How much lighter is the Crown vs. the Speed?

R

Roger Vadim

Well-known
Local time
9:55 PM
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
305
Hello everybody!

I like to shoot my 1961 Speed Graphic as a Rangefinder Camera, i.e. sans tripod. The 127mm Ektar gives a nice wide-angle field of vision and the negs are lovely (B/W).

BUT:

That beast is heavy to lug around! So I wonder if any other model, like the Crown Graphic is deliberately lighter. Anybody of you RFF crowd handled both and could tell me?

My Speed is in a good shape and the RF is spot on. So trading it for a Crown should make sense, weight-wise, otherwise the hassle getting one would be of no use. (Over the pond here in Germany they are quite scarce, tracking one down is tricky, and importing means high import taxes...)

The Linhof is, unfortunately much heavier. Nice camera though...

Thanks for commenting,
Cheers, Michael
 
I went from a Technika to a Crown because of the weight when handheld shooting. The Linhof's weight is good for steadying the camera but not good for handholding over longer periods. I also appreciated the $2200 price difference.

The Speed I used to have was about 1.5 lbs -- .75 kg? -- heavier, not so bad but enough to notice. It also is just a bit "clunkier" with the side knobs for the shutter -- the Crown feels cleaner and sleeker.

You should try to have both if you can afford it. I prefer the later top rangefinder Crowns with the cammed rangefinder, I think those are better rangefinders and they are the newer bodies. The 135 Xenar in the late thick chrome rimmed Compur with white plastic paddle levers is the best lens too, although the Ektars in Supermatics are also excellent.
 
I was wondering the same thing - I have used my Speed Graphic a few times hand held and any noticeable weigh decrease would be appreciated. It really is tough turning it around to set the SS and aperture!

I fear carpal tunnel from the wrist contortions!
 
You're all wimps! Do you think Weegee carried a Crown Graphic to save a pound of weight? ;)
Actually, the Crown wasn't even around in his hay-day.
If you want a light Graphic, gotta get a Century 23. That is, if you don't mind 120 rollfilm.
You guys weren't thinking of shooting 4x5 sheet-film hand-held, were you?!:eek:
If so, better build up those forearms!
 
The focal plane shutter mechanism in the Speed Graphic adds about an inch of depth and some weight to the camera compared to the Crown Graphic. Unless you have some barrel mount lenses you'd like to use on your camera the focal plane shutter is just excess baggage.

The Century Graphic was a great little camera, even having some limited movements including a drop bed. When the push to 120 came along in the 1960's a lot of wedding photographers went from 4x5 Speeds and Crowns to 2x3 Centurys, and used the then new RH-10 "ideal format" roll holders. But these were guys who cut their teeth on 4x5 press cameras.

Newer and younger photographers wanted aa more "modern" camera, rigid body, no bellows, interchangeable lenses with built in rangefinder camming. Mamiya obliged with several models. The Koni-Omega of that era introduced the expanding/contacting framelines range/viewfinder while the Century still only had a choice of the squinty optical finder, seperate rangefinder, or the open frame wire finder.

I think that most of today's Leica shooters would go bonkers shooting a Crown Graphic or Bush Pressman. Learning the finer points of the Speed Graphic's focal plane shutter? Have fun! Getting comfortable using an open wire frame finder for composition? Good luck.

If you're looking for a medium format fast handling press type camera with killer lenses get a Koni-Omega.
 
Last edited:
I've shot a 4x5 Anniversary Speed Handheld. It gets really interesting if you're using a barrel lens that you have to GG focus too... No, I never said I was smart...

A 2x3 with a RH10 is a very fun combo. I've got a nice one with a prewar 10.5cm/3,5 CZJ Tessar that gives me nice results. My 4x5 Crown is my field camera and when it goes out so does a tripod.

William
 
It's got nothing to do with weight...

It's got nothing to do with weight...

I use a 4x5 Speed and a Baby Speed with a 6x9 rollfilm back. Using the 4x5 requires a bag of film holders so I tend to use the Baby Speed more often as I primarily do events. Believe me... eight shots on a roll is a luxury compared to four film holders. And the picture quality is about the same. Weight is not the problem but baggage is. Considering I shoot press flashbulbs in a Kalart gun the bag of 24 bulbs is the schlep... not the camera and three rolls of film. I do on average one NYC event per week with this combo and the whole package becomes next to nothing after it becomes familiar territory. Not to mention walking onto the scene with this kit has people begging to have their picture taken and snapping to attention.

Come on... be a man... use what you have... get over yourself.

Even girls do it...

baby_speed_girl.jpg


When I'm lazy... I grab the Kodak Bull's Eye and Kodalite Flasholder... :)
 
I have both the Pacemaker Speed Graphic and the Crown Graphic, both from the early 50's with the side-mounted Kalart rangefinder.

On my kitchen scale, the Speed Graphic weighs almost 7 lbs (3.17 kg) while the Crown Graphic weighs about 6 lbs (2.72 kg). Bottom line, the Speed Graphic weighs 16% more than the Crown.

My Domke F-5xb loaded with a ZI RF 3-lens f2 kit with table-tripod and small flash also weighs 6 lbs.

Of course, the Graphic would also need at least a couple of loaded Grafmatics, maybe a RH-10 back for portraits, plus a Sunpak 383 flash. (Since the leaf shutter can sync at any shutter speed who needs f2!<g>)

However, you might want to consider something I'm toying with these days, if you don't think it strays to close to tripod territory.

Specifically, I'm talking about a Manfrotto 685B monopod, the one that telescopes open. Michael Reichmann talked about it a while ago on his Luminous Landscape site with a low speed, compact digital, but I'm finding it really nifty with a Graphic. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/monopod.shtml)

The monopod is substantial enough for a Graphic and very quick to use. With the bed open, I can have the camera rest on my shoulder as I move about. And working the camera is easier since I'm just steadying it or turning it and not lifting it.

I don't use a tripod head with the monopod since I think flopping a Graphic 90 degrees for portrait orientation is a bit much to expect from a compact head. However, a Linhof with a revolving back, might be given new life.
 
Last edited:
My mom used one, she was a second grade teacher, not especially muscular, --and it was the school camera.

I used both in Jr. High, and High School, never noticed much difference in weight between the Speed and the Crown. Of course that lead battery on the Graflex Strobe did have noticeable mass. I started using the miniature 6x6 Rollei and 35mm in a Kodak Signet.

The big cases for the outfit was likely to be very bulky and heavy.


At the Plain Dealer, the photographers and folks in general there had enough time on their hands to play a few jokes.

They had Graphics, and the old wooden cases with the little door for the tripod, but no one used a tripod so the compartment was empty.

They picked one guy, and about once a week they stuffed a half column Linotype lead photo base in the tripod compartment.

The guy started complaining, but did not catch on until the leather handle finally snapped when he picked it up. Story was repeated for years.

Most people were happy to go to the Nikon F's about then.

The camera fits well enough in the left hand with the strap so that weight, IMO, should not be much of a concern. The Super Speeds are heavier.

Regards, John
 
6x9 is less than half the area of 4x5 (ok both rounded) and I dont quite see, why to use a 45 Graflex to shoot 120 film anyway (unless it is 6x12 or such).

I haven't yet shot much with my Speed, but I will surely be using it mostly handheld if I wont end up just selling it and using smaller format cameras...
 
O.k. well, I do shoot the thingy handheld... but it definitely is a drag to pull around. Using the finder is not different to an Leica III, and the look through an uncluttered finder is great ;)

I love the idea of the Monopod - actually a guy I know did a project in Africa where he solely used a Speed, and he also sugested going for a Monopod, because you do get the ocasional blur from trembling, best is to shoot above 1/250, which is sometimes not so possible.
He told me that most people in Africa didn't recognise the Camera as such, they thought he is some sort of technician and the Speed would be a device for measuring or such... that's what I call stealth!

Thanks for all the comments, I hoped that the Crown would be deliberatelly lighter... so its only roghly a pound... mhmm need to think about swapping then.

Cheers, Michael
 
Al Kaplan said:
The focal plane shutter mechanism in the Speed Graphic adds about an inch of depth and some weight to the camera compared to the Crown Graphic. Unless you have some barrel mount lenses you'd like to use on your camera the focal plane shutter is just excess baggage.
Click to expand...

Exactly, has nothing to do with strength or muscles, more like common sense (though I do understand the need certain posters have to compensate for inadequacies in the relatively safe and anonymous environment of the internet! :p) I will shoot my Speed hand held and I doubt I'll use the rear shutter often, so if the Crown is a pound difference, it's not enough to bother switching in my mind.
 
Everybody should be required to spend a few months with a 4x5 press camera plus become adept at using the swings, tilts, shifts, etc. of a monorail view camera :D before becoming licensed to claim to be a pro photographer, then they can go on to study for their Digital Endorsment:eek:
 
Wonderful stories, all.

Was wondering if anyone finds the 1/1000 shutter speed of the curtain shutter a useful feature worth the extra pound of weight? This feature did give the Speed its name, after all. Any more stories out there pertaining specifically to the shutter speeds faster than 1/500?

~Joe
 
I never found the rear shutters on my Graflex cameras useful or practical. I'm sure others have but I don't use barrel lenses, long burning flashbulbs or shoot sports events.

joe_costa.jpg


Joe Costa... King of the rear shutter with his long burning flashbulb "Big Rig". He could capture a speeding bullet in mid flight.
 
George Bonanno said:
I never found the rear shutters on my Graflex cameras useful or practical. I'm sure others have but I don't use barrel lenses, long burning flashbulbs or shoot sports events.

joe_costa.jpg


Joe Costa... King of the rear shutter with his long burning flashbulb "Big Rig". He could capture a speeding bullet in mid flight.
Click to expand...

I would think a pretty slow bullet, maybe Superman speed?

Doc Edgerton used strobes with a Graflex, but at a millionth of a second effective speed to stop a 30-06 bullet, 3,000 ft. / second, bullet would travel more than three feet in 1/1000 second. A common 22 LR would go a foot, and a 38 about half that, assuming the bullet was going by and not at the camera, ;-).

Looks impressive though.

Who was the guy who shot the train going by the drive in movie?

Regular bulbs would last something like 1/25th of a second, and the FB bulbs longer to give the curtain time to get by with a slot.

There is an awful lot you can do with a Graflex.

The heavier weight might actually help hold it steady, a very light camera moves very easily with just the force to trip the shutter. The force to trip the body release for the Graflex also is along the axis of the lens, plus the movement relative to the size of the negative is less.

I shot for years with a Graflex, do not recall that it was a problem. Finding enough negative carriers was a problem.

Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom