Polaroid 110b 4x5/ Pbm rangefinder/focus

[dan_nougue]

Hello,

 

Anyone can help me?

 

I have a polaroid 110b 4x5 (graflock back). But the rangefinder is

not state-of-the-art. I have 2 pbms with it:

 

1/ when I focus "horizontally" or up and down through the viewfinder,

the focus seems accurate at all distances ( as confirmed on the

ground glass) ; But when you focus through the viewfinder from down

to up, the focus is not accurate (out of focus as stated through the

ground glass). ...(??)

 

2/There is a discrepancy when I focus on something, and then move the

camera slightly, ether left to right, or up and down - what appears

to be accurately aligned in the center of the focusing spot, will be

slightly misaligned when it is on the edge of the spot.

 

 

This camera gives inaccurate focus 90% of the time when shooting wide

open.

Do you know how to correct it?

Thx for all/

[rachel_kinoshita]

Hi Dan,

 

With my 110B, I usually focus horizontally then rotate the camera 90 degrees, recompose, then shoot. I just find it easier to focus on subjects left to right rather than up to down. If you level your camera, focus on something horizontally, then rotate your camera, is the image in the rangefinder out of alignment? If so, something is moving inside your rangefinder mechanism. If, when shooting vertically, you're tilting your camera up or down, then the rangefinder will be somewhat off because the two rangefinder windows are different distances from the subject.

 

Regarding your 90% inaccuracy rate, is that handheld or on a tripod? Handholding a 110B takes some getting used to. First of all, it's fairly heavy and if you're using the original shutter release, it's a little unwieldily, so it's easy to introduce camera shake. I don't know what distance you're shooting at, but keep in mind that at 8' using the 110B's 127mm lens on 4x5 film shot at f4.7 (wide open), your depth of focus is only about 8" in front and 8" in back of your subject.

 

Rachel

[dan_nougue]

Thx Rachel for your answer.

 

I checked what you said on my 110b, I think it is OK. But my issue remains, to get a better idea of my issue, I have done these pictures to illustrate it. I checked the adjusting screws on the pivoting mirror in the rangefinder, the alignment of the rangefinder cam when the camera is focused at infinity on the ground glass, focus at various distances and check the sharpness of the image on the ground glass...everything seems to be Ok but still remains this issue when I focus down and up.

 

Thx for your help.

 

Moreover, does your pola 110b correct the parallax? If so do you know how to do that?

 

Thx

 

Best

[rachel_kinoshita]

Hi Dan,

 

I believe the focus problem you're seeing with vertical orientation, shooting at a sharp angle is just the nature of rangefinder focusing. The primary image window is closer to the subject than the secondary rangefinder window so when the two images line up, they're actually out of focus. There are a few ways to work around this, focus horizontally, rotate your camera, compose, then shoot; stop down to increase your depth of focus; or just know that you'll have to compensate a bit when you shooting at vertically.

 

With regards to the parallax correction, mine was modified to do this, but I find that it's still not very accurate. What I did was spend some time shooting Polaroids and then compared the resulting image with what's in the viewfinder. For mine, the left, top and right lines are consistently just inside of where the image ends. However, the bottom line varies a little more depending on how close or far I am from the subject, so I have to compensate for it depending on distance.

 

Rachel

[dan_nougue]

Thx Rachel for your advise,

 

This camera is (unfortunatly) very weird and not for professional use as the viewfinder/rangefinder/focus is not accurate (and sometimes out of focus), the image you see in the viewfinder is completly different from the negatives you get...well I think I had no such pbms with my former Mamiya 7II...

 

Do the others who own this camera have to face up with the same pbms we have?

 

Did you change your original lense for a 135mm, 110, or 150?

The issues I raised should be enhanced with these lenses...

[rachel_kinoshita]

Hi Dan,

 

I don't necessarily agree that the camera is weird and not for professional use because I use it professionally all the time. I do agree that like any camera it does take some time to get used to its idiosyncrasies. I have a Mamiya 7 with the 43mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses that I also use professionally and while I love that camera, the 110B still gets used a lot depending on the job I'm doing. I would encourage you give the camera a bit more time, but if you decide it's not for you, I'm sure you won't have a hard time selling it.

 

Clearly a modified 110B isn't for everyone, but if you want a small, handheld 4x5, it's hard to beat. I have both a Speed Graphic and a Super Speed Graphic and the 110B is much easier to carry around for an extended period of time. As far as lenses go, I use the 127mm Rodenstock that came with it. Unlike Graphic cameras, the 110B doesn't have easy interchangeable cams, so changing lenses means losing the use of the Rangefinder.

 

Rachel

[dan_nougue]

Hello,

 

Yes I think this camera is helpful for documentary shoot if you are use to... But I've tried first in a studio and made so many mistakes with it (parallax, focus.) that I put this camera away. With your advise, I gonna try it as a snapshot camera. I think that the lense is nice, I basically have the same original lense Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm(which is not originally for 4x5 negatives, but that is another pbm) . Do you know at which aperture is the sharpest? f16?

 

I think you don't need any cam, you can change the lense (135,150) and focus with the rangefinder at various distances, check the sharpness of the image on the ground glass, and fix it.

 

BEst

[razzledog]

Hi Dan. As I have spent much time with the Polaroids, I have come to the decision that the rangefinder can not only drift horizontally and result in error, it can also become vertically misaligned. That aspect is annoying especially when shooting vertically. Added to that is the fact that although the 127mm Rodenstock and the 127mm Yashinon (fitted to the 120) are fine lenses with excellent resolution, they both exhibit a very shallow depth of field when shooting anywhere near wide open which gives poor results unless focus is bang on. I`m trying to perfect a method of easy adjustment of the rangefinder without having to remove the top cover which is both fiddly and time consuming. I have also found that the Polaroid rangefinder is far more accurate with a 135mm lens fitted! I consider the later multicoated lenses are far more forgiving with their apparent greater depth of field at larger apertures.

Cheers, Dean.

[dan_nougue]

Hello Dean,

 

Indeed, I just print my new images taken on a trip...they are not all well focused...

 

Did you try the polaroid 110b with a 150mm mounted?

 

thx

[razzledog]

I`ve found the original Polaroid rangefinder is very accurate with a 135mm Sironar or similar. 150mm requires a re contour of the cam.

Dean.

[william_littman]

My answer to Dan's Question;

 

Dan you are speaking of 2 issues which are contemporary but different altogether.

 

You are having to deal with something which has been fiddled with to be the best it could considering it was intended for something different and admitting that it works less than perfect for the application even if the images in the rf align there is not a true representation of what the lens is doing.

 

Just as Dan has noticed this rf problems so have many others .

 

Dan If you open your camera you will notice that the front element on your 110b finder is shaped like a bathtub on the inside and flat on the outside elongated horizontally that is why the beams appear different on vertical and horizontal, Miss Kinoshita says it is because the windows in the rf are at different distances, that isn't the case because that is the same on a Leica, a 600se or any rf camera and the triangulation compensates and accounts for distances.

 

However what is true is that one of the beams passes thru the front element and the second one doesn't that accounts for the issue which shortens one beam causing an aberration if you swing the camera which can not be corrected as a "RE_pair" considered as something done to " put together as it originally was, to "pair again", I have solved the issue thru beam compressing optics and while users are not expected to know these things manufacturers making claims of " such a camera" should know their stuff in 2004 when they dispute the novelty of an invention from several years ago while they don't even understand the issue as of today.

 

 

 

The only answer is when converting these cameras to 4x5 a cam modification is required if the gain if film size is expected to yield a gain in quality otherwise as Dan and others will confirm this will be the opposite. he has the original lens, the front element issue may aggravate the problem but even after the beams are of equal length the cam requirement is obvious. the front element issue may aggravate matters but the fact remains that the need for a strict cam is a result of the other following factors

 

mobility requires further precision, a softer lens requires a more accurate cam but any lens requires an accurate cam if expected to yield its full potential and not used as to forgive mistakes.

 

It has been determined years ago in our research that the standard adjustments as per manufacturer specifications yielded what Dan describes and I turned around and disclosed the issue even before I had a solution for it that is public domain as of 2002.

 

On the other hand we have merchants here willing to be deaf to the fact for as long as they can get away with it insisting that no modifications are required.

 

 

Fiddling with a couple of screws is just that things may align apparently but not efficiently as the beams are of slightly different lengths at all times unless corrected. by optics..

 

 

 

 

So Dan I can relate to the issue and I have explained why this happens based on clearly documented research, I have answered your question and you have answered everybody's question by posing it.

 

Furthermore many of my clients can and have confirmed in these threads that the new or old models of the L45 focused perfectly at all distances both vertical and horizontal even with the lens you use, being that the old model did not have beam compressing optics the only thing that would justify the accuracy would be a modified cam, modified cam required on all such applications.

 

You can use a flat screwdriver on a Phillips head , nobody could say "that doesn't work" but all can see it doesn't work well.

 

Here it is harder to see . specially when people making solicitations and claiming to have spent a lot of time with the cameras assure otherwise, It is interesting my 10 year old niece once opened a box containing a 110b which I bought unconverted and said" uncle the images don't match" that took her less than a minute. there is a lot to be learnt from the honesty of children.

 

 

 

That is my answer to Dan's question it is not different from what I have said earlier and Dan's question confirms what I have always said in the eyes of those who are interested in the truth for what it is and not muddling it for cost considerations or partisanship.

 

 

 

[william_littman]

This is

my answer to what Jones just wrote on December 13th is the following;

 

 

 

There are serious engineering issues present which as always you dismiss as smoke and mirrors and hoping to address the problem while not opening the camera sounds kind of infantile when you cant even provide a valid explanation to the problem even when you opened it and " have spent much time with the Polaroid's"

 

The beams being apparently misaligned can be annoying but getting less than a lens can deliver to film is really annoying. stating that the issues stem from beam misalignment confirms that as of today you do not understand the matters at hand and are offering

the solution which would be used in 1950, the bluff is over.

 

Users don't have to know the truth, a repairman can fiddle but someone claiming to have the right to challenge the validity and novelty of an invention has to at least understand the subject to some degree, you do not.

 

You can live with misalignment but not with an inefficient RF and that is what Dan and many others have confirmed.

 

Anyone can agree that when seeking a better lens it is to obtain a better result and not so that it will forgive Jones lack of knowledge on how to address the issue of a camera cam or that he cant implement a modification because it is patented, so he says it is not required or a better lens forgives the issue?, not today not ever.

 

The word "forgiving" is a word I use on all my explanations and until this week no one else had used it to describe a lens, it is not a copyrighted word but it means something entirely different.

 

It is known and accepted that a vintage lens has less resolution than a modern lens therefore it will forgive ( as in " to disregard the obvious") to a degree , as one would say that it is not polite to ask a woman her age, I used the word " forgiving to describe that a vintage lens would be more polite and gentle in this way while reminding that a large portion of the LF community considers softness as a flaw in quality.

 

This is true in tech terms but a quality sought by portraitists. on the other hand as my clients who own the lenses and cameras with apo sironar N lenses will post here, they are brutally sharp both on any ground glass and work exactly the same on the l45s rf there is no forgiving to expect there is no forgiving needed, it is a modern lens brutally sharp and it forgives nothing, it enhances everything

 

I have no exclusive rights to the word " forgiving" but Jones use of the word " forgiving" is a clear admission that the utilization of a better lens would be his suggestion which would forgive the existing problem or his predicament, it doesn't .a compromise in quality is not a suggestion expected of someone offering a product for sale which he makes.

 

Should I be flattered that this person went on to build a house of cards based on my vocabulary, ? the problem that he then needed to

discredit my research to sell his stuff and came to photo.net to do that. he should have remembered that sooner or later people would start noticing that what he said isn't true, even if they don't blame him they admit this is the case.

 

 

The vintage tessar lenses are more forgiving as in they are less resolved and the result would be identical on ground glass on any camera but in the L45s there is no forgiving in regards to the lens/ cam issue as works perfectly with the vintage lens , nothing needs to be forgiven in regards to the tech aspect and whatever sharpness is in the lens the rf delivers, it is either addressed as the l45s or remains what Dan has confirmed just an old camera that doesn't even focus well, no parallax correction but it looks similar To the littman / but on the outside..

 

There is a difference in quality in the lenses which people seek for different reasons, should that gain in quality offered by an Apo Sironar be used to forgive Jones lack of understanding ,or tech issues in a cam, the mere use of the word forgiving here is an admission that a modification is required but he either doesn't know how to or it is patented .

 

Ms Kinoshita has said in earlier discussion that she did not consider her converted 110b to be really hand holdable, ok... then she said here that to focus it she has to turn it sideways and then turn it vertical to shoot that would mean that it is also not a snap shot camera because " snap " means to be ready to click on any given moment and so that myth is also dispelled fiddling and snapshot are opposites, confirming once more that not only the parallax correction issue does not allow you to benefit from the whole 4x5 but the rangefinder can not be utilized for the application without having to resort to summersaults flips or whatever ingenious tactic one chooses, in short a full confirmation of what I have said regarding the RF requiring modifications in all instances for the 4x5 application otherwise it is hit and miss.

 

These admissions by users regardless of who the manufacturer is are reluctant at best, after all this instigation that these limitations were just a fabrication of my greediness these people went on to defend the mere conversions but in time they are finally admitting that they resort to compensating tricks but that the mechanisms do not perform

just as I have always insisted., the reason why it is hard for these users to snap out of it is because they are the kind of people who like to see the glass half full , I admire that and point out that is an admirable quality but remind them that while they are willing to do all the extra fiddling they have confirmed my findings by the same token.

 

I am glad that the truth has finally come out.

" then Jones states"I have also found that the Polaroid rangefinder is far more accurate with a 135mm lens fitted! "

 

Gentlemen rangefinders are accurate or inaccurate on their own the lenses are accurate or inaccurate on their own and the merger is expected to yield results representative of the actual lens not a compromise.

 

This is entirely false the cam requires a modification contrary to what Jones has stated in a different thread, whatever efficiency a lens has can not be accepted as an overcompensation for the lack of efficiency of an RF when suggested by a manufacturer.

 

We all know how good lenses are, Jones claims to make cameras and his proposition

amounts to offering a service while admitting he has no clue hoping that a better lens will compensate and forgive him or the RF inaccuracy confirms everything I have said about technical requirements as not being a luxury as those he instigated chose to believe but a minimum requirement, .

 

Dan has the original lens and finds the problem Kinoshita suggests fiddling confirming the problem is present in all cases to which Jones again replies admitting a limitation in the vintage lenses yet any of my clients will confirm this is not a limitation at all in regards to the efficiency of the apparatus which focuses as well with any lens including the original one so that again is false. .

 

Jones has used these threads to solicit business from photo.net members insisting that

the parallax correction issue is smoke and mirrors , Mr. Naugue has confirmed that the parallax correction on a merely converted Polaroid 110b to 4x5 is completely off and not acceptable for professional use.

 

Validity of patents referring to the required modifications has been proven by the admission of the users admitting to the problems present and the lack of knowledge by those who disputed the validity right here, right now .furthermore Jones answers are the biggest reassurance of the validity of the patents.

 

Validity of the patents on these subjects is also demonstrated because my product has none of these problems as it has been widely admitted by its owners.

 

The fact that Jones insist a better lens is more forgiving is a full admission of an imperfection present which translated into English spells " apo Sironar N 135 mm requires a cam modification, however because it is a better lens it somewhat forgives the requirements and the results and you use a better lens and " get away" with it.

 

To make a good camera one may not need a patent but you do have to have some clue as to what is required, forgiveness is not part of it. however the cam must be brutally accurate in all cases.

 

"modification.

the making of a limited change in something; also : the result of such a change .

modification.alteration, mutation, turn, variation ".

 

What the specific modification may be shall remain confidential until final patent application is issued and Jones has received such info from us to avoid just this, by law

he is obligated to respect our privacy.

 

Jones proceeds to limit a modification to a " re-contour" and that is not what the exiting patents protect nor what delimits a modification but he said that hiring a lawyer to study the patents would put him in the same category as me so he again excuses himself from having to understand what is patented. I wish he would feel the same way about vocabulary or the outside appearance of a camera as we would not find ourselves here.

 

Jones is aware that the information he is providing here has been submitted to him by us as private communications relating to a patent application pending and he is aware that besides what is patented, other claims would follow, that patent examination period has ended and will soon be issued.

 

I believe that thread participants and manufacturers are held to a different standard, users can assume whatever and offer opinions but manufacturers are obligated to offer only facts which the can substantiate thru engineering instead of poetry.

 

Perhaps instead of hoping that things will resolve themselves thru telepathy while not having to open the camera if he has spent that much time with the Polaroid's he could consider a digital caliper .

 

When all this nonsense began Jones told you all that you should understand that my words are just words, so great do not believe me believe him he has just confirmed all my research, do not believe me believe the difficulties encountered by the users who are not my clients and finally believe that if no one could provide the right answer it is because they didn't have it, therefore the right answer is novel/ has proven 100 % effective in all instances and fully vindicated me, Thank You Mr. Jones.

 

My clients will confirm that focusing is accurate with any lens, my apo Sironar N clients will confirm that the lenses are brutally sharp and forgive nothing and Jones can find a little civility and respect for photo.net members and stop making false representations in his offers which damage the value of our proven research and deceive photo.net members.

 

I don't believe he will stop but as far as I am concerned the roller coaster ends here, to those knowledgeable he has been fully exposed .

 

I never came her to convince anyone of anything but was diverted from having a life when this person began using photo. net as his commercial website by saying that all we offer is smoke and mirrors e and we lost a fortune.

 

If I had to prove it myself no one here would have believed me, many wont understand what has just happened but those who matter to me will never doubt me again and photo.net is very nervous that little remains to be proven that all that Jones has stated is melting like the wax as if the Iccarus wing by his own admissions .

 

What remains is what I have always said a mere conversion of these cameras isn't worth it, my opponents insist that no further modifications are required so their cameras should work as mine. they don't . If it is not a snapshot camera and it is not a view camera then most agree it is not much at all. the tech speaks for itself and while there may be many ways to skim a cat if you prove that you do not know how to do so today you can't dispute the inventiveness of someone who has done it before you and everyone agrees it works very well, the rest don't everyone agrees . don't you think if they could they would?

 

My clients are not rich but they value their time their trips and their photo sessions my research is dedicated to them.

I'm glad Jones has finally offered them reassurance of its validity.

 

These threads are intended for users, when merchants show up here to offer products in violation of the servers policies and belittling our proven research and our IP rights we are obligated to respond, otherwise I am not interested in obtaining any business here but cant accept to continue to loose so much because merchants are allowed to misuse this server.

 

 

 

 

 

 

;

[camera_conjurer]

As usual, Mr. Littman has contributed a diatribe of self promoting

utter nonsense. There is not one iota of truth in anything he has

said on photo.net so far regarding the quality of the rangefinder

of the

Polaroid 110B and it's ability to work when the camera is

converted to 4x5. Perhaps he, and a few photographers or

magazine writers will, but, after a thorough examination, no one

in the world with any technical knowledge would ever

endorse the mechanical or optical superiority of his camera over

the 110B. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Littman does to the Polaroid

110B rangefinder what he claims to do in his patents, he's

actually is

ruining it. His first patent demonstrates a profound ignorance of

the working of the Polaroid 110B rangefinder mechanism,

contains trivial claims such as crazy gluing the adjusting screws

and bending the

spring on the pivoting mirror to increase the pressure of the

follower on the cam, which is the equivalent of putting a brick on

the tone arm of a record turntable, and will have the same effect

on the

rangefinder cam that the brick would have on the LP record. His

posts on photo.net show a profound ignorance of rangefinder

theory. There are some minor, ( MINOR ), 'rangefinder

anomalies' when you

change the format of a Polaroid 110B to 4x5, but Mr. Littman

hasn't mentioned even one of them. I've read several books with

chapters on the subject, but I doubt that he ever has. One

example: He claims

100% parallax compensation for his 'improved' viewfinder.

There is no such thing as 100% parallax compensation. It's

technically impossible. Not even Leica claims 100% parallax

compensation.<p>

 

When the first threads about the Littman camera came up on

photo.net over a year ago, I was contacted by one Littman owner

in particular. Of course this is hearsay, but the caller told me that

the

rangefinder of his US$4000 Littman camera was eighteen

inches off, and he said that if Mr. Littman used only one tool to

build his camera, he would guess it was a shovel. He also told

me of some rather

'eccentric' circumstances regarding the delivery of his camera.

When I asked why he didn't return the camera for a refund, he

said, considering that he makes $25,000 per photo, it wasn't

worth the trouble of

dealing with Mr. Littman again.<p>

 

Whenever there is a post here on photo.net by a Littman owner

about the problems they've had with the Littman camera, Mr.

Littman posts a pages long obfuscating diatribe about how

those problems will

be eliminated in his next model of the camera. ( Possibly with

the aid of laser beams! ) It reminds me of the line in the movie

"Ed Wood', about the worst film director that ever lived, when

Jonny Depp is

talking on the phone to a film producer. "What ? My last picture

is the worst film you ever saw ?!?!? Well, my NEXT film will be

better!" We all know that Ed Woods' subsequent films may have

been

better, but they were still some of the worst movies ever

made.<p>

 

Now as for Mr. Nogue's original question, in all my years of

repairing and modifying Polaroid 110Bs, I've never heard of such

a problem, even if the camera format has been changed to 4x5.

The rangefinder is really off 90% of the time !?!?! That's

incredible. There is only one element in the Polaroid 110B

rangefinder that

could even possibly cause such a problem, and it could only be

caused by incompetent previous repair, such as what Mr.

Littman, who has no previous technical experience, does to his

rangefinders. <p>

 

Mr. Littman will now post a reply to what I've written here with

something rivaling the length of James Joyce's 'Ulysses' in

order to hide what I've said amongst a torrent of nonsensical

babbling self

promotion. He'll attack me as he has Dean Jones, who is too

nice a guy to sue Mr. Littman for slander. I think the reason that

Mr. Littman writes so much is because his cameras don't speak

for

themselves. People have been modifying Polaroid 110Bs to 4x5

for years, and his cameras are not substantially better. THAT is

the most important fact that he is trying to hide. The

photographers that DO

like his cameras ? Well, of course they do! The Polaroid 110B is

one of the finest cameras ever made. No thanks to Mr. Littman.

I'll soon be posting my own comments about the Littman

situation so that

the truth will be at the top of the page and easily found.<p>

 

There is a dire problem with the USPTO. Without the changes to

the patent office since 1982, the Littman patents would never

have been granted. If you'd like to read about the subject, I highly

recommend the book, "Innovation and Its Discontents, How Our

Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation And Progress,

and What to do about it" by Adam B. Jaffe and Josh Lerner.

Having a patent doesn't mean what it used to.

[steve_icanberry]

Hi Evrybody I'm Baaaaack! Rangefinder O" Rangefinder How close Shall Ye Be! Here is my two Cents: 1.I Think Rachel and Dan May have a loose Viewfinder mirror of which will definitly cause flakey focusing, it is easy to fix. 2. I concur with Noah and Dean in that the the 110B Rangefinder is easy to deal with and there really are no real significant adjustments needed when converting to 4x5. My conversions are checked at 5 focus zones and it is real easy to get excellent results, just lube , clean, and make sure both mirrors are tight. 3. Have fun and enjoy the 110B and keep things simple, Myself, Dean and Noah can fix these rangefinder problems rapidly with efficiency plus reliable results.

[michael_briggs2]

This discussion has gone far enough. People have had their says, sometimes many times. <b>There should be no further posts --- they will be deleted.</b>