Readyload & Quickload Cross Compatibility

Chris Jameson · Post by **Chris Jameson** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Further to this thread (viewtopic.php?t=340&highlight=readyload) relating to Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickload films and holders, has anyone other than Robert White tried using the Fuji films in the Kodak back?

On the review of films and holders on the old Robert White site http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/Large%20ac ... Labelsheet it shows in the chart that Quickload is compatible with the Readyload back, but there are no comments about it's use.
Can it be assumed that there were no problems, or has anyone found any quirks when trying this?

I ask all this as I'm looking around for a film back at present, and one lead I had for Quickload backs at a good price has fallen through (Jacobs Digital list them for £94.99, shown as 'out of stock, allow 10 days'. Just checked with them and it would appear that allow 10 days means not available at all, try Robert White!).
Readyload backs are considerably cheaper, as is the T-max 100.
But, inevitably, I do love the Fuji E6 films.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Chris.

Tim Myers · Post by **Tim Myers** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:01 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Hi Chris,

Have you thought about a Polaroid 545 back? If I was in your position now I think I'd get the 545 as it supposedly works with QL, RL and the Polaroid instant film.

They're realitvely cheap too; there's on on Fleabay at the moment with 6 hours to run currently at £30.

Steve Bell · Post by **Steve Bell** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:58 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Since being given a lot of Kodak Readyloads I bought a used Polaroid 545i, and although more chunky than a Readyload or Quickload holder, it works well with both makes of film. I wasted one sheet by pulling it just to observe if the film was flat, it was. When I first started using LF, I made a mistake buying an early Readlyload holder off eBay, I think it was originally intended for the now discontinued 2 sheet envelopes. It was rubish, and there was an obvious ripple running through the film. Avoid the early ones, the current version is OK.

Post by **masch** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:30 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Chris,

I second the choice of the Polaroid backs.
They are quite bulky, but can be bought for relatively little money these days and can take all three film types. There are people who doubt its suitability, due to a lack of a sprung pressure plate, but I can not confirm that in any way. The film will be held flat by the mountings and rolls alone as far as I can see.

There has been some talk on various forums about manufacturing defects on the newer Readyload backs a few months back, but I haven't followed that in a while.

This being said, I do currently carry a Quickload II back, due to size and weight benefits over the Polaroid back. I do also have a crate of Acros sitting around which I am still going through.

If I were to use RL film, I'd probably stick with the Polaroid back, though.

Marc

Chris Jameson · Post by **Chris Jameson** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:30 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Thanks for all the replies, a Polaroid 545 should be winging its way to me as I type this.

Cheers,

Chris.

Chris Jameson · Post by **Chris Jameson** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:40 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Well, I made my first 2 exposures on Sunday.
Up early to Embleton Bay, set up, and wait for the sunrise that never happened.
Still, there was some nice light and good reflections of Dunstanburgh so I fired the shutter anyway.

I was a little nervous about using the quickload film and the Polaroid 545 back, but thankfully following the instructions on the film packaging it all worked faultlessly and was very easy to use.
Of course I don't know if it worked completely, I'll be dropping the sheets in tonight for processing, so will have to wait until tomorrow night for the results....

Fingers crossed.

Assuming they're not total disasters I'll post something in the critique section.

Chris.

(Editted to say links to the images in the Critique section)