Kodak's brute

[gene m]

<p>The <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/medalist/shelburnefalls/index.html">Medalist II.</a></p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Hum maybe I should get one to keep handy for next time some one decides I am easy mark:</p>

[gabor_szabo3]

<p>Nice presentation, Gene. I wouldn't say the Medalist II is relatively cheap, though. One would be lucky to find a clean , working specimen for under $200 these days. <br>

Same goes for it's other "brutish" cousin, the Kodak Chevron. Both are extremely solid picture-takers and definitely worth respooling both color and BW untill your fingers bleed.<br>

Wish I still had some Agfa APX - nice stuff ; you have a secret stash somewhere, Gene ?</p>

[gene m]

<p>Compare the Medalist to Leica, Contax, Rolleiflex TLR. I stand by "relatively cheap." I've got about 20 rolls of APX in my refrigerator.</p>

[tom_price1]

<p>Great tonality in these pictures. I like the last one a lot.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Terrific. Proof of all claims made.</p>

<p>Despite the astonishing image quality from some of those plastic cameras, this really is on another level altogether.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Margaret Bourke White.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Rare, in my part of the world, and a truly macho classic camera. Great presentation, <strong>Gene</strong> and fine images; "the falls" has to be a winner. I'm intrigued by the way Kodak cameras of this era seemed to have a sort of "military" look about them, as if they've been built of spare parts left over from a gunsight, or something. The old Kodak 35 RF has shades of the same "machine" appearance.</p><div></div>

[gene m]

<p>Affirmative. Fifty caliber.</p>

[craig_supplee]

<p>Excellent speciman you have there Gene. They are truly beautiful brutish cameras. The lenses in both the I and II are supurb. I will say that they are not the most ergonomic to hand hold. Work a lot better on a tripod. I had both I and II for awhile until I lost my mind and sold them. Too expensive now for me to replace. Here are my memories.</p>

<div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

Great presentation. A real "tank" of a camera. A worthy use of APX 400. Thanks for posting.

[gene m]

<p>I'll be dragging mine to Arizona soon. The airline will probably charge me extra.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Gene,</p>

<p>Put in a plain bag with a red cross on it. Tell the airline it's 'medical equipment' (portable x-ray machine?). It will fly free and not count as one of your carry-ons.</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Lol Anthony, that's all Gene needs...'excuse me sir, wait here. Full body cavity search on this one, Helga.'</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Another vote for Shelburne Falls. It's gorgeous, and so is the camera. Now that's a beast that I've got to get and try out before I die. Thank you Gene.</p>

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again, there just isn't any better lens than the 5 element Ektar on the Medalist. Add that to the flattest film plane and you got a superb photo-taking machine. It seems to be one of those combinations that give what I call "micro-contrast" and super fine detail. The Medalist I and II are not just cameras, they are investments. I have two Medalist I's and one Medalist II. If I run across any more at a cheap price I'll buy those also. I just love'm! JohnW</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>Gene you have triggered my gear lust, just when I thought I had it beat. Great photos and<br>

thanks for posting.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

Nice!

 

I have the original dozen-page brochure on my Medalist II page:

 

http://basepath.com/Photography/Medalist.php

[chauncey_walden]

<p>I had one and loved it. I sold it, but only after getting another one that had been converted to 120 by Ken Ruth. I also have the sheet film and extension backs for it. The lens has the same formula as the Ektars Kodak made for the first Hasselblads. I had one of those, too. The falls shot is lovely, Gene.</p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>Wonderful stuff, from such a beastly camera. It truly looks so industrial clutching that fine piece of glass inisde. Loved all photos especially tonality and texture of the barn shots. One day I will obtain a Medalist II.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Really like the shots of the falls and the tree and brook, Gene. Going to 'Zona for business or pleasure?</p>

[Rick_van_Nooij]

<p>The images of the barns, the wooden sides, looked very similar to the results I got with my Medalist I and Kodak BW400CN (Dangit Kodak! bring it back in 120 format!).<br>

I completely agree with everything said, great lens, sturdy camera and a great weight.<br>

I said I was going to respool some film in the previous medalist topic..and I haven't...does that make me a bad person?! Anyway. Going to give it a try with Ilford XP2.</p>

<p>Anyway, Great stuff Gene. Thanks for sharing!</p>

[greg_nixon2]

<p>Great shots from a great camera, operated by a photog who knows a thing or two about snapshots.<br>

Thanks for posting</p>

[david_l3]

<p>A year and a half ago I passed up a chance to buy a Medalist for a song. It was an awfully heavy beast and the focusing helicals looked like they could crush gravel. An industrial machine no doubt, not for sissys.</p>

[gene m]

<p>Dan, both.<br>

David, I rent the Medalist out to a local rock crusher. I got your Verichrome Pan today.</p>