Medallist II questions

Dan Fromm · Dec 9, 2006

outwest said:
Bruce, do it! If you can't get a Medalist, that Monitor is the next best thing. While its lens is not in the same ballpark as the Ektar on the Medalist (the design used for Hasselblad's first lenses) it is in the parking lot. Try it, you'll like it.
Outwest

Outwest, go here ttp://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html to see a test of the 105/3.7 version of the Medallist's 100/3.5. Note that although Chris shot on 4x5 film he measured resolution on 2x3. Then go up to Chris' home page (link at the upper LH corner of the page I sent you to) and down to medium format lens tests, where you'll find tests of at least one 101/4.5.

Short answer, at f/8 and smaller apertures the tessar type 101/4.5 Ektar (originally sold as Kodak Anastigmat) is sharper than the 105/3.7 heliar type Ektar. My less formal testing got the same results as Chris' -- 101/4.5 sharper than 105/3.7 -- so I sold my 105/3.7. I recently got another 105/3.7, unfortunately in kaput shutter, and will eventually resurrect the shutter and try again.

Murray, a quart into a pint pot will not go.

bruce terry · Dec 9, 2006

OK, I'm stoked.

Just found a little red-cover "Snapshots" photo booklet with with 24 original plastic-sleeved B&W prints inside, vivid as when they were taken in the late 40's early 50's!

Any recommendations on a CLA source for the Monitor and shutter (the linkage to the on-body shutter release needs minor tweaking and the Supermatic seems to cycle only at 1/25th and lower. High speeds simply do the 25th).

Thanks, and sorry to butt-in on the Medallistaphobia.

Bruce

elekm · Dec 9, 2006

matt miller said:
The trimmed spools that J&C sell do work in the Medalist. I usually rolled my own though. I know it's not much of a chore, but I would still prefer to use any 120 right out of the box.

That's good to know. I was thinking of the unprofessional route that some of us take -- using a pair of toe-nail clippers or wire cutters to whack down the spool in a very uneven manner.

It's a shame that Kodak maintained this slavish devotion to 620 film when it came to its cameras.

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 9, 2006

Quart into a pint.

Usually when people try to get 10# into a 5# container, they >almost< do it...I was wondering how close...

I did a 120-620 today in daylight for practice & put it into a Kiev 88 back to get it spooled in reverse first. I wound it around the wrong side so it wouldn't go back into it's cover...started over and upon removing the spool I must not have had a good grip because it got away from me & unwound.

I at least accomplished something by observing the tape bump that occurs upon rewinding onto a different diameter spool, lifting it and smoothing it down. I wasn't real impressed with my ability to keep the backing paper from bunching up against the spool flanges.

I'm sure the whole process would have been much easier in the dark :O(

At least it was a $1.50 roll instead of an $8 roll.

elekm · Dec 9, 2006

Murray keep trying. I usually use a Rolleiflex to quickly crank it on to a 120 spool. Then re-spool by hand inside a changing bag.

I think it usually takes about a minute or two inside the bag. I'm not trying to set any speed records, so I just take my time. I believe all of us have to lift the film and tape off the paper backing and reseat it.

It should only move 1/8 to 1/4 inch -- not enough to cause problems when you line up that first shot.

Dave Parker · Dec 9, 2006

I re-spool by hand, takes me about 30 seconds, never have any problems with it at all...

This is the page I leaned it from, once you do it a couple of times, it gets real easy and you can whip out as many as you have 620 spools for.

http://www.getnet.net/~gstewart/respool.htm

Dave

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 10, 2006

I think the re-rolling is like ice skating. Colorful language, a few bumps and bruises, but once you get going it's hard to stop.

CLA..many people on APUG are recommending Carol at Flutot's in California. Last I heard $55 for MF camera CLA + shipping, check/money order only, no CC or PayPal. Haven't heard anything but positives about her.

Dan Fromm · Dec 10, 2006

Murray, Carol is a shutter repair person. I don't believe that she does rangefinders, film advance mechanisms, ... but I could be mistaken.

Ask her before sending the camera. Paul Ebel -- use Google -- may be a better choice for your Medalist. And Ken Ruth, as has been mentioned, is THE Medallist specialist.

mgb74 · Dec 10, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
Murray, Carol is a shutter repair person. I don't believe that she does rangefinders, film advance mechanisms, ... but I could be mistaken.

Ask her before sending the camera. Paul Ebel -- use Google -- may be a better choice for your Medalist. And Ken Ruth, as has been mentioned, is THE Medallist specialist.

Don't know if Paul Ebel does other than shutters/lenses, but here is his contact info:

651-335-8759

PO Box 141,
420 21st Street Suite 2
Menomonie, WI 54751

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 11, 2006

Thank you both.

elekm · Dec 11, 2006

Info about the Medalist cameras:

The Medalist I was introduced in 1941 and was produced until 1948. Its introduction price was $165, and it weighed 3 pounds, 2 ounces (1.4 kilograms). It was marketed to the professional photographer. There were several variations of the Medalist I with "Kodak Medalist" printed back to front or front to back on the viewfinder housing or the lens helix was either black anodized aluminum or unpainted, polished aluminum.

The Medalist II debuted in 1946 and continued through 1953, when it was replaced by the Chevron. The price varied from $262 to $312 ... a small fortune for that time.

The major change was that the fine focus wheel was replaced with a flash synchronization post. Operation of the camera was otherwise more or less the same, and body weight and dimensions remained identical.

While the Medalist camera models were 6x9, the Chevron was 6x6 with a top shutter speed of 1/800 vs 1/400 for the Medalists. The dimensions were similar, although the Chevron was slightly wider but weighed less (41 ounces or 1.2 kg). The price of the Chevron ran from $198 to $215.

mgb74 · Dec 11, 2006

elekm said:
Info about the Medalist cameras:

The Medalist II debuted in 1946 and continued through 1953, when it was replaced by the Chevron. The price varied from $262 to $312 ... a small fortune for that time.

Let's see - best case $262 in 1953.

According to CPI-indexed calculator, that's equivilent to $1800 in today's dollars. Or, for another comparison, a Mamiya 7 w/ 80mm costs $2500 at B&H today.

So perhaps not too far out of line for a professional tool. Though I don't know the equivilent price for alternative cameras in 1953.

(Obviously I have too much time on boring conference calls today.)

elekm · Dec 11, 2006

Its introduction price was $262 in 1943. So using that figure with a CPI calculation (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/compare/), it comes out to $2,957.72.

The book wasn't clear whether the price rose gradually each year until 1953 when it cost $312, or if the price differed depending on if you got the basic package or a deluxe package with flash head, filters, hoods, etc. Or even if it was sold as basic vs. deluxe.

Regardless, that was still quite a bit of money and certainly out of reach for most amateurs. However, there obviously always have been people who could afford these things. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any classic cameras available today for us to enjoy

I remember my parents talking about the postwar period and saying that if my could just make $100 a month, they would be on easy street. I think my dad was making closer to $14 or $15 a week as a skilled machinist (went through training, apprenticeship and all).

nworth · Dec 11, 2006

Murray@uptowngallery said:
Just got a Medallist II. A helpful person on photo.net emailed me a Medallist ('plain', not II) manual.

Can someone please tell me :

1) M-F slider on front, apparently for choice of flash sync (that's why not in plain Medallist manual, no flash sync on that one)...looks like spring-loaded pin, but I can't figure out how to move it. How?

You seem to have the same version of the Medalist II that I have, with the Flash Supermatic shutter. Yes, the slider selects between F and M sychronization. The lever to the outside and parallel to it cocks the delay mechanism. You cock the delay after you cock the shutter. If you do not cock the delay, the shutter will give you X sync to 1/400 (not documented, but I checked it out.) Later versions of the Medalist II used to Synchro Rapid 800 shutter, which worked differently.

2) How much force does manual shutter-cocking lever by view/rangefinder take to operate? (Normally shutter is cocked by winding. Manual cocking is for multiple exposures, per manual).

Not a whole lot, but significant. The lever moves about 90 degrees, and you both hear and feel the shutter cocking. Note that this lever is only used for double exposures or with the auxiliary sheet film back. In normal use, winding the film cocks the shutter.

3) How if film flatness with this camera compared to folders?

Quite good. The Tourist had a slightly longer pressure pad, and it may be better, but the Medalist is well designed in this respect. 620 cameras are always suspect when it come to film flatness due to the tight winding on the spool. I think the Medalist may be better than the Graflex roll back.

4) Why is there so little info about Medallists? Were they dropped for the Retinas and the 35 mm trend?

They were very expensive cameras. The Medalist II saw a lot of service with the military during WWII. They were made for a very short time in the late 40s (maybe until the very early 50s) for the civilian market, but the price did not make them good sellers. They were replaced by the Kodak Chevron, a 2-1/4 square camera of somewhat sturdier design that also used 620 film. As I recall (and this is reaching) the Chevron sold in the $500 range in about 1953. BTW, the Medalist was considered to be a "Miniature" camera when it came out. The intended use was for portable field use, although many saw use in the studio as well. There were an accessory back and special film holders (2-1/4X3-1/4 and 6.5X9cm) and film pack holders for studio use.
Thank you

Murray

I've inserted my reply into the quote from your post.

athanasius80 · Dec 12, 2006

Someone mentioned using nail clippers. I've not tried on a Medalist, but it did work on my Vigilant for 5 weeks in Europe. I clipped down 120 spools for both feed and take up, and I recall it never jammed although sometimes the winding knob was difficult by the last couple frames.

elekm · Dec 12, 2006

I did the nail clipper thing too to fit film into a Kodak/Nagel Duo 620. I think I read about it on the Internet (of course).

Eventually, I just bought a couple of cheapie Kodak Brownie cameras that had film spools inside them.

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 12, 2006

nail-biter

I just looked at the Medallist innards and the Kodak (Nagel) Vollenda I have to unload to provide funds for Medallist maintenance.

On the Medallist it appears that the cavity may only need to be widened (Manfred Schmidt) and the springs on the double rollers hold the spool diameter.

I'm glad to hear the Duo works, as I believe the Vollenda has enough room top/bottom, as well as spring-loaded posts, that I can try clipping a roll.

Murray

DougGrosjean · Dec 12, 2006

I couldn't get the nail clipper trick to work on my Medalist, even spendiing a LOT of time sanding and smoothing after.

But the 120 spools that are machined down on the ends and have the bushing installed (all with film on them), have worked, although still a tight fit and extra friction.

The 620 spools just feel right when they're being used - the film advance knobs have what feels like the "right" amount of friction, etc. I haven't yet tried a Medalist modified to use 120 film. It could be just as good, I just don't know.

elekm · Dec 12, 2006

Regarding pricing. I found my 1953 Zeiss Ikon price guide:

Here are some cameras and prices:

Folding Contessa (35mm): $214

Ikoflex IIa (TLR) (6x6) with Tessar and Synchro Compur: $200

Ikonta III C (6x9) with Tessar and Synchro Compur: $150

Super Ikonta C (6x9) with Tessar and Synchro Compur: $186

Box Tengor (6x9): $17

Super Ikonta B (6x6): $236

Super Ikonta BX (6x6): $281

This would make the Medalist very competitively priced with the German competition.

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 16, 2006

I hope I didn't already ask here...

what kind of sheet film holders fit the Medalist sheet film accessory back?

I've only seen a photo, and it looks like it if it can handle conventional wooden sheet filmholders, they might need the edge groove.

Otherwise, were they proprietary skinny Kodak ones? I haven't seen a picture of either a Medalist-unique sheet film holder on or off the camera.

If they are unique they seem to be scarce, or not recognized.

Thanks

nworth · Dec 16, 2006

Murray@uptowngallery said:
I hope I didn't already ask here...

what kind of sheet film holders fit the Medalist sheet film accessory back?

...
Thanks

The sheet film holders for the Medalist are special and a bit strange. They are made of steel and hold only a single sheet of film per holder. Each holder has a special pressure plate back that keeps the film flat (very flat) against a frame. When using the accessory back, you can use either the rangefinder, the focusing scale, or the groundglass on the back. After focusing, you open the back and insert the film holder where the ground glass was. Standard holders will not fit the accessory back, and I doubt if it could be adapted due to the non-standard spacings used by Kodak. A good machinist might be able to fabricate a more standard back, however, since the accessory back mounts a fair distance behind the roll film film plane. A prong on the accessory back engages a lever in the camera to change the focusing to match the back.

Parsifal · Dec 22, 2006

On the flash sync issue: M is for 20 millesecond delay flashbulbs like #5 or #25; F is for 5 ms bulbs Gas filled MF if I recall right.... the gas filled bulbs did not emit as much light, but burned quickly helping minimize movement.

Murray@uptowngallery · Dec 22, 2006

Thanks , Nw - I passed on that auction referred earlier - the back went for > US$67...and the holders are like the proverbial hen's teeth (or chicken lips or snake hips). I'm glad I had common sense that day.

Parsi- thank you also...so I guess F is closest thing to electronic flash

Mark Layne · Dec 23, 2006

elekm said:
These are very nice camera, and the Ektar is a really sharp lens. The body is a bit chunky, so if you have tiny hands, you might want to consider using it on a tripod.

The lens on the Medalist is a 5 element Heliar type designed exclusively for the Medalist and used on no other camera. It is stunningly sharp if in proper focus
Mark

Mark Layne · Dec 23, 2006

nworth said:
The sheet film holders for the Medalist are special and a bit strange. They are made of steel and hold only a single sheet of film per holder. Each holder has a special pressure plate back that keeps the film flat (very flat) against a frame. When using the accessory back, you can use either the rangefinder, the focusing scale, or the groundglass on the back. After focusing, you open the back and insert the film holder where the ground glass was. Standard holders will not fit the accessory back, and I doubt if it could be adapted due to the non-standard spacings used by Kodak. A good machinist might be able to fabricate a more standard back, however, since the accessory back mounts a fair distance behind the roll film film plane. A prong on the accessory back engages a lever in the camera to change the focusing to match the back.

The sheet film holders used with the Medalist back are standard single sheet holders as used on Recomars etc. they come in both 2 1/4x3 1/4 and 6x9 cm.
Many Zeiss and Voightlander holders also fit.
Mark

Medallist II questions

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency