[rollei_list] Where are we finding B&W 220? WAS: Re: 120/220 modification

Wow, sounds like lots of people like this feature.  As I mentioned I'd love
to have it on one of my Rolleiflexes but decided against it as access to 220
seems so limited now, and likely more so in the future.

I see Fuji and Kodak still seem to produce it in their color neg lines.
Anyone know of any good sources for decent B&W film in 220 these days?  B&H,
Freestyle and Adorama only seem to have for B&W the 320TXP in 220, which is
not my favorite B&W film for street and urban landscape, or B&W outdoor
macro work.  Is there any other B&W films at all still made in 220?  The
older stuff showing up on eBay seems to go pretty high.

Is everyone who has this 220 feature on their Rollei's mostly using it to
shoot Fuj and Kodak color neg?

-- 
Richard S.
San Francisco

My New Photography Website
http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

My Flickr River
http://flickriver.com/photos/rich8155/popular-interesting/

My Commute Photo Blog
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/




On 6/30/08, Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dr. Fleenor converted my 3.5F with the factory kit and my MX-EVS with the
> straphanger lever installation.
>
> Pro: Both conversions make possible the use of 220 film, the benefits of
> which are already understood.
>
> Con:  Everything else.  The selector switch on the factory mod can easily
> be unintentionally actuated, screwing up the count.  Therefore, it requires
> more attention than I would prefer, actually a minor nuisance, although
> short of a deal breaker.  The other conversion is far less fiddley, but it
> is necessary to keep track of the frame count or risk opening the camera
> back to change film when you didn't have to yet (and take your time about
> closing it again, unless you can beat a millisecond or less.)
>
> My take:  Pro, worth it for those 24 exposures when you need them.  I lean
> to the lever after having several times messed up with the factory kit, so
> far not with the other.  It is also less expensive to have installed.
>
> Allen Zak
>
>  On Jun 29, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Masumi Yamamuro wrote:
>
>  I know I am kid of a lazy guy.
>>
>> When I shoot mediaum format, I prefere using 220 films. It is just becase
>> I do not have to change rolls very often, especially when I am using slide
>> films with a lot of bracketings. I take a lot of street photos. It is a
>> little awkward to change rolls on the street frequently.
>>
>> My 2.8F does not take 220 films.
>>
>> I found on Mr. Harry Fleenor's web site that he does 120/220 modification.
>> www.rolleirepairs.com/220mod.html This sounds good for a lazy guy like
>> me.
>>
>> Has anybody had this modification? Any opinions about pros and cons?
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for help me deciding.
>>
>> マイクロソフトの最新次世代ブラウザIE7にMSN版ならではの便利な機能をプラス http://promotion.msn.co.jp/ie7/
>
>

Other related posts: