awesome new 4x5 design for less bux

"Serge Korolev" wrote in message
m...

So, what I wanted to say is that I was looking for a way to enter LF
photography some time ago and came across those Bender cameras. Since
it wasn't very clear for me how much interchangeable LF systems are, I
decided to pick up an complete Graflex Crown camera kit with a lens
and a number of Riteway holders. As far as I understand the camera is
a late Top-rangefinder model and has a Grafloc back.

The Crown is a good camera but... Keep in mind that it has relatively
limited perspective controls and it has a complex build. I would not
hesitate to consider one if I could fix it myself and find parts at a
reasonable cost. If the later is not the case for you there in Italy (and it
certainly not the case for me in rural USA) then _in my humble experience_ a
simpler camera which is easier to maintain would be better and to that end
the Bender might be a good idea. I'd wager that any open-architecture view
camera would be better than a Crown Graphic if maintenance is an issue.
Unless you plan to hand-hold it. (If no movement is okay, and you want to
hand-hold, then find a good old Printex 4x5. It's inexpensive and built like
a hammer. I have three of them - two to butcher and one to keep.)

Since I am still being inspired by the freedom of Bender's camera
movements and a pleasure to construct a camera myself, I'd like to ask
some questions which a Would my Graflex lens board match their
"standard" 4x4" design?

I could not guarantee it, but making an adequate lens board is simple. If I
remember all this when I get home later tonight, I will measure.

Would their back accept the film holders that I have at the moment?

Almost certainly. You probably have standard 4x5 backs.

previous post

Here's one 4x5 Printex: http://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/printex/

Pretty ugly camera, no? If you don't need perspective controls it's just
super. (But who doesn't need perspective controls?)

Quoth (Serge Korolev):
....
| So, what I wanted to say is that I was looking for a way to enter LF
| photography some time ago and came across those Bender cameras. Since
| it wasn't very clear for me how much interchangeable LF systems are, I
| decided to pick up an complete Graflex Crown camera kit with a lens
| and a number of Riteway holders. As far as I understand the camera is
| a late Top-rangefinder model and has a Grafloc back.
| Since I am still being inspired by the freedom of Bender's camera
| movements and a pleasure to construct a camera myself, I'd like to ask
| some questions which a Would my Graflex lens board match their
| "standard" 4x4" design?

No. Well, I'm guessing, but the 4x4 standard board must be literally
a board, a piece of wood. The Graphic "board" is thin aluminum, with
a stamped rim like a jar lid; the rim fits into a recess in the standard.
Wood boards have a stepped margin, instead, for a light baffle.

| Will they provide me with a board hole that'd math my shutter?

No. It comes "blank" - you have to drill it to match. As they
say on their web site, it's relatively easy, or you can pay someone.
I have done it several times, and honestly I don't do very good work,
but it's good enough. I don't think any shutter is small enough to
match a normal drill size, so you have to use a "hole saw" or a "fly
cutter" drill. I would get an extra blank board.

| Would their back accept the film holders that I have at the moment?

Yes.

Donn

Bottom post?......that is sooo stupid. Put your reply at the bottom
of the post so that no one will read it on google groups. Start at
the top and the inline text actually makes sense!

David Nebenzahl wrote in message ...
On 3/23/2004 10:10 PM AArDvarK spake thus:

Okay, teach me how to 'bottom post' and I will
learn it and do it.

OK, thanks for being nice about it.

It's simple, really: notice how my reply is below your text? That's bottom
posting; put your comments *under* what you're responding to. Just like you'd
do if you were writing on a piece of paper being passed from person to person,
which is basically what a Usenet thread is.

"conversation" is in reverse order.
they're talking about because the
who's responding to who and what
Otherwise, it's hard to understand

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message ...
On 3/23/2004 7:17 PM AArDvarK spake thus:

Jon ... just "who" in the world are you talking to ???

Bob Salomon. There's a history there. Read the archives if interested.

Oh, and do learn to bottom post.

"Jon" wrote in message ...

From: Bob Salomon
Organization: HP Marketing Corp.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:09:53 -0500
Subject: awesome new 4x5 design for less bux

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Your own posts, Bob, are much closer to "spam"

Too bad that I am don't offer anything for sale then.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Everyone of your posts is aimed at a sale. Too bad you still use the methods
you learned in the sixties. It is amazing to think of the sales companies
like Linhof and Heliopan have lost to your archaic methods. Oh well,
dinosaurs don't last forever.

On 3/29/2004 7:30 PM matt spake thus:

Bottom post?......that is sooo stupid. Put your reply at the bottom
of the post so that no one will read it on google groups. Start at
the top and the inline text actually makes sense!

I can see you haven't been around Usenet very long, son.


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

In article ,
(matt) wrote:

Bottom post?......that is sooo stupid. Put your reply at the bottom
of the post so that no one will read it on google groups. Start at
the top and the inline text actually makes sense!

Most polite posters, those who have been here somtime will
snip the thread to just the important part. Therefore bottom posting
makes sense for replying to the specific passage in question.

Obviously there are no rules that everyone feels compelled to
obey.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

On 3/30/2004 5:02 AM Gregory W Blank spake thus:

In article ,
(matt) wrote:

Bottom post?......that is sooo stupid. Put your reply at the bottom
of the post so that no one will read it on google groups. Start at
the top and the inline text actually makes sense!

Most polite posters, those who have been here somtime will
snip the thread to just the important part. Therefore bottom posting
makes sense for replying to the specific passage in question.

Obviously there are no rules that everyone feels compelled to
obey.

No, not rules: conventions, traditions, what works well. Good point, that:
snip judiciously. Don't repost 257 lines of message with a 2-line reply. Stuff
like that.


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

"David Nebenzahl"
No, not rules: conventions, traditions, what works well. Good point, that:
snip judiciously. Don't repost 257 lines of message with a 2-line reply. Stuff
like that.

I agree with that. Who knows if they decide to
cut-short the retention time because of too much
disc space being taken-up.

Alex

Top, Bottom?

J t
e s
e e
z r
e
a
y I
o T t
u i
C e
e O v
o U i
p L G
l D
e !
! B e
E l
G p
i W o
v O e
e R p
S
i E u
t o
y
a
e
r z
e e
s e
t j

hawjudwzat



"jjs" wrote in message
...

Top, Bottom?

J t
e s
e e
z r
e
a
y I
o T t
u i
C e
e O v
o U i
p L G
l D
e !
! B e
E l
G p
i W o
v O e
e R p
S
i E u
t o
y
a
e
r z
e e
s e
t j