Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,011   Posts: 1,524,646   Online: 938
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by paul ewins
    . . . . . . . . .

    The thing I would really like is some sort of low powered magnifier that could be attched to the back of the VF to provide enough eye relief when I attach a bulky back to the camera. I want to turn one of the packfilm cameras into a roll film panoramic, but have to get the film plane far enough back that the bellows doesn't vignette. Once you have done that the VF is a fair way forwards. It doesn't help that I wear glasses.

    Hello Paul Ewins,

    Their were two viewfinder versions for the 250 Automatic. One is larger opening in the back, and provides greater eye relief. I don't wear glasses, but I think that version might work better. If you are checking auctions, try to get a look at the back of the viewfinder to figure out if it is a larger window 250. All the later ones were small window, less eye relief, viewfinders, including the 350, 360, and 450.

    I understand the distance aspect of your modifications. It might be easier to go with a magnifier on the larger window viewfinder, or it might work easier with the other. Anyway, this is just to make you aware there were two different viewfinders on the 250 Automatic.

    Ciao!

    Gordon

  2. #12
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by paul ewins
    Donald,
    According to landlist.org it was only the 250, 350, 360 and 450 that had the integrated viewfinder and rangefinder. The 101, 102 & 103 still had the glass lens but separate RF and VF windows. The 104 and some of the others didn't even hav a proper RF.
    Correct on several counts -- I've got a 210 (converted to pinhole, autoexposure still intact, dedicated to 667 only) that has the fixed, stadimeter type "RF" (though it does still have parallax correction), same as the 104, and there were 300 series and 400 series models with the same lack of features. What I find genuinely annoying with these, however, is that the 101 and 102 would work fine for conversion, as would corresponding models in later series -- except that they don't have tripod sockets! Maybe not such a big deal for a camera that would be light enough to really hand hold well (shouldn't weigh any more than a Texas Leica, certainly not as much as a Bronica or SL-66), but annoying none the less.

    I suppose one could install a "blind nut" to make a socket, but then you'd have to watch you don't compromise light tightness, as well as likely needing to reinforce the bottom plate of the camera, which in turn would interfere with attaching and closing the original cover (one of my goals in this kind of conversion would be to keep as much of the original configuration as possible).

    What's needed for the VF/RF extension is a tiny, very simple Galilean telescope, perhaps 2x, similar to the extension that was sold for Kalart rangefinders (standard equipment on Speed Graphics for most of 40 years). Seems to me one could improvise this with off-the-shelf optics from vendors like Anchor Optics or Surplus Shed, plus a piece of small plastic pipe and some epoxy. Done carefully, it would still fit inside the cover with the RF folded, and would add only an ounce or so to the camera's weight.

    First step: find one of those $10 250 cameras I keep hearing about, when I have $10 plus shipping to spend on it...
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1

    Adapting a Polaroid Pack Camera

    I'm new here, but I have been following this forum thread for awhile, planning to get my thoughts in some kind of order, so that my questions don't sound so scattered as to try everyone's patience.

    The cost of a heavy, bulky Polaroid 110B camera, plus the cost of conversion -- I have no facility for DIY -- to accept 4X5 sheet film would be too high. Just using 4X5 film would be outside my budget anyway.

    Would one of those light-weight, slim-profile Model 180 Polaroid 3X4 pack-film cameras be a good compromise?

    The camera with the 114mm Tominon lens is only a little cheaper than the 110B on ebay, but could be used as is.

    But could the usefulness of the 180 be extended by having it adapted so that in addition to Polaroid 600 film packs, it could also accept 3X4 sheet film, apparently still available and affordable from Eastern Europe?

    And while I'm at it, could it be further adapted to take a 120 6X9 film-back, as well?

    Is the Razzlok-back a possible answer, or is that only for the 110 body type and oversize for 3X4, since it's meant for 4X5 conversions?

    Moreover, would the Razzlok back conversion of the 180 turn out to be as costly as it would be for the 110B?

    The Century Graphic is much cheaper, and might be easier to adapt to cover 3X4 format and still accept 120 roll-film backs, while retaining the tilts, shifts etc. built into it; but as Diwan Bhathal has said of the 110B, "it's a brick" (actually, the Graphic is more like a concrete block). Besides it lacks a top-mounted coupled rangefinder/viewfinder.

    (How does the Zeiss rangefinder on the 180 compare with the bigger, wider rangefinder on the 110B, which looks like it might be easier to see-through and focus for these tired-old-eyes?)

    So, I'm looking for a low-cost, light-weight, single-ocular coupled rangefinder/viewfinder, multi-use, cheap-conversion, semi-large format camera. Or is this a chimera rather than a camera?

    Any suggestions would be welcome.

  4. #14
    9circles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lanark, Scotland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    33
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lo Piccolo View Post

    Would one of those light-weight, slim-profile Model 180 Polaroid 3X4 pack-film cameras be a good compromise?

    The camera with the 114mm Tominon lens is only a little cheaper than the 110B on ebay, but could be used as is.
    BIN prices for the 180 are much higher than a 110b (or 110a - essentially same camera) - the 180 is a pro spec camera so if you can get one for less than a 110 then grab it quick. I got a broken Pola 195 (similar to the 180) and exchanged the body off an old Pola 350 as these are basically the same and now have a 195 with electronic timer and it is a joy to use


    The Century Graphic is much cheaper, and might be easier to adapt to cover 3X4 format and still accept 120 roll-film backs, while retaining the tilts, shifts etc. built into it; but as Diwan Bhathal has said of the 110B, "it's a brick" (actually, the Graphic is more like a concrete block). Besides it lacks a top-mounted coupled rangefinder/viewfinder.
    I've both of these cameras here - both are bricks , but the century is smaller, neater and more functional (limited movements, rollfilm backs and neat wee film holders for the 2.5x3.5 film which I havent had any problem getting). the 110 is a beast of a thing, but slimline when folded down.

    (How does the Zeiss rangefinder on the 180 compare with the bigger, wider rangefinder on the 110B, which looks like it might be easier to see-through and focus for these tired-old-eyes?)
    its actually the other way around - the zeiss rangefinder is MUCH larger than the tiny finder on the 110 and is an absolute doddle to focus. If you can grab yourself a cheap pola 250 or 350 (usually between £10-20 on an auction site), its almost identical to the 180/195 apart from the manual lens/shutter on these cameras. It would give you a very real feel about whether you wanted to spend the extra for the benefit of manual exposure.

    Hope this is of some help.


    Ian

  5. #15
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    May not help you, but the 95B, 150, 160, 800's have a glass 130 mm triplet...not compatible with the 127 Ektar shutter mount, but should be cheap, can be removed with its own funky shutter intact and mounted on a board. Maybe the +3 mm over the 127 gives you more 'slop' room to accommodate varying board mounting thicknesses.
    Murray

  6. #16
    Buster6X6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    London Ontario Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    713
    Images
    43

    Very ineresting 4X5 conversion

    Take a look at this conversion :rolleyes: http://cgi.ebay.ca/GRAFLEX-POLAROID-...QQcmdZViewItem
    Very interesting.

    Cheers eh! Greg
    Looking is a gift, but seeing is power.

    Buster6X6

  7. #17
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    That Polaroid-Graflex critter looked very interesting at first...

    ...then it dawned on me that it looks like a way to use the old Polaroid rollfilm on a Graflex camera, the opposite of adding a Graphic/Graphlok/etc back to a Polaroid camera.

    That rollfilm hasn't been available for decades. It looks just like the back end of the 95B, 150, 160 etc.

    Nice piece of history...anyone have any ideas for using it for something?

    People say you could stick a single sheet of 4x5 film in the back of those cameras (above), unconverted, shoot it, unload in a darkroom or changing bag, then develop and get a nominal 3x4 image...

    the irony here is that it fits a camera with a 4x5 back....so you could just use your 4x5 holders :O)
    Murray

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin