kuzano
Veteran
Well, in the continued move toward larger film (and far short of ULF), I am considering moving out of 6X6 and 6X9 altogether. I think I will be getting rid of all my 120 roll film folders and Fujicas. Have already moved out the Mamiya Press and others.
Reasons:
1) fiddly handling of 120 in horizontal transport MF cams
2) fewer 120/220 choices
3) Processing choices, including self process more involved for 120/220.
4) Cameras aging and service, plus some quite heavy.
Direction:
1) Very light conversion of Polaroid Pathfinder (110-A&B, or 120)
2) 6X12 pano and 4X5, or 5X12 dual pano on sheet film
3) Roll film still an option (Graflok)
4) A final camera weight lighter than my Fujicas.
5) More film selection in 4x5 than roll film available
6) Easier sheet film DIY processing than roll film
7) More choices with one camera, than most MF cameras.
I've been an avid follower of the various Polaroid Pathfinder conversions, including use of longer focal length lenses. However, I am not at all interested in retaining the rangefinder. I have never shot 4X5 hand held, nor intend to do so. That removes some weight and a lot of fiddling with the conversion.
I plan to use the minimum amount of the original camera, ie the door frame, door, and the folding mechanism/struts. I plan to use with a wood or aluminum billet to move the ground glass back far enough to cover 4X5. I know I will have to reposition the focusing mechanism back if I use the 127 lens. However, I may use a compact 150 and position the ground glass in order to not have to mess with the front standard/focus mechanism.
I stripped a 110A and cut the frame down to just include the folding mechanism, door and original film plane. I found a very light film back with Graflok capability. It's very light and very compact. It's from a camera Badger Graphics sold some years ago, badged for them as an M1 (monorail view). I have that whole camera in good condition.
Here are some pics, alongside a Polaroid 150 for size comparison. So now I need to proceed with plans for a body between/alongside the Pathfinder frame and the GG film back.
Reasons:
1) fiddly handling of 120 in horizontal transport MF cams
2) fewer 120/220 choices
3) Processing choices, including self process more involved for 120/220.
4) Cameras aging and service, plus some quite heavy.
Direction:
1) Very light conversion of Polaroid Pathfinder (110-A&B, or 120)
2) 6X12 pano and 4X5, or 5X12 dual pano on sheet film
3) Roll film still an option (Graflok)
4) A final camera weight lighter than my Fujicas.
5) More film selection in 4x5 than roll film available
6) Easier sheet film DIY processing than roll film
7) More choices with one camera, than most MF cameras.
I've been an avid follower of the various Polaroid Pathfinder conversions, including use of longer focal length lenses. However, I am not at all interested in retaining the rangefinder. I have never shot 4X5 hand held, nor intend to do so. That removes some weight and a lot of fiddling with the conversion.
I plan to use the minimum amount of the original camera, ie the door frame, door, and the folding mechanism/struts. I plan to use with a wood or aluminum billet to move the ground glass back far enough to cover 4X5. I know I will have to reposition the focusing mechanism back if I use the 127 lens. However, I may use a compact 150 and position the ground glass in order to not have to mess with the front standard/focus mechanism.
I stripped a 110A and cut the frame down to just include the folding mechanism, door and original film plane. I found a very light film back with Graflok capability. It's very light and very compact. It's from a camera Badger Graphics sold some years ago, badged for them as an M1 (monorail view). I have that whole camera in good condition.
Here are some pics, alongside a Polaroid 150 for size comparison. So now I need to proceed with plans for a body between/alongside the Pathfinder frame and the GG film back.
Last edited:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Like to see how this goes. I have a very light 4x5 Graflok compatible back I would like to put to use too. Its a Cambo, and its both light and compact.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Looks good! I like that film back, it looks nice and light.
A few thoughts:
-You are going to want to be able to readjust your front standard. Especially if you're planning on using more than one lens.
-Very few lenses/shutters can fit inside the camera while still allowing it to fold up all the way. Make sure the lens/es you choose are small.
-If you decide to use more than one lens, the best way to do this might be to attach some kind of bayonet or screw mount (I think Byron uses a Nikon mount) and have your lenses clip in or screw in, it's a lot easier than just using a lens board.
-Do you want movements? The biggest disadvantage to using this kind of thing IMO is that it's hard to give the front standard any movements. It'll require a great deal of engineering.
But yeah, it looks good so far!
A few thoughts:
-You are going to want to be able to readjust your front standard. Especially if you're planning on using more than one lens.
-Very few lenses/shutters can fit inside the camera while still allowing it to fold up all the way. Make sure the lens/es you choose are small.
-If you decide to use more than one lens, the best way to do this might be to attach some kind of bayonet or screw mount (I think Byron uses a Nikon mount) and have your lenses clip in or screw in, it's a lot easier than just using a lens board.
-Do you want movements? The biggest disadvantage to using this kind of thing IMO is that it's hard to give the front standard any movements. It'll require a great deal of engineering.
But yeah, it looks good so far!
kuzano
Veteran
This is first "draft"
This is first "draft"
RE: similar backs, if this back turns out to be too light duty, then CAMBO is my alternate choice.
For now, I just want to finish the section between the back and the Polaroid shell. In that scenario, I plan no movements and will likely stick with the Rodenstock Ysarex, with the front standard adjusted back just enough to allow the lens to clear the original film plane and shoot a full 4X5 frame, with some focus adjustment allowed. Getting that middle section fitted is a first step, and shooting with no movements front or back gives me a simple 4X5. In my mind, this achieves the one step forward to a larger neg or pano. After all, I've been shooting medium format for years with no movements. This camera is merely a rather simple stepping stone to the larger format.
I have 4 or 5 of these Polaroid 110's and I truly do not see ever retaining the range finder.
This camera will be a first trial, and will not be modified much beyond what I mentioned, although I have a very small Geronar 150 which will probably facilitate NOT moving the placement of the front standard, if I measure the back out precisely.
This will get me shooting the larger format, which is my intention first of all. I hope to have a rather simple larger format shooter, which still weighs less than my Fujica's that top out at 6X9.
It's then possible, that once I have a working camera of this nature, I will hack one or two of the other polaroids. I have a couple of 900's which I can hack for front movements as I have seen done.
I also have some ideas in my head, involving a means for creating a tilt back movement. This would involve a canted back film holder, which can be field mounted end for end to offer a rear tilt. That, or a hinged back that moves in/out on one end for rear tilt. The camera will end up squarish because of the backs used.
I also have seen and been interested in various breechlock mounts similar to the Byron. I'm a bit hesitant on that. For now one lens will suffice, either the 127, or a small 150. I also have three Fujinar and Fujinon 150 W lenses which I am sure will allow the door to close. I also have a linhof select Schneider 90 which will surely fit behind the door. The camera is opened up so much inside that rear element size is no concern, so using lenses that readily unscrew on the front element would work as well. Something like a Super Angulon should be no problem provided you are careful with the front element. Also, the dual focal length Schneiders would be a good selection, where the front element is unscrewed anyway too achieve the shorter focal length. Some of these lenses are quite good in either the single element mode or the longer 2 element focal length.
For now... simple and shootable. Later, perhaps lens exchange and movements, in another camera altogether.
Right now, I have about 8-10 Pathfinders and 900's which are stacked in the camera closet for future projects.
As I said, shooting larger interests me more than camera building. I know there are plenty of options in the field and view camera market. But I want this thing to be lighter than most of the medium format I have used for years, and only minimally larger.
Thanks for the comments. Now to get to work on that middle section. Hmmmm, wood? or metal?
May be time to dig out the tools I used to weld alloys with.
This is first "draft"
Looks good! I like that film back, it looks nice and light.
A few thoughts:
-You are going to want to be able to readjust your front standard. Especially if you're planning on using more than one lens.
-Very few lenses/shutters can fit inside the camera while still allowing it to fold up all the way. Make sure the lens/es you choose are small.
-If you decide to use more than one lens, the best way to do this might be to attach some kind of bayonet or screw mount (I think Byron uses a Nikon mount) and have your lenses clip in or screw in, it's a lot easier than just using a lens board.
-Do you want movements? The biggest disadvantage to using this kind of thing IMO is that it's hard to give the front standard any movements. It'll require a great deal of engineering.
But yeah, it looks good so far!
RE: similar backs, if this back turns out to be too light duty, then CAMBO is my alternate choice.
For now, I just want to finish the section between the back and the Polaroid shell. In that scenario, I plan no movements and will likely stick with the Rodenstock Ysarex, with the front standard adjusted back just enough to allow the lens to clear the original film plane and shoot a full 4X5 frame, with some focus adjustment allowed. Getting that middle section fitted is a first step, and shooting with no movements front or back gives me a simple 4X5. In my mind, this achieves the one step forward to a larger neg or pano. After all, I've been shooting medium format for years with no movements. This camera is merely a rather simple stepping stone to the larger format.
I have 4 or 5 of these Polaroid 110's and I truly do not see ever retaining the range finder.
This camera will be a first trial, and will not be modified much beyond what I mentioned, although I have a very small Geronar 150 which will probably facilitate NOT moving the placement of the front standard, if I measure the back out precisely.
This will get me shooting the larger format, which is my intention first of all. I hope to have a rather simple larger format shooter, which still weighs less than my Fujica's that top out at 6X9.
It's then possible, that once I have a working camera of this nature, I will hack one or two of the other polaroids. I have a couple of 900's which I can hack for front movements as I have seen done.
I also have some ideas in my head, involving a means for creating a tilt back movement. This would involve a canted back film holder, which can be field mounted end for end to offer a rear tilt. That, or a hinged back that moves in/out on one end for rear tilt. The camera will end up squarish because of the backs used.
I also have seen and been interested in various breechlock mounts similar to the Byron. I'm a bit hesitant on that. For now one lens will suffice, either the 127, or a small 150. I also have three Fujinar and Fujinon 150 W lenses which I am sure will allow the door to close. I also have a linhof select Schneider 90 which will surely fit behind the door. The camera is opened up so much inside that rear element size is no concern, so using lenses that readily unscrew on the front element would work as well. Something like a Super Angulon should be no problem provided you are careful with the front element. Also, the dual focal length Schneiders would be a good selection, where the front element is unscrewed anyway too achieve the shorter focal length. Some of these lenses are quite good in either the single element mode or the longer 2 element focal length.
For now... simple and shootable. Later, perhaps lens exchange and movements, in another camera altogether.
Right now, I have about 8-10 Pathfinders and 900's which are stacked in the camera closet for future projects.
As I said, shooting larger interests me more than camera building. I know there are plenty of options in the field and view camera market. But I want this thing to be lighter than most of the medium format I have used for years, and only minimally larger.
Thanks for the comments. Now to get to work on that middle section. Hmmmm, wood? or metal?
May be time to dig out the tools I used to weld alloys with.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I really am attempting to use my best diplomacy here, not that I'm very good at it ;-p I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or anything but I just don't see the point, especially if you are tripod mounting the thing? I've been down the converted Polaroid route twice now and it just seems silly to do all that for what is still a wonky camera chassis.
Wouldn't you end up with a far lighter, simpler camera (and life) if you sold all those old Polaroids to other hopefuls and got yourself a nice Tachihara, Chamonix, or Wista wooden folder - or better yet, a metal Toho or even an Arca $$$$ FC Field with a folding rail? The monorails are super quick to set up (just extend the standards) and very solid... the woodies certainly have character - the Wista has enough internal room to allow you to keep a modern Copal shuttered 135 mounted.
In terms of bulk, I bet a Toho or Gowland collapsed would be the smallest of all.
You'd gain a lot more movements, lens versatility, and even the flimsy Tachi would be more robust than a Polaroid folder. And probably more parallel.
I've just come off using a Fuji 6x9 for the Summer and they are fine cameras and 120 sure saved me a lot of money over 4x5. I didn't lack for film choices and there are films that aren't available in sheets, like Portra 800 or that Ilford 3200 stuff.... the rangefinders even work well and stay aligned (which is more than we can say for a lot of the old Polaroid RFs).
Just saying... if it were me I'd be selling those Pola shells to Korea.
Wouldn't you end up with a far lighter, simpler camera (and life) if you sold all those old Polaroids to other hopefuls and got yourself a nice Tachihara, Chamonix, or Wista wooden folder - or better yet, a metal Toho or even an Arca $$$$ FC Field with a folding rail? The monorails are super quick to set up (just extend the standards) and very solid... the woodies certainly have character - the Wista has enough internal room to allow you to keep a modern Copal shuttered 135 mounted.
In terms of bulk, I bet a Toho or Gowland collapsed would be the smallest of all.
You'd gain a lot more movements, lens versatility, and even the flimsy Tachi would be more robust than a Polaroid folder. And probably more parallel.
I've just come off using a Fuji 6x9 for the Summer and they are fine cameras and 120 sure saved me a lot of money over 4x5. I didn't lack for film choices and there are films that aren't available in sheets, like Portra 800 or that Ilford 3200 stuff.... the rangefinders even work well and stay aligned (which is more than we can say for a lot of the old Polaroid RFs).
Just saying... if it were me I'd be selling those Pola shells to Korea.
Last edited:
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Well...I am sort of with Frank on this one. I think the idea of making this work just cuz you want to make it work is reason enough to do it but it does not repalce MF and I do not agree that is is cheaper, easier, more film choices or beter in any real way with the above camera.
The 45 is great for what it is but I tried to make 45 act like a big MF and it reall did not work well for me. Slow lenses, slow film, bigger camera etc....overall much slower operation. That is a plus when LF is used in a more traditional way but i see it as a minus when used where a smaller format would work better.
I love my mamiya 7, fuji 6x9 in MF; they cant be beat.
I like your project...the desire to do it is a good enough reason to do it; I look forward to the progress
The 45 is great for what it is but I tried to make 45 act like a big MF and it reall did not work well for me. Slow lenses, slow film, bigger camera etc....overall much slower operation. That is a plus when LF is used in a more traditional way but i see it as a minus when used where a smaller format would work better.
I love my mamiya 7, fuji 6x9 in MF; they cant be beat.
I like your project...the desire to do it is a good enough reason to do it; I look forward to the progress
Jamie123
Veteran
I just completed my first Polaroid 110A Packfilm conversion which was certainly fun.
As for your project I do have to agree with others and think it might be a lot more trouble than necessary. One 'problem' I see with your idea is that the bellows extension on the 110 is rather limited. If you want to get around this (and you will if you want to use longer fl's) you'll have to replace the bellows and the focusing rail which basically means you'll only be able to retain the lens from the 110 which makes it moot to use the rest of the camera.
I think Frank's idea is a good one. If you sell all those Polaroid cameras you'll be able to afford a 'proper' 4x5 camera. You could even get a good camera that's a bit beat up and refurbish it to satisfy your desire to tinker
As for your project I do have to agree with others and think it might be a lot more trouble than necessary. One 'problem' I see with your idea is that the bellows extension on the 110 is rather limited. If you want to get around this (and you will if you want to use longer fl's) you'll have to replace the bellows and the focusing rail which basically means you'll only be able to retain the lens from the 110 which makes it moot to use the rest of the camera.
I think Frank's idea is a good one. If you sell all those Polaroid cameras you'll be able to afford a 'proper' 4x5 camera. You could even get a good camera that's a bit beat up and refurbish it to satisfy your desire to tinker
Steve M.
Veteran
Back in my racing days we had a saying "there's no substitute for cubic inches". You seem to have discovered the film equivalent to that. There's no substitute for bigger film. My LF shots weren't as sharp as my "miniature" cameras, but they had a look all their own. For shots of people, 4x5 was, and still is, impossible to beat.
The first time I shot Tri-X in 4x5, well, it sure looked different from 35mm. Very, very smooth. Loved those big negs too. LF turned out to be not my thing for a lot of reasons, but I like your idea of keeping it small and light.
The first time I shot Tri-X in 4x5, well, it sure looked different from 35mm. Very, very smooth. Loved those big negs too. LF turned out to be not my thing for a lot of reasons, but I like your idea of keeping it small and light.
oftheherd
Veteran
Large negatives are fun. You might want to consider a light 9x12 such as a Voightlander VAG, or an old Agfa. The Kodak Recomar 33 is a nice camera, but much heavier. The VAG is a wooden camera and therefore light. It should come with a Skopar lens which is nice. The Bee Bee 9x12 had interchangeable lens capability, but I have no idea what lenses they took other than 135mm. I have never seen other lenses. They aren't light either. Not all 9x12 have double extension bellows. Most accept Series VI aux lenses for wide and tele. Not as good as being able to change lenses, but not bad either. You can also use 120 backs on the 9x12.
Heavy and light are subjective. When my back is acting up, My Supre Press 23 is heavy, as well as the Kodak Recomar. When my back isn't acting up, I enjoy them.
I tend to cut down 4x5 film, which is easy to do. BTW, just for curiosity, were you unwilling to do that with the Mamiya Press? Granted you lose a lot more film than with 9x12.
Just something to think about. From you initial post, you seem to want to head in another direction, and that is OK, being a matter of personal taste. I like to experiment and fiddle as well, but don't really have the skills. Good luck in your current project. Hope it works well for you and you get a lot of enjoyment from it.
Heavy and light are subjective. When my back is acting up, My Supre Press 23 is heavy, as well as the Kodak Recomar. When my back isn't acting up, I enjoy them.
I tend to cut down 4x5 film, which is easy to do. BTW, just for curiosity, were you unwilling to do that with the Mamiya Press? Granted you lose a lot more film than with 9x12.
Just something to think about. From you initial post, you seem to want to head in another direction, and that is OK, being a matter of personal taste. I like to experiment and fiddle as well, but don't really have the skills. Good luck in your current project. Hope it works well for you and you get a lot of enjoyment from it.
besk
Well-known
I have a Busch Pressman 4X5 which is great for my purposes.
But have recently been using a cut-down Mamiya Press 23 with Graflok back with the rangefinder removed (called a Flattop) and Grafmatics plus a Horseman 6X9 roll film back.
Scale focusing when desired and a ground glass for critical composition and focusing. This is a very versatile camera.
You can buy cut film in that size or cut down 4X5.
The Voigtlander VAG was also made with an aluminum body as was the AVUS. I have both.
But have recently been using a cut-down Mamiya Press 23 with Graflok back with the rangefinder removed (called a Flattop) and Grafmatics plus a Horseman 6X9 roll film back.
Scale focusing when desired and a ground glass for critical composition and focusing. This is a very versatile camera.
You can buy cut film in that size or cut down 4X5.
The Voigtlander VAG was also made with an aluminum body as was the AVUS. I have both.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Frank,
be those as they may, there is a certain rewarding satisfaction of seeing my own 4x5 converted Pathfinder 110.
A satisfaction that says, "Despite of not being a craftsman, I cobbled that thing together, and it shoots film that I can print images from ... Neat!"
Sometimes people embark on a project for the project's sake. That's part of what make each of us ... unique.
GaryLH
Veteran
First to op. Looks like a fun project. Good luck with it.
Comment on the 9x12 approach to this
- voitlander berheil and Zeiss ideal have bayonet mounted lens setup
-- good way to use alternate lenses with them.
-- maybe other 9x12 with bayonet mount, but these are only two I know for sure
- I have made a 9x12 to 4x5 converter based on film pack adapter thanks to Ken Ruth
- Smallest/lightest 9x12 has got to be the kw patent etui
Gary
Comment on the 9x12 approach to this
- voitlander berheil and Zeiss ideal have bayonet mounted lens setup
-- good way to use alternate lenses with them.
-- maybe other 9x12 with bayonet mount, but these are only two I know for sure
- I have made a 9x12 to 4x5 converter based on film pack adapter thanks to Ken Ruth
- Smallest/lightest 9x12 has got to be the kw patent etui
Gary
Last edited:
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Great solution. With all the unnecessary stuf cut away, it's very compact. Those full-sized Polaroids are some heavy beasts. Let's see how it goes.
Thanks for inspiring my next 4x5 project.
Thanks for inspiring my next 4x5 project.