Moscva 5--decent student camera?

Hi all,

I'm an advanced photography student who is looking to try something
different from my old Pentax Me super for the upcoming semester's class
work. I saw a fellow student's prints taken off a Holga and was quite
impressed with the quality of the negative, even if I was profoundly not
impressed by the quality of the lens.

I am looking for a very cheap way to get into the medium but have a
higher-quality camera than the Holga. I was interested in the Lubitel 166
because it's so darn cheap, but after reading up on it, it seems that a
Lubitel is scarcely better than a Holga. I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me. What do
you guys think of the Moscva as a very low-level intro camera for a broke
college student?

Any opinions much appreciated.

Thanks!
Trevor Longino




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/budget.html and mf/value.html for camera best
buys ;-)

personally, I'd suggest deciding what kind of camera will best fit your
needs first (mf/features.html ) and then looking at budget alternatives.
There are budget models for all MF camera types, and prices now are very
low compared to just a few years ago as folks go to digital and sell
cheap!

on the moskva 5, see comments at russian camera mailing list archives -
see beststuff.com for mailing list signup etc. see mf/folder.html etc.
I tend to recommend the moskva 5 to somebody with a reliable MF kit
already who wants to explore another format like 6x9cm cheaply and is
willing to put up with glitches and lack of modern features in an older
folding camera of soviet manufacture, and can fall back on his regular kit

for a student on a budget (ahem), there are lots of options that will
provide you with a camera you can continue to use or expand to meet your
expanding interests in photography or serve as a professional quality
backup (e.g., TLR) to a future semipro or pro kit; some of my examples:

for $150-ish, you can buy a koni-omega rangefinder (6x7cm) which has
interchangeable magazines and backs, plus four interchangeable lens
options, plus some of the highest scoring lenses in MF for modest $$;

similarly, a new kiev-60 SLR with metering prism will cost about the same
with filters (6x6cm), opening up the low cost line of CZJ zeiss jena
lenses (including fisheyes etc.) plus cheap closeup options (tubes etc.).

For $100-ish, you can also get into a very high quality rolleicord TLR
or similar rollei clones (e.g., minolta autocord, ricoh TLRs etc.). see
mf/tlr.html for details

keep the 35mm kit; you can use MF cheaply for perhaps 80% of general photo
shots (portraits, landscapes..), but some exotic stuff is much easier and
cheaper on 35mm (zooms, long telephotos..)...

hth bobm



--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Trevor Longino wrote:

Hi all,

I'm an advanced photography student who is looking to try something
different from my old Pentax Me super for the upcoming semester's class
work. I saw a fellow student's prints taken off a Holga and was quite
impressed with the quality of the negative, even if I was profoundly not
impressed by the quality of the lens.

Medium format it is then. One cheap way to do this is with an old Polaroid
250 Automatic, and the Polaroid 665 P/N film, which gives you a negative to
work with. Of course, that might be a bit large a negative for many
enlargers, unless you do just contact prints.



I am looking for a very cheap way to get into the medium but have a
higher-quality camera than the Holga. I was interested in the Lubitel 166
because it's so darn cheap, but after reading up on it, it seems that a
Lubitel is scarcely better than a Holga. I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me. What do
you guys think of the Moscva as a very low-level intro camera for a broke
college student?

With any of the folder type of cameras, or old cameras in general, it would
help to know how to do some simple repairs. There are few of these that are
fixed to really good working condition, though if you search carefully, you
might find some. Try to find one were the individual has actually used it to
take photos, so at least you can hope for a good starting point.



Any opinions much appreciated.

Thanks!
Trevor Longino

I have several old AGFA folding cameras. After much work on all of them, I
have all of them working. I got lucky to find a large cache of unused
replacement bellows, and was able to replace the bad one, and still have
some spares. Auxiliary rangefinders are also available at low cost to fit in
the accessory shoe, and allow for somewhat accurate focusing.

Really minimal tools are needed to get these working. When they do work,
they are really very nice, and much better results than from a Holga. If you
want to try simple repairs, and get you own medium format camera for under
$100, there are some great repair resources on the internet, and on this
news group.

You could also spend a bit more and get into a Yashica, Mamiya, or
Rolleiflex TLR. These vary in quality, but many were rugged and durable.
Repairs are much tougher than with folder cameras, since there are more
parts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Trevor Longino wrote:
Hi all,


I am looking for a very cheap way to get into the medium but have a
higher-quality camera than the Holga. I was interested in the Lubitel 166
because it's so darn cheap, but after reading up on it, it seems that a
Lubitel is scarcely better than a Holga.

That's not my experience. I flocked the inside of my Lubitel 166B
with self-adhesive flock paper from Efstonscience. It now has
good contrast. The lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 or smaller
to avoid fuzzy corners. Mine shows no light leaks. It has five
shutter speeds which are roughly a stop apart. Pictures taken with
small apertures look like they were taken with a decent camera.
Your mileage may vary.

I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me. What do
you guys think of the Moscva as a very low-level intro camera for a broke
college student?

If you are using it as a 6x9 camera rather than as a 6x6 with
the insert, it may suffer from film flatness problems which are
very common with old 6x9 folding cameras. If the rails on which
the bellows extend are bent, then the camera is pretty much a
lost cause.

On the plus side, the rangefinder is very precise. The shutter
is a copy of an old Compur and will be accurate. The lens may
(or may not) be good by the standards of front-cell focusing
tessar type lenses. The lens on mine seems to be pretty decently
usable at f/5.6 at least for 6x6 format.

If you want a Moskva, finding a good seller is important. I think
your chances would be pretty good if you bought from Oleg Khalgavin
www.okvintagecamera.com or from Cupog on Ebay. I have dealt with
both of these people and they appear to deserve their good reputations.

You might consider a Flexaret TLR. The models IV and later
plus the Standard, have a Belar lens which is a Tessar type
which should be useful at f/8 or even f/5.6. The earlier
ones with the Mirar (Cooke triplet type) should be ok,
but will need to be stopped down quite a bit. Cupog on Ebay
would be a very good source for these, the bidding sometimes
goes a little high because of his reputation, but it is probably
worth it. The models IV, IVa, V, Va and the Standard often go
for 50 dollars from Cupog. The later models VI and VII tend to
fetch twice that or more.

Peter.
--

Trevor Longino wrote:

Hi all,

I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me.

Several things going against it.

First is 6X9. On the face of it, sounds like a good idea but most 6X9
folders have problems with film flatness, to the point where prints made
from a 6X4.5 folder look better. Even when both camera's have the same type
lens. Also many have problems covering 6X9, even at small f stops. Second
is getting prints made from 6X9 negatives, almost no one does them and they
crop them 6X7 to print, them choosing the crop at least for proofs. I have
a good 6X9 camera and don't use it that much because of that problem and
what do you do with a 6X9 chrome, there are no projectors for them etc.
That format was designed for contact printing, hence the larger negative.
You get 8 exposures a roll as well.

Second you are dealing with an FSU camera, trust me they are FLAKEY. I use
kievs etc and while they can produce nice images, they can be frustrating
and you'll spend a lot of time just getting it working corectly from my
experience. Also the QC of the lenses used seems to be all over the place,
some are really good, some are crap.

A much better camera from the FSU is the Iskra. A 6X6 folder w/rangefinder
and tessar clone lens that all of them seem to be good. The only problem
these have is the frame counters can be flakey but since these seem to take
great pictures, many were converted to "red window" counters. What I think
makes these so good is the whole lens moves to focus rather than being a
front cell focusing camera. Look for one already converted to red window
counter (a picture of the back will show the red window) and you'll
probably get a great little camera for about $75. Be careful as some have
also been converted to 6X4.5 and will have the red window at the bottom of
the back instead of the center. The first is a 6X4.5, the second is
unconverted and I don't see one right now that shows the centered red
window that a converted 6X6 would have. Then again you might like a 6X4.5
version since you get 16 on a roll instead of 12?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

Another really great camera is the early Ikonta -A- 520/521, a 6X4.5 folder
that could be had with a tessar lens. These can be found for around $100,
are very small, light and produce fantastic results. What's odd is the one
pictured below doesn't have a body shutter release, my 520 and my 521 both
do. The difference between the 520 and 521 is the 521 has double exposure
prevention.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...0105 421&rd=1

I think the Iskra is probably the best of this lot as far as being a good
user for under $100, It has coupled rangefinder viewfinder combo like the
$400 late ikontas have and is 6X6 as well. My iskra is better image wise
than my late opton tessar ikonta III! Like I said the only issue they seem
to have is the frame counter which can be bypassed if it becomes a problem.

--

Stacey

Trevor Longino wrote:
Hi all,

I'm an advanced photography student who is looking to try something
different from my old Pentax Me super for the upcoming semester's class
work. I saw a fellow student's prints taken off a Holga and was quite
impressed with the quality of the negative, even if I was profoundly not
impressed by the quality of the lens.

I am looking for a very cheap way to get into the medium but have a
higher-quality camera than the Holga. I was interested in the Lubitel 166
because it's so darn cheap, but after reading up on it, it seems that a
Lubitel is scarcely better than a Holga. I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me. What do
you guys think of the Moscva as a very low-level intro camera for a broke
college student?

After following the same train of thought for some years and buying and
selling lots of stuff I can tell you a few of my findings:

- folders have a large negative, but usually all sorts of problems,
like flatness problems, wobbly lens mount, light leaks and plain
bad lenses, especially when they are front-focussing.

- more or less modern russian stuff has additional problems with
quality control. Yes, it _is_ possible to find a fine working
specimen, but expect to buy and sell several duds before finding it.

- Koni-Omegas are fine, but not very easy to find in good condition.
Most are professional used outfits with very heavy usage. Same
problem exists with Mamiya Universal etc.

- TLRs are usually not very problematic. Anything with "Rollei" on
it is premium stuff, even a lowly Rolleicord with a Triotar.
It pays to look after condition, but usually these things are
well cared for (they were expensive enough in their days... the
least expensive Rolleicord II with Triotar was worth about two month
of work from a industrial worker in 1950, a Rolleiflex from the same
period 4-5 month work...). Expect to pay for a CLA.

Mamiya TLRs are inexpensive, but rather large and heavy. The optics
are fine and plentiful. The first models (C2, C3, C22 and C33) have
fixed screens that may be out of focus. To fix it, you have to use
a collimator (or some test films) and start fiddeling with shims.
The latest models (C220 and C330) are much easier adjustable.
All are made like tanks.

- All system MF cameras are made for professional usage, but are rather
expensive. A good buy these days are Mamiya RB (ProS and ProSD, not Pro)
with Sekor-C optics.

So, if you want to go medium format cheaply, forget folders and buy a TLR.

Martin

"Trevor Longino" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

I'm an advanced photography student who is looking to try something
different from my old Pentax Me super for the upcoming semester's class
work. I saw a fellow student's prints taken off a Holga and was quite
impressed with the quality of the negative, even if I was profoundly not
impressed by the quality of the lens.

I am looking for a very cheap way to get into the medium but have a
higher-quality camera than the Holga. I was interested in the Lubitel 166
because it's so darn cheap, but after reading up on it, it seems that a
Lubitel is scarcely better than a Holga. I raised my price range a little
more (still under a hundred dollars, though) and after researching for a
week on the web, the Moscva-5 looks like a good compromise to me. What do
you guys think of the Moscva as a very low-level intro camera for a broke
college student?

Any opinions much appreciated.

Thanks!
Trevor Longino

The Moskva-5 is a poorly-made Russian copy of the German Zeiss
Super-Ikonta C camera. Supposedly made with the same machinery got
from Germany as compensation after WWII, I can only conclude that they
dropped this machinery several times on the flight back to Russia.
That combined with the amount of Vodka required to keep a steady hand
when assembling, then the results are predictable. The camera case is
very good, however. If you get a good example of this camera then
count yourself lucky. The optics, if they function, should be fine.

Now, if you want a *really* cheap camera, and a reliable one to boot,
then then there is always the Zeiss Ikon folding cameras with the
Novar lens. You will have to make sure you are getting the format you
want such as 6x6 because there are a lot of Zeiss Ikon cameras out
there. These cameras are seriously cheap and yet give good results
(when stopped down).

Stacey wrote:
...
That format was designed for contact printing, hence the larger negative.

That may be true for box brownies, but the high-end 6x9 folders are a
different story. You don't put a Tessar on a camera if you only need
contact prints.

-- Lassi

RolandRB wrote:
...
The Moskva-5 is a poorly-made Russian copy of the German Zeiss
Super-Ikonta C camera. Supposedly made with the same machinery got
from Germany as compensation after WWII, I can only conclude that they
dropped this machinery several times on the flight back to Russia.

That is an unfair thing to say. The original Moskva had some original
German parts, but AFAIK the machines weren't moved from Germany (Contax
was, but Ikonta wasn't). The Moskva 2 is an all-Soviet camera. After
that they started developing it to their own needs, and the Moskva 5 has
many non-Zeiss improvements.

But in quality control the Soviets can't match Zeiss. If the camera is
in mint condition, it is probably dead, and has been dead since it left
the factory (which explains the mint condition). Only cameras with wear
marks work, or at lesat have worked at some point in time. My Moskva 2
works fine, and the lens is good.

OTOH, the only Zeiss folder I've ever had went back to the seller,
because it had a light leak in its body.

-- Lassi

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
lens. Also many have problems covering 6X9, even at small f stops. Second
is getting prints made from 6X9 negatives, almost no one does them and
they

It depends on the minilab used.
Here in Athens, some minilabs do prints from 6x9, either from slides or from
print films.
I have a Fuji GSW690 III and I *love* it (still hunting for a GW690 III...)

a good 6X9 camera and don't use it that much because of that problem and
what do you do with a 6X9 chrome, there are no projectors for them etc.

Well, there's not a real need for a projection from a 6x9 slide, is there?
:-)
An idea I'm toying with is a hand-made projector (like someone that was
given by Mamiya when they were pushing their 7 RF), but the biggest problem
is: how do you keep flat such a slide? (answer: you practically cannot)

That format was designed for contact printing, hence the larger negative.
You get 8 exposures a roll as well.

If you use 220 film, double that amount.
And the camera bag isn't that easily filled with 3-4 220 rolls (I tend to
shoot much more 35mm rolls).

One small problem with the Fuji is the lack of speeds higher than 1/500 - I
shoot trains, and sometimes when I shoot broadsides of 100+ km/h trains,
it's not enough to freeze the action.
I know, I'm a bit unorthodox for a MF shooter, as I shoot mostly moving
stuff... (OK, I shoot buildings and landscapes too).
Wish that Fuji would introduce a Fujica 690 II, all mechanical (desirable
auto-exposure, but not needed),
with interchangeable lenses (even that is debatable) up to 200mm at least
and max. speed 1/1000,
with leaf shutters (hey, I can dream, can't I? :-)) )
The GX680 is too heavy and unwieldy for field photography, from what I've
heard/seen.

OK, I know I drifted off topic - all this discussion is a bit irrelevant for
a photography student - forgive me! :-)

Back to your sceduled discussion,
N.F.