View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bryanlaplante
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm currently converting my 3x4 speed graphic to a 2x3 back. The 3x4 will give me a bigger lensboard and more movements, at a lower price - plus I can use barrel lenses.
What I need is a some viewfinder improvements. With a 105mm lens, the standard is too far back to raise the wire finder. A planned 90mm lens will make that worse. I could make/buy some replacement masks for the tube finder, but the speed's tube finder has such a small (half real) size image... has anyone 'hacked' a replacement finder? I'm sure Leica has some wonderful finders - but I'd like to find a source in a realistic price range. I'm a little spoiled by the finder I remember on the Rollei 35. Do I understand that the Crown came with a different finder that has a less negative less? Is it substantially better?
Lastly has anyone made up a finder from scratch? Can it be that hard?
Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
since the crown body is thinner, replaceable crown viewfinders were shorter, but the elements, masks, etc were the same.
there's a mamiya universal finder, used by some LF people to spot their shots, It's big but nice.
I'm guessing a 90 would not need any masks, on a 4x5 the 90 uses a supplemental neg element on the viewfinder to see everything, this is also used on the 2x3 for 65 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bryanlaplante
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2002 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've done some research on the finder topic now, so thought i'd share my findings. Most viewfinders are reverse Galilean designs, which has a positive eyepiece lens and a negative objective. These have no place inside the finder which has a virtual image, and so there is no place inside to put a frame. The closest spot that is somewhat in focus is the front of the finder - hence the design on the speed graphic. After reading this I did look again and notice that the frame is not sharp when you are looking at the scene.
Leitz in their imarect accessory finder, wanted built in variable frame sizes, so needed a virtual image to be inside the finder. This can be done using a telescope design (two positive lenses), which are spaced at fl + fl apart. The ratio of fl/fl gives you the maginification ratio. Telescopes however invert their images, and so to correct this Leitz used a prism to re-invert the image. Getting all of this into a compact finder is a challenge.
I've researched some surplus optics and think I have a design for a finder which will produce a 0.75x image (the original is less than 0.5x), will be not too expensive (i.e. not $180 per focal length ala new Voightlander finders), and will cover a 58 degree field. One downside is I expect the finder to be nearly 4 inches long. This will stick out a bit from the body, but will help since I'll have a rollfilm back sticking out the back.
I expect to order parts tommorow - plan to keep the group updated. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just before they came out with the mini-speed Graflex marketed a camera with a rotating back for 2x3 and used the 3x4 body. maybe the stole the RB part from a Graflex.
Just thought I'd throw tha† out.
_________________ "In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bertsaunders
Joined: 20 May 2001 Posts: 577 Location: Bakersfield California
|
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2002 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I repaired a 2x3 with the rotating back, about 1987 for a local camera store owner!
It was a 3x4 body, and the back appeared to be from a 2x3 SLR model! Was not all that versed on the Graflex or Graphic models at that time, so did not get ser number or any other pertinent info on the camera
un-fortunately!!!! Have a couple of borrowed 1937 and 1939 catalogs with this camera listed, $120 w/Kodak Anastigmat
5 1/2" in Compur Shutter---it is not listed in the 1939 catalog, so assume that the Paine review has it right--1937/1938 only!! Bert |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|