"220 film tears up cameras" ????

In corresponding with someone about a pending camera purchase, I was

surprised to read the following in an email message:

 

"You can buy 220 inserts but 220 film tears up cameras. Extra

tension from the long roll of film will shorten the life of your

camera."

 

As an engineer, I find this a little hard to accept. Seems to me

that the 'tension' would be about equal since 220 is longer but has

no paper backing, and 120 is shorter but adds the weight of the

backing. I assume the writer is badly mistaken. But I'm curious -

have any of you ever heard such a thing before?

howdy Rich,

 

and , i've heard the Easter bunny is a carnivore!

 

and donkeys fly!

Rich, you got the physics right! What the misguided individual may have been trying to repeat is that, because 120 film+paper is thicker than 220 film alone, 120 film in a 220 back creates additional tension. I never tried to measure it, but I understand that 220 backs are designed with a bit of extra tension because of the thinner 220 film. I think most manufacturers recommend against using 120 film in a 220 back, but I've done it several times in Mamiya backs without breaking anything, or even noticing any undue strain on the mechanism. Also, Koni Omega backs are immune to this problem because they release film gate tension during the wind cycle.

> Extra tension from the long roll of film will shorten the life of your camera.

 

Sounds like junk science to me.

Nonsense - I use 220 film at least 90% of the time with nary a problem.

 

Danny www.dannyburk.com

I'm sure it's nonsense, and it seems sillier the more I think about it. It struck me as a rather stunning statement when I first read it. I guess I'm curious as to whether this was a common 'old wives tale' from days of yore, or is it just one mis-informed individual?

It's just ignorant garbage I'm afraid. The reasons have already been stated but you can add that in most-though not all - cases the 220 film doesn't toch the camera since its contained in an auxillary back or insert. I use 220 extensively in Bronicas and a Mamiya 7 with no problems whatsoever.

Don't really know whether there is any truth in this or not, but the

only time that I used 220 film was with a new Pentax 67 camera

and an older Pentax 6 x 7 model. From a users point of view,

winding the film on with the single crank on the Pentax ( with

both cameras ) was much tougher than with using 120 film.

 

I could quite believe that this might cause more wear and tear

with this particular model, but have no idea if this is really the

case or not. Other cameras which take two strokes to wind the

film on might not suffer from the same problem. Apart from

everything else, I found it difficult to get the film wound on tightly

enough on to the takeup spool every time and had quite a few

frames wasted because of light leaks.

 

But, being honest, 220 film is becoming a bit of a rarity anyway

these days. I can't recall the last time that I actually saw any for

sale anywhere and even in mailorder catologues it is more than

twice the cost of two rolls of the same film version in 120 film,

which is a bit offputting to say the least!

I also would be afraid of using 220 film in the Mamiya 6 seeing as though there are no individual backs. I find the film advance mechanism in this camera to be rather fragile. "Old wives tale"? I don't know but maybe a short prayer might help when winding the extra length of the 220 film on the Mamiya 6.

It looks like Allan hit it on the head. After further 'e-discussion' with this person, I got a more specific answer:

 

"I have used 220 alot in former 6x7 Pentax body which

I just tore up. When you manually crank the camera,

you can feel the tension with 220 film. When I load it

up with 120 the cranking was effortless. I shared my

thoughts with other photographers, camera dealers, and

a Pentax rep who feel the same. 220 film stresses

the camera. Perhaps the motorized 645 & 220 insert

is designed better than the 6x7 pentax...."

 

I've had two P6x7's but rarely, if ever, shot 220 in them. One of these was bought from a studio photographer who shot 220 exclusively, and the advance mechanism was worn out when I got the camera. I assumed it was just from years of use, but maybe it was related to the 220 film. Who can say?

 

At any rate, I don't have a 6x7 any longer, and have absolutely no concerns about shooting 220 in my P645N. As long as I remember to load the proper film into the correct back....

I think that this problem with using 220 film might well be

specific to the Pentax 67 camera range. I just wonder how much

of a compromise Pentax had to make with the design of this

camera to allow it to use both 120 and 220 film with no

interchangable backs and a single crank to wind the film on after

each exposure.

 

But, possibly the real problem is the fact that with only one

movement to wind the film on, that this places disproportionately

more pressure on the camera winding mechanism when using

220 film. This would not be so much of a problem with a lower

geared winding mechanism taking say two strokes to wind the

film on, as with my Fuji GSW690.

 

I have heard from various camera workshops that the winding

mechanism on Pentax 67 cameras is a known weak point with

these cameras and that it needs attention fairly regularly. I

should point out that in my previous post when I mentioned

using 220 film, my experience was based on using it with three

different camera bodies around the same time. The older Pentax

6 x 7 camera struggled a bit and I just thought initially that this

might be because of its age. Then I get a brand new Pentax 67

and it struggled too, it developed a fault and was changed

underr warranty by Pentax and its replacement also struggled

with using 220 film too. Maybe, not an extensive test, but enough

to convince me not to use 220 film on a Pentax 67 again. I don't

know whether the newer Pentax 67II model is any better in this

regard, I think that I am right in saying that Pentax advertise that it

can squeeze 21 frames out of a roll of 220 film, which must

mean that they have overhauled the winding mechanism

somewhat from the original Pentax 67 model.

Alex wrote: >>>..."maybe a short prayer might help when winding the extra length of the 220 film on the Mamiya 6."<<<<My money says a LONG prayer would better serve for a longer roll. God has enough to think about as it is.