What is so great about a converted Polaroid camera?

[W K Longcor]

Since following this forum, I've seen a lot of mention of old Polaroid cameras converted to 4X5 for use as a hand held camera. There seem to even be several camera technicians doing these rebuilds on a commercial scale. Now, I'm not finding fault -- just curious. To me those old model 900, etc. were among the heaviest, CLUNKIEST camera design mistakes to ever come along. With all the used 4x5 graphics to choose from, WHY would anyone prefer to work with one of these Polaroid monsters? I mean -- they are twice as heavy as a Graphic, you still have a bellows, the rangefinder is NOT any improvement over the graphic rangefinder,etc. In my mind, there are more negative than positive features with the old Polaroids -- so WHY? Somebody please educate me on this one.

[Graybeard]

Since following this forum, I've seen a lot of mention of old Polaroid cameras converted to 4X5 for use as a hand held camera. There seem to even be several camera technicians doing these rebuilds on a commercial scale. Now, I'm not finding fault -- just curious. To me those old model 900, etc. were among the heaviest, CLUNKIEST camera design mistakes to ever come along. With all the used 4x5 graphics to choose from, WHY would anyone prefer to work with one of these Polaroid monsters? I mean -- they are twice as heavy as a Graphic, you still have a bellows, the rangefinder is NOT any improvement over the graphic rangefinder,etc. In my mind, there are more negative than positive features with the old Polaroids -- so WHY? Somebody please educate me on this one.

What Professor Longcor said -

[Dan Fromm]

Beats me too, but I'm just an ignorant barbarian.

Making and using them seem like harmless activites and make the converters and users happy. Tastes differ, so if they're happy I'm happy for them even though I wouldn't do what they did.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Supposedly a well-converted 110B can be about a pound and a half lighter than a Crown, with a frame-line parallax-correcting viewfinder/rangefinder. That'd be sufficiently interesting right there. Too, these Polaroid roll film bodies--some with quite good lenses--could once be found for virtually free.

Instead, I have a Meridian 45CE prototype with a wire hoop sports finder and Kalart RF. It sees double duty as both a technical camera and handheld one. Quite pleasant and manageable with a 135mm f/5.6 Caltar IIN and Grafmatic. I've just now got the RF adjusted for a 210mm f/5.6 Caltar IIN and have shot this handheld, too. (Not exactly featherweight, though.)

[Steven Tribe]

There appear to be people like the concept and who actually use them. Not me! Be warned, these makers bite hard.

I always hated the models from Polaroid, but the SX70 was a nice design (compared with its forerunners).
People with artistic interests should use more time on Autochrome production rather than the Impossible project and these cameras.

[Corran]

Love mine.
Don't know what all the hate about them is.

[Frank Petronio]

I think people who want to get into large format - or return to it after years away - are attracted to the "small, light, easy handheld" aspect of the converted Polaroids. After all, it sounds less intimidating than large, heavy, complex and tripod-mounted.

Most of them bail after a short while, or their camera sits unused. Because large format will never be as easy or as fast as a smaller roll-film or digital compact but they make these rationalizations inspite of reality. They are trendy, just like Speed Graphics and Aero-Ektars. That's not a bad thing as it brings more people into large format photography but I bet most of these posers never use more than a couple boxes of film before giving up.

I know because I've tested... a handheld 6x9 will almost always be sharper than a handheld 4x5 in the final print. A Fuji 6x9 rangefinder or perhaps the Mamiya 7 or that newer Fuji/Bessa folder... those will be the sharpest handheld film cameras for landscapes and outdoor portraits at reasonable distances. Sharper than your Polaroid or Crown or even a Linhof (and I've owned multiples of all three and shot hundreds of sheets through them all).

The eccentric William Littmann made quite a splash with his expensive, luxury Polaroid conversions that he sold to Brad Pitt and other well-heeled celebrities. How much you want to bet that Brad's is sitting on the shelf somewhere? But yet people continue to buy these expensive conversions with stellar, top $$$ outsized optics and exotic leather trims.

And the ironic thing is that those heavy, bulky, "complex" tripod-mounted cameras are actually faster and easier to use once you know what you are doing, provided you can manage their size. I'm not going to argue that carrying 40lbs of gear is easier than 10lbs, but once it is in place - a nicely set-up professional camera will always outshoot the flyweight in the actual photography.

I'm sure someone will shout out that I'm full of it, but before doing so, please show us some modern handheld Polaroid 4x5 conversion shots that are truly good, sharp, shake-free, in-focus pictures - something that upholds the sales proposition of getting 4x5 quality without the fuss/muss. I've been around sucking up photography for almost 30 years now and I haven't seen any yet.

Prove me wrong and I'll lick the floor! Com'on Corran, before our dog pees!

[Corran]

I knew you were going to chime in Frank!! :)

I actually have a handful of handheld 4x5 chromes being processed right now that I shot over Labor Day weekend. I wasn't intending to shoot any landscapes but I ended up taking a couple of detours to some nice locations and made a few shots. Okay a few weren't handheld but I did climb up a 45 degree incline for several miles to a nice waterfall with nothing but the 4x5 Polaroid, some E100VS, and a tripod. Oh and my D800 with a 35mm. Lots of fun, and light, screw my Chamonix! (I brought the Chamonix last time I hiked there with 6 lenses and cursed it).

However if you want some NOW:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k71vT1uNeWg/T3csar8UJZI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/q8qzTuVtl58/s1600/0208ss.jpg
Handheld, no flash, f/4 if I remember, RF focused, sorry about the bad scan.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xD4_HKBxRd0/T3q61uEBjqI/AAAAAAAAAtg/Yeo0m2_XaLM/s1600/0212ss.jpg
Handheld with flash. I think you've eaten your hat before after I posted this one?? ;)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hRbzunIeaoU/Tv5i636gS8I/AAAAAAAAAZI/pHMna8uniN8/s1600/0148+%2528Custom%2529.jpg
This was my first sheet with it. Maybe not critically sharp? Just testing it!

I can't scan my Fujiroids worth a flip so don't judge those.

As it happens, I've shot Speeds/Crowns handheld and never seem to quite get anything in focus. Maybe it's just my preferences but I think the Polaroid RF is TONS better than a Kalart or top-mounted Graphic.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah it was bait, wasn't it? But Dude, no offense... just that my floor is still dirty and my breath is still minty fresh.

Why bother fussing with the 110? - just use the D800, it is better - nobody cares how hard you worked. Polaroids are disposable medium anyway, just use Instagram, same thing.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/05/no-one-cares-how-hard-you-worked.html

[Alan Gales]

To each their own but sheet film is too expensive for me to shoot hand held. Give me my Ries tripod and no wind! :)

[Corran]

Dude, no offense but my floor is still dirty and my breath is still minty fresh!

Why bother fussing with the 110? - just use the D800, it is better - nobody cares how hard you worked!

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/05/no-one-cares-how-hard-you-worked.html

Yeah but it's not as much fun.

I'm really on the fence lately about renouncing all the commercial work I do (digital, obviously) and just shooting film for my own enjoyment honestly. I love the D800E, I do, but it just doesn't give me the satisfaction like shooting film, be it 135 or 8x10.

[Frank Petronio]

I admit, I used to have Razzledog and Dean Jones is a peach of guy.

80573

[Alan Gales]

But Frank, you cheated and used a Gitzo!

[lbenac]

Like Corran I am partial to my Chamonix Saber with a couple of grafmatics and a light carbon tripod or monopod when hiking.
Don't get me wrong, when I am up there I would love to have my 45N2, front tilt and four lenses. My back just disagree with the concept, that's all.
But yes the Saber is a lot lighter than the other conversions.

Depending on the mood, I will substitute it for the Mamiya 7 and two lenses.

I like having the choice to pick one or the other and I am a whimp when it comes to medium or heavy loads when hiking - comes from screwing two discs after 20 years of mixed martial arts I guess...

Cheers,

Luc

[Frank Petronio]

To each their own but sheet film is too expensive for me to shoot hand held. Give me my Ries tripod and no wind! :)

I had to blow several hundred sheets to realize that myself ;-p


But yes the Saber is a lot lighter than the other conversions.

Gotta admit that they are pretty cool cameras!

[Alan Gales]

Understandable, Luc. I had a back fusion back in 94.

I wheel my 8x10 Wehman around in a cordura tool bag and I don't go far.

[Bill Burk]

A Polaroid conversion I use weighs 3 pounds 2 ounces, add 1 pound per Grafmatic and 1/2 pound for lightmeter. 2 pound tripod optional. It's slender and fits into a very small pack. I throw it in the car when we go away on day trips and (since I have practice) I can pull it out, open and shoot pretty quickly. After the shot it goes back in the pack where it's ready, without advertising me as anybody but just another dad out there with his kids. It gets used a lot, I've got enough empty boxes to think I've shot 1,000 sheets. When people comment I just say "thanks" and if they ask what it is I mutter something like "it's an old Polaroid"... if pressed, I'll unhook the Graflok and show them there's nothing inside, kind of like a magic trick.

It can be part of a "one-camera, one-lens" project. Many times, it is the only camera I have on-hand. Lately I avoid using the cellphone camera at the same time. On soccer parade day I missed a shot because I was fiddling with the cellphone. Kids went by while I was setting phone to black and white mode to "preview" flare. Had to run to a new spot to catch the kids again. So I stopped using cellphone camera for previews. I also avoid bringing multiple cameras. One day at Disneyland I carried both 35mm and 4x5 and at the end of the day I'd forgotten to take it out. Sure the 35mm shots from the day are nice. But it sucked that I had zero 4x5 shots. The camera was on my back the whole time. Next time I made a point of only bringing one camera, and I'm happy with the results.

Handheld wasn't my goal. I always plan on using tripods. But I'll shoot it handheld in a pinch. I wanted the 4x5 look because I was dissatisfied with graininess of 35mm fine grain black and white. I wanted a lightweight 4x5 camera that I could bring backpacking. Extra points if total weight could be less than the 35mm Olympus gear that I would normally carry.

Everything I shoot 4x5 is with the conversion. This shot at 1/300th has no motion blur. The dress itself screams sharpness, every black line comes to a razor's point. This may seem like a technical exercise, but it's actually a kind of shot I've wanted to get for a long time. Wedding photos are part of what made me wish I used 4x5 more often...

http://www.beefalobill.com/images/IMG_7919s.jpg
Bride to-be, Heisler Park, Laguna Beach

[C. D. Keth]

What's so great about polaroid conversions? It's a problem solver for some people. If that camera allows somebody to achieve a photographic goal like hiking deeper somewhere, shooting more, greater spontaneity- whatever it might be- I'm all for it.

[Drew Bedo]

Folks! To each his own!

All of photography is a wonderful place. There are many ways to do photography and thee is something for almost everyone.

I was initially attracted by the hand-held RF conversions as I also have an attraction to the older 120 film medium format folders of the 1930-1950 vintage. I still like the concept—BUT.

I found the Polaroids to be . . .well, not thst handy (for me and the high-endconversions are pricy. If there was a real market for a LF Bessa-II (substitute the name of your own favorite folder)in 4x5 format, someone would be making a purpose designed compact 4x5 from modern lightweight materials. Lomo/Holga doesn't even make some plastic abomination in 4x5.

The above is ment to say that converted Polaroids are not my cup of tea.


Lets just leave ecveryone to create images as they choose; with the format, materials and equipment they choose. Just show us the images.

[Drew Bedo]

Oh yeah . . .Regarding Polaroid conversions:

The drama on this board and elswhere in the early 2Ks was entertaining but bloody. lets not go back.

Respectful Cheers to Everyone.

[Matus Kalisky]

Bill, that is a great portrait.

[ic-racer]

I know because I've tested... a handheld 6x9 will almost always be sharper than a handheld 4x5 in the final print.

I have observed similar results, hand-holding with available light. The one case where this does not stand up is when using a powerful rapid xenon flash.

[Bill Burk]

Bill, that is a great portrait.

Thanks Matus!

[Bill Burk]

p.s. Frank, I'm proud of that shot, but it's only one shot, the only one that even compares to what you do. Your portfolios are amazing and I'll never come close. But I have no problem getting sharp shots. I just use 1/300th all the time. I keep an eye on the light when I'm out and when 1/300 f/4.7 doesn't work... The camera goes in the pack and I pick up the conversation.

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks. A lot of my work was 4x5 handheld, I certainly understand the attraction of doing it. I'm just saying that in most cases, a good medium format camera will outperform the 4x5 in a side-by-side practical real world situation.

But yes, a handheld 8x10 Gowlandflex and 64,000 watts of strobe at f/32 would probably trump all. I'm just talking about common usage and mainstream gear. If you simply want good pictures from a light, compact package that can be handheld, I would stick to 6x7 or 6x9 medium format.

[zx42b8]

Frank,
You are talking about the Fuji 6x9, but it seems that a Fuji 6x7 also exists. The latter would be a good competitor to a converted 4x5 Polaroid, don't you think ?
Alain

[Frank Petronio]

Yep, most people who own them agree that all the Fuji 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders are very sharp, nice cameras. So are the Mamiya 6 and 7 cameras and the newer Bessa folder (also made by Fuji).

[Drew Bedo]

In my dreamland, leica would have scaled up the M-4 to 220 formats and then 4x5.



Why not a Hasselblad scaled up to 4x5 (oh wate, Graflex already Did that a hundred years ago).

Wasen't the Mamya RB67 evolved from a 2 1/4 x3 1/4 Graflex?

Some of the early folding Kodak roll film cameras were almost 4x5.

Maybe they should adjust my medication again.

Only White Unicorns in the mist . . .

[Frank Petronio]

They already made the perfect camera in Rochester 60 years ago, only problem was it used 70mm film:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canuckshutterer/304345166/

The 70mm Combat Graphic was pretty close to ideal.

http://www.camerasdownunder.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_combat_graflex.jpg

[Bill Burk]

Over the summer I returned to my 6x9 and 35mm cameras...

It was fun and I got shots I like...

But I'm back to the 4x5 for next season.

Frank, you're right that handheld, there is a point below which you might as well have used a smaller format. I find some additional yield that 4x5 gives. A roll of 35mm gives a few good shots, a few rolls of 120 give a few good shots and a Grafmatic gives a few good shots.

[munz6869]

I took a 5x4" and a Fuji 6x8cm(!) rangefinder on travels in June/July, and the negs from the Fuji were great (sharp, contrasty, printable) - certainly (temporarily) dampened my enthusiasm for the perfect handheld 5x4"...

Marc!

[Bill Burk]

I should clarify that last statement. I find that, statistically, actuating the shutter on a 4x5 camera is more likely to yield me a printable picture than any other format I shoot. This will likely apply to any 4x5 camera, Speed Graphic included. It's possible that my statistical yield is driven by something unrelated to camera format. For example it may derive from some fixed number of ideas that I can come up with during a day of shooting.

With a Polaroid conversion you have to accept some syntax from 35mm. For example, lack of movements. This would be a deal-killer for many LF shooters. For example, I can't do Historic Records (HABS/HAER/HALS).

[Bill Burk]

I took a 5x4" and a Fuji 6x8cm(!) rangefinder on travels in June/July, and the negs from the Fuji were great (sharp, contrasty, printable) - certainly (temporarily) dampened my enthusiasm for the perfect handheld 5x4"...

Marc!

Just curious, are you talking color? I can imagine 6x8 color is amazing. My 6x9 folders are vintage Bessa II and Ikonta C, which don't perform that well in color. I don't shoot color anyway, all black and white. They stand up well to 4x5, but don't exceed it that often. Perhaps my limitations are the set of cameras I'm comparing.

[munz6869]

All B&W this time (mostly Fuji Acros) - I've just found I enjoy B&W more when I get back from a trip... Colour with the Fuji 90mm f/3.5 EBC lens (for which the cameras are merely a supporting platform) IS amazing though. They are seriously underrated cameras IMHO.

Marc!

[Frank Petronio]

The classic old 120 folders are great and can be sharp, but the Fujis (and Mamiyas) have pretty much state of the art modern lenses that are super sharp. Of course it also depends on scanning, darkroom techniques... But given that you can gain at least a couple stops advantage with the smaller cameras, they get pretty close or better quickly.

But yes if you shot in New Mexico sun at 1/500th @ f/16 then yeah, I'll concede that handheld 4x5 should have an edge. But once you start opening up and slowing down to 1/125, 1/60th at f/8 it gets real close and by the time you're slower or more open then it's game over, the small camera wins.

[Kuzano]

Frank,
You are talking about the Fuji 6x9, but it seems that a Fuji 6x7 also exists. The latter would be a good competitor to a converted 4x5 Polaroid, don't you think ?
Alain

The Fuji Rangefinders came in 6X7, 6x8, and 6X9....

The 680 was "home market" only, but they have made it into the US in some numbers and are occasionally found on eBay. The 670 and 690 were found in the interchangeable lens models, and the 670,680 and 690 were found in the GW and GSW fixed lens models. The 680 was found in GW... II and III.

The bodies were all the same exterior dimensions and only the film transports differed for the three formats.

[lbenac]

All B&W this time (mostly Fuji Acros) - I've just found I enjoy B&W more when I get back from a trip... Colour with the Fuji 90mm f/3.5 EBC lens (for which the cameras are merely a supporting platform) IS amazing though. They are seriously underrated cameras IMHO.

Marc!


I had a GW690 and a GSW690. Great cameras. Simple to operate and really solid. I use to carry both. Sometime gunslinger type. On a strap one on each shoulder under a jacket. From that aspect the Mamiya 7 with two lens is a more compact kit with the drawback of changing lens.
The funny thing is that I loved the 90/3.5 but could not really warm-up to the 65/5.6. Now that I have the Mamiya with very, very limited use, I love the 150mm but have not connected yet with the 65mm. I will give it sometime before considering going the 50mm + 80mm route in replacement of the 65mm.

One thing that I noticed is that the 4x5 can take a little bit of underexposure but the 6x9 did not.

Cheers,

Luc

[Bill Burk]

But once you start opening up and slowing down to 1/125, 1/60th at f/8 it gets real close and by the time you're slower or more open then it's game over, the small camera wins.

Yes, I agree. Focus errors and blur very quickly dissolve any advantage 4x5 has over 120. I think your dividing lines are right on.

[john biskupski]

A Razzle 110B or 900 4x5 conversion used with a grafmatik 6-shot back is a pretty good lightweight outfit which as posters have said above can also be used handheld with some success in the right conditions (light intensity, film speed) but obviously best results are when used with a tripod. The rangefinder is accurate so you don't need gg focussing. Easy to use also with the Fuji PA-145 polaroid back for those needing instant gratification (surprisingly important sometimes when shooting friends/family/strangers), although, as said before on previous threads here, the framing is a bit hit and miss with the small negative until you get used to it.

It's true that a Crown Graphic setup is not a whole lot bigger/heavier, plus you get (limited) movements, but the rangefinder's not great, and I wouldn't want to try using it handheld without flash. Probably a question of the right technique-I heard the old press photographers placed them on their shoulder for stability and sort of aimed roughly at their subject?

I agree with previous comments about more chance of sharp photos handheld by dropping down a format, but it also depends upon the camera ergonomics and the positioning and smoothness of the release mechanism in particular. Lots of folk here would agree that you can shoot sharp handheld shots with the Rollieflex because of those features, right down to 1/15 sec. You can't do that with a Mamiya in my experience, I've seen threads that you can't easily do it with the big heavy Fuji bodies, you can't do it with a Hasselblad SWC (and I've tried). Hard to do with many of the old folders too because of difficult ergonomics (camera tilt as you depress the release). I haven't tried the newish Bessa III, but I can say that the Plaubel Makinon 6x7 is stable handheld and with an ergonomic release. However, if you really really want to shoot film handheld and get really sharp shots, stick with 35mm, first choice Leica M, fast film, and accept grain.

[George E. Sheils]

Since following this forum, I've seen a lot of mention of old Polaroid cameras converted to 4X5 for use as a hand held camera. There seem to even be several camera technicians doing these rebuilds on a commercial scale. Now, I'm not finding fault -- just curious. To me those old model 900, etc. were among the heaviest, CLUNKIEST camera design mistakes to ever come along. With all the used 4x5 graphics to choose from, WHY would anyone prefer to work with one of these Polaroid monsters? I mean -- they are twice as heavy as a Graphic, you still have a bellows, the rangefinder is NOT any improvement over the graphic rangefinder,etc. In my mind, there are more negative than positive features with the old Polaroids -- so WHY? Somebody please educate me on this one.

Shuuuuuussshhhhh for goodness sake !

Do you want to wake the Littmeister?

[Steve Smith]

Do you want to wake the Littmeister?

Definitely. It would be fun...


Steve.

[Frank Petronio]

He's banned and his alises are easily spotted.

Yes a lot of cameras have designs that actually help increase shake or blur. I once spent a lot of money converting a nice Kodak Medalist II to use 120 film only to find that its stiff vertical release wanted to make the camera rotate as you fire off the shot. The cameras that have inward releases, like the Rollei or Hasselblad, did better in this regard. Also why the Fujis had two releases on their 690 series.

[jnantz]

He's banned and his alises are easily spotted.

what do you mean his alises are easily spotted, i always have trouble
realizing i have gotten a nigerian 419 letter that isn't in ALL CAPS


come to think about it, the moneys should be transfered in a few days from
BOTH the oil prince, and the portuguese lottery commission
( and i don't even remember going to portugal ) ...

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah I bet Brad Pitt really regrets giving him his PayPal address.

[E. von Hoegh]

Let's see, they cost more than a decent used Tecnika, they have woefully short bellows, you can't change lenses, they have no movements, they're not as versatile as a Speed Graphic, .....

[Corran]

Have you even used one?

They aren't replacements for a technical camera, obviously.

[Corran]

PS:

We all know that the best camera is the one you have with you. Ergo, if you're travelling really light and bring nothing but a 110 and some film, you are perfectly capable of making great photos, as long as you have the knowledge to work within its limitations.

[E. von Hoegh]

Have you even used one?

They aren't replacements for a technical camera, obviously.

I've handled a Razzle. I didn't like the name, liked the camera even less. Like all compromises they seem able to do nothing really well, and what they do acceptably can be done better with amost any other type of LF camera.

[Corran]

Well, horses for courses. My Alpenhaus works wonderfully in a variety of situations. I do wish the lens stopped down past f/22 for DOF considerations but that's my fault for wanting a fast f/3.5 lens.

The important thing, again, is that it's a nice single-FL camera (135mm), light, and easy to use. RF is dead-on, and it even has a GG back for more considered focus/composition.

[Bill Burk]

PS:

We all know that the best camera is the one you have with you. Ergo, if you're travelling really light and bring nothing but a 110 and some film, you are perfectly capable of making great photos, as long as you have the knowledge to work within its limitations.

Yes, this is a great feature. When I have it I feel capable of such superior shots compared to when the only camera with me is the cellphone. When I have the Bessa II, I feel capable of superior results. When I have the 35mm, I feel like a chipmunk. I am puzzled how people can live with rotten cellphone cameras even if they are multi-megapixel.

p.s. I thought you said allies are easy to spot. I am one of those, but not an alias. The opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of WL

[Frank Petronio]

I wouldn't kick an Alpenhaus out of bed either (he does a nice job) and I suppose putting a fairly expensive fast lens that prevents the camera from closing into a compact package has some value when you need that extra stop of speed.... But I wouldn't personally spend that kind of money on something like that after having "been there and done that" with several other exotic set-ups using modified cameras and uncommon lenses.

Nobody is stopping you from using yours though and I hope you get good results and make something significant with it.

It's just that from my experience, my opinion has come around to believing that conservative and relatively inexpensive "common-place" gear is almost always the best option ~ for me ~ but yes, I had a good time jerking off with all the SK Grimes modifications, Brass lenses, Italian cameras and what not. But nowadays please give me plain vanilla Sinars, Technikas, Graphics, Fuji RFs, Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Nikons and Leicas - Symmars and Copals, Kodak film, etc. - stuff that was popular in the day and is proven to simply work.

Frankly you can spend thousands of dollars and lots of time and film chasing something that either isn't significant or so transient that you can't afford to really shoot it effectively. But yes if you have deep pockets then load up a 100 sheets in Grafmatics and go shoot 4x5 like you have a motor drive and I bet you'll get a nice shot or two out of that pile of film. In my case I actually have tried to find ways to slow down and shoot slower when I used handheld 4x5 or I'd go broke. But go for it, it helps keep the film companies in business!

Same for the backpackers who obsessively count grams and buy Titanium forks and superlight and expensive cameras. It's really hard to say their pictures are better as a result, in fact if their packs were heavier and they slowed down maybe they'd do better photos!

And yes, sorry, good efforts but I still haven't seen any photographs that were made possible by all this gear obsession... most just look like something you could do with a $200 Graphic and so what's the big deal with busting your ass to get something fancier and more expensive if the results don't add up? ( I didn't do any better myself, my $1800 Verito was good at making mush.)

To each their own but in the case of newbies coming into large format, it would be really beneficial to steer them towards a conservative choice of gear rather than getting them all hopped up over some exotica.

[Corran]

Just an FYI, the Xenotar 135/3.5 does fit into the camera, without even removing the rear element or whatever.

I will admit that I essentially payed nothing for my Alpenhaus. I built one of the (trendy!) Aero-Speed cams for just about nothing, realized it was too damn heavy, so I needed a monopod, and still the lens was not as fast as advertised, so I sold it and used the money I made to buy the conversion. So I'm into the camera maybe $100. I think if I had paid some obscene amount for one of the conversions that Littman guy was doing I certainly would be a fool...

For me, the careful metering and consideration I do when shooting sheet film is the same whether I'm using the Polaroid, my Chamonix, or the 8x10, so I don't burn film like crazy.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hmmm http://www.apug.org/forums/forum380/110233-fs-rare-komura-152mm-f3-5-copal-no1-shutter.html

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Hmm… I didn't realize the Aero-Ektar/Speed was trendy. If I had known that, I might not have built one. Yes, it is heavy, nearly eleven lbs, but I do enjoy using it. I can't hand-hold it anymore, I need a tripod, so I really don't bother with the rangefinder. I use the GG to my advantage. I find that I'm using the 5x7 more and more, it weighs less than the AE/Speed.

[Alan Gales]

I like gear and lenses just as much as everyone else but I find the KISS method works best for me. KISS= Keep it simple, Stupid!

I end up concentrating better on my photography and less on gear.

Now the hard part of following my own advice! ;)

[Bill Burk]

I wouldn't kick an Alpenhaus out of bed either
...

Nobody is stopping you from using yours though and I hope you get good results and make something significant with it.

...

Same for the backpackers who obsessively count grams

...

And yes, sorry, good efforts

...

To each their own but in the case of newbies coming into large format, it would be really beneficial to steer them towards a conservative choice of gear rather than getting them all hopped up over some exotica.

I'd considered an Alpenhaus.
...
I hope I get something significant, time will tell.
...
One goal of counting grams in the standard backpack gear is being able to pack a heavy camera.
...
I'll take backhanded compliments, thanks. You are right. I could have carried a Speed Graphic and done exactly the same thing.
...
I don't want anyone to be foolish. You could say I was a fool for spending what I did on my camera. It's a fair assessment. I am happy to have it and make good use of it, but I believe in retrospect I would have been happy with any 4x5 field, press or technical camera.

[W K Longcor]

Now that we have gone past 50 replys and commentaries -- I really do want to assure one and all that I truly was asking a question -- not finding fault with any design or user of such equipment. I always thought that the 110 Polaroids -- particularly the B was a superior device. As a camera design, I was of the opinion ( you might not agree) that the 800 and 900 series cameas were more than a bit clunky. I'll bet a 4x5 convert of a 110 is a darn good camera. I am just not sure why anyone would think to "upgrade" a 900 to anything but a boat anchor. But, after all -- the photgraph is the important issue -- not the camera that helped to produce it!

[Corran]

Other than the focus knob being under the bed on the 110, instead of the front of the 900, aren't they basically the same camera?

*The 110A has separate VF and RF, the 110B and the 900 have the superior combined VF/RF, right?

[Peter York]

In my opinion the critical factor is assessing how often you want/need the combined rangefinder/viewfinder.

Frank is probably right on average, but many of us, myself included, won't/don't want to listen.

The flip side is that when you nail a shot on 4x5, it is sweet vindication.

[Jody_S]

I have a couple on a shelf upstairs, with a few spare backs to fit on them. They've been there for a couple of years now. After reading this thread, I'm still not 100% convinced I should put the work into it. Has anyone ever switched the lens/shutter out on a 900- series? I thought I might put in one of my spare Graflex or Ektar lenses left over from press cameras; on the plus side, it should be relatively easy to adjust the rangefinder as the focal length should be very similar to the Polaroid lens.

[john biskupski]

Other than the focus knob being under the bed on the 110, instead of the front of the 900, aren't they basically the same camera?

*The 110A has separate VF and RF, the 110B and the 900 have the superior combined VF/RF, right?

The 110B also has the f90 pinhole lens cover for the little 127/4.7 Ysarex lens. Dean Jones who makes the Razzle 4x5 Polaroid conversions reckons the 900 has the more accurate combined RF/VF w/parallax correction. The 900 conversions have also been fitted with some front swing/tilt/shift capability, not that it's a feature that's used much I imagine if you prefer to focus with the VF/RF and not the gg, especially as with hand held shots. But it's there if you want it. The 900 is a bit deeper and a little heavier than the 110 models, but not by much. There's been much disparaging of attempting handheld 4x5 shots, but if that's your thing, the Razzle offers a stable platform with shutter release by cable, so the release action does not move the camera. Less bulky than a Graphic. There a quite a few threads on the Razzles (I have no connection whatever) over on Photo.net which are quite explanatory, if that helps.

[Steve Smith]

The 110B also has the f90 pinhole lens cover for the little 127/4.7 Ysarex lens.

As did my 110A. I thought all of them had this.


Steve.

[W K Longcor]

The 110B also has the f90 pinhole lens cover for the little 127/4.7 Ysarex lens. Dean Jones who makes the Razzle 4x5 Polaroid conversions reckons the 900 has the more accurate combined RF/VF w/parallax correction. The 900 conversions have also been fitted with some front swing/tilt/shift capability, not that it's a feature that's used much I imagine if you prefer to focus with the VF/RF and not the gg, especially as with hand held shots. But it's there if you want it. The 900 is a bit deeper and a little heavier than the 110 models, but not by much. There's been much disparaging of attempting handheld 4x5 shots, but if that's your thing, the Razzle offers a stable platform with shutter release by cable, so the release action does not move the camera. Less bulky than a Graphic. There a quite a few threads on the Razzles (I have no connection whatever) over on Photo.net which are quite explanatory, if that helps.
Thanks -- That just about answers the question!

[cuypers1807]

I have been shooting 4x5 for almost 2 years. I started with a Chamonix 045n-2 and recently picked up a Razzle 900 from Dean Jones. For me I use my converted 900 for shots I wouldn't otherwise get in large format. It is not the easiest camera to use but the results are unique and different enough from 6x7 to make it worth it for me.

[Bill Burk]

I don't think these points have been mentioned...

The 900 has an easy (bright red "Press to Unlatch") open and close mechanism.

The 110 requires a bit of skill to open and close.

When you remove the back and the pressure plate, you lose a good deal of the dead weight.

[Corran]

Hey, here's a 4x5 chrome I shot on my Polaroid 900 conversion ;)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?33181-Rocks-and-stones&p=934369&viewfull=1#post934369

[Gordon Flodders]

I've used all manner of converted Polaroid 110B' and 900's over the past decade. You can take a look here to see the latest Australian versions:
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
If you think they might not result in sharp images hand held then have a look here:
http://www.pbase.com/image/111665555
I have the 900 dual focus, it's a completely different animal and Frank is correct, Razzledog is a peach to deal with.

GF.

[Frank Petronio]

Dean Jones is a truly great stand-up guy so if you do go this route definitely talk to him ~ I've seen some other nice conversions as well, no offense to anyone. My general cautions about them (and remarks that a good medium format camera will often produce superior results) are based on my experiences with owning two, plus several other handheld 4x5 cameras. I'll stand by that too but by all means try one if you get a chance, they are fun/cool cameras.

[Corran]

Every time I read "Razzledog" I think of some rapper's stage name.

Though that's probably influenced by the stupid video I'm editing here of a live rap performance. Yuck.

[Frank Petronio]

Ha he is a middle-aged Australian man who really loves his dogs and cameras! It's possible he has never heard rap music.

[Steve Smith]

It's possible he has never heard rap music.

Lucky man!


Steve.

[Bill Burk]

I heard some thumps coming from a car down the street, turned to my wife and said... "Sounds like Taylor Swift"...

One thing the conversions have in common that makes them so great...

The Grafmatic.

The one-pound film holder that holds 6 standard sheets of 4x5 film in a solid unit that is easy to advance quickly. Makes it easy to get ready to shoot, and take then next shot quickly if you need to fire off two shots. I don't know about firing six shots in succession because I usually only carry two for a day. But it can be done.

[Frank Petronio]

I used to use nothing but Grafmatics but found that in portrait sessions I could shoot them too quickly. Seriously, it gets too expensive and if you shoot like that, you should drop down a format. But regardless, WeeGee and thousands of other press photographers used them in handheld 4x5s for many years, before the Polaroids were even manufactured ;-p

[E. von Hoegh]

I used to use nothing but Grafmatics but found that in portrait sessions I could shoot them too quickly. Seriously, it gets too expensive and if you shoot like that, you should drop down a format. But regardless, WeeGee and thousands of other press photographers used them in handheld 4x5s for many years, before the Polaroids were even manufactured ;-p

And you can get a good Grafmatic for $75.

[John Kasaian]

Whats great about converted Polaroid cameras?
It keeps them out of the land-fill:rolleyes:

[Gordon Flodders]

Some land-fill :)


81421

GF.

[Gordon Flodders]

Seems to be quite a few uneducated LF's out there. Why is it Chris Usher has five converted Polaroids?

http://www.chrisusher.com/projects.html#id=album-14&num=1

Click on 'One of Us'

GF

[Dan Fromm]

Gordon, I took y'r advice and looked. Why couldn't those shots have been taken with a different camera?

Understand, I'm completely neutral about converted polaroid cameras. They don't seem to be for everyone, do seem to suit some very well.

[Frank Petronio]

If only WeeGee had one, how much better his shots would have been.

[Jody_S]

If only WeeGee had one, how much better his shots would have been.

Just think what he might have done if he'd had a monorail!

[Gordon Flodders]

Gordon, I took y'r advice and looked. Why couldn't those shots have been taken with a different camera?

Understand, I'm completely neutral about converted polaroid cameras. They don't seem to be for everyone, do seem to suit some very well.

I think it's due to the big bright single window rangefinder that allows for fast handheld use without need for a ground glass or tripod.
They're also one of the lightest 4x5's I know of.

GF.

[nonuniform]

Too true. Slow shutter speeds are the realm of smaller cameras when handheld. The same goes for focus and large apertures. I totally dig shooting my Xenotar at f/2.8, but it's a total crapshoot if the model moves an inch.

I'm a big fan of the Mamiya 6 and 7. I never liked the wide lenses on the Fuji's.


The classic old 120 folders are great and can be sharp, but the Fujis (and Mamiyas) have pretty much state of the art modern lenses that are super sharp. Of course it also depends on scanning, darkroom techniques... But given that you can gain at least a couple stops advantage with the smaller cameras, they get pretty close or better quickly.

But yes if you shot in New Mexico sun at 1/500th @ f/16 then yeah, I'll concede that handheld 4x5 should have an edge. But once you start opening up and slowing down to 1/125, 1/60th at f/8 it gets real close and by the time you're slower or more open then it's game over, the small camera wins.

[nonuniform]

I use the 4x5 for probably all the wrong reasons, one of which is that the cost of film makes me more selective with my shots. I just pay closer attention when I'm working at a portrait session. I could do that with any medium, it has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with my personality.

Then again, I like handling the camera, the film, it's just a process thing that I find pleasing. Again, nothing special about the camera in the photos I take. It's all personal choice.


In my opinion the critical factor is assessing how often you want/need the combined rangefinder/viewfinder.

Frank is probably right on average, but many of us, myself included, won't/don't want to listen.

The flip side is that when you nail a shot on 4x5, it is sweet vindication.

[E. von Hoegh]

Seems to be quite a few uneducated LF's out there. Why is it Chris Usher has five converted Polaroids?

http://www.chrisusher.com/projects.html#id=album-14&num=1

Click on 'One of Us'

GF

Because he likes gimmicks?

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Since following this forum, I've seen a lot of mention of old Polaroid cameras converted to 4X5 for use as a hand held camera. There seem to even be several camera technicians doing these rebuilds on a commercial scale. Now, I'm not finding fault -- just curious. To me those old model 900, etc. were among the heaviest, CLUNKIEST camera design mistakes to ever come along. With all the used 4x5 graphics to choose from, WHY would anyone prefer to work with one of these Polaroid monsters? I mean -- they are twice as heavy as a Graphic, you still have a bellows, the rangefinder is NOT any improvement over the graphic rangefinder,etc. In my mind, there are more negative than positive features with the old Polaroids -- so WHY? Somebody please educate me on this one.

Cheers!

Speed Graphics Forever!!!! :rolleyes: ;)

[Frank Petronio]

Because he likes gimmicks?

Ding Ding Ding

[E. von Hoegh]

Cheers!

Speed Graphics Forever!!!! :rolleyes: ;)

Yes indeedy!!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Yes indeedy!!

Ha Ha!

I believe most people get a converted Polaroid because they are unfortunately ignorant about the intuitive beauty of a Graphic!

[E. von Hoegh]

Ha Ha!

I believe most people get a converted Polaroid because they are unfortunately ignorant about the intuitive beauty of a Graphic!

And have more money than experience.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

And have more money than experience.

Hear Hear!

Too bad vintage Gowlandflexes can't take off as a fad!

[Corran]

I use both, at different times, for different things.

I know some find this hard to believe, but a converted Polaroid is smaller, faster, lighter, and has vastly superior vertical-orientation shooting ability over your garden variety Speed/Crown.

One of these days I'll grab an old 90mm, a tiny one, and get it put on a 900 model I picked up from a friend for $25 (unless Ben finishes up his project first). With that and my 135mm model I'd be set for most anything I'd want to shoot out in the wild. I could fit both cameras and enough holders for any outing in a small messenger bag.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hear Hear!

Too bad vintage Gowlandflexes can't take off as a fad!

You could market them to the hipster crowd for thousands. Tens of thousands...

[SpeedGraphicMan]

I use both, at different times, for different things.

I know some find this hard to believe, but a converted Polaroid is smaller, faster, lighter, and has vastly superior vertical-orientation shooting ability over your garden variety Speed/Crown.

One of these days I'll grab an old 90mm, a tiny one, and get it put on a 900 model I picked up from a friend for $25 (unless Ben finishes up his project first). With that and my 135mm model I'd be set for most anything I'd want to shoot out in the wild. I could fit both cameras and enough holders for any outing in a small messenger bag.

Sacrilege! Ban the heretic! ;)

I have used a 900 model as well, it was just not for me... To each his own!

[Corran]

Fair enough!

Honestly shooting (handheld) vertical portraits is the biggest thing for me...trying to hold a Speed sideways and all that just never works for me. I cradle the 900 with my left and adjust focus with my right, and pop the shutter with my thumb. Works like a charm, even down to pretty slow speeds. The torque action of trying to do it with a Speed (with the FP shutter trigger) always blurs everything even at moderate speeds. Of course with practice I might find a better way but the 900 just goes and so I have no reason to bother...

Of course this is all pointless with a tripod setup, but then, why even use a Graphic? Just grab the monorail or field camera and do it.

I still find a Kalart RF vastly inferior to the Polaroid RF. But that's just me, maybe others feel it is the opposite.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Honestly shooting (handheld) vertical portraits is the biggest thing for me...trying to hold a Speed sideways and all that just never works for me. I cradle the 900 with my left and adjust focus with my right, and pop the shutter with my thumb. Works like a charm, even down to pretty slow speeds. The torque action of trying to do it with a Speed (with the FP shutter trigger) always blurs everything even at moderate speeds. Of course with practice I might find a better way but the 900 just goes and so I have no reason to bother...

You need a handle with an electronic solenoid! That is what I use!

[patrickjames]

Yeah, they suck!

http://www.patrickjames.net/LFF/Saguaro4-Edit.jpg

Handheld, probably around 1/30th.


You guys sound like you are talking about me so I thought I would chime in here and tell you my thoughts since I have actually built and used them. This is going to be long I think.

I became interested in making a 110B conversion probably back in 2004 or so. I didn't have the money to buy one and wasn't all that serious about it at the time so I thought I would give a shot at building one. I didn't know squat about them back then but I picked up a 110B and had at it. First I tried to make the adapter for the back out of Delrin only to find out after routing and working it that you can't glue Delrin. Moving forward...... I saw a picture of the pack film conversion by Three Designs (I think they were called) and a lightbulb went off in my head. Why not use a Polaroid pack film back for the spacer between the camera and the film back? (Turns out I think this is how Littman does it but I didn't know at the time and I have never seen one of his cameras.) I had some laying around so I went to work and it fit right in with a little help. I eventually finished the first one. By that point a good year and a half had gone by and the poor thing had been built and rebuilt a few times at that point but it worked. In the meantime I had gathered a few other cameras to replace parts that I had ruined and thought, why not build one with a telephoto lens in it for portraits? After a bit of research I found out the Schneider 240 Tele-Arton would work and I started to cobble together parts to make it. Fast forward a bunch more time and I didn't want to put the effort into tweaking the rangefinder so I abandoned it and it sat there for quite a while. I had another lightbulb moment when I set down a 135mm Schneider Convertible Symmar next to the abandoned conversion. Why not? The result was a fine camera I still use. The rangefinder is from a 900, the body from a 800 and the bed is from a 110a. The back is from a Sinar Norma machined flat (Frank will appreciate that). It is a real bastard camera, but the focus is spot on. I built an absolutely beautiful/perfect one after this one for a friend to whom I owed a huge favor. I still have one left in me to build whenever I get the motivation and find a specific lens for it. Frankly though they are a pain to do and they take a lot of time.

So why bother you ask? I think they are great cameras and I hate tripods. They are really easy to handhold if they are built right. I have managed sharp images down to 1/8 but the naysayers probably won't believe me on that one. It isn't an exaggeration. I usually act as my own tripod by resting the camera on my shoulder and shooting sideways. I also use a cable release.

I can't see messing around with all of the homemade contraptions you see on most conversions out there. If done right the camera is very light, easy to focus and fast to use. With a Grafmatic mounted it is a great lightweight camera to carry around. A lot of people complain about the rangefinder going out of whack but I never have a problem with it. Personally I probably wouldn't like the conversions out there that don't have the facility of a graflok back. They just seem too awkward.

People say that a medium format camera can be just as sharp handheld as a Polaroid conversion and I won't argue with that, but I use 4x5 for the tone and 120 doesn't equal a 4x5 in that regard.

If we ever meet Frank I would be happy to let you give my conversion a whirl.

[Frank Petronio]

It's the other guys, not me haha, maybe i could start an Army... I've owned two 110 conversions and several Graphics and Technikas, they are all good fun. For the money it is hard to beat a Graphic but I am sure one of the better 110s is great. I think upgrading the nice lens on them is silly and you are right that a Graflock back is good too.

But... I don't want to shoot 4x5 handheld unless it can be fast and bright out. I think a good medium format rangefinder or even Corran's D800 is more capable and versatile when it comes down to getting quality pictures. Playing with handheld 4x5 is more for fun and novelty... which is valid too.

[patrickjames]

Frank, my "other" 4x5 is a Speed Graphic (stripped completely) with a reversed front standard which I would like to upgrade someday but I find it it fine for most things. Most movements are vastly overrated unless you want to shoot architecture. When I want to use a tripod for a long exposure I pull that out. I generally shoot a lowly (to the folks here) Leica but I feel if I am going to go through the bother of a tripod I might as well get a big neg for the trouble.

Although I have never shot a gun in my life I use the sniper method to do longish exposures handheld. I have always found it to work great. I close my eyes too which helps, I don't know why.

[Corran]

I think a good medium format rangefinder or even Corran's D800 is more capable and versatile when it comes down to getting quality pictures. Playing with handheld 4x5 is more for fun and novelty... which is valid too.

Now you've boiled it down to the real difference, capability and novelty.

However, as someone who has recently come into the fold shooting full-frame digital, do you think that you get the same "feel" to the images from your D700 as from, say, Portra 400 in 135?

I can honestly say I can spot your digital images vs. film from a mile away, in the small-format thread. It's not even subtle. But, maybe that's just those snaps, and that wouldn't hold true if you processed it differently. Of course, if you've got to spend all that time to emulate film...well...why not shoot film eh?

This is best-case scenario, FF digital vs. 135. A big 4x5 negative vs. my D800? Yeah, I'll give you that in simple technical quality they may be close, but the film still looks miles away different (and in my opinion, better) than the digital capture. Aesthetically.

[gevalia]

Being soneone that has a Rassle sitting for the past 2 years unused, I would have to agree with what Frank said. Sad but true.

[wiggywag]

A reason for me looking into these cameras, is to do spontanious 4x5 shooting, being able to bring the camera around where I would not bring the monorail, like on family walks. I prefer contact printing, so smaller than 4x5" is starting to get too smallish. Interesting camera I have to say, maybe adding a monopod, and it will still be very portable!

[Noeyedear]

I have a razzle which never gets used. It sits between that rock and a hard place when I think about taking it out. If it's spontaneous shooting I want it for, well I'm better off taking a Rolleiflex or dare I say it a digital. If it's something like landscapes you need to stop it down a lot to get decent DoF, then you need a tripod. When on a tripod you wish you could swing this or tilt that, consequently I end up feeling it's a square peg in a World of mostly round holes. It never feels like the best tool for the job to me.
Family walks I would just forget it, my family would never give me the time to compose well enough or wait for the light to justify a sheet of 5x4. I stopped trying to do photography with the family 20 years ago. I now have a Sony RX100 for those occasions.
Kevin.

[Corran]

I realized over the holidays that I have had my Alpenhaus conversion for a year now. I was snapping away Fujiroids and thought about this thread. And here it is again!

Anyway, if you are not shooting instant film, and/or you have a panic attack if you can't use movements, and/or you are permanently attached to your tripod and f/32 on ISO 25 film, these cameras aren't for you. I really invite some of y'all that own these and aren't using them to either a) shoot some Fujiroid, it's only like 75 cents a shot, and you have an instant print!! or b) sell your cameras so someone who'll actually use it can get their hands on these wonderful tools!!

Right now I've shot like 200 Fujiroids. I've made precious family heirlooms both for my family and others. People can't believe the quality of image you can deliver immediately, and with a cool old camera to boot. Plus it's fun. I've made it well known that I'm a little crazy, and willing to shoot 4x5 unconventionally (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2012/11/sports-photographywith-4x5.html) (in our time). Why not take risks? Shoot some real film in that Razzle. Make some memories. Can anyone really say they've taken their digital p&s shots and printed them up even? I mean, at $500 for a nice p&s, I could shoot 600 Fujiroids, and with digital you still gotta pay $0.19 for a 4x6 at Walgreens!

I wonder if Frank is still watching this thread ;)

[cyrus]

For whatever it is worth, I have a couple of 110B conversions. But I also have several MF cameras which I also use including the Mamiya 7ii and Rolleiflexes. Of course, if I had to choose, I'd select the Mamiya over the 110B, but I don't have to. I mainly use the 110B for portraits. I suppose I like the larger neg size, combined with the ability to take my shots quickly (grafmatics) so I can capture those split-seconds where the model has that "just right" candid look that disappears, and can never be artificially recreated. I don't know if the MF cameras are sharper or not and that's just not a consideration for me. But I'm also not a commercial or professional photographer so I can treat all my stuff as just my toys. My Super Speed Graphic sees less use than the 110B because it is clunkier and I hate that little viewfinder, and when you put a grafmatic on it you really can't get your eye close to the tiny viewfinder.

[gliderbee]

I realized over the holidays that I have had my Alpenhaus conversion for a year now. I was snapping away Fujiroids and thought about this thread. And here it is again!

Anyway, if you are not shooting instant film, and/or you have a panic attack if you can't use movements, and/or you are permanently attached to your tripod and f/32 on ISO 25 film, these cameras aren't for you. I really invite some of y'all that own these and aren't using them to either a) shoot some Fujiroid, it's only like 75 cents a shot, and you have an instant print!! or b) sell your cameras so someone who'll actually use it can get their hands on these wonderful tools!!

Right now I've shot like 200 Fujiroids. I've made precious family heirlooms both for my family and others. People can't believe the quality of image you can deliver immediately, and with a cool old camera to boot. Plus it's fun. I've made it well known that I'm a little crazy, and willing to shoot 4x5 unconventionally (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2012/11/sports-photographywith-4x5.html) (in our time). Why not take risks? Shoot some real film in that Razzle. Make some memories. Can anyone really say they've taken their digital p&s shots and printed them up even? I mean, at $500 for a nice p&s, I could shoot 600 Fujiroids, and with digital you still gotta pay $0.19 for a 4x6 at Walgreens!

I wonder if Frank is still watching this thread ;)

I have one of these, but Polaroid is out. What is available from Fuji that can be used in a 4x5 conversion? What do I need?

Thanks,
Stefan

[Corran]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/18595-USA/Fujifilm_15435626_FP_100C_Professional_Instant_Color.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843361-REG/Fujifilm_15200772_Instant_Black_White.html

Here are the two Fujiroid offerings, in 3.25 x 4.25 inch instant print size. You need a 405 holder, or whatever the Fuji equivalent was, I don't know off hand.

I hear the Impossible Project is starting to make somewhat affordable film too so don't count Polaroid out, or the equivalent I guess.

[cyrus]

I'd love to get one of these, who are the best makers these days? What is the best lens?

There are several people on this forum who are making them, and if you google around you might find this http://www.polaroidconversions.com/

I had mine made by a local fella who had a bit of experience and tools but is no longer making them -- though I don't think it should be hard for anyone who has some technical ability and tools.

The "basic" conversion is to put a 4x5 Graflok back on the camera but others get fancier and change the lens (which makes it hard to close up the camera) or change the leather etc.

The problem with changing lenses is that it throws off the rangefinder coupling. As it is the Ysarex lens on this camera is plenty sharp but there is a slight falloff when used for 4x5. The viewfinder was also designed for a smaller format so you end up with a bit more empty space around your subject in the negative, if you compose using the viewfinder instead of the gg.

[MathewMorris]

A Polaroid conversion I use weighs 3 pounds 2 ounces, add 1 pound per Grafmatic and 1/2 pound for lightmeter. 2 pound tripod optional. It's slender and fits into a very small pack. I throw it in the car when we go away on day trips and (since I have practice) I can pull it out, open and shoot pretty quickly. After the shot it goes back in the pack where it's ready, without advertising me as anybody but just another dad out there with his kids. It gets used a lot, I've got enough empty boxes to think I've shot 1,000 sheets. When people comment I just say "thanks" and if they ask what it is I mutter something like "it's an old Polaroid"... if pressed, I'll unhook the Graflok and show them there's nothing inside, kind of like a magic trick.

It can be part of a "one-camera, one-lens" project. Many times, it is the only camera I have on-hand. Lately I avoid using the cellphone camera at the same time. On soccer parade day I missed a shot because I was fiddling with the cellphone. Kids went by while I was setting phone to black and white mode to "preview" flare. Had to run to a new spot to catch the kids again. So I stopped using cellphone camera for previews. I also avoid bringing multiple cameras. One day at Disneyland I carried both 35mm and 4x5 and at the end of the day I'd forgotten to take it out. Sure the 35mm shots from the day are nice. But it sucked that I had zero 4x5 shots. The camera was on my back the whole time. Next time I made a point of only bringing one camera, and I'm happy with the results.

Handheld wasn't my goal. I always plan on using tripods. But I'll shoot it handheld in a pinch. I wanted the 4x5 look because I was dissatisfied with graininess of 35mm fine grain black and white. I wanted a lightweight 4x5 camera that I could bring backpacking. Extra points if total weight could be less than the 35mm Olympus gear that I would normally carry.

Everything I shoot 4x5 is with the conversion. This shot at 1/300th has no motion blur. The dress itself screams sharpness, every black line comes to a razor's point. This may seem like a technical exercise, but it's actually a kind of shot I've wanted to get for a long time. Wedding photos are part of what made me wish I used 4x5 more often...


Bride to-be, Heisler Park, Laguna Beach

Very nicely written about Polaroid camera. I have one and I still believe it is best to click pics with so light weight and sharp picture quality. but now with rapidly changing world there are lot more good camera options which we need to look at ...

[Drew Bedo]

Very nicely written about Polaroid camera. I have one and I still believe it is best to click pics with so light weight and sharp picture quality. but now with rapidly changing world there are lot more good camera options which we need to look at ...

OK . . .So what options do YOU find attrqctive?

I'm thinking about a Wanderlust Travelwide right now. Itr gives up any RF focusing, but gain light weight and aimplicity. Its like a ultra light Fotoman or Hobo at nearly a Holga/Lomo price.

[anglophone1]

I've ordered a travel wide specifically to be the wide angle companion to a Razzle + 135
I shoot 35mm digi on 21mm (32mm equiv) and 28mm ( 42mm equiv) paired (epsons!) and then scaled that up to 6x9 film with Fuji 65mm (GSW) and 90mm (GW)
This new combo will do he same with 4x5 but pack about the same!!

[MathewMorris]

A Polaroid conversion I use weighs 3 pounds 2 ounces, add 1 pound per Grafmatic and 1/2 pound for lightmeter. 2 pound tripod optional. It's slender and fits into a very small pack. I throw it in the car when we go away on day trips and (since I have practice) I can pull it out, open and shoot pretty quickly. After the shot it goes back in the pack where it's ready, without advertising me as anybody but just another dad out there with his kids. It gets used a lot, I've got enough empty boxes to think I've shot 1,000 sheets. When people comment I just say "thanks" and if they ask what it is I mutter something like "it's an old Polaroid"... if pressed, I'll unhook the Graflok and show them there's nothing inside, kind of like a magic trick.

It can be part of a "one-camera, one-lens" project. Many times, it is the only camera I have on-hand. Lately I avoid using the cellphone camera at the same time. On soccer parade day I missed a shot because I was fiddling with the cellphone. Kids went by while I was setting phone to black and white mode to "preview" flare. Had to run to a new spot to catch the kids again. So I stopped using cellphone camera for previews. I also avoid bringing multiple cameras. One day at Disneyland I carried both 35mm and 4x5 and at the end of the day I'd forgotten to take it out. Sure the 35mm shots from the day are nice. But it sucked that I had zero 4x5 shots. The camera was on my back the whole time. Next time I made a point of only bringing one camera, and I'm happy with the results.

Handheld wasn't my goal. I always plan on using tripods. But I'll shoot it handheld in a pinch. I wanted the 4x5 look because I was dissatisfied with graininess of 35mm fine grain black and white. I wanted a lightweight 4x5 camera that I could bring backpacking. Extra points if total weight could be less than the 35mm Olympus gear that I would normally carry.

Everything I shoot 4x5 is with the conversion. This shot at 1/300th has no motion blur. The dress itself screams sharpness, every black line comes to a razor's point. This may seem like a technical exercise, but it's actually a kind of shot I've wanted to get for a long time. wedding dresses (http://www.robustbuy.com/wedding-events-wedding-dresses-c-1165_1166.html) photos are part of what made me wish I used 4x5 more often...


Bride to-be, Heisler Park, Laguna Beach

Very nicely written about Polaroid camera. I have one and I still believe it is best to click pics with so light weight and sharp picture quality. but now with rapidly changing world there are lot more good camera options which we need to look at ...

There are plenty of good things about Polaroid camera as it was my first one:)