polaroid to 4x5 conversions.

[dikaiosune01]

I know there are a few people who do these conversions. I was wondering if it is possible to do something similar myself.

Camera polaroid 800 land camera.

Everything else is a blank slate.

Can anyone confirm if 127mm is the correct focal length that will match the rangefinder?
I need detailed instructions to read how to take apart this camera and attaching a new lens (shutter will be built in)
ill then need to figure out how to attach my film holders to the camera.

At this point it seems like such a big task. If you believe it is impossible for someone with minimal experience please be blunt.

[LF4Fun]

you can find a lot of information on the web, google is your friend.
I learn a lot from this site (http://moominsean.blogspot.com/2009/05/polaroid-110a-covertomation.html) when I did my conversion.

[cyrus]

I use a 110b converted with a 4x5 back - it is fantastic. Only problem is matching the viewfinder image to the photo

[Nathan Appel]

It's hard to do a 4x5 conversion with little experience, in my experience! But, EASY to do 3.25x4.25 conversion!!! The link LF4Fun gave is perfect!!

[ic-racer]

After shooting Fuji instant film in my Polaroid, and trying some hand-held 4x5 with my Horseman, I found that for my purposes just using the Polaroid with the instant film is the way to go.

[Robert Hughes]

There are older threads here you may want to check, for instance: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=46414

There are plenty of conversion discussions on the WWW also, for instance http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/how2-packconv.htm

Check out the Razzle conversions also, to see some successful projects: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/index.html

My impression is that they're not worth the trouble of conversion, since there are so many purpose-built 4x5 cameras available for cheaper - and don't require a lot of machining - but the coolness factor of showing up with a Polaroid to shoot with can be attractive.

I have a Polaroid 900 that somebody just gave me from an estate. The lens on the 900, according to Internet rumor, is a Tominon 117mm triplet (that almost but not quite covers 4x5) with a kinda stupid shutter that is marked in EV rather than f/stop and shutter speed. But the film gate fits a 4x5 sheet of film just fine, and the rangefinder is dead on (for the peculiar built in lens; if you want to put another focal length lens on it you have to grind a new rangefinder cam to work). I took the camera out of storage this morning, slapped a sheet of 4x5 in it and shot a picture to see if I can use it as a 1-shot wonder (as I'd need to reload it in a changing bag). I'll let you know if it comes out OK.

edit: One of these Polaroids should also work OK with 4x5 paper negatives. Just place a sheet in the film gate and shoot.

edit: You know, that Polaroid 110 or 900 might work OK as a 4x5 enlarger - you wouldn't need to cut it up, all it needs is a lamp behind it and a support frame to snug down the film. That might be the best use of an old Polaroid.

[EdWorkman]

I am plodding along, intermittently, with a conversion
The lens was affixed into the cast front standard. I like the way the standard is connected to the bed- it unfolds neatly and is quite rigid. The standard inself is a pain account the simple lens is affixed directly to the casting, as are shutter parts etc.
I figure if I mess with the assembly to try to make a simple clean panel that i will screw up the best part.
So I ripped all that off and lined drilled around the lens mount area, then hogged out the hole to size and removed the bumps from the drill holes- yes, verrrrry ugly.
Then I epoxied a Pentax K mount over the hole and painted the rest flat black .
Verrrrry ugly, but it's kind of a "proof of concept". If I had a milling machine I might have used an endmill to clear the surface of the various bumps, studs, posts that held parts, but I don't, I had flatblack paint. AFTER I affixed the mount ring I thought perhaps I might have used the original cover plate, somehow, with shims and epoxy? and glued the Kmount to the front of THAT. If I get thru this relatively unscathed, i.e.; prove it, might attack the next body to make a nicer front thingy, or stick the old coverplate back on.
I have a 150 Fujinar and a 127 Ektar for which I haven't completely figured a way to affix Pentax K lensmount rings - I'm not ready to just use epoxyForever. [Another project that can use the K mounts is a 3A folding Brownie- postcard size negs]. That and because I read about conversions using modern lenses that require the front element to be removed to allow the door to close, so I figured heck I'd hate to find that I needed to do the same when I was essentially done, so I started on the premise I could remove [and interchange] the whole lens.
The film gate is too small for 4x5, but as I will use standard 4x5 holders, the film plane will be farther back where there is a bigger image, and I think all the available film area. The minimum focal length difference from the original lens to the Ektar is about +3/8 inch, and I presume I can get more with an RF reset.
There are several sites on the web about re-setting the rangefinder, so I'm not concerned.
What DOES concern me, is that the completed camera will probly be not much better than a speed graphic, except ease of erecting the front standard, and I hope, a brighter, easier to use rangefinder. The PolaZoid may be a little heavier, even after all those plates and rollers are removed. At least it will use the same film and holders so i can choose which works best for what.
Or maybe next I'll do/start one for 120 rollfilm, 6x11-ish, or 116 size on 70mm [that's in the freezer].
Good luck
Ed

[sully75]

I'm fairly handy and I ended up selling all the parts I had. It's a lot of work for an uncertain outcome. I'd say either buy a conversion buy someone who does them reguarly, or buy a Mamiya or Fuji MF rangefinder. They are likely to be a lot more accurate, focusing wise, and the negative size isn't all that much different.

[LF4Fun]

Verrrrry ugly, but it's kind of a "proof of concept".

I had the same idea but using olympus lens instead :)



The film gate is too small for 4x5, but as I will use standard 4x5 holders,

you can shim the new back i.e. move it back; I think around 3/8in should be sufficient.



What DOES concern me, is that the completed camera will probly be not much better than a speed graphic, except ease of erecting the front standard, and I hope, a brighter, easier to use rangefinder.

IMHO- the Polaroid kind feel right hand-holding; bigger focusing knob.

[LF4Fun]

I'm fairly handy and I ended up selling all the parts I had. It's a lot of work for an uncertain outcome. I'd say either buy a conversion buy someone who does them reguarly, or buy a Mamiya or Fuji MF rangefinder. They are likely to be a lot more accurate, focusing wise, and the negative size isn't all that much different.

I can relate. Sometimes a fun project turns into PITA real fast :D

[John Koehrer]

It's the challenge. Someone says it's too hard and after your weeks of work "IT'S ALIVE!"

[sully75]

yeah I guess it ends up being whether it's about the camera or the pictures. I was just stuck with all this junk and realized it was stopping me from taking pictures. I had another half plate camera that I was going to convert to a 5x7 then realized it wasn't big enough and then I was going to make a 4x5 back for it and then I was like...I have 6 cameras that can do what this will do, why don't I take pictures with those.

I would love a Razzle 900 with a 125 and the viewfinder totally dialed in but it's down low on my list of priorities.

I think one thing that's really awesome about shooting LF is putting the thing on the tripod and looking through the ground glass. As much as I would love to have a handheld 4x5, in the end with any viewfinder you are looking through a viewfinder...

[goodfood]

Check with (Chinese Photography) magazine March 2008, p150-153.Show how to convert it with pictures. Hope you can find that issue.

[Frank Petronio]

Of the lot, I like the Dean Jones Razzledog conversions, although you can spend more on other conversions. I prefer the older metal Graphic Graflock backs instead of the clever home-made backs though, and I like the Graflex folding metal focusing hood to protect the ground glass. These add weight but what good is the camera if it isn't rugged and easy to carry around?

The rangefinders are not fun to keep in adjustment and the overall camera design is not that robust so I wonder at the effort and prices people pay when a $250 Crown Graphic is a much more versatile camera that is only slightly bulkier?

[sully75]

Frank I've heard the Crown rangefinders are not so amazingly accurate either. Is that not your experience?

[Frank Petronio]

They all suck but a top rangefinder Crown is a lot better than the Polaroid and quite bulletproof. The Linhof Technika has the best rangefinder of them all but at a price.

[LF4Fun]

They all suck but a top rangefinder Crown is a lot better than the Polaroid and quite bulletproof. The Linhof Technika has the best rangefinder of them all but at a price.

Frank,
can you elaborate on the Polaroid RF's weaknesses? (just for my own curiosity, maybe I can find a way to improve it)

thanks

[Frank Petronio]

I had two converted 110a (or b, can't recall) to 4x5 cameras and the RF was always drifting out of wack. Everytime I set up I had to ground glass loupe it and then adjust with a screwdriver to hit infinity.

Versus a Crown that can bounce around in the trunk for two years and work reliably every time.

[LF4Fun]

I had two converted 110a (or b, can't recall) to 4x5 cameras and the RF was always drifting out of wack. Everytime I set up I had to ground glass loupe it and then adjust with a screwdriver to hit infinity.

Versus a Crown that can bounce around in the trunk for two years and work reliably every time.

thanks. It must be my ignorant :D but I always thought that as long as the close distance ( < 20ft ) is spot on, I don't need to worry about the infinity.

[Frank Petronio]

With a lot of these they will track well for close distances and then be off on the far and vice-versa.

In the end, because I like to shoot wide-open with little margin for error, I gave up on doing handheld work unless I was at middle distances and stopping down. For landscapes it's fine, for people it's not ideal.

[EdWorkman]

LF4Fun reminded me about the focus. I am beating on a 150. I had a chance to focus one before I bought one and the focus knob is indeed convenient.
Then I got a 900 with the single window rangefinder, only to discover the fcous wheel on the side of the door is not nearly as convenient for my hands. The lens holding standard seems not as solid as the 150, but I assume is good enough- maybe better as it must save a few ounces. So I haven't bashed that one yet. I also got a 95b or 800 or whatever, the one with the stuck-on Kalart. I plan to use that separately in any case, um, "real soon now".