Kodak Medalist II!!

[Dan Daniel]

I used it a bit this weekend. I think it will be fun, once I get the 620 spools for the takeup. I tried using a trimmed-down 120 spool for the takeup and it made it about halfway through the roll before the plastic core on the 120 spool stripped and the film advance spins freely without advancing the film. It is a bit Rube Goldberg-esque with all the different levers you have to actuate to take a photo and advance the film, but the sequence is not hard to remember. The trick is remembering if you advanced the film or not after each frame since there's no multi-exposure lock-out. Not a big deal when taking photos in rapid succession, but if you put the camera down for 15 minutes or more, I suspect there will be times you have blank frames on the roll until you're used to it, out of an abundance of caution.

Yes, get a regular 620 spool. Even the plastic 620 spools will work better than a 120 spool. Some of the plastic ones are slightly out of spec, too large, but the Chevron has enough room to deal with this.

As Donald suggests, develop a hard routine on winding film. For me, I always wind on right after exposure. Roll film backs on view cameras, older folders and TLRs, etc. Take an image, wind the film. One continuous process. I am not done taking an image until the film is wound on. Some people wait for just before the next exposure. Same result as long as it is a hard and fast rule for you.

 

[albada]

[...] and lens caps on RF and VF cameras will cause gross underexposure).

I find that lens caps provide very consistent exposure.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Here's an example from the Chevron- I need to use it a bit more before making any conclusive decisions about it, but I may actually like its look even more than I do my Rolleiflex! (gasp - heresy - choke -shock). It also produces a larger negative than the Rollei - I haven't measured it exactly but if the Rollei is 54 x 54mm or 55x55, this is more like 57x57 - the image actually intrudes into the edge markings on one side (I have cropped here for cleanliness sake).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another from the Chevron:

I'm pretty sure this was Tri-X that I shot this on. I need to go back and re-take this in color. I also should do a head-to-head shootout with it and the Rolleiflex to give each one a fair shake.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Depending on the lens on your Rolleiflex, my brief time with a Chevron left me very impressed with the out of focus look compared to more modern optics like a Xenotar. BUt we are in the realm of unicorns and hobbits here, I know....

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Depending on the lens on your Rolleiflex, my brief time with a Chevron left me very impressed with the out of focus look compared to more modern optics like a Xenotar. BUt we are in the realm of unicorns and hobbits here, I know....

My Rolleis have the 80 2.8 Planar, and I also have a Tele with the f4 135mm Sonnar (but that's not a fair comparison to the Chevron). I feel lucky that I'm able to own both (Chevron and Rolleiflex 2.8E) and compare them. I'd not be unhappy with either, if I only had one of them. But I'm just very impressed with the Ektar lens - I shouldn't be surprised considering I have 12" and 14" Commercial Ektars, and a 190mm Wide-Field Ektar, all of which are outstanding performers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm just very impressed with the Ektar lens

Generally (at least in those days) Kodak reserved the Ektar name for the very best in its line. Some of the early Ektars were "only" Tessar type, but all of the lenses with that name have been very good.

 

[OAPOli]

I've shot a couple rolls with the Medalist II and the results are nice. Ergonomics are pretty poor so I made a wood grip. Also gizmo'd a respooling jig.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nyjrDM] DSCF9495 by Olivier, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[blee1996]

Even the Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 lumenized Tessars (shortly before Ektar designation) produce stunning results. Kodak was at the peak of its game.

 

[jimmelcher]

View attachment 312872
My dad brought home a Medalist in about 1948. He used it until he got a 35 mm in about 1957. Sadly I don’t have that camera. I do have these two, with all accessories. One is unmodified, the other has been converted to 120 film. I have put a lot of film through that one.

cute couple!

 

[jimmelcher]

I've shot a couple rolls with the Medalist II and the results are nice. Ergonomics are pretty poor so I made a wood grip. Also gizmo'd a respooling jig.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nyjrDM] DSCF9495 by Olivier, on Flickr[/URL]

Pentax 67, eat your heart out!

 

[AZD]

I originally was going to put that Canon 85 LTM they have in the one display on my Leningrad and it doesn't mount properly because the flange distances are the same but the rangefinder cam on the Canon is recessed and the Leningrad is almost on the mount so it doesn't register properly.

j-dogg, that Canon 85mm LTM finally overpowered my will to resist. I brought it home yesterday and gave it a good CLA. Just waiting for a proper L39-M adapter to arrive so the focus cam will line up correctly, and also bring up the 90mm frame.

 

[blee1996]

I've shot a couple rolls with the Medalist II and the results are nice. Ergonomics are pretty poor so I made a wood grip. Also gizmo'd a respooling jig.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nyjrDM] DSCF9495 by Olivier, on Flickr[/URL]

That is a handsome looking wooden handle! I had the same issue with handheld ergonomics, and put together a wooden right hand grip (for video cam) with L bracket (also as Arca Swiss type tripod plate). Both are standard parts, so the fit is not as nice as yours. I wish someone with the proper tools can make a dedicated grip for the Medalist.

 

[OAPOli]

That's nice! Making my grip was pretty simple. A strip of plywood attached to the two tripod mounts, plus a 1" dowel with slight shaping screwed + nailed in.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That's nice! Making my grip was pretty simple. A strip of plywood attached to the two tripod mounts, plus a 1" dowel with slight shaping screwed + nailed in.

I have owned and operated a Medalist I & II for many years, and I have often wondered how the WWII Marines and Navy personnel could hang onto one of those slippery buggers. Especially with wet, sweaty hands. I'm pretty sure they had to have used them with the case and strap intact, or they wouldn't have been able to take a single photo.

 

[OAPOli]

I have owned and operated a Medalist I & II for many years, and I have often wondered how the WWII Marines and Navy personnel could hang onto one of those slippery buggers. Especially with wet, sweaty hands. I'm pretty sure they had to have used them with the case and strap intact, or they wouldn't have been able to take a single photo.

Lol! Plus pressing the shutter release feels like pushing a tack

 

[John Wiegerink]

Lol! Plus pressing the shutter release feels like pushing a tack

Yes, the shutter release isn't a plus on either the Medalist I or II. The problem is that the shutter release is all tied to the film advance and has to push a pawl to release the film advance lock. That makes for a long, harder than normal shutter release. That's not an issue in combat since you just keep your finger on the release and when the first shot is fired you will automatically release the shutter without even knowing it. Trust me, it's true.

 

[John Wiegerink]

For those here that want to use their Medalist for what it was meant to do and not as a shelf/dust collector, I'd suggest a new covering from someone like Hugo. Since my Medalist II is not a show Queen I ordered and installed the "grip" type black covering for it. What a world of difference that made. It's like the camera is glued to your hand. I imagine the original covering, when knew, was pretty good also, but after years of use it became much too smooth for a good grip.

 

[rjmeyer314]

In the 1980's Xerox sent me to a technical meeting with Fuji Xerox in Japan. I took a brick of Kodak Verichrome Pan 620 and my Kodak Medalist I with me. I hiked all over Tokyo, took the bullet train, rode a ferry, went to mount Fuji, etc. Everywhere I went people wanted to look at and handle the Medalist. Several people tried to buy it. I still have the Medalist, as well as a Kodak Chevron that I never used as much as the Medalist.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I've thought about the 120 conversion but for the cost of that I can spool a lot of 120 film onto 620 spools.

I toyed with buying a medalist for a number of years several decades ago. At that time, finding a good one was not difficult, and most of the coll accessories you never see now were still around. I never pulled the trigger because cool as it is, I knew I'd never use it. At the time I was having Ken Ruth (Bald Mountain) CLA some Canon RF bodies for me. He told me not to do the 120 conversion if I bought at Medalist Although he did that job if asked, at a nose-bleed price, he said at there was almost no one else who knew how to that job properly, and most screwed up the camera permanently. Apparently, the film spool chamber dimensions are so tight that a good job requires disassembly of the body, cutting open the film chambers and reconstructing them to the larger diameter of 120 spools. Not a DIY project.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I toyed with buying a medalist for a number of years several decades ago. At that time, finding a good one was not difficult, and most of the coll accessories you never see now were still around. I never pulled the trigger because cool as it is, I knew I'd never use it. At the time I was having Ken Ruth (Bald Mountain) CLA some Canon RF bodies for me. He told me not to do the 120 conversion if I bought at Medalist Although he did that job if asked, at a nose-bleed price, he said at there was almost no one else who knew how to that job properly, and most screwed up the camera permanently. Apparently, the film spool chamber dimensions are so tight that a good job requires disassembly of the body, cutting open the film chambers and reconstructing them to the larger diameter of 120 spools. Not a DIY project.

Randy,
I have completely disassembled a Medalist II and to get at the film chambers requires both top plate and bottom plates to be removed and the chambers to then be milled out. Also, one of the chambers film rollers has to be removed in the conversion. So Ken is 100% right. I'd much rather take my time and respool 120 onto my supply of 620 film spools. That's just me, of course. The plus feature of just respooling is that I have a camera that hasn't been altered. Out of all my classic cameras, I use my Medalist the most, but that's still not as often as I should. Next most used is a Kodak Monitor 620 with a Zeiss Super Ikonta C running third. The nice thing about the Kodak Medalist is the accessories that were made for it. I pretty much have them all, and they are made with the same craftsmanship as the camera itself. The biggest worry for me on the Medalist is banging up the viewfinder, since it sets pretty high on the camera and is exposed to everything. If you think accessories are hard to find, try finding spare parts.

 

[timbersnowman]

I love the Medalist, I have a Medalist I and it's a really nice camera too. People generally don't pay much attention in public to these, I suspect they look much like a DSLR to the uneducated.

For those interested, I've been doing a serial number survey and collecting Medalist serial numbers for the purposes of determining estimated production. If you want to view that information, you can find a link to a spreadsheet in my onedrive here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Auyccz5bfV-XiCzr9HD_FXHA-f7V?e=eHVEdd

The OPs camera would be a later 1945 production camera.

I somewhat doubt that the Medalist was developed specifically for the U.S. Navy or by their request. They were used extensively by the Navy during the war, but I think this was more the convenience of purchasing an already developed product off the shelf. There are too many 1940 and 1941 production cameras and the Medalist was already being sold to the public as early as 1941, as seen from a excerpt of a 1941 Kodak trade catalog:

View attachment 312835

There's also an internal Kodak document entitled as Major Developments in New Apparatus, which show the pre-production prototype of the Medalist as (E-1108) Six-20 Kodak with Screw-Out Front which dates its development to at least during or prior to 1939.

Hello Hunter_Compton,
I just came across this thread researching details on my newly acquired Medalist II. I like the idea of your spreadsheet and would like to contribute to the list. What's the best way to do that?

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Hello Hunter_Compton,
I just came across this thread researching details on my newly acquired Medalist II. I like the idea of your spreadsheet and would like to contribute to the list. What's the best way to do that?

If you comment your camera serials I'll add them to the list.

Here's the public facing spreadsheet:

 

[timbersnowman]

If you comment your camera serials I'll add them to the list.

Here's the public facing spreadsheet:

OK! Here are the details on mine:

Camera: Medalist II
Body Serial: 23114
Lens Serial: EO210
Year: 1946 (based on lens serial)