Soviet Moskva 5 Folder Camera
Photo thanks to Yuri Boguslavsky

Related Links:
Moskva 4 Folder MF Camera
Folder FAQ
Rangefinders (mostly 35mm..)
Rangefinder Intro
Kiev 88
Iskra
Salyut

Moskva 5 Photos
Russian Camera Prod'n Data (200k Moskva 5 made..)

The Russian camera mailing list and its archives have more information and postings on these cameras, as well as sources and vendor performance data for direct buyers. These cameras are very popular with those of us who wish we could afford or justify the cost of the rather more collectible original Zeiss Ikonta and Super Ikonta cameras. But take heart, since you can often buy a very decent Moskva folder clone for circa $100 and up. Enjoy!

Photo notes:

Photo of this Soviet copy of the Zeiss Ikontas is provided courtesy of Yuri Boguslavsky, along with other photos of the listed Soviet camera links above. Thanks, Yuri!!

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
[1] Re: People using old folders?
Date: Tue Apr 14 11:38:15 CDT 1998

I use and love an old Moscow 5 self-erecting 6x9 folding rangefinder. I know there's a web page in Japan dedicated to classic folding cameras, but I can't remember the URL at the moment -- it has full specs on my Moscow 5, which is basically an improved copy of the Super Ikonta C. You can see mine at http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/photo/moscow5.jpg

http://members.xoom.com/josh_putnam/photo/moscow5.html [01/00 update]

I do most of my landscape photography while cycling, and the Moscow 5 is the most compact folding 6x9 rangefinder I've found, small enough to fit in a jersey pocket in good weather, and to fit in my handlebar bag with a compact tripod in bad weather. I haven't gotten around to finding a good slip-on filter holder for it yet, so I just hold unmounted filters to the front of the lens with a small section of old bicycle innertube. In the photo it's wearing a no.25 red for use with Konica 750 infrared.

--

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: 22 May 1998

I haven't gotten around to taking a picture of it yet for my web page, but I recently modified a Cokin Universal mount to work on my Moscow 5 6x9 folder. The Cokin Universal uses three thumb screws with plastic tips to clamp onto the outside of just about any lens barrel, whether it's threaded, smooth, knurled, etc. My modifications were mostly done with a hot knife, removing plastic on the adaptor that got in the way of the folding and rangefinder mechanisms on my camera -- the designers of the adaptor must have expected more clearance around the lens than you get on a folder.

I was torn between using the Cokin adaptor and getting a proper slip-on to threaded filter adaptor, but decided in favor of the Cokin since it works with all the Cokin P filters I already own for my other cameras.

--

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013

http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss 6x9 Folders
Date: 25 Sep 1998

>Does anyone know of some websites that I can get info about these cameras?
>Esp. info about the various different models that were produced, and the
>differences in lenses, etc. I know of one site, but it only lists all the
>names of  models that were made, with serial numbers...... I'd like
>something a little more subjective+ACE- if anyone knows some addresses....
>I'm looking to buy a user model, for landscapes/while hiking........

I use a Moscow 5, an excellent knockoff of the Super Ikonta C that has a lot less cachet with collectors, even though it has very good coated optics. You can see it on my web page at http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/photo/moscow5.html, and from there there's a link to a Japanese collector's site with info on both the Moscow series of knockoffs and the original Ikonta series, as well as a number of other interesting cameras.

Whether you get the original or a Moscow, they are excellent for hiking and biking -- that's why I originally got my Moscow, the only 6x9 I could afford that would fit in the back pocket of a cycling jersey.

--

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: "Christopher M. Perez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss 6x9 Folders
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998

Topher wrote:

> Does anyone know of some websites that I can get info about these cameras?

Try:

[Ed. note: page at http://www.netins.net/showcase/crye/z-i120.htm now not found 2/2003]
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/index_e.htm
- Chris

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Super Ikonta: time to pick a fight
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998

Ok. My new Moscow-5 arrived today. I have identified the following as its advantages over the Super Ikonta C that once graced my closet:

1. Better dual-format mask
2. Better back (lifts off)
3. Better loading - spool pins turn and lock for easy spool insertion
4. Better red windows: only the relevant one opens
5. Better viewfinder
6. Better top cover design (i.e. smooth chrome w/o projections)
7. Better shutter and lens - not gummed up like a compur. And how many
   Super Ikonta Cs with synch and coated lens are under $ 200?
8. Better looking box.
9. More solid cast body (instead of brass).

Just some more evidence that postwar Zeiss Ikon had its head buried in th sand. This was the company, after all, that could have revlutionized MF photography had it only updated the Super Ikonta B.

------------
Dante Stella

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Super Ikonta: time to pick a fight
Date: 31 Dec 1998

Can't think of anything to add to that list, but I definitely have to agree with it. No. 6 is especially important to me -- I carry my Moscow 5 in my back pocket while cycling, and it slides in and out of the pocket without snagging on anything the way cameras with protruding finder frames etc. will do. Can't think of any other 6x9 I'd be able to carry as easily in my pocket.

--

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013 "My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: "Edward M. Lukacs" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Super Ikonta: time to pick a fight
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998

> How does the picture quality compare with the Super Ikonta C ?
>
> Chuck

I have a crummy Mocba-5, and I consider its "backwards-N-24" lens to be every bit as sharp as, and contrastier than the 75mm f:3.5 T Opton Tessar on my Ikoflex IIa. It is considerably better than the excellent (though admittedly 3-element) coated 105mm f:4.5 Schneider Radionar on another german folder that I have.

Belieeve me, I love my Ikoflex and it may be on my chest when they lower the lid on my coffin, but the Mocba-5's lens is sharper and contrastier, much to MY surprise when I developed the first roll of TMX! Don't let "German Lens Religion" get in the way of your thinking processes. The old USSR made many fine lenses, as did the former E. Germany. In some cases, much better than the folks in Oberkochen, or even in Wetzlar!

Mosy of the lenses that I use are by manufacturers the average Zeiss/Leica fanatic never heard of. And yes, the results are indeed just as good.

Regards,
Ed

[Ed. note: presumably long sold off, but useful for info on camera...]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: FS: Moskva-5 6x9 camera (Super Ikonta) $175 + post
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999

...

For a picture, see http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/mosc_e.htm.

KMZ (Soviet) Super Ikonta C - 6x9 and 6x6 switchable
- Lens 105/3.5 L (T) coated Tessar formula (3.5-32)
- Shutter Moment 24S (B, 1-1/250), standard X-synch
- Coupled RF (folds into camera); 1.5x magnification
- Smooth metal top with built-in finder (switches 6x6, 6x9)
- Removable (for easier loading) back (dual windows with interlock)
- Lock-out film spool pins (better than Ikonta)
- *Original* 6x6 machined metal mask - no matter what they say, if you
  saw how these were constructed, you'd understand why they are *not*
  easy to make yourself.

Accessories
- Leather everready case with strap
- Soviet Constructivist-Deco box (with warning in Russian about
  registering cameras inside lid).
- Two Gitzo tripod bushings (for use with American tripods)
- Clamp on (HCE) aluminum series 6 filter ring and hood
- 40mm Tiffen filter ring (push-on)

Conditions
Lens 10 (clean clear no scratch)
Body 9+ (a couple of tiny chips in enamel, but lovely)
RF 10
Shutter 9+ (self timer sticks occasionally - but speeds all dead on).
Case 9+
Box 8

A very pretty camera, a much better deal than any Super Ikonta C, and a nice souvenir of the Cold War. I just never get to shoot it, and it's a shame. I think if you asked Kiev USA what they want for one, or price any Super Ikonta C with synch and coated lenses, this would be your stop. It makes nice pictures on 120 film.

Shipping weight is about 3 lbs (very heavy die-cast).

Regards
------------
Dante Stella

Date: 16 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: want to buy inexpensive medium format

Hi

For really inexpensive 6x9 Photography check out the Russian copy of the Super Ikonta 6x9 C model. It's called the Mockba 5 which I think stands for Moscow 5.

I have checked these cameras with Fuji CN 100 and center resolution is good ( about 75l/mm with edge resolution fair (about 50l/mm). For $75 on Ebay these are the best buys in town.

A Fuji professional would do about 100 l/mm center with edge reso in the mid 80's. The Fuji cameras are going for about $800 on E bay.

I would say $75 gets you into a 6x9 camera and anything under a 7x enlargment (16x24), the difference would be not be very noticable.

PS: a real Super Ikonta setup the same way, in the same condition, would sell for more then $1000.

Larry

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: "kab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva 5

If you do go for a Moskva 5, be sure that the focus is smooth. The focussing wheel can wear a hole in your finger if the focus is stiff. The several Moska cameras that I have worked on all had stiff focus, due to either the poor quality of machining in the range finder assembly or due to the focussing grease getting hard. Also, most of them are quite sharp if the lens has been dialed in with a collimator. It is amazing how many are way off and the owner thinks the camera is to blame. A simple adjustment and the camera becomes a good performer. A crude way to dial in infinity is to focus the range finder on a street light some distance away, then loosen the front element focus collar and with a ground glass in the film plane focus the lens on the distant street light, tighten the focus collar and you are in business.

"Russell Wheeldon" [email protected] wrote

> I fancy doing some 6x9. Moskva 5 seem to be an exceptional bargain in this
> area. Does anyone have any pointers on buying one ?
>
> Thanks

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Dick Weld [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva 5

I had one and, despite the comments of other posters, I found the quality of the Industar lens to be excellent... sharp and contrasty. I suspect, though, that the rangefinder might be off in some of these examples. When I focused mine with the distance scale, I had exceptional results. Also, the 5 is the best of the various Moskva models... it's sort of a cross between the Super Ikonta and Voigtlander.

Dick Weld

From: "C.L.Zeni" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Moskva 5

[email protected] wrote:

>   [email protected] (Hemi4268) wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Lots of these are on Ebay for about $85.  Quality is a pig in a poke
> as far as
> > pictures and looks.  Some of the cameras tend to look beat-up.
> >
> > I purchased a never used one last year for $125 box manual case and
> all.
> > Picture quality is good in the center but falls of on the edges.  Just
> > purchased another one on Ebay for $95 that also looks new.  I haven't
> run film
> > through it but I would expect about the same.
> >
> > I will tell you one thing, they sure look great amoung my 6x9 folder
> collection
> > image quality or no image quality.
> >
> > Larry
> >
>  Larry, did you try it stopped down? Or, are you one of those that
> really believes that a lens performs well at all apertures? I ask,
> because I am interested.

I ran a roll of Agfa APX 25 thru my Moskva 5, stopped down at f/11 and f/16...nice and sharp, even in the tree branches at the extreme edges of the 6x9 negatives. I like mine.

--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
From: [email protected] (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva 5

Most tessar lenses don't start to get good until you stop down to f11, and most are best at f16.

bob

[email protected] (Hemi4268) wrote:

>Hi
>
>I usually do my tests at f8.  Some 6x9 cameras will give even resolution all
>over the negative.  The Moskva 5 I tested had some image falloff with a 10 x
>lope.  Not really bad just some noticable falloff. Maybe at f16 it might
>improve, I haven't tested that.
>
>Larry

From: Martin Jangowski [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Copies of Super Ikonta C
Date: 12 Aug 2001 

John Blodgett [email protected]> wrote:
> Has anyone heard anything good or bad about the Moskva 5 copies of the Zeiss
> Super Ikonta C? I'm looking into either one, actually; of course the Zeiss
> is preferable, but then I've a penchant for Holgas and Wocas so why not
> Ruskies. ;-)

I owned a Moskva-2 and a Moskva-5. While both were well made and not sloppy,
both made pictures that weren't really sharp, even when using a massive 
tripod and bracketing for the optimum distance. The Moskva-2 was a little
better, but not what I expect from a tessar type lens on a medium format 
camera. I sold the both and now use a Mamiya 6 with plenty of sharpness ;-)

I haven't used a Super Iconta yet, so I can't comment on the sharpness of 
these.

Martin


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Copies of Super Ikonta C
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 

John Blodgett [email protected]> wrote:

> Has anyone heard anything good or bad about the Moskva 5 copies of the Zeiss
> Super Ikonta C? 

A real Russian camera, as it appears. Others swear by it.

I've had one for a week, earlier this year. Rarely have I been so
unimpressed. Mediocre sharpness, obvious film flatness problems. The
only thing which was really impressive was the lens flare.

Sold it on to someone who can be trusted not to take pictures with it.
;)

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 4 Aug. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Copies of Super Ikonta C

I've heard the Iskra folder is a lot better, having apparently been aimed
specifically at the "professional" market, whatever that was in the Soviet
Union. They're frequently available on ebay, and seem to sell at about the same
price as the Moskva. Keep in mind, though, that if it's Russian, you may very
well be buying the proverbial pig in a poke. I own Zorki-4 35 mm rangefinders (
3 of them, they're Russian, you know ), that I bought for under $40 each, with
lens. They take great pictures and, when they're done for, I'll save them for
parts and buy 3 more. Can't lose much at the prices paid. If you get an Iskra or
Moskva, maybe it wouldn't hurt to get two, just in case :>)

John Blodgett wrote:

> Has anyone heard anything good or bad about the Moskva 5 copies of the Zeiss
> Super Ikonta C? I'm looking into either one, actually; of course the Zeiss
> is preferable, but then I've a penchant for Holgas and Wocas so why not
> Ruskies. ;-)
>
> I see a couple on eBay right now at good prices; curiously, though, one
> shows the lens-mount part of the RF upside down, as if mismounted.


From rangefinder list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Moskva 5 Pros and Cons.


The Photoapparat Mockba-5 has some features in common with the Super Ikonta
C but is sufficiently evolved to be its own beast.  These are the principal
differences:

The Moskva has a one-piece removable back with a slot instead of a hinge.
Neither a plus nor a minus.

The body and back are made of a heavy aluminum casting instead of brass.
Probably a plus.

Instead of the cluttered Super Ikonta C top, it has a one-piece casting.
Definitely a plus, because it can't flip open and catch on things.
Where the Super Ikonta C has two RF windows with magnification (short base),
the Moskva-5 has a long base and no magnification.  Neither a plus nor
minus.  Probably easier on your eyes.

The finder on the Super Ikonta C was a flip up Albada type with framelines
for 6x9 and 6x4.5.  Most such finders have deteriorated to the point of
being worthless, because the framelines separate and the reflective coating
goes bad.  The Moskva has a simple galilean finder that has a mask that
moves to show the 6x6 and 6x9 frames.

Coated lens and synched shutter (PC connection).  Definite plus, as getting
these features on a Super C makes it really $$$

Moment shutter - Ok Compur ripoff.  Low top speed is a minus, but low
maintenance is plus.

Industar-24L lens - excellent for its price range.  Optimal around f/8.  A
lot more contrast that the uncoated Tessars on the cheaper Super Ikontas.

Tough bellows - plus

Tough leatherette (pigskin?) - plus

3/8" tripod socket - easily corrected

Shutter linkage - ok, could be better

In all, it's a nice unit for the price (if it is clean, from 100-200,
depending on whether or not you have the box, 6x6 mask, etc), and nice
condition means more expensive.  Don't let anyone tell you that you can make
a 6x6 mask yourself.  If you see the real one, you will know why.  The 6x6
mask adds value because it gives you that 105mm lens on a 6x6 frame, meaning
a telephoto.

The only real caveat is that with anything this old (and this was sold as a
professional  unit) is to make sure that the erector struts have not been
damaged.  I was lucky with mine, but I have seen enough rickety Super 
Ikonta Cs to be able to see the problems that abusive owners can cause.

Having said that, maybe it's time to do that page.

Dante
....


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Link to many pics with "Russian" cameras

Bob:

won't vouch for the quality of these photos, but this
is a list of URL's I've accumulated for Mockba
pictures. Most are pedestrian, a few are quite good.

Photos taken with a Moskva (Mockba)

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hd9f-segs/lensInduster24-moskva-1.htm

http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/moskva/moskva_index.htm

http://members.aol.com/forgeniuses/MOCKBA/Mockba.html


http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/mosc_e.htm

http://www.yamabuki.sakura.ne.jp/~fcg/top_l.html


-Paul


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] MOSKVA MOSKVA MOSKVA

Darcie:

My first Russian camera was a Moscva 5. I "discovered"
it when I was in the market for a 6X9 folding camera.
I was bidding on Agfa's at the time because Ikonta's
and Bessa's were out of my price range. For the
features you get, a coupled rangefinder, 4 element
lens, 6X6 format adapter, it is a far better value
than an Agfa Record III.

I like the 5 because I was certain that the Industar
lens was a Tessar formula (I wasn't sure about the
lens on the 2) and I read somewhere that the open
viewfinders on a lot of 2's suffered from yellowing of
the lenses and physical damage like cracks or chips.
The 5 also has a format mask in the viewfinder that
switches between 6X9 and 6X6. However, it turned out
that I seldom the use the 6X6 feature since I later
bought an Iskra. Another reason I chose the 5 was that
they are relatively newer cameras and I figured that
they might live a little longer than the older 2's.

I've been very pleased with it. The enlargements are
superb, which is really the reason to buy one. The
only other plus it has over other kinds of cameras is
it's portability.

The worst thing about it is the fact that it's a
predominantly left-handed camera and is more awkward
to hold and manipulate than that other left-handed
camera, the Exakta. If you look closely at pictures of
it and try to imagine holding it, focusing and
releasing the shutter, you may get some sense of how
it has to be shifted from one hand to the other in
order to wind the film, cock the shutter, focus the
lens, and release the shutter. However, I suspect it's
no worse than a Super Ikonta. It must not be a very
serious problem, because   I never heard of anyone
else ever airing this gripe.

I highly recommend it.

Following are some URL's for sites where Moscva photos
are posted.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hd9f-segs/lensInduster24-moskva-1.htm

http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography

http://members.aol.com/forgeniuses/MOCKBA/Mockba.html

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/mosc_e.htm

http://www.yamabuki.sakura.ne.jp/~fcg/top_l.html

-Paul


From russian camera mailing list:
From: "Jim Blazik" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Isn't Moscow 5 one of the best 6cmx9cm folders?
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 

I can't compare the Moskva 5 (which I do own and use) to the equivalent
Ikontas (which I've never owned or used), but results with my '5 have been
extremely favorable.  Ultimately, what it comes down to is the format size
and the quality of the lens, and compared to prints I made years ago using
the same 6x9 format on 30's folders 'improved' with more recent (not exactly
new or state of the art) Schneider and Kodak and other optics, the Moskva
compares very VERY favorably.  I've printed a few Moskva negs (in my 4x5
Omega englarger), but nothing larger than 11x14, and they are exquisite.  If
one uses good camera technique --i.e., uses a tripod and a cable release--
these Russki folders can produce some amazing results.  I've only put a
couple rolls through my 5, so more testing would be good, but I am pleased
enough at present with the thing that one day soon I'll run a roll of
TechPan through it and see what its really capable of.  Wouldn't say 'no one
is really interested in those Russian folders...'  I am.  They just don't
seem to draw as much interest as the more "modern" medium format Kievs and
such.  Frankly, I'd love to also find an Iskra to play with, too.  The M-5
is definitely good enough, and maybe the Iskra would be too--in terms of
image quality AND compactness-- that I'd consider taking one into the field
(which in my case translates out into major boondocks areas where the weight
of a backpack is a genuinely important concern) with me to do serious
scientific stuff with.

Jim


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Isn't Moscow 5 one of the best 6cmx9cm folders?
From: zhang xiaokang [email protected]

Hi Jim,

After seeing those large prints I think if better film is used, those Russki
folders may be capable of producing Ansel Adams style prints if the light
condition is ideal. While other Russian copies lag behind their originals,
Moscow folders and perhaps Iskra folders might be the equal or better
perfomers of their western counterparts. If we are after the image quality,
those folders can fully meet our demand and they are very ideal for
landscape photos where we have to carry equipment to high mountains or forest.

These are the most successful Russian copies indeed.



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Isn't Moscow 5 one of the best 6cmx9cm folders?
From: Bob Shell [email protected]

zhang xiaokang at [email protected] wrote:
> It seems no one is really interested in those Russian folders and I have
> seen few discussions abouth them. However, I have seen large size prints
> -20"x30" made from negatives taken with a Moscow 5 side by side with same
> size prints taken with name brand 35mm Japanese lens and the image quality
> of the Moscow 5 was clearly superior to that of Japanese 35mm one.

Before the bottom dropped out of Russian camera prices on eBay I was
regularly selling Moskva 5 cameras.  A friend of mine in Russia bought them
for me and shipped them over, and I checked them out, cleaned them if
needed, and sold for $ 100 - 150.  Now with eBay keeping prices so low I can
no longer afford to import them because prices for them within Russia have
gone up at the same time.

The problem with Moskva 5 is that lens quality is variable, as is front
standard alignment/rigidity.  If you get a well aligned one with a good lens
you can great photos.  If you get one that is not well aligned or has a poor
lens, then results are mediocre.  If you are unlucky enough to get both poor
alignment and poor lens, you have a good soft focus camera!

This variation is why some sources say they are terrible cameras and others
say they are very good.

Bob



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Isn't Moscow 5 one of the best 6cmx9cm folders?
From: Bob Shell [email protected]

Parlin 44 at [email protected] wrote:
> I'm waiting for the delivery of CLA'd Moskva-4, some swear by it that M-4 is
> better built and more consistant and I believe that, just like early Kiev's
> and early Zorki's are "better" than the later ones.

Actually, in my opinion, the Moskva 4 is not as well made as the Moskva 5.

Bob



Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Moskva-5

I just acquired a Moskva-5 from Anya at a very good price. She included some
spare parts for a Fed-2 I'm rebuilding. I always look forward to receiving
packages from her.

This one is my 2nd working Moskva-5. I decided to pick another one because
it will allow me to shoot 16 6X9 pictures without reloading rather than just
8. They are surprisingly compact when folded. The cost is typically 1/2 the
cost of a similar 6X9 120 film camera (good 6X9 620 Kodaks are still
cheaper). I just saw this Agfa on e-Bay, which is clearly not superior to a
Moskva. The Agfa does not have a coupled rangefinder, but it will likely
sell for considerably more than the highest priced Moskva-5. The real "copy"
of the Moskva is the Zeiss Ikonta C, which sells for collector prices.

AGFA RECORD 111 RANGEFINDER SYNCHRO COMPUR  Item # 1394174206

http://cgi.aol.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1394174206

I finally found a place to display my Moskva vacation photos. They are at:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=243879

-Paul


Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: scoop [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Moskva-5

I have one of these too but must admit that I'm not as pleased with it as I
hoped I might be. The negatives simply aren't very sharp.

The Moskvas are reputed to have film flatness problems, one possible cause
of the sharpness problem. The 6x9 cm image area is a pretty large section of
roll film to be holding down by its edges. I also have my suspicions about
what happens to lens registration after the lens standard.folding mechanisn
begins to wear a bit.



Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Moskva-5

OK:

Perhaps it's not such a great place to display photos after all. It
certainly has its share of availability problems. Try this URL instead.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=245729

As to film flatness problems. I have noticed that the pressure plate springs
can lose some their "spring". Readjusting these can help increase the film
plane pressure and compensate for that film curl. Both of my Moskvas have
had very heavy use in their previous lives, and the locking arms are still
very rigid. My theory is that heavily worn Russian cameras indicate that
they were very good, while cosmetically attractive ones may have been "shelf
queens" because their construction was poorly executed.

If you need or want edge-edge sharpness, I don't recommend any of the
folding roll-film cameras. The more you pay, the greater will be your
disappointment. That's simply a job for another kind of camera.

It's also possible that some Moskva's have back-focus problems just like
their 35mm cousins. The lens-shutter assembly is held on by a retaining
ring. It may be possible to make adjustments there.

Then of course there are those cameras or lenses that never should have left
the factory at all. I think that's just part of using Russian cameras.

-Paul



Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Peter Wallage [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Moskva-5

Hi Scoop,

I haven't got a Moskva, but I've got two Super Ikonta C (530/2). On one of
them I was getting out of focus pictures using the rangefinder, and found
that the rangefinder didn't agree with the markings on the lens. If The
Moskva's the same as the SI 530/2, it's only a friction drive and it can
slip. It doesn't have to slip much because the depth of field is small
compared with a 35mm camera.

Fortunately, correction is easy, and you don't have to dismantle anything,
just loosen one screw. The procedure is well given in Dante Stella's website.

Go to

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/superfix.html

and look under horizontal adjustment of Super Ikonta rangefinder.

Good luck!

Peter


[Ed. note: thanks to Carl for sharing this note on his triple format conversion for Moskva!]
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
From: carl [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: user group

Robert....I have read, again and again, comments left for all kinds of medium format
cameras....and have never, ever.....paid my dues by contributing anything. This is an
attempt to contribute something!!   I don't know how to post .....perhaps you can post it
on the Moskva 5 posting board.  And....thanks for all of your efforts in your web
site....it has made an amateur like me become intensely interested in medium format
photography and I have learned so much because of yours and other's efforts.



"In case anyone is interested, I have just altered my Moskva 5 so that it will also shoot
4.5x6 exposures. I now have the capability to take the usual 6x9, 6x6 sizes...plus one
additional size.  With the 105 mm. focal length combined with the smaller negative size,
it not only gets you 16 photos per roll , but, you can take advantage of the magnified
images in comparison with other 4.5x6 negative size taken with a 75mm focal length.   If
anyone would like me to guide them on what this entails, please send me an email.  I am
not interested in doing this as a service for other Moskva 5 owners, but I will share
with you pictures, etc. of what the process involves.   It is something I have been
thinking about doing for several years and finally took the time to do it!!  I couldn't
be more pleased with the new versatility of my "triple format"  Moskva 5.



From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My guide to buying old MF cameras on ebay
Date: 3 Nov 2002


Stacey [email protected] wrote 
>The moska V's you tried are well known to have
> masive QC problems and it's no surprise you got bad samples of these.
> The trick to buying good samples of these are find -well worn-
> examples from russia as these are the ones that have good optics,

Different from Roland's statement on his buyer's guide site, the
Moskva's were NOT made on original Zeiss equipment. Production of the
first Moskva models (I don't know whether there was a Moskva1 but the
Moskva2 is well-known) started before WWII. The original Ikontas were
never made in the Dresden plant of Zeiss-Ikon, the only one which was
on russian-occupied territory. Even the production of the east-german
Ikonta 'copy', the Ercona, had to start from scratch. Maybe Roland got
a bit confused with the Kiev/Contax story - actually the first Kiev
cameras were assembled on Zeiss equipment and (partially) from Zeiss
components.


Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TLR List] Who says you need four elements!

Slobodan,
I have a Moskva 4 (early version of that model). The lens is nothing
short of wonderful. It is better then the optic on my Super Ikonta B
with a 2.8/80mm Tessar. It is slow to operate, but the rangefinder is
very good, the camera is light weight and optics are in the same class
as Rollei.

I hope you got a good performing example.
Regards,
Dale
...


From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Moskva Industar lens - four elements or three?
Date: 12 Dec 2002

In the few websites mentioning the design of the Industar lenses of
the Moskva 6x9 folders most of them mention that these lenses are
4-element designs similar to the Tessar.

However, on a couple of Moskva lenses I could not find any cemented
rear element as it is typical for the Tessar. There is an Industar
version on the 35mm Sokol-Automat having a cemented front lens element
(similar to the old Antiplanet design) but the Moskva has a single
front lens element.

I am recently comparing some 6x9 folders and I have found that my
(readjusted and refurbished) Moskva5 has one of the best lenses. The
Trioplan of an old Welta folder comes close, but this one has f/4.5
only. I made some shots with the Industar at f/4 or f/3.5 and they
turned out surprisingly good. If it is a three element design only
it's a very good design.

Does anybody have RELIABLE information on the design of the Industar
lenses used on the Moskvas? PLEASE do not search the web, I have done  
this already. Just take a look at the rear element and tell me whether
you see two reflections (from both surfaces of a single lens) or three
reflections (of which one is quite weak, as found on a cemented pair
which is typical for the Tessar designs).

Winfried


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva Industar lens - four elements or three?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002

[email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz) wrote:

> Does anybody have RELIABLE information on the design of the Industar
> lenses used on the Moskvas? PLEASE do not search the web, I have done

Isaak Maizenberg in his book "All You Need to Know About the Design and
Repair of Russian Cameras" talks about the Industar-23 as fitted to the
Moscow-2. He states hat it is a 4 element design with the rear two
elements cemented together.

He also states that the Industar-24 lens on the Moscow-5 - is the same
basic design - though its faster and shorter.

:-)

Roland.
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/
(for lots of old camera stuff)
                                 


From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva Industar lens - four elements or three?
Date: 13 Dec 2002 

Lassi Hippel�inen [email protected]

> Three reflections, one very weak and reddish. A Moskva-2 from 1953, i.e.
> 11cm/4.5 Industar-23.

I checked with the rear element of the CZJ Tessar on my CertoSix and
found that it gives three reflections. The third one is very weak and
very small.

I checked again with an Industar rear element and found similar. The
third reflection from the cemented surface is much smaller than the
other two ones. If you look on the rear element from the inner flat
surface, it is almost impossible to see the third reflection since the
first reflection is life size (the inner surface of the cemented
element is flat) and covers the much smaller reflection from the
cemented surface.

Thanks for all contributions 
Winfried 


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mockba 5 follow-up
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002

 "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:

>Stacey wrote:
>
>> Guess opton zeiss has this same poor way of designing/manufacturing
>> lenses as well?  The ikontas with the latest coated opton zeiss
>> tessars are pretty soft opened up more than f8 too...
>>
>> It couldn't be that all tessar type lenses are like this but it must
>> be because it wasn't made is west germany? LOL! 
>
>I'm sure that not all Tessar lenses are like this.

Are you? I've used tessars from models made in the early 1900's to mid
70's versions and all were fairly soft until f8, especially covering a
wide format like 6X9 with a 105mm lens. If you are using a longer lens
(like a 150mm on 6X6) it's better wide open since you are using only
the center sweet spot but still isn't good until it's stopped down
quite a bit, that's the reason they came up with the planar. Same
reason a 75mm tessar on 6X4.5 is better than the same lens on 6X6. 6X9
takes a great normal lens to cover the format with any sort of quality
wide open. 

>But why do you bring in the west vs east thing? Again?

Well you were the one that said it was like this because of poor
design/manufacture and I can only assume you decided this because it
was made is russia?

I was just pointing out if this softness above f8 is because of poor
design/manufacture, zeiss opton is guilty of the same low quality
since their tessar's performace mirrors what the poster said his was
doing as does voigtlanders color skopar.

Stacey 



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mockba 5 follow-up
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002

Stacey wrote:

> Are you? I've used tessars from models made in the early 1900's to mid
> 70's versions and all were fairly soft until f8, especially covering a
> wide format like 6X9 with a 105mm lens. If you are using a longer lens
> (like a 150mm on 6X6) it's better wide open since you are using only
> the center sweet spot but still isn't good until it's stopped down
> quite a bit, that's the reason they came up with the planar. Same
> reason a 75mm tessar on 6X4.5 is better than the same lens on 6X6. 6X9
> takes a great normal lens to cover the format with any sort of quality
> wide open.

You might want to think again about that.
Or do you mean using a lens designed to cover a larger format? A (say) 75 mm
Tessar designed to be used on 6x9 format does indeed use all of the image
circle. But so does a 75 mm Tessar lens designed to be used on 6x4.5 format.
No "sweet spot"-only. And thus no "improved performance" wide open.

> >But why do you bring in the west vs east thing? Again? 
>
> Well you were the one that said it was like this because of poor
> design/manufacture and I can only assume you decided this because it
> was made is russia?

Yes, you (!) assume... i.e. you bring your very own associations into play.
Don't attribute your deviant thoughts to others. Again. ;-)

> I was just pointing out if this softness above f8 is because of poor
> design/manufacture, zeiss opton is guilty of the same low quality
> since their tessar's performace mirrors what the poster said his was
> doing as does voigtlanders color skopar.

I'm sure Zeiss Oberkochen too has built some bad, cheap Tessar-type lenses
(i do not dare mention the 160 mm CB Tessar they built for Hasselblad for a
short while, since many are convinced that it is the perfect example of a
good Tessar. The example i'm failing to provide (though i have a very fine 
f/2.8 80 mm Zeiss-Opton Tessar) ;-) ). That too would indeed be because of
the "(poor) way in which the designer and manufacturer of this lens have
translated the Tessar design idea into an actual lens".
       


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mockba 5 follow-up
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002

 "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:

>Stacey wrote:
>
>> Are you? I've used tessars from models made in the early 1900's to mid
>> 70's versions and all were fairly soft until f8, especially covering a
>> wide format like 6X9 with a 105mm lens. If you are using a longer lens
>> (like a 150mm on 6X6) it's better wide open since you are using only
>> the center sweet spot but still isn't good until it's stopped down
>> quite a bit, that's the reason they came up with the planar. Same
>> reason a 75mm tessar on 6X4.5 is better than the same lens on 6X6. 6X9
>> takes a great normal lens to cover the format with any sort of quality
>> wide open.
>
>You might want to think again about that.

Why?                                   

>Or do you mean using a lens designed to cover a larger format? A (say) 75 mm
>Tessar designed to be used on 6x9 format does indeed use all of the image
>circle. But so does a 75 mm Tessar lens designed to be used on 6x4.5 format.
>No "sweet spot"-only. And thus no "improved performance" wide open.

A tessar has the same angle of view (+- a degree or two)  regardless
of the focal length. A 75mm tessar style lens can not cover 6x9 using
the tessar formula and a 150mm tessar is going to cover much more than
6X9 unless it's mechanically limited. Ever notice no one every made a
wide angle tessar? It's because it isn't a wide angle lens formula.

So given this =fact= a 150mm tessar used on 6x6 will be pretty good
wide open while a 75mm tessar will have soft edges/corners wide open
given it barely covers the format.

How do I know this?  I have a 1920's zeiss jena 150mm tessar that
performs quite well wide open in a mount I hacked onto my K-60
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/tessar_150mm.html  Another tessar
lens in a 75mm version on a 6X6 folder that is coated and 50 years
newer made by "west zeiss" needs to be stopped down to f11 to perform
well across the whole negative. The xenar on my rollei and several
other tessar style camera's I own perform the same way. I also own a
105mm zeiss tessar 6X9 and it too needs to be stopped down to at least
f8 if not f11 to be good across the negative. Only when the lens is
much longer than the "normal" lens for that format will a tessar work
well wide open. I can't imagine that all of these zeiss lenses are bad
samples?

>
>> >But why do you bring in the west vs east thing? Again?
>>
>> Well you were the one that said it was like this because of poor 
>> design/manufacture and I can only assume you decided this because it
>> was made is russia?
>
>Yes, you (!) assume... i.e. you bring your very own associations into play.
>Don't attribute your deviant thoughts to others. Again. ;-)

Then why the "poor quality" slam when you have no idea if this has
anything to do with what they posted? Given your past coments about
russian cameras/optics I think I was spot on why you posted what you
did. Pople have posted many time that their zeiss cameras are like
this yet you never spoke up then saying it was poor quality that
caused this. Why now if not where it was made?

>
>> I was just pointing out if this softness above f8 is because of poor
>> design/manufacture, zeiss opton is guilty of the same low quality
>> since their tessar's performace mirrors what the poster said his was 
>> doing as does voigtlanders color skopar.
>
>I'm sure Zeiss Oberkochen too has built some bad, cheap Tessar-type lenses

The one I'm refering to was the BEST lens/folder zeiss made at that
time and is still considered the best of those cameras (The 75mm f3.5
coated opton tessar). It was not a "cheap tessar style lens, but just
how a tessar that barely covers a format normally performs.

>(i do not dare mention the 160 mm CB Tessar they built for Hasselblad for a
>short while, since many are convinced that it is the perfect example of a
>good Tessar.


Just like the 150mm tessar I have, the newer 160 would cover close to
4X5 so it is using the sweet spot in the center of the coverage. I
don't doubt it performs well wide open, just as my 1920's sample does. 
I would hope they could make a lens in the 80's that would at least
work as well as one from the 20's?

Stacey     


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mockba 5 follow-up
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002

Stacey wrote:

> >You might want to think again about that.
>
> Why?

Come on! Put some effort into it! Or at least make look like you do. Think
about it!

> A tessar has the same angle of view (+- a degree or two)  regardless
> of the focal length. A 75mm tessar style lens can not cover 6x9 using
> the tessar formula and a 150mm tessar is going to cover much more than
> 6X9 unless it's mechanically limited. Ever notice no one every made a
> wide angle tessar? It's because it isn't a wide angle lens formula.

That's right. And, say, a Biogon is a wide angle, but the 38mm Biogon made
for 6x6 wil not cover anything larger than that, but a 57 mm Biogon will.
But yet both may very well cover the same angle of view (on different
formats, of course). But who cares about angle of view? It's coverage that
matters.

It's not in the principal design of the lens whether or not a particular
sample will cover a particular format or not.You can easily design a Tessar
that covers 8x10", while another Tessar will have trouble covering anything
larger than 24x36mm. It's not that a Tessar made for 24x36 mm only employs
the center part of the lens, which inherently (because it is a Tessar) can
cover 8x10". It doesn't. So you're very wrong: there is no
"center-only"-advantage.

> So given this =fact= a 150mm tessar used on 6x6 will be pretty good
> wide open while a 75mm tessar will have soft edges/corners wide open
> given it barely covers the format.
> [...]

Nonsense. 

> >Yes, you (!) assume... i.e. you bring your very own associations into play.
> >Don't attribute your deviant thoughts to others. Again. ;-)
>
> Then why the "poor quality" slam when you have no idea if this has
> anything to do with what they posted?

Migh, is it the time of year that does this? Ot what?
The "poor quality" was not mentioned by me. I know Tessars that are not
"poor quality", so it is not the design. So what else could  be responsible
but the way the design idea was translated into an actual lens? Do you have
a suggestion (other than the "you are using only the center sweet spot"
nonsense)?

And what, pray tell, has that to do with your east-vs-west obsession?

> Given your past coments about
> russian cameras/optics I think I was spot on why you posted what you
> did.

The only thing you are spot on about is that in the past too your obsession
made you assume i made derogatory remarks about Eastern European products,
on the grounds that they were just that. I never have.

> Pople have posted many time that their zeiss cameras are like
> this yet you never spoke up then saying it was poor quality that
> caused this. Why now if not where it was made?

You're totally engrossed in this east vs west thingy, aren't you?
And it's only you that is, isn't it? Don't project. Don't blame others for
the demons you see creeping in the night, they are all in your mind, all
your very own fabrication.

> The one I'm refering to was the BEST lens/folder zeiss made at that
> time and is still considered the best of those cameras (The 75mm f3.5 
> coated opton tessar). It was not a "cheap tessar style lens, but just
> how a tessar that barely covers a format normally performs.

That's utter and complete nonsense.
And the Tessar was never known to be a bad, second rate design. There are
very fine Tessar lenses. (And yes, there are very bad ones too.)

> Just like the 150mm tessar I have, the newer 160 would cover close to
> 4X5 so it is using the sweet spot in the center of the coverage.

Nonsense. Again.

> I don't doubt it performs well wide open, just as my 1920's sample does.

That would be why i cite it as an example of a not (!) well executed Tessar?
It doesn't even perform very well stopped down (See? I can bash Zeiss West
very well). ;-)  

 > I would hope they could make a lens in the 80's that would at least
> work as well as one from the 20's?

I'm sure they could. If they tried. But then, this particular one was meant
to be a low budget one.    




From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Removing Moscow 5 6x6 Mask
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


"Sherman" [email protected] wrote...
> I received my Moscow 5 this afternoon and so far it looks to be in great
> shape.  The rangefinder works and the focus seems accurate at infinity, the
> lens is clean and without scratches.  Plus the case is in great shape.
>
> My question concerns removing the 6x6 mask.  It appears that it is held in
> place with four screws.  Is this correct?  I just don't want to remove those
> screws and have a bunch of tiny parts go flying around (I've done that kind
> of thing before ;^ \  ).
>
> Also are there any user guides (in English) online?
>
> Thanks for any help!
> Sherman
> http://www.dunnamphoto.com

OK, I figured it out.  After removing the 4 screws I discovered they didn't
have to be removed at all.  They hold in the rollers and the 6x9 mask and
should apparently be in at all times.  The 6x6 mask simply snaps in over the
6x9 mask, lining up the holes in the 6x6 mask with the bumps in the 6x9
mask.

I was concerned because the 6x6 mask is flexible and I didn't want to bend
it while pulling it out.  Once I removed the screws it was apparent that by
carefully pulling on the mask it can be removed.

Now to get outside and shoot a roll of TMX through it!

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com


From: DLG [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Removing Moscow 5 6x6 Mask
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


Sherman,

They are fun toys. Built like the proverbial brick sh*t house, but
sadly, the lens on mine is only OK. Certainly not sharp to the
corners, in 6x9 mode till f/11 or so. Made some nice winter landscapes
a couple of years back with mine, and pretty much put it on the shelf
as a conversation piece.

I would love to have the same basic camera, with something like a
65-75mm lens, that is sharp to the corners by f/5.6. Closest I have
seen is my buddies Mamiya 7 (yes, I know, it is a 6x7) with the
wonderful 65mm. A boat load more cash though. On second thought,
didn't Mamiya make a 50mm for the 6?

David Glos



From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mockva 5 film size
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003


"Laura Halliday" [email protected] wrote 
> 120. 8 exposures (6x9), 12 exposure (6x6). You can't
> shoot 220 in them, since they have a window in the
> back for the frame numbers.
>
> They often exhibit creative quality control, but if
> you get a good one, you've got a decent camera which
> is great fun to use. I have a Moskva 2 - not as good
> pictures as my Pentax 67, but a hell of a lot more
> portable. :-)
>
> It *is* "Moskva", by the way (the Russian name for
> Moscow). The lettering on the camera is in the
> Cyrillic alphabet.
>
> Laura Halliday VE7LDH


I just purchased a Moskva 5 about a month ago.  It arrived in virtually
perfect condition with the 6x6 mask and original leather case.  I removed
the mask and have been shooting 6x9.

After a few rolls of film (so far only b&w which is what I shoot 95% of the
time) I have found it to be a very good camera.  The lens is very sharp and
the focus is accurate and smooth, the aperture is also smooth and the
shutter speeds seem right on as well.  The flash sync (with PC connection)
works as does the cable release socket.

One of my favorite things about it is that it is a *left-handed* camera!
The shutter release is on the left and the focus wheel is on the right of
the lens.  There aren't many things around that seem designed for lefties so
it is nice to luck into something once in a while!

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com


From: Peter Irwin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Need a few pointers on my Mockba 5
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 

jdunn [email protected] wrote:
> I just got a Mockba 5 from Russia. It looks pretty clean.
> I figured out how to open fold out the lens OK.

Make sure that you always open it gently.

> I can set the shutter. It sounds good at 1 sec.
> I can open the back and set it to 6x9 OK
> But the range finder is wierd and I don't
> know how to set/control the aperature.

You control the aperture by setting the arrow on
the bottom of the shutter to the right f-number.

The rangefinder is in a separate window from the
viewfinder. Make sure that the arm with the rotating
optical wedges is flipped up. (Also make sure you put
it back before trying to fold the camera.) If the
rangefinder is adjusted properly it will be remarkably
accurate.

> There's a small knob on top of the lens that
> looks like some part of the shutter.
> Is this the manual lock open ?

It is the self timer. The lever will allow you to move the
cocking lever further back to set the timer. Do not set
the self timer on "b" or at 1/250s. I made the mistake
of setting the self timer when the shutter was set to
1/250 once (I didn't know any better) and it took me a
while to gently unjam it.

> and where to get an adapter/insert to 1/4 20 ?
> Any other tips ?

The tripod thread is 3/8" of an inch. Most camera
stores sell a reducing bushing which costs about $2.
I bought a second Manfrotto hex plate.

I hope you have a lot of fun with your Moskva.

Peter.
---
[email protected]



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Rangefinder adjustment on Moskva-5
To: [email protected]

Look in the BestStuff Russiancamera-yahoo archive. Ron
Schwartz posted instructions back on 03-06-02 on a
thread called "Moskva and Focussing Wheel � Lens Ring"
where he gave some specific instructions for dealing
with the rangefinder focusing wheel linkage and
alignment.


It's good information and probably applies equally
well to the Zeiss camera that the Moskva is based on.

-Paul




End of Page