Early box cameras that use 120 film

[Dustin McAmera]

Another issue with the gool ol' box camera, like all the Brownies, is that, after the many decades since they were made, the back of the box has usually bowed in a bit (a side-effect of fake leather on one side and nothing on the other) and almost certainly throws the plane of focus off.

I don't understand this point. I have box cameras made of steel, and I have them made of wood. I can't see either of them bowing because of some leatherette. In any case, the pressure plate doesn't push the film into empty space; it pushes against a frame.

My Ensign has one of their 'film register' devices - there's a hinged cover on the red window, and when you lift it to wind, you're operating a lever that eases the pressure plate so you can wind. When the cover's on, the pressure is pretty tight, and I don't think film flatness is an issue.

 

[Don_ih]

I have box cameras made of steel, and I have them made of wood.

They don't do what I'm talking about.

I'm talking specifically about the Kodak Brownie cameras made of cardboard (like the 2, the 2A, the 620, the 620 Junior, etc). The back isn't a pressure plate on those cameras - it rests against the back of the paper. Changes in humidity and shrinkage of the covering cause the cardboard to bow inward, particularly in the centre of the back, which will push the film into the camera, past where it's supposed to be.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Altissa box is 6x6 and has a two element Periskop lens.

I've had a Speedex Jr. with this type of lens, and they can be pretty sharp. My Speedex Jr. would let me count the bricks in a chimney from a block and a half away. Still a pretty simple camera, one shutter speed plus B, two apertures, and fixed focus (6 ft to infinity).

The number spacing is slightly different on 620 paper than it is on 120 paper, also, to accommodate for the thinner core.

No, it's not. The number spacing is determined by frame dimension, the spool size only determines how many turns of the knob it takes to advance one frame.

 

[Don_ih]

No, it's not.

That's funny. I compared a roll of 620 backing paper and 120 backing paper and the spacing was different. I guess they didn't get the memo. (And you skipped where I said "Not that it matters." It still doesn't matter.)

 

[MattKing]

That's funny. I compared a roll of 620 backing paper and 120 backing paper and the spacing was different. I guess they didn't get the memo. (And you skipped where I said "Not that it matters." It still doesn't matter.)

Out of curiosity, were the two films from the same brand? And was this in reference to the 6x6 spacing?
A difference might reflect a slightly different frame spacing goal/target, which might be related to different film and camera manufacturers.
Or if the spacing was WRT 6x4.5 spacing, it might reflect that some cameras are designed for 16 frames, while others are designed for 15 frames.

 

[Don_ih]

Out of curiosity, were the two films from the same brand? And was this in reference to the 6x6 spacing?
A difference might reflect a slightly different frame spacing goal/target, which might be related to different film and camera manufacturers.
Or if the spacing was WRT 6x4.5 spacing, it might reflect that some cameras are designed for 16 frames, while others are designed for 15 frames.

See:

Not that it matters.

 

[BrianShaw]

Out of curiosity, were the two films from the same brand? And was this in reference to the 6x6 spacing?
A difference might reflect a slightly different frame spacing goal/target, which might be related to different film and camera manufacturers.
Or if the spacing was WRT 6x4.5 spacing, it might reflect that some cameras are designed for 16 frames, while others are designed for 15 frames.

It could be that the backing papers were from different eras. 620 film was "intended" for different frames sizes over the years... as few as 6 originally.

Not that it matters...

 

[baachitraka]

box tengor: last model.

 

[jwd722]

An interesting Brownie compilation: https://www.brownie-camera.com/index.shtml