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!!

[cyrus]

I think >$1000 makes sense. It just isn't worth that much more for that level of camera.

Very true. Frankly I can't believe that anyone can get away with asking several thousand dollars for such a conversion job. The conversion had better come back gold plated to cost that much. No way was I going to pay thousands for this - especially when my regular ol' Super Speed Graphic did a fine job of handheld 4x5 photography by itself. But the Polaroid conversion is smaller, lighter, easier to carry etc so it particularly suits my needs as I am planning some rather long trips.

Now I have had to stock up on grafmatics and less expensive 4x5 film since obviously this particular obssession is going to cost me dearly...Oh, so very very dearly...

[Wayne]

Nyeahhh, after looking at this more closely, like all good ideas it soon degenerated into a lot of work and/or a lot of expense. I think I'll keep my 180 intact as an amusing diversion, and spend all that money on an 11x14. Or on my latest harebrained idea, building an 11x14 connversion back for my 8x10, which would probably be cheaper/easier than the Polaroid conversion.


Wayne

[cyrus]

I wouldn't want to do this conversion myself. However Dean of Razzle does sell a CD on Ebay about how to convert your own polaroids. I haven't seen it.

[Bill_1856]

Is Polaroid 665 gone?

[Wayne]

It is going going going or gone gone gone, or transitioning from one to the other. I believe they said it was going to be discontinued in about June. I bought my 180 3 months before I heard that, otherwise i wouldnt have bought it.

Wayne

[Donald Qualls]

Well, essentially, it's gone when whatever stock is left is sold out. Both 85 and 665 ceased production last year, after the film stock that was used for their negatives was discontinued (either by Polaroid or by an outside supplier, I don't know which). Type 55 was unaffected because it uses a different, slower negative stock that's apparently still available (or that Polaroid still has good stock level on, at least).

Hey, Wayne, if you need to get rid of a 180, I'd pay shipping to receive it. :)

[Wayne]

Polaroid told me they were stopping because there was no profit in it anymore. Its all the same to me, its just as gone no matter which story is true. I resisted stocking up on it (so far) so I could go cold turkey.

Thanks for the offer Donald, I am trying to clean house so I can sell. Can I interest you in some old bicycle parts instead? I only get rid of seemingly obsolete photographic equipment when in utter desperation, because I know there will always come a "Dohhhh!" moment later on. Dont ask me how I know this...

Wayne

[Dean Jones]

Hi Cyrus.
Your 110B finder should be able to handle parallax error down to 3 feet. I`m not sure who did the conversion, but it`s quite possibly a comrade in the similar pursuit of 4x5 Polaroid conversions as opposed to the Ogre.
I can get the finder to compensate for parallax at distances as close as 2 feet with a little tweaking.
Many thanks to Frank, blimey after all this complimentary stuff, his future camera upgrades will come awefully cheap!
Converting the old Polaroids isn`t rocket science and I agree for what the camera is, a grand is just about the ceiling unless you especially want a later lens. A 90mm f6.8Angulon has proven very popular for the wide angle view as well as the 150mm for potraiture. The waffle surrounding the original Polaroid`s 127mm and its ability regarding sharpness is hoo-haa and should be discounted. As for 'Bokeh', my Japanese camera tech says Bokeh is 'hokey pokey' and it`s equally unimportant.
Without getting into hi tech, that amazing 40 plus year old lens (the 127mm) does a fine job, just check out Frank`s images of Tiana.
I`m currently trying to get a 180mm in there somehow, just for Frank................

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for the offer Donald, I am trying to clean house so I can sell. Can I interest you in some old bicycle parts instead? I only get rid of seemingly obsolete photographic equipment when in utter desperation, because I know there will always come a "Dohhhh!" moment later on. Dont ask me how I know this...

Don't need any old bicycle parts at this time (though I'm sure I'll find myself wishing I had some within the next six months, I don't have any place to store them in the interim).

And I know perfectly well how you know the rule about "obsolete" equipment. I've learned stuff I sold/traded/gave away as broken was easily repairable, a few months after the fact, on several occasions, and I've got a good bit of "obsolete" camera stuff around here that I periodically find to be exactly what I need -- including a Polaroid 350 and a 210 converted to auto-exposure pinhole.

[cyrus]

Hi Cyrus.
Your 110B finder should be able to handle parallax error down to 3 feet

Heck Dean, if there was a way to put a modern lens on this while allowing the camera to close easily, then I'd be another one of your customers!

Indeed, I haven't had any problems with the lens. I suspected that it may be soft at the edges based on some other photos taken by 4x5 conversions, but perhaps that's due to the schneideritis? The paralax issue is probobly fine down to 3 ft but I haven't tried anything closer than 6ft. In any case I have no complaints. My biggest issue is that I am experiencing some pretty weird convergences of vertical lines when photographing the tall, tall buildings in NYC due to the lack of movements! Can you build some movements in this camera? That would be genius!

[Donald Qualls]

I read a post on nelsonfoto.com this morning (with a link to photo.net (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FJ7R)) from Diwan Bhathal about a successful 4x5 conversion of a pack-film Polaroid. Apparently he was able to make the rangefinder work with a 127 mm lens (I see from the photos that he's moved it and attached some kind of unit on the lower front), and cover the full 4x5.

His is a lot lighter and more compact than a 110B, too...