On a separate but related note, any of you Medalist fans ever use a Chevron, and how does it compare in the fiddly business department? I toy with the idea of getting one but I don't know that it would do anything for me that my Rolleiflex 2.8E doesn't do at least as well if not better. And that shutter sounds like it's far less reliable than a more traditional one.
Seriously? Ha, I’m in SLC. I bet I know which shop it was. On 9th?
which shop is that? Acme? I keep meaning to go down there. I'm in Ogden. I have one of these that I get out about once a year and lug around -- heavy damn things but great results.
charlie trentelman
ogden
On a separate but related note, any of you Medalist fans ever use a Chevron, and how does it compare in the fiddly business department? I toy with the idea of getting one but I don't know that it would do anything for me that my Rolleiflex 2.8E doesn't do at least as well if not better. And that shutter sounds like it's far less reliable than a more traditional one.
here is my RF calibration rigged setup, it's only stupid if it works. I folded a piece of Gorilla Tape on both sides to get the spacing for the film plane and it was dead nuts on the nose.
I worked on one for somene, converted to 620 and overhauled it. Much simpler camera than the Medalist. Lots of what you see and handle is styling, not 'form follows function' of the Medalist. The rangefinder is simpler. Larger in many ways, lots of empty space in the film spool chambers. Falls into the hand much more naturally than the Medalist. Obviously 'cheaper' than the Medalist all around.On a separate but related note, any of you Medalist fans ever use a Chevron, and how does it compare in the fiddly business department? I toy with the idea of getting one but I don't know that it would do anything for me that my Rolleiflex 2.8E doesn't do at least as well if not better. And that shutter sounds like it's far less reliable than a more traditional one.
I had a Chevron for a while and while it was a well-built camera, it was no Medalist. The chevron, to me, seemed like an overgrown Signet 35, which makes some sense being they were made about the same time. The lens is very good, but I'd certainly stick with your Rollei if you like to take pictures. Your Rollei will be easier to use, and I doubt you have any complaints as to its image quality.
Oh, I have no complaints about the image quality or the user experience on a Rollei. If anything, it sets the bar by which all other cameras are judged now.
I have both.
Chevron is a nice camera, bulky and nice design.
The rangefinder is as Medalist, separate and split prisms for focusing and really accurate as Medalist.
Viewfinder has parallax and it’s very nice (I wear glasses).
Operating the camera is an step back from Medalist, manual cocking and you need to activate the winding separately.
Thinking deeply Chevron is equally complex in operation as Ikoflexes TLR, follow steps and all fine.
Releasing the shutter is smoother than Medalist IMO.
With Chevron I find it better to carry it without the leather case, Medalist is opposite.
Series V filters and hood, plenty of them.
Shutter is… Kodak type from 50’s best case high speeds are halved, too many friction points, my Chevron high speed 1/800 is 1/400 what is better than any other leaf shutter I have!
Loading film is easier than Medalist, still 620 type but conversion to 120 should be easier, much more “room”.
Lens, Tessar multi-coated type, really sharp from f/8 and lovely wide open.”, handles flare really really good.
I can’t recall more difference or similarities but I do lime the camera, that said I own Super Isolette and every time I choose 6x6 rangefinder Super Isolette wins (portability).
Photos taken with Chevron, I think from 3 rolls.
I hope helps, next in the bucket are Kodak 35 RF and Kodak Signet, just to put them next to the big sisters Medalist and Chevron.
I have an Isolette, well, sort of, the Russian copy of it by KMZ called "Iskra". Also a great camera, nice sharp negatives and converted to 6x4.5 as many in the Soviet Union were.
I love the Medalist, the original Texas Leica if you ask me, but the Iskra wins in portability and weight, hands down.
IMO the Medalist is remarkably compact (if heavy) for its 6x9 negative size
Photos taken with Chevron, I think from 3 rolls.
I hope helps, next in the bucket are Kodak 35 RF and Kodak Signet, just to put them next to the big sisters Medalist and Chevron
The Medalist is 5 ounces lighter than the Fuji GW690.
Both Cameraleather and Hugo have GripTac skins for the Medalists. Highly recommended!
A body hugging grip would be great, 3-d file maybe. You could carve one and then find someone with a 3-d scanner to make the file?
John, can you say more about this? I've heard of this issue a few times but not as a regular result of a 120 conversion. I have some thoughts on what goes on but I'd like to hear what the regular user has experienced.I won't convert any of my medalist cameras to 120 for fear of screwing up its film flatness in feeding.
I can't speak from personal experience, since I have never converted any of mine. I believe that in a full conversion, where both feed and take-up chambers are opened up, at least one film roller is removed. I can't speak to the one chamber conversions. I think Kodak made this camera to near perfect specs, and I'd just as soon not mess with any of the build/mechanics. Each to his own, I guess! I have respooled so many rolls of 620 I lost count, and it's not a problem anymore. I can respool three rolls in less than ten minutes, and that's taking my time and doing it right. I have never had a dust issue, but I use a dust-free (I wish) area to do my respooling or a clean, vacuumed changing bag.I have only used my Medalist II a few times since I bought it, but all this talk of it I think I will put a roll in. The last couple of rolls I didn't respool but to modify the 120 roll. Doesn't respooling allow dust on the film?
I can't speak from personal experience, since I have never converted any of mine. I believe that in a full conversion, where both feed and take-up chambers are opened up, at least one film roller is removed. I can't speak to the one chamber conversions. I think Kodak made this camera to near perfect specs, and I'd just as soon not mess with any of the build/mechanics. Each to his own, I guess! I have respooled so many rolls of 620 I lost count, and it's not a problem anymore. I can respool three rolls in less than ten minutes, and that's taking my time and doing it right. I have never had a dust issue, but I use a dust-free (I wish) area to do my respooling or a clean, vacuumed changing bag.
I have converted a Kodak Chevron to 120 and had no issues with that, but the Kodak Medalist is a different beast. A friend, who has the Chevron now, says it's still working great.
This was mainly in reply to Dan Daniel above
I'm not looking to convert the camera, I just modify the 120 film roll ends.
The problem with that is that you still have to use a 620 spool for takeup unless the drive key has also been modified -- and in very tight 620 cameras (which I understand to included the Medalist models) even a diameter-trimmed 120 spool may not fit well enough to feed without problems (and sanding the ends may make them translucent or cause tearing, because the plastic needs to be so thin). I've never handled a Medalist, but my reading suggests that one of the reasons converting the camera is so expensive is that it requires removing metal from the body casting on both supply and takeup spool wells.
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?