Brownie Hawkeye - removed material a bit to let 120 spool spin freely

[jay moussy]

As I was taking a now empty 120 spool off my Hawkeye, I noticed that that the spool wasn't sitting square with the assembly.

A rib on the body interferes with the spool flange, on one side, skewing the geometry a bit.
I took a Dremel wheel to remove some material off the rib, maybe 1/8". Now the spool sits almost square, there should less drag while spooling out, and film should ride truer to the frame.
I know, no pictures, but if you open your Brownie with a 120 supply spool in, you should see it!

I am curious why I never saw that mentioned anywhere?
The only thing I have ever seen about 120 on the Hawkeye is the tab bend modification.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are at least three versions of the Brownie Hawkeye supply section. The earliest (IIRC) takes 120 supply without a problem; later versions had various methods of "denial" to prevent use of 120 spools. Some will accept a diameter trimmed 120, some will jam due to length.

Which you have seems to depend on date of manufacture.

 

[ciniframe]

I’ve always had a soft spot for ‘the Great Yellow Father’. However, their ruining would be great cameras by attempting to lock in using 620 spools only irks me still. Yes, I’m well aware about respooling onto 620 spools but I don’t shoot enough to make that an easy task. At close to one dollar per shot for Kodak or Ilford @ 6X9......well let’s just say I’m more careful what is put on that big beautiful negative than with my 35mm half frame.

 

[Matthew K]

I’ve always had a soft spot for ‘the Great Yellow Father’. However, their ruining would be great cameras by attempting to lock in using 620 spools only irks me still. Yes, I’m well aware about respooling onto 620 spools but I don’t shoot enough to make that an easy task. At close to one dollar per shot for Kodak or Ilford @ 6X9......well let’s just say I’m more careful what is put on that big beautiful negative than with my 35mm half frame.

Yeah, I always thought of it as an odd move on their part. I'm sure it made sense of some kind, but really just seems like...well stupid

 

[MattKing]

620 made much more sense in a world where there were many more incompatible film sizes out there, and many more film and camera manufacturers jockeying for market share.
We tend to look at this from a current perspective, not the perspective of back when.
If you look inside of many German manufactured folding cameras of the era (as an example) you will likely see advertisements for German films referring to German film sizes. The size may (or may not) be the same as Kodak 120, but the advertisement certainly doesn't refer to Kodak film!
120 has survived as much due to good fortune and luck of the draw as anything else.

 

[Matthew K]

620 made much more sense in a world where there were many more incompatible film sizes out there, and many more film and camera manufacturers jockeying for market share.
We tend to look at this from a current perspective, not the perspective of back when.
If you look inside of many German manufactured folding cameras of the era (as an example) you will likely see advertisements for German films referring to German film sizes. The size may (or may not) be the same as Kodak 120, but the advertisement certainly doesn't refer to Kodak film!
120 has survived as much due to good fortune and luck of the draw as anything else.

True enough. I get why they would have different formats on the order of 120, 35mm, 828, 4x5, 9x12 et cetera. But 620 is the same film just on weird spools. I think my lack of business acumen is showing but it does seem one of the more odd formats, to my mind, for that reason. Same negative sizes possible...Eh, this is why I could never run a company

 

[MattKing]

In its time, in the USA and Canada, arguably it was more accurate to say that 120 was the same film as 620, just on weird spools.
In those markets, there were a lot more 620 Brownie and other Kodak 620 cameras in people's hands than 120 cameras. In other words, Kodak's marketing approach was successful.
But Kodak changed their market focus to smaller sizes, so 620 became an orphan size.

 

[Matthew K]

Which is interesting, since 120 did manage to survive. Do you think this was due to the types of cameras created for each format? It seems to me like 620 cameras were largely the p&s style cameras of their day. Not much to fiddle with or worry about when taking a picture. Just load the film, advance, and press the shutter button. Kodak did the rest. Whereas 120 had managed to find a foothold among those more serious about their photography...*shrug* It's late here, perhaps I'm just making stuff up.

 

[summicron1]

Kodak introduced 620 film mostly, i think, to force camera owners to buy kodak film since they were the only ones making it, at least initially.

It is a pity more camera makers weren't like Voigtlander, whose cameras -- at least the better ones -- could use both 120 and 620 spools -- all it takes is a little spring loaded shive on the flange holding the spool in place.

 

[removed account4]

But 620 is the same film just on weird spools.

Hi Matthew
Kodak did that from the beginning. every camera they sold took a different film / spool size to assure the user
would be genuine Kodak film. in the early days as you know there was no enraging paper it was all contact printed
so they kept making different sized spools with bigger image sizes that approached or exceeded quarter plate and 4x5
my Agfa sure shot took genuine Afga B2 film. I have 2 post card format cameras one is a sir and the other a vest camera and they take 122 film to make post card sized contact prints..
I use them to either shoot rc paper taped and respooled on 122 spools or a sheet of barely trimmed 5x7 paper and an image right in the middle. perfect framing
in case you are interested in the long useless list of defunct film sizes here's a list >. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

[distributed]

in the early days as you know there was no enraging paper it was all contact printed

I am sorry to go offtopic here, but this is a hilarious typo. I have to admit, when in the darkroom, paper can enrage me quite a bit

 

[Kino]

I am sorry to go offtopic here, but this is a hilarious typo. I have to admit, when in the darkroom, paper can enrage me quite a bit

Yes, auto-correct; our dear friend!

 

[removed account4]

I am often enraged by enlarging that is why I contact print . LOL. wasn't a typo

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm curious as to why you would remove material from the camera, instead of sanding down the spool itself?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm curious as to why you would remove material from the camera, instead of sanding down the spool itself?

Making right the wrongs of the past.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Making right the wrongs of the past.

I mean seriously. All you have to do is sand down the ends of the spool slightly instead of damaging the camera... if that's in fact what he did.

I personally dont have any issues using a 120 reel in my Hawkeyes.

 

[removed account4]

Making right the wrongs of the past.

to quote ghwb "mistakes were made"

 

[jay moussy]

I mean seriously. All you have to do is sand down the ends of the spool slightly instead of damaging the camera... if that's in fact what he did.

I personally dont have any issues using a 120 reel in my Hawkeyes.

I tried that, but there was too much drag, combined with a misalignment due to the extra rib on the body forcing the spool off-center. Besides, who knows how much plastic bits get near the film?
As stated above by Donald Q., there are slight body variations, it seems.

 

[BrianShaw]

... or as I was about to say but got interrupted by a power outage... one time fix, and cleaner too.

 

[BrianShaw]

to quote ghwb "mistakes were made"

It was once a valid marketing philosophy, whether we like it or not!

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I tried that, but there was too much drag, combined with a misalignment due to the extra rib on the body forcing the spool off-center. Besides, who knows how much plastic bits get near the film?
As stated above by Dan Q., there are slight body variations, it seems.

I'm currently on my 15th or 16th Hawkeye and I've always used a 620 take up spool (most of the hawkeyes I've bought had one in them), and a normal 120 in the supply, and have never had an issue with them dragging.

 

[Saganich]

There are at least three versions of the Brownie Hawkeye supply section. The earliest (IIRC) takes 120 supply without a problem; later versions had various methods of "denial" to prevent use of 120 spools. Some will accept a diameter trimmed 120, some will jam due to length.

Which you have seems to depend on date of manufacture.

Yea, I have an early one, no flash, metal winding knob, which takes 120 spools in the supply fine (and even better after removing the metal spring) but I use 620 on the take-up.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak's 620 format wasn't only a consumer film. There were cameras like the Medalist, Tourist, and Reflex/Reflex II that were excellent cameras, and very effectively locked in to using 620 film (may be more examples, those are just the ones that immediately come to mind). As suggested, however, I think 120 held after 620 died because by the time Kodak had abandoned the medium format market (to focus on consumer cameras, which more and more needed to be compact and lightweight -- leading down the path to 110 and Disk), professional medium format cameras were all 120. Rolleiflex, Meopta, Autocord, Yashicamat, even the RB67, Hasselblad, and Bronica came out before Kodak stopped selling 620 cameras (the Duaflex family ran to the mid 1960s, as I recall) -- but Kodak's last really top-end medium format was the Reflex II, discontinued in 1952 (the Tourist may have continued a little longer, but the bulk of Tourists were the fixed-everything, effectively a folding box camera, even if the top version was a very respectable scale-focus folder). And the Reflex II was a bit behind the Rolleiflex of the same era, with its geared rotary focus, ASA flash connector, and odd shutter cocking.

But the real key was that Kodak pretty much had abandoned the professional market even before the Reflex/Reflex II came out. There was more money to be made with much less investment selling plastic cameras to people who were perfectly satisfied if a four-inch print "came out" -- and for professionals, every film they sold in 620 was also available on 120 spools. By 1950, 1960 at the latest, Kodak was a film company, not primarily a camera company, and consumer film had left medium format behind.

 

[ciniframe]

Kodak's 620 format wasn't only a consumer film. There were cameras like the Medalist, Tourist, and Reflex/Reflex II that were excellent cameras, and very effectively locked in to using 620 film (may be more examples, those are just the ones that immediately come to mind). As suggested, however, I think 120 held after 620 died because by the time Kodak had abandoned the medium format market (to focus on consumer cameras, which more and more needed to be compact and lightweight -- leading down the path to 110 and Disk), professional medium format cameras were all 120. Rolleiflex, Meopta, Autocord, Yashicamat, even the RB67, Hasselblad, and Bronica came out before Kodak stopped selling 620 cameras (the Duaflex family ran to the mid 1960s, as I recall) -- but Kodak's last really top-end medium format was the Reflex II, discontinued in 1952 (the Tourist may have continued a little longer, but the bulk of Tourists were the fixed-everything, effectively a folding box camera, even if the top version was a very respectable scale-focus folder). And the Reflex II was a bit behind the Rolleiflex of the same era, with its geared rotary focus, ASA flash connector, and odd shutter cocking.

But the real key was that Kodak pretty much had abandoned the professional market even before the Reflex/Reflex II came out. There was more money to be made with much less investment selling plastic cameras to people who were perfectly satisfied if a four-inch print "came out" -- and for professionals, every film they sold in 620 was also available on 120 spools. By 1950, 1960 at the latest, Kodak was a film company, not primarily a camera company, and consumer film had left medium format behind.

What you said. Oh, Kodak dabbled in higher quality cameras, in 126 size the model 814 and 500 and a 126 leaf shutter reflex (made in Germany) come to mind. And, introduced with 110 the model 50 and 60 were available. Sales of these upper end models were probably only 1% of overall sales in those formats however. Perhaps introduced more as ‘bragging rights’ and ‘we still know how’ statements.

 

[Matthew K]

Sounds like the same story as is now told for digital. Perhaps really all business in the long term, or a large portion of it -- the larger market wins out, and if you can make more money cutting thinner strips of film because the buyer doesn't care that the image quality is affected, then that's the way your company moves. You're right about the Medalist and so on, though on average it feels like you'd have to say that the majority of cameras that Kodak put out were done so to sell more film as opposed to being great cameras for image making. It's like how Gillette sold razors to sell razor blades.