Kodak Medalist II 120 Conversion

Years ago I posted a question as to whether anyone had experience with

converting Medalists from 620 to 120 using either Ken Ruth (of

Photography on Bald Mountain) or Essex Camera Repair. IIRC I never got

an answer. Anyway, I put the whole 120 off and resolved to have it

done only when the camera also needed a CLA.

 

In the interim, I used my Medalist II less and less because

re-spooling 120 film onto 620 spools, while pretty easy, was

nevertheless a PITA. Recently I noticed that the shutter release was

not working properly and realized that it was finally time. I chose

Ken Ruth because he had taken the time to give me advice by phone when

I bought my Medalist II in 1999 and because I couldn't actually find

any reports of anyone actually having the job done anywere else.

 

I received the camera back today, about 5 weeks after shipping it to

Ken. I just wanted to report that the conversion seems to have been

very well done--120 film loads as easily as 620 film had previously.

Furthermore the CLA has worked wonders. Not only does the camera work

smoothly (even the previously stiff shutter release) but the

viewfinder and rangefinder are quite bright--I never realized how

dirty they were inside (I guess a lot of crud builds up in 55 or so

years).

 

IMO the Medalist II is (still) a great camera and I plan to use mine a

lot more now. Some might think me crazy to have spent considerably

more than the going price of a good Medalist II on the conversion, but

IMO the Medalist II is worth the money from a FUNCTIONAL

viewpoint--its a remarkably small 6 X 9 camera with one of the best

lenses ever put on a medium format camera--AND, if I sell off my

sizable accumulation of 620 spools, I might even recoup part of the

conversion and CLA cost.

 

Bob Marvin

I agree, Ken Ruth does a great job of converting Medalists from 620 to 120. And, yes, the Medalist II is a great camera, capable of delivering the goods 59 years after it was made:

 

<center>

 

<img src="http://photos7.flickr.com/8290763_1fb908acfe_o.jpg">

 

</center>

I have one that still has 620 only; and the frame counter is goofed up. The shutter works just swell and has never required a CLA since I got it in the 1970's; and even syncs with strobe too. The Kodak 100mm F3.5 is a fine lens; some were removed and used on the Hasselblad first focal plane shutter cameras too. Mine has a 1946 lens date code; ie EO; has a single coating; and the L symbol. The split rangefinder is magnified; just like the Kodak Bantum rangefinder; and Kodak Ektra.r

When Ruth does the conversion, is the film counter still able to function? There was a converted Medalist II on the auction sight recently that was described as having a nonfunctional counter due to the conversion to 120.

Also I have heard of conversions where the take-up spool area is NOT machined out and one still has to utilise 620 spools in that position. Is that the case with a Ken Ruth conversion? Does he gouge out both spool pockets? Thanx in adavance.

Ted, Ken's conversion enables you to use 120 spools in both slots (although the fit is tight) & the frame counter works properly.

I understood that he bores out the film chamber. This has to be done carefully, because there isn't a whole lot of space there and unaltered, a 620 spool is an extremely tight fit.

 

I've read of this conversion, and it seems that people are very pleased with Ken Ruth's work.

I was concerned when I saw that Medalist on eBay where the seller said the film counter didn't work due to Ken Ruth's 120 conversion. I phoned Ken who assured me that the counter would still work on my camera. As soon as I received the camera yesterday I put a roll of film through it and confirmed that the counter works properly.

 

Ken told me that he's done over 300 Medalist conversions. He certainly seems to know what he's doing. The 120 spool is a tight fit, but no tighter than a 620 spool was before the conversion and, as far as I can see there seems to be plenty of metal left after the film chambers were machined out.

 

I was impressed that Ken provided a print out with the actual shutter speeds after CLAing the shutter. Shutter work cost an additional $100, but I couldn't see having a camera this old worked on without doing everything--the camera was made in the late '40s and has probably had no work done on it in all that time.

 

I too have read about Medalist 120 conversions that use a 620 take up spool.I guess it's away to save money, but you'd have to carry one 620 spool for every roll of film you plan to shoot--not as big a PITA as re-spooling film, but a PITA nevertheless.

Robert & the Group; does your shutter work with strobe? ie x sync?<BR><BR>Mine is X sync; or F or M delayed **; when the "delay mechanism" is cocked. Mine is a Kodak Flash Supermatic shutter; lens date code EO; ie 1946. The flash socket is the old robust "ASA socket". One can get an ASA to PC adapter ; or cord and an ancient camera store.<BR><BR>I ask this question because I have two folks over the years tell me that the Medalist II had to be modified to use a strobe. maybe they are just confused?<BR><BR>** I use the term "delay"; because this is what the old pre WW2 books call the action; the mechanism in the shutter. The "shutter is delayed" with respect to the flash contacts closing; when M anf F delays are used. The delay mechanism actually delays firing the shutter. The instructions for my speed graphic; Vigilant 620; mention the delay mechanism; and call it a delay. I mention all this becuase a chap chined in a year ago ad said this is all wrong; it is really an advance!. I wonder if he has burned his fingers on a #50; and shot grosses of #25; FP bulbs; or even cocked a "delay mechanism".

My Medalist II also has X sync (if you don't cock the delay mechanism for M or F flash bulb sync).

 

I suspect that the "myth" about needing to convert the Medalist II for X sync started because the instruction manual makes no mention of X sync(probably because electronic flash was uncommon in the late '40s). It is there--I've used it--with an ASA Bayonette to PC cord adaptor made by Paramount cords in the Bronx, NY.

 

Actually, I wouldn't have known about the X sync had I not phoned Ken Ruth for advice on buying a Medalist before buying mine in 1999.

Ken Ruth..."The Great". As I mentioned before, years ago, he made parts for my Compur shutter (convertible Protar lens) and the pneumatic Compound III shutter (Zeiss Tessar 120/2.7). He likes to talk on the phone specially if the subject is a Dagor lens.

 

The Medalist lens 100/3.5, follows the Heliar design!

Ken is also a really nice guy!

 

Re: the 100 mm f3.5 Ektar; This lens is from a period ('40s through early '50s) when Kodak made some of the best lenses in the world. I also have a 100 mm f4.5 Projection Ektar enlarging lens that I use to print the Medalist negatives.AFAIK this too is a five element Heliar design. I paid all of $10 for this lens, but I doubt that I'd do much better with a modern six element enlarging lens(which probably means that I was foolish to replace my 75 mm f4.5 Projection Ektar with an 80 mm f4 Rodenstock Radogon).

 

FWIW its been mentioned numerous times that the earliest Hasselblads used Kodak Ektar lenses and that Hasselblad switched to Zeiss lenses to lower cost rather than to improve quality.

One other thing.I've oftem wondered how the Medalist II compares to the later(non interchangable lens) Fuji 690.The two cameras seem pretty similar from a functional point of view. The Fuji is much larger (although possibly lighter) and fits my hands a little better, but the only major improvement I can think of is the lever film wind (the Medalist knob wind is rather slow to use).

 

I've handled, but never actually used a Fuji 690.Is there anyone out there who's used both cameras?

How much did the conversion cost?

$280 for the basic conversion plus another $100 for shutter cleaning and "optimizing for X sync." The latter seemed to involve removing the cocking lever for the obsolete M and F flash sync delay and, I suspect, the whole delay mechanism. This resulted in making the shutter release button VERY much smoother. $380 is a LOT more than I could recover by selling the camera, but, IMO from a functional viewpoint it was well worth the cost.

 

I suppose some collector a generation or two in the future will curse me for hasving this classic "ruined" with modifications, but, for my money I got a more usable camera

Manfred Schmidt does a CLA and converts the Medalist leaving the 620 spool. His prices are very good. (120 dollars for the conversion including shipping). <http://www.manfredschmidt.com/kodak.html>

<p>Only about 7.5 years late, but I have used both Medalists and the Fuji 690. Comparing them is difficult, like comparing a 1946 Ford with a 1995 Taurus. The feel is completely different, but both give superb results. The Fuji and Ektar lenses are among the best, as others have noted, with the Ektar giving a bit more contrast. <br>

The rapid wind lever on the Fuji is quicker, but I learned years ago to use a twist of both wrists winding old Leicas' knobs and the same technique helps the Medalist get right through a sequence of shots. <br>

Either would find a welcome home here, but the Medalist II is the one I kept. It feels very good in my hands, and that '40s USA engineering makes me grin everytime I think about it.</p>

<p>Thank you Joe; better late than never and you answered a question I was still wondering about.</p>

<p>Very late posting. I've had my Medalist II converted by Ken Ruth. He will also recement any viewfinder elements that have separated for $20 more. It seems that during the process of conversion, he removes the little time delay lever for flash bulb synch. He says it causes more problems than it helps, and few people use bulbs anymore.</p>

<p>The only disappointment was that he left the metal surfaces bare where he had ground them out. But, a day with some matte black car touch up paint solved that issue.</p>

<p>The medalist is unbelievably smooth after its overhaul.</p>

<p>I just use short strong nail scissors to cut the round ends of a 120 spool to a smaller diameter. It is plastic these days. Why do you others not do that? There must be a downside or everyone would be doing what I do? The length of the spool has not been as issue, so just clipping the disc ends to make them smaller has made using 120 film easy and so I have not needed to collect 620 spools etc.</p>