RB67 on 35 mm

img421.jpg

H
img421.jpg

  • Tel
  • Apr 26, 2025
  • 1
  • 1
  • 22
Caution Post

A
Caution Post

  • 2
  • 0
  • 40
Hidden

A
Hidden

  • 1
  • 0
  • 39
Is Jabba In?

A
Is Jabba In?

  • 3
  • 0
  • 46
Dog Opposites

A
Dog Opposites

  • 2
  • 3
  • 151

Forum statistics

Threads
197,483
Messages
2,759,752
Members
99,514
Latest member
cukon
Recent bookmarks
0

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,073
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
All the panoramic stuff I see here makes this seem pretty mundane, but it's a reasonably priced, high image quality option that I'm sure others here have done. Load 35 mm film into an RB67 film back, and Bob's your uncle, 35x67 sprocket hole panoramics with no further effort.

Of course, if you have a ProSD version film back, you pretty quickly discover that the frame counter doesn't advance, and you're left either guessing the right fraction of a lever stroke or living with the frame spacing increasing (to nearly frame size) through the length of the roll as the wound film increases the spool diameter. The older ProS backs use the roller on the supply side to drive the frame counter, but the ProSD backs have a narrow additional roller on the mechanical end that does that job, so the 35 mm film won't drive the counter.

Then there's the fact you need a 220 back to handle 36 frame length 35 mm film, which is twice as long as a 120 strip. Good news and bad news, since with 220 out of production, these have dropped in price a bit. Also the wasted film at the start (about a foot to get from the cassette to the takeup spool) and end (at least three to as much as eight inches, depending exactly where your frames wind up on the roll), and the need to unload in a darkroom or changing bag.

So, picture being able to use the whole roll of 35 mm, no waste; dependable advance with the lever and consistent frame spacing throughout the roll, and working double exposure protection if you're ProSD enabled. No dancing with the double exposure lever just to be able to fire the shutter because the film back thinks the film hasn't moved. No unloading (and winding the film back into the cassette) in a dark bag.

You'll need three high-tech pieces of kit: a couple sets of 35mm to 120 adapters (two knobs each, one for each end; these 3-D printed items are a few dollars per set from multiple sources), a couple lengths of 35 mm leader (fixed-out film works, or you can buy movie leader) cut to the header and tail lengths you need, and two bulk-loader cassettes (the leader and cassettes can be duplicated for multi-roll shoots, the adapters don't need to be). Plus a couple inches of black electrical tape.

Start by putting a single wrap of electrical tape around the counter drive roller, if you have a ProSD 220 back. This will let the film drive the counter (the film doesn't ride this far over, so the extra thickness won't change frame spacing).

Load the film into the cassette with the shorter leader piece (I'd recommend eight inches -- long enough your last exposure gets protected, short enough you don't often shoot the best shot of the roll on the tail leader) first, then film taped to the leader, the usual five feet of film for a 36 exposure roll (which should give about eighteen exposures in a 6x7 back), and a leader as long as the lead-in on a 120 backing paper, with a mark where the start arrows are. Then attach the free end of the leader to the spool in the second cassette (be sure to mark the take up cassette so you don't try to load backward).

With the adapters on both cassettes, the film will stay centered in the gate, allowing precise composition (you can also make up a composition mask for the viewfinder, if so inclined), and you can load just about like loading 220 film. The 120 adapters mean the film back securely holds the cassettes, no fumbling around like with a loose cassette. Once the roll is done, the last exposure will have wound into the takeup cassette, and you can unload in the light. If you're shooting a lot, you can carry multiples of these assemblies and reload in about the same time it would take to load 120 or 220 film.

if you like a wider ratio, you could even make up a frame mask to go into the film back behind the dark slide. Since the film is always in the same place, between the two cassettes, a correctly dimensioned mask will cover only the sprockets and give a 24x67 frame.

Now try not to faint when you look at the prices for a 35 mm fisheye for your RB (I do plan to get a 50 mm, though).
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
I do this with one of the 35 to 120 adapters, and just tape the film to a 120 leader so there is little film wasted at the beginning. I did not find the frame spacing objectionable, all things considered. I love the sprocket hole look from Fuji color negative film - so vibrant. It works great with colorful subjects.

I also made a paper mask to put on my WLF for precise framing.
 

darkroommike

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,673
Location
Iowa
Format
Multi Format
Donald, True panorama is more than just a funny aspect ratio or exposed sprocket holes. I have a couple of cheap panoramics and they are much more than just a funny long aspect ratio. (BTW welcome back.)
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,794
Format
Multi Format
Um, Donald, I have a humble 2x3 Century Graphic with a variety of rectilinear short lenses, some not so humble, most of which cover at least 2x3. The one with the least coverage, a 38/4.5 Biogon rescued from an aerial camera, gives a 24x82 on 120 in a 2x3 roll holder with good image everywhere except a couple of mm in each corner, where there;'s nothing at all.

With all respect to you and the RB, Bob's my uncle, not yours, because 2x3 on 120 offers better cropping opportunities than 35 mm film. For that matter, 120 in an RB offers better cropping opportunities than a 35 mm strip. I can't speak to the highly desirable, some say, sprocket effect. I don't like it and it isn't attainable with 120 film.
 

David Brown

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
4,044
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
... 120 in an RB offers better cropping opportunities than a 35 mm strip. I can't speak to the highly desirable, some say, sprocket effect. I don't like it and it isn't attainable with 120 film.

I tend to agree. Years ago, I had temporary access to a Hasselblad Xpan with a 45mm lens. It was an expensive camera. Then I realized that I had a 50mm lens for my RB. It would take a lot of "wasted" (and that's subjective) 120 film to pay for an Xpan. I also own a Horizon swing lens. Now that's a whole different pano look! :cool:
 

choiliefan

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,302
Format
Medium Format
I adapted a Rolleicord Va 24-exposure 24X36 kit by widening the 'focal plane mask' insert to approx 24X54mm so I now get 24 shots of panoramic 35 on a roll of 120. Not quite as wide as your 6X7 hack but it's a cheap alternative.
Works very well on my Vb and the addition of an auxiliary wide lens just adds to the fun.
https://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleiflex/rolleicord_va_exposure_kits.pdf gives an overview of these kits but doesn't show the 24 model.
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
It's always a rabbit hole. A 4x5 camera with a 120 back will offer the best cropping opportunity of any mentioned so far. Then there's 8x10, etc.

I tried 35mm in my 6x9 Fuji, but the RB is easier to deal with because you don't have to wind through the first part of the roll before you can take your first shot. I imagine 2x3 or 4x5 roll film backs are similarly convenient.

I love sprocket holes for certain subjects. Absolutely love them.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,794
Format
Multi Format
It's always a rabbit hole. A 4x5 camera with a 120 back will offer the best cropping opportunity of any mentioned so far. Then there's 8x10, etc.

Not to be a complete idiot, but what's the difference, except size and weight, between a 4x5 press, technical or view camera with a 2x3 (6x9 is a poor and misleading metric approximation) roll holder and a 2x3 press, technical or view camera with a 2x3 roll holder?
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,990
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Donald, True panorama is more than just a funny aspect ratio or exposed sprocket holes. I have a couple of cheap panoramics and they are much more than just a funny long aspect ratio. (BTW welcome back.)

There is no true definition of Panorama.
I myself consider an aspect ratio of 3/1 or larger and a horizontal angle of 130° or larger.
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid
Too many posts without an image. Here is a shot with RB67 on 135 film:

R152_trx_mami_pano2_186 (1).jpeg


ps. it is wider than on Xpan :wink:
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
Not to be a complete idiot, but what's the difference, except size and weight, between a 4x5 press, technical or view camera with a 2x3 (6x9 is a poor and misleading metric approximation) roll holder and a 2x3 press, technical or view camera with a 2x3 roll holder?
I may be the idiot, because I don't know from firsthand experience. I thought there was a 6x12 roll film back for 4x5 cameras, but I could very well be wrong.

The point I meant to make is that we can always crop from larger and larger formats. Luckily, there is a lot to choose from to suit each of our fancy! :smile:

Like I said, I like the sprocket holes. But I completely understand how they may be offputting for others. One of the charms of using film, for me, is the plethora of formats and experimentation you can do.

I had one of Lomography's sprocket rockets, but found a real camera much more versatile.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,794
Format
Multi Format
I thought there was a 6x12 roll film back for 4x5 cameras, but I could very well be wrong.

You're right. There are 6x12 roll holders for 4x5 cameras. I have one, also a camera to attach it to. Re nominal sizes, my Sinar Panorama's gate is 56x112 mm. If Bob Salomon notices this discussion, he'll mention that the Linhof Techo Rollex' gate is 56x120 mm.

There are also nominal 6x9 roll holders for 4x5 cameras. I have one two, a Linhof Super Rollex with is market 6x9 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. They're what I was thinking of when you mentioned "120 back." I got the Super Rollex after I got the Panorama so that I wouldn't have to carry a 4x5 Cambo and at least one 2x3 Graphic.

Time for thread drift. Why do you call a roll holder a back? I've always understood a press/technical/view camera back to be the part of the camera that somehow accepts a film holder and accepts a detachable focusing panel or has an integral ground glass.

Back on topic, yes indeed a 4x5 piece of sheet film offers more cropping opportunities than a 6x12 roll holder and a 5x7 piece of sheet film offers more cropping opportunities than roll holders for formats between 6x12 and 6x17. Many choices, depending on preferences and budget.

The OP griped politely about the prices of fisheye lenses for the RB. I don't think there are fisheyes for larger formats, could well be mistaken. Rectilinear extreme wide angle lenses for 6x7 SLRs are also very dear. This is where 6x9 and 4x5 (or 6x12) with a press/technical/view camera may have cost advantages.
 
OP
OP
Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,073
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Yes. Many more cropping opportunities shooting full frame 6x7 (or whatever) and cropping to panoramic aspect ratio. No question.

However, part of the fun of shooting 35 mm in a medium format camera is being forced to compose for the aspect ratio, instead of being able to crop from the full frame. It's a discipline, a creative limitation. Some of the same idea as shooting a 1930s vintage box camera instead of your fully adjustable folder (that uses the same film and format). Or shooting in the "Lomography" class for creative purposes.

For me, it's something I can't do well with other equipment I own or can afford. With the 35 mm RB67, and a 50 mm lens, I'll get results very similar to an XPan with a 45 mm lens -- for less than the cost of the lens.

Dan, the 90 mm and even 60 mm lenses for 4x5 would do a nice job on 35 mm in a 120 roll holder (film back, as opposed to the ground glass back, I suppose) -- they only cost about twice what my whole RB67 setup has cost so far. I can get a 65 mm lens for under $200, apparently; 50 mm are a bit more, but still within reach. Not many fisheyes that will cover large circles, though I think I've seen at least one 4x5 camera made to use only a proprietary fisheye.
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
Time for thread drift. Why do you call a roll holder a back? I've always understood a press/technical/view camera back to be the part of the camera that somehow accepts a film holder and accepts a detachable focusing panel or has an integral ground glass.

It is just my ignorance. I have only been back into film for a couple of years, and in my younger years I could never have dreamed of affording medium or large format. The holder and back are so closely related in my mind that I confused the nomenclature.

Regarding 2x3, I have looked at those with interest. Specifically, I think, Mamiya Press cameras (aren't those 2x3?).

I know some people detest sprocket holes, but the two subjects I have found so far that I enjoy the look for are those with saturated colors, and beach scenes with my family. It gives the final image such a playful, non-serious look that evokes a certain emotion in me,

I will try to post a couple of examples when I get a chance.
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid
Typically these sprocket-holes pananoramas are cluttered with rebate signing, up to barcodes.

Sprocket holes just look fun. If one doesn't like them, then crop. For example following photo, I personally like the sprocket version much more.

sprok.jpg


Street photography with RB67 and using 135 film is the next level on street photography :smile:
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,990
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
What I wanted to indicate is that sprocket holes at the rebate are one thing, them being cluttered with letters, figures and barcode another thing. Which to me decreases the choice of films for this kind of exposure.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,794
Format
Multi Format
Regarding 2x3, I have looked at those with interest. Specifically, I think, Mamiya Press cameras (aren't those 2x3?).

I know some people detest sprocket holes, but the two subjects I have found so far that I enjoy the look for are those with saturated colors, and beach scenes with my family. It gives the final image such a playful, non-serious look that evokes a certain emotion in me,

Yes, 2x3.

Re sprocket holes, there's no disputing tastes. I don't like 'em. Good for me. You like 'em. Good for you. Do what pleases you, don't be influenced by what pleases me as long as you're not physically damaging me.
 

tezzasmall

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,125
Location
Southend on Sea Essex UK
Format
Plastic Cameras
Sprocket holes just look fun. If one doesn't like them, then crop. For example following photo, I personally like the sprocket version much more.
Street photography with RB67 and using 135 film is the next level on street photography :smile:
Yes, so do I! :smile: It's funny how different they look, with and without sprocket holes.

What I wanted to indicate is that sprocket holes at the rebate are one thing, them being cluttered with letters, figures and barcode another thing. Which to me decreases the choice of films for this kind of exposure.
I have to ask, what film is it that you use vedostuu, that the film has no markings at all on the film rebate = not even the manufacturers name??? (There's probably a really obvious answer to this I'm sure, and will probably kick myself when I read an answer.)

Terry S
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,308
Format
35mm
To the op; this is some half-ass job in seek of half-ass happiness.

Just buy a true pano camera and be full-ass happy.
 
OP
OP
Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,073
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
NB23: A Horizont or Horizon or whatever the other reasonably accessible choice is, in good working condition, costs as much as my RB67, with one lens and the three film holders I've got so far -- if not a bit more. And without spending another dime, I can shoot full frame 6x7 or 6x4.5 (one of the roll holders that came with it is that format). Some of us aren't made of money.
 
OP
OP
Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,073
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Okay, this thread needs more pictures. Shot with Sekor-C 90/3.8, expired 35mm Superia Xtra 400 loaded in a 220 film holder (no leader, not yet set up for cassette to cassette, still got 9 frames on the 24 exposure roll). Scans from The Darkroom, don't have prints in hand yet, but I ordered prints of these two.

000103760001scaled.jpg 000103760006scaled.jpg
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom