Seems to me that a lot of our cameras are listed on the auction site without ground glass frame/focus hood, but instead have a roll holder (for example, see http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nice-Graflex-Crown-Graphic-2x3-camera-Optar-101-mm-4-5-lens-22-film-winder-case-/371388834911?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item56787fe45f). Is this a cynical ploy to reduce the apparent cost of the camera, then auction-list the back separately? To me, a roll holder is less valuable than a functioning back, although each has its use, of course. But I can't imagine doing any kind of critical work without a focus screen!

Henry, IMO people misplace the focusing panels.

Dan Fromm wrote:

Henry, IMO people misplace the focusing panels.

Well, as Rich Ashburn used to say to Harry Kalas, "Hard to believe, Harry." When did pockets go out of style? But I guess anything is possible in this crazy world.

Henry, I've seen a moderate number of Miniature Speeds with a roll holder attached using the kit and no focusing panel in sight. I've seen more Pacemakers with Grafloks offered without focusing panels that Graflok focusing panels offered without cameras.

All losing/misplacing a focusing panel takes is attaching a roll holder permanently. The usual excuse is using the RF with the one lens.

Cheers,

Dan

Well, Dan, to each his own. Using the Kalart is one thing, but composing the image is the real challenge without a gg. Unless one wants to depend on the notoriously inaccurate optical finder. Not for me, I'm afraid.

Not for me either, but people do it.

Cheers,

Dan

In 35 years of using these kinds of cameras I guess I've not noticed that the optical viewfinders are "notoriously inaccurate". It pays to have the correct mask in place.

Understood, Brian. Perhaps "notorious" is too strong a word. Assuming the correct mask for the focal length and format, there are other variables involved, such as maintaining a consistent eye position relative to the finder, and guesstimating the correct parallax setting relative to the subject distance, that enter into the matter of accuracy. As a matter of personal preference, if shooting hand-held, I much prefer using the sports finder frame, but of course that has its drawbacks as well; but as always, YRMV!

[double posting removed]

Believe it or not, but I've never used the sports finder. I need to try it one day.

If for no other reason, you'll impress the bystanders, who'll think the whole outfit is some new kind of digital device. One of my goals is to take the Century + Graflite over to the Reading (PA) Air Show (WW2 aircraft and enactors) and pop off a few rolls of 120, using the sports finder and a few of the 90+ flash bulbs I have stashed. That should attract attention!

The sport finder has two big advantages: it can be used with any lens except for a telephoto without the need for masks, and it can be used with the rising front. (This makes the Speed and Crown Graphics just about the only cameras that allow use of a rising front with hand-held operation.) But the sport finder is quite "conservative" - you will have more on the film than you can see through the frame.

William Hallett wrote:

But the sport finder is quite "conservative" - you will have more on the film than you can see through the frame.

Well, that depends...if you're shooting 6x7 format with 120 roll film, there'll be less on the film than you'll see in the frame, which is proportioned more toward the 6x9 format.