Linhof Technica vs Super Speed Graphic
Edward M. Lukacs
: Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the Linhof
: Technica III, IV, and the Super Speed Graphic? All of them sound as
: though they might make good beginner cameras for me. (I am looking for
: something to do some copy work, and portaiture and landscapes.)
:
Having owned a Linhof Super Technika III for 15 years, and having
used a Speed Graphic, I would say that for the uses you list, the
Speed Graphic is more than adequate and probably far cheaper.
You are looking for a camera that will do, basically, straight
photography, and this is the Graflex's forte. BUT...
Should you want to alter perspective, adjust the camera for extreme
depth of field, or do tabletop photography in which optical distortion
is controlled, then the Linhof Technika, with its extensive front
and rear movements is ideal. It can do all of the above so well
that I have not had to resort to using a monorail view camera more
than three or four times in that 15 years!
True, setting up a complex shot with a Technika takes a bit more
time than with a quality view camera. But almost every shot you can
imagine is within its capability. Regarding which Technika, I
personally like the IV and V for the central pivoting of the
lensboard at an optical node. But my III has a stronger and more
stable, if less flexible, front standard than the later models.
If you can afford a clean Linhof, by all means buy it. You will
not be disappointed. And if you don't drop it off a cliff or
drive over it, your grandchildren amy well use it. It's THAT GOOD!
If money is a problem, go for the Speed Graphic. You can always sell
one of these later for what you paid for it, when you can afford
better.
Either way, please move into Large Format. Once you enlarge one
ofgg your negatives and look at even an 8x10 print, let alone a 24x30,
I think you'll find there's no turning back. It's a whole new
world, where grain is a word you vaguely heard in the distant past
and tonal changes are creamy-smooth and edges so sharp, you forget
that there even IS a limit to enlargement size. With the new
T-Max and Delta films, even that statement can be regarded as
conservative!
I'vew put the differences in some sort of perspective (mine), as
neutrally as possible. Whichever you choose, go for it! I truly
believe you'll never turn back.
Regards, and best of luck,
Edward M. Lukacs, LRPS
Miami, Florida, USA
John Sparks
> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the Linhof
>Technica III, IV, and the Super Speed Graphic? All of them sound as
>though they might make good beginner cameras for me. (I am looking for
>something to do some copy work, and portaiture and landscapes.)
The Technica's have rear movements as well as front movements (the III
doesn't have the more useful forward front tilt of the others). The
Super Graphic only has front movements and probably has less bellows
extension (though I'm mostly familiar with earlier Speed Graphics, I've
never even seen a Super Graphic).
I would personally greatly prefer a Technica IV for landscapes over the
others because of it's greater movements and bellows extension, though
it's the most expensive. I think I'd also choose a Technica III over a
Super Graphic for the same reasons but here the choice isn't as clear.
Any of these (or even older Graphics) should be fine for copy work and
most portraiture. I sometimes use an older Speed Graphic for copy work
today and have done lots of copy work with my boss's Technica (of unknown
model) when I had a job that involved lots of copy work 12 years ago.
John Sparks
Gary J Toop
Technica III, IV, and the Super Speed Graphic? All of them sound as
though they might make good beginner cameras for me. (I am looking for
something to do some copy work, and portaiture and landscapes.)
Feel free to e-mail or post.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Gary Toop
gt...@uoguelph.ca
Tim Takahashi
Gary J Toop <gt...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the Linhof
>Technica III, IV, and the Super Speed Graphic? All of them sound as
>though they might make good beginner cameras for me. (I am looking for
>something to do some copy work, and portaiture and landscapes.)
They are rather similar, with the exception of the the Linhof having
its back mounted on four adjustable posts giving it a slight edge
in avaliable movements. In both cases, the rangefinder is driven
by unique replacable cams.
Being made in Deutschland, the Linhof tends to command a retail
price approximately 100-500% higher than the Graflex.
-tim
Kai-Wilhelm Nessler
>
> If you can afford a clean Linhof, by all means buy it. You will
> not be disappointed. And if you don't drop it off a cliff or
> drive over it, your grandchildren amy well use it. It's THAT GOOD!
> If money is a problem, go for the Speed Graphic. You can always sell
> one of these later for what you paid for it, when you can afford
> better.
>
Well,, You *CAN* drive over it. (A friend of me tested this on my
Linhof...(An accident.)). There was no visual or any other damage on
the camera.
Regards Kai-Wilhelm Nessler
Tim Takahashi
CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wow! I refer to the post immediately preceding this, from a fellow in
>Rochester.
>
>Only in Rochester could anyone say with a straight face that any model of
>Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
>the same breath as a Technika. (the chamber of commerce up there, or
huh?
A Super Graphic (revolving back, metal chassis, front shifts & swings)
is a pretty good match for a Super Technica. An earlier Pacemaker model,
does not have the revolving back OR the front swings, and isnt quite
as versitile.
How bout the Meridian, it's a USA made equivalent of the Technika III?
Linhofs, while sturdy and all, just dont inspire me. Cmon, a ratty
Technika III being worth $1000? And those fiddly dedicated rangefinder
cams (30+ years after the fact), are they really worth it?
They also seem to be quite heavy, and less ergonomic (body release,
etc.) than their Graflex counterparts.
I'm using a side-RF Pacemaker Speed Graphic so I've avoided the
whole intechangable cam, RF business.
-tim
Tim Takahashi
CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wow! I refer to the post immediately preceding this, from a fellow in
>Rochester.
>
>Only in Rochester could anyone say with a straight face that any model of
>Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
>the same breath as a Technika.
Alan,
do you realize how well such prose reflects on the impeccable
quality of opinion disseminated from "aol?"
I mean how could anything made in Rochester, New York compete
with the finest from the Vaterland? (though I always thought
that Leica represented Germany's finest, though so many of
these were made in Midland, Ontario - an American sparrows
hop north of Rochester, mind you.)
-tim
CONGREVE
Rochester.
Only in Rochester could anyone say with a straight face that any model of
Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
the same breath as a Technika. (the chamber of commerce up there, or
Kodak, probably spies on them; but why they bother to do so with respect
to a long-defunct American product I don't know; just habit I guess.
The Technika is the finest-made piece of equipment, photographic or
otherwise, that Iv'e ever used. It never ceases to amaze me that people
will pay more for a new wooden field camera today than they would have to
pay for a used, excellent condition Linhof Super Tecknika IV. on the other
hand you need to have your head examined if you buy the current Tecknika
model, new. It's only a tiny bit improved, if at all, and you're looking
at maybe five times the cost of a clean IV.
Alan Heldman
cong...@aol.com
Tim Takahashi
>t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes:
>>CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Only in Rochester could anyone say with a straight face that any model of
>>>Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
>>>the same breath as a Technika.
>>A Super Graphic (revolving back, metal chassis, front shifts & swings)
>>is a pretty good match for a Super Technica.
>Could this be a matter of German salesmanship? :-)
This just might be... I've got Rollei's and Exactas with
the Zeiss optics, and they're good you know... but the
American stuff isnt perceptibly inferior (and I prefer
Kodak shutters to Synchro-Compur).
We are also inclined to compare Macs and PCs in this
debate. The Technika III postdates the Pacemaker
Graphic... and the 4x5" press camera market moved increasingly
upscale over the years. With either brand, the later
models have more front movements.
FWIW, it's easy to tell the difference between images
made with my Rollei 35, my Rollei TLR and my 4x5 Speed Graphic
- the ones from the Speed Graphic are sharper, with better
tonality, less grain and sometimes have perspective correction.
And the weakest lens on the Graphic is the 90/6.8 Schneider
Angulon (I guess the "Linhof" models are infinitely better).
tim
Chris Perez
>In article <4a64rq$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Only in Rochester could anyone say with a straight face that any model of
>>Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
>A Super Graphic (revolving back, metal chassis, front shifts & swings)
>is a pretty good match for a Super Technica. An earlier Pacemaker model,
Could this be a matter of German salesmanship? :-)
>Linhofs, while sturdy and all, just dont inspire me. Cmon, a ratty
>Technika III being worth $1000?
I recently picked up an exc. TechnikaIII with coated 15cm Heliar for
$600. It's built like the perverbial brick s**t-house. I had a Sinar
to trade, so why not? I wish I had the extra bux for the IV that's still
there for $1300 WITH lenses! Alas, I have all the lenses I could ever
use.
OTOH: I paid $30 for a working/servicable Speed Graphic just last year.
I defy anyone to tell me which images were made with which cameras.
Both serve me very well...
- Chris
Richard Murai
> made with my Rollei 35, my Rollei TLR and my 4x5 Speed Graphic
> - the ones from the Speed Graphic are sharper, with better
> tonality, less grain and sometimes have perspective correction.
> tim
YOU GOT IT! One's 1"X1.5", another is 2.25" square and the last is 4"X5" !! (??)
But a dime is STILL worth more than a nickel!!!!
Sorry! I've been following this "debate" for too long!!!
Rick Murai - an avowed Linhof user (sorry!!)
CONGREVE
I can get parts from the mfr for my Technika IV, if I need them, in a few
days,even though they have to come from D'land.
Uhm, what's the 800 number these days for the service line of the mfr of
Graphics, in Rochester???
(Bob Salomon: do I get a Xmas card? Or switches and coals because I say
to buy the stuff used?)
QED?
Alan Heldman
cong...@aol.com
David A Hosten
Tim Takahashi (t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu) writes:
> In article <4a64rq$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Rochester.
>>
>>Graphic, good value for money though they are today, is to be spoken of in
>>the same breath as a Technika. (the chamber of commerce up there, or
>
>
> A Super Graphic (revolving back, metal chassis, front shifts & swings)
> is a pretty good match for a Super Technica. An earlier Pacemaker model,
> as versitile.
>
> How bout the Meridian, it's a USA made equivalent of the Technika III?
>
> cams (30+ years after the fact), are they really worth it?
> They also seem to be quite heavy, and less ergonomic (body release,
> etc.) than their Graflex counterparts.
>
> I'm using a side-RF Pacemaker Speed Graphic so I've avoided the
> whole intechangable cam, RF business.
>
> -tim
>
>
For what it is worth, I presently own, and use a Super Graphic, and
formerly owned a technika III. The TechIII IS a better camera. The back
extension and movements alone make this so. John Sexton, former Ansel
Adams Asst., and photographer of the book Quiet Light, swears by Techs.
Other than what I mentioned in the differences, there is not that much
else between. So, $ for $, the Super Graphic is a better buy for the $,
unless those critical back movement are necessary, plus I believe (and I
may be wrong on this [ memory ]), but the front movements are slightly
greater.
--
OS/2 3.0 * Linux Slackware * NT 3.51
David Hosten Artforms | Technology | Biosphere - Ottawa, CANADA
ao...@freenet.carleton.ca * s65...@aix2.uottawa.ca
/ Normal Disclaimers Apply * Get political * It's your Community \
Tim Takahashi
Richard Murai <rmu...@oro.net> wrote:
>YOU GOT IT! . .... blah blah
>Rick Murai - an avowed Linhof user (sorry!!)
Please tell me what makes an old, sturdy but finicky (those dang
rangefinder cames) press camera so special? So far the Linhof
camp seems only capable of passing innuendo...
In large format the image is defined by the lens, and its
placement with respect to the film. That's why relatively
rudimentary cameras work so well (ie simple monorails).
So the choice of body largely reflects two things :
ergonomics and range of movements and restriction on
available lenses. Press Cameras whether made in Rochester
or the Vaterland sacrifice range of movements for
ergonomics. A Linhof Technika is no monorail. Neither
is a Super Graphic (whether Graflex or Toyo made).
My Graphic has ample movements for 99% of *MY*
photography (and for the remaining 1% I use my
monorail).
But this immature babbling of "my Linhof is better
than your Graflex" is really getting pointless.
Yes, the Linhof has more movements that a Graflex,
but you're stuck with obsolete lenses (which are
not all that special) if you want to preserve
rangefinder coupling. Either way you're dealing
with a 25-40 year old camera.
-tim
Tim Takahashi
CONGREVE <cong...@aol.com> wrote:
>OK, Messrs. Rochester, up there on your witherings heights, tell me this:
>
>I can get parts from the mfr for my Technika IV, if I need them, in a few
>days,even though they have to come from D'land.
>
>Uhm, what's the 800 number these days for the service line of the mfr of
>Graphics, in Rochester???
Why, GREVEous one, thanks for coming out in the open with your virulence.
I was getting tired of the private flaming....
So that this response contains useful information for those
not interested in the "mines bigger than yours" drivel, consider:
For a rather complete assortment of Gralfex spare parts, contact
either WD Service in Carson City, NV (the former Graflex "Western
Division" spare parts invenotry) or Midwest Photo Exchange in
Columbus, OH.
Stu, at MPX, has been a great help getting me some small parts
for my 1947 Pacemaker. I needed a longer trip arm for the body
release to use my #0 Synchro-Compur equipped Angulon hand held.
Actually, he also sold me a complete shutter (new) for $25 since the
flash sync on the original shutter was kaput with
repair parts being NLA (from Deutschland).
The Kodak Supermatics, in my experience, are easier to
maintain than the Compurs. The Supermatics function nicely
when clean and dry (a good long soak in Tri-Chlor does the
job), where the Compurs require lubrication. In particular,
one Compur-Rapid (on my Rollei) has been particularly
troublesome in humid weather.
Steve Shuart, in Pa., also carries a wide inventory of
Graflex parts. I got a Lensboard for my Super-D Graflex SLR
from him a couple of years back...
Since the SuperGraphic tooling was purchased by Toyo
and production continues, I presume that certain
SuperGraphic derived parts are available from that
source too..
Granted, all of these parts were useful for restoration
or enhancement work (building up a wide suite of lenses),
as far as "repair" work is concerned. None of my
Graphics have ever broken in use, but I'm sure that
FedEx from MPX is both cheaper and faster than
getting parts from Germany.
-tim
Gary Hunt
>YOU GOT IT! One's 1"X1.5", another is 2.25" square and the last is 4"X5" !! (??)
>But a dime is STILL worth more than a nickel!!!!
Thank you for that remarkably succinct summary of this equally remarkably
ill-focused discussion. There must be more to life than arguing over whether apples
are better than oranges.
Quang-Tuan Luong
- is vastly more expensive
- is better built
- has more movements and extension
- is heavier
- needs more work to get the cams for the RF made
- is still supported by Linhof
Does everyone agree with the above ?
Does all this stuff imply that there is no advantage
in using the Technika if one wants to do only hand-held
photography ?
Tuan.
--
Quang-Tuan LUONG, Computer scientist at SRI, +1(415)859-5138
333 Ravenswood av. room EK231, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493, USA
lu...@ai.sri.com http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/
John Sparks
>For a rather complete assortment of Gralfex spare parts, contact
>either WD Service in Carson City, NV (the former Graflex "Western
>Division" spare parts invenotry) or Midwest Photo Exchange in
>Columbus, OH.
WD Service went out of business a couple of years ago. They sold their
inventory to Midwest Photo Exchange. Someone reported here that Midwest
recently sold these Graflex parts to someone else.
John Sparks
Gary J Toop
: OK, let's summarize. My understanding so far is that the Technika:
: - is vastly more expensive
: - is better built
: - has more movements and extension
: - is heavier
: - needs more work to get the cams for the RF made
: - is still supported by Linhof
: Does everyone agree with the above ?
: Does all this stuff imply that there is no advantage
: in using the Technika if one wants to do only hand-held
: photography ?
As the original poster of this thread, I would be curious to find
out whether this account is accurate as well. I posted because I was
curious as to what differences a user would see between them, not only in
terms of reliability, sturdiness, and price (which I had already guessed
at) but also in terms of movements, extension, flexibility and anything
else (like ability to get repairs) that would be important to someone who
intended to make real use of the camera.
I had no intention of starting a flame-war between Tim and Alan, but it
has produced some interesting discussion. :)
Thanks for the help
Gary Toop
gt...@uoguelph.ca
Tim Takahashi
may follow these threads, let's go over the major Graflex
press cameras one is likely to find :
Anniversary Speed Graphic - 1940-47 - usually black leather
sometimes olive drab, mostly all black lens standards.
The back is stationary (horizontal) and of the "graphic"
type - a spring back which accepts standard 4x5 film holders.
Occasionally you will see one of these with a "graflex"
back that takes now obsolete film holders.
The Anniversary has a body mounted shutter release for
the rear focal plane shutter, but no such aid for the front shutter.
The Anniversary has rise, and a drop bed but no tilts or shifts.
Pacemaker Speed Graphic - 1947-70 / Crown Graphic 47-73
The update. Two versions of both... a side rangefinger using
the Kalart (or ocassionally Meyer) rangefinder which has
an internal adjustment to synchronise with most any lens
and a later version with a top mounted rangefinder which
takes interchangable cams.
Most Pacemakers have the Graflock back, where the focusing panel
is both spring loaded and removable. The body release works
both front and rear shutters on the Speed, the crown graphic
lacks the rear focal plane shutter.
The front standard has tilt back, shift and rise. The bed
drops.
Super Graphic / Super Speed Graphic - 1956-73.
These are near identical... the Super Speed Graphic has a 1/1000 sec
Graflex Optar lens, the Super Graphic does not. Similar (but
not interchangable) rangefinder cams to the top-RF Speed/Crown.
The chassis is cast metal, like a Linhof, rather than composite
(wood/metal). The back revolves. The front standards has a full
range of rise, shifts, tilts and swings.
There is an electric powered body release for the shutter and
a flash guide number calculator coupled to the rangefinder.
The rear focal plane shutter has been discontinued.
------------------------------------------------------
pro-and-con
Wide Angle use - the crown graphics and super graphics have a thinner
chassis than the speed graphics and can be used with a 65mm lens on
4x5. The widest suitable for a Speed is 80-90mm.
Quasi-View Camera use - the super graphics have a wider range of
front standard movements
Servicability - the earlier Pacemaker speed graphics (side r/f)
are the most servicable. The top-rfs are finicky when old, and
cams are difficult to find. Kalarts can be synced to most any
lens, new or old.
Flexibility with long lenses - the Speed Graphic has a rear f/p
shutter which allows for 1/1000 sec exposures and the use of
barrel lenses. Both of these features I have found VERY useful.
A 15" Tele-Optar costs $65 in barrel and $250+ in shutter.
Old portrait lenses, or lenses in questionable shutters may be
used as well. The Speed Graphic was unique in offering a
rear f/p shutter in a 4x5" press camera.
Speed of Operation - any of the cameras with a body release handle
much better than ones without. Linhof countered with a massive
anatomical grip, which is much bulkier.
Availability - Graflex parts are relatively common in the US.
Used Linhof's are much rarer. Graflex had 90%+ market share
in professional circles during 1940-1955.
Weight - the composite chassis crowns are the lightest, speeds
are noticably heavier.
tim
Edward M. Lukacs
say the listing is pretty fair, with only the caveat that the
later Graflexes are the only ones in the running in this
league, since they have a few m9ore front movements..
As an added comment about using the Linhof, I seldom ever use the lens
cams even though I have them for two of my three lenses. When I do
use them, it's for straight press camera work that any Speed Graphic
could do competently. Considering the very high cost
of getting a cam ground, I'm thinking of buying an old metal bodied
Speed graphic and Optar or Ektar or Xenar instead! That way if I
manage to wreck it while handholding, I won't cry. Though even here,
I have found the Linhof's added weight to be an advantage. I have
a decent very sharp handheld in a Pennsylvania railroad museum shot
with the Technika on a neck strap(!), resting on my stomach, shot
at f:8 and 1/4 second! Just relax and shoot toward the end of the exhale!
It is unfortunate that even in a civilized discussion of this sort
taht a flame had to occur.
Whatever you buy, best of luck!
John Sparks
>So that those not well versed in Graflex or Linhof minutiae
>may follow these threads, let's go over the major Graflex
>press cameras one is likely to find :
>Anniversary Speed Graphic - 1940-47 - usually black leather
> sometimes olive drab, mostly all black lens standards.
> The back is stationary (horizontal) and of the "graphic"
> type - a spring back which accepts standard 4x5 film holders.
> Occasionally you will see one of these with a "graflex"
> back that takes now obsolete film holders.
> The Anniversary has a body mounted shutter release for
> the rear focal plane shutter, but no such aid for the front shutter.
> The Anniversary has rise, and a drop bed but no tilts or shifts.
I have what I believe is an Anniversary Speed Graphic. It has front
shift (and rise), no tilts or swings.
John Sparks
Tim Takahashi
>Tim Takahashi (t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu) wrote:
>>Anniversary Speed Graphic - 1940-47 - usually black leather
>> sometimes olive drab, mostly all black lens standards.
>> The back is stationary (horizontal) and of the "graphic"
>> type - a spring back which accepts standard 4x5 film holders.
>
>> The Anniversary has a body mounted shutter release for
>> the rear focal plane shutter, but no such aid for the front shutter.
>> The Anniversary has rise, and a drop bed but no tilts or shifts.
>
>I have what I believe is an Anniversary Speed Graphic. It has front
>shift (and rise), no tilts or swings.
They sure are solid and sturdy, if limited in perspective control.
If the lens appears to be original, you can date the camera by
the lens serial number. Kodak lenses of this period were dated
by a two letter, four digit serial number.
C A M E R O S I T Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
I.e. an ER1234 would be from 1945, and an RO from 1956.
The later Pacemaker series are considerably easier to
shoot handheld using the front shutter, the body release
mechanism is refined to elect between FP and left
shutters. On the other hand, the Pacemakers have
far fewer rear speeds : T,30,50,125,250,500,1000
and lack such romantic sounding speeds as 1/700 or
1/680 second.
It helps to live in Rochester to find such lenses as
ET0001, the pre-production 78mm Ektar (never released
for general sales).... doesnt quite cover 6x9cm
though..... Kodak had planned to enter the market
with a metal chassis 2x3" leaf shuttered press
camera during the late 1940s. The patent museum
contains several prototypes...
Even stranger was a 2x3" Super-D Graflex SLR
prototype with graflock back. Imagine a wooden
Mamiya RB-67.
tim
Tim Takahashi
>out whether this account is accurate as well. I posted because I was
>curious as to what differences a user would see between them, not only in
>terms of reliability, sturdiness, and price (which I had already guessed
>at) but also in terms of movements, extension, flexibility and anything
>else (like ability to get repairs) that would be important to someone who
>intended to make real use of the camera.
Regarding extension, the Speed Graphic has sufficient extension to
focus the 15" (380mm) Tele-Optar to about 6-8 feet, sufficient for
portraiture. The extension limitation that I've run into isnt in
bellows draw, but rather the limit imposed by the thickness of
the chassis. The Speed Graphic is relatively thick, it will not
focus a 65mm lens to infinity... though it can focus a 78mm to
infinity. I have never seen a recessed lensboard for a Pacemaker
Graphic (though they do exist for the earlier Anniversary models).
According to my copy of Linhof Practice, there were some unusual
focusing mounts made for the recessed lensboards that are sometimes
seen on Technikas. I've never seen such a focusing lensboard in
my travels, so I doubt that they are inexpensive.
As for movements, this is very personal. I have found the movements
on the Pacemaker Graphic sufficient for most of my photography.
The combination of Graphic and monorail (particularly if you
adapt the monorail to accept Pacemaker Graphic lensboards) works
nicely. I do "general" photography and a bit of copy work with
my graphic, minimal architechtural work, and minimal closeup
non-copy work.
The Speed Graphic is quite rigid, more rigid than my monorail
or any of the inexpensive new field cameras I've looked at.
If the Linhof is more rigid, that's nice, but that's not to
say that the Speed Graphic is floppy.
-tim
Richard Murai
(Tim Takahashi) wrote:
> But this immature babbling of "my Linhof is better
> than your Graflex" is really getting pointless.
I whole heartedly agree!!!!!
> Yes, the Linhof has more movements that a Graflex,
> but you're stuck with obsolete lenses (which are
> not all that special) if you want to preserve
> rangefinder coupling.
"Obsolete"?!? If I didn't need covering power (and if I could afford
it!!), I'd love to own the "obsolete" Linhof Zeiss series and especially
an "obsolete" Zeiss Biogon or a couple of "obsolete" Apo-Lanthars - cammed
or uncammed!! So I don't quite understand your reference to "obsolete"
lenses! (But it's been years since I've really used Raptars, Tele-Optars,
Ektars, etc., not to mention those bipost Supermatic or Rapax shutters -
maybe I am missing something?). The Technika is able to use, albeit
non-rangefinder coupled, modern lenses. With the exception of a series of
"obsolete" golden and wide angle Dagors, I use lenses from 58 to 500 so I
am not visually hampered by only the lenses that Linhof has chosen to
offer cammed for their cameras.
My appreciation for the Technikas has nothing at all to do with the
rangefinder focusing. As a matter of fact, I promptly strip all of the
rangefinder related paraphernalia (and then some) in order to lighten it
and decrease the overall size so that it works better in the field. I use
a Technika for the ground glass focusing, 17" bellows, and the
functionally designed camera movements. I don't use my Technnika hand held
- my large format image making really doesn't lend itself well to the
Weegee - Joe Pesce mindset.
> Either way you're dealing
> with a 25-40 year old camera.
> >
> -tim
Yea, ain't it great! My Technikas are at least that old and operate as
good, if not better than my Technikardan (oops, another LINHOF!!!,
sorry!).
Rick
John Sparks
>John Sparks <spa...@col.hp.com> wrote:
>>Tim Takahashi (t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu) wrote:
>>>Anniversary Speed Graphic - 1940-47 - usually black leather
>>> sometimes olive drab, mostly all black lens standards.
>>> The back is stationary (horizontal) and of the "graphic"
>>> type - a spring back which accepts standard 4x5 film holders.
>>
>>> The Anniversary has a body mounted shutter release for
>>> the rear focal plane shutter, but no such aid for the front shutter.
>>> The Anniversary has rise, and a drop bed but no tilts or shifts.
>>
>>I have what I believe is an Anniversary Speed Graphic. It has front
>>shift (and rise), no tilts or swings.
>They sure are solid and sturdy, if limited in perspective control.
>If the lens appears to be original, you can date the camera by
>the lens serial number. Kodak lenses of this period were dated
>by a two letter, four digit serial number.
>C A M E R O S I T Y
>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Mine has a Graphlex Optar 135mm, I assume it is origional (I inherited
the camera from my father, this was the only lens he had). Anything
similar for those?
I haven't used mine hand-held, but there is a lensboard mounted shutter
release that puts a shutter button out at the edge of the front standard
for the lens shutter. When playing around with it, this release seem
pretty reasonable for hand-held work.
John
CONGREVE
open with your virulence. I was getting tired of the private flaming...."
Linhof/Graphic debate (which frankly I participate in for fun).
And, if it will make him feel better, I absolutely agree with him, as he
posts more recently, that the Graphics are more rigid than the inexpensive
new field cameras.
Of course the most rigid things of all are our opinions.
And I'm not sure anyone responded to whoever it was who implied that if
you wanted cammed lenses so the rangefinder would work on Technikas you
had to buy old lenses. NO. You can get any lens "cammed" and the cam
will be cut for that very lens, and the cam will have the same serial
number on it as the lens.
Alan Heldman
cong...@aol.com
Tim Takahashi
Richard Murai <rmu...@oro.net> wrote:
>"Obsolete"?!? If I didn't need covering power (and if I could afford
>it!!), I'd love to own the "obsolete" Linhof Zeiss series and especially
>an "obsolete" Zeiss Biogon or a couple of "obsolete" Apo-Lanthars - cammed
>or uncammed!! So I don't quite understand your reference to "obsolete"
>lenses!
Did I ever say that these were inferior lenses? But, as our buddy
from HP Marketing has so vocally brought forth... truely modern
multi-coated lenses are so dramatically superior to older lenses
that you'd be foolish not to trade up.
Personally, I take this new=infinitely better mindset with
a very large grain of salt. Even uncoated lenses have their
look, charm and useful applications. Given $1500, I'd probably
buy a new Super-Angulon rather than a used Biogon.
More likely I'd buy 5 $300 lenses.... though I dont know why,
I already own more than enough 4x5 optics.
>The Technika is able to use, albeit
>non-rangefinder coupled, modern lenses.
I wasnt the one who started the flame war... only one who
mentioned the relative equivalence of an older Technika with
a metal chassis Super Graphic. Both can use most any modern
lens; provided you give up rangefinder coupling.
>My appreciation for the Technikas has nothing at all to do with the
>rangefinder focusing. As a matter of fact, I promptly strip all of the
>rangefinder related paraphernalia (and then some) in order to lighten it
>and decrease the overall size so that it works better in the field
As a metal chassis field camera, there are many choices both new
and used. The unique feature of the Technika series was that it
was fundamentally a press camera, not a view camera.
One must ask if a Linhof press camera, stripped and modified
and run with non-standard lenses is still a press camera.
BTW, Some of the most impressive photography that I have ever seen
was made by a gentleman who only recently traded up a Bender
for a Arca, although the Bender seems less rigid that I would
prefer, the results speak for themselves.
-tim
Tim Takahashi
>Tim Takahashi (t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu) wrote:
>>John Sparks <spa...@col.hp.com> wrote:
>>>Tim Takahashi (t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu) wrote:
>>>>Anniversary Speed Graphic - 1940-47 - usually black leather
>>>I have what I believe is an Anniversary Speed Graphic. It has front
>>>shift (and rise), no tilts or swings.
>>If the lens appears to be original, you can date the camera by
>>the lens serial number. Kodak lenses of this period were dated
>>by a two letter, four digit serial number.
>>C A M E R O S I T Y
>>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
>Mine has a Graphlex Optar 135mm, I assume it is origional (I inherited
>the camera from my father, this was the only lens he had). Anything
>similar for those?
I'm positive that the Optars are all post-war. You see, most of
the pre-Anniversary Speed Graphics used European lenses. most
common is the 13.5cm Zeiss Tessar. The SLRs used British
Dallmeyers and Taylor-Hobson-Cooke.
The war time Graphics seem to have been fitted exclusively with
127mm/4.7 Ektars. There is a chrome and black finished version
(I own a post-war military version in a ruggedized Supermatic-X).
The pre-war and war-time Wollensak series of press-camera lenses were
usually called "Velostigmat," shortly after the war the series
was renamed "Raptar," and Graflex begin offering them as OEM
variants called "Optars."
If the 135mm Optar, is indeed, the original lens; this would date
your camera as a late production, postwar model.
BTW, my 4x5 Pacemaker Speed is an early production version from
1947 with a leather clad chassis (the later ones are in synthetic)
a factory synced 152/4.5 Ektar and a factory graflock conversion.
-tim
Gary DuVall
> Even stranger was a 2x3" Super-D Graflex SLR
> prototype with graflock back. Imagine a wooden
> Mamiya RB-67.
Sigh. Those of us who have never gotten over a fascination for Graflex
large format SLRs have always dreamed of such camera. I came as close
as you can get - some years ago a I found a very clean 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 R.B.
Super-D, with a 152mm f4.5 Ektar in the auto diaphragm mount, for little
money, AND a junked 2X3 graphic with an intact complete Graflok back.
The 2X3 Graflok was an easy fit into the Super-D's revolving back
(save the pieces for possible reconversion), and with adjustment of the
reflex ground glass for the new focus, plus masking for format, and
addition of a Graphic roll film holder, I had a very sweet, if fairly
large, medium format camera, that was great for natural light portrature.
It was a bit fiddly, what with the Graflex focal plane shutter, the
need to cock the auto diaphragm, and the independent wind of the roll
back, but with that beautiful Ektar it produced some of the best portraits
I've ever made with anything.
Actually, I'd much rather have a Mamiya RB-67 or Pentax 6X7 for a whole
lot of reasons, but at least for some of us, there's a certain charm and
attraction to the Super-D's that is hard to escape.
Gary DuVall
<gdu...@eskimo.com>
Gregory Pease
>Actually, I'd much rather have a Mamiya RB-67 or Pentax 6X7 for a whole
>lot of reasons, but at least for some of us, there's a certain charm and
>attraction to the Super-D's that is hard to escape.
I recently (well, over a year ago) bought my first Super-D in 4x5. When
I was a wee lad, my neighbor, a grizzloed old salt who construced
refuse trucks for a living, had a collection of Graflex's and
telescopes. He actually used a Graflex for astro-photography! I recall
thinking that thse things were archaic, clunky and cumbersome bits of
history, better suited to viewing behind glass in some museum than actually
using for real photography. Clearly, my dad's Rolei was a *real*
camera, and these boxes were about as useless as a slide-rule.
But, when I first got a glimpse of that Super-D, and peered through the
viewing hood at that glorious image, I had to have it. I've been
shooting 4x5 for a long time, but there's something magical about a
Graflex. I could give up my Sinar, my Speed Graphic, my Crown Graphic,
but *never* my Super-D! The fiddly nature of it is part of the beauty;
cock the paerture, reset the mirror, set the shutter, flim holder in,
dark slide out, and *thump*, *whir*. Seeing *exactly* what you are
putting on the film just an instant before the film is actually
exposed! It's magic, I tell you! I've even sync'ed it up with my
studio stobes and done work in the studio with it.
Okay, so I wouldn't really give up my Sinar; sometimes I *need* the
movements. But, the Super-D is a joyous thing. Just Joyous.
Regards,
Gregory
--
| Gregory Pease | "...for such things are of the spirit, and it is
| "ShadowMancer" | in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost"
| g...@netcom.com | -Black Elk
| 510/234-2830 |
Bob Salomon
(Tim Takahashi) wrote:
> In article <rmurai-1212...@rmurai.oro.net>,
> Richard Murai <rmu...@oro.net> wrote:
> >"Obsolete"?!? If I didn't need covering power (and if I could afford
> >it!!), I'd love to own the "obsolete" Linhof Zeiss series and especially
> >an "obsolete" Zeiss Biogon or a couple of "obsolete" Apo-Lanthars - cammed
> >or uncammed!! So I don't quite understand your reference to "obsolete"
> >lenses!
>
> Did I ever say that these were inferior lenses? But, as our buddy
> from HP Marketing has so vocally brought forth... truely modern
> multi-coated lenses are so dramatically superior to older lenses
> that you'd be foolish not to trade up.
No I did NOT!. I said that you can cam lenses so YOUR statement regarding
"obsolete lenses" was nonsense.
>
> Personally, I take this new=infinitely better mindset with
> a very large grain of salt. Even uncoated lenses have their
> look, charm and useful applications. Given $1500, I'd probably
> buy a new Super-Angulon rather than a used Biogon.
> More likely I'd buy 5 $300 lenses.... though I dont know why,
> I already own more than enough 4x5 optics.
>
> >The Technika is able to use, albeit
> >non-rangefinder coupled, modern lenses.
>
> I wasnt the one who started the flame war... only one who
> mentioned the relative equivalence of an older Technika with
> a metal chassis Super Graphic. Both can use most any modern
> lens; provided you give up rangefinder coupling.
>
> >My appreciation for the Technikas has nothing at all to do with the
> >rangefinder focusing. As a matter of fact, I promptly strip all of the
> >rangefinder related paraphernalia (and then some) in order to lighten it
> >and decrease the overall size so that it works better in the field
>
> As a metal chassis field camera, there are many choices both new
> and used. The unique feature of the Technika series was that it
> was fundamentally a press camera, not a view camera.
> One must ask if a Linhof press camera, stripped and modified
> and run with non-standard lenses is still a press camera.
>
PLEASE LEARN SOME FACTS!
The Technika 45 cameras have back movements, tilt/swing and limited
rise/fall/shift. A press camera has NO back movements. the Technika is
able to do view camera movements front and back. A press camera can not.
If you look further in your library you may find that a long time ago
Linhof also made a 45 Technika for the US market only called a Technika
Press. It was a 45 Technika with no back movements - just like your press
camera. It was a very small and unsuccessful product and is rather rare.
> BTW, Some of the most impressive photography that I have ever seen
> was made by a gentleman who only recently traded up a Bender
> for a Arca, although the Bender seems less rigid that I would
> prefer, the results speak for themselves.
>
> -tim
--
HP Marketing Corp. US Distributor for: Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP CombiPlan T, Kaiser, Minox, Linhof, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei.
Tim Takahashi
>Actually, I'd much rather have a Mamiya RB-67 or Pentax 6X7 for a whole
>lot of reasons, but at least for some of us, there's a certain charm and
>attraction to the Super-D's that is hard to escape.
Gregory Pease writes :
>I recently (well, over a year ago) bought my first Super-D in 4x5.
>I recall thinking that thse things were archaic, clunky and
>cumbersome bits of history, better suited to viewing behind glass
>in some museum than actually using for real photography.
>But, when I first got a glimpse of that Super-D, and peered through the
>viewing hood at that glorious image, I had to have it. Seeing
>*exactly* what you are putting on the film just an instant before
>the film is actually exposed! It's magic, I tell you!
I bought my Super-D to use with my 15" Tele-Optar. For the
sort of photography I'm interested in, ground glass focusing
is often too tedious, and the depth of field extremely limited
(380mm @ f/5.6). I modified my Super-D to fit a Graflock back,
rather than the obsolete Graflex back... so I can shoot sheets,
polaroids and grafmatics with comparable ease. The automatic
diaphragm is really innovative, especially considering that
the 3x4" Super-D is a pre-war design (4x5 being introduced
after the war).... early Hassys and Exactas have manual or
preset diaphragms. The other early auto-diapraghm SLR
that comes to my mind was the post-war Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex.
Was the Super-D really the first?
Focusing on a 5" square ground glass, looking down through
that fur-lined leather hood, smelling the aroma of aged wood...
well, if it isnt "je ne se quoi," I don't know what is.
> I've even sync'ed it up with my studio stobes and done work in
>the studio with it.
The 1/5 sec sync speed is a bit slow for fill-in-flash, though....
And it would be nice to have some retrofocus wide-angles that
cover 4x5 and mount up on the SUper-D. Oh well...
-tim
Steve Gundersen
>Super Graphic / Super Speed Graphic - 1956-73.
> These are near identical... the Super Speed Graphic has a 1/1000 sec
> Graflex Optar lens, the Super Graphic does not. ...
The Super Speed Graphic also came with a Rodenstock 135/4.5 Optar in
the same "Graflex 1000" shutter. This must have been somewhat rare
since I never see any mention of it when I read about this camera.
Steve
ste...@computer.net
Tim Takahashi
>>Super Graphic / Super Speed Graphic - 1956-73.
>> These are near identical... the Super Speed Graphic has a 1/1000 sec
>> Graflex Optar lens, the Super Graphic does not. ...
>
>The Super Speed Graphic also came with a Rodenstock 135/4.5 Optar in
>the same "Graflex 1000" shutter.
This may be one and the same.
While I dont have precise sales figures, the entire market of
larger-format cameras took a precipitous turn for the worse after
the mid-1950's.
Kodak for one (insider scoop) never really made any money in
the consumer high-end lens business. This prompted a retreat
on all fronts.... the line-up of Ektars and W/F Ektars for
the Hasselblad 1600/1000 series was discontinued, much of
the Commerical Ektar line was discontinued, the shutter plant
was closed. Late 203/7.7 and 127/4.7 Ektars may be found
in German Synchro-Compur shutters.
Basically, the high-end American industry disintegrated about
10 years before the German industry fell upon hard times.
Of course, Voigtlanders and Retina's were not to make it
far into the 1970s. Rollei moved most production
to Singapore before going under in the early 80's.
Zeiss pretty much got out of the large format lens market.
In terms of Graflex, the progression went from :
Pacemaker Graphic - Rochester-made body, lens, shutter
Super-Speed Graphic - Rochester-made body, German lens-shutter
Graflex XL series - Rochester-made body, Zeiss & Rodenstock lenses
Graflex Norita ---- body,shutter and lenses OEMed from Japan
Graflex leaves the consumer photographic market
Toyo (japan) buys the tooling for the Super Graphic
Kind of a sad end....
-tim
Tim Takahashi
In article <4avqqa$k...@harry.lloyd.com>,
Morton Klotz <mkl...@spider.lloyd.com> wrote:
>e...@gate.net (Edward M. Lukacs) wrote:
>
>>I have found the Linhof's added weight to be an advantage.
>
>the Speed Graphics was that they could be used as weapons.
According to Arthur Rothstein, in Popular Photography (1954) :
"A generation ago, when news photography was a more
rough and tough profession, the Speed Graphic frequenty
made an excellent weapon for the self-defense of the
camera man. It has just enough weight and sufficently
sharp protruding parts to inflict consdierable damage
upon a belligerant subject.
Flanked by rivals, the photographer would raise the
camera to his eye. At the exact instant of exposure
and simultaneously with the release of the shutter
he would raise his right elbow to throw one rival
off balance and step smartly on the instep of
the man at his left.
Fortunately.... press photographers associations
have transformed the news photographer into a polite,
congenial and gracious gentleman."
Since most Linhof 5x4 users are not "press" photographers,
(being above such with their "technical" cameras)
perhaps some were never influenced by those "communist,"
"totalitarian," Press Photographer Unions (which,
of course, were staffed exclusively by downtrodden,
browbeaten Rochesterians who would never consider
using Ansco SuperPan instead of Super-XX) and missed
out on training in being polite, congenial and
gracious. So much for Gemutlichkeit!
I might add, that since this posting came from
Kodak-town, that by default it is totally apocrypahal.
8^)
-tim
Morton Klotz
>I have found the Linhof's added weight to be an advantage.
Years ago I was told that one reason press photographers liked
the Speed Graphics was that they could be used as weapons.
--
Morton Klotz ||^^^^^||
mkl...@spider.lloyd.com || ||])
Placerville, California ||^^^^^||
/|\
/ | \
MEJ711
graphic that I love, really works as well for me, little lighter I guess.
The quality is in the lens and users abilitites. BillB247