Kodak Medalist 620 Rollfilm Camera
Photo thanks to Bill Walsh - [email protected]
Related Links:
Kodak Ektar Lenses
Rolling 120 Film Onto a 620 Spindle article
(by Al Thompson - see posting below)
The Kodak Medalist cameras used 620 rollfilm, which is still available
from a few sources, or you can respool 120 film onto a 620 film spool
(see 620 film respooling postings.
The Kodak Medalist was a rangefinder camera, using bi-synch flash.
Cameara weight is about 4 pounds. These cameras provide an inexpensive
way to enjoy 6x9cm format photography.
Kodak Medalist I or II maybe.Body is marked Medalist I but fine focus knob is missing (lower right) and in its place is flash sync socket also camera has Supermatic shutter instead of Flash Supermatic shutter which came on the Medalist II. All in all very nice camera easily converted to 120 film and capable of sharp images via 100/3.5 Kodak Ektar. Camera comes with clean case and adaptor for sync socket to use pc cord from modern flash.
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Medalist
Hi Robert, Al Thompson, again.
...
I recently made a discovery that Medalist enthusiasts might find interesting.
A few months ago KEH advertised two Medalist I's in as-is condition, both for
$99. I phoned in my order, thinking surely they would already be sold, but
they weren't, so I ordered them.
On arrival they at first appeared to be in uncleaned but about 8 and 9+
condition, the better one even having a near-perfect case worth $35.
What a
bargain from KEH! But I was puzzled by the fact that both cameras were
clearly Medalist I's, yet they had the bright, unanodized focusing helix of
the Medalist II's.
I started cleaning the better camera, which turned out to be in excellent
condition. While playing with the new toy I was vaguely aware of (and
irritated by) what I assumed was some solidified white tape residue crud on
the inside left end of the back. After cleaning the rest of the camera I
would turn my attention to the crud, perhaps seeing if I could loosen it up
with solvent.
When I finally paid closer attention to the tape residue I was floored. The
white crud was a stamped "U S," bisected by a large anchor. This was a U.S.
Navy combat camera! Of the four or five Medalist I's I have owned, this was
the first one that was definitely military issue. As if this wasn't enough,
the other one also had the anchor and U.S. stamp inside the back at the left
end (as viewed with the back open). It, too, was in pretty good shape.
My official U.S. Navy WW2 photographer's instruction manual says that Speed
Graphics were intended for use on larger ships, where the crew would be large
enough to include a photographer specialist. Speed Graphics were recommended
for group photos, damage photos, etc., where there was time for a set-up, and
where rapid fire and compactness wasn't needed. The Medalist was recommended
as the combat camera of choice, to be issued for use on smaller vessels such
as destroyers and PT boats, and by the Marines to document beach-head
landings
while under fire. The Medalist I's pictured in the Navy manual all have
bright focusing helixes.
So what does all of this mean? Well, for starters, it means that the old
rule
of thumb that Medalist I's can always be identified by their anodized black
focusing helixes doesn't necessarily hold up. It also means that Navy
Medalist I's have a large white anchor and U.S. stamped inside the back. I
only wish I knew where my two Navy Medalists have been and what stories they
could tell if they could talk.
Maybe some of your Medalist enthusiasts will find this information
interesting
or useful.
Best regards.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: USN Medalists...
Hello. It's been a while since I sent you anything. (Remember the
roll-your- own 620 film and the Medalist stuff?)
By the way, three weeks ago I bought two Medalist I's from KEH for $99 the
pair, on sale. What a buy! Turned out they were BOTH WW-2 vintage, and
(get this) were both stamped inside the back on the right side with a big
white U.S., divided by a Navy anchor. And they smelled military when I
opened their backs, like an Army-Navy store. With a little cleaning they
both now work perfectly and cosmetically are a 9, with one possibly a 10-.
Later on eBay auction I got a 1945 U.S. Navy Photography Training Manual
that was VERY informative. Here's a few things most Medalist I
enthusiasts may not know;
The Navy Medalist's apparently have silver focusing helexes like the
post-war Medalist II's. Most people think all I's have black anodized
aluminum helixes. The two I have are silver, and the ones shown in the
Navy manual are also silver.
I always wondered where the Navy Medalists were used. Inside studios the
navy used big Graflex view cameras. But outside it was Speed Graphics and
Medalists. "Miniature" 35 mm's were not recommended or authorized because
the negative was too small for big enlargements and presented processing
problems.
Speed Graphics were to be used for photographing facilities, large groups
of men, accident sites, and similar scenes. At sea they would be the
camera of choice on a carrier or cruiser, where there would be a trained
photographer to use them.
According to the manual the Medalist was the Navy's combat camera, issued
for use on smaller vessels such as a destroyer or torpedo boat, and
presumably submarines. It would also be at home in the hands of a marine
flat on his stomach on a beachead. These uses were illustrated in the
manual. I now think more of my two navy Medalists and wish they could
tell me where they have been. One looks more used than the other, and
fortunately has no bullet holes.
...
Al Thompson, Huntington Beach, California.
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic: Kodak Medalist
Yes the Medalist was made during WW2. The Navy's two volume set of
texts teaching Photography from WW2 features the use of the camera.
though I have heard it was a great performer. Always wanted one but
never had the cash when the camera was on the table.
Bill
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic: Kodak Medalist
> > Dear Rollei fans, > > Maybe this subject is off topic, but maybe someone >could help me: > > I recently traded one of my cameras for a Kodak Medalist >II, a quite impressive build-like-a-tank, all metal 6x9 cm >rangefinder. It is like-new condition (maybe because it >takes 620 film), complete with leather case, straps, user >manual, lens shade and original box. > First of all, does anybody knows where I can find some >info about this camera? Was it really used on the WWII? > > I was specially interested in its year of production, >since the S/N seems to be low (ER2257). > > Second: On the right side of the lens, there's a lever >nearby the M/F flash setting. What does it for? When I >push it up, the shutter is released if it's armed. > > Third: Does this camera can be adapted to work with >electronic flashes? AFAIK, "M" and "F" settings relates to >bulb flash only. > > Thanks in advance. > >Mario Nagano
ER indicates the _lens_ was made in 1945. The code for Kodak lens serial
numbers is CAMEROSITY for 1,2,3, etc. standing for the last two digits of
the year. Lenses are often made in batches well in advance of the time
they are assembled onto cameras.
I am not sure of the date of the Medalist II, I think it came out around
1946. Both versions were used by the military.
The lever on the lens is probably the cocking lever for the flash delay.
It must be cocked each time the shutter is if flash is being used. It may
be setting off the camera because it isn't latching at the end of its travel.
The version of the Kodak Flash Synchromatic shutter used on press cameras
can be makeshifted to synch for X by bending the flash contact inside just
a little. That will cause it to make contact at the maximum open point of
the shutter. When modified this way the synchronizer isn't cocked. The
shutter may set off the flash when its cocked. The insides of the shutter
on a Medalist are a lot harder to get to but can probably be adjusted the
same way.
620 film is available from a couple of places that sell film for
collectors, its also possible to respool 120 film with a little care. The
camera can be modified to take the larger 120 spools.
The lens is a Heliar type, one of a series designed by F.E.Altman for
various uses. It is reputed to be very sharp. It is probably coated. If
it has the circle L mark it has hard coating but, I believe, some Medalist
lenses may be soft coated on inner surfaces only. Kodak no longer has the
archives pertaining to history of coating there.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998
From: "David C. Clark" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Medalist II
Ken Ruth at Photography on Bald Mountain will convert your Medalist II to
take 120 film, but it is a long wait. It is my standard rangefinder
camera and has a wonderful lens.
David
I use a Kodak Medalist II regularly because it is the most compact camera
available with a huge 2,1/4 x 3,1/4 inch negative and an incredible 100 mm
f3.5, 6-element *(see note below), coated Ektar lens that doesn't break
down at the edges, even
when wide open. My 6x6 C/M Hassy with its 80 mm f2.8 T* Planar can't do that
wide open. The Medalist may be aesthetically ugly, and heavy as a brick, but
you still can't get so much quality packed into such a small package for so
little money anywhere else. It serves most of my needs very well, even with
its fixed lens.
Why Kodak, in it's eternal wisdom(?), made it a 620 is beyond me. And I still
haven't figured out why the line wasn't continued and improved with
interchangeable lenses, etc. All of this notwithstanding, I find its large
negative and compact size worth the inconvenience of rerolling 120 film onto
620 spindles. For others who may be contemplating respooling 120 onto 620
spindles I offer the following:
[*listed as 6 element in some kodak literature, 5 element per post
below:]
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998
From: Al Thompsn [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: lens elements
I was just informed by Richard Knoppow that the Ektar is a 5-element Heliar
type lens. He is probably right, even though my data came out of a Kodak
publication. All one has to do to get good data is make a statement and wait
for it to be corrected.
I really enjoy your web site. It serves a good and useful purpose, and I am
still checking out sections of it.
Al Thompson
All of the on-line instructions I've seen for rolling 120 onto 620 spindles
are techniques for doing it the hard way. I don't roll the film first onto an
intermediate spool, then onto the 620 spindle. All I do is pull the film and
its backing off the 120 spool and let it curl naturally into a palm-sized
roll, without a spool. As I reach the end of the 120 spool (it's easy to tell
by feel) I hang onto the tab of the paper leader as it comes out of the slot
in the 120 spool. Then I pick up the 620 spool (conveniently placed for
location in the dark) and by running my finger along the axle it is easy to
tell which of the two sides has the longer slot. I insert the leader tab into
the longer slot as far as it will go and feel it come out on the other side.
Then I start winding according to the natural curl of the Paper. After a
short length of paper is wound onto the spool the gummed tab for taping the
exposed film roll presents itself and I keep rolling, letting it stay where it
is. After a few more inches of rolling, the loose end of the film will
present itself. Avoid touching the film as much as possible and sandwich it
onto the roll along with the paper backing, and keep on rolling. Make sure
the paper and film stay aligned between the spindle ends, and wind the whole
thing with the least slack possible.
Presently you will come to the leading edge of the film, which will be taped
to the paper backing. Due to principals of geometry and rewinding that I
needn't go into, the paper and film lengths will not be exactly matched where
they are taped together. The film will be slightly longer and it will have to
be separated from its backing and repositioned before rolling can continue.
Slip your finger between the film and the paper and untape them. The tape
will remain attached along the edge of the film. Don't worry about retaping
them. If you just continue winding, the film will retape itself properly to
the paper. The repositioning will not be enough to affect the alignment of
the frame numbers on the back of the film. Continue winding until all of the
paper leader is on the spool. Tuck the leader tab under and put a rubber band
on the rewound spool to keep it in place until it is ready for the camera.
What I have just described sounds more complicated than it really is. Years
ago I did my first one successfully without any instructions at all, just
doing what came naturally. After you do the first one the next one will be
easy. I find that I can do a roll in about five minutes. I also find that
Fuji and Ilford films are easier to rewind than Kodak because their paper
doesn't tend to crinkle as easily or tend to ride up and over the spool ends.
Just remember not to start with sweaty hands, and try not to touch the film
anywhere except along the sides. Also, it would be a good idea to let your
eyes have about five minutes to adjust to the dark to make sure no stray light
is getting into the darkroom. Not having a darkroom, I use the bathroom at
night with the house lights turned off, a towel across the opening at the
bottom of the door, and opaque curtains drawn across the window. I detect no
light, even after waiting a few minutes for my eyes to adjust, and have never
fogged a film.
Al Thompson, Huntington Beach, CA
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: MSAWDEY [email protected]
Reply to: Classic Camera Collectors and Users Mailing List
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CCCU] KODAK MEDALIST
you write:
Can someone please give me a run down on the Kodak Medalist ? I
understand
that these cameras can be converted to 120 film.
What would the appoximate cost of conversion ? Who is doing these
conversions ? Are there any other cameras of the same vintage (Kodak or
other) that would be eligible for conversion ?
The Medalist was made from about 1940 to 1953. The Medalist I, made through
the end of the war, does not have flash synch (though some had it added
later), does have a self-timer and fine focus knob on the front. I think all
the lenses had at least inner surface coating, and by the end of the war,
they
were definitely coated throughout. The Medalist II starts in 1946, with
coated
lens, flash synch, and an improved shutter. All have basically the same lens,
a 5-element Heliar design, f3.5, 100mm--superbly sharp, even by modern
standards. The Medalists have removeable backs and can be fitted with ground
glass and holders for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film; there are also back
extensions
for closeup work.
I had my Medalist II converted to 120 by Photography on Bald Mountain, in
California. A couple of years ago it was $235 for the conversion, plus I had
them do about another $150 of CLA, adjustment, etc. The resulting conversion
works well, although loading the 120 reel is still a bit tight. I understand
that the Kodak Chevron can also be converted. This is a '50s range finder
camera, taking 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 exposures on 620 (6x6 cm). I'm not sure
that any
other 620 camera would be worth having done, although Kodak did import some
from Germany in the '30s that were quite capable folders with decent
lenses.
The Medalist, once converted, is a superb user. In addition to the
magnificent
(though not interchangeable) lens, it is compact, fast-handling, and
nearly
silent in operation. The automatic frame centering is pretty iffy, but there
is always the little red window.
If you're interested, I can probably find the contact information for Bald
Mountain. I'm not sure whether they are on the web. They do excellent work,
although they're not fast (I think they had my camera for about five
months).
--Michael Sawdey
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
From: MSAWDEY [email protected]
Reply to: Classic Camera Collectors and Users Mailing List
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CCCU] KODAK MEDALIST
you write:
He also wrote me that Ken Ruth at Photography on Bald
Mountain will convert your Medalist II to take
120 film, but it is a long wait.
Yes, the Bald Mountain conversion involves several milling operations to the rollers, removing one of them entirely, I believe, and milling out recesses in the film chamber. It obviously is a fairly complicated process. As I noted in my previous post, film loading is a bit tight, but the conversion works flawlessly when it comes to actually running the film through and making exposures.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Garnet Brace)
[1] Re: Help with Kodak Medalist Needed
Date: Sun Jun 21 1998
[email protected] says...
> >I just purchased a Kodak Medalist I and I would really appreciate any >help anyone can give me with the following problem. > >I knew when I bought the camera that I would have to re-spool 120 film >onto 620 spools, or purchase re-spooled film. So I tooted off to B&H and >bought two rools of respooled 120, mainly just to get the spools. > >The re-spooled film will not fit onto the supply side of the camera. >Neither will the empty metal spool that came with the camera, which >is stamped on the ends "Kodak 620." In other words, the spool fits >on the take-up side (as does the re-spooled film from B&H), but >not on the supply side. > >I've gone so far as to clip away the plastic around the edge of >the re-spooled film (to decrease the diameter of the spool). >(No doubt I've fogged the film in the process, but let's not go >there...) Doesn't work, because even when I get the spool ends >small enough for clearance to fit onto the spool holder on one >end, the spool itself is too long to slip the other end on to >the opposite spool holder. > >I give up. Is it possible that when the camera was manufactured >(1944, by the serial number on the lens) there were smaller 620 >spools? I tried to research this but as yet have found nothing. > >Any help anyone could provide would be very greatly appreciated.
I have my Medallist II in front of me as I write. Note that it is
a II, not a I as you say yours is so it may be different.
I find that the reel will slip easily into the supply side. I notice
that there are two shiny steel rollers, each about 1/8 inch dia on
the supply side. The roller that is nearest the front of the camera
is on a spring mount so that it can easily move towards the rear of
the camera in order to make room for the roll to slip in. If this roller
cannot move towards the rear then you would not
be able to get a spool into or out of the supply side of the camera.
Try grasping that roller nearest the front of the camera and see if you can
move it towards the rear. It is mounted on a spring. Examine it for signs
of jamming.
I'm surprised that the reels the film is respooled onto are made of plastic.
I have a number of rolls of original Kodak 620 in the freezer. The spools
are made of metal and the end plates are quite thin - measured 0.020 inches
Check the dimensions of your spools. The originals measure 2.50 inches
overall end to end, and the end plates are 0.903 inches in diameter.
If the spools used for your re-spooled film are much larger than this
then that would explain your problem. If not, it is you camera that is
the problem.
Good luck. Let me know if you think I can help or if you have questions.
I have the users manual for the Medalist II here.
--
.... Garnet
return address is fake to try to reduce junk mail
if you wish to send e-mail to me please send to cgbi*ionsys.com
only replace the * with @
From: DavidM [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help with Kodak Medalist Needed
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998
> In Shutterbug magazine, there is a listing for a fellow in California > who machines old Medalists to accept and use 120 film. As best I can > remember, the firms' name is Photography on Bald Mountain. If you > cannot find it, e-mail me and I will find more detail for you. I > called once - the price was around $300. Good luck with your > Medalist. >
Essex camera in NY does it for $180.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998
From: S K CHAN [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Kodak Medalist Conversion
Hi there,
There has been discussion going on on the conversion of Kodak Medalist
to use 120 type film, there is another method to make use of the
marvellous Ektar 100/3.5 Heliar type lens. I have friends just took the
lens out and mount it on a Linhof Technika 6X9 lens board and use it as
a view camera lens. For day light use, it is ok, but you do not have a
electronic flash sync for Medalist I lens and would be difficult to add
one. I took a Medalist II Ektar lens out, add a PC contact (taken out
from an old ugly folder ) and mounted on my Linhof Technika 6X9 lens
board. In using the lens on my Technika, full control can be obtained
and solved the limitation of 620 film. Of course it would not be
practical to buy a Technika for this Kodak Ektar lens, it is viable if
you already have a Technika and also want to explore the full potential
of the Ektar lens.
In the course of the lens mounting, several problems have to be solved,
anybody interested can contact me if want to try for themselves.
Good shooting.
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998
From: Daryl Jorud [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Kodak Medalist [off topic] and [long
response]
Peter Dechert wrote an excellent article on the Kodak Medalist which
appeared in the December, 1994 issue of Shutterbug. This should answer most
of your questions. Conversion of these cameras to 120 format is done by
Photography on Bald Mountain (regular advertisers in Shutterbug). I'm not
aware of others who do the conversion, but there are probably some who do.
Most authorities indicate that these cameras were produced from 1941
through 1953. To determine the approximate year when a camera was built,
look at the lens for a serial number preceded by two letters. The first
letter should be an "E" or "R" while the second number will be either a C,
A, M, E, R, O, S, I, T, or Y. Kodak supposedly coined a word, "CAMEROSITY",
which represented the digits 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and 0. So if the serial
begins with EO, then that lens was allegedly made in the year 46. If it's
the original lens, the camera body is also probably close to the same
vintage. Whether or not there was an interruption in production during
WWII, I'm not sure. On coated lenses, immediately following the serial
number there will be found a very small circle with an "L" inside of it. On
uncoated lenses this marking is not present. I'm not sure that my memory
is serving me well on what the "L" stands for, but it seems that it was
"Lumenized" or a word similar to that.
Most, if not all, Medalist I cameras
came with uncoated lenses, while the opposite was usually true of the
Medalist II. Coated or uncoated, these were both superb lenses, in my
opinion fantastic for B&W. Can't comment on shooting color as I never have
used one for that purpose.
These cameras were robust, to say the least.
Also painfully heavy if you carried one with it's narrow braided strap
around your neck. Weakest point of the camera was probably the shutter.
But, with regular maintenance it really wasn't that much of a problem.
Most
difficult to use aspect of these cameras was the miniscule rangefinder and
viewfinder arrangement, one above the other. (If one is accustomed to using
a Rollei TLR, this definitely takes some getting used to). The word here is
"Squinty". Most evident difference in appearance on these cameras was the
focusing wheel on the Medalist I which appeared down and adjacent to the
black anodized lens barrel. The II did not have this small focussing wheel
feature and had a polished lens barrel. Most photographers found it quicker
to focus by manually rotating the large corrugated focussing ring
surrounding the lens barrel on either camera anyway. Much more could be
said about this camera, but this has taken far too much bandwidth already!
Hope this helps.
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Kodak Medalist
Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> Make no mistake, the Heliar formula lens with its characteristics is what > influenced a friend to install a 80mm Ektar f2.8 in a early 2.8 Rollei.
According to Kinglake, it was Kodak's renouned F.E. Altman who designed
several heliar-type lenses for the Medalist. They have a reputation for
being outstanding performers...
Eric Goldstein
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Kodak Medalist [off topic]
Daryl Jorud wrote:
> Conversion of these cameras to 120 format is done by > Photography on Bald Mountain (regular advertisers in Shutterbug).
This is Ken Ruth, whose praises have been sung many times on this list
with reference to Rollei repair. I can't recommend him highly enough; he
is a true craftsman with incredible knowledge of virtually all fine
cameras (including stereo, which is relatively rare), and a wonderful
man to deal with.
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998
From: S K CHAN [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Medalist Conversion
If you happen to have a 6x9 view camera, either a a flatbed type (like
Linhof 6x9 Technikas or Graflexes) or mono rail type (like Acra Swiss 6x9
or Linhof Technikardan 6x9), you can also take out the lens from the
Medalist camera and use it as a view lens. For the Medalist I, there is no
flash sync equipped, for the Medalist II there is a flash sync on the body
( at the location of the fine focusing knob of Medalist I ). Over the year
I bought over 10 Medalist cameras, both I and II, just to take the lens
out to use as a view camera lens for myself and my friends. The most
interesting modification I made was tasking out the Medalist II lens out
and also installed a PC sync terminal on the rim of the shutter, the
functionality of this lens is comparable to modern view lens, the only
pain one has to endure is the cocking of the shutter that the lever is
moved inside the slot. This lens is used successfully on my Linhof
Technika 70 camera (6x7 and 6x9 capability, any orientation of the
back) . Anyone interested in carrying out a head hunting for the Medalist may
contact me if in need of technical assistance (information only, I am not
going to do it for you).
To my understanding, the modification of the Medalist form 620 to 120 would
cost more than the camera itself, if you can make use of the lens ( actually
the most valuable part of the Medalist and the only attraction to me), the
current price of the Medalist is a real bargain.
Good shooting...
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998
From: "G. Lehrer" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Kodak Medalist
Peter
Yes the Medalist is wothwhile having. Differences 'tween I & II: I has
black anodized focusing mount, II has clear aluminum mount. I has a
focusing knob, II has a flash terminal in its place. I has small winding
knob, II has larger knob. Both have the sharpest lens ever put on a roll
film camera! 120 conversion is a tight squeeze. I used to rewind 120 film
on a 620 spool. Ther is a web site which explains all that. Make no
mistake, the Heliar formula lens with its characteristics is what
influenced a friend to install a 80mm Ektar f2.8 in a early 2.8 Rollei.
Jerry
From: [email protected] (Christopher Perez)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Fuji GW-690 III vs. Medalist
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
The Kodak also weighs in at 4 pounds. This is a bit
more than the Fuji, right? Is it worth carrying this
much weight about? Maybe for the optics... still,
might be worth considering before jumping in with both
feet.
If you work slowly and don't mind carrying a
rangefinder (Kodak, Balda, Watameter and others made
them) I'd suggest one looks into carrying a Kodak
Special Six20. With it's 101mm Anastigmat Special I
think one could find a very light (<800 grams) and very
portable alternative to Heavy Metal cameras. Just
another idea...
- Chris
From: Camera57 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Kodak Medalist II
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999
Bruce Weiler wrote:
> I found an old medalist II and was wondering if they are worth anything > except sentimental value. Seems to work, a little tought to move things but > shutter works. > Thanks > Bruce Weiler
If it is in Pristine condition, it can be worth upwards of $250 to $300
. It can be sent to Photography on Bald Mountain for Cleaning, Lubing,
and adjustment, and converting to size 120 film, for about $400 or so.
I would do this only if the glass in the lens is perfect. If it is
sctrached, it might be good only for parts.
I have know fellows to buy a semi-good Medalist II for $250 and send it
to Bald Mountain for CLA and conversion - it would seem $650 to $700 is
a lot to pay for an old camera, but consider what you have:
One of the sharpest lenses on a medium format camera- the 100mm f/3.5
Ektar.
A giant format - the 6X9 negative makes an outstanding enlargment.
Rangefinder focusing.
I wish the guys on Bald Mountain could fashion a lever-advance for these
babies - or do they? I don't know. But it would be cool. That way you
would not have to look at the little red window to see if you have
advanced the film properly.
I have a couple of Medalists I am going to sell, to get enough money
together to have a third Medalist sent to Bald Mountain. It makes a
greeat Aerial Photography camera. The only drawback is the limited
number of exposures with size 120 or 620 film - just 8 . Try reloading
one of these babies while flying an open cockpit airplane with your
knees! :)
I talked to another fellow who had put a 2X3 ground-glass back on his,
and a roll-film back so he could get 16 exposures with size 220 film.
Ingenious, but bulky. I imagine you could also put a bulk-film holder on
it, too.
Good luck
Steve
From: [email protected] (Tom Rittenhouse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Kodak Medalist II
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999
Bruce Weiler post:
>I found an old medalist II and was wondering if they are worth anything >except sentimental value. Seems to work, a little tought to move things but >shutter works.
There was a time when people converted these things to 120 and used
them professionaly, now that there are several MF rangefinder cameras
on the market you don't hear of that much. If you don't need much of
in the way of film selection, I think that you can get b&w and color
neg film from Film for Classics in 620.
Just looked in B&H's Dec flyer, they have i1/2 dozen 620 films listed in
their used camera section. Runs about $9 a roll though. For others
with old cameras, they also list 110, 126, 127, 828, and
6x9(2-1/4x3-1/4).
* Tom Rittenhouse (graywolf) *
* temporary e-mail address: [email protected] *
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999
From: Minami Toshiyasu [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: Dioptric lens on MedalistII
Hello Medalist lovers,
I bought The Kodak MedalistII last week, then I was able to attach the
dioptric lens in the reverse side of the finder lens as below.
Open the top cover and attach the diopter lens(I used the one for
CONTAX137MD)with adhesive tape and close the cover. That's all.
You can enjoy clear and precise focusing through the superb Medalist's
finder.
Toshiyasu Minami
JAPAN
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica vs. 120
The Leica/Hassy comparison does not properly address the small camera vs.
large camera issue since so much of the 6x6 Hassy image is wasted when
cropping to the 35mm format. The resulting image area is only 2.5 times
that of the Leica. A better comparison would be between a Leica and a 6x9
cm. format camera, say the old Kodak Medalist.
Both the Leica and the Medalist have the same 2x3 negative form factor.
The Leica negative has an area of 864 sq. mm, the Medalist has 4959 sq. mm
area and is 5.74 times larger. A 16 x 20 enlargement from the Medalist neg
is about a 7X blowup. From the Leica neg a 16 x 20 is about a 17X blowup.
To meet the 2 min. arc. (6 lines/mm) criterion of visual sharpness on the
print, when viewed at 12 inches, the Leica negative image would have to
retain a resolution of 102 lines/mm. This involves the conjoint resolution
of the taking lens, the film, the processing, and the enlarging lens. To
meet the same criterion, the Medalist would have to retain a resolution of
42 lines/mm. Those of us who have used both 35mm and 6x7 or 6x9 negative
sizes know that making a good 16x20 print from the small neg. requires a
herculean effort while with the large size it is pretty easy. I'm not
saying it can't be done. Obviously many photographers do it. But it takes
so much less effort to use a larger film size and devote creative
resources to the quality and composition of the image on the film. Or if
you want a REAL challenge, use a Minox instead of a Leica.
Leicas are fine cameras but using one to shoot 16 x 20 architectural
photos is like using a tack hammer to drive a spike.
LarryZ
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: medalist with trimmed 120 film? Re: Folder with v.good optics???
Mark Langer wrote:
> Marv Soloff ([email protected]) wrote: > > > One other point - do not - repeat - do not even consider the Kodak > > Chevron for the same type of conversion. As soon as I mentioned the > > Chevron, my camera pros did not want to do any work on this camera. > > Any reason given for this refusal? I'm just curious why the Medalist is a > good candidate for conversion and the Chevron is not. > > Mark > > Mark Langer > > Email address: [email protected]
My primary source of information was Ken Ruth. Apparently, the shutter
arrangement (mechanics, tripping) on the Chevron is the pits. Although
the Chevron is also diecast, conversion will interfere with the shutter
mechanics (which are problematic to begin with).
The whole point of the Medalist II conversion is interesting. I saw my
first MII conversion in around 1956 when a local camera repairman
(ballsy guy) converted his to 120 film and used this camera to shoot
highschool sports events for the newspaper.
Over the years I have considered buying a Medalist II for the large
negative. I was also tempted to do the conversion to 120 film once Kodak
discontinued the 620 product. After spending several days working inside
the camera with depth gauges, calipers, micrometers, I gave it up as a
bad job and sent the camera off to be converted. The conversion does
work but the film loading is very finicky. In the unmodified MII, the
filmbays are quite small even for the standard 620 spools. In the
modified MII, clearance is almost nil - and it requires a certain amount
of dexterity to load the 120 spools. Fortunately, the back on the MII
comes completely off - which makes loading much easier.
All in all, I am satisfied with my Medalist IIC (converted) and I
consider the monies spent on this camera to be worthwhile.
Regards,
Marv
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: medalist with trimmed 120 film? Re: Folder with v.good optics???
....
Bob:
The film bays on the Medalist are very tight - even for the 620 spools.
If you are going to trim the 120 spools, I would suggest you devise a
cutting method that will trim the spool edges evenly (and coaxially).
As was explained to me when Ken Ruth did my Medalist II conversion,
the film bays have to be bored out (almost "line bored")to accept the
120 spools. There is not a lot of room in there and if you screw up
boring the casting, the camera is history.
If you are serious about using the Medalist and it's superb lens for
taking 6 x 9 negatives (or color slides), my suggestion would be to find
the best unmodified example you can get and have a professional camera
craftsman do the conversion. You are paying for some heavy duty
machining skills here. I usually do my own camera mods, but this one I
gave to a professional - and I own the machine tools to do the work.
One other point - do not - repeat - do not even consider the Kodak
Chevron for the same type of conversion. As soon as I mentioned the
Chevron, my camera pros did not want to do any work on this camera.
Regards,
Marv
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: New lenses on old Rolleiflex?
Yes, according to one expert (and I agree) the 100mm f/3.5 Ektar
on the Medalist is one of the finest lenses Kodak ever made.
That's why I converted my Medalist to 120 use. Ed
...
From: "Bruce Grant" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Kodak Medalist? Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Big downfall of Medalists in handheld use is the incredibly high spring tension in the shutter-release button. Requires lots of pressure, then suddenly releases when the shutter trips. Requires practice not to get shake. Nice glass, though. I had one many years back and finally got rid of it when I got tired of respooling 120 to 620 (a proprietary large-spool format invented by Kodak explicitly to prevent use of 120 film, which was/is an open standard and made by several competitors). -- Bruce Grant [email protected] "chuck" [email protected]> wrote > Our local Thrift Shoppe has a couple of older cameras in > the glass case. Beside the Contax and the Contiflex, there > is an older Kodak, looks like a rangefinder, and I think the > name is Medalist. It's really a pretty big camera, front to > back, and rather bulky. > > Anybody know what is a Kodak Medalist? > > chuck ([email protected])
From rangefinder mailing list: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 From: Robert Marvin [email protected] Subject: Re: 120 conversion for Kodak Medalist Bruce Feist wrote: Have you any idea of how much a 120 conversion costs, and who can do it? AFAIK the 2 places that do this conversion are Ken Ruth at Photography at Bald Mountain in CA and Essex camera repair in NJ. I checked prices some time ago and IIRC Ruth charged about $350 and Essex about $100 less. I've read lots of good things about Ken Ruth's conversions. If anyone's had a Medalist converted by Essex, I'd love to hear from them because: 1- I'm cheap :-) and, 2- I could drop the camera off at Essex in person. Since the conversion involves grinding away parts of the camera, it's irrevocable and I'd like to make sure its done right, but all things being equal, I'd rather drive it to NJ than ship it to California. Bob Marvin
From rangefinder mailing list: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 From: Robert Marvin [email protected] Subject: Re: Kodak Medalists -- Stuart Phillips wrote: Three questions: 1. Roughly how much is a Medalist? 2. What is the procedure for respooling 120 film? 3. Can the medalist take respooled 220? ie. twice as much? 1. Medalist II s generally go for less than $200 on E**y. 2. You simply roll the film, in a darkroom or changing bag, from one spool to another. I put the film through my Rolleiflex first, so it only has to be spooled one way in the dark. On the Rollei, I load the film over the roller of the "automat" mechanism so it winds all the way through w/o stopping. Of course any 120 camera will do.( BTW, I've read recommendations for using a Foldex, a cheap folding camera that takes both 120 & 620 as a sort of re-spooling machine. I've tried this and it doesn't work--rips the film backing to shreds when you wind it through backwards). The trick is obtaining 620 spools. I've managed to find about 3 dozen. Most I got through buying the cheapest possible 620 box cameras, others by buying VERY outdated 620 film at camera shows and antique shops. The process is simple but a bit of a PITA which is why I'm thinking of having my camera converted to 120. 3. I've never tried 220. (I don't have any 220 SS reels). The main problem is that, on the Medalist, you wind the film to #1 in the red window before setting the automatic counter and shutter cocking mechanism--NO #s printed on 220 and anyway, it would be fogged if you opened the cover over the red window. OTOH, its easy to re-start the counter after 8 exposures, so if you figured out how many turns of the film advance knob got you to #1 and put a piece of black tape over the red window, I suppose 220 could work. Having 16 exposures WOULD be nice. Bob Marvin
From: Stacey [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera... Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 Marv Soloff [email protected] wrote: >I personally would rather have the option of going into a store and >purchasing more film if/when I need it. However, for me this is a moot >point - my Medalist II and Tourists (2/3) have already been converted to >take 120 film. And for the price of a clean metalist plus paying to have it converted someone could easily buy a modern fuji rangefinder which has a much better lens/coating, is more reliable and is also much smaller/lighter. Since I own a fuji and a medalist, I suppose this is a moot point as well! :-) Stacey
From: Stacey [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera... Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 Marv Soloff [email protected] wrote: >Well, I looked at the Fuji - in fact I looked at all the Fujis (B&H used >camera department - 4 hours) and decided I didn't like them. In the >final analysis, I'll take the 6 x 9 negative and the Ektar lens on the >Medalist II against the Fuji - any Fuji. Have you actually tried a fuji 6X9? I have "against the medalist" (remember I own both) and the results blow the old kodak away. It has a much easier to use rangefinder, the optics are better, the coatings are some of the best on the planet, (Much better contrast even in normal lighting conditions) in a smaller much lighter package. What's there to not like? The ergonomics of the medalist are poor at best (unless you have huge hands) but it is a funky old camera that takes good pictures. Given the choice for a travel camera, the fuji makes more sense from a practical standpoint given a converted mefdalist is about the same money. Stacey
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 From: Marv Soloff [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera... As a matter of fact, I borrowed a Fuji 6 x 9 (I'm not sure of the model) and shot a couple of rolls of film. They were fine. However, I own the Medalist II and I cannot justify pouring big money in another expensive 6 x 9 when I can use the Medalist II, the 2 x 3 Speed Graphics, the 2 x 3 Graflexes, the 2 x 3 Buschs, the Miraflex "B", the Nettel Tropen and several other 6 x 9s sleeping at the bottom of the camera closet. Life is too short. Regards, Marv ...
From rangefinder mailing list: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 From: "Frank Vincent" [email protected] Subject: Kodak Medalist >Frank; >That's a tough standard of comparison! The Medallist/Ektar combo is >renowned. I covet one myself. >The Moscva series have issues, along with their Super Ikonta cousins; >ex-Soviet 'Quality Control stirs the pot a bit more. I actually did not believe that the difference would be so great at first. I have shot with a number of rangefinders (Agfa, Canon, Minolta, etc.) in 35 and 120, and good SLR's (Pentax Spotmatic F and ES, Mamiya) for a long time, and these were good cameras making sharp negatives to print from. However, when I developed and printed the first roll from the Medalist, the prints just shocked me. My first thought was, "Wow, I got that exposure right-on that time!", so I continued shooting the various cameras I collect and use. Then, I wanted to test things out, so I began shooting the same subjects with two cameras. Using Max 100 and 400 films on Ilford paper, my prints from the Medalist of the same subjects with same exposure just pop compared to the others. I am at a loss to define the quality differnce. It is not sharpness, but maybe it is partially contrast. Whatever it is makes it worth lugging around this giant of a rangefinder! Frank Vincent
End of Page