Small 220 Film Camera

[wjlapier]

I have 5 cameras that will take 220 film. The lightest would be a Fujifilm GA645Zi. Heaviest might be the Bronica C2. Or the Minolta Autocord. Then there are the two Fujifilm “Texas Leicas ( hate this btw ). My question is, what is the smallest camera out there that will accept 220 film. I have maybe 35 rolls of various 220 the bulk being Fujifilm NPH400.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Mamiya 645 or Pentax 645 would probably be the most compact, though perhaps not the lightest. Thirty-two on a roll makes it almost like shooting 35 mm.

 

[xkaes]

The smallest and lightest would be a viewfinder or maybe a rangefinder. There are quite a few of these, but the older ones are less likely to use 220. The other issue is what format you want. If you want small and light that means 645 which diminishes the pool substantially. Interchangeable lenses? Adds weight and size. My guess would be Fuji or Mamiya 645 finder cameras. There are a bunch to look at. Wki will have lists -- and maybe some specs.

 

[Klaus_H]

The Fuji GS645 folder takes 220 film.

 

[grat]

Whoops. Foolishly believed a wiki article-- more research showed I was wrong.

You'd want something with automatic advance. A Yashica 24 or 124 wouldn't be a bad option, as they're small, lightweight, and take nice photos, but of course, they are a TLR which adds some bulk.

 

[ic-racer]

I figured a Fuji 645 would be the winner, but then I saw this picture and forgot how big the Fuji is compared to the 124G.

 

[reddesert]

I did not realize that there was a Minolta Autocord that took 220 film, but camera-wiki says that some of the last versions did. The Yashica 24 or 124 is about the same size, I don't think they are that heavy, perhaps a little bulky. Many of the Mamiya TLRs take 220, they are larger. I don't know of any vintage folders that took 220.

The Mamiya and Bronica 645 SLRs are not small or light, but they aren't really that much bigger than a TLR.

If you want an out-there option, there are 3D printed cameras like the Cameradactyl Homonculus or Mercury that take an RB67 or Graflex roll film back (including the 220 backs), and a press type lens, typically Mamiya Press. These aren't going to be "small" but they offer a large negative while being a lot smaller than the original RB67, Graflex, or Mamiya Press.

Ultimately I think the question is also, what do you want to do with it? If it's a travel camera, then maybe a TLR is small enough. If I had a lot of 220 film, I would be tempted to use it in a 6x7 or 6x9 camera, as sometimes 10 or 8 exposures is a bit limiting if you are in a photogenic place.

 

[OrientPoint]

I shoot a fair amount of 220 film. I have a Rolleiflex 3.5f with the 220 modification; it's pretty light, if not tiny. And I have a GS645 folder that's both compact and light. I don't think you'll find many decent 220-capable cameras lighter/more compact than either of these.

 

[wjlapier]

My Autocord is the CDS II. I forgot about the Fuji folder.

 

[xkaes]

I did not realize that there was a Minolta Autocord that took 220 film,

Starting in 1966, and there was more than one:


Minolta Autocord II

(1966) 75mm (f3.5) lens. Shutter speeds of B; 1 - 1/500. This was the first Japanese camera designed to use 120 film or 220 film -- by rotating the pressure plate. Since the film counter only ran to "12", with 220 film the counter was reset to "0" for the 13th through 24th exposure. It was short-lived and quickly replaced by the Autocord III, so it is hard to find.


http://www.subclub.org/minman/mintlr.htm

 

[guangong]

My Rollei takes 220. I shot a few rolls, but decided for my MF photography, 12 shots (11 w. Super Ikonta B) is about right. But Rollei that takes 220 would make a dent in one’s budget.