Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,840   Posts: 1,582,556   Online: 1032
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Gordon Coale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45

    4x5 Polaroid conversion

    A thread on Rangefinder Forum got me going on this project but I thought there must be someone like minded here at APUG to share this insanity. I've admired the Littman 45 (an APUG sponsor), based on the Polaroid 110b, but my budget is too small for one. Actually, I don't have a budget. Noah Schwartz , and Dean at Razzeldog , have some nice conversions. Still too expensive but I figured I could do one myself. The Polaroid 110b is nice but it is a beast and more expensive than I want to spend ($100 if patient.) I decided to base my conversion on the Polaroid Automatic 250. Smaller, lighter, and way cheaper. I picked one up for $5. The first picture is the 250 with the Graflok back and Kodak Ektar 127/4.7 that will end up on it. I already had the back and lens. The 250 is quite a bit smaller than the 110b. The Graflok back is usually trimmed to fit on the back of the 110b. The ground glass holder in the Graflok back is about the height of the back of the 250. I want to keep the Graflock back untouched so it's going to extend a bit above and below the 250. The second picture has the basic tools needed to take it apart. I also used a box cutter to cut wires. There were lots of rivets and very few screws. The third picture is what is not going to be used.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails apug1.jpg   apug2.jpg   apug3.jpg  

  2. #2
    Gordon Coale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Here it is ready to be transformed into a 4x5 rangefinder camera. First I will need to get the lens a good CLA then mount it. Then I can find where infinity focus will be and go from there. I have a good idea of how I'm going to get there but mounting the lens will give me some specifics. The slow speed range on the Supermatic (X) shutter isn't working. The shutter hangs open. One option is to send the shutter out for a CLA and that needed the lens cells to come out. That was easy but the wooden lens board seems to have swollen from being in a damp storage. I will keep it in a warm dry place and see if it shrinks and I can get the board off. I thought I would pull off the front cover to see if there is anything obvious to account for the slow speeds not working. I looked and fiddled and then quickly put it all back together. I will be sending it off to Carol Miller . Carol takes 3 to 4 weeks so it will be another month or two before I can mount the lens on the Polaroid. In the meantime I will be filing away on the Polaroid lens board to provide clearence for the Ektar. The Kodak 127/4.7 Ektars are pretty good lenses and can be had for a reasonable amount. Its a 4 element Tessar that was popular on press cameras. They can be had, with some patience, for under $50 on eBay. This one was on my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Speed Graphic that I've had for a long time. The 4x5 Polaroid will be more useful than the Speed Graphic. Not as pretty , though.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails apug4.jpg   apug5.jpg   apug6.jpg   apug7.jpg   apug8.jpg  


  3. #3
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    I envision major trouble with the rangefinder -- the slope will be wrong for the longer lens (the original in these cameras is, IIRC, 114 mm). You'll have to either adjust the slope of the RF (not sure that's possible -- it's not designed to be adjusted, just replaced, even in warranty service), fabricate a linkage to proportionally transmit the strut movement that normally operates the RF, or alter the geometry of the struts to give the correct movement of the RF tab relative to the lens board.

    You'll probably also wind up having to shorten the struts to get focus, if you don't mill some more off the back, but you'll know that when you get the lens mounted.

    However, I'll be interested to see your progress, since this shouldn't require one of the glass-lens cameras (which are good enough in their own right to keep using in their original form), but ought to work with any pack-film Polaroid equipped with an RF and tripod socket (which means 2-3 models down the line, the ones with less versatility in exposure and cheaper lenses).

    There are a lot of these 127 mm lenses out there, and even more 135 mm lenses -- if you can come up with a generic method of adjusting the RF operation in these Polaroids, you could start a pack-film renaissance...

  4. #4
    Gordon Coale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Donald -- You're absolutely right about the 114mm lens. <cue head banging on wall> Why I assumed that if the 110s had a 127mm lens then the 250 would, I don't know. I double checked the Land List: Lens: 114mm f/8.8 3-element glass. Having been there numerous times one would think I would have noticed. Apparently not. On to Plan B. I'm just going to have to wait and see what happens with the 127 installed. I'm not sure the rangefinder will be usable. I could always scale focus. Maybe put that Wollensak 90 on it...

  5. #5
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    FWIW, Diwan Bhathal posted on photo.net that he's done this successfully, but I see by the photos that he moved the RF and mounted something on the front -- I'd guess it's a translation linkage, he says the focus is accurate from infinity down to about four feet (which is probably as close as he can get with the 127 mm lens he mounted). Google for his name and "Pink Panther" and you should find it.

    It's a little more work, but I was looking at my 350 today and thinking it might be possible to open up the RF, or else to mount a linkage under it that would still let me fold it and close the cover. However, I won't hack up that (fully functional) camera, I'll get another one with a completely toasted battery compartment and/or shutter...
    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.

  6. #6
    Gordon Coale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Diwan saw this thread and sent me an email pointing me to his post on the Pink Panther. I feel better. It can be done. Now I just need to get the 127 Ektar off that lens board. It's still stuck.

  7. #7
    JLMoore3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    114
    Images
    5
    If all else fails- there's the Tominon 114mm... I have one, and I've seen others available on the auction site. Keep an eye out for the oscilloscope or close-up cameras with the 114mm lens.
    John (Alpha Flying Monkey) Moore
    http://www.flyingmonkeystudio.com

  8. #8
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    The problem with 114 is that by the time you mill off enough of the Polaroid's body to bring a 4x5 to the 114 focal plane, there's nothing left -- and then you'll get a negative vignetted to 3x4 by the Polaroid bellows. Diwan's method, installing his 4x5 back directly on the back of the body, adds just enough distance to focus with the 127 mm lens, and he claims the RF is adequately accurate. I found another image of the front of the camera where I could see the linkage to the RF -- no slope modification, it's just to allow the RF to clear the back, since the RF actually hangs over the film door/roller housing on the original camera setup and there isn't clearance for any kind of frame around a 4x5 holder below the RF housing (although, holding a 4x5 holder up to the back of my 350, it looks to me as if a frame made from metal angle stock might be thin enough to allow the RF to remain on its original hinge).

    If you can keep the RF on its hinge, it might be sufficient to replace the actuating finger that pushes the RF arm with one that's offset just a little (or just bend the original a bit) to adjust the RF to be "close enough" from infinity to a few feet, and you'd then have full use of the parallax correcting viewfinder (though you'd have look "outside the frame" a little -- 114 mm on the Polaroid frame isn't quite as wide as 127 mm on 4x5).

    Hmmm. Now I *will* have to try to find a 101, 102, etc., one of the "almost desirable" models that lose out as shooters with Polaroid film because of their less versatile exposure options. They still have the folding RF and the lens board on the front end is the same all the way down to the bottom end, plastic lens, fixed-VF with stadimeter instead of RF -- at least after you strip off all the shutter parts and glass. I could do this on a proof of concept basis with the 13.5 cm Tessar and dial-set Compur off one of my plate cameras...
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    403
    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. From recent experience a 250 or 350 should cost $10 on eBay although the spot price can vary wildly from time to time. Probably goes up every time a thread like this comes along and then settles down again a few weeks later. Once you add in postage there isn't any reason to settle for less than the Zeiss RF models.

    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.

  10. #10
    medform-norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    863
    Images
    1
    Well, perhaps this ought not to be mentioned here, but there is always this gizmo to solve your VF problem: http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1131636291.html
    At 200 GBP a little hefty for what you're brewing but it would solve the problem for people wearing glasses and you'd have a sorta *digital* TLR viewfinder construction.
    May I add that this will not make the camera digital, you will still end up with normal photographs.
    Want to reach a wide audience? Place your ad here! Contact me for details and discuss your sponsorship today!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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