quick load film holders

[severian]

Any opinions on the Fuji vs Kodak quik load film holders would be appreciated

Jack

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Jack,

Both are good. However, unless things have changed the Kodak (get the new single sheet holder) has less problem in accepting both Kodak Readyloads as well as the Fuji Quickloads. At least in the past the Fuji Quickload holder had problems accepting the Kodak Readyload film. The Fuji Holder I believe records a slight amount more on the film than the Kodak Holder. Both do give good film flatness, though perhaps not as good as single sheet holders or Graflex holders. Since most of us stop down our lenses to f16 or more, usually this should not be an issue.

Rich

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Hi Jack (don't say that at the airport),

I have both systems, though I think the Fuji Quickload holders are made a bit better. There have been some issues with a bad batch of the latest Kodak Readyload holder, some having a bowed end that may or may not affect film flatness. My Kodak Readyload holder is the last version during the transistion of two sheet Readyloads to single sheet, so it has the black pressure plate; and I am happy to report works fine with the newest films.

I consider each system holder as a back-up for the other system. While Fuji film work best in the Fuji holder, and Kodak best in the Kodak holder, it is possible to mix an match. However, if you make a mistake and get the film backwards into either opposite system holder, it will very likely jamb on you causing a need to disassemble the holder to get the film out.

Kodak Readyload film does seem tighter in a Fuji Quickload holder, so there may be some potential to jamb the film, perhaps depending upon construction tolerance of your holder. The Fuji Quickload film in the Kodak Readyload holder seems to work looser, though maybe it is too loose (film flatness issue?). It might be best to plan on getting both types in order to use film from both companies, at least to play it safe, and allow for back-up gear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

 

[Baxter Bradford]

Best to use same make film and holder as shown when Matt at Robert White did this test. http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/Large accessories.htm#Labelsheet Also read something on LF forum when I was starting out in LF.

In theory, pressure plate ought to give better results than std film holder (DDS); I use both Fuji QL and DDS and see no practical difference. I have had problems with my Polaroid 545i holder though, so couldn't recommend using one instead.

 

[Dan's45]

what kind of problems???

 

[Baxter Bradford]

It was pulling the metal film clips off the film.

Also issue when trying to use type 55 and process images back at base rather than in the field.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I have no first hand experience but I remember a conversation here a couple of years ago that gave me the final impression that Polaroid made the most trusted Ready Load/Quick Load unit. It held everything flat and seldom jammed. You might add it to your list.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I have no first hand experience but I remember a conversation here a couple of years ago that gave me the final impression that Polaroid made the most trusted Ready Load/Quick Load unit. It held everything flat and seldom jammed. You might add it to your list.

Plus, with a Polaroid (brand) holder, you can expose AND process Polaroid materials.

 

[raucousimages]

I have both. The only problem I had was the Kodak was missing one screw. I called Kodak and they were NO help at all. Foresters Camera Repair in Salt Lake put one in free of charge. I have had no problems but I almost use same brand film with the holders. With the used prices low you might try to find both.