A real beast

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by rod_larson, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. I was at an estate sale today and noticed what looked like a Polaroid sitting on a table. Out of curiousity
    I opened it up and was suprised to see a Rodenstock lens mounted in a Prontor SVS shutter. Normally I
    would not even think of having a Polaroid but this thing was only four dollars so why not. When I got
    home I did a little searching and discovered the Polaroid Pathfinder 110A was made between 1950 and
    1954 and was a very high quality camera.
    Everything seems to be working on it. All of the shutter speeds are good and the bellows is still tight. It has
    some interesting quirks. The shutter release is a metal bar located near the lens and it is mounted such
    that it is easy to operate with your right thumb when in the portrait position but very akward when using
    the camera in the landscape position. There is also a little switch that locks the aperture control to the
    shutter speed dial so you can keep a constant EV when changing shutter speeds.
    All in all it is a handsome camera but for now it is totally useless so just sit back and enjoy some banal
    camera porn.
    Searching the internet revealed modifications so it can be used with film formats other than Polaroid's
    so maybe someday.......
    Rod
    00Z7MH-384717584.jpg
     
  2. Nice!! For $4 it was a steal!!
     
  3. This camera and the 110B, the pack models 180 and 195 garner some serious coin. What is happening is photog's are using the film from Holland for the pack models, converting the rollfilm 110 series to: pack film/ 4x5 cut film, 2x3 rollholder for 120 roll film.
     
  4. All in all it is a handsome camera but for now it is totally useless so just sit back and enjoy some banal camera porn.​
    Not at all useless. Convert it to 120 roll film or 5x4 sheet film.
     
  5. What paul said. These cameras are far from useless and can bring some serious money. Converters are always looking for these cameras. As a matter of fact, I just converted an 800 (similar in size to yours but with a much more rudimentary lens) with a packfilm back.
    Mike : D
     
  6. Like the old Konica ad for the Konica II(maybe others) used to say, "The lens alone is worth the price". I have used this lens on 4x5 and it's as sharp as anything. Nothing comes close for the money and I buy them when I find them cheap enough. Nice find by the way. Johnw
     
  7. It's not totally useless. I used to use a model 150 which isn't as nice but take the same film as the 110a. What I did was to carry a box of 4x5 film. An empty box to put the film in afterward. A changing bag. Put the camera in the changing bag and put a sheet of 4x5 film in there and close the back. The 4x5 sheet would fit well at the film gate and the resulting image is about 1/2" smaller than the 4x5 each side. Works nicely.
     
  8. Yeah, try the 4x5 first. Even on my old 150 I can lay a piece of sheet film (in darkness) across it and make a photo. With that lens you should get some first class results. If you don't have any 4x5 film, a box of expired Plus-X, Tri-X, or Ilford HP5+ or FP4+ is usually inexpensive on various auction sites.
     
  9. $4, huh?
    Sell it for $100-200 and buy yourself a snazzy Holga ( just kidding)
    Great find, Rod!
     
  10. It is a great find and if there's a will there's a way to use this thing! Go for it!"
     
  11. The 4x5 and changing bag really appeals to me. Nice way to get some photos without having
    to do a pretty serious conversion and everything would still be original. It would really make
    you think about the photo you are going to take. I would also have to start thinking about
    setting up a darkroom to develope the negatives. Ooooooh nooooooooo, its starting to happen
    again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!will I be able to get help before its too late?????????????
     
  12. I have a 110a and it's a nice bit of kit - the 4x5 idea works well and is dead cheap to try.
     
  13. Wow! Four bucks?!? I should be so lucky!
    Useless? As others have pointed out...not by a long shot.
     

Share This Page