Bronica SQA Picture Spacing negatives problem

[martinhughesireland]

Just got a Bronica SQA from ebay during the week. Shot two 120 roles today and developed them.

The spacing of the pictures on the first role i exposed was fine. Ranged from 4mm to 8mm of a gap which is fine and i can live with that

The spacing of the pictures on the second role of film was anything from 0mm to 40mm (only one gap of 40mm and the other gaps anything from 0mm to 20mm). All pictures came out which is fine but the spacing is a bit of a worry and am afraid this could become worse. Is this a problem with the 120 back or the camera body. One other thing i noticed is that when winding to the next frame i normally have to wind it 360 degrees. Mid role on the second role of film i had to wind 540 degrees for one shot (1.5 revolutions which would explain the 40mm gap)

Any ideas suggestions? is it the body or the back or a bit of both. What should I do basically?

Thanks in advance
Martin

PS: Sorry my first post is looking for information

 

[DWThomas]

Welcome!

As far as I know, the film indexing is all set by the insert portion of the back. The first SQ-A back I got let the whole roll run through, never stopped, never reached 1 on the counter. But with subsequent backs, the indexing was fine with the same body.

The variable results suggests there might be some dirt interfering with whatever magic mechanism is inside there. That first back was returned to the vendor and other backs I have are OK, so I have not gotten out the screwdrivers -- yet.

DaveT

 

[PhotoJim]

I agree - this is highly likely to be the back. Did you get other backs with the camera?

 

[martinhughesireland]

Don't have any other backs to try which is a pity. Will try to get another 120 back from ebay and see how I get on. Was planning on getting another back anyhow.

Only just got this from ebay during the week. Should i go back to the seller on ebay? Without knowing exactly what the problem is I don't think the seller will want to here:-(

Thanks guys much appriciated
Martin

 

[Nick Zentena]

Did you buy the complete kit from one seller? If so it doesn't matter which part is bad.

 

[martinhughesireland]

Did you buy the complete kit from one seller? If so it doesn't matter which part is bad.

Got the 80mm, body and back from the same seller in a kit, Will email him and ask him what he can do for me

Thanks
Martin

 

[Sanjay Sen]

I (too) think it's a problem with the back. Fortunately, I never had any spacing/winding problems with any of my backs. Is it the older back or the newer 120-I back? The newer back has the film speed setting dial on the back instead of the top - I find this more convenient.

 

[Ira Rush]

Bronica Spacing problem

Martin,

Had a Bronica SQA years and years ago, now own and use a Hasselblad 500 C/M.

The film back and inserts as I recall were not matched as they are in a Hasselblad so you could use any one interchangeably.

Now without sounding like a "know it all" , when you advanced the film within the insert, was it flat across the pressure plate, (the Hassy magazines even have a guide and locking plate to assure a flat film plane) and did you wind it so the black arrow aligns with a small red triangle on the top of left spool retainer. (I think it was the left side, have not owned the Bronica in many years)

Also, again without sounding like a "know it all", are you sure its a 120 magazine and a 120 insert! If you load 120 film in a 220 insert it could cause winding drag, and strange spacing.

Anyway hope this helps

Ira

 

[martinhughesireland]

Sanjay Sen: Its the older back

Ira Rush: Film was flat across the pressure plate. Black arrow was aligned correctly. The insert which i presume is the part that holds the film and pressure plate is a 120 as this is written on the side. As for the part that actually holds the insert onto the camera i don't know if this is a 120 as its not written on it. Is there any way of telling for sure?

Contacted ebay seller and he is going to send me out another back tomorrow to see if its the back that is the problem. If its not the back he will replace or refund the camera, great stuff

Thanks all
Martin

 

[DWThomas]

As for the part that actually holds the insert onto the camera i don't know if this is a 120 as its not written on it. Is there any way of telling for sure?

My understanding is that the shells are the same, just the insert is different. But I've never acquired a 220 to play with, as the choices in B&W are rather limited.

DaveT

 

[Ira Rush]

Martin

I am attaching a pdf manual for the SQ-A, hope you find it helpful.

Without beating the issue of film back and inserts to the ground, the possibility that the insert and back are not matched (ie 120 and 220) is strongly possibly.

With the Hasselblad, while the backs for 120 and 220 look the same on the outside, the internal mechnasim for film transport is totally different.

Anyway, hope the manual helps you somewhat. Enjoy.

Ira

 

[notmatt]

With the Hasselblad, while the backs for 120 and 220 look the same on the outside, the internal mechnasim for film transport is totally different.

With Bronica backs, all the mechanical parts are in the insert. The backs are just the darkslide on one side with the appropriate holes for gears and interlocks from the insert to poke through, and a clamshell closure with the ISO dial on the other side to hold the insert in. Even the sides of the assembled back are part of the insert. Mismatched backs and inserts simply aren't a problem with the Bronica system.

I've been having similar trouble with one of my SQ-A bodies recently. It has intermittent spacing and winding troubles with all the backs I've used, but my spare body works great with those same backs. I haven't had it looked at (I'd have to send it to Toronto, and I've got a spare anyway), but at a guess it seems to be related to the multiple exposure and mirror lock-up mechanisms. If you use either one of them, the next winding attempt is essentially guaranteed to go wrong, possibly a few after that as well.

 

[martinhughesireland]

Thanks again all for the help. Wasn't expecting this much help to be honest

The problem is either with the back or the body, which i'm not sure to be honest at this stage

The the guy on ebay is sending me out another back. I have also just bought a mint condition SQAI body from ebay. When both of these arrive with all the parts i will have accumulated I should hopefully be able to put together a Bronica that works If it then turns out to be the body to be the problem ill return the broken body and get refunded for that. If it turns out to be the back ill send back the broken back and get a refund and have two working bodies, it will be good to have a second as a spare anyhow

I'll post back when i find out which part of the camera was the problem in case you here of anyone else having something similar. In the mean time here is my favorite shots from the three roles i have taken (one from each role)

Its been fun, Thanks again all

Martin
shot 1
shot 2
shot 3

 

[PhotoJim]

I really like shots 1 and 2. Shot 3 is amusing too, but shots 1 and 2 would look great on my wall. Nicely done.

 

[DWThomas]

I like those shots, especially the bridge. Yes, please do post what you ultimately learn. It appears there is not a very large knowledge base out here for the SQ** family. I discovered that when I cobbled together an SQ-A and had a back problem. I originally planned to stop with one lens, one back, etc. in the beginning, but after that experience, I have stocked up enough extra components to put two cameras together, partly just to be able to do substitutions for troubleshooting. Fortunately, the stuff is pretty cheap! I have had a body get screwed up, apparently something related to the cable release and shutter control linkage (Search for "Bronicatastrophe" circa July 2007). The easiest fix for that was a very clean looking body for $79. But other than that and the original bad back, things are working.

DaveT

 

[IloveTLRs]

I have an S with 2 different problems on two different backs. One back puts frames 5 & 6 on top of each other, the other's frame counter won't reset properly when the back is opened.

I've read a lot of complaints about Bronica cameras recently, which makes me slightly regret buying one. The Nikor lenses make up for most of it, though ...

 

[Nick Zentena]

The S is a totally different system and much older. Pretty reasonable to expect it to need a CLA or more. Must be over 30 years old isn't it? The various SQ and ETR are much newer. To be honest with the current prices I'd lean toward the latest SQ-AI or ETRSI bodies. It's not like they cost much more money over the oldest stuff.


Most of the complaints I see about Bronicas are from people having paid more for other systems and trying to persuade themselves they made the right choice.

 

[mikebarger]

CLA is a valid point. I have generally tried to buy at a price point that allows for a CLA. So far I've been very happy with this plan and equipment has worked flawlessly.

Mike