost or weight are significant considerations, it might be worth a try.

Michael-

 

I try to remove sheets by removing the holder from the camera, pushing the envelope first down into the clip from the face (exposure side), then working it up and out while holding down the release button. It might help the envelope seat a little more securely. Another solution would be to put a piece of tape around the packet and clip after removal - which is how I use the "exposed" stickers supplied with Quickloads. It's possible that neither suggestion would be addressing your root cause, though. Is it happening with other films in the same holders and were these holders generally reliable before?

I use the Toyo loupe - inexpensive and tall enough to clear the viewing hood. Sometimes I feel like a higher magnification would be nice, but not so much so that I've done anything about it. There might be diminishing returns due to the coarse fresnel on my Crown anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Rick

Warren-

 

I recently went through a very similar thinking process after having used a Pacemaker Crown for several years. I eventually chose the new version of the Arca Swiss Field, with the 140 mm rear standard and more versatile biconical bellows. The package is larger in total volume but doesn't seem hugely so, and it's roughly a pound heavier. Comparing to your Speed Graphic, the weight differential would be smaller. The only catch is that it wasn't inexpensive. Pricing for system accessories is even more painful.

 

Regards,

 

Rick

Mark-

 

This (assuming I've correctly attached the photo) is about the worst flare I've been able to coax out of my 50 'Cron.... And there was even (gasp) a UV filter on the front. Your tolerance may differ, but I'm okay with this performance considering I was basically trying to burn a hole in the shutter.<div></div>

Darcy-

 

I've used the Zone VI-modified digital Pentax for the past five years or so and it has worked perfectly. I haven't done a direct comparison to a standard Pentax meter and so I can't say how much of a difference the mods make, but I can say that the metering area is extremely precise, the actual metering has been bang on, and the zone system dial label is convenient.

 

Regards,

 

Rick

My vote goes to the Pacemaker Crown:

 

1. Lighter than the Speed and can focus shorter focal length lenses

 

2. If you are hand-holding, the additional movements of the super aren't really a benefit

 

3. The Kalart rangefinder available on Pacemakers can be adjusted to a lens without cams

Allen Herbert-

 

I'm not sure I understand your two responses to my question to Andy - particularly your latter comment about trolling. If you suggesting that I'm being purposefully provocative with my comments about my lens, that's certainly not the case and I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

 

Regards,

Rick

Andy-

 

Regarding the build quality: does yours rattle just a bit when shaken along the lens axis (yes, my lens testing techniques are both extensive and highly technical)? Mine does - and it's unnerving. No obvious reason to worry yet, though.

 

Others may also wish to note that, while its inherent flare suppression is reputed to be quite good, it can flare badly when shooting into the sun with a UV filter attached. Not that I would do anything that silly, no....

 

Thanks,

Rick

I recently bought the 35/1.2 primarily for focal length and speed, secondarily for the price. My observations thus far given the limited time: it focuses smoothly over a short throw (stiffer when cold), it started brassing after maybe a week (if that matters to you - is that even brass?), and the results do not seem as staggeringly sharp as some from my 50 'cron (disclaimer: absolutely no controlled testing). On the other hand, I often shoot in low light and I've never felt that I had a picture that could have been great, if only the glass was sharper or the barrel wasn't losing paint. It might make you feel better to consider that, with the nominal extra half stop of speed over the 35 'lux, you may have more usable images over which you can worry about lack of sharpness and poor bokeh!

 

One additional point regarding quality and maybe some longer-term owners will comment - my lens rattles a bit when it is shaken along the optical axis (don't ask me why I shake my lenses). It also makes a similar noise when rotating the aperture ring - feels solid, but sounds odd.

 

Regards,

Rick

Thanks for all the thoughts. Actually it's an M6TTL (the same one that I suspect now has a light leak....) but still under Passport warranty.

 

I was hoping to go armed with precedence, but I guess I'll just have to ask. One might reason that Leica would be wise to offer the upgrade free at least to those bodies still under warranty - generates goodwill and, as Bill points out, the alternative may be repairing (or replacing with M7s or MPs) many bodies that have, e.g., accidentally fallen out of tall buildings. And before anyone starts screaming at me for trying to drive them out of business, I'm just arguing obvious logic....

I apologize if this has been covered previously, but I couldn't find

a conclusive answer in the archives: has anyone been able to have the

MP rangefinder flare upgrade performed under Passport Warranty?

 

Thanks,

Rick

Quick update: I'm starting to wonder if I have a leak in the back plate. After further examination of the six rolls of negatives, I've noticed the pattern is actually two bars spaced 72mm apart. I missed the first bar before since it's in the leader section. The second bar falls on the second image, as I mentioned previously. I first thought that it could make sense that this pattern isn't repeated further in the roll since the body sat in a half case when it wasn't being loaded. Except then I noticed that there are light bleeds over the sprocket holes (but not image area) of images four and six at exactly the same interval of 72mm. What is going on here?!!

 

Can someone tell me if there's supposed to be a visible foam or felt light trap around the back door or frame? I purchased the body new but can't remember. It's still under Passport, so if I can verify a problem here, it's going on holiday to NJ....

 

Thanks again,

Help! Just noticed an apparent light leak and hope to get some input

towards verifying/pinpointing the problem.

 

It's manifesting as a prominent vertical orange band on the left side

of the print in the horizontal (landscape) orientation. The negatives

show that the overexposure goes outside of the frame, across the

sprocket holes. And here's the weird part - I only had time to flip

through the prints quickly, but it looks to have happened only on the

second frame in each of six rolls of film. I'd have to check

carefully to make sure that there aren't subtler signs of

overexposure on other frames, but I don't think so at this point. And

I didn't load a fresh roll of film and let the camera sit for a while

for each of the six rolls. I checked with the lab and they claim that

when they ruin a roll, at least three frames are gone.

 

Any guesses?

 

Thanks,

Erik-

 

I don't have a link for you, but I've done this modification. The ring around the shutter release button unthreads counterclockwise - the special tool simply allows you to grip the ring without marring it or slipping and trashing some other part of the camera (or your hand) with a pair of piers. If the retaining ring is factory original, it'll be on really, really tight. Once you're successful in removing it, the advance lever simply lifts off. There's also a washer in there somewhere.... Don't worry, it'll be obvious. Your mileage may vary, but I feel it's a pretty simple procedure.

 

Another note about the tool - I'm not sure what its current price is, but you may wish to compare its cost to that of a replacement retaining ring (assuming the option of using pliers and carefully applied brute force), especially if you don't plan to do this very often or tighten the hell out of the ring getting it back on again. Purists are probably cringing at this comment....

 

Finally, note that both the single stroke and double stroke M3 levers will work, but the longer one (double stroke? maybe someone else recalls) will contact the larger shutter speed dial on an M6TTL.

 

Best of luck,

tak-fu: Not really addressing your questions, but do I understand correctly that you load your 120 film onto the reel along with the paper backing? Unusual methodology if so.... Just curious if it works.

 

Regards,

Drawbacks? Well, there's the fact that the eyeglass protector o-ring falls off shortly after you begin using it and the incremental paranoia associated with a tenuously attached $229 (bought locally) accessory.

 

In spite of this, I'm really happy with having chosen the 0.72x + 1.25x combination and feel that the flexibility far outweighs the dimmer viewfinder image (barely noticeable to me) and restricted field of view. In summary: value could be better, but no regrets.

 

Regards,

I think the Ansel Adams book The Negative talks about "painting with light" and provides explanations of how several shots were done. I don't remember it being very detailed, though.

 

Al's suggestion seems like a good one to try, but wouldn't a flash set to automatic mode have to be pointed at least sort of from the location of the camera, in order to ensure that it senses the amount of reflected light that the film will see? I'd also guess that you would have to be thoughtful about how your flash pops overlap, which could cause cumulative overexposure. The point about reciprocity failure is also astute; you can usually look up correction tables in the film's technical data sheets if needed.

 

Regards,

If you're worried about winding the leader into the canister or need to remove the canister (more difficult with a protruding leader, in my experience), you could buy a film leader retrieval tool and keep a sharpie on hand to mark the number of exposures taken on the leader or canister.

 

Regards,

I've had pretty good luck by assessing each situation in two ways:

 

1) How many stops of exposure below bright sunlight is it? In my experience, indoors during the day is generally 6-8, indoors at night around 10-11, bars may run 13-15 stops below. No way getting around experience or educated guessing here.

 

2) How much light gathering power do I have for my lens and film speed combination? I think in terms of the difference between maximum aperture and f/16 for the lens, and the difference between 1/ISO and the longest acceptable shutter speed for the film.

 

 

My 50 'cron gives me six stops wide open (the difference between f/2.0 and f/16) and Tri-X would provide another four stops of speed if I'm shooting at 1/30s (the difference between 1/500 and 1/30, estimating EI500). So indoors at night, I pretty much know with this combination I'd be somewhere around 1/30-1/15s wide open to get a proper exposure at 10-11 stops below full sun.

 

By extension I can, e.g., walk into a dimly lit bar with my 50 'cron and Delta 3200 rated at 6400 (don't laugh, it actually looks okay to me at 5x7) and know that I can shoot down to 14-15 stops below full sun. From there, I can just adjust aperture or shutter speed to adjust for different lighting, subject movement, state of inebriation, etc. Simple, eh?

 

Regards,

Marcus,

 

I have tried both versions/lengths of the M3 lever on my TTL and can confirm that the shorter of the two - I think it's the double-stroke - won't bump into the shutter speed dial.

 

Also, the tool is certainly the right way to go in principle. However, since I wanted to replace the matte TTL bezel with the polished chrome M3 style at the same time and because the bezel was cheaper than the tool, I chose to accept the possibility of mangling the stock bezel during removal if necessary (it was).

 

Regards,