MaxElmar
Well-known
Good idea, Roger. Now we're getting somewhere!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
What's wrong with older, cheaper 6x9 cameras? Cheaper and easier. I've seen it done and indeed used the 6x17cm result. I thought it was on my site but I can't find it.I have seen many threads over at LFF about the Polaroid conversions and was (am) interested about 6x12 conversions. My understanding is that that is no real problem to do, but the camera is just very large for "just" 6x12. As was mentioned above - 4x5 conversions make more sense.
One should also note that many of these conversions are often sold by their new owners ... (think of X100).
There are people doing these conversions and you can indeed have the camera modified for focal length of choice (though only compact lenses can be folded without removing the front element).
I am wondering whether it would be feasible to butcher a Bessa III (or probably 2 of them) to make a 6x9 or 6x12 camera. But I guess it would be pricey ...
EDIT: For (my) pics see http://somakray.blogspot.com/2010/10/longfellow-6x18-medium-format-panoramic.html
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
kuzano
Mentor
"backs hard to find"... I think not!
"backs hard to find"... I think not!
First, your ideas in the first post of this thread are certainly do-able, since they have been done, by the likes of Dean (Razzle) and others.
I have seen step by steps on the rangefinder cams and how to grind them.
I have seen how the Razzle camera front standards can be adjusted to pull the standard back, which would accomplish the shorter focal length. Changing lenses on the front standard of all the 110's and 120 is easy to replace another LF lens, ie small length to maintain the closing function.
The easiest solution to your roll film back need is actually quite inexpensive and two solutions are actually noted for their film flatness characteristics.
I have a project that is similar but I am going large format and dumping the rangefinder. Here are pics of the cut down Pathfinder 110 A that I am using with as much polaroid body cut away as possible. I have a very light duty 4X5 back I will use. However in posting these pictures here, I am posting with ONE of the two solutions I suggest for you... The Mamiya Press 6X9 back which are readily found and reasonably inexpensive. Noted as one of the flattest film plane transport system in medium format.
Note that I cut away far enough into the body to affect the rangefinder area. However, I believe one can cut just slightly less without removing the inner components of the rangefinder. The rangefinder hood would have to be cut and patched on both ends.
With my project, I have to move the ground glass back out from the body enough for the lens to actually cover 4X5. However, with your idea and a bit of judicious shimming, either of the two backs I propose could simply be attached (something as simple as Gorilla Glue) to the original back film plane. In that case, the original rangefinder and using the 127 lens would not need any adjustment. Your 90 would need cam grinding. The 110B or 900 finder will fit on this body. Your 90 would also result in moving the front standard back approx 17mm on the front rails.
The two backs that I see as most available and best film flatness would be:
1) The Mamiya Press 6X9, OR even the Mamiya Press multiformat shooting 6X9, 6X6 and 645.
2) The later Singer/Graflex roll film for the 2x3 Graflex camera and also for the Graflex XL press models. If you watch closely you can find those backs with the late model extra pin rollers at the end of the film plane which seriously improved film flatness on these old backs.
Special Note: It should be noted here that the Singer Graflex back would be seriously lighter than the Mamiya Press back.
Both the Mamiya Press and the Graflex 2X3 backs can still be serviced.
The back shown in the pictures is the latest 6X9 Type III back from Mamiya with the built in shutter release. This long back could be affixed directly over the film plane, and result in no, or perhaps minor adjustment of the front standard placement.
Talk about a 6X12 format would also fit this scenario. The back opening is 11mm, so the back would only have to be fitted about a half inch to the rear to gather the 12mm opening. The 127 lens will easily cover this format. The front standard would have to be moved back accordingly, BUT, and note this..... If you don't change the focal length, but simply move the whole platform back the half inch, you Will NOT have to regrind the cam. The cam will work for 127mm, no matter the placement on the rails.
I still want my rangefinderless GG viewing 4X5, But your idea strikes me as easier to achieve than my project.
It would be interesting. As you can see, by my butcher job on the Pathfinder, it will be a rough looking camera in it's lightest form. OTOH, Some trim could clean it up and become more presentable. My conclusion is that the Polaroid Pathfinder closely approaches the ugliest camera on earth, and the only usable portions are the bellow/standard/door folding system, so why keep any of the rest of the camera. Perhaps the rangefinder is the only other usable portion and if you don't change the focal length, you don't need to recalibrate the cam. You can move the 127 focal length back or forth to achieve the area of light coverage on the rear film plane, but the rangefinder will still work as originally fitted.
Sorry about the crappy photos, but having some real difficulties on viewing photos from Photobucket. I'm struggling and seriously considering dropping them altogether.
"backs hard to find"... I think not!
First, your ideas in the first post of this thread are certainly do-able, since they have been done, by the likes of Dean (Razzle) and others.
I have seen step by steps on the rangefinder cams and how to grind them.
I have seen how the Razzle camera front standards can be adjusted to pull the standard back, which would accomplish the shorter focal length. Changing lenses on the front standard of all the 110's and 120 is easy to replace another LF lens, ie small length to maintain the closing function.
The easiest solution to your roll film back need is actually quite inexpensive and two solutions are actually noted for their film flatness characteristics.
I have a project that is similar but I am going large format and dumping the rangefinder. Here are pics of the cut down Pathfinder 110 A that I am using with as much polaroid body cut away as possible. I have a very light duty 4X5 back I will use. However in posting these pictures here, I am posting with ONE of the two solutions I suggest for you... The Mamiya Press 6X9 back which are readily found and reasonably inexpensive. Noted as one of the flattest film plane transport system in medium format.
Note that I cut away far enough into the body to affect the rangefinder area. However, I believe one can cut just slightly less without removing the inner components of the rangefinder. The rangefinder hood would have to be cut and patched on both ends.
With my project, I have to move the ground glass back out from the body enough for the lens to actually cover 4X5. However, with your idea and a bit of judicious shimming, either of the two backs I propose could simply be attached (something as simple as Gorilla Glue) to the original back film plane. In that case, the original rangefinder and using the 127 lens would not need any adjustment. Your 90 would need cam grinding. The 110B or 900 finder will fit on this body. Your 90 would also result in moving the front standard back approx 17mm on the front rails.
The two backs that I see as most available and best film flatness would be:
1) The Mamiya Press 6X9, OR even the Mamiya Press multiformat shooting 6X9, 6X6 and 645.
2) The later Singer/Graflex roll film for the 2x3 Graflex camera and also for the Graflex XL press models. If you watch closely you can find those backs with the late model extra pin rollers at the end of the film plane which seriously improved film flatness on these old backs.
Special Note: It should be noted here that the Singer Graflex back would be seriously lighter than the Mamiya Press back.
Both the Mamiya Press and the Graflex 2X3 backs can still be serviced.
The back shown in the pictures is the latest 6X9 Type III back from Mamiya with the built in shutter release. This long back could be affixed directly over the film plane, and result in no, or perhaps minor adjustment of the front standard placement.
Talk about a 6X12 format would also fit this scenario. The back opening is 11mm, so the back would only have to be fitted about a half inch to the rear to gather the 12mm opening. The 127 lens will easily cover this format. The front standard would have to be moved back accordingly, BUT, and note this..... If you don't change the focal length, but simply move the whole platform back the half inch, you Will NOT have to regrind the cam. The cam will work for 127mm, no matter the placement on the rails.
I still want my rangefinderless GG viewing 4X5, But your idea strikes me as easier to achieve than my project.
It would be interesting. As you can see, by my butcher job on the Pathfinder, it will be a rough looking camera in it's lightest form. OTOH, Some trim could clean it up and become more presentable. My conclusion is that the Polaroid Pathfinder closely approaches the ugliest camera on earth, and the only usable portions are the bellow/standard/door folding system, so why keep any of the rest of the camera. Perhaps the rangefinder is the only other usable portion and if you don't change the focal length, you don't need to recalibrate the cam. You can move the 127 focal length back or forth to achieve the area of light coverage on the rear film plane, but the rangefinder will still work as originally fitted.
Sorry about the crappy photos, but having some real difficulties on viewing photos from Photobucket. I'm struggling and seriously considering dropping them altogether.
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
Thomas, if you can do without the folding, I'd think about a Fuji 6x9 with a 90mm lens. I have a Polaroid 900 that Dean modified for 4x5 (150mm lens) and a Fuji GW680 with the 90mm.
The Polaroid is big and bulky (for a 6x9). It requires more frequent horizontal and vertical adjustment of the rangefinder than the Fuji. I had to shim the Polaroid lens board to keep it parallel to the film plane. The Fuji has been rock solid.
I've been happy enough with the look and resolution from the Fuji 90mm, and the Polaroid has been getting less use given the maintenance and 4x5 effort. With a 6x9 roll back, the maintenance and size would be the difference.