| Author | Message |
|---|
mtwo Joined: 17 Jan 2003 Posts: 15 |  Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:20 am
My Century Graphic has a #2mask which seems to approximate the view of the 105mm lens and either 6x7 or 6x9 filmholders. Is there a table or list (other than the one shown under viewfinders) which cross references the various likely focal lengths for a 2x3 with the various masks? In other words, if a 65mm lens were fitted what mask would be best to use, rangefinder issues aside. |
|
Henry Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1662 |  Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:18 pm
Here's info from Graflex Form 1804/865, "Rapid-Vance RH/20 Roll Film Holder Guidebook" (for image size 2-1/4" x 2-3/4"):
mask no. 4, 70-84mm lens
3, 86-90
2, 92-101
9, 103-125
10, 127-138
11, 140-162
8, 164-191
7, 192-227
6, 229-267
5, 268-305
3060 W.A. Adapter, 47-69
As to that last one, with a 65mm lens on, I believe you'll also get a good approximation of the scene if you don't use any mask---and I find the view through my no. 2 mask is VERY approximate. I assume that's also true for the others.
The masks numbered 2-11 had catalog number 9105-X, where X was the mask number. Thus cat. no. 9105-2 denoted the no. 2 mask.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2003-01-18 06:23 ]</font> |
|
mtwo Joined: 17 Jan 2003 Posts: 15 |  Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:24 pm
Appreciate the info, thanks. True, the relationship between viewfinder and actual ground glass image is only approximate but it is better than nothing.
The info you provide is helpful and I shall keep an eye out for some additional masks but you gotta wonder why a little bitty piece of metal could cost so much money.
|
|
Henry Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1662 |  Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 12:34 am
Scarcity and greed, for starters.
My Century did not come with an optical viewfinder, so I bought one. It came with the #2 mask. After I mounted it, I found that it was less useful than I had anticipated. For field camera use, i.e., on a tripod, ground glass composition/focussing is the way to go. For handheld, the sports (wire-frame) finder is much more practical, IMHO. Trouble is, I removed the wire frame so I could get more rise with the 65mm lens. The obvious solution: I should have TWO Centurys, one set up as a field camera with the Optar 101, and the other set up as a "press" camera with the Kalart sighted in for the Graftar, which has a self-cocking shutter and thus is the lens of choice for hand-held; though it has limited coverage, it's sharp enough, and you wouldn't use movements with it anyway.
One other point: with a roll film holder mounted on the Century, it's quite a contortion to mash your face up to the optical finder. The sports finder is somewhat easier to use that way.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2003-01-18 17:15 ]</font> |
|
Les Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 |  Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:16 am
One other point: with a roll film holder mounted on the Century, it's quite a contortion to mash your face up to the optical finder. The sports finder is somewhat easier to use that way
While I love the look of the shorty style optical viewfinders, it really is more practical to use a long finder from a 4x5. That said, I always use the speed finder. |
|