Anyone Know Polaroid Film Backs?

[bob cole]

In some stuff I bought, I picked up a Polaroid Land Film Back #227 and a Polaroid Roll Film Back #226, both of which us an MP3 Land Camera...

Anyone know if these film backs are still being used?

thanks in advance, bob

 

[bmattock]

No, they are not. And as of the latest news, there shortly will not be any more Polaroid film of any sort whatsoever.

Polaroid discontinued roll film a very long time ago, I'm afraid.

 

[bob cole]

Anyone Know Polaroid Film Backs?

No, they are not. And as of the latest news, there shortly will not be any more Polaroid film of any sort whatsoever.

Polaroid discontinued roll film a very long time ago, I'm afraid.

--------------------------------------

thanks, bmattock...that's exactly what I wanted to know...regards, bob

 

[David R Munson]

I'm not sure what size pack film the camera/backs in question used, but if it takes the 3.25x4.25" pack films common to current Polaroid backs, you're not out of luck just yet.

Fuji makes a few "instant" peel apart pack films that are excellent. Better than the Polaroid equivalents, IMO.

Also, Ilford may be taking over production of at least a few of the Polaroid instant film products. I mostly take this to mean that we'll still have Type 55 and a few others around for at least a few more years.

 

[bmattock]

I'm not sure what size pack film the camera/backs in question used, but if it takes the 3.25x4.25" pack films common to current Polaroid backs, you're not out of luck just yet.

The backs from the MP3 copy cameras were the same as the back end of a Pathfinder 110a - they used Polaroid 40 roll film. Trust me, it no longer exists and has not for decades.

Fuji makes a few "instant" peel apart pack films that are excellent. Better than the Polaroid equivalents, IMO.

Also, Ilford may be taking over production of at least a few of the Polaroid instant film products. I mostly take this to mean that we'll still have Type 55 and a few others around for at least a few more years.

Interesting thought, but it won't help with the rollfilm back.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...rd_in_talks_Exclusive_report_news_225467.html

Friday 4th April 2008
Chris Cheesman
polaroid

Polaroid chiefs are in talks with the maker of Ilford film over the possibility of producing Polaroid black and white instant film at Ilford's base in Cheshire, UK.

In February, Polaroid announced plans to axe film production, blaming competition from digital cameras, 61 years after it hailed the birth of 'instant photography'.

A spokesman for Harman technology Ltd, which trades as Ilford Photo, told us that Ilford Photo and Polaroid are 'talking' but added that 'it's very early days'.

 

[David R Munson]

I'm not familiar with the camera in the OP, so I wasn't sure what film it took. Still, if nothing else it could be adapted to take presently-manufactured pack films. As long as you get the focal plane positioned correctly, it shouldn't be too hard to graft a more modern back onto an older camera (so long as you don't find it offensive to chop up old cameras, anyway).

 

[bmattock]

I'm not familiar with the camera in the OP, so I wasn't sure what film it took. Still, if nothing else it could be adapted to take presently-manufactured pack films. As long as you get the focal plane positioned correctly, it shouldn't be too hard to graft a more modern back onto an older camera (so long as you don't find it offensive to chop up old cameras, anyway).

The back was pretty much solid steel. Very hard to chop up. Littman does it for about $5,000. Others charge slightly less. Four Designs used to do it for a fairly hefty sum, but quite a bit less than Littmann.

In any case - it is a back. Not a camera. Just a back. So you'd be converting a back to take about-to-be non-available pack film - by adding a back.

Might want to think that one through.

I have several of these. They are elegant, well-made, paperweights. No use whatsoever, honestly.

 

[David R Munson]

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking camera. I really need to scale back on sleep-deprived forum activities.

I'd be much more inclined to go at it myself than pay Littman, but then I'm mechanically inclined and that name leaves a bad taste in my mouth anyway.