camera modification

[Larry1948]

I recently aquired a Kodak Pocket Camera 2 folding camera.
It appears that this camera used 127 film (no longer available?).I am wondering if this camera could be adapted to use 120 film, if so anyone care to take a stab at what would be involved?
I was hoping someone else had done such a project and would care to share their method.
Or have I just aquired a dust collecting collectors camera?
Larry B.
AKA PhotoBrewer

 

[Mongo]

J and C (an APUG sponsor) sell 127 film. They have one variety each of B&W, color print, and color slide. They also sell slide mounts for 127.

(If you've never ordered from J&C, you should know that their customer service is second to none. Seriously...these are good people to deal with.)

 

[Ian Grant]

No chance of modifying, 120 film is wider.

Do as Mongo has said buy 127 film from J&C, film IS still available through good dealers . .

It's Kodak thats let you down. . Time & time again they bring out new formats then drop them, 620, Bantam, 126, 110, etc etc.

I recently aquired a Kodak Pocket Camera 2 folding camera.
It appears that this camera used 127 film (no longer available?).I am wondering if this camera could be adapted to use 120 film, if so anyone care to take a stab at what would be involved?
I was hoping someone else had done such a project and would care to share their method.
Or have I just aquired a dust collecting collectors camera?
Larry B.
AKA PhotoBrewer

 

[Mongo]

It's Kodak thats let you down. . Time & time again they bring out new formats then drop them, 620, Bantam, 126, 110, etc etc.

You're absolutely right Ian...but the thing that I find so intriguing is that their oldest roll film, 120, is still available. I wonder how they managed to never kill that one off.

 

[bobfowler]

You're absolutely right Ian...but the thing that I find so intriguing is that their oldest roll film, 120, is still available. I wonder how they managed to never kill that one off.

One word - Hasselblad!

120 dates back to what? 1905?

 

[Nick Zentena]

They tried. 620 was supposed to kill 120.

46mm film is the same width of 127. If you have extra paper and spools you can roll your own. That can help a little with film choices if you shoot colour. At least until they kill off 46mm.

 

[Nick Zentena]

BTW 120 can't be thier oldest roll film. 116 must be older. Isn't it? Or how about the really big rolls? 115 was 5"x7"??

 

[bobfowler]

BTW 120 can't be thier oldest roll film. 116 must be older. Isn't it? Or how about the really big rolls? 115 was 5"x7"??

There's a web site for EVERYTHING, isn't there? Here's one with the history of Kodak film numbers...

 

[bobfowler]

By the way...

RE: my last post...

The main site has a pretty good listing of Kodak cameras. You can look up your camera model and see what film it was designed for. It just MAY be possible to convert it...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, Bob, now you've done it. That site got me looking at stuff, and it looks as if I might be able to convert my Pony 828 to 127. That would mean I could take pictures with it (given that 828 film is effectively extinct). I can load my Bantam RF with loose 35 mm on an 828 spool, cover the red window, and depend on the film stop (which uses a friction roller), but the Pony is strictly red window only (yeah, I know, I can get 828 from B&H, but it's only in Portra 160 NC, which in 127 size might be more than a little interesting to get processed).

It looks as if I could take off the guide rails, add new ones for the wider film, hack out the spool supports and possibly rebuild the inner winding key, and shoot original Bantam size frames on 127 (or else cut out the frame mask and shoot 4x4, though I don't know that the 51 mm Anaston would cover 4x4). Does anyone know if the center framing track on 127 is for 12-on or 8-on?

Yeah, I know, it's too much work for such a basic camera, when I have a pair of Pony 135 Model Cs waiting to be fixed, and a pair of Bantam RF that don't require so much rigamarole...

 

[dschneller]

(yeah, I know, I can get 828 from B&H, but it's only in Portra 160 NC, which in 127 size might be more than a little interesting to get processed).

Does anyone know if the center framing track on 127 is for 12-on or 8-on?

I have purchased and processed the 127 Portra from B&H. My local photo shop runs this through his 120 mask and crops to fit. Not a problem.

I believe the centre track is for 12 exposures, but don't hold me to it.

I checked a roll of Macophot UP100, the centre three tracks are for 8-on and the outside track is for 12 exposures.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[John Koehrer]

Hi,
I believe there was an article in an issue of Photovision on how to make a film stripper to cut & load 120 onto 127 spools. I'll have a look & if I can locate it I'll mail it out. I'll PM you for the adddress if I can find it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm more interested in slitting 120 to 828, but that has its own problems, not least being that I have to shorten both film and backing to fit the tiny 828 spool -- with modern film, it looks like 12 exposures might work, but that's only 3/4 of a roll, and the backing has to be shortened and the tail trimmed as well. Not impossible, but not easy to do in the dark, I think. For 127, the 6x4.5 track would work for 4x4 cameras, but again the film is too long -- 72 cm plus leaders (not counting backing paper head and tail) compared to 48 cm plus leaders. Might or might not fit on a 127 spool with modern, thinner film base and backing...

 

[dschneller]

Have you thought about loading some 35mm with paper backing onto the 828 spool? I tried this using a 127 spool and some bulk roll of delta 100 in my Sawyer's and it worked quite well. It may not be the exact format size but your can pre-cut the backing and film to fit.

Dave

 

[Donald Qualls]

35 mm is the exact width of 828, though the sprocket holes intrude on the 28 mm frame width of the 828 camera. One can even obtain Portra 160 NC in 35 mm unperforated, which is surely the source of the 828 sold by B&H. Backing paper is hard to come by, though it can be (very carefully) cut from 120 on the 6x4.5 track side. The Bantam format cameras I'm most interested in shooting, however, have a friction roller frame stop that appears to be working properly, and my plan is to load them with bare 35 mm film and cover the framing window. That should allow me 24 frames, though I envision some issues with detecting the end of the film short of shooting onto the taper. I think the most promising is to tape the film in place on the supply spool; the camera will have to be unloaded in the dark anyway.

Longer term, if this works well, I will probably attempt to make up 16 exposure rolls using paper head and tail like 220 film. Once I know how many frames to advance from the start mark on the paper to put the first frame in the gate, I can use any film sold in 35 mm this way (though end of roll detection is still an issue I haven't solved). I do need to get those Bantam RF cameras CLA'd, though...

 

[k_jupiter]

Hi,
I believe there was an article in an issue of Photovision on how to make a film stripper to cut & load 120 onto 127 spools. I'll have a look & if I can locate it I'll mail it out. I'll PM you for the adddress if I can find it.

Is this what you are talking about?




Photovision 2001 May/June cover May/June 2001

Portfolios
Shelby Lee Adams
Stephen Schaub
Jennifer Esperanza

Features
Bhutan, Joe Englander
Lith Printing, Tim Ruderman
127 Lives Again - Part 1, Paul Lewis


July/August 2001

Portfolios
Joyce Tenneson
Kurt Edward Fishback
Adam Jones
Mako

Features
Gigabit Film, Burkhardt Kiegland
Canon Tilt/Shift Lenses, Steve Anchell
127 Lives Again - Part 2, Paul Lewis


tim in san jose

 

[Bob F.]

Somewhat off topic but... During WW2, photography magazines (such as were allowed under paper rationing) in the UK were full of little gizmos to roll 35mm film on to 120 spools and adaptors to use 35mm film in 120 cameras. 35mm film was the only kind available (I assume it was movie film) to the amateur market. Photo shops would take in spools for reuse as no spools were made due to all available plastic being required for the war effort... So, such jiggery-pokery has a long tradition!...

Bob.

 

[Reid Gray]

135 in Bantam Special

I've just run a few rolls of 135 through a Kodak Bantam Special designed for 828, and this seems like the right thread to mention it on. A piece of electrical tape on the inside of the back window behind the pressure plate, and two 828 spools (or one 828 for the takeup and one 135 spool for the feeder, modified by breaking pieces off and gluing short bits of chopsticks in the ends) were the only extra equipment needed. I can only fit 24-exposure rolls for fear of jamming; 36-exposure rolls I have to cut more or less in half in the dark. I cut the exposed leader as short as possible before going into the darkroom so that I won't have to respool twice (or risk losing my last shot). I wind the film out of the cannister onto the 828 spool using the camera's winding knob, then cut the end into the requisite truncated triangle using my thumb and index finger as a guide so that I can fit the film into the other spool (not as hard in the dark as it sounds). The modified 135-spool-with-chopsticks is easier to attach film to, since the thicker shaft allows the use of tape, but then you have to respool back onto it, since it will only work in the feeder side; it also doesn't allow you to get as much film on. With two 828 spools all I have to do is spool up once, switch the empty spool to the takeup side, and close the back. Advancing the film is pure guesswork, but I'm getting better at it. Anyway, once the roll is done, I just go back into the dark, take it out, and drop it into a light-tight container (although if I'm giving it to a lab I roll it into a 135 spool, for fear of not getting my 828 spool back). It's well worth the minor effort in order to have access to the full range of films available in 135 format, and it's a sweet little camera to use--the uncoated six-element f2 lens does pretty things with light. You lose the parts of the image that fall on the line of sprocket holes, but 3:5 is a pleasing height-to-width ratio.

 

[Whiteymorange]

Or how about the really big rolls? 115 was 5"x7"??

've got the Kodak No.5 Cartridge Camera that took that stuff. It was a 7" long roll instead of 5". Default format was portrait instead of landscape - no rotating back either. There is a plate adapter out there somewhere looking for me so that I can use the camera, but we haven't met up yet. I'm not up to making rollers and slitting aerial film or circut film to make the cartridges.