220 or it's later than you think

[Matt5791]

We have good supplies of the new Portra 400 and 160 in 220 - but I believe these are the last films available in the format.

It's encouraging Kodak saw fit to release the new Portra films in 220.

Matt

[David Brown]

The biggest problem I see with 220 roll film is that it can't be used with the much more common 120 backs. I have no idea what MF camera makers thought when they created this mess, ...

I don't have a 220 back for my RB, or a 220 insert for the M645. However, non interchangeble back cameras, such as my C220 and Fuji 645 take both films by adjusting the pressure plate. Interesting how that worked.

[Mark Crabtree]

There must still be some wedding shooters, or something like that keeping 220 on the books at all.

[domaz]

Don't discount camera compatability as a reason people don't shoot it. The remaining film user base for MF film is probably a lot of collectors (or collectors/sometime users). Most collector MF cameras don't take 220.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Bronica had the good sense to make a switchable 120/220 back during the era of the S,S2,S2a,EC,EC-TL, and there are some cameras with non-interchangeable backs that have this facility. I suppose it never became a norm because of the added mechanical complexity and maintenance required/risk of failure. Those Bronica 12/24 backs can be finicky, but fortunately they're cheap.

Other two notable cameras for their switchability between 120 and 220 are the Mamiya C-series and certain Rolleiflex models.

My C330 shoots 220 at the flip of its pressure plate.

[guyjr]

We have good supplies of the new Portra 400 and 160 in 220 - but I believe these are the last films available in the format.

It's encouraging Kodak saw fit to release the new Portra films in 220.

Matt

That's my thoughts on the matter as well. The only slide 220 I've seen for sale in the U.S. is Astia @ B&H, which is ironic because Astia itself is said to have been discontinued. So, my guess is that is just new old stock, and once it's gone, we will be left with just the two Kodak 220 products.

[TheFlyingCamera]

Now here's the $64,000 question - with all those 220 backs out there that will shortly become paperweights, it would seem there could be a market for converting them to take 120. But would it be economically feasible? I suspect the level of effort required would be not cost effective - you'd probably have to spend $250-300 in labor per back to convert them, and you could replace them with existing 120 backs for half that price in most cases.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, with the general decline in use of medium format, I doubt there would be any incentive to convert 220 backs to 120, since there's plenty of 120 stuff around. Is there any camera that only takes 220? I think even the Linhof 220 had a switchable back.

[TheFlyingCamera]

I guess they'll just serve as parts donors to 120 backs for a very long time. Although I would think a lot of the 220 backs would be more worn out than the 120 backs because they would have been more likely to be used by working professionals.

[2F/2F]

Other two notable cameras for their switchability between 120 and 220 are the Mamiya C-series and certain Rolleiflex models.

My C330 shoots 220 at the flip of its pressure plate.

I have one of those switchable Rolleiflexen, a 3.5F. It was the main selling point for me. I pretty much only shoot 120 in that camera when I am shooting b/w.

My C220 was designed with the rotating pressure plate like you describe.

But I also have a C33 that can take 220; not all of them could TMK. You have to remove the 120 back door and install a 220 back door. It is pretty simple to do, and luckily my camera came with both doors.