Rb67 Medium Format Instax Mini Film Backs

[MattKing]

I thought this was interesting:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rb67-Mediu...096439?hash=item2ae75a8837:g:a~kAAOSw~rxepxJQ
Pictured:

The Description reads:
Rb67 Medium Format Instax Mini Film Backs. Condition is Used. Shipped with USPS Priority Mail. Each holder will accept 2 sheets of Instax mini film which you unload from the Instax packs in the dark and load into the film holder. Film holder locks to the rotating back just like the standards film holder does. Cock shutter, remove dark slide, expose, replace dark slide, remove Instax sheets in the dark, reload into the factory Instax pack, and develop in your Instax mini camera in the dark with the flash and lens covered.

I have no connection with the product or the seller, but thought that it might make good use of all those 220 backs out there.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah. Saw that. I wonder if the sale includes the Graflok adapter, or if it's just the five 2x3 film holders for ten bucks each?

And yes, they do hold Instax mini film. I wonder if anyone could prevail on Fuji to sell a process-only unit, or even a Graflok compatible Instax carrier? (Yes, I know, Coyote Camera Works does).

 

[cjbecker]

I would be all about a graflok compatible instax carrier/processor. Preferably crank style. Im down to my last few boxes of type 100, and the cameras that are compatible with the instax are terrible quality.

 

[gdavis]

They're just the ordinary cut sheet holders for the RB67, which people have discovered is just about the right size to hold instax mini film. Attaches to the rotating adapter just like the normal roll film backs do. Still need to transfer the exposed film to an instax camera in the dark to process, which to me negates the benefit of "instant" film, but I suppose some people will be happy enough to get a positive without processing and printing.
I'd much rather have something that will actually process the film like this: http://coyotecameraworks.com/instaxbackrb67/ of course quite pricey, and they ran out of the first batch in an hour and I haven't seen any mention of more being available since. In fact they seem to have fallen off the planet. Seems to me a prime example of why you don't want to rely on 3d printing for volume production.
I've hacked an instax sq6 to mount to my RB67.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've hacked an instax sq6 to mount to my RB67.

Nice, so you get the Instax Square film, a little bigger image than the Mini -- actually close to the 6x7 gate you'd have with a 120 film magazine. Were you able to get the film plane to match?

The other way to do this, apparently, is to find one of the original Impossible Mini Lab units (designed to print from your cell phone onto what's now, again, Polaroid integral square-ish prints), and hack that onto the P adapter from an original RB67 Polaroid back (Type 88 or 100, same adapter). You get mirrored prints, though, where Instax, exposed through the back, is right-reading. Those Mini Lab units, the ones with the telescoping upper section, unfortunately now cost as much as the Coyote back.

I wonder if I could hack one of those cardboard Jollylook Mini cameras (not the fancy newer one with automatic exposure) to fit inside a Type 100 back with the crank protruding? They're only about $70 plus shipping, and appear to still be available. Only problem I'd have, if I ordered one, I'd want to actually use it as is -- might be worth doing though, to check dimensions and such.

 

[gdavis]

Nice, so you get the Instax Square film, a little bigger image than the Mini -- actually close to the 6x7 gate you'd have with a 120 film magazine. Were you able to get the film plane to match?

Yep, that was the majority of the labor, shaving down the SQ6 body until it matched up.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmmm. And only $75-$80 new. Hmmm.

And for another ten bucks, I can get an Instax Wide 300, which I've read can shoot all three packs...

 

[Oren Grad]

And for another ten bucks, I can get an Instax Wide 300, which I've read can shoot all three packs...

The Wide 300 is for Instax Wide only.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmm. I recall seeing something that was claimed to be able to accept Mini, Square, and Wide film (though the smaller formats were scrunched over on one side, rather than staying centered). Hey, Google...

Okay, quickly found a 3D printable adapter to shoot Square in a Wide camera.
And here's an adapter you can apparently buy (at least as of summer before last) that will let you shoot Square and Wide interchangeably in five models of Wide camera (with two different versions of the adapter).

There's also apparently an adapter for the Lomo'instant Square camera to shoot both Square and Mini packs, and after seeing it (just a door swap, it seems) I can see it ought to be possible to modify the door on a Wide to shoot Wide, Square, and Mini from the same camera (if you don't mind having to crop more and more off the right side of the finder for each step down). Potentially useful, though, in case your local shop is out of stock on the larger film, at least you can shoot something.

 

[Oren Grad]

Okay, quickly found a 3D printable adapter to shoot Square in a Wide camera.
And here's an adapter you can apparently buy (at least as of summer before last) that will let you shoot Square and Wide interchangeably in five models of Wide camera (with two different versions of the adapter).

There's also apparently an adapter for the Lomo'instant Square camera to shoot both Square and Mini packs, and after seeing it (just a door swap, it seems) I can see it ought to be possible to modify the door on a Wide to shoot Wide, Square, and Mini from the same camera (if you don't mind having to crop more and more off the right side of the finder for each step down). Potentially useful, though, in case your local shop is out of stock on the larger film, at least you can shoot something.

OK, fair 'nuf. I was aware of the adapter for the Lomo Square camera, as it's offered by Lomo itself, but I didn't know of these other adapters. Thanks for pointing them out.

 

[ic-racer]

I have no connection with the product or the seller, but thought that it might make good use of all those 220 backs out there.

I don't understand the ebay listing, is it a modified 220 film back that accepts film holders?

The plastic Fidelity holders I use need to have a little plastic ridge removed because it presses on the 'pod.' It is a simple modification.

 

[choiliefan]

I agree with ic-racer.
I use the older wooden graphic holders with the wooden door cut back a bit with an exacto blade to clear the pod.
The picture in the ebay listing is confusing as normal graphic holders are not held fast by Graflok slide-locks alone.
One requires a spring back, at least on my Century and Speed Graphic. Not familiar with with Mamiya...

 

[peter k.]

The plastic Fidelity holders I use need to have a little plastic ridge removed because it presses on the 'pod.' It is a simple modification.

My goodness, these last two comments made me to take out the RB7, take the roll film adapter off, and place one of my wooden 2x3 film holders on the back.
What a shock!
It fits perfectly, just can't lock in place, unless one carefully made a notch on the film holder, each side.
Usually when we shoot sheet film with the RB67 use my Graftmatic film holder with it, that holds 6 shots.

I use the older wooden graphic holders with the wooden door cut back a bit with an exacto blade to clear the pod.

Don't understand? Wooden door cut back a bit? Could you explain.
Usually shoot Instax wide with the 3x4.

 

[choiliefan]

You are slicing about 1/8" internally off the leading edge of the wooden flap -- expanding an area for the pod to clear so it won't flatten out. This is for using Instax Mini in a 2X3 holder rather than the Wide.

 

[peter k.]

OK got it.
But how do you keep the wooden film holder locked in place to the back of the RB67?
Did you carefully create a notch in / on the film holder sides, so that you can slide the RB67 locking mechanism in place?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Probably the easiest way would be to use a router (a Dremel one is likely easier) to cut the correct dimension groove, centered on the edge of the holder, so the locks can hold it from either side.

I note that on the RB (at least the Pro-S model that I have), light sealing of the Graflok back appears to be partly dependent on foam (between the two metal ridges on the mating surface). A film holder doesn't have any other features that might mate with this back to enhance light seal, so it's probably helpful if that foam is in good shape.

 

[choiliefan]

I've only used these holders on a spring type focusing back on Graflex Graphic cameras.
Grooving your holder with a Dremel or even a table saw seems like the way to go.
Shooting Instax Mini in a great camera with fine lens is as good as it gets.
I've run the exposed sheets through an Instax Mini camera to develop them with some success.

 

[peter k.]

The Graftmatic back film holder that can contain 6 shots, has no felt on it, and have used this several times on the RB67 with no light leaks, perhaps we were just just lucky.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Graftmatic back film holder that can contain 6 shots, has no felt on it, and have used this several times on the RB67 with no light leaks, perhaps we were just just lucky.

Or I might be misunderstanding how the light seal on a Graflok back works.

I'm not sure I understand the advantage of using sheet film (very limited emulsion choices 2x3 size) on an RB over shooting 120. The RB mask means you'll get about the same image size, and I can't think the Instax Mini pods will let a Grafmatic work.

 

[peter k.]

Or I might be misunderstanding how the light seal on a Graflok back works.

No, you most likely have it right.
On my 2x3 Graftlok back, on the detached ground glass part, there is no felt. On the camera body, where the film holder slides in, on the top side and bottom side of the camera are two felt strips, One also needs to note that towards the entry side, on right side of camera, is an empty notch that goes to both edges of the film holder opening. This is the notch that holds the thin ridge on the film holder, that is just below the 3/4" flat area, where generally one writes any notes on what number film holder it is, and what type of film But then just above this note area, towards the dark slide, is another about 1/2" wide ridge, that is tight against the camera body, when the film holder is inserted all the way. It is the same height of the thin one, and the two of them blocks out any light that may want to get in there.

I'm not sure I understand the advantage of using sheet film (very limited emulsion choices 2x3 size) on an RB over shooting 120. The RB mask means you'll get about the same image size,

True, but sometimes we have a specific shot in mind, and want to try it out first, and just develop that one shot, not wanting to wait until we have shot the whole roll. Or the roll film backs are loaded with color and the image we see we feel would work out as a good B&W composition.

and I can't think the Instax Mini pods will let a Grafmatic work.

I first started shooting Instax mini in my 2x3 Crown Grafic, as stated one has to make some modifications on the film holder. Liked the shots but they were so small, so made modification on a 3x4 film holder, and was able to use instax max on the 3x4 speed.

 

[mshchem]

Shows how things have changed. Fuji could make a back for a Hassleblad, RZ and RB. Even if it was a hand crank, something simple. But it wouldn't pay, probably why they are still in business. I have no love for Fuji, I am glad to be able to get their color paper in cut sheets and E6 chemistry and films.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, Fuji has done a very good job of weathering the film-to-digital transition years, while keeping both film production (including instant!) and the company alive. I wish they hadn't had to kill peel-apart instant -- I liked the FP-100C and FP-3000B in both sizes better than anything I ever used with the Polaroid name on it -- but I understand the necessity when component suppliers closed; it would have been pretty expensive to redesign for new components (and a name to uphold, so they couldn't sell their almost-failed experimental batches the way Impossible did), with no assurance the new supplier would still be around in ten years.

They seem to do a pretty good job of supporting third parties who design around their materials, though, so perhaps we'll yet see a crank-operated unit that supports at least Square and Wide on a Graflok base plate in a while. Bring it in a bit below the Coyote unit in price and I'd almost certainly buy one -- maybe two, one in 2x3 to fit my RB, and another in 4x5 for my Speed and Graphic View.

 

[Cholentpot]

The Graftmatic back film holder that can contain 6 shots, has no felt on it, and have used this several times on the RB67 with no light leaks, perhaps we were just just lucky.

Can you load instax film into a 2x3 Grafmatic and basically have an instant camera with multiple shots?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can you load instax film into a 2x3 Grafmatic and basically have an instant camera with multiple shots?

Probably not -- haven't tried it, haven't got a 2x3 Grafmatic (yet), but I do have three 4x5 Grafmatics, and I think Instax film is too thick for the Grafmatic to cycle correctly.

 

[Cholentpot]

Probably not -- haven't tried it, haven't got a 2x3 Grafmatic (yet), but I do have three 4x5 Grafmatics, and I think Instax film is too thick for the Grafmatic to cycle correctly.

I tried in a standard holder, even butchered one and it wouldn't load. Maybe because I used a plastic holder rather than wooden?