How to make 4x5 Polaroid Square Shooter 2

[narsuitus]

Another thread in this forum about modifying Polaroid rangefinders to accept 4x5 film got me wondering if I could modify a plastic Polaroid Square Shooter to accept 4x5 sheet film. If anyone can tell me how or point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[kb244]

depends... what kind of film did the modified rangefinders take? Shouldnt be that hard, you'd just have to keep in mind the exposure index of the default film that camera takes ( since its metered based off that ) , kinda like how you can put 600 film into an SX-70 Camera, by nocking off two tabls on the film cartridge, but you'd have to use a 2X ND filter to compensate for the extra speed of the film. The same could be true of the modification, just have to figure appropiate film speed if the cartridges are relatively simple to each other.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A Square Shooter 2 is a bad choice for this modification, IMO. It uses the square format pack films, approximately 3x3 image area, with a fixed-position (plastic) lens, and to get the film in standard film holders to the original plane of focus would require hacking off so much of the camera back you might not have a light-tight box left (and then you'd have a 3x3 image on your 4x5 film). Extend the back enough to cover 4x5, and you'd have to replace the lens (and probably the shutter, since you'd have to destroy the original to mount another lens), but then you'd need either a hyperfocal setup, or you'd have to make some provision for focusing (either a helical, shimmed lens board, or front-focusing lens, plus a ground glass to focus on since this camera had no rangefinder).

I think you'd have a much better time using one of the rangefinder pack-film cameras, which were originally made for rectangular film and so require much less back extension to cover 4x5 (though they still require replacing the lens and recalibrating the RF for the new focal length -- the latter a trick I'm not sure has been done yet) -- or just hack up a rangefinder roll-film Polaroid like everyone else does.

 

[derevaun]

It might work with 2x3 sheet film. The image area of Type 88 is 2-3/4" x 2-7/8" but the actual width at the film rails is about 3-1/2" in the Square Shooter 2. A 2x3 film holder won't fit without some modifications, but it seems possible. Somebody around here might know the distance from the rails to a Polaroid pack film surface; 2x3 sheet film has the same film depth as 4x5 (~3x16") and the holders are the same thickness (~1/2"). Type 88 packfilm is around ASA 80, so ASA 100 will be about as close as the focus will be. You'd have a little change in your pocket per exposure, and a negative, but this sounds like the journey is the payoff.

The Minute Maker used both packfilm formats, so it might come closer to covering 4x5.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It shouldn't be hard to measure the setback from the outside of a film pack (the surface that references against the inside of the camera, at the bottom of the pack well) to the inside (where the film rests against the inside surface of the pack shell). It's going to be a bit less than the setback in a film holder with a dark slide, probably less than half.

If you were going to hack the camera to this extent, I'd suggest going to 3x4; you'd get more negative, and take advantage of the square format of the body to get something a little less usual, with essentially no additional effort required in modifying the camera. If you can come up with some means of setting the camera's focal plane back by a fraction of an inch (possibly as simple as inserting a thick optical flat, which will subtract something like 1/3 of its thickness from the effective optical length, and ought to have slightly more effect the closer it is to the lens), you might be able to reference the film holder against the existing pack well bottom, which should still leave enough of the original camera body for light tightness and reasonable rigidity.

Any of the rectangular film cameras would be a better choice in terms of covering the negative, but a square negative would be a bit more unusual, and this one is significantly larger than what you get from a 6x6...