Polaroid 4x5 conversion

[cyrus]

Just got my 4x5 conversion from a Polaroid 110B. I am LOVING it! Finally, a handheld 4x5 that is light and not TOO noticable! I tried the super speed graphic, but this is lighter (though of course there is no interchangeable lens) and less intrusive.

With a couple grafmatic backs, I am burning through 4x5 film at about the same rate as with 120 film (so much so that I am looking into a source for cheaper 4x5 film - does anyone have much experience with artisto.edu? anyone?) though I have had my expected share of errors too such as using the same grafmatic twice, resulting in 6 double exposures in one, and no exposures in the other grafmatic- but that's the price of learning (I have had to steel myself to accept these sorts of things in learning LF, and have also had to learn to never hesitate in taking a photo because by the time I think it over, the magic moment is gone.)

I haven't gotten around to printing the negs though -- they look fine but you never really know until the print is dried.

The conversion was done by a brilliant fellow nearby who didn't want me to mention his name because he's previously received legally threatening mail from you-know-who, and because he really didn't need the advertising since he does the conversions as a sort of hobby. He was kind enough to also sell me a couple of original filters and the lens hood.

I am particularly happy with the built-in rangefinder in the polaroid. The range finder window is smaller than the size of the 4x5 negative image area, but that's not really a big deal when composing the image as long as you remember that you may end up with a bit of extra space around your subject. Over time, I suspect I will be able to mentally compensate for that and end up with tighter shots. Of course, since there is a parallax, shots closer than 6 ft. will have to be focussed using the ground glass. I haven't had a chance to fool around with that yet either (memoral day projects).

I am also kinda concernd about the amout of effort it takes to open the polaroid front -- I think it could use some lubrication, what with the sound of the grating metal hinges. Not sure where to apply the lube, exactly... and I'll lube up the grafmatics too. Also, I need a neck strap since I don't want to drop it.

So, that was my contribution. I'll be happy to answer anyone's questions.

[Frank Petronio]

I got one from Dean Jones and am enjoying it as well. The stock lens is sharp, the RF is accurate, and all is right with the world. I don't think I would pay thousands of dollars for one, as it is still a fifty-year old plastic camera. But for the price it packs a lot of bang for the buck. Should be great for handheld travel shots.

[Frank Petronio]

Here is a shot I just did with it:

[Frank Petronio]

I stopped using my Graphmatics so I would slow down! It was too easy to blow through 6 sheets in a minute or two of people shooting...

[Wayne]

Just got my 4x5 conversion from a Polaroid 110B. I am LOVING it! .

I wasnt even aware of these conversions, thanks for posting it. Maybe my Polaroid 180 can have a new life even after the 665 film is all gone.



Wayne

[Frank Petronio]

see http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/ to start

[cyrus]

Maybe my Polaroid 180 can have a new life even after the 665 film is all gone.

Not sure if the 180 can be converted to accept the Graflok back. I understand that the Polaroid 110A can be converted to use pack film, but not the Graflock back (which would block the rangefinder window.)

I suspect that only the Polaroid 110B can be converted to use the 4x5 Graflok back. The 110B is not plastic. Its actually a pretty hefty piece of work; a rock solid folder. All metal. At least mine is.

There is a certain someone who sells these conversions for several thousand dollar$. The cost of mine was significantly less, including the cost of the spare Graflock back. I don't know if my conversion has all the bells & whistles of the (much) more expensive version sold by that certain someone, but it does everything I need just fine. I can even do closeups (gg focussing, of course, due to parallax error.)

Finding a 110B suitable for conversion can be a bit difficult. I picked up the camera for a couple of hundred bucks. It was expensive because they're in demand for conversions -- and my particular camera was in fantastic shape, so it was worth it for me. Anyway, not only should the camera be in decent shape, but the standard Rodenstock Ysarex 4.6/127mm lens should not have too much schneideritis, ideally. The ebay auctions often don't show the lens so better ask before bidding.

My biggest concern was the quality of the lens. Thus far, I don't have any complaints. I understand that Razzle can put other more modern lenses on the camera too. Don't know if the camera would still fold up though, so it wouldn't be an option I'd like to have since I enjoy the quick set up.

[cyrus]

I got one from Dean Jones and am enjoying it as well. The stock lens is sharp, the RF is accurate, and all is right with the world. I don't think I would pay thousands of dollars for one, as it is still a fifty-year old plastic camera. But for the price it packs a lot of bang for the buck. Should be great for handheld travel shots.

I am indeed going to use it for travel shots but I'm not sure if the camera is plastic. Mine seems to be pretty solid metal all over (except the bellows, of course)
I considered going to Dean but the guy who did this conversion was living just one city over from mine, so it was more convenient.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, there is a guy in New England who does them too, in fact he started doing them back in the 1970s.

OK, it's not all plastic, just the RF cover, but being a folder it is a bit delicate compared to a Crown or Leica... I mean it is a nice enough camera but it ain't going to win any pretty design awards or last as long as a Linhof, etc. That certain little man has raised the price, they are now $2-300 on eBay. Add a conversion and you should be able to find one for under a grand (I want Dean to make a few bucks here). I think >$1000 makes sense. It just isn't worth that much more for that level of camera.

[Donald Qualls]

I'm pretty sure a 180 can be converted to 3x4 -- all that would be required is milling the rear of the camera enough to allow mounting a standard 3x4 spring back with the image plane at the correct location. To cover 4x5, you'd need to replace the lens; the original is 114 mm, IIRC, and no way will it cover 4x5 (though if you mounted a 4x5 at the original film plane, you'd have only a 3x4 image anyway). If you converted to, say, a 135 mm lens and set the film plane back 20 mm or so (a much easier conversion in terms of making stuff fit, and due to the internal well that accepts the film pack, probably still no thicker than the original body), you might get full coverage without bellows vignetting, but then you'd have to manipulate the RF slope to regain correct focusing, which would require opening the sealed RF unit and altering the internal cam (well, I assume there's a cam inside there), or coming up with some kind of linkage to drive the RF actuator at a reduced rate as the front standard moves to focus.

Hmmm. Now I'm going to have to get hold of a 100/250/350 with a dead shutter, just to hack up... Ack! More stuff on my "to do" list!!