RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nice job, mine is a little rougher than yours, but a camera is a camera. Some of my favorites are ones that I have customized. Be sure to post more images. I'll read the complete PDF tomorrow so I can see the whole picture.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Cool, looks good! I'm working on a 160-900 project right now. I like your solution to the film holder. I assume the borders you have on the negs are because of the closeness of the film plane to the bellows - they are a bit tight for a 4x5 image. I have a 150/5.6 geronar (tiny) on my lensboard and I plan on moving the film plane a bit farther back, which should get rid of the borders. Byron has his bellows custom-made so he can have a small holder without the borders, I wish I could do something like that...
Here's what mine looks like right now, it'll be a lot prettier once my leather comes in:
Here's what mine looks like right now, it'll be a lot prettier once my leather comes in:
Last edited:
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
Two great looking projects!
Keytarjunkie, how are you going to calibrate the rangefinder for your new lens?
Keytarjunkie, how are you going to calibrate the rangefinder for your new lens?
maddoc
... likes film again.
You guys are amazing !! 
So what are my possibilities to get a 4x5 foldable RF camera ?
So what are my possibilities to get a 4x5 foldable RF camera ?
ChrisN
Striving
You guys are amazing !!
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
Talk with Dean Jones - he's a sometime member here.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
With a lot of luck and patience
that's the hard part.Dean is fantastic, probably the best and oldest in the business. There's also Byron and Option8. (not going to mention Littman....) I would absolutely buy one if I had any money to speak of. But then again, I would also have a Leica and a real 4x5 if I had money...hehe.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Chris and Keytarjunkey, thanks !!
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Regarding Keytar's comment on the film gate: My film holders are for 9x12cm sheets (when I bought them I thought 9x12 holders were smaller than 4x5, but they're not), so one of the edges interferes with the full image, but what the heck... I already knew that centering the holder with the film gate would require rebuilding the camera body more than I wanted to (that's a Byron type job). Maybe a 4x5 holder will give me more bang for the buck. Time to take out the ruler and check.
Shot some more paper negs today. Results soon.
Shot some more paper negs today. Results soon.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Let's see them. I had to move my holders and back (4x5) 1 1/8 in back from the original film plane. I was guessing so maybe I could have used less. Good luck with the project, I haven't used mine for a while but this is one from mine. I sent this to RFH, but for the others (complete full 4x5):
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
thanks for posting all of you...I just scored a 900 for $23 in decent shape. I might actually follow through with the project this time
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
thanks for posting all of you...I just scored a 900 for $23 in decent shape. I might actually follow through with the project this time
Good luck! I'm really enjoying working on mine, I started building the back of it today:
not sure how I'm going to get the film holder to stay on, but I might try RFH's method since I already have all the parts.
Last edited:
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Here we go... by popular demand... a few more paper negatives scanned and inverted. A bit of dodge & burn applied. All shot on old paper I found at a flea market.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
I like the first one! Nice stuff, I have to try shooting on paper.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
An update on the angled spring holders: You need really strong glue to keep the spring in place and resist the pressure of the film holder. I tried some 2-component epoxy last night, and now it seems to stay in place.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Actually, I ended up using a slightly different solution than yours - I got some old L-shaped aluminum and cut it down to the size I needed it to be. It's a little thick but very strong. The springs I used were from a different part of the body - on the back door that gets thrown out, there are two small black springs with much greater strength than the ones you used. I attached those to the L-shaped aluminum, and then screwed the pieces onto my film holder frame, which I made by cutting down a 4x5 Olympus Microscope adapter.
Fragomeni
Member
Hi all. I've been a silent reader of this wonderful forum for quite a long time. You all inspired me so much with your conversions that this morning I got up and resolved to do my own. The project is nearly complete now. All I need to do tomorrow is set the infinity stop and figure out the best method of installing a light seal along to bottom of the camera where it meets the film holder. I haven't figured out the best way to do this yet so if you have any ideas please share.
I followed RFH's plan and the pdf for the most part and then improvised where I saw that I might be able to improve on the design with what I had available to me in my workshop (my home office really but I like to call it my workshop).
I decided to mine to accept Grafmatic backs rather then a single holder. I actually originally made it for a single holder and then realized I had a Grafmatic sitting around. I pulled it out and realized that it wouldn't take much extra work (just a little extra cuting off the left door) to get it to fit and I'd have 6 exposures rather then just 2. I actually thought about making it to fit a Graflex Bag Mag I have which would have provided 12 4x5 exposures but I decided the Bag Mag was was a little too thick and I didn't want to share it between this camera and my Graflex Super D. Anyway, using the Grafmatic back almost perfectly retains the original dimensions of the camera. Looks great and appears as though it will work great as well (still needs to be tested with the camera).
I also went a different direction with how I maintain pressure on the holder. I used two springs from a spare 8x10 camera back. I also used what RHF used but along the bottom of the camera to keep the holder tight and secure. I did not glue springs to these as it was unnecessary with my design.
I think I might put a new lens on it later but for the time being I'll keep the original triplet since people say its pretty good. I'd rather have a conventional lens in shutter though so that I'm not limited by Polaroid's EV10-17 system. What if I want to shoot in lower light then EV10!? A new lens will be nice but I have to figure out how to mock up a new front standard to hold it (or somehow use the original standard).
Thanks for inspiring me guys, this was a fantastic idea! I'm primarily a large format photographer but I must say I love my rangfinders. This is seriously the best of both worlds!!
I followed RFH's plan and the pdf for the most part and then improvised where I saw that I might be able to improve on the design with what I had available to me in my workshop (my home office really but I like to call it my workshop).
I decided to mine to accept Grafmatic backs rather then a single holder. I actually originally made it for a single holder and then realized I had a Grafmatic sitting around. I pulled it out and realized that it wouldn't take much extra work (just a little extra cuting off the left door) to get it to fit and I'd have 6 exposures rather then just 2. I actually thought about making it to fit a Graflex Bag Mag I have which would have provided 12 4x5 exposures but I decided the Bag Mag was was a little too thick and I didn't want to share it between this camera and my Graflex Super D. Anyway, using the Grafmatic back almost perfectly retains the original dimensions of the camera. Looks great and appears as though it will work great as well (still needs to be tested with the camera).
I also went a different direction with how I maintain pressure on the holder. I used two springs from a spare 8x10 camera back. I also used what RHF used but along the bottom of the camera to keep the holder tight and secure. I did not glue springs to these as it was unnecessary with my design.
I think I might put a new lens on it later but for the time being I'll keep the original triplet since people say its pretty good. I'd rather have a conventional lens in shutter though so that I'm not limited by Polaroid's EV10-17 system. What if I want to shoot in lower light then EV10!? A new lens will be nice but I have to figure out how to mock up a new front standard to hold it (or somehow use the original standard).
Thanks for inspiring me guys, this was a fantastic idea! I'm primarily a large format photographer but I must say I love my rangfinders. This is seriously the best of both worlds!!
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Nice work there! Never seen anything like that one. I love the idea of the clamps and the grafmatic back, you have a very original camera. As for the front standard - most people buy the 110A or 110B since you will need a 127mm lens anyway (the rangefinder's cam is designed for a 127mm lens, and if you change that you will have to physically change the shape of the cam). I think there was a 127mm ektar so that would work as well. The 127mm Rodenstock has a small shutter though, which is ideal for a folder. My lensboard is made out of the original 160/800 front standard, I just took a hacksaw to it and cut it down, leaving enough room to mount a lens. Good luck!
Fragomeni
Member
Thanks! I'm very excited about using this camera. I'm a little confused at the moment. Do I need to get a 110A or 110B to have a front standard that will work with other lenses? Keytarjunkie, you mention that you cut down the original front standard from your camera so I'm hoping that I can just do that. Now from what I understand, the lens on the Polaroid 800 is a 130mm f8.8. If I use a lens that is not 130mm will the rangefinder can not work? If I use a 127mm lens will the cam be accurate? I think what I'm understanding is that with my 800, if I change the lens as long as I stay with a 127mm lens then I should be good as far as the rangefinder cam is concerned, is this correct?
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Nice to see your solutions. I still seem to have the occasional light leak somewhere around the film holder. Back to the lab.
Regarding the triplet lens: The paper negatives I shot yesterday look stunningly sharp and detailed. Now I'm debating with myself whether to install the EKtar 127 I received a few days ago. The only problem is that what was described euphemistically on the 'bay as 'light cleaning marks' are actually enough scratches to make the front glass look kind of opaque and swirly. Yikes. Seems like someone 'cleaned' it with the rough side of a kitchen sponge or something. Plenty of fools out there. Well, at least the shutter was easy to work on.
Regarding the triplet lens: The paper negatives I shot yesterday look stunningly sharp and detailed. Now I'm debating with myself whether to install the EKtar 127 I received a few days ago. The only problem is that what was described euphemistically on the 'bay as 'light cleaning marks' are actually enough scratches to make the front glass look kind of opaque and swirly. Yikes. Seems like someone 'cleaned' it with the rough side of a kitchen sponge or something. Plenty of fools out there. Well, at least the shutter was easy to work on.