4x5 Speed Graphic vs Kodak Medalist II

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Yes, I have all of those and two extension backs also. I have shot Efke 25 in mine and it works great. With the ground glass back adapter you can also use off-brand roll holders for 120 film. I use the slide-in Rada and a very nice Plaubel Makina. I know when Kodak Medalist hit the market my father could never have afforded one and he wasn't a poor man at the time. He settled for the Kodak Target Six-16 for his family shooting. I still have that camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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 had two Moskva 5s and the only complaints I ever had were due to my own inability to hold the camera steady in horizontal format when using the top shutter release. Front release, no problem, vertical, no problem. By the time I got the second one, I had apparently learned the better way to release the shutter, and no complaints since.

 

[F4U]

I opted for the Mockba 4 because I the viewfinder on the 5 was 1/4 mile away fro the lens, way up in the corner. Parallax problems in photography of close areas of people concerned me. I also read that modification has to be done to stop light leaking. I like my 4, but wearing glasses I have to take them off to see the edges of the front framefinder. Very nice camera though. But slow to operate for people as dependent on glasses as me. I liked that Medalist 2, but the shutter escapement was so completely worn out it was useless. Not sure if I'd ever buy another, because that shutter mechanism was box camera grade. Plus the need to rewind 120 film onto 620 spools. The Medalist is a heavy camera for its size, and not shaped for getting a good grip on the thing.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I opted for the Mockba 4 because I the viewfinder on the 5 was 1/4 mile away fro the lens, way up in the corner. Parallax problems in photography of close areas of people concerned me. I also read that modification has to be done to stop light leaking. I like my 4, but wearing glasses I have to take them off to see the edges of the front framefinder. Very nice camera though. But slow to operate for people as dependent on glasses as me. I liked that Medalist 2, but the shutter escapement was so completely worn out it was useless. Not sure if I'd ever buy another, because that shutter mechanism was box camera grade. Plus the need to rewind 120 film onto 620 spools. The Medalist is a heavy camera for its size, and not shaped for getting a good grip on the thing.

Opinions vary greatly on this forum, but to call the Kodak Supermatic shutter a box camera grade shutter is doing a good job of showing just how far they do vary. Could it be that you had a shutter that some dimwit tried to repair before and really mucked it up????? I have repaired many cameras and lens/shutters and I can't tell you how many times I've run into the nice gift some dimwitted, self taught, fly by the seat of your pants repair jerk left me.
As for the Supermatic shutters go? Are they robust, yes? Are they very functional, yes? Are they as highly refined as a Compur, no? So, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the box camera grade shutter rating. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that feels that way either. I will say no more on the subject other than to say you are entitled to your opinion and me mine. I will thank you for one thing and that is you inspired me to pull my Medalist II off the shelf and shoot a roll of Foma Ortho 400 through it for old times sake.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

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.

The Horseman medium format 970/980 and so on technical cameras have adjustable inserts for the Polaroid backs, and also none of the weight advantages of other 6x9 cameras with all of the drawbacks of 4x5 cameras, but they are beautifully made. I love mine

 

[Axelwik]

If you really want an image with maximum sharpness, stop hand holding the camera and put it on a tripod.

I've had a paradigm shift in recent years:
I gravitated to 35mm rangefinders for hand held photos which has good enough image quality especially with newer films and development techniques. For large prints that need to be sharp I use 4x5 and 5x7 view cameras on a tripod, focused using the ground glass.

The way I see it this maximizes the benefits of both ways of shooting - the small rangefinder is a better tool for fast hand held shooting that might not be possible with any medium or large format camera, and the view camera with modern films and the best newest lenses that I can afford is best for maximum resolution. And a view camera has the added benefit of being able to alter the focus plane and perspective.

I rarely use medium format anymore. For others however, a medium format camera might still be the right tool, such as location portraits etc.

 

[Besk]

Quote: "If you really want an image with maximum sharpness, stop hand holding the camera and put it on a tripod.

I've had a paradigm shift in recent years:
I gravitated to 35mm rangefinders for hand held photos which has good enough image quality especially with newer films and development techniques. For large prints that need to be sharp I use 4x5 and 5x7 view cameras on a tripod, focused using the ground glass.

The way I see it this maximizes the benefits of both ways of shooting - the small rangefinder is a better tool for fast hand held shooting that might not be possible with any medium or large format camera, and the view camera with modern films and the best newest lenses that I can afford is best for maximum resolution. And a view camera has the added benefit of being able to alter the focus plane and perspective.

I rarely use medium format anymore. For others however, a medium format camera might still be the right tool, such as location portraits etc."

I have come to the same conclusion - almost. I use mostly a AF SLR for 35mm stuff - handheld or not and 4x5 or 5x7 for the rest. My medium format cameras stay in the closet.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Mamiya Universal the last of the Press lineup, it is heavy but easy to handhold with the grip and 400 ISO films. A rangefinder, no mirror slap, at 1/250 it is sharp. I also use a Busch Pressman and Spee3d 2 1/4 X 31/4 both hand held and on a tripod along with a Crown 4X5 handheld and tripod or monopod. I agree that with modern films, small grain high resolution, good speed, I can print 11X14 with 35mm.

 

[loccdor]

It depends on what you want to do. I've looked at zillions of large format images but never bought a camera. I think a good reason to get into large format is usually not resolution, it's access to very old and interesting lenses, and to the movements.

Unless you're limited to contact prints. Or you're making wall-sized enlargements... or book-sized transparencies.

And some people just prefer being forced to take it slow.

I think there's something of a traditional photographer mystique with regards to LF that people like as well.

I've come to the conclusion that with my current 4800dpi setup, a 35mm camera with sharp lens and slow film gives me all the detail I need, even for landscape. When I had a lower dpi setup, it wasn't the case, and medium format was filling that role. I still like medium format for its depth of field effects and legacy lenses.

 

[Jim Jones]

I spent three years north of the arctic circle, and none of my fairly new Leica and Nikon equipment had been prepared for such cold weather. None ever malfunctioned at temperatures above -60 degrees F. We were prohibited to go outdoors just to take snapshots when it got colder than that. Of course we had to take precautions such as not breathing on lenses or viewfinders, and letting equipment gradually warm up after bringing it indoors. Did Farley Mowat mention that in his book?

 

[Jim Jones]

I've handled a Medalist, but not photographed with one. It felt awkward compared to my Leica and Nikons. I regularly use. Modern top quality 35mm cameras come close to large format for most photography, and certainly are more convenient. However, solarizing 35mm film certainly would present problems!

 

[Paul Howell]

My old high school boss who owned a photographic studio was a retired Navy Photographers Mate and he told me used a winterized Medalist in the artic when on naval maneuvers off Alaska in the 50s.

 

[Axelwik]

Quote:

I have come to the same conclusion - almost. I use mostly a AF SLR for 35mm stuff - handheld or not and 4x5 or 5x7 for the rest. My medium format cameras stay in the closet.

Yeah, just about any good quality 35mm camera with good lenses works well - comes down to preferences such as SLR vs rangefinder etc. I have a pile of Hasselblad stuff that will probably get sold. Might keep an SWC and the Rolleiflex.

My 4x5 kit with 2 or 3 lenses is lighter to carry than the Hasselblad kit, 5x7 about the same. I've put some effort into acquiring lightweight view cameras and compact/light lenses for them.

 

[Jeff Bennett]

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.

Just watched your shutter service video. I have my first Medalist, a Medalist II shipping to me today and it has a sticky shutter. Hopefully your video will help me get it going again.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Just watched your shutter service video. I have my first Medalist, a Medalist II shipping to me today and it has a sticky shutter. Hopefully your video will help me get it going again.

It's an old video, probably needs to be re-done, but glad to see people are still benefitting from it

 

[retina_restoration]

It's an old video, probably needs to be re-done, but glad to see people are still benefitting from it

Where can we view this video, please?
never mind, I found it!

 

[Hunter_Compton]

For anyone else:

 

[pentaxuser]

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

Seems a shame. Those hundreds of Speeds, if preserved and sold at today's prices might have bought an extra ship to balance the threat of the ships carrying Mockba cameras

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

I prefer the Speed Graphic for serious work to the Kodak Medalist with 120 film.