Kodak Tourist II 620 to 120 Modification

Kodak Tourist II 620 to 120 Modification

  1. c.w.

    c.w. Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    c.w. submitted a new resource:

    Kodak Tourist II 620 to 120 Modification - Kodak Tourist II 620 to 120 Modification

    Read more about this resource...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2016
  2. Removed Account2

    Removed Account2 Inactive

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    norway - on
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Can't see no pictures!
     
  3. dehk

    dehk Member

    Messages:
    890
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Location:
    W Michigan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Funny I just picked up a Tourist 2 last week and was gonna do similar things. Lets see photos though!
     
  4. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,982
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    i was under the impression ( after conversations with ken ruth
    who does conversions of medalists from 620 to 120 )
    that either the paper or the film base of 620 was thinner than 120,
    so film is likely to get "bound up" ..
    do tourist cameras and others that take 620 film have the same problems or
    is this a situation that may be more likely to happen just with medalist cameras because of their design ?

    - john
     
  5. dehk

    dehk Member

    Messages:
    890
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Location:
    W Michigan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My friend always respool 120 to 620 into a Kodak Duraflex with no problem.
     
  6. c.w.

    c.w. Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well... what the what? I thought i had the images attached to the thread and now they're nowhere to be found. I had a hard drive crash, so i'm not even entirely sure i still have the pictures. I'll have to look around and see if they're backed up somewhere in the mess of backup shenanigans i have. I'm actually a little surprised to see this pop back up.

    I'm not sure if the backing paper or film was thinner on 620, but i didn't tend to have any real issues with binding of the film / paper, only the spools. I thought the spool could be smaller because they were made of metal and had a thinner core, not because of any thickness difference, but i may well be wrong. That being said the winding on mine was never what i'd call "buttery smooth", largely because of my seat-of-the-pants engineering.
     
  7. Removed Account2

    Removed Account2 Inactive

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    norway - on
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Article pops back up because you have written a classic!

    Thanx for your effort.
     
  8. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,418
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I did a Tourist II conversion earlier ths year. There were no problems feeding 120 film through it once there was enough room for the 120 spool in the feed side. I left the 620 spool in the take up side, no need to modify that side. It is a dirty process, so blue painters tape EVERYWHERE to keep grindings out of places it doesn't belong. I taped the entire outside plus over the the entire inside except the work area. I used a dummy roll for the many test fits until it moved freely in the chamber. A thorough cleaning is next, compressed air followed by wiping with a soft cloth soaked in a fast drying solvent. I recommend not modifying the take up side, the tabs on the shaft are too small to properly engage the slots in a 120 spool and could possibly slip causing film advance difficulties. The tool of choice for this is a Dremel with a good assortment of grinding burrs. Have fun!
     
  9. Removed Account2

    Removed Account2 Inactive

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    norway - on
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    got anny pickchers, Rick?

    :smile:

    If you have of the modified example I can provide some pre-modified.
     
  10. kingkristjan

    kingkristjan Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto, Can
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Can't see the pics either. But I did the same thing about 10 years ago, except I had access to my brothers precision machining business. It was still a little crude, but it did work. I needed to smooth out one edge because it was grinding the top edge of the film. I ended up auctioning it off on eBay to some guy in Taiwan. He also worked in a precision machining company and he refined it a little more. The only thing I did miss was having a true rangefinder...guessing the focus position was hit and miss.
     
  11. Removed Account2

    Removed Account2 Inactive

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    norway - on
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Still noone that has a picture of this procedure?
    I'm hesitant at putting my Dremel to a perfect camera, after some Wiley E. Coyote gunsmithing that went bad some years back!
     
  12. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,418
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My appologies, I didn't photo the procedure. IIRC, you must grind at the top and bottom of the feed side of the camera. There are "bumps" that limit the diameter of the film roll. I have since sold the camera, so there isn't any way to photo it and describe the process. Go slow, and take care not to take too much out at a time, and test fit often. When you are satisfied you have completed the job, some flat black paint is in order to finish properly. One other recommendation, do this somewhere dust and metal grindings dont pose any problems, and wear a dust mask and safety glasses.
     
  13. Removed Account2

    Removed Account2 Inactive

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    norway - on
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Dust & grime? I've worked in the oil industry with corrosion control, sandblasting, spray-painting and spray-metallization - this is peanuts!
    :smile:

    Thank you for your info. One question: did this procedure ruin the abulity to use 620 rolls, should you be lucky enough to nab one somewhere?

    Erik
     
  14. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,418
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thats something I never gave a thought. I suppose that there mightn't be adaquate tension on a roll of 620 after the mod, but then again, there may be.
     
  15. jhw

    jhw Subscriber

    Messages:
    201
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Cal
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I was the lucky foster parent of the adopted Tourist & just saw this follow up. I've used Rick's camera with both 120/620: 120 - all good; 620 - as Rick opined, a tiny bit loose, but still works fine. Btw...the actual conversion work by Rick is amazing. Clean, smooth, all surfaces resealed...I can certainly see this as an involved process with metal dust everywhere. I have taken my adopted Tourist many places, most recently yesterday on a cloudy day in the redwoods...perfect for 6x9 slabs of contrasty Ektachrome...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2011
  16. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,418
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, I certainly thank you for the pat on the back. I miss the little beast, glad to hear you are having a wonderful time with it. I might just have to do that again.
     
  17. sergeant1989

    sergeant1989 Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    NO pics

    The pictures are not available even after logging in Thanks Peter
     
  18. Adam W

    Adam W Member

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    Might be because the original post was from 2009.