Focus Collar on Kodak Medalist II stuck

[Andrew O'Neill]

And please let us know what's on that roll of film after you've developed it!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I'm very curious also. Mystery's are fun.

 

[Elfcirynn]

Sorry for the delay, between school applications, work, and moving it's been busy. I've put two rolls through the Medalist now, but so far only developed one! It seems my shutter triggering mechanism needs a little more love, but in spite of my concerns that the first roll was a complete loss four of the shots turned out beautifully! For the second roll I used a cable release (and a tripod) and that seemed much more reliable, but it remains to be seen how that roll turned out.


Everything was printed on 5x7 sheets. The prints were sloppy, and I need to get some contrast filters and a 6x9 neg carrier but I love how much detail you can get with this camera! I might finally have a reason to use my 20x24 trays soon...

 

[Alex Varas]

Lens seems good, all the effort was worthy! Good job!

 

[John Wiegerink]

If you can't get good pictures with the Medalist it's not the fault of the lens that's for sure. Have fun with your new toy.

 

[Elfcirynn]

If you can't get good pictures with the Medalist it's not the fault of the lens that's for sure. Have fun with your new toy.

I’ll drink to that!

 

[John Koehrer]

Dan,

Edward Steichen's whole naval photo crew were required to completely disassemble the Medalist and reassemble it in correct working order or they were out of a job. Try that with your precision made Leica. I think Steichen would have had a smaller crew if he were issued Leicas. It's said that the Navy used the Medalist to photograph Japanese shore batteries prior to Marine beach landings. I'm very sure they didn't doe this from 50 feet away. To be able to even make out shore batteries at those distances means a lens of excellent resolving power. So, we don't even have to talk about the 100mm f3.5 Ektar. Yes, the Germans were equipped with Leicas, 9x12cm cameras and some Ikontas. I bet there were not many German photographers that could take apart their Leica in the field and put it back together again like Steichens crew of photographers could. See, sometimes precision is NOT the answer to getting the job done. A well tuned Kodak Medalist has all the precision anyone needs. I still rate it as one of the best cameras ever made and that's why it was named a "professional" camera. JohnW

I don't know why this sounds really unlikely to me. Could it be that there are so many photographers that
say they don't know how to change a tire let alone repair a camera.
If this is a quote of Steichen's I'd credit it as a "bit"(or a lot more) of puffery.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I don't know why this sounds really unlikely to me. Could it be that there are so many photographers that
say they don't know how to change a tire let alone repair a camera.
If this is a quote of Steichen's I'd credit it as a "bit"(or a lot more) of puffery.

I would also be interested in knowing the source of this information. I don't doubt that Steichen had a familiarity with the Medalist, there are numerous sources that attest to that:
https://books.google.com/books?id=b...page&q="edward steichen" + "medalist"&f=false

However, I too doubt that disassembly of a Kodak Medalist would be a regular event. It's not an M1 Garand, there are precisely fit parts that wouldn't take lightly to being removed regularly. I'm thinking prisms being unglued, tabs that hold the viewfinder and DOF scale glass would break if bent regularly, and there's a crimped bar that wraps around the rangefinder cam that would fatigue if taken off regularly. It certainly wouldn't be unusual to take apart certain assemblies to clean and lubricate parts for maintenance, such as the RF/VF housing and shutter, but the whole camera? I don't think so.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would also be interested in knowing the source of this information. I don't doubt that Steichen had a familiarity with the Medalist, there are numerous sources that attest to that:
https://books.google.com/books?id=br5y3pHb-OEC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq="edward+steichen"+++"medalist"&source=bl&ots=8NjTdWWgRK&sig=ACfU3U1WsnyhWGn2z3kVMlAcpfIiP5kd8A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiljvaDv8PnAhVbXc0KHZg-CFoQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q="edward steichen" + "medalist"&f=false

However, I too doubt that disassembly of a Kodak Medalist would be a regular event. It's not an M1 Garand, there are precisely fit parts that wouldn't take lightly to being removed regularly. I'm thinking prisms being unglued, tabs that hold the viewfinder and DOF scale glass would break if bent regularly, and there's a crimped bar that wraps around the rangefinder cam that would fatigue if taken off regularly. It certainly wouldn't be unusual to take apart certain assemblies to clean and lubricate parts for maintenance, such as the RF/VF housing and shutter, but the whole camera? I don't think so.

I will try to dig through my media to see if I can find the part about disassemble and reassemble. I'm sure Steichen didn't have them split the glued prisms no more than your Platoon Commander would have you remove the barrel from your receiver on the M1 Garand. Also, some of Steichen's crew used cameras they preferred and not the issued Medalist. Steichen did use the Medalist among other cameras aboard the carrier. When some of his men went ashore to actually film in places like Iwo Jima some carried the Medalist. If you have a good manual you can completely strip a Medalist down and properly reassemble it. You'd probably need a second manual for the Supermatic shutter, but I doubt Steichen had the remove and strip the shutter. Just like the Garand, the more you do it the better you get. I'm not saying your going to be able to do it blindfolded like the M1, but you'll be able to do it.

 

[jgoody]

Not to hijack the thread but I just picked up a Medalist II and have a few questions. 1) It seems that the film spools just sort of sit in place -- except for the top of the take up side which connects with the winding knob. My other MF is a Minolta Autocord and the film spools are locked in more securely. In my Medalist it seems to need the door closed to really hold them in position, if that makes sense. 2) I thought there was a detent of something that lets you know that the lens is at infinity and not in a partially retracted position -- mine goes smoothly from retracted to 3 1/2 feet close focus without any detent -- the distance scale and the rangefinder do seem to agree -- focusing on known distances. 3) The number #1 is barely visible at the bottom of the window, when winding to the first shot - is this normal? Using Kodak Ektar 100. I want to make sure that my Medalist isn't missing anything and that it functioning correctly. This weekend I'll put a roll through it.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I have a Medalist I and everything you have described sounds normal. The spools are rather loosely held until springs on the back push them into the milled film chambers. Neither the Medalist I nor the Medalist II have any infinity stop or detent, however the Medalist I does have an interlock to prevent the shutter from firing if the lens is beyond infinity. I haven't had a Medalist II in front of me, so I cannot say if this is one of the things removed on the Medalist II along with the shutter lock.

To evaluate the automatic film spacing and shutter cocking, read the manual and then do a dry run with some used 120 backing paper on a 620 spool to make sure everything is running smoothly.

 

[jgoody]

Thanks for the quick response! Should have done the dry run!!! Loaded the only roll I have of 620 re spooled . Well hopefully it will not be a waste!

 

[Dan Daniel]

The Medalist II does have a shutter lock if the lens isn't extended far enough. Same design as the Medalist I. But it is a bit sloppy, and varies from camera to camera.

No indent, hitch, or such in the focus helical travel.

Spools being loose isn't a worry.

As you go along using it, try a shot to see if the rangefinder and the actual film image are in alignment. Along a receding wall or such, with a definite focus object so you can check on the negative. This is what really counts; the focus scale has no effect on film focusing accuracy as it relates to the rangefinder. A 100mm lens at f/4 has a very small depth of field so be careful until you get some confirmation.

 

[jgoody]

Thanks for the good advice -- I will do the focus test as suggested.

 

[jgoody]

One more quick question -- the RF image is quite a bit dimmer than the viewfinder. Is this normal? If not, is it easy to clean/correct?

 

[Dan Daniel]

One more quick question -- the RF image is quite a bit dimmer than the viewfinder. Is this normal? If not, is it easy to clean/correct?

Yes, it is dimmer. The images are coming in through smaller apertures, then going through three prisms before you see them. The viewfinder is simply two pieces plus the rear flat plate. I find that I don't really notice the dimness outside but the lower the light level the more obvious it becomes.

Look through the two small front windows at the tubes. If a tube is raised so that about 1/5 or more is covered by window, this will also dim it. If the two images of the rangefinder are uneven in brightness, this is often what causes this, shading by the frame on one side.