Kodak Monitor 620

S

shawn

Veteran
Local time
6:25 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
3,477
Apparently folders tend to multiply. Based on the compact size of the Mamiya Six I wanted to try a 6x9 folder. I have a Fuji GW690II but wanted to see how much smaller a 6x9 folder could be. I didn't want to spend a bunch of money on something like a Record III or Bessa II so I started exploring much less expensive alternatives. From reading a ton of information it sounded like the Kodak 620 folders could be nice cameras and they seemed undervalued based on the 620 film size.

I ended up with a 1940 Kodak Monitor 620 with the Anastigmat Special Lens. Shutter is working properly, film counter appears to work and the bellow appears to be light tight. The pin above the lens is slightly broken off so it doesn't stop the front element from unscrewing all the way. I checked focus using wax paper on the film plane and it appears to be accurate.

I've put a roll of TMAX 100 through it but haven't developed it yet. Assuming everything is working properly this should be a good deal for $40 delivered.

DSC02072
DSC02074

DSC02076

DSC02080

The 620 film size is not much of an issue. I do not need to respool 120 film onto 620 reels. Clipping a 120 reel down with nail clippers takes about a minute and fits the camera fine.
DSC02082
DSC02084

I'm using a 620 take up reel and the camera feeds film fine. If I made an adapter for the winding key size difference between 120 and 620 I think a clipped 120 reel in the take-up side would work too. The automatic frame counter isn't based on the reel itself, it has a separate roller to directly measure the films travel on winding. As such the thicker 120 spool wouldn't impact the frame counter.

DSC02086

DSC02088

DSC02092


The tiny size of the folders makes it easy to carry them with other cameras. Right now I am using a tiny Domke F5Xa. In the main compartment I have the Kodak Monitor, Mamiya Six-V and enough room to carry a third camera such as a smaller digital or a Rollei 35 or XA. Gossen Luna Pro digital is in one outside pocket and spare film is in the other.

Shawn
 
Great idea Shawn. I have 3 or 4 folders, including a Monitor, sitting around waiting on me to get off my derriere and roll some 120 onto some 620 spools.

Using your idea I pulled out my fingernail clippers and within minutes had a roll of 120 trimmed and inserted into my Kodak Monitor. I can't believe I haven't heard of this before, and it is so simple. Initially the film advance is quite tight so I had to make sure the take up spool was tightly threaded before I closed the cover and started to advance the film.

BTW, folders really do multiply. For goodness sakes, don't ever put them in a box together!! I opened that box and now there are over 50 folders in there! This is worse than guppies. :)
 
I am looking forward to seeing the film too. After I scan it I will post anything decent here.

Pioneer, glad to help but I can't claim credit for that idea. Read that somewhere about the Monitor. Apparently that only works on the earlier Monitors. Kodak might have changed the supply side later on to make it harder to fit clipped 120 in them.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
I am looking forward to seeing the film too. After I scan it I will post anything decent here.

Pioneer, glad to help but I can't claim credit for that idea. Read that somewhere about the Monitor. Apparently that only works on the earlier Monitors. Kodak might have changed the supply side later on to make it harder to fit clipped 120 in them.

Shawn
Click to expand...

So far it seems to work. If you think of it and get a chance it would be nice to see a photo of your supply side. I'll grab a quick shot of mine as well so we can compare any differences.
 
shawn, if your camera is free of light leaks consider yourself lucky! Monitors are somewhat notorious for having pinholes in the bellows. I learned this only after purchasing two of them, and mine unfortunately, were not exceptions. :(

In any event, good luck, and I can't wait to see images from this camera!
 
Shawn and Dan: Thanks a lot to you both for providing some useful information.

I have a basic query. Should I go for uncoated (E0=1946) or coated version (EC=1941)? I'm thinking that the uncoated version is better since it is less older. Am I correct?

Bests,

Ashfaque

PS: If anyone wants to off load a good and cheap 6x9 folder, please pm me. :)
 
ashfaque said:
I have a basic query. Should I go for uncoated (E0=1946) or coated version (EC=1941)? I'm thinking that the uncoated version is better since it is less older. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

Should that not be reversed? I have a coated (L) Anastigmat Special of 1946. No longer on the Monitor but on a Agfa Record body. Very nice lens and shutter.


Ernst Dinkla
 
ashfaque said:
Shawn and Dan: Thanks a lot to you both for providing some useful information.

I have a basic query. Should I go for uncoated (E0=1946) or coated version (EC=1941)? I'm thinking that the uncoated version is better since it is less older. Am I correct?

Bests,

Ashfaque

PS: If anyone wants to off load a good and cheap 6x9 folder, please pm me. :)
Click to expand...

Mine is an EO serial number, 1946, with the circled L showing the lens is coated. I am not certain when the changover occurred.

My advice, which I apply to all of the old folders. Condition is most important. Look for light tight bellows, working shutters, clean lenses and, in the case of the Monitor, a properly working film transport mechanism.

All this comes before worrying about lens coating. Most old folder lenses are either Triplets or Tessars (the Kodak Anistigmat is a Tessar type I believe.) In either case there are not many lens surfaces so coating is less critical. Lens hazing or fungus will almost certainly have a stronger effect than coating will.
 
I was tinkering with my Monitor a couple of weeks ago, trying to figure out Rick Oleson's instructions on converting it to 120, and I decided then that the easiest way is to pare down the supply reel and use a 620 reel on the takeup end. Problem solved.

Rick refers to drilling out the rivets attaching the film reel holders, but he must have had a different type of Monitor or was confusing another folder for the Monitor, because on all of the Monitors I've seen pictured, the reel holders are stamped at the ends of long plates that run clear across the camera and are attached to the body top and bottom with large rivets or screws that can't be easily reached.

The supply side of mine is identical to Shawn's. The lens serial number of mine doesn't have an alpha-character prefix, though: 6096. 1939 model?
 
As you can see, the supply side on my camera looks different. The ears on each side taper inwards toward the bottom to hold the roll of film. On mine, spool length is important.



Ok, modifying the supply side to accept a roll of 120 film is going to be tough. The tapering sides scrubbed the outside diameter of each end of the spool I used. It made winding on the film VERY difficult and I ended up using a rubber jar opener to grip the wind on knob just to finish the roll. It is pretty obvious that, at a minimum, each 120 roll of film I modify will not only need to be clipped, it will also have to be sanded down on the outside circumference from the edge into the cross slots where the spool is driven when functioning as a take up spool. It certainly can be done but is much more time invested than just clipping the outside rim.

The alternative is to modify the supply side where the fresh film spool is inserted. The spool holder is held in by three rivets which could easily be drilled out. After that my options get a bit cloudy. I may be able to find a replacement in one of my other old folders. But then I have a camera which used a 120 film spool on the supply side and a 620 spool for the take up side.

Rick Oleson shows some drawings here http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-67.html showing a way to modify the film supply side AND take up side to allow the use of 120 film. I could also give this a try.

However, for me, the Monitor will always be one of those cameras that gets taken out occasionally, and not a regular user. I have some other beautiful 6x9 folders that already use 120 film so I am certainly not hurting for cameras to use. With this in mind I think I'll leave everything in place and just use 620 film.

I may fiddle around a bit with rewinding 120 film onto 620 spools, and I will probably try the sanding process on existing 120 spools just to see how much hassle it is. For now, I ordered five rolls of 620 film to play with. It is about three times more expensive than the equivalent 120 film so I certainly won't be doing that often though. I will have some extra 620 spools to work with though.

Of course, I can pull out one of my old folders with a cruddy lens or shutter and transplant this one to another camera.

So many options, so little time. :)
 
Yup, Pioneer, that's the kind of riveted spool holder that Rick Oleson's instructions must have been written for. Apologies to Rick for casting any doubt on his knowledge. :eek:
 
Pioneer, thanks for the shot of your supply side. That confirms what I read about earlier Monitors working fine with clipped 120 supply reels and later ones not working as well. Advancing the film through mine was two fingers without any sort of excessive tension.

Transplanting the lens to another camera is an interesting proposition, esp. for a Monitor that has a bad bellows. According to this:

00R52k-76355584.jpg


The lens looks to be a Tessar type. Everything I have read about it claims it is a very nice lens.

Thanks,

Shawn
 
The lens does seem to have a very good reputation. I didn't see any light leaks in my bellows on inspection but the film results will be a better indicator. I may try to get mine developed this evening. That way I can scan the results tomorrow (assuming there is anything worth scanning.) :)
 
Ditto, my film is washing right now. I'll scan anything decent tomorrow. I mis-spoke above... it is TMAX 400 not 100. Developed in HC110 B rotary.

Shawn
 
It will be very interesting to compare the images with those from a (non-Special) Anstigmat lens - in my experience these are almost constrast-free!

Adrian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom