buying an Alpenhause for hand-held, tips? [Archive]

dh003i

15-Sep-2010, 00:17

I've sent my 135/3.5 Xenotar lens to Steven Icanberry of Alpenhause (http://www.alpenhause.com/) to have it fitted to a Polaroid 900 => 4x5 back conversion. He's told me that he can fit it in and that the camera will still close without needing to remove the front element.

I have a few questions for anyone doing 4x5 hand-held.

1. What shutter speed do you need to use to get good sharpness? I know the 1/focal length rule, although Steven has said he's gotten good results even going down to 1/16s with his camera. But as you approach say 3.5 ft (probably the closest the 135mm can shoot on his camera), magnification ratio becomes about 0.15x...is this close enough to macro to make significant differences in how long you can hand-hold?

2. When doing 4x5 shots, how do you figure the shutter speed given a certain ISO film? I've been using my Oly E3 to meter for my monorail, but do you do that (or use a small meter) when shooting hand-held? Or do you just memorize a bunch of conditions and various shutter speeds for them at a standard ISO and then go with that?

Ari

16-Sep-2010, 15:29

With some practice, you can shoot at 1/4 second; the converted Polaroids (I have one from Steve as well) are remarkably well-balanced and are heavy enough to steady at slower speeds.
I can focus up to 2ft with mine, and extension has not been a factor in proper exposure.
Meter as usual and fire away.

dh003i

16-Sep-2010, 15:57

Ari,

Thank you very much for your response. Yea, I don't know about using the Olympus E3 DSLR to meter. That's what I've been doing with the monorail, but it is a completely different setup, that is already slow. The purpose of one of these guys is to be able to shoot more candid shots handheld, and juggling and Oly E3 DSLR (kind of heavy itself) and a Alpenhause would seem to somewhat counter that.

Maybe I could get the Sekonic L-208 (http://www.amazon.com/Sekonic-Twinmaster-Compact-Incident-Reflected/dp/B000J5NXLY) Incident / Reflected Light Meter, Gossen DigiFlash (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/278209-REG/Gossen_GO_4007_DigiFlash_Digital_Incident_.html), or Gossen Digisix (http://www.videodirect.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=GO4006&Category_Code=GOSSEN). They're all small and fit in the hotshoe.

patrickjames

16-Sep-2010, 16:54

I have built a few conversions and they are remarkably easy to use. I have never seen one of Alpenhause's so I can't comment on it. If you want to shoot at slooooow shutter speeds, you can rest the camera on your collarbone or shoulder. I find it much easier to hold the conversions steady than a smaller camera, even a Leica. Mine are really light though because of the way I made them. Anyway, you should have a blast with it. I would love to have one with a Xenotar 3.5 lens. If I ever build another one, that is the lens I am going to put on it.

Peter Gomena

17-Sep-2010, 09:01

Much depends on the camera's balance and ergonomics. I've never been able to hold my Canon F1 very still, but my old Crown Graphic with 135mm lens was so nicely balanced it was easy to hand hold.

Peter Gomena

sully75

17-Sep-2010, 10:52

Patrick, do you have any pictures of your cameras? I'm working on some conversions myself, would love to see what you have done.

Drew Bedo

17-Sep-2010, 17:34

There used to be a Cd out there that described the Razzle conversion.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Razzle_/razzle_.html

sully75

18-Sep-2010, 07:40

There used to be a Cd out there that described the Razzle conversion.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Razzle_/razzle_.html

Yeah it was $50 and I've heard not that valuable. I'm winging it.

Frank Petronio

18-Sep-2010, 08:35

dh003i

18-Sep-2010, 11:41

So is he going to reinforce the front standard to carry a larger lens like the Xenotar?

And put a better rangefinder on it so you might have a chance of focusing the thing wide open at portrait distances?

Not to rain on the parade, but it seems like a good way to spend a lot of money in order to get a lot of slightly out of focus shots....

Before I sent it to him, I brought up these issues. He thinks the 900 body will support it just fine. He does do some kind of modification which allows it to be folded up without unscrewing the front standard. I talked with him on the phone, and he said after receiving the lens that the 900 body will easily support it (the lens in shutter is 380g). He told me that previously, he fit a 150/2.8, although that was a headache.

He also said that focusing of it should be fine up to about 3-4 ft. Maybe I'll ask him to test it out wide open at portrait distances.

sully75

18-Sep-2010, 11:55

I believe you can regrind the rangefinder cam without too much trouble to accomidate lenses within a fairly god range.

sully75

18-Sep-2010, 11:55

good range, not god range.

The 900 has a kind of cool mechanism, even though the stock lens is crap, there's a good base to build a new standard on.

dh003i

18-Sep-2010, 14:14

hi sully75,

Regarding the rangefinder on the 900, Steve Icanberry (maker of Alpenhaus) said this about the 110B & 900 to me in an e-mail conversation:

The Polaroid 110B/900 is an unusually stout, strong and rugged camera body with a combined Range/Viewfinder with auto parallax bright frame lines identical to a Leica M3, M4, M6 viewfinder, easy and fast to use, the rangefinder is altered to suit the 135mm lens for totally accurate rangefinder focusing all through all distance ranges, this camera will have no problem handling a 380g lens and shutter...

It is interesting that you mention the Kalart rangefinder and Polaroid's rangefinder, here is a bit of interesting history, the first Polaroid professional camera the model 110 had a real Kalart brand rangefinder on the body, very nice, works great and is bright and easy to use. The next model the Polaroid 110A, Polaroid started making their own rangefinders which are just as good if not better than the Kalart. The last model Polaroid 110B and 900 have a long base highly accurate and bright rangefinder that is cam actuated which makes fitting lenses of different focal lengths possible. If you were to take a liking to the original model 110 I am sure altering it's Kalart to work with a 135mm lens should be an easy matter.

He seems to think more highly of the Polaroid 900's rangefinder than you guys do.

But you mention the 900 being neat for there being a good base to build a standard on, even though the stock lens is bad. I presume you're referring to the rangefinder here? (or are you literally talking about the taking lens?)

Bill Burk

18-Sep-2010, 18:15

I considered the Alpenhaus but selected a different manufacturer for my camera. I wouldn't recommend anyone making their own. There are few film camera manufacturers and I believe they need our support.

When I am not on a tripod, I follow the reciprocal of focal length rule. So I basically handhold at top speed.

I use a Sekonic Twin-Mate for casual occasions where I don't need a spotmeter. I memorize a couple readings (sun/shade) and change the f/stop accordingly as the scene changes. When I sense the overall light changing, I'll check the meter again.

As it gets darker, like when the brightest subject matter requires wide open at 1/100 or slower, I get less sharpness, and a negative that I am not likely to print. I find slow shutter speed blur negates the advantage of LF.

If you are doing a "one camera" project, you can decide to keep shooting anyway. But for me this is just a natural time to put the camera away, blend a batch of margaritas and relax.

The 900 lens and shutter is amateur and would have to be gutted.

The knurled focus wheel of the 900 is reminiscent of a Linhof. It also has a clever shutter release mechanism. The cast metal lens/shutter part is rigid, so it won't deform easily, but I don't think it's manufactured to very tight tolerance.

While the rangefinder is functionally comparable to Leica, a stock 110b or 900 finder is a little dimmer. I think it's because there is a mirror at the far end of the rangefinder instead of a prism. My manufacturer replaced the stock eyepiece with a much nicer piece of glass. It feels like bringing a Leica up to your eye. But a real Leica Meβsucher would be a significant improvement.

Subjectively, I easily get better sharpness and quality with this camera, than I get with 35mm with hard work, discipline and slow film.

patrickjames

19-Sep-2010, 00:43

I built my own, but I started the first one back in about 2004 and rebuilt it 3 times over a couple of years. I was going to put a 240mm lens on the second one, and had it all machined up, but I let it go because I didn't want to deal with the rangefinder and ended up putting a Symmar on it. I built one for a friend of mine and that one was pretty much perfect. I would like to do one more one of these days, but I already have two so it isn't exactly high on the priority list. If I ever find a good deal on a 135mm Xenotar I probably will do it.

I came up with my own solutions in building these things since I have never seen another one in person, and because of that the ones I have are very light. I pretty much took off anything that had weight that wasn't needed. The first one I made was a stock 110b. The second one with the Symmar lens I made from leftover parts from a 900, 800, and a 110a. I would recommend sticking with a 110b body. I am sure I have posted this image elsewhere here, but since someone asked...

http://www.patrickrobertjames.com/f11/pol.jpg

sully75

19-Sep-2010, 11:01

hi sully75,

He seems to think more highly of the Polaroid 900's rangefinder than you guys do.

But you mention the 900 being neat for there being a good base to build a standard on, even though the stock lens is bad. I presume you're referring to the rangefinder here? (or are you literally talking about the taking lens?)

The 900 has a weird electronic lens thing, take a look online if you haven't seen it. The whole lens mechanism is pretty useless. But you can make a substitute lens board that mimics the locking mechanism of the original and then mount the lens of your choice on it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12743523@N08/4401399206/in/faves-paulmcevoy/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeossur/3970165043/in/faves-paulmcevoy/

The 900s are very cheap (I have three of them now, they were all between $10 and $20). It will be a little bit of work to do the lensboard but the above pictures show basically how its done. I don't think it's too hard.

sully75

19-Sep-2010, 11:02

or...what Patrick said. He's actually done it.

Patrick, could you post pictures of the backs of your cameras? That's the more complicated/scary part to me. Not sure where the back will be in relation to the camera to get full 4x5 coverage.

Beautiful job, btw!

cdholden

19-Sep-2010, 11:14

Not to rain on the parade, but it seems like a good way to spend a lot of money in order to get a lot of slightly out of focus shots....

Frank,
Some folks spend big bucks on "bokeh". :)

Chris

dh003i

19-Sep-2010, 11:29

The 900 has a weird electronic lens thing, take a look online if you haven't seen it. The whole lens mechanism is pretty useless. But you can make a substitute lens board that mimics the locking mechanism of the original and then mount the lens of your choice on it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12743523@N08/4401399206/in/faves-paulmcevoy/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeossur/3970165043/in/faves-paulmcevoy/

The 900s are very cheap (I have three of them now, they were all between $10 and $20). It will be a little bit of work to do the lensboard but the above pictures show basically how its done. I don't think it's too hard.

Oh yea, I'm sending Steven my 135/3.5 lens to replace that goofy looking "electronic eye" thing. Your ones look nice too! Cool.

sully75

19-Sep-2010, 13:11

They aren't mine! They are my inspiration. Lacking any sort of a workshop though I've been slow to get this going.

Bill Burk

19-Sep-2010, 21:02

Paul,

I don't recommend you do it yourself, there are manufacturers who need your business.

If you like the syntax of 35mm but want the higher resolution 4x5 offers then this kind of camera is a good thing. You have the 900 in your hand that cost you $10. It gives you a preview of good things to come. But as our photographs are worth more than the materials they are printed on, these cameras are worth more than the base they are built upon. Think of the value of the photos you will produce from it.

Pick the lens you want. The stock lens of the 110b is a Tessar design with unsharp edges. If you require f/64 edge-to-edge sharpness it will not do. By picking one lens and sticking to it, you won't be buying a set of lenses - this will limit future costs (compared to buying a Linhof then buying three more lenses). If you really want precision get a Linhof.

patrickjames

20-Sep-2010, 01:58

I kind of agree with Bill above, although I have built my own and I think they are at least as good as the ones mentioned because I took my time (years..). If I had the cash I would probably get a "Lttmn" only because from the pictures I have seen online, he actually uses a 4x5 back instead of something made custom with all of the strangeness that provides. There is a reason why an Ebony or a Linhof uses an International/Graflok back and not something unique. I can only speculate since I haven't seen any conversions in person, and there are very few pictures online of them. I wouldn't build a conversion based on a 900 body because I think the focussing is hinky on them. The 110b is your best bet. I would post a picture of the back of the conversions I have done, but since I want to do another at some point I won't. I would like the parts that I use to be affordable, and if everyone starts to buy them they won't be. :). I am sure you don't understand that, but it is the way it is.

I for one won't poopoo the stock Ysarex. It might not be as good as a modern lens, but the images from it have a wonderful tonality, and that is all that really counts. Seriously. If you can't afford the few hundred bucks to put a modern lens on a conversion, don't worry about it. The Prontor shutter is reliable as all getout. I disabled the self timer on the one I have and it is smooth as butter....

Frank touches upon the focussing issue in a post above, and it is a serious issue for the most part. I am vigilant checking the infinity focus with mine, and since I built them and know how to calibrate them I haven't had any problems, nor have I had to adjust them. I have also modified the RF in order to get them to stay calibrated. If you understand how they work and know how to adjust them, you won't have any problems.

Ari

20-Sep-2010, 02:28

Forgot to say, I posted this thread a while back, not long after I bought the Alpenhause. Patrick is correct, the Ysarex has a wonderful 50s-era tonality. I love it wide open, and I appreciate the soft-ish edges of the frame. All in all a wonderful camera, and very well-priced. Most of the Polaroid "converters" do excellent work at very reasonable prices; the only exception seems to be Mr Littman, who feels they ought to cost vastly more.
See the thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=62705

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 05:40

Hi Ari,

I wouldn't really pay any attention to Bill. He's contacted me privately to tell me that he's a "troll" (that's his quote) for Littman. Why he's not mentioning that here I don't know.

I'd encourage anyone interested in buying a Littman camera to read through this, you'll get a good idea of the man:
http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00D4gM

That's all I have to say on the subject.

Paul

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 06:47

Patrick,

The focusing on the 900, what don't you like about it? The wheel on the side rather than the knob? I kind of like the wheel.

You can actually take a 900 viewfinder and mount it on a 110a, basically making a (less expensive) 110b.

http://www.instantoptions.com/conversions/110hybrid/

I actually wouldn't want an actual graflok back on the camera. I've used one like that and it's really bulky, going beyond the camera frame significantly. I don't plan on using ground glass, just using the rangefinder. So I'll either use some sort of spring or maybe velcro to hold the holder in place. Ideally I'll find a grafmatic.

Frank Petronio

20-Sep-2010, 06:48

I'm not a fan of Littie's personality either but he does make a good conversion, no doubt about that. Whether it is wise tying up that kind of money on a Cambo Back mounted to a 50-year old obsolete plastic camera is another question?

I've had great experiences dealing with Dean Jones and have owned two 110 Razzles which worked fine for what the camera is meant to be -- a loose, fun handheld shooter, priced appropriately. But I find it hard to understand why a Crown Graphic isn't thought of as a better choice, since they are inexpensive, rugged, and only slightly larger/heavier but far more versatile in terms of lens choice, nice back, etc.? After all Graphics were what the vast majority of press photographers shot handheld with for several generations, wars, etc... so going on a junket or a camping trip with a converted Polaroid 4x5 just isn't all that earth-shattering.

I also wonder whatever could be the shortcomings of the stock lens, which is compact, light, fast, and sharp? It's kind of ridiculous to stick an expensive piece of exotic glass on a camera that is always going to be a bit of a crap shoot in terms of accurate focusing, alignment, handheld, loosey-gooseyness... Seems to me that if the Polaroid came equipped with a fancy lens then people would pay to get a Tessar installed ;-)

Burk is dead on about this:

If you really want precision get a Linhof.

And for the cost of a Littie, you could buy a beautiful Linhof system or a dozen nice Graphics... this all seems a case of the Emperor's new clothes to me. I thought by the time you got to be using large format film you were beyond all this silly trendiness?

Oh wait, I have to go polish my Ebony STV-Whole Plate-Arca-hybrid with it's 110XL T* lens ;-)

Drew Bedo

20-Sep-2010, 07:06

I have handled conversions built on both the 110 body and the 900 body. My impression is that the 110 focus knob is easier to focus in landscape mode while the 900's wheel is easier to manipulate in portrate orientation. Not that this any major factor, just an observation. I am saving my money for a Byron. Search You-Tube for "Byron Camera". The demos impresseds me.

Bill Burk

20-Sep-2010, 08:23

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 08:44

Bill from my reading of Littman's patents he's pretty much thrown a huge loop around what any intelligent person would do with any of these cameras. There's no "improvements" or invention. Just basically adding different backs to these cameras, and then modifying them to work with different lenses.

Honestly I find it revolting. One thing I love about photography and film photography is that you can make and modify cameras to suit your needs. This is the one situation where an opportunist has come into the community and prevented that from happening. Added to the fact that he threatens people with lawsuits and buffoonery.

I'm just a poor guy who likes to take pictures. I got interested in these cameras not via Littman. I'm not copying anyone's patents, I'm just taking an old camera and trying to figure out how to make it useful again. My guess is that someone called his bluff re: patent law and the previous art that exists regarding these cameras.

dh003i

20-Sep-2010, 11:15

I am a customer of William Littman. I bought a Littman camera, it was not provided to me. I am under no obligation to write on his behalf.

I apologize for not disclosing when I wrote on the topic. I take the stand to not encourage doing it yourself because I believe the patent can be enforced. I do not wish to detract from those manufacturers who make similar cameras. I believe they might avoid the patent issue by specifically not making those improvements.

Bill Burk

There is absolutely no way that Bill's patent is enforcible. He cannot stop people from doing their own conversions. If his patent is held up in court as being valid, unfortunately he might have a case against other makers of the conversion backs; but as has been noted by numerous people, conversions have been made going back well before Littman. The guy is a complete jerk (see the photo.net thread previously linked to (http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00D4gM)). In my opinion, people should simply refuse to buy from him and not reward that kind of behavior. Not that boycotting him would require much effort, seeing as how expensive his cameras are.

Bill Burk

20-Sep-2010, 15:17

Not my intent to render a legal opinion. With a light heart I meant to discourage another from doing something that might be covered by a current patent accepted by the USPTO. 15 years from now, go for it.

I didn't get as far as calling Steven Icanberry, but as a film camera consumer, I can encourage you to support him as a film camera manufacturer.

As to the stock Ysarex lens, it makes beautiful images with a certain look. A modern lens design can give edge-to-edge sharpness.

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 16:40

Bill,

It doesn't seem light hearted when you send me an email telling me that Littman asked you to participate in this forum. That just seems plain ol' weird.

dh003i

20-Sep-2010, 16:50

Bill Burk

20-Sep-2010, 17:15

Paul,
I sincerely apologize. I read the thread you referred and see what the problem is. I thought I was potentially saving you from the pain of undue attention, when in fact you had personally had been struck by lightning already. I did join the forums after he asked me to, in any other context I think you might have gotten a laugh out of that fact. Please accept my sincere apology.
Bill Burk

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 17:57

BTW I have a patent pending on using a 4x5 film holder in a 4x5 back.

sully75

20-Sep-2010, 17:59

You can see how Littman makes his cameras from his filed patents (http://www.google.com/patents?q=6608971+B2&btnG=Search+Patents), from which you can tell if the way you're doing it is the same as the way he does it, and hence infringes on his "patent".

I think the problem is that everything you might logically do to one of these cameras is covered in his patent. It's like someone patenting putting wheels on a car. I think he has a patent on putting the 4x5 back centered on the lens or something like that. Well, where else would you put it?

dh003i

20-Sep-2010, 18:06

I think the problem is that everything you might logically do to one of these cameras is covered in his patent. It's like someone patenting putting wheels on a car. I think he has a patent on putting the 4x5 back centered on the lens or something like that. Well, where else would you put it?

See the PM I sent you.

Gordon Flodders

21-Sep-2010, 03:43

As I have both Polaroid models 110B and 900 I will give my view (pardon the pun) on these cameras. I have several of these cameras, so it might help you in deciding which way to go. Rangefinders on both are exactly the same, however their focus mechanisms vary considerably. I find the 110B model to be slightly faster in operation, using a bigger thumb wheel situated in the centre of the front door, so it's a simple task to both focus and shoot with the right hand, holding the camera with the left hand placed through the strap.

The beauty of the B is that it's quite a bit lighter, thereby making it feel a much faster camera to use. The only downside exists with the camera's shorter distance between door and lens standard, this means that a lens other than a tiny 150mm f5.6 Xenar or 90mm Angulon will require removal of the front element each time the camera is folded.
Obviously the original Rodenstock will function perfectly without the need to remove anything.

The 900 comes into the spotlight when it's fitted with an APO Sironar N 150mm f5.6 like my own (Razzle) but the standard Sironar or perhaps a Fujinon 150mm f5.6 (early model with writing around the dress ring) works well too. The 900 will only accept a 150mm lens as far as I know, whereas a 110B or modified 110A (with a 900 finder assembly) will accept all manner of 90mm 127mm, 135mm and compact 150mm lenses without much fuss.
The 900 is slightly heavier, but with its greater (30mm) distance between front door and standard, it saves removal of the element.
The 110B is both lighter and quicker to focus IMHO, otherwise there's not much in it.
The Littman and Razzle have the end section removed to reduce size and weight, the Byron and Alpenhause do not, although the Byron is quite unique as it's rather like one camera fitted inside another!

As for the ridiculous idea of a Patent, well that appears to be a red herring. Everyone is now converting the humble old Polaroid, and why shouldn't they?

I would expect a big Xenar to perform rather like the Canon 85mm f1.2, a whole lot of out of focus shots and disappointment as stated by Frank. It's a big ask of any rangefinder to focus one of those f2.8 or f3.5 150mm lenses wide open with perfect results every time. Depth of field would be insane even using a ground glass.

I've never had a problem with any of the converted cameras I have and I think they are quite tough, but within reason. They need to be loved, not thrown around like a boomerang!

GF.

sully75

21-Sep-2010, 05:46

Thanks Gordon. Do you know why the 900 will only take a 150?

Gordon Flodders

21-Sep-2010, 15:26

Thanks Gordon. Do you know why the 900 will only take a 150?

I think it's due to the design of the bed and front standard. It's a totally different system to the 110B and not readily adjusted for infinity focus. The gearing on the 900 is rack and pinion too, the ratio and smaller wheel making it slower to focus. The 110B has a direct link, like a camshaft system which is more direct. The 900 is stronger than the 110B and doesn't suffer from the (apparently) dreaded bendy struts, though I never had a problem with those either.

A lot of hype surrounds the need for adjustable struts on the 110B, but I feel both cameras would struggle to support the weight of a 150mm f3.5 or 2.8 Xenotar without some form of strengthening. The weight of these guys is astounding and they'd push either design beyond its capabilities.

Liken it to putting a 454ci Chevvy into a Honda Civic. It would go like a rocket, but would be a handling nightmare.

GF.

sully75

21-Sep-2010, 15:55

Ok...but I'm confused. What is the focal length of the 900 lens? Is it 150? I haven't been able to find that out anywhere. I was sort of thinking it was probably 127.

I think it should probably be called a 'lens thing' not a lens.

Gordon Flodders

21-Sep-2010, 16:46

Please forget all about the original 'Electric Eye' as it's a complete piece of crap. The only way to use a 900 is to replace the front standard assembly with one like the Razzle has.

GF.

djonesii

21-Sep-2010, 19:25

Dear all;

I have been using and shooting an alpenause for about a year now. Quite a bit of fun had with it. The original Polaroid lens was a 127mm as I recall. Although I had a 900 converted, Steve offered to put on a lens from a donor. I had been shooting with a Speed and a 135, and found that just too wide for my liking. I got a Prinz 150mm ( just a different label on a Congo I believe ) For my taste, that is much more "normal"

If I recall correctly, Drew and I met for lunch and he took a look at the camera.

For me, getting all the parts together and working with Steve was quite fun.

All in all, a great experience.

I now mostly use it the grafmatic backs, and only rarely focus via the ground glass.

The focusing on the side is all I know, and I can use it hand held with little difficulty.

To the OP, best of luck with the new camera!

Dave

sully75

21-Sep-2010, 20:02

I know the 900 lens is crap. I'm just wondering what focal length of crap it is.

patrickjames

21-Sep-2010, 20:28

I know the 900 lens is crap. I'm just wondering what focal length of crap it is.

If you have one Sully, just measure it. Keep in mind though that the conversion alters the distance.

I would avoid a 900 for several reasons. I don't like the focussing on it as I stated above. Also, you will need to machine a new lens standard for it. It has been a long time since I have looked at a 900, but I don't believe the standard can be moved. I could be wrong on that though. The 110b standard can easily be moved to adjust for the lens after you put the new back on. I haven't converted a 900, but I wouldn't want to. If the focussing is to your liking on a 900 and you are having the conversion done for you, then go with it. The bonus of the greater thickness is you won't have to take the front off of most lenses to get it to close. The one I have with a Symmar won't close without taking the front group off, but I leave it on anyway.

Gordon Flodders

22-Sep-2010, 04:07

If you have one Sully, just measure it. Keep in mind though that the conversion alters the distance.

The one I have with a Symmar won't close without taking the front group off, but I leave it on anyway.

One of my 900's has a Symmar S fitted and with and with a few milimeters machined off the filter thread it will close nicely. Sironars have a larger rear element allowing for a more compact front element, like the Fujinon W, so they don't require any such machining.

Whatever focal length the magic eye lens of the 900 was, it was around f9 and consisted of very few elements. Some say 135mm, but 127mm is probably closer to the actual FL.

GF.

sully75

22-Sep-2010, 04:28

Drew Bedo

22-Sep-2010, 07:13

Dave: You are right about lunch . . .Ethiopian . . .Wow! Spicey, but good spicey! I was impressed by the alpenhause camera and the 900 body layout. I liked the focus wheel on the door. It fell right under my thimb when held in the portrate orientation. As with any camera, put on the best glass you can afford.

I have not jumped into the Polaroid conversion field as yet.

EdWorkman

22-Sep-2010, 08:25

I'm in the midst of converting a 150.
Many , well let's call them crafts, or skills, are beyond my capability, time I'm willing to spend.
So here's what i found
The front standard on the 150 and according to the Land List, most of the other models is a casting, perhaps aluminum, perhaps not, but ductile and easily "machined" [ that is, not brittle like Zamac]. The cheap lenses are , as evidenced by mine, made up of two elements solidly embedded. The shutter/lens/standard assembly is 3 pieces. A thin sheet covers the front and is easily removed. The rear casting/element can be removed by removing machine screws after the belows plate is removed. That leaves the standard with its element.
So i line drilled around a larger circle and finished it to size with a circular file in the same drillpress. I kept the standard and retain the original precision etc.
I have a 150 Fujinar to mount, but, there are still questions as to where the film plane will be, so I mounted a Pentax K ring on the front standard- If I can't close the door I'll just un-bayonet the lens and put it on a kodak brownie 3 A that had no lens, or get a rear lenscap and keep the dust out of the innards of the lens, bodycap to keep dust out of the camera.
I've saved the original pressure plate and plan to mount it to the back door of the Model 150. There's more room in the body now that the heavy plate and roller assembly is gone. I'll probably use roll film, perhaps even 70mm on 120 plastic spools cobbled to 616 length [ gosh i don't want to risk the ire, and scu- attorneys of that other guy] . By using the room available , to push the film plane back, it appears i will be able to get a full 2.5x4.25 inch [classic 616] frame on 70mm.
Why not 4x5? well i have a speed for that, 100 ft of triX 70mm and 100 speed 70mm seems to still be available at freestyle, and I make bad choices. I can go to 120 later.
I have no retaining ring for the Fujinar and have not finished a work around to retain it in a K-ring- 3 clips machine-screwed to tapped holes in a slice of plastic pipe epoxied to a K-ring. I have jigs to cut 120 spools and assemble the parts into 616 size, just have too many excuses to actually finish.
Lastly, the Land List site might tell you various FLs on Polaroid models. Many of the cheap lenses were in the 115mm range.
Check out a site "My Rangefolders" for extreme conversions [ the Byron 4x5] including ways to accommodate multiple focal lengths.

Gordon Flodders

22-Sep-2010, 14:58

I think I have it figured out now:

900 has 127mm focal length and hard to change infinity stop. Putting the film plane further back screws you for using a 127mm lens, so the 150mm lens has the longer focal length and then focuses infinity with some small adjustments and a regrinding of the cam onto the new film plane.

Sound right?

You're correct.

The film plane is moved back 25mm. Mine has this front standard and it's fitted with a 150mm lens and works extremely well.

GF.