|
220 insert into 120 back?
 |
After scanning the discussion threads, I see I've just had the reverse of most people's money-saving bright idea.
Rather than ask if 120 film can be used in a (much cheaper) 220 back, I'd like to know if 220 inserts can be used (with 220 film) in a 120 back.
I would have thought a back is a back, and it's the insert that defines the type of film. In fact, the insert is what has the "120" or "220" designation written on the side, not the back itself.
So I was in my local lab the other day, and spotted a box of film marked "50% off". Seconds later, I had ten rolls of 220 Portra 160 NC, expired of course, for $20 rather than about $80. I knew I didn't own a 220 back, but I figured with the cost savings on the film, I could easily afford to buy a 220 insert and still be ahead of the game.
Two 220 inserts from ebay later, I notice something. there's a small area at the lower left of the insert, when looking at the pressure plate side, that fits into the back. The 220 ones have a square hole, and the 120s have a round one. What the heck? Why should this matter? What's more, the 220 inserts do fit in the 120 backs. They're just a wee bit snug. But so far the film has wound properly, as far as I can tell.
So what's the word? Should I have gotten a 220 'back' along with some inserts? And how would one know the difference anyway?
Thanks.
Posted at 9:13PM, 19 May 2008 PDT
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The thickness is different in 220 as it has no paper backing, but I don't have enough experience to know whether the thickness will matter in the Bronica.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well if its a square format Bronica then the counter will only go up to 12. 220 backs cant be that much more.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ah of course! Why didn't I remember that... :D
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
er...i think i'm not being clear. :)
first off, i didn't mention this is for my ETR-S. sorry about that. so not square format.
i bought 220 *inserts*. i'm using 220 film on the 220 inserts. however i'm using the inserts in the backs i already have, which came with 120 inserts. they ought to be interchangeable, and they just about are. but they're a little tight.
it's not a film thing, because they're tight even with no film loaded onto the insert. it's the fact that, quite literally, a square peg is being fit into a round hole. it fits, but the lid closes a little tightly on the film back. with or without film.
so far i've shot 1/2 a roll of 220, and it appears to be advancing just fine. i'm just wondering why this very slight difference in the way the backs are built, and if it's going to make a difference in operation.
thanks!
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i use 120 and 220 in a 220 insert in a regular back, theres no denomination of backs, just inserts. i have 3 inserts and 2 backs and i just swap them out
i havent had any problems so far
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i use an etrs as well btw
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
thanks thanumber4, that's exactly what i wanted to know!
but...do you find that there's a different shape to the lower left area of the insert, when comparing the 120 to the 220 versions? square vs round?
wait...are all your inserts 220? or do you have both kinds?
i probably need to post some pictures of what i'm talking about. yes all my 120 inserts swap out with the backs they came with. it's only now that i bought 220 inserts, without backs, that the issue has come up.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i use both 120 and 220 backs
the only significant difference ive ever noticed is the differing tension plate-rollers on the inserts
if you see it fit throw some pictures up, ill be happy to take a look
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
just remember youll break a 120 back with 220 in it, because you cant advance past 16, at least this is what i hear, personally i havent tried it
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i'll try and post some pictures tonight.
thanks!
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
here's what i mean:
"1" is one of the backs i have, which came with a 120 insert when i bought it. note the round male connection.
"2" is the 220 insert that i just bought, without a corresponding back. note the square female connection.
"3" is the 120 insert that came with the back. note the round female connection.
just to reiterate: the 220 square connection fits onto the back, but it (or something else) makes the connection a little tight. it does seem though, that if there were some square male-connector backs out there, for whatever reason, they would NOT fit into the round 120 backs. this could have perhaps been Bronica's intention, to keep 120 inserts from being used in these theoretical backs.
[later]
from the official Tamron info pages:
"INSERTS: All 120, 220 inserts can be installed in any E roll film back (note: never put 120 film on a 220 insert, and vice versa)."
so they should work. and, when the ETR-Si was released:
"The film advance grasp on the insert changed to a folding crank. "
these 220 inserts have the folding crank, whereas everything else i own has the lift up and twist type. so this might be the answer: it's just a more modern insert than what i've previously seen.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
that could be. in fact it sounds right.
i think ive been fortunate and have happened to have gotten some newer ones, my most frequently used had a folding crank, and i use 120 and 220 in that one, even though it is by designation a 220 back
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
thanks!
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Bronica /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Bronica discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us