Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:10:18 GMT, "Mike" wrote:


 >The concern with running 120 thru a 220 back is that with the paper 120 is
 >thicker and *may* place a strain on the back's winding mechanism.
 >
That makes sense. I may try it out with an old roll of film I have. If it feels
like it is straining, I won't do it again.
Thanks,

Len Bryan
 >> Stay informed about: Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question 

Len Bryan wrote:


 >
  > >The concern with running 120 thru a 220 back is that with the paper 120 is
  > >thicker and *may* place a strain on the back's winding mechanism.
  > >
 > That makes sense. I may try it out with an old roll of film I have. If it feels
 > like it is straining, I won't do it again.
 > Thanks,

No reason to use old film. The real danger is to the film back on your *borrowed*
camera. I'd ask the friend before running the film through the camera. Even if
he/she says yes, if the winding feels tough, abandon it and toss the film since
there is no way to rewind or wind to the end without risking further damage.

You may also find the pictures aren't as sharp since the film may be in the wrong
plane - I've never really stopped to think what determines the location of the film
plane in the RB/RZ backs.
 >> Stay informed about: Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question 

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:13:50 -0700, David Strip wrote:

 >Len Bryan wrote:
 >

  >>
   >> >The concern with running 120 thru a 220 back is that with the paper 120 is
   >> >thicker and *may* place a strain on the back's winding mechanism.
   >> >
  >> That makes sense. I may try it out with an old roll of film I have. If it feels
  >> like it is straining, I won't do it again.
  >> Thanks,
 >
 >No reason to use old film. The real danger is to the film back on your *borrowed*
 >camera. I'd ask the friend before running the film through the camera. Even if
 >he/she says yes, if the winding feels tough, abandon it and toss the film since
 >there is no way to rewind or wind to the end without risking further damage.
 >
 >You may also find the pictures aren't as sharp since the film may be in the wrong
 >plane - I've never really stopped to think what determines the location of the film
 >plane in the RB/RZ backs.

I've asked about it and he is O.K. with the test. However, the more I think
about it, it's not worth it to me. I do have a 120 (6x4.5) back for it and can
use the 120 film with that. I'll just have to go buy some 220 rolls for 6x7. I
agree that it isn't worth the risk to the camera back. I would be mortified to
damage his camera. Also, I didn't consider the potential focus issue. Using 220
film will certainly reduce the time spent loading film. 8-] (I'm not smooth
with this camera yet)

It seems that there is "slightly" more variety in films for 220 vs. 120. That is
likely only a store level stock issue though.

Thanks,

Len Bryan
 >> Stay informed about: Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question 

"Len Bryan" wrote:
 >
 > I've asked about it and he is O.K. with the test. However, the more I
think
 > about it, it's not worth it to me. I do have a 120 (6x4.5) back for it and
can
 > use the 120 film with that. I'll just have to go buy some 220 rolls for
6x7. I
 > agree that it isn't worth the risk to the camera back. I would be
mortified to
 > damage his camera. Also, I didn't consider the potential focus issue.
Using 220
 > film will certainly reduce the time spent loading film. 8-] (I'm not
smooth
 > with this camera yet)

There are a lot of people who claim that 220 film lies flatter than 120 in
these sorts of cameras. I _seem_ to be getting no more funky soft areas with
my 35mm lens on my Mamiya 645 since I switched to 220.

 > It seems that there is "slightly" more variety in films for 220 vs. 120.
That is
 > likely only a store level stock issue though.

Actually, I think it's the other way around: there are quite a few films
(e.g. XP2) that aren't available in 220. Of course, XP2 is so gross and
grody that you'd never notice film flatness problems...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question 

Len Bryan wrote:

 > I've asked about it and he is O.K. with the test. However, the more I think
 > about it, it's not worth it to me. I do have a 120 (6x4.5) back for it and can
 > use the 120 film with that. I'll just have to go buy some 220 rolls for 6x7. I
 > agree that it isn't worth the risk to the camera back. I would be mortified to
 > damage his camera. Also, I didn't consider the potential focus issue. Using 220
 > film will certainly reduce the time spent loading film. 8-] (I'm not smooth
 > with this camera yet)

Depending upon what you're shooting, one of the advantages of the RZ is that is slows
you down and forces you to think about your pictures. Of course, for some situations or
aesthetics, that may not be a win.
As to the frequency of loading, you'll get 16 exposures from 120 in the 4.5x6 back vs 20
using 220 in the 6x7 back. While you're still learning, the extra economy of the smaller
neg might be a win.

 >
 > It seems that there is "slightly" more variety in films for 220 vs. 120. That is
 > likely only a store level stock issue though.

I think this is strictly a local phenomenon. If you look at what is available from a big
supplier, like B&H, you'll find far more variety in 120. Of course if your favorite film
is available in 220, it doesn't matter how many aren't.
 >> Stay informed about: Mamiya RZ67 220 6x7 back and 120 film question