I just purchased a Crown Graphic. I've colleected cameras, just for fun, but would like to try some photos with this.

First, I see there's a date resource here, so when was it manufactured? It's a Crown Graphic, serial #420378, with Kalart and Optar 135mm.

Second, the shutter is stuck, I guess. Where/how is a good way to get it fixed? It is in great condition otherwise.

Third, which back will it take. It has (I think) the Graphic Back. Is it more economical to get 4x5 holders or a roll holder. Which models, and where should I get them.

Guess that's enough newbie questions for now....thanks in advance for any advice.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SteveinCO on 2004-01-20 15:19 ]</font>

1947

From the date, I'm guessing its a Graphic or spring back as the Graflok had come around yet .

re: economical

Hmm depends on what you are trying to economize. Yes roll film is much cheaper than sheet film, but with a Graphic back, your best bet will be a Calumet C2 or C2N roll film holder. They run from $75-$150. You could buy a lot of 4x5 film for that much.

By going the roll film route you also economize on the negative size The above rollholder gives a 6x7cm or 2.25x2.75" image or 6 3/16" square inches. A 4x5 negative is 20 square inches. That's a real economy.

Buy going the roll film route you'll have the image taking ability of a 2x3 crown or Press Mamiya, but at double the weight or more.

There maybe an argument for using roll film to "learn the camera" I say that's what out of date B&W film is for. You can buy a whole lot of expired TMax or HP5 for the cost of the roll back, and you'll learn more.

les

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-01-21 13:32 ]</font>

Why have a 4X5 camera just to shoot medium format? Go with 4X5 sheet film.

Um, Les, when I took math back in the dark ages, 2.25 x 2.75 = 6.1875. Have things gotten smaller since the 19th century?

See what happens when I use a calculator instead of my trusty Polyphase slide rule!

Error noted. Error corrected. Thanks for forcing me to find my slide rule.

Les

You guys are joking, yes?

Quote:

On 2004-01-21 21:58, Dave wrote: You guys are joking, yes?

Probably not. Here's a true slide rule story.

In the fall of 1965, I took a linear programming course. One day the instructor did a numerical example. He filled three slates, and finally arrived at 4/2. Whipped out his 12" slide rule and announced that the answer was 1.99.

Cheers,

Dan

I still sometimes use a 6" to calculate miles per gallon when I fill up. Useful things, manually operated those analog multiplier/divider/exponentiators.

It's OK, Les was wearing his polyester leisure suit at the time, so we can forgive him this time---but only for the math error, not for wearing the suit!

WILL YOU GUYS STOP PICKING ON ME!!

I HAVEN'T WORN A LEISURE SUIT SINCE I HAD TWO FLASH BULBS GO OFF IN MY POCKET AND MELT THE PANTS TO MY LEG!

(besides they clash with my pocket proctector collection!)

Kidding aside, nobody will borrow my slide rule, but I can't keep a calculator on my desk.

Sign me
Willam Ludd.

Oh and to keep this on topic, I just picked up a Lawrence flash bulb slide rule! Not exactly high quality but fun none the less. I had hoped it would help in calculating multiple flashes but alas no.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-01-22 06:32 ]</font>

and both the calculator on this computer desktop and the one on my desk both say 3/16 is .1875.

You missed what led into this thread. Les had the original result as 3 3/16 sq. in., then he snuck back in and corrected it to 6 3/16 (after yours truly boldly chimed in). That 3/16 = .1875 was not the issue---we all know that =8-). But the culprit cleverly erased his (mis)steps....