120 vs. 620

thetimedissolver · Nov 12, 2005

I am considering buying a couple of cameras which use 620 film; I know it is ALMOST the same as 120, but there are some differences. I'm not sure what they are, so I have three questions:

1. Is the film spool diameter smaller, or just the flanges, or both?

2. Where can i get 620 spools?

3. Will 620 film fit on a 120 film developing reel?

Thanks, gang!

modafoto · Nov 12, 2005

Hi

I have found some threads containing info on this:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Greetings, Morten

Dave Parker · Nov 12, 2005

Morning...

1. Yes the spool is smaller and the ends are thinner

2. Ask around at camera shops, that is where I found all of my old ones, in their junk boxes

3. Yes Ihave developed 620 on 120 spools..

Dave

jandc · Nov 12, 2005

thetimedissolver said:
I am considering buying a couple of cameras which use 620 film; I know it is ALMOST the same as 120, but there are some differences. I'm not sure what they are, so I have three questions:

1. Is the film spool diameter smaller, or just the flanges, or both?

2. Where can i get 620 spools?

3. Will 620 film fit on a 120 film developing reel?

Thanks, gang!

1. The length and diameter of 620 are both smaller than 120 by a small amount. In some cameras you can get away with just trimming the diameter. In others you need to trim the length too. The resized 620 film we sell is trimmed in both directions and is exactly the same size as a 620 spool.

2. Old camera stores and they are always listed on eBay. You only need them for take up. You can always feed with a resized 120 spool. In most cameras the 120 sprockets work for takeup as well. But in some they don't. So in the worst case you only need enough takeup spools to get you through as many rolls as you are going to shoot before development. If you don't develop yourself make sure your lab returns the original metal spools.

3. The film is exactly the same size.

glennfromwy · Nov 12, 2005

The film and backing paper are identical. 620 was one of Kodak's brainstorms to capture market share by producing cameras that only their film (620) would fit. It didn't work. Nor did the 616/116 fiasco. It only takes a couple of minutes in the dark to transfer the 120 film and paper to a 620 spool.

nworth · Nov 14, 2005

glennfromwy said:
The film and backing paper are identical. 620 was one of Kodak's brainstorms to capture market share by producing cameras that only their film (620) would fit. It didn't work. Nor did the 616/116 fiasco. It only takes a couple of minutes in the dark to transfer the 120 film and paper to a 620 spool.

They had a near lock on 620 and 616 film for 60 years. They sold a lot. Sounds like it worked to me.

Dave Parker · Nov 14, 2005

nworth said:
They had a near lock on 620 and 616 film for 60 years. They sold a lot. Sounds like it worked to me.

Except for the fact, it is not longer available and the company that tried to do this is now going down in flames, yup sounds like it worked..

LOL

Dave

Donald Qualls · Nov 14, 2005

Dave, Kodak's current situation has to do with their mistakes relative to the transition to digital (and I won't say more about what those mistakes might have been), not with how they "screwed up" with 616 and 620. Both formats were good sellers for a very long time, mostly because Kodak and Argus made a lot of inexpensive consumer cameras that took pretty good images and only accepted 616 or 620 film -- and Kodak made a few very, very good cameras that were carefully engineered to accept only 616 and 620 (Monitor, Medalist/Medalist II, Chevron, Tourist/Tourist II, and Reflex/Reflex II, just from the top of my head). I'd still buy 620 if it were on real 620 spools instead of resized 120 that won't take up in my 620 cameras, for a mere $5 a roll (for film that would otherwise be around $2). As it is, I respool, trim the supply flanges, or otherwise find a way to put 120 film in my 620 cameras...

Dave Parker · Nov 14, 2005

Donald Qualls said:
Dave, Kodak's current situation has to do with their mistakes relative to the transition to digital (and I won't say more about what those mistakes might have been), not with how they "screwed up" with 616 and 620. Both formats were good sellers for a very long time, mostly because Kodak and Argus made a lot of inexpensive consumer cameras that took pretty good images and only accepted 616 or 620 film -- and Kodak made a few very, very good cameras that were carefully engineered to accept only 616 and 620 (Monitor, Medalist/Medalist II, Chevron, Tourist/Tourist II, and Reflex/Reflex II, just from the top of my head). I'd still buy 620 if it were on real 620 spools instead of resized 120 that won't take up in my 620 cameras, for a mere $5 a roll (for film that would otherwise be around $2). As it is, I respool, trim the supply flanges, or otherwise find a way to put 120 film in my 620 cameras...

Well Donald, that is what is great about America, we all have the right to our opinion, even though it sold well for a long time, I don't attribute all of Kodaks current problems with their digital switch, I think it is just a cumilation of their hardhanded way they have done business for over 100 years, I am a firm beliver in what goes around comes around and Kodak is currently in the comes around phase, time will tell if their business practices of the last 100 years bites them in the butt, or they survive.

Just my .02, no further disscussion needed..

Dave

120 vs. 620

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency