4x5 Speed Graphic vs Kodak Medalist II

[Ibanez]

Hello all

So I have just sold my battered 4x5 Speed Graphic as Dan Daniel is converting a Kodak Medalist accept 120 roll film. The increase in portability (for me) means that the medalist is a better camera than the Graphic.

I know that professional photographers during WW2 and later wars often preferred these smaller medium format cameras for the smaller form factor of the camera. The overall quality of a properly exposed, developed and printed/scanned 4x5 negative cannot be denied though.



So just for fun, I was just curious to see if other members have had to choose between these two cameras and what they chose, and the reason for these choices?

NB: I also have a full 4x5 film camera system (wista 45n) so I do have another 4x5 camera!

 

[Prest_400]

More of a general 6x9 vs 4x5" discussion, as I do not have the specific cameras, is that there had been a continuous improvement in the films. One could well say also that a properly exposed, developed and printed medium format negative is also of a great quality. Improvements like tabular grain films bring qualities in smaller formats akin of larger negatives, even comparing 35mm to medium format. Then during the latter part of the 20th century, 35mm took over a lot of the professional uses.

I have stuck to 6x9 with a Fuji 6x9, as the largest of medium formats or sort of half frame 4x5. I always wanted to go up formats, specially from 35mm to Medium; and Large format has always been alluring. However, there was a point some years ago where I forego to take the leap to large format. It does not fit my lifestyle, due to portability (handholding mostly), convenience as well as cost of film.
Some local LF photographers of my community go for budget options (Fomapan) whereas for a similar cost in rollfilm I am using Delta 400 or Tmax 400, which close a gap in quality and are more versatile as well. I have not gone so much that way, but TMX in 35mm appears quite similar to HP5 on 6x9. There is of course more than grain and resolution to our photography and nowadays it is just aesthetical choices.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Were medium format cameras used by the US military in World War II?

My father was in the Army Air Corps, and he quickly gravitated to photography during his service, having already been an amateur before the war. He was mainly a darkroom guy; his last assignment - he was a sergeant by then - was running a darkroom staffed by civilian women in Gulfport, Mississippi. Anyway, I never heard him mention roll film cameras/film other than the 70mm aircraft recon cameras; I got the impression that pretty much everything was sheet film.

Pics are from 1943-45, including a gallery show he did in New Orleans.



After the war, Dad was a pro photographer for over fifty years... and he always remained a sheet film chauvinist. We did some jobs on 120 with Mamiyas and 35mm with Nikons... but anything "important" was always shot on 4x5.

 

[Besk]

Did he use pack film or sheet film in holders. I suspect that pack film made shooting 4x5 much more efficient.

 

[Besk]

More of a general 6x9 vs 4x5" discussion, as I do not have the specific cameras, is that there had been a continuous improvement in the films. One could well say also that a properly exposed, developed and printed medium format negative is also of a great quality. Improvements like tabular grain films bring qualities in smaller formats akin of larger negatives, even comparing 35mm to medium format. Then during the latter part of the 20th century, 35mm took over a lot of the professional uses.

I have stuck to 6x9 with a Fuji 6x9, as the largest of medium formats or sort of half frame 4x5. I always wanted to go up formats, specially from 35mm to Medium; and Large format has always been alluring. However, there was a point some years ago where I forego to take the leap to large format. It does not fit my lifestyle, due to portability (handholding mostly), convenience as well as cost of film.
Some local LF photographers of my community go for budget options (Fomapan) whereas for a similar cost in rollfilm I am using Delta 400 or Tmax 400, which close a gap in quality and are more versatile as well. I have not gone so much that way, but TMX in 35mm appears quite similar to HP5 on 6x9. There is of course more than grain and resolution to our photography and nowadays it is just aesthetical choices.

In my opinion, there is not much of a jump in quality between 6x9 vs 4x5.

When comparing the formats when using cameras with movements the difference in size, weight etc becomes even less. If the camera has to be put on a tripod to use the movements it may as well be a 4x5.
That is a major determining factor in my case.

From a "practical" standpoint, a huge (in my opinion) advantage of 6x9 roll film as compared to 4x5 sheet film is the film handling. For that reason alone I am sometimes tempted to just bring a miniature Crown Graphic (6x9) and use front rise only as needed.

 

[retina_restoration]

I have both a 4x5 camera and a Medalist II. I won't bother discussing the "usability" pros and cons of each.

In terms of final output, I will say that the Medalist is capable of producing images that are comparable to 4x5, with extraordinary sharpness and detail (assuming you use the right film and expose/develop it optimally). Because of the conveniences the Medalist II offers I choose it over the 4x5 most times.

 

[Paul Howell]

Modern T grain film (Tmax 100 with 200LPM and very fine grain) are so good that a 6X9 negative is capable of producing the same result as say 4X5 or even 5X7 Double X in the 40s to 60s. What you get with a 4X5 negative is the ability to develop each negative individually if you shooting Zone System or Beyond the Zone System. I think the Medalist has a great lens with one of the best coating for the day. I use a Mamiya Universal and a Kodak Tourist, a model with the 4 element lens, both are very capable.

 

[Eric Klingberg]

The Speed Graphic is very versatile due to it's focal plane shutter and back. I have the Lomograflok back to shoot Instax Wide film, which is fun at events. However, I'd also go with the Medalist due to its portability cost savings, and speed of shooting.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think it all depends on what you're shooting, where you are going and how far you plan on walking. That's how I treat any camera choice before I pick one up to go anywhere. Well, at least I have a choice, but some folks have just one camera. I have a Super Speed Graphic and a couple of Medalist cameras to choose from. I'm a little bias, but lean heavily toward the Medalist. I almost never walk out the door with the Graphic or any of my 4X5 cameras, but I do with the Medalist. That said, if I planned on taking a photo of a construction crew installing a new water tower in town I'd take a Graphic camera. Why? A little front rise would probably be called for. Otherwise it would be the Medalist every time. 16 X 20 inch prints from the Medalist are as good as you could want.
As for the Graphic cameras? Like has been said above, you have lens choices, camera movements and if you can find one with a good working focal plane shutter you can use barrel lenses with it. The trade off is it's bigger, bulkier and maybe heavier that the Medalist. I'm only giving my opinion of course. I think the real question is if this is going to be your only camera or not.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have an Anniversary Speed with Graflok conversion and four 4x5 Grafmatics; that gives me 24 frames about as fast as I can reset the focal plane shutter (the lens that lives on that camera is in a Compur with the shutter mechanism removed, though I do have another same-spec Tessar in a working dial-set that I could mount if needed). I can change frames in a Grafmatic faster than I can wind on with a 6x9, if it lacks a mechanical advance stop.

On the other hand, the only medium format camera I have that comes close to the Medalist is my RB67, and all the film backs I have for that do have mechanical advance. The Speed Graphic, with its rangefinder calibrated for the mounted lens, is actually about as convenient and barely heavier than the RB67 (though I have two 6x9 and a few smaller folders that are MUCH lighter and more compact). I don't use the Speed as often mainly because of the cost and handling to process the 4x5 sheet film vs. 120 rolls...

 

[Dan Fromm]

More of a general 6x9 vs 4x5" discussion, as I do not have the specific cameras, is that there had been a continuous improvement in the films.

Sorry, I don't agree at all. The real question is whether an interchangeable lens camera is preferable to a fixed lens camera. Short answer, it depends on the user's needs and preferences.

FWIW, I have 2x3 Graphics, Pacemaker Speed and Century. Interchangeable lens cameras that use the same roll films as a 120-converted Medalist. The roll holders can be removed mid-roll, allowing me to change emulsion easily when needed. Neither will fit in a pocket, but a Medalist won't either. I have, if I want to grab it, the opportunity to use better lenses than the Medalist's 100/3.5 Ektar and a wide range of focal lengths. Between the two bodies, 35mm to at le mm without heroic measures. I know that the 100 and its 105/3.7 brother are legendary, but I've had two 105s, still have the second one, and to be polite there are much better lenses. The 100/4.5 Ektar, for one, not to mention modern plasmat types.

This is to denigrate the Medalist. It is a fine camera. But it does just the one thing.

 

[Mr Flibble]

Were medium format cameras used by the US military in World War II?

The Kodak Medalist was definitely in official use by the US Navy.
I'm unaware of any other medium format cameras being officially issued to the US Military at the time.
There aren't any mentioned in the TO&E for a US Signal Photographic Company in Summer 1944.

Of course, you see medium format cameras being carried by military photographers in photographs, but those would mainly be personal cameras, either private purchase or war trophies.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I recall the mainstay of the U.S Army was the 4X5 Speed and later Combat Graphics, with was MF as it used 70mm roll film. The Combat Graphics was used by the U.S Army until the early days fo the Vietnam war. I have a Navy issued Speed, bought used at a surplus sail in 1966. The guy I worked for part time in high school who had a studio in my neighborhood was a retired Navy Photomate. He told me that he was in the Pacific, in WWII on a aircraft carrier. The entire fleet was told toss their Speeds overboard and the Army buried hundreds of speeds after the war to prevent the surplus gear from killing off Graphic and Kodak

 

[F4U]

I owned a Medalist 2 that had a worn-out shutter. worked on that thing multiple times trying to get a little service out of it, but no dice. The problem with those cameras is that the entire shutter mechanism is pitifully cheap and simple. The Ektar lens mgiht be the cat's pajamas, but the shutter was crap from the start. So I got rid of it and got a Mokba 4 Soviet camera. The quality was surprising and it works perfectly. Contrary to popular belief, nobody was suffering a Monday morning vodka hangover when they made mine.

 

[Paul Howell]

I mixed up 2 cameras, the Combat Graphic was a 70 roll film rangefinder, it was maked in the 50s. The Combat Graphic was a 4X5.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I owned a Medalist 2 that had a worn-out shutter. worked on that thing multiple times trying to get a little service out of it, but no dice. The problem with those cameras is that the entire shutter mechanism is pitifully cheap and simple. The Ektar lens mgiht be the cat's pajamas, but the shutter was crap from the start. So I got rid of it and got a Mokba 4 Soviet camera. The quality was surprising and it works perfectly. Contrary to popular belief, nobody was suffering a Monday morning vodka hangover when they made mine.

I've worked on enough Kodak Supermatic shutters to know them pretty well. I agree that they are a much simpler design than a Compur or Copal, but I will never say they are cheap or cheaply made. They were the Timex watch of the Kodak shutters. Like John Camron Swayze used to say about the Timex watch, "It takes a licking and keeps on ticking". My own personnel opinion of the Supermatics is positive and I have many old Kodak cameras and lens/shutters to prove it.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a number of Supermatics now going on 70 years old, all are working well, speeds seems to be accurate.

 

[MattKing]

One thing that Kodak probably didn't prioritize with the Medalist was designing a shutter that was small and light!
I expect ruggedness was probably more of a priority.

 

[John Wiegerink]

One thing that Kodak probably didn't prioritize with the Medalist was designing a shutter that was small and light!
I expect ruggedness was probably more of a priority.

I think you're right, Matt. I read where Edward Steichen was given a commission in the Navy and was in charge of the Photo Division. He made sure every Navy Photo Mate could be able to disassemble and completely reassemble the cameras the Navy and Marines used. The Medalist included. Knowing how fumble-fingered Navy personnel are, I'm sure a simple shutter like the Suoermatic made things much easier. One thing nobody seems to say about the Kodak Medalist is that it's a robust camera. Quirky, yes, but not fragile. Of course, that's coming from an ex-Marine, so there might be just a little bias toward the Navy.

 

[MattKing]

Some may be familiar with Farley Mowat and his book "Never Cry Wolf".
The book is controversial, with much of the controversy being about how much is fiction, and how much is at least closely based on fact.
But what isn't particularly well known is that Mowat took a lot of photos when he was in the arctic, both before he did the work that the book was based on and after, and for several years he used a Medalist.
He would annually have that Medalist serviced and prepared for cold weather use by the camera repair technicians at Canadian Kodak. That is how my Dad got the opportunity to talk with him about his arctic photography.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Some may be familiar with Farley Mowat and his book "Never Cry Wolf".
The book is controversial, with much of the controversy being about how much is fiction, and how much is at least closely based on fact.
But what isn't particularly well known is that Mowat took a lot of photos when he was in the arctic, both before he did the work that the book was based on and after, and for several years he used a Medalist.
He would annually have that Medalist serviced and prepared for cold weather use by the camera repair technicians at Canadian Kodak. That is how my Dad got the opportunity to talk with him about his arctic photography.

Thanks for that tidbit Matt, as I didn't know that, but I'm certainly going to look into it. Sounds very interesting indeed.

 

[F4U]

The downside of my Mokba 4 is that I really can't use it as I wear glasses. Using the Mokba 4 requires absolute contact with the eyeball at the back frame finder, lest you can't see the outline of the front one. Still a fine camera though. So I guess for me, either its My Niikon F or my super Graphic.Since I also have a 12 ton Horseman 8x10, the Super Graphic is just MF with that puny little 4x5 negative.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for that tidbit Matt, as I didn't know that, but I'm certainly going to look into it. Sounds very interesting indeed.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any internet presence for his photography.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Some may be familiar with Farley Mowat and his book "Never Cry Wolf".
The book is controversial, with much of the controversy being about how much is fiction, and how much is at least closely based on fact.
But what isn't particularly well known is that Mowat took a lot of photos when he was in the arctic, both before he did the work that the book was based on and after, and for several years he used a Medalist.
He would annually have that Medalist serviced and prepared for cold weather use by the camera repair technicians at Canadian Kodak. That is how my Dad got the opportunity to talk with him about his arctic photography.

I read that book in high school, circa 1968, for our English grammar class. It was a most interesting book!

I don’t remember much about it, except for one passage, which AFAIR, Farley Mowat wrote about how he was sent the two end sections of a collapsible canoe, with the centre section being sent to a herpetologist in the South Saskatchewan Desert, who was studying rattlesnakes!

Years later, in 1979, just after I had graduated from Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, I was in Henry’s cameras’ main store (maybe their only store at the time?) and I saw a complete Medalist outfit, which looked brand new, complete with film holders, and, if memory serves, did it also have a back with a ground class viewing screen?

The cost for the whole kit-if you can believe it-was CA$200.00! The only reason I didn’t buy it was at that time, $200.00 was my weekly salary! And, I had a student loan to pay off, in the sum of $2550.00, which was approximately three months of my salary.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Yes, the Medalists also had interchangeable backs for 2.25”x3.25” and 6x9 sheet film in individual film holders and film packs. These have a ground glass back that can be swung out of the way or removed entirely.

Interestingly the camera also has a mechanism to recalibrate the rangefinder when the accessory back is attached, even though the film plane shifts back several millimeters.