120 film in 220 back - appears to be slipping?

[smudwhisk]

I've acquired a cheap SQA with a 220 back recently (subject to 14 day return which is getting close). I don't have any 200 film so put in a 120 film, the problem I appeared to have is that the winder seemed to wind on further between frames more than normal (compared to my ETR) and then went back to turning the normal amount (if that makes sense). I only appeared to get 11 images out of the film, haven't had a chance to develop it yet but need to before the end of the week. My query is this - is this likely to be the behaviour of a 120 film in a 220 back, or could there be a problem with the sprockets on the camera and/or back? I'm not so bothered about the back as they aren't that difficult to replace but don't want to keep the camera if it's likely to have a problem. If you simulate winding on with the multi-exposure lever on, it seems to work fine. Do I assume its the film in the back? Any comments/suggestions appreciated.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd guess this is due to the greater thickness of the 120 (film plus backing) compared to 220 (film only); by the time you were a couple frames along, the spool would be a larger diameter than what the film the back was designed to use; this would cause a mechanism that doesn't use a friction roller running on the film to produce steadily increasing frame spacing, which would likely lead to the 12th frame running off the film tail.

 

[avandesande]

I have exactly the same thing with my rb67 back. It makes larger than normal spaces between the frames. It doesn't really bother me though, in fact I like having the space because the end pieces(where its been cut) fit in the negative holder better. I get 9 exposures instead of 10.

 

[dschneller]

Hi,

I have an SQ with 2 - 220 backs and regularly use 120 film in them. I read a message where the writer stated that while loading film, place the start arrows on the film backing on the first roller, then close up the back and advance to the first frame. I have had no issues with spacing and most times will get 13 shots to fit on the roll. I just measured the leading part of the film, there is only 1/4 of an inch from the tape to the first frame shot. How much of a blank leader are on your rolls?


Dave

 

[David Henderson]

I occasionally use 120 in my 220 SQA/SQA-i without any of the issues you indicate. There are some reasons why I prefer not to do this habitually- for example the thicker 120 plus backing film makes it more difficult to wind and I wonder whether I'll be making a long term problem with 220 film flatness by pushing the thicker film through. I have minor spacing variations with all my Bronica backs but it doesn't seem to signify anything or get worse so I ignore it.

I don't think you can assume that the act of having 120 film in the back is causing the problem you indicate, I'm afraid. I might be inclined to try more tham one film though- including at least one 220, before your ability to return the camera is up. Depending on what your seller knows, and what his attitude is, he may not be prepared to accept difficulties with the wrong type of film as evidence of malfunction.

 

[JosBurke]

Even my Hasselblad A-24 backs give a wide space when I use a roll of 120 in them for convenience!! You know, like when all my other backs are loaded and I want to shoot something else film wise and I only have an A 24 empty--use it anyway!! I assumed that was normal !!
Joseph Burke

 

[Bob F.]

Bear in mind that you can get spare backs on the auction site for 25 - 50 quid a pop (sometimes they go for much higher - no idea why!). You will probably want a couple anyway sooner or later.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I have exactly the same thing with my rb67 back. It makes larger than normal spaces between the frames. It doesn't really bother me though, in fact I like having the space because the end pieces(where its been cut) fit in the negative holder better. I get 9 exposures instead of 10.

Before the usual mess of "don't use 220 in 120 backs" pops up, it is better to state clear that Donald is probably right in this SPECIFIC case, but his words simply DO NOT apply to the RB67.

RB67 backs don't take in account spool turns, but have a specific roller that measures the lenght of advanced film. They are thus insensitive to change in spools' diameter. You simply have a defective unit.

 

[smudwhisk]

Thanks guys for the suggestions. 220 film isn't an option, its too expensive and not easy to get hold of at short notice (or so it would seem - only seen it one place mail order). Still haven't got round to developing the film, likely to be a saturday morning job. However I have picked up a spare 120 back which has amazingly turned up quickly. Put a test roll through (already exposed so just checking how the camera wound on) and it appears fine, normal spacing, so as long as the lens is OK from the earlier test roll I think I shall be keeping the camera!

I wouldn't send it back for a dodgy 220 back anyway (as has already been pointed out they aren't that expensive on ebay), but if the lens isn't any good (the shutter seems fine but there appears to be a small dot on the rear element that I'm concerned about) I would return it. I'll keep the 220 back as a spare if the spacing isn't too bad.

Luckily got 14 days which I think expires on Tuesday or Wednesday next week. Don't want to return it, been after one for a while, just haven't been able to afford any of them as they are generally not as cheap as the ETR series. Thanks again.

 

[smudwhisk]

In case anyone is interested - I got 6 photos on the film and half a one right at the end! I suspect the rest was on the backing sheet (if you could photograph on to it that is!). Looks like it was winding on twice, which is what I suspected.

 

[Dave Parker]

Not being smug, but there is a reason, that back was lable for use with 220 film, not to say you can't use 120, but I am sure you will find that the recommended type of film works quite a bit better in it.

Dave

 

[smudwhisk]

I totally agree, but when you buy a "complete set" and it only includes a 220 back (and there have been a few like this recently on e**y), that's all you have to test it with. Mind you the seller had already sold off 2 other 220 backs before christmas. It may well be OK with 220 film, but it's too expensive and too difficult to get hold of so I will not be trying this out. In any case, the seller has offered to do a partial refund for the dodgy back, as I've had to purchase a 120 one (which always was the intention)!

 

[Dave Parker]

I would consider it a complete set, if it had a lens, body and a back(either 120 or 220), did the seller stipulate that it was a 220 back? Or did you assume it had a 120 back, either way again, if it was complete, 220 or 120 as long as it had what the seller advertised, then I don't understand, or did he just advertise a "complete camera" and you neglected to ask if it was a 120 or 220 back?

Really it does not matter what anyone else had sold, of what this seller had sold..

The question is....did you get what the seller advertised? if not, then return, if so, then your stuck.

After several decades of shooting film, when a back says 220 I don't expect it to work with 120 film, that is pretty self explanitory..

If someone orders a Linhof screen from me, I don't expect it to work in a Shen Hao as they are two entirly different products.

Sounds like, if he has offered at least a partial refund, you have run into a good seller..

Dave