My Medalist's I & II both take absolutely beautiful color photos. I used to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia 50 in my Medalsit II and never complained. As for their ability to take fine pictures, I really don't think there is anything much better made today. The cameras are a little quirky, but not in the lens department. Once you get the hang of respooling 120 to 620 spools, the rest is frosting on the cake. My absolute favorite classic camera, and I have many classic cameras.
Thanks again.The only real advantage the II has over the I is it has an ASA flash contact for the use of flash bulbs. The shutter buttons are also a little different, but that doesn't make much difference in my opinion. You won't be able to notice any difference in the pictures from either one. If I were to buy one today, I would look at condition and operation as very important. In other words, make sure it is working properly and in nice condition.
Hello all. I'm quite interested in these cameras and have been able to find many great B+W images made with them. Color images seem somewhat harder to come by...
What are your impressions of the Ektar lens as regards color photography? I might have once read that they do a good job and were somewhat designed to handle color emulsions as those emulsions were just becoming usable at the time these were made, but I could be imagining that.
At any rate, I would appreciate your thoughts and any sample images you wish to share. Cheers!
Hi Dan. For the sake of the uninformed, could you please add an approximate date when “modern lenses (= Anastigmats” began. I think some people might be shocked how long ago that was.
The lens designs should be fine in terms of achromatism, as others have said. The main issue with older lenses and color photography is, IMO, loss of contrast/saturation due to flare/internal reflections from uncoated lenses. Flare happens to both B&W and color film of course, but I think it's easier to compensate for it in B&W images. Anyway, I'm sure the Medalist II lens is coated. I read that the Medalist I lens is coated on inner surfaces (which is where it matters), but I don't have personal experience with it.
Was it a complete conversion or just one film chamber converted. I was always a little leery of the conversion since it involved taking out one of the film roller bars. I much rather just respool to 620 spools. I'm very good at that and can do it in less than 2 minutes if I want, but usually take my time. Still, it doesn't take me long to do up ten rolls of film.Thank you gentlemen. Just purchased a Medalist II that was converted to take 120. Apparently it was CLA'd as well... we'll see when it arrives. Appreciate everyone's input and insights.
I have used Medalist II on and off for some time now, using both B&W and color film (C41 and E6 re-rolled from 120). The Ektar lens is coated (lumenized), has medium contrast, high resolution, and quite neutral color palette. It is in line with the state of art of that era, such as the Leica Rigid Summicron 50/2 and Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.
The Ektar 100/3.5 is slightly different from more modern designs such as the EBC Fujinon 90/3.5 on the Fujica GW690 series. The newer Fujinons have higher contrast and thus "more vibrant" color with E6 film. I like them both for their own character.
Thanks... this is more or less what I was looking for (not that the other comments weren't useful as well).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?