sailbad

<p> Dan I think you should research the Byron camera, it's the guy who does it with spacers. One is under the rangefinder top and the other on the bottom of the camera. This method also involves making a new bellows with the back end being 4x5 instead of 3x4, so you don't have to alter the infinity stop much because it's already been expanded with the bigger rear end size of the new bellows. I think he also extends the rangefinder post as well. That is why his camera is so compact and slim looking..................very involved method of construction, but what a camera, yum. The Byron is also a little taller because of the thin spacers used. I should also mention David Harm who has a kit available that has the back built of resin molded material and provides instructions on how to complete the rest of the build, very quickly. But he too uses something similar in design to the Graflok back so it results in a versatile, but thick camera. He's got a good option for people who don't have the tools or time to make their own design. I'm soon posting build photos of both the 4x5 and 3x4 conversion method that I use. I use aluminum and bolts, a very simple back method for sheet film holders only. But if the I had a machine shop, I'd do it the Byron way because I think it's the best design of them all.</p>

<p>Steve you're aware that you will have borders of unexposed film ................right. I think you'll have maybe a 1/8" border because the film plane hasn't moved back far enough. When I did my 4x5 I sat a 5/16" spacer on top of the flat section of the rear door, yours is sitting on top of the backside of the front body like my 3x4 camera or a pack-film type of conversion. So this will fall a little short of full coverage..................I wouldn't worry about it though, you'll have a much slimmer and easier to use camera in the end, even if it doesn't get full neg coverage. When measured from the old film gate to the new relocated film location it's something like an inch and a bit. Take a big piece of the plastic you use for ground glass and by shimming it farther and farther away you'll see when you get full 4x5, mark a 4x5 border in magic marker on the plastic and when you get enough coverage build your holder to match that measurement. Steve I never checked this out when I did my 3x4 cam so I don't know how much I went over the original size, but I do know that the rounded corners are gone on my negatives so it did get some expansion. My holder sits flush with the door just like yours does so it's gonna just about cover 4x5 but not fully. Hey it's not to late to make it thicker by doing the coverage test above or build it using 3x4 holders which will get full neg coverage. I would live with it, especially if your scanning the negs vs. using an enlarger. It's slim looking, I love it.</p>

<p>Art, the film plane moved a little because the plate/holder thingy is attached right on top of the rails inside the body. This move made the rounded corners of the film gate fall outside of the neg area, so the resulting negatives have nice square corners. Art what comes along with that is the need to relocate the infinity stop plate rearward until you achieve perfect focus at infinity on whatever you use as ground glass, I use plastic. The rangefinder works regardless of the film plane location, it's adjusted for horizontal & vertical @ infinity like usual.</p>

<p>I got a few of my first test shots scanned, taken with my first Polaroid 4x5 conversion. These are low res and still show dust & scratches, grrrrrrrrr. The R/F seems to work very well and all were taken hand-held, no cable release either........like it was designed to be used originally.</p><div></div>

<p> Steve when I did the 160 model in 4x5 what I did was attach a 5/16" piece of MDF directly on top of the door. I had to notch out the hump area where the red button is & some of the inside area of the rear door as well. I did leave the back door as one piece for strength this way it was stronger. I can also open the camera if I want. I'm a left eyed shooter and because the 4x5 was my first build attempt I decided to leave the double window R/F mostly because I didn't know how to add a 900 R/F at the time. I do now thanks to Option 8 and his advice and website. I can still shoot with this camera left eyed an all, just keep the back only as thick as the holder it houses and that's the best you can do with this method of expansion. Steve you will also be using a bigger % of the image circle (with stock lens) than was used in it's original format, I will be posting pictures of negatives that show what I mean by this. If you use a stock lens be it a glass triplet like the 160 has or the Rodenstock lens you will be taking a baby step backward by expanding to 4x5 using this method + a stock lens which was designed for a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 camera. That is why I went to a 3x4 design and it's easier to build, like a pack-film cam but use a 3x4 holder in place of the P/F holder. My 3x4 holds everything I need except extra holders and the camera closes without any extra help or shaving down of infinity stop tabs........yes you will have to do that too. Forge ahead Steve while you have the Polar fever.</p>

<p>Being that you have access to a mill....................</p>

<p>Steve there are only two ways to get 4x5 from your 110a. One way (most used method) involves moving the film plane back about an inch, with this method you are above the height of the R/F with just a very small area near the windows that will need trimming. The other method of getting 4x5 is like the Byron camera, where you add spacers to raise to R/F height ................this will solve the offset problem and center your holder, but it also means making a new bellows with the back end of the bellows now measuring 4x5 instead of the original 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 size. This method is very much slimmer, lighter and nowhere near as thick because the holder is "in house". I've done a 160 in 4x5 using the first method, but the camera I have on Photonet is <strong>3x4</strong> not 4x5. I hope you start your build with a cheaper model and sort out the details before you do the 110a, I have 2 - 110a's I plan on doing when I'm done sorting out the details. I will be posting pics of my 160 3x4 build after the holidays but that won't help you much because the 4x5 build is done a bit differently. There are older posts on here that might help you. On youtube there is a video of a 900 pack-film conversion which would help you out with some dis-assembly stuff and maybe give you some ideas too. You'll also need some tools & time but it's worth it. Good luck Steve & take your time.</p>

<p> Patrick I will be posting some picks of the build as soon as the holidays are over, just too busy with work & x-mas to do it now. I keep changing the holder design so I think it would be best to wait until I do another 160 with the new holder box/plate that I've come up with. I want to be able to store a lens shade, cloth, cable release and filters in the small door & with the new adapter the door will be much bigger because the holder box is only 1/16" bigger than the holder around it's perimeter.So the door will be about 3/4" longer and will house everything I need to shoot with. This would also work on a 4x5 version, making it about as small as I think it can be. The 3x4 160 isn't really a conversion, it's just a mod that takes it to cut sheet holders instead of the original roll film (no law suits here). I've seen so many of these conversions I just had to give it a try. To those who want to give it a go I would suggest starting on a cheap model in the beginning and move along to your camera of choice, this way you won't wreck an expensive model..........and you will learn and change things as you go. Patrick this last part doesn't apply to you as I've seen some of your stuff before I even got started.</p>

<p> I gave the 3x4 a bit of thought before I went ahead and built it, for the very reasons you mention. Ilford does special orders every spring so you can get most of their film in 3x4, factory cut. Freestyle photo also stocks Efke 3x4 100asa or you can cut your 4x5 film down to size yourself. When we convert these Polaroids to 4x5 we are using a bigger portion of the lens image circle, when keeping it in 3x4 you are using the sweetest part of the image circle...........like the engineers intended. I have a Pola 160 that I built in 4x5 with a very slim back but find the camera to be clumsy to use. I would like to explain why this way is better but I don't have the room here. The factory used those lenses based on negative coverage and they would have chosen another lens if the camera was intended for 4x5 use, with a <strong>bigger</strong> image circle. I wouldn't have gone down the 3x4 road unless I thought it had some advantages over 4x5. Based mainly on the above I think I'll stay with 3x4. The 160 I did in 3x4 frames/composes more accurately and is 4oz lighter and so slim you can leave the old 2 window R/F if you want. The holders used are smaller and it looks more like a factory build. Just my spin on the Pola thing.</p>

<p>This camera can't cover 4x5 because it uses a 3x4 holder..........I do have another 160 that is 4x5.<br>

Both get full neg coverage without vignetting. But I'm partial to the 3x4 version.</p>

<p>I've just got the 3x4 done yesterday and will do more testing when the rain stops.....have you seen one done this way before?</p><div></div>

<p>I recently converted a Polaroid model 160 camera to 4x5, I also built one in 3x4, they both use plastic double dark holders. What I want to know is which way is better? When going to 4x5 you are also using a bigger % of the image circle than it was designed for. So I built one in 3x4 and find it slimmer, lighter and just wanted another opinion on this format expansion vs. staying with the 3x4 format...........has anyone built one like this before, if not why?</p><div></div>

<p> Chuk is right about the voodoo surrounding the 4x5 conversion, If you use a 110a it will still require a 3/8" holder/spacer attached to the rear door. If you use a graflok back (YUK) you will have more options as far as holders and roll backs etc, but I just made one of cheap MDF and it works fine. Many sources describe the pack film mod in great detail, but for some reason they don't give the extra info needed to expand these Polas to 4x5. The only extra work is the moving of the infinity stop from it's original location and maybe using a 900 RF on it. The land list is a good source, so is option8 and many others that will clearly show you how to graft a single window RF onto your 110a and save the strap too. The info is out there on making a cheap GG to adjust your new infinity stop location, how you attach the infinity stop is the thing. I drill & tap two new holes and use the two old slots as well . A method that allows you to move the infinity stop again if you need to. You will also have to shave down the tangs on the stop to allow the camera to close, it will need some upward pressure to clear the newly shortened tangs/stops and close. But all of this is out there and that's how I built my 160 by much surfing and a bit of Mickey Mouse engineering.</p>

<p> The glass 130mm triplet used on these and other pola's are very under rated, much is also made of the rotary shutter used on these models............I have nine 160's and all of the shutters work fine and are timed very close. The EV system is also seen by most as a big disadvantage? I did a 160 which uses a glass triplet and I think it produces great negs and they are full 4x5 in DD holders. The whole cam cost me less than $50 and I learned a ton. Shooting with a raw neg loaded is great for initial testing of the camera. But a change bag will also have some limitations, like street shooting while walking in bigger cities where parking is a PITA. You also must be getting the original format size on a 4x5 neg which looks kinda cool with it's rounded corners. But you also get to see how much negative your wasting. You will however get a negative which will be much closer to what you saw in the view finder than you will if you expand the camera to accept DD 4x5 holders. Have fun and shoot often.</p>

<p> I don't think you'll find an affordable 4x5 polaroid out there................and don't rule out the 160 with the glass triplet lens. The CD that's mentioned is $50 and only gives you photos with some details about options, but unless you understand what makes this camera tick you'll soon be scratching your head. What's interesting about the CD is that you can see Dean's evolution as a Pola builder, his first cameras were fully functioning but really big and heavy. Why pack-film, it's so expensive and I don't like the limited variety in pack-film or the results you get. You could go the figital route and scan your 4x5 negs and go digital from that point, part film + part digital= figital. You could make your own dev-tubes and use a closet to load & develop your film, these tubes would do one sheet per tube but they're cheap to make and give you daylight capability as long as the tubes are preloaded in the dark. You don't need a $3000 polaroid or even a $400 pack camera conversion, build your own like so many others did. I saw one which used elastic bands to secure the film holder to the homemade back and that's the camera that got me going on my own 4x5 Pola, the one I saw was built by a guy who goes by the name " Hack-saw Billy " and his results were just as good as the expensive Pola's on Ebay. I'm not knocking their camera, I'm just saying if you get the new infinity stop location perfectly adjusted for the new film plane location and you keep the build simple you'll have a camera that's every bit as capable as theirs. I'm thinking about starting a website and offering three budget versions of the Pola 160, these would all sell for around $500 and I'm also thinking about offering instructions on how I build them............but I'm worried about pissing off some people who market these Pola's and some of them make a living doing so. I'm thinking of a 160-4x5 with original 2x window Rf, a single window RF 160-4x5 and also a single window RF 160-3x4 using 3x4 DD's and leaving the cam in it's original 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format. Do you think people would be interested in a budget Pola 4x5?</p>

<p> I recently converted a Polaroid 160 to 4x5, it only shoots double dark holders. I get full neg coverage and the cameras are cheap .99-$30 if your patient. I just added a home made MDF back 3/8" thick which I placed on top of the rear door. I didn't recover the camera, or cut the end or opt for the graflok back (what a beast). I kept it very simple and I still use the double window RF, even though I have nine 900's and I could swap out the 160 RF with that of one of my 900 RF's because the 160 has the large post just like the 900 so I wouldn't even have to drill and tap a new hole ( but if you do a 110A you will). I also have 2 -110a's + 11 pola 160's. I have my own darkroom so I load and develop and print all of my stuff, that's why I designed (LOL) the back for DD's only. You could take a 110A and do the same as I did with the 160 but it will cost you alot more for the camera initialy, I started with a 160 because it was cheap and if it was a success I would move on to the 110A. I've seen just about every conversion out there and what I wanted was just to get the basics right on a cheap cam that wouldn't make me cry if I messed up. I wanted to shoot without GG or a tripod and I wanted a camera that focused accurately. I just shot twenty negs and I'm happy because it works great and I don't think I have $50 into it, but I did spend alot of time thinking it through......like making my own fake GG using 2mm plastic and gentle steel wool application to one side. You have to move the infinity stop from it's original location, I use four very small screws to fasten the stop into it's new location and I can then readjust it if needed. Your fake GG must also be at the exact depth that your film is in your holder when it's placed in the camera back. I'm going to build a 160 that uses 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 cut sheet DD holders......this will result in the original format and be thinner, shorter and lighter. I will also transplant a single window 900 RF onto it. This will result in much more accurate composition than I get when shooting 4x5 negs in a camera that's a smaller format ( 25% or so ). The only thing about my 160-4x5 I'm not happy about that very fact........the cam can't compensate for the difference in format expansion. That's why I'm waiting for holders (3x4) so I can build a camera in it's original format and it will be more accurate because or it.............right? I guess you could do a 150 but a 160 makes more sense, if you don't have a drill press it's a really good way to go if your thinking about using a 900 rangefinder. Buy a cheap cam to start with and try again. I'm going to stop now before I piss off someone. Good luck Shalom .</p>