Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,907   Posts: 1,555,872   Online: 941
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Shmoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    972
    Images
    11
    These cameras are HEAVY. I "inherited" my dad's circa 1949 Medallist II and it's heavy. I'm still looking for someone who can CLA the thing...

    S

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,981
    The film chamber in the Medalist is tight even with a 620 spool. I would be surprised if a modified 120 spool would fit. It's really that tight.

    I've heard that Ken Ruth can mill out the film chamber to accept 120, and I've heard good things about his work.

    The Medalist is a BIG camera. The lens on it is very nice.

  3. #13
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    I tried 6 ways from Sunday to modify a 120 reel to fit the chamber, and all I can say...

    It ain't going to happen, the best way to continue to shoot this camera is to learn to re-spool 120 film onto a 620 reel, its not that hard, I used to be able to do 10 rolls in about 10 minutes, really a very simple process, not any harder than loading a 4x5 holder to say the least.

    Dave

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    Respooling is a simple job, and what I preferred to do when I own a Medalist. J&C sells 120 film thats been "trimmed" to fit in 620 cameras. I bought a few rolls and it worked in the Medalist. It's a bit expensive though, and limited to just one or two emulsions, so I just bought a bunch of 620 spools and rolled my own.

    I've seen 120 converted Medalist's for sale, at around $450 if I remember correctly.

    Shmoo, you might want to try http://www.manfredschmidt.com/kodak.html for a CLA. He advertises them for $90. He also does 120 conversions and has converted Medalists for sale.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    140
    ken ruth is at:

    http://www.baldmtn.com/

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,981
    Shmoo, what's the problem with your Medalist? Anything specific? Or just in need of an overdue CLA?

  7. #17
    Shmoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    972
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by elekm
    Shmoo, what's the problem with your Medalist? Anything specific? Or just in need of an overdue CLA?
    Well, after sitting in my dad's closet for close to 50 years, it's sorely in need of some TLC. The leather cover has deteriorated off (no biggie), but I need to get it some "help".

    My father bought it when he was fishing on the old tuna boats in the 50's. Some of the photos from that era are still around and they're beautiful.

    S

  8. #18
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,566
    Images
    60
    Thanks everyone for your posts. I am going to bookmark the links here, in case I can ever:
    1) find a Medalist I can try, and
    2) if I can handle it, find a Medalist I can own.

    For all those who commented on the size of the Medalist, I would appreciate it if anyone can give me a sense of the comparison between it's size and:

    1) my Mamiya M645 Pro;
    2) my Mamiya C330; and
    3) an old Kodak 35 (my first 35mm camera).

    I realize that the geometry of the Pro and the C330 are radically different, but I would guess that the weight might be similar.

    I ask about the Kodak 35 because to me, the Medalist looks like a Kodak 35 on steroids (similar style and shape) and the Kodak 35, although certainly no lightweight, was a camera I could handle.

    Matt

  9. #19
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    The medalist is very simular in weight to the Pentax 67 body, the body is a unique design which is quite thick through the middle, not all that uncomfortable in the hands, if I had to guess, it probably weighs close to 3 lbs.

    Dave

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    140
    here's a comparison with a nikon F.

    The Medalist is often described as a large, heavy camera. For storage, the double helical tube retreats into the body, for a total depth of 3.75 inches; fully extended it is 5 inches deep. The comparison below is perhaps a bit unfair, since the Nikon has BTL metering, but by 1965 standards could the Medalist be considered large and heavy? Considering that the Medalist produced a 6x9cm negative, it was compact when compared to 2x3 press cameras, though a different shape is not really larger than 6x9 folders, like the Monitor or Tourist, and these cameras were incredibly durable, with reports of them being swung as weapons for personal defense without damage to the Medalist.

    ##Medalist II
    5.5w x 4.4h x 4.8d
    2 lbs, 14 ounces


    ##Nikon F Photomic w/1.4 Nikkor
    5.75w x 4.0h x 4.25d
    2 lbs, 14 ounces


    http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/B...akMedalist.htm

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin