View Full Version : Graflex XLSW
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 07:20
Ok, I know it doesn't have a rangefinder...but this is the closes place I can find to discuss it.
Anyone with any experience with this camera? I'm considering buying one.
Steve: I have such a camera and I love it. Make sure you get a good lens though. I have read that the newer design 47mm/5.6 is much better than the older 47mm/8.0. The 8.0 lens reportedly seems to have good and bad examples of it. I have a very sharp 47mm/8.0 lens, by the way.
How much are you planning to pay?
Raid
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 07:58
The camera comes with a f8 version of the 47mm. I have no idea how I would be able to tell if it is a good one or not, short of buying and shooting.
The camera is listed at $550 for BIN.
I've got a Brooks Veriwide XL, which is the same lens, a similar body (made by (Graflex even), and a funky 6x9 back made by Mamiya.
Mine works beautifully and the lens is quite sharp. Light falloff near the corners is quite significant, though so using slide film is tricky at best.
I'm a happy customer.
Check the age of the lens via the serial number. Lenses made in the 60s and on have better quality control.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 09:34
I've got a Brooks Veriwide XL, which is the same lens, a similar body (made by (Graflex even), and a funky 6x9 back made by Mamiya.
Mine works beautifully and the lens is quite sharp. Light falloff near the corners is quite significant, though so using slide film is tricky at best.
I'm a happy customer.
All the shots I've seen from it show vignetting...which does worry me a bit.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 09:35
Check the age of the lens via the serial number. Lenses made in the 60s and on have better quality control.
Any idea of prefered serial number ranges?
Concerning the light fallloff question, I've been unable to source a recomendation for a center filter. If anyone knows how to select an appropriate one, I might like to buy one someday for that camera.
That said, I get along just fine without it for B+W's. I overexpose by one stop, and deal with the unevenness in the darkroom, or just allow the darkened corners to exist since it is often aesthetically pleasing. Saves me from so much corner burning, right?
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 10:03
Check the age of the lens via the serial number. Lenses made in the 60s and on have better quality control.
Well, if this site (http://www.mppusers.freeuk.com/lens.htm)can be believed, the one I'm looking at is from late 1965 or early 1966.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 10:05
Concerning the light fallloff question, I've been unable to source a recomendation for a center filter. If anyone knows how to select an appropriate one, I might like to buy one someday for that camera.
That said, I get along just fine without it for B+W's. I overexpose by one stop, and deal with the unevenness in the darkroom, or just allow the darkened corners to exist since it is often aesthetically pleasing. Saves me from so much corner burning, right?
I can just dial out the vignetting in the conversion from RAW...wait...maybe not. :rolleyes:
Quote:
I can just dial out the vignetting in the conversion from RAW...wait...maybe not.
Maybe one of the aftermarket scanner drivers will produce RAW files? If so, you could.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 10:22
I'm sure there must be a PS filter somewhere that removes vignetting.
A quick google says that ptlens will do it. I even already have that one.
So, what say you (all)?
Do I give it a go?
From Schneider,
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/
Well, if this site (http://www.mppusers.freeuk.com/lens.htm)can be believed, the one I'm looking at is from late 1965 or early 1966.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 12:08
From Schneider,
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/
Thanks,
That verifies what I found from a third party source.
Hey, cool link! I'll check mine when I get home and let you all know how old it is. I'll wager 1970- 1972, just for grins.
Not that they will tell you much, Steve, but there are images taken with that lens in my gallery under "Aboard the Servant'. They are B+W prints that have been scanned with a digital slr via a copy stand and flashguns, so the prints have been burned/ dodged to my taste. And of course they can't possibly show the resolution of a 6x9 negative.
FWIW I paid far more than $550 for mine, but it came from B+H with a good return policy and in virtually new condition.
Go with your gut on your purchase.
dazedgonebye
06-01-2007, 12:55
The only thing that stops me is that I've been considering a Crown Graphic and I could end up with a more versitile set up for that money.
The xlsw is a one trick pony...though it's a trick I've been wanting for some time.
I wanted the thing pretty badly. I was after wide angle (would've preferred wider yet), medium format, and backpack friendly. But then in one form or another architecture is my thing.
From Schneider,
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/
Thanks, Jason.
Now I know that my 47/8 lens was made in 1965.
Raid
My lens was made between 1965 and 1967. I was off by 5 years!
dazedgonebye
06-04-2007, 20:47
Bought it! (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=013&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&viewitem=&item=230137276902&rd=1&rd=1)
Here we go again...me and another old camera.
Let us see some results when you can!
Too bad there's just no way to cram all that detail onto a computer monitor; if this is your entry into medium or large format, you're in for a treat!
dazedgonebye
06-04-2007, 20:54
I've played with other MF cameras.
I've got a couple of folders and a very beat up Koni-Omega.
I just shot off a couple of rolls from my 21mm color skopar over the weekend. I'm hoping to use this camera for most of those shots from here on out.
dazedgonebye
06-10-2007, 17:08
Ran a couple of rolls through this weekend...waiting on film to come back now.
I'd never loaded a graflex rollfilm back before, so I'm sure I blew half a roll on that.
Overall, I liked using the camera, but it looks like my cv21mm viewfinder is not well suited to this camera. It sits so far forward that it is barely usable in landscape orientation.
The camera didn't come with a dedicated viewfinder?
Maybe finding some kind of adapter to raise the viewfinder or position it further aft is your best solution. There are coldshoe adapters out there for cameras with a coldshoe and synch socket. I've ended up using one on my Bessa L and 15mm combination to get the viewfinder above the 77mm filter so I can see what will be in the lower part of the frame.
Is there a similar adapter out there to shift the viewfinder aft?
I've never seen an XLSW, but I think the back design is quite a lot thicker and narrower than the one on the Veriwide XL.
dazedgonebye
06-10-2007, 19:35
I can't find any mention of a dedicated finder for the thing anywhere.
Here she is.... Camping, camera and coffee.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1416/540013851_1de208e91e_o.jpg
There is a "Sports Finder", which is a frame to look through.
Raid
That's interesting, no viewfinder. The veriwide came with one, though many of them seem to end up for sale without. Maybe it was an extra cost option?
Does the image of the camera you've posted show it with its back on? It looks too campact... Unless you're using sheet film, that is.
The handgrip looks interesting- could make the beastie really hand holdable- mine is not, since there isn't a good way to reach the shutter release.
Filter wise, I use a 40.5mm-49mm step up ring and 49mm filters. I have no vignetting problems with the combination, if you're interested.
I was pleased not to have to buy more filters, 49mm ones fitting nearly all my gear.
dazedgonebye
06-10-2007, 20:30
I wasn't worried about the viewfinder, figuring that my 21mm finder from my cv21 would do. It just doesn't sit well on the camera.
I'll find another solution.
That's the whole camera. It's just that the roll film back is well hidden.
I've got a 40.5 to 52mm step up ring on order.
I have a special Graflex XLW lens hood with built-in filter for the 47mm lens.
dazedgonebye
06-11-2007, 09:23
I have a special Graflex XLW lens hood with built-in filter for the 47mm lens.
Big rectangular thing? I'd love to see that.
dazedgonebye
06-15-2007, 05:55
I can easily report that fears of vignetting were completely unfounded.
Even on the larger polaroid image, I'm not seeing vignetting.
This one was at f11.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1423/545163183_8e83d41eb0.jpg
Big rectangular thing? I'd love to see that.
No, it is a circular filter that is not very large, with an outer rim that looks like an adapter ring. The whole set-up is not that large.
Light falloff has only really been a problem with slide film for me. That was a little bit of a letdown for me, as I'd intended to use the camera in part for panoramic shots of landscapes.
With negative materials? No problem, the exposure latitude of the film handles it easily.
How are you aiming the beastie after all that?
dazedgonebye
06-15-2007, 09:53
I've used the finder from my CV21. I only had a 6x7 back at first, so I just mentally accounted for the difference in ratio.
For the polaroid shots, I've just been leaving the finder off and pointing from up close and at odd angles.
I pre-focus to 1 ft and stick it right up to something. Veeeery precise work!
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1415/545028312_fe1930c337_o.jpg
I used the XLW almost exclusively for scenic shots in the West of the USA. I glued on the camera body two level bubbles so that photos were well alligned. The nagtives are so large and the view is so wide that cropping any vignetting becomes easy to do. The resulting transparnecies that I got were amazingly sharp.
Raid
Nice shot, Steve! I never really considered the possibility of OOF with that lens!
Raid- I shot a couple of rolls of transparency and was also blown away by the overall image quality. Never experimented much with the aperture, took it on faith that the lens is at its best at F/16, and have always used it between F/11 and F/22.
I did have plenty of light falloff though, and got best results by overexposing 1/2 or 1 stop. The center of the frame looked a little hot, the edges a little dark.The results are fine unless you're shooting a large evenly toned surface like a wall.
dazedgonebye
06-15-2007, 12:26
Nice shot, Steve! I never really considered the possibility of OOF with that lens!
Raid- I shot a couple of rolls of transparency and was also blown away by the overall image quality. Never experimented much with the aperture, took it on faith that the lens is at its best at F/16, and have always used it between F/11 and F/22.
I did have plenty of light falloff though, and got best results by overexposing 1/2 or 1 stop. The center of the frame looked a little hot, the edges a little dark.The results are fine unless you're shooting a large evenly toned surface like a wall.
I think you can only get out of focus by getting in close really.
I've got a little spring wound string thing that I'm going to attach to the tripod socket. I'll be able to pull the string out and measure 1 or 2 feet. I could use the help estimating these very close distances.
dazedgonebye
06-15-2007, 12:28
I used the XLW almost exclusively for scenic shots in the West of the USA. I glued on the camera body two level bubbles so that photos were well alligned. The nagtives are so large and the view is so wide that cropping any vignetting becomes easy to do. The resulting transparnecies that I got were amazingly sharp.
Raid
Cropping wide breaks my heart!
I do need to pick up a couple of level bubles though.
Here are two photos of my XLW.
Raid
dazedgonebye
06-15-2007, 14:24
They are pretty....
I found an old metal "wide angle" hood today. 62mm thread size.
I've currently got a 40.5-55mm adapter with a filter at 55mm (no vignetting). Add to that a 55-62mm adapter and the new hood.
I'll shoot some polaroids and see if it is in the way.
You should hear the comments I get when I pull that camera out.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.