A Razzle of my own

[jscherer]

Hi everyone. My name is John and I'm new to this forum and new to 4x5 as well. I've been involved with photography for about 35 of my 45 yrs and presently shoot mostly with my Nikon D300. I used 4x5 while in photography school but thats it. My wife, three kids, two dogs, one cat and one gecko live outside of St Paul, MN.

I have looked around for a 4x5 that I could hand hold and the Razzle seems to be the best option for the price but Dean is so backlogged at the moment he's not taking orders again until maybe september. So whats a guy to do? Well I have always loved to make my own stuff so I thought I might try making my own version of Deans camera.

I did a lot of research into the process, including the pictures of Ash's 900 building process that was documented on this site. I purchased a 110A locally for $20.00 and because I wanted to convert the 110a to a 110b in the process so I also picked up a 900 from eBay for $30.00.

I disassembled the camera down to bare metal carefully removing the leather so I could use it as a pattern. With my 8" compound miter saw and a diamond cutting blade (a bit extreme I know but it makes a nice edge after the cut) I started cutting..

The cut on the front right of the body was done similar to what Dean does, and cut at 25 degrees and the back was cut straight.

Below is the end result so far. I don't have the 900 yet but as soon as it gets here I'll be working on the top part, cutting it to fit the body. I'm still looking for the right leather, I've been considering eel and I've found a source but I'm sure yet. The most important thing is the back and I still don't have that yet! I was hoping to use Dean's back but he's not able to provide them. I thought about a graflok but they seem so big. If anyone has thoughts that would be welcome.

Cheers

John Scherer

[Gordon Moat]

You might want to look at the work this guy did:

http://photo.net/photos/Camera%20Conjurer

I am also working on a conversion of a Polaroid 900. Mine is starting from blocks of aluminum and a milling machine. So far my back design is mostly complete, and I am working on a four way (tilt, swing, rise/fall, and shift) front lens mount. This is not because I was impatient, but more because I wanted something that would be slimmer and work better for left eye biased photography. Then I decided I wanted full movements at the front.

Anyway, you might have already considered it, but you could have bought a Crown Graphic for less than you might put into your conversion. Best I can suggest is to take your time. Also, before you cut into that Polaroid 900 body, you might want to get some parts completed enough to fit up lens and back. I found with my design I have no need to cut the back of the camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

P.S. - Welcome to LF Forum

P.P.S. - I might have some photos of construction coming soon.

[vinny]

What's the advantage of the 900 model for conversion?

[Gordon Moat]

The front door on the Model 900 is deeper, and the lens block does not have struts. So when going to a different lens, in my case a Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7, there is more room to modify. The original Model 900 lens is a 130mm, so fitting a 135mm is a very close fit, even accounting for the difference in thickness to accomodate a 4x5 back. However, what I had to do was create a super slim conversion back from a block of aluminum. The back design I have now is actually thinner than the original Polaroid 900 back, though it would also fit a model 110 just as easily.

The issues for me with the model 110, other than the struts, is that I don't really like the 127mm lens that is standard. In order to fit a conversion back, using a standard model 110 lens would mean moving the stock lens backwards to get infinity focus. this is basically what Littmann does, though I don't think his solution works that well; namely the result ends up too thick at the back, making left eye shooting a pain.

Seriously, this is not really simple. There is only so much room, and the camera still needs to fold up. Make a thicker back, or space the back further back, then you can use a longer focal length lens, but I think that makes that worse. The other issue for me was this need to cut the original Polaroid camera. Other than a little trimming/filing to fit the Polaroid 550 back, I have been able to retain most of the stock appearance of the Polaroid 900 when it is closed. Even with all the aluminum bits, I am ending up with a camera that is close to the original weight, and perhaps a little lighter. The only back I have tried so far that will not work is the Polaroid 405, though to accomodate something like that would mean spacing the rear conversion part back more . . . and I would be back to what everyone else is doing.

I was inspired by Dean and his Razzle, though really wanted to do everything slimmer and better. Every part is custom made, with nothing off the shelf, other than bolts and fasteners. The rough part for me has been finding the time to work on this, though I will probably have it going by the end of this month. Lots of milling still to do on the lens block/front standard. I would hate to try this with anything other than a milling machine set-up.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Kuzano]

What's the advantage of the 900 model for conversion?

Plus all the front standard reasons mentioned in the previous post, the reason to use the 900 Top Cover is for the single rangefinder/viewfinder window on 110 and 110A models.

The 110A has a rangefinder window AND a view finder window on the rear side. When you install the large format back, you obscure the rangefinder portion of the window. The 900 has a single window for both rangefinder and viewfinder and is clear of the area in which the large format back sits. However, the single window top also was introduced on the 110B model. The 110B has the Rodenstock Ysarex lens as on the 110A, but the 900 has the electric eye lens, which is a far cry from satisfactory for the conversion. However, Dean also is converting the front standard of the 900 to create a front standard with movements when a largeformat lens is affixed.

So, if you want the Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm and don't want to mess with the front standard, the 110B is the ideal camera... (I have two of the 110B's). If you want to go the extra distance on a front standard with movements, or simply need a single window top, the 900 will suffice. The 110B commands a slightly higher price, where the 900's are usually very inexpensive.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . When you install the large format back, you obscure the rangefinder portion of the window. . . . . . . . . The 110B commands a slightly higher price, where the 900's are usually very inexpensive.

Actually, with the back design I have created, the top finder area is completely clear; I have no problem with that, and it did not influence my choice of a Polaroid 900. So there would be no problem using that back on a 110A, or 110B. There would still be a need to re-set infinity focus, but not as tough as with other conversions.

The 900 is definitely cheaper. The stock lens and electronic shutter really are not very good, though maybe comparible to my 250 Automatic. The 127mm on the 110A/B is actually quite good, though I think a Xenar 135mm is better.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Ash]

Dean can provide a CD full of images (if not instructions) on converting polaroids. Ask him, you might be able to get one - may save you making a few costly mistakes!

[Gordon Moat]

Dean is a very good resource for these conversions, as Ash points out. There is also a nice build thread for Ash's Razzle on this forum, with many very good images showing aspects of construction. Highly recommended.

Costs are somewhat relative to ideas, or procedures. If you cut away metal, it is tough to add it back later. If you leave cuts slightly thicker than needed, you can always trim off weight later. I am leaving the Polaroid 900 body intact, though I could have cut the edge off like so many conversions. Everything else is 6061 T-6 aluminum, with a little brass in places; worst thing so far is breaking two milling cutters.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Kuzano]

Actually, with the back design I have created, the top finder area is completely clear; I have no problem with that, and it did not influence my choice of a Polaroid 900. So there would be no problem using that back on a 110A, or 110B. There would still be a need to re-set infinity focus, but not as tough as with other conversions.

Gordon,

Nice web site... love the auto shots... particularly like the bright yellow Chevy Grocery Getter, but there's some fairly exotic machinery posted. Also, I spend some time in Santa Fe with a camera about 15 years ago. I think I also have a shot of that grocery store.

RE: your comment on the back you designed that fits the 110/110A w/o obscuring the rangefinder (2nd) window. Do you have a pic you would share, or are you doing conversions on these. I have a couple of 110A's I would like to modify without changing the top of the camera's. What format are you using in a way that does not interfere with the rangefinder? Thanks.

I have the disk from Dean. He was selling them on eBay a couple of years ago.

[Hollis]

I would go with stingray leather, looks great and is waterproof!