Medallist II questions

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Thanks Mark.

Manfred Schmidt has another option...the 120 feed, 620 takeup conversion for $120 + shipping. CLA is 90. I think he'll do both for 200 + 10 shipping.

 

[vickersdc]

I have a Medalist II camera that I bought off of eB*y a while ago and had the chance to use it when I travelled over to France - in fact, it was the only camera I took with me.

The camera itself had been converted to use a 120 film (with 620 take-up spool remaining). Fortunately, it came with one spool and I took the spool out of my Kodak 620. As it happens, I actually took three rolls of Efke 50 film and as my lightmeter failed during the trip, I also ended up using the Sunny-16 rule and exposing that at EI100.

Anyhow, two of the films ran on to the 620 spls with no problem, but that left a spare roll of film and no 620 spool - so I got the nail clippers out and trimmed one of the 120 spools down and used that instead. It wasn't particularly pretty, but it did work.

I had the films processed and the results were excellent - although there must have been a light leak, which has fogged the film whilst it was still on the spool - perhaps it didn't wind tightly enough on the 620 spool? Perhaps the guys that did the processing messed up? Perhaps the X-ray machine fogged it? Who knows - but the negatives that did come out were brilliant! I shall be using this as my travel camera and I'm currently waiting for an accessory back and ground glass to wing it's way through the post to me (I have one sheet film holder for it already and I'm keeping my beady little eyes open for more!).

Cheers,
David.

 

[DougGrosjean]

On my Medalist (not Medalist II), I get fogging on film on 120 rolls that have been turned down, just a tiny, tiny bit along the top and bottom edge.

Perhaps that's what's happening for you as well?

I don't seem to get any issues when using real 620-spools, and the 620 spools roll / advance more easily too.

YMMV.

 

[vickersdc]

There's no doubt that proper 620 spools are the thing to use - I considered it an emergency to cut down a 120 spool so that I could use that last roll of Efke 50 film ;-)

The fogging has clearly been caused whilst the film was on the spool - but I dont know which spool! I guess I could look closely and see which end is worse and work it out from there. It's definitely leaked in from the edges though and has spoiled a few frames. All three rolls were affected though. I'll put some more film through it anyway - I had considered unloading it in a film changing bag to ensure it's light-tight.

Cheers,
David.

 

[nworth]

On my Medalist (not Medalist II), I get fogging on film on 120 rolls that have been turned down, just a tiny, tiny bit along the top and bottom edge.

Perhaps that's what's happening for you as well?

I don't seem to get any issues when using real 620-spools, and the 620 spools roll / advance more easily too.

YMMV.

I've used the J&C turned down spools, and I've had some edge fogging. These spools seem to work OK if you load and unload the film in the shade, but direct sunlight seems to get under the rims and sometimes gives fog. The turned down spools are also pretty fragile. They do work in the takeup slot, but I wouldn't trust them for very many uses. They are too easily damaged, and any damage would make them even more vulnerable to fog. I prefer to use an original metal spool in the takeup slot (actually, I would prefer to always use the metal spools) because I can then handle the exposed film normally.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Farley Mowat

Does anyone know if any Farley Mowat Antarctica pictures are on the Web?

All I could find appeared to be a ship apparently named after him & used by anti-whaling activists...

I wanted to see Antarctic Medalist images!

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone know if any Farley Mowat Antarctica pictures are on the Web?

All I could find appeared to be a ship apparently named after him & used by anti-whaling activists...

I wanted to see Antarctic Medalist images!

Murray:

I don't have any links for you, but I'd point out that Farley Mowat's images are from the Arctic, rather than the Antarctic (as far as I am aware).

Matt

 

[DougGrosjean]

Does anyone know if any Farley Mowat Antarctica pictures are on the Web?

All I could find appeared to be a ship apparently named after him & used by anti-whaling activists...

I wanted to see Antarctic Medalist images!

Can't help on Antarctic images, but there's a page about a WWII US Navy destroyer whose photographer used a Medalist, and photographed much of the day-to-day life aboard a WWII destroyer. Excellent pics, and the site exists in a couple places, but I don't have a URL handy.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Arctic, correction

Arctic sure makes sense, being from Canada.

I think maybe I just passed along wrong info I read somewhere else.

Thanks, both.

 

[DougGrosjean]

Here's WWII US Navy pics, from destroyer-class ship I'd mentioned:

http://www.de220.com/DE%20Index/DE340%20O'Flaherty/USS%20O'Flaherty%20(DE-340).htm

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Thanks DG

 

[MattCarey]

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

It is very similar in design to the 105mm f3.7 Ektar--at least according to Richard Knoppow.


The 105 was used on the Mini-speed graphic. This is another camera that saw a lot of military use. For example, see "Sparks" in my avatar. He was photographer on the Arthur Middleton (APA-25).

Matt

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I think someone here may have said he used 220 film in a Medallist.

I just practiced rerolling an ancient 220 roll onto the 620 spool and other than hand contact with the film itself it was actually easier than doing 120...the paper is taped at BOTH ends on the 220.

I had difficulty figuring out where the beginning of the roll was on the camera. The backer paper had a 'start' mark, as well as a dotted line for 'special equipment'.

I wound 'til the dotted line showed up in the window, assuming a camera with frame counter constituted 'special equipment' rather than red-window-equipment, then opened it to check, and the film was nowhere near started...

Any 220 users, how do you figure it out?

For 120, looks like counter set to '0' allows you to wind as long as you want without being stopped by the assumed frame spacing, then set it at '1' when 1 shows in the window, & ignore the window after that.

For 220, I guess once you shoot #8, move the counter to 1, wind to 9 & continue thru 16 (reset to 1 if necessary after winding from 8 to 9)?

Thanks

 

[nworth]

220 may get fogged. It has no backing paper, just a leader and a trailer. The Medalist uses a red window in the back to line up the first exposure, and that could leak light onto the unbacked film. Also, the exposure counter and winding mechanism is set for eight exposures per roll.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Someone told me they have used it successfully...I would probably cover the window once I figured out where the start was...some people I guess just wind a fixed number of rotations & start.

I understand you just reset the counter halfway thru...similar with Kiev 120 backs).


Thank you

 

[Dan Fromm]

Murray, look at your PMs on www.graflex.org

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Well garsh Dan, I didn't even know I could check PM's there while they were in upgrade mode.

Now I have to figure out which part to be insulted by.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Hmmm, I'm back....

I converted it to 120...I nearly gave up. I probably shouldn't even say I did it for fear someone will ask me how, and I don't think I want to be involved in a second one. Now I know why Bald Mountain is bald & why it costs what it does.

My red window door spring was broken so I got into that too, made a hairpin spring out of music wire (sorry, piano, no one was playing that key anyway) & I noted they were serious about that red window. It has a metal shutter door over it, then a plate (I'm tempted to call it a manifold) with several screws and it's sealed with black paint. Then the pressure plate is over that.

I'm not sure water will leak thru there.

I ran a roll of 120 and a roll of 220 thru it...won't know what damage I did to the film until I get them back. I neglected to fill the rivet holes occupied by the former 620 spool holder. Someone told me they will leak light...we shall see.

Today I won a bid for the accessory back. They were going for as much more a while back, so I laid low for a while & got one for 1/3 of the last two auctions...patience...yes...

Has anyone seen the unique sheet film holders for this? They don't seem too common.

I'm hoping Kodak was ingenious enough to match the focal plane between the accessory back and the conventional back....it would make the accessory back useful for previewing or something if I can't find the sheet film holders.

 

[sselkind]

Hmmm, I'm back....

Today I won a bid for the accessory back. They were going for as much more a while back, so I laid low for a while & got one for 1/3 of the last two auctions...patience...yes...

Has anyone seen the unique sheet film holders for this? They don't seem too common.

I'm hoping Kodak was ingenious enough to match the focal plane between the accessory back and the conventional back....it would make the accessory back useful for previewing or something if I can't find the sheet film holders.

Murray--

I have 18 of the cut film holders and a very nice accessory back. I have not used them for decades, since boyhood when I was learning photography on my father's Medalist II.

sselkind

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Sselkind - sent pm

Others - I ran a roll of expired 220 Agfa XPS160 thru the Medalist this past weekend. No apparent light leaks. I watched the paper in the red window until I saw the edge of it. I forgot to wind further-that is obviously NOT the beginning of the frame. (Insert step here to wind another turn/half frame), then set the counter to 1. I forgot to reset counter at 8 - the auto spacing doesn't stop at what would be 9...the camera assumes after 8 is paper. So after a frame and a half or so I realized I had forgotten to wind 2 turns and reset counter to 1.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6934

Not done scanning the roll yet.

Shot at EI 100, no filters or lens hood. Unknown shutter performance, suspect a bit slow. This film is reportedly pretty neutral regarding saturation & someone suggested EI 100 to give it a little more impact.

Look pretty natural to me on uncalibrated monitors (CRT & LCD).

Chrome film gets picked up from the lab tomorrow.

Murray