>Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy
a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the
>price by 3 gallons of gas!
Unfortunately, unless you live in a big commercial metropolitan area, anyone
would have to drive a few miles to get to a retail outlet that carries 120
or 220 film, which is why most people order it via mail order or off the net
and have it sent to them at their locations.
>The 620 spool is 7/8" diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which
means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not >sure,
The spool size does not really impact on the size of the frames or the
number of pictures per roll. It is the size of the camera's aperture which
determines the size and number of pictures that will fit on a given length
of film for the most part which why you can shoot 10 frames of 6cm x 7cm
images on a 120 roll, 12 frames of 6cm x 6 cm on a roll of 120, 15 frames of
6cm x 4.5 cm images on a roll of 120 film, or only 8 6cm x 9cm frames on the
120 roll. Obviously the 6 cm dimension remains the constant. Rolls of 220
film the same as 120 film but twice as long; they fit on the same spool as
120 film. The difference is that unlike 120 film there is no paper backing
for the film only paper leader at both ends of the roll. I believe that the
reason that you got fewer images on a 620 roll was that the film was thicker
which meant that there was not as much of it in a roll in terms of length.
As for the differences in diameters of the spools, I do not know what the
difference is myself since I do not have a spool handy at present; but any
difference in spool diameter was so as to enable it to hold the thicker film
in a more or less equivalent amount. With respect to the difference in
camera backs for 620, 120, and 220, it has to do with the pressure plates
which hold the film flat with thinner film like 120 requiring more pressure
than 120 film because it does not have the extra thickness created by the
addition of backing paper. I assume that the 620 required even less
pressure because of its added thickness of the film plus the additional
thickness created by its paper backing. This, of course, could be a
drawback to using 120 film in a 620 camera but not as much as trying to use
220 film in that 620 camera since the differences in film thickness and
backing paper thickness are more or less negligible while the difference
between having and not having the paper backing is significant.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:28 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Michael wrote:
> The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools
are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made
by Kodak.
and Laurie wrote:
>The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that
were different and which accounted for the change in product number.
Oh,oh. I knew I was probably wrong about this almost as soon as I punched
the "send" button. Now everyone knows how long it's been since I've actually
been "exposed" to medium format film! Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70
miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor,
upping the price by 3 gallons of gas!
I have a flock of 620's--all pre-1960--none of which are actually good
enough to buy film for other than out of curiosity. The 620 spool is 7/8"
diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be
smaller--by how much, I'm not sure, since I don't have a 120 in my
collection. *Should* have, certainly, but don't. *Some* of the cameras will
accommodate a larger spool. The cheaper ones will not.
Eastman Kodak, to their credit, used to make up special orders of
discontinued film sizes for Old Camera buffs. I don't know if they still
do--I haven't actively pursued it. An earlier post mentioned that 120 can be
re-spooled to 620.
I may be the only Old Stuff collector on this list. But if anyone thinks
*filmscanners* are defensive about their choices, you should visit a meeting
of Old Camera Collectors!!
Uhm, no, you probably shouldn't. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
BTW--$200 doesn't seem like a bad price for a working Medalist II. If you
really want one, that is. :-)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
>
>
>Rich wrote:
>
>>Can you still get 620 film?
>
>AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not
>mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras.
>
>Best regards--LRA
>
>
>On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT
> Richard Starr wrote:
>>--- You wrote:
>>The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what
>Rich
>>is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to
>my
>>book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-)
>>
>>Best regards--LRA
>>--- end of quoted material ---
>>I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and
>they
>>are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears.
>>
>>Can you still get 620 film?
>>
>>Rich
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
