(Much) Bigger than a Texas Leica !!

Yup! I believe there are a few owned by peeps on the board here. There is another company that does Polaroid conversions to 4x5 as well - I think australians.

They are quite nice.
 
Razzledog and Alpenhause just to name a couple

Razzledog and Alpenhause just to name a couple

Razzledog (Dean) in Australia:

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

Alpenhause in California

http://alpenhause.com/

not to mention a couple of others doing the conversions. The goal is a handheld rangefinder 4X5 OR polaroid packfilm camera, using these old rollfilm Polaroids. The 110B has the right rangefinder and the wonderful 127mm Rodenstock lens once standard on the camera. The 900 body has the right rangefinder and a front standard that Razzle is converting to a front lens with movements.

I have two 110A's, two 110B's and two 900s for when time and money permit. I have between $50 and $75 invested in each of them before conversion.
 
Take a look at my thread "Unlimited Possibilities with Polaroid 350 Conversion

Take a look at my thread "Unlimited Possibilities with Polaroid 350 Conversion

You can convert a Polaroid 250 or 350 for under $100 in parts. Littman wants $2000 and has a problem with people who build their own cameras saying they steal his "original" ideas (sorry, but Polaroid made this beast, and other off the shelf parts were made by other companies, so go pound sand). The 250 and 350 are much lighter than the 110a or 110b , and have nice Zeiss rangefinders. That 127mm lens on the 110a is super sharp, and has rare glass elements like Leica uses for its summicrons. The 110a is cheaper for parts. Buy it for the lens, and get a 250 or 350 for $10 to $20 and a Graflock back.
 
If memory serves, Dave(?) Riddle's 4-Designs was making this back in the '80s and routinely advertising it in Shutterbug. He just didn't patent anything.

-jbh-
 
riddle's 4x5 convertion

riddle's 4x5 convertion

Hello,

You mention Dave Riddle's 4x5 conversions from the 80's. Do you have any references on this or just memory? Perhaps an old shutterbug add? I'm very interested in this subject. My grandfather designed the 110's and other early Polaroid cameras.
 
I use a Littman conversion. It's very good. Perhaps it is over-priced, but I've done great work with it witch to me is much more valuable than the camera, so in the end the cost of the camera less of a concern to me. I'm sure others do great conversions too, but the Littman has been good to me, and the parallax and focus is still dead on after 4 years of extensive use.
 
Last edited:
I want one. I may buy the Alpenhause because it's here in Ca and the most inexpensive of the lot. Razzle makes stunning cameras.
 
Do a search on Littmann and you will be shocked by the attitude of that guy. He is famous over at the Large Format Photography Forum and APUG for is endless rants about his alleged patents and how NOBODY in the whole wide world is allowed to convert these Polaroid cameras. No matter how good these cameras might be, I would never buy anything from this guy. Make sure you have at least 8 hours of time to read his posts and you also might want to have some alcohol near by - you will need it!
 
What am I missing here?

Can anyone really tell the difference between a 6x9cm and one of these large-format negs in a 50x70cm print? I have never used a camera which requires sheet film so I don't have an opinion about this. However I know that I find my medium-format folders to be very practical in more ways than one.
 
Yes, you really can tell the difference between 6x7cm and 4x5", or at least I can, even in small prints. It's not just resolution, though that is a factor. A larger negative gives you more local contrast, and different formats each have their own DOF characteristics, and those factors apply whether you print by projection or digitally.
 
Mr. Razzle's conversions look interesting enough in this video. I remember forum members here talking excitedly about these and similar poloroid hacks a couple of years ago.

So what are the differences between the 110A, 110B and 900 Polaroids? Why would you prefer one over the other?

What I would love to see or hear someone talk about are those strange spring film holders - what do they look like up close and how do you get film inside them and out? Is there something like a dark slide? What is a Graflock and how does it exactly work?

What about development and scanning? I think I could have a use for something like this at weddings but I am not sure that it would give me a real visual or practical advantage over 6x9cm.

If I were to buy one I wouldn't bother with that littman person...seems like a real jerk! Thanks for the heads up!

Best
Kevin
 
What a guy, that Littman. As far as I'm concerned, if you buy a camera it's yours - and you can wreck the hell out of it any way you want...
 
A spring back has a groundglass that is not easily removed. A filmholder fits under the groundglass, and a variety of filmholder types work. Here's an article about the many types of 4x5" sheet film holders that are available--

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm

If you want to shoot medium format rollfilm with a spring back, you have to use a rollfilm holder that slips under the groundglass, and there aren't as many options available as there are for Graflok backs.

A Graflok or International back has a groundglass panel that can be removed easily and has two slides for holding backs or accessories in place. You can use it just like a spring back, or you can remove it to attach, say, a rollfilm back that is too large to fit under the groundglass. With a rangefinder camera, where you can focus just with the rangefinder instead of the groundglass, Grafmatic filmholders are a nice option, because they hold six sheets of film instead of two, and you can cycle quickly through the sheets. A Grafmatic will usually fit under the groundglass in a spring back, but if you have a Graflok, you can remove the groundglass to lighten up the package a bit and use the slides to fasten the Grafmatic to the back.

Littman may be nutty, but he does make a nice camera that does what it's supposed to (focus and frame accurately in a single window, like a 35mm rangefinder camera). Not all of these conversions have a parallax corrected finder, which is Littman's main claim, and Littman will fit the camera with a modern lens, re-cam the rangefinder, and add lens movements--for a price. He may also give the camera a crazy name and exotic finish.
 
Last edited:
David Goldfarb said:
A spring back has a groundglass that is not easily removed...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation but I think this is one of those things that I actually have to see and touch to understand. I'll have a look at that link you posted first.

Best Regards
Kevin
 
The Razzle most certainly has a parallax corrected rangefinder...it came standard on the 110B/900. Littman actually invented absolutely nothing new, despite the constant whining. The L45 consists of a body of an old Polaroid 110B, a stock 4x5 Horseman back, the two simply connected with a CB104 pack film holder found on a Four Designs pack film conversion...nothing new or exciting about it. The 4x5 conversion when done correctly however and without stealing anyone else's ideas, can become an excellent little lightweight 4x5 rangefinder that should only cost around a grand.

IMHO the goal here is to increase the 4x5 camera's options, therefore making it attractive to both the average Joe and the experienced photographer alike. Wasting time annoying the hell out of everyone making their life a misery and winding up looking like a complete tosser into the bargain is nothing short of lunacy.
To have a look at some sanity try here: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom