Kodak Medalist II!!

[bgsquare]

If you move the helical to closest focus- longest extension- the 3-1/2' tick mark should be just a bit past the center mark. the manual says the tick mark should be at the red infrared mark. And then you can test other distances. Distant target for infinity.. The manual says to set distance scale, rangefinder, and film plane focus all to 15 feet. But you can use other distances, assuming that film plane focus and rangefinder focus are in agreement (not likely but we'll let that slide for now...). But the starting point is the closest focus and the scale.

Depth of field is not an absolute value. For example, the Rolleiflex manuals say use the scale for a certain level of enlargement but use one aperture larger (smaller DOF) for greater enlargement. Circle of confusion, print viewing distance, on and on. But as a rough working idea, the scale on the Medalist is fine.

Thank you Dan!

 

[Kino]

If you comment your camera serials I'll add them to the list.

Here's the public facing spreadsheet:

My Medalist 1 serial number is 19302 and the lens is EE7648. I wonder if the lens was replaced at some point in the camera's early life?

 

[bgsquare]

My Medalist 1 serial number is 19302 and the lens is EE7648. I wonder if the lens was replaced at some point in the camera's early life?

Mine is 37010 and ES4037L

 

[Chuck1]

Camera west had a medalist ii 120 converted with a slow shutter
Someone buy it so I don't

 

[bgsquare]

If you move the helical to closest focus- longest extension- the 3-1/2' tick mark should be just a bit past the center mark. the manual says the tick mark should be at the red infrared mark. And then you can test other distances. Distant target for infinity.. The manual says to set distance scale, rangefinder, and film plane focus all to 15 feet. But you can use other distances, assuming that film plane focus and rangefinder focus are in agreement (not likely but we'll let that slide for now...). But the starting point is the closest focus and the scale.

Depth of field is not an absolute value. For example, the Rolleiflex manuals say use the scale for a certain level of enlargement but use one aperture larger (smaller DOF) for greater enlargement. Circle of confusion, print viewing distance, on and on. But as a rough working idea, the scale on the Medalist is fine.

Dan-I was inspecting my medalist lens and to my untrained eye, it appears I have a nice case of fungas. Can this be mitigated when I get my CLA in Oct or am I the proud owner of an expensive boat anchor?
Happy Memorial Day and thx
Doug

 

[John Wiegerink]

Dan-I was inspecting my medalist lens and to my untrained eye, it appears I have a nice case of fungas. Can this be mitigated when I get my CLA in Oct or am I the proud owner of an expensive boat anchor?
Happy Memorial Day and thx
Doug

That fungus can probably be cleaned up but not completely removed. Non-coated lenses see3m to be better when it comes to cleaning fungus off the elements. Coated lenses will clean up somewhat, but the fungus eats into the coating and will leave its etched tracks. The lens should still be useable and you might not notice any difference. It all depends on how bad the fungus has damaged the lens coatings and glass. Some folks have their lenses polished and recoated but that's not cheap and it's a little harder to find a service to have that done nowadays.

 

[bgsquare]

That fungus can probably be cleaned up but not completely removed. Non-coated lenses see3m to be better when it comes to cleaning fungus off the elements. Coated lenses will clean up somewhat, but the fungus eats into the coating and will leave its etched tracks. The lens should still be useable and you might not notice any difference. It all depends on how bad the fungus has damaged the lens coatings and glass. Some folks have their lenses polished and recoated but that's not cheap and it's a little harder to find a service to have that done nowadays.

Thank you John!