Kodak Medalist conversion. Who does it ?

[beegee]

I was wondering if anyone might know who can convert Kodak Medalist cameras to accept 120 film . thanks

[BrianShaw]

Just repeating what I hear: Ken Ruth at Photography of Bald Mountain. I think I have it right but might be wrong about the mountain name. I'll bet you can find the contact info by googling. I heard that he can do two variants: supply side only or a full conversion.

[Kevin Crisp]

Rerolling it isn't that hard but obviously not as convenient as a conversion. With a little practice it takes about 4 minutes a roll.

[Frank Petronio]

You can buy a Foldex camera for about $20 that uses both 120 and 620 film -- it makes daylight respooling much nicer. The spools cost more than that on eBay, lol.

But yes, Ken Ruth at Photography ON Bald Mountain is the man, he can CLA your Medalist and also mill out the film chamber so 120 film will fit. It's not cheap, it cost more than a Medalist is worth IMHO but you can end up with a very high quality usable camera with a great lens that rivals modern gear, albeit weighs and handles about the same as a brick. He wanted $345 to CLA and modify mine this past Summer, I am still considering it (i.e. can't afford it - buy some prints!)

Essex Camera Repair in New Jersey will do it as well.

Google them, I'm lazy ;-)

[William McEwen]

$345 for a Medalist conversion? Why not buy a twin-lens Rolleiflex?

[beegee]

I don't think they ever made a 6x9 twin lens reflex...but all idea is using the Kodak Ektar 105mmf 3,5 , one of "the" best lens for 6x9 !!

[Dan Fromm]

I don't think they ever made a 6x9 twin lens reflex...but all idea is using the Kodak Ektar 105mmf 3,5 , one of "the" best lens for 6x9 !!

Cornu Ontoflex. 6x9 TLR with rotating back.

If the 100/3.5 Ektar is in fact to the same prescription as the 105/3.7 Ektar, it isn't that great a lens. I've had two 105/3.7s, also a couple of 101/4.5 Ektars. The 101/4.5s are sharper from f/4.5 down, center and corners. A decent modern 100/5.6 plasmat will beat both. And so, I suspect, will the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M.

[Mark Sampson]

From my limited time with a Medalist II, I'll say this; a much bigger negative than a TLR and a spectacularly good lens give superior image quality. It also has eye-level viewing with a fine rangefinder. I think re-rolling 120 is a pain, and $345 is too much money for me, but it's a far better camera than its looks would suggest.
They were made in my home town, too, albeit long before I was born.

[Frank Petronio]

To be fair, $125-something is for the CLA a 60-year camera is probably going to need... also I shouldn't be quoting the price as gospel as Ken is the one who sets it and it is best to get the info straight from him.

But for not much more I could buy a nice v.1 or 2 Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and they are also very nice cameras from a shooting POV with nicer viewfinders and not quite as brick-like.

[Kevin Crisp]

The Medalist II lens is a stellar performer. The big negative is nice. When adjusted properly the rangefinder is very accurate. The reprint of the Kodak repair manual covers about everything. The camera weighs a lot and the comparison to bricks is unfair -- bricks are thinner. It is operationally odd in some ways. The supermatic shutter generally won't run faster than about 1/125th no matter what you set it at but the shutter is quite reliable for its age. The camera is very well made and was VERY pricey in its day and can produce a fine negative.