Fuji Film in Polaroid 545 holder

[paul owen]

I was hoping to pick a few brains here! I understand that the Polaroid 545 PRO holder is compatible with Fuji Quickload film. Is there anyone using the older, all metal, 545 holder with Quickload film? Any issues/problems/quirks? Any info greatly appreciated! TIA Paul

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes it works fine, though the Fuji holder holds the film flatter than the old Polaroid does. I don't know about the newer Polaroid Holders.

[paul owen]

Thanks! I understand that the Fuji holder has a "pressure" plate of sorts - but when using the lens at (say) f22 I'm hoping that any "discrepancy" will be dealt with by using the small aperture!

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Paul

I used it in the past but was not happy with the results. I used it 3-4 times and got 2 sheets with lightleaks and sometimes unsharpness can't recomand it!
With the original Fuji holder its really a improvement, sharp results and no lightleaks!
Good luck!

[David Karp]

I have used the older 545 holder with Fuji Quickloads with no leak problems.

My buddy who is a professional photographer has run an awful lot of Quickloads through his 545 with the same results.

[Jay]

I have been an architectural photographer for some 35 years. My experience has been to the contrary. I have found thatFuji Qucikloads and Kodak readyloads are sharper in the 545 holder than either the Fuji or Kodak holders.

Just my experience.

[Scott Rosenberg]

jeff... glad to see i'm not the only one... i used to use both fuji and kodak packet film in my 545i holder. i also used fuji film in a fuji holder. the only problems i ever had with film flatness were with the fuji holder. NEVER with the 545i. i've since switched to cut film holders - film is flat, i'm sending less waste to the landfills, and it's less expensive.

[Will Strain]

My old metal 545 works quite nicely with quickloads or readyloads. No flatness problems at all I've been able to discern... and fewer bent clips than I was getting with my readyload holder.

[Paul Butzi]

At one point, I measured the film positioning of a bunch of holders, including measuring the position of readyloads and quickloads in the Kodak holder readyload holder, in fuji quickload holder, and in my two Polaroid 545i holders.

The kodak and fuji holders were right on the money compared to my grafmatics and standard Fidelity/Lisco/Riteway holders.

Readyloads and quickloads were off by amout 1mm. I have had long arguments with Steve Simmons, who insists that this is not sigificant.

Both the Fuji and Kodak holders use a spring loaded pressure plate to index the film forward against a stop (ensuring good film position and flatness), the Polaroid holder uses springs to push the packet back (the source of the positioning error and the source of the film flatness problems as well).

When I use Readyloads or Quickloads, I use a Kodak single sheet Readyload holder. I will not use either of my Polaroid holders for readyloads or quickloads.

If I care a lot about film flatness for some reason, I load up grafmatics, which appear to me to give the best film flatness and positioning of all the options I have available.

Be aware that the size of the exposed area varies with different holders. The polaroid holder gives a slightly larger image area than either the Kodak or Fuji holders, but because the film is not pressed tightly against the edge of the aperture, the edges of the exposure are not quite as sharply defined.

The Polaroid holders are significantly bulkier and heavier than the Kodak and Fuji holders. Last time I checked prices, they were significantly more expensive, too.

[Paul Butzi]

You might find www.butzi.net/reviews/readyquick.htm helpful as well.