Using a Polaroid 405 Back on a Sinar F2

[tony_dubitsky]

I've recently entered the world of 4x5 photography through buying a used Sinar

F2. Is there anyone out there who can explain how to fit a Polaroid 405 back

on this camera? I tried to insert it the same way I inserted a Polaroid 545i

back, but ended up scratching the ground glass! Does one have to remove the

ground glass back entirely? If so, what holds the Polaroid back in place?

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated!

 

Thanks much,

Tony

[frank r]

You remove the ground glass first (its quite easy), then the 405 fits in the same place and sliding bars clamp it in place. Scroll down this link and check out the GRAFLOK back:

http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html

 

Many view camera makers adopted the style and called it the International Back. Your Sinar F2 may have one of these.

 

I don't own a Sinar F2 so I hope someone who knows more will give you more information.

[jeff bishop]

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I did have a problem that sounds like the same thing. I could fit the Polaroid 545 back into my Graphic View with no problem. The 405 was thicker, and required more space than what my camera had.

 

I remeoved the screws that held my backs springs. I got screws of the same thread size but about 1/2 inch longer. I put them through small coil springs, and then through the leaf springs and into the back. The screws were tightened down to the point where it would take the 405 back, but still hold the glass snug to the camera as well.

 

I got the screws and coil springs at the local hardware store. See the photos for more detail.<div></div>

[jeff bishop]

Back without the 405 holder.<div></div>

[Monophoto]

Tony -

 

The 405 was intended PRIMARILY for the Graphlok (aka international) back typical of speed and crown graphic cameras. With that back, the ground glass is removable, and the 405 attaches by means of a couple of rails.

 

However, it will fit in SOME but not all spring back cameras if the design allows the back to move far enough away from the camera body. As you have noted, the 405 is thicker than the 545 (designed for spring back cameras).

 

One of the subtleties of using the 405 on a spring back camera is that it is sometimes difficult to manipulate the darkslide without inadvertantly forcing the back away from the camera. The handle on the darkslide is very close to the back, and if you have fat fingers (like me), it's hard to grasp the handle without causing it to move away from the camera. The symptom of that problem is that the fogging at one end of the frame. When you are using the 405 on a camera with a Graphlok back, it is held in place rigidly.

 

It sounds like you have (or have access to) both a 405 and a 545. As you may know, Polaroid film for the 405 is less expensive than the same film for the 545. But that is offset by the fact that the choice of materials for the 405 back is limited - Polaroid just announced that they were discontinuing the 665 pos/neg pack film that fits in that back, and they never did have quite the range of products that they offer in sheets for the 545. Also, because the 545 uses individual sheets, it is possible to withdraw exposed film without processing it at the time of exposure. This is sometimes an advantage with pos/neg film if you don't want to have to deal with negative clearing in the field. Finally, the 545 is supposed to be able to hold readyload film from both Kodak and Fuji (I have no experience to confirm that claim). But the bottom line would seem to be that the 545 offers more options than the 405.

[nikos peri]

The two slides that hold on the GG holder also hold onto the edges of the Polaroid holder; it's

an "either/or" situation so yes you must remove the GG. Beware that the 405 holder will only

fit horizontally - or rather, it will fit both ways, but you won't be able to slide out the

darkslide if you slot it in vertically on the F2.

[tony_dubitsky]

Dear LF Contributors,

 

Thanks to all of you for your time and expertise in responding so thoughtfully to my question!

 

Kind regards,

Tony