Kodak Medalist

A

ARCHIVIST

Well-known
Local time
6:00 PM
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
446
Well, not a modern MF RF 120 camera nor a large format RF camera either - just a 620 roll film RF classic.

Do any of you have any knowledge as to the image quality this camera produces?

I am aware of its bulk and weight etc. but have not scene any negs from one.

I have used Ektar 101mm lenses on my old Miniature Speed Graphics and they were very sharp so I am hoping the 100mm Ektar on the Medalist will give the same quality.

The 620 film is not an issue as I have been re-spooling 120 to 620 for years now.

Regards
Peter
 
Supposedly that 100 Ektar is a fantastic lens. The camera, as you seem to be aware, was not exactly the most user friendly design and why Kodak insisted on making 620 cameras in a 120 market is a big mystery. The build quality is great. If respooling film isn't an issue for you then get it and enjoy!
 
It's an excellent lens housed in a massive camera with so-so ergonomics.

The shape of the camera makes it somewhat difficult to hold securely -- cameras that have sloping fronts (also the Exacta) aren't simple to hold.

The first Medalist had a focus knob on the lower right side of the camera (as you look at it from the front). It wasn't too user friendly, from my experience.

The Medalist uses a somewhat complex group of prisms for the rangefinder focusing, and you never want to allow them to come out of their mounts. It will take you a considerable amount of time to get them reseated and to get the rangefinder set correctly. It ranks right up there with reseating aperture blades.

The Medalist uses separate windows for focusing and composing, in a somewhat uncommon setup. The Medalist windows are atop each other, and it's quite simple to shift your eye up after focusing.

The build is very sturdy.
 
They fixed a few bugs in the Medalist II, much better camera I believe.

I have 2 Medalist I's. Both have strange/annoying problems. They need a good CLA. Does Ken Ruth still CLA/Convert them?
I've got a repair manual for it somewhere...

lplg0003.jpg

Taken at the National Platform of Living History event in 2007. If I recall correctly it was Adox 100 film.
 
Medalist II image

Medalist II image

I've only just recently gotten a Medalist II and have been able to run only one roll through it. The best shot out of that roll, I think. I'm still trying to get used to the 6x9 format. Talk about some huge negatives!

- Blake

charlotte007-1000.jpg
 
Last edited:
Medalist II is the best

Medalist II is the best

I don't have the ability to scan my 120 negatives, but it is an awesome camera from the perspective of the final results -- great optics. Also, I definitely suggest getting the 120 conversion done by Ken Ruth. Re-rolling 120 film onto 620 spools is a PITA...

BTW, the reason Kodak chose 620 film for the Medalists was simply a question of market power. Lots of suppliers of 120 film, but only Kodak made 620 film. One of many Kodak cameras "orphaned" today because of this type of decisioning... :mad:
 
I don't think the camera is so big or cumbersome when you consider the size of the negs it produces. I've had a Medalist II for a few years (given to my by my father, who got it from his dad who used it to shoot Trailers for his business).

I've taken a few pics over the past few years on a variety of films (respooled from 120). A bunch of examples in my Flickr set here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/burlapjacket/sets/582087/

I am consistently blown away by the quality of the lens. Wide open or stopped down. It's wonderful for portraits though I sometimes wish the lens was a little longer. 100mm on 6x9 is around 35-40mm equiv I believe. One other factor is that the RF is exceptionally hard to use when the light is dim. It's effectively a daylight camera IMHO.

Here are a couple of shots (first two are wide open, I believe). You can click on the pics for larger versions on Flickr.







There's also a Flickr group for Medalist pics here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/55012328@N00/pool/
 
I agree that the Medalist really isn't any bigger or more cumbersome than other medium format cameras; from my experience handling other medium format cameras, it's roughly the same size as a Hasselblad 500 series w/film back & normal lens attached or a Rolleiflex lying on its side. I only have experience using the Medalist II, but I know that the I is similar in size, shape, & heft. I find the Medalist II's shape ergonomic & comfortable & the separate VF & split-image RF windows are easy to use. The only real downsides that stand out to me compared to other medium format RFs are the 620 format (I had my Medalist II converted to 120 by Ken Ruth) & a relatively stiff shutter release. As far as the brightness of the RF, Mr. Ruth did a fine job cleaning mine & it is as bright as the VF, i.e., as bright as any modern camera I own (including Leica M bodies), though small/squinty by modern standards.

The 100/3.5 Ektar is indeed a great performer. It was good enough to be among those offered for the 1st Hasselblad (1600F), after all.

Burlap Jacket said:
I don't think the camera is so big or cumbersome when you consider the size of the negs it produces. I've had a Medalist II for a few years (given to my by my father, who got it from his dad who used it to shoot Trailers for his business).

I've taken a few pics over the past few years on a variety of films (respooled from 120). A bunch of examples in my Flickr set here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/burlapjacket/sets/582087/

I am consistently blown away by the quality of the lens. Wide open or stopped down. It's wonderful for portraits though I sometimes wish the lens was a little longer. 100mm on 6x9 is around 35-40mm equiv I believe. One other factor is that the RF is exceptionally hard to use when the light is dim. It's effectively a daylight camera IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom