Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,568   Posts: 1,573,494   Online: 651
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    Can you post some clear photos of your camera, and the film chamber? I have a 621 Old Standard variant at home waiting in line to be restored I can compare them against.

    If its a knob wind Rolleiflex rather than crank, then it is indeed meant for 117 film. (but 620 fits) But these didn't come with f/3.5 or 1/500.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  2. #12
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    I was curious about the 117 format, and the Wikipedia entry on film formats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats) does not identify the difference between it and 120.

    The answer came from the following page: http://www.photographyhistory.com/cc2.html

    "Now you're probably wondering why Eastman Kodak had introduced three different cameras in such a short time using three different rollfilms, but all producing the exact same 2 1/4 inch wide results. It's true, #105, #117, and #120 were all actually the same 2 1/4 inch wide film stock rolled onto virtually identical spools, but Eastman Kodak put different exposure number patterns on the paper backing of these films to match the locations of the "ruby window" on the different camera models. Incredibly, despite the overwhelming success of #120 in particular, it wasn't until the 1940's that Eastman Kodak finally came to their senses, eliminated #105 and #117 as superfluous products, and then put all the various exposure number sequences for all the various format possibilities on the paper backing of #120 rollfilm alone. In this way, #120 replaced the earlier films and would provide many formats by itself. Nevertheless, it's ironic to note that the vehicle for medium format on rollfilm today, our "professional" format, had its humble beginnings with the Brownie, the simplest snapshot camera of nearly a century ago!"
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  3. #13
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    117 uses a smaller diameter spool than 120. The length of the film is shorter - 8 6x6 shots if I recall - I might be wrong as I think its been discontinued since long before I was born! The red window on the original is in the right place for 6x6 numbers on 120/620 backing paper.

    Before the Rolleiflex brought 6x6 into a position of dominance, 120 film only had 6x9 markings. If you look at the red window positions of all the early Rollei 6x6 cameras using frame counters, you'll see its in line with the 6x9 numbers. Same deal on my 6x6 Super Ikonta 532/16. You set frame #1 with the 6x9 #1 in the red window, engage the frame counter, and forget about it.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  4. #14
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    I am sure what I am about to say is ridiculous, but is it possible the roll you are trying to load could be 620 rather than 120?


    Charlie.................

  5. #15
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kovacs
    Can you post some clear photos of your camera, and the film chamber? I have a 621 Old Standard variant at home waiting in line to be restored I can compare them against.

    If its a knob wind Rolleiflex rather than crank, then it is indeed meant for 117 film. (but 620 fits) But these didn't come with f/3.5 or 1/500.
    Hi Mike,

    To be sure, it is a crank wind with an f/3.5 Tessar and a 1/500th Compur.

    About the photos you asked for.. well, sorry to say that I'm a digital dinosaur and I don't yet have a scanner (though a friend gave me a digital SLR because he felt "a photographer should have one of these today .. or you can't call yourself a photographer" I have it but don't use it . . . but at least I can call myself a photographer!).

    Best I can do, for the moment, is to find the same camera pictured elsewhere. I hope these links will help.

    My camera is identical to the one you'll find here: http://www.siufai.dds.nl/RolleiStandard.htm

    For an internal view, here a shot from the original instruction manual: http://www.urmonas.net/manuals/rolle...ei-stand-4.jpg

    Differences with my camera are, 1) the roller you see behind the supply roll doesn't exist on my camera, and 2) there is no hole in my pressure plate (it's one, solid piece) If you scroll down the page from this link, you'll read that the film size is "B.II" (B2) I believe this is 120, but I don't remember and I couldn't find it on the web.

    Hope this helps you help me !

    .

  6. #16
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Webb
    I am sure what I am about to say is ridiculous, but is it possible the roll you are trying to load could be 620 rather than 120?
    Charlie.................
    Charlie,

    Thanks for the idea but I'm sure that I'm testing with a 120 spool. I don't even have a 620 in the house.

    In fact, a 620 spool is actually shorter(less tall) than a 120, thus would probably fit. This is what's causing all the mystery and head-scratching; according to Mike Kovacs, who is a Rollei expert, this camera is supposed to take 120, but I swear I couldn't fit a 120 spool in the supply trough even if with a hammer!

    .

  7. #17
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    "Expert" might be a stretch! Check your email - I sent you some photos of my model 621 Old Standard.

    If by "stud" you mean the stud on the take-up side opposite the knurled knob, you have to pull that knob outward to fit the take-up spool.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  8. #18
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,886
    Images
    34
    B2 is definitely 120. I think the B2 nomenclature belongs to ANSCO/AGFA, as my Speedex says "Use B2 film" or something similar, and is definitely a 120 camera.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos
    [SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman]My "Bargain" Rolleiflex is turning into a Frankenstein project! HELP![/FONT][/SIZE]

    I just bought an old Rolleiflex Standard for peanuts, but it seems that I'm the one whose been made a monkey of. The camera doesn't seem to take 120 size film, which dissapoints me because it's in good-enough shape to be a user. Now I'm considering making it into a "project".....

    From its serial number (367427), its Tessar 75mm, f3.5 lens in a Rapid Compur (1/500th sec.) shutter, my web research indicates that this model is probably the Rolleiflex Standard "622" from the early 1930's.

    My questions are:

    1. What film size does this camera take? (I suspect 620, but I'm not sure).

    2. Do you think it's worth trying to adapt this camera to 120? (this would mean hacksawing-down the little stud which holds the film spool)

    3. Do you know anyone who has made this adaptation?

    4. Who in Europe would be able to do such an adaptation for me?

    5. What do I risk screwing up if I do this myself?

    Any help would be appreciated (including the e'dress of websites of crazy camera do-it-yourselfers who hack-up their Rolleiflex's on the weekend!)

    Thanks,

    Christopher

    .
    Sorry to hear about your problem with the old Rolleiflex. I have and use a number of the old ones, including the original model and Old Standards. I also refurbish and sell some of them as part of my small business. The original models were designed for 117 film, which I believe were six shot rolls. But these were generally updated to take 620 film. From the begining of the Old Standard in 1932, about S/N 200,000, they used 120 film. 620 film is the same width as 120. The spool diameter is slightly smaller. 620 is readily available today and I have some for my early original model. Your camera should take 120. If you would like a roll of 620 I can send you one to try. It will be the same except the spool is a smaller diameter.

    Steve Perry

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin