Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / April 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Moscva 5--decent student camera?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Trevor Longino - 21 Apr 2004 02:38 GMT
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
Bob Monaghan - 21 Apr 2004 04:23 GMT
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

Signature

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

Gordon Moat - 21 Apr 2004 04:31 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 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
Peter Irwin - 21 Apr 2004 04:33 GMT
> 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.
Signature

pirwin@ktb.net

Jeff Sumner - 27 Apr 2004 10:06 GMT
> 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.
>
> Peter.

Signature

Apologies for the heavy handed editing- but I did want to strongly second
the Oleg recommendation.

He's an excellent source of FSU Things Photographic, and I've had nothing
but pleasurable transactions with him. The cameras and lenses he's sent
along all work very well.

Including a Moskva-5, which went on vacation to Portugal (Lisbon and Oporto)
with me (e-mail me if you'd like to see some shots with it)

JD

Stacey - 21 Apr 2004 05:33 GMT
> 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?ViewItem&category=11717&item=3810463323&rd=
1&ssPageName=WDVW


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=710&item=3811084132&rd=1&
ssPageName=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?ViewItem&category=11717&item=3810105421&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.

Signature


 Stacey

Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= - 21 Apr 2004 08:31 GMT
<...>
> 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
Nick Fotis - 21 Apr 2004 13:16 GMT
> 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.
Stacey - 22 Apr 2004 02:22 GMT
>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I have a Fuji GSW690 III and I *love* it (still hunting for a GW690
> III...)

I have a 6x9 fuji as well. Trying to find anyone locally who can print 6X9
full frame has been fruitless and I live in a large metropolitan area in
the US.

>> 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?
> :-)

I've never considered a light box with a loupe as an enjoyable way to look
at images, YMMV. A 4X5 or 5X7 chrome is a different story.

> 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)

Same problem exists with the cheaper 6X9 cameras as far as holding the film
flat, they don't either! So it doesn't really matter how good a lens you
have on the camera when the flm isn't being held flat and where it's
suposed to be. A fuji 6X9 is way over the OP's budget as well!

Signature


 Stacey

Nick Fotis - 22 Apr 2004 08:43 GMT
> I have a 6x9 fuji as well. Trying to find anyone locally who can print 6X9
> full frame has been fruitless and I live in a large metropolitan area in
> the US.

Hey, did you consider moving to Athens? (no, not the one in Georgia :-) )
I get A4 prints (20x30cm) from slides in 15 minutes at 2.40 Euros from 6x9 ,
I can get a 35mm slide roll processed in 1 hour or so (3.5 Euros) or
next-day pick up for 120/220 film for 3/6 Euros (never tried large format,
but there's the same level of service).
And a Fuji Superia 100-36 roll costs 4 Euros here.

It's a bit hard to justify buying a high-end digital SLR at these costs for
me
Now, where can I find a minilab printing 6x12 (I'm eyeing a Noblex panoramic
camera at the moment... ;-) )

> I've never considered a light box with a loupe as an enjoyable way to look
> at images, YMMV. A 4X5 or 5X7 chrome is a different story.

Well, after seeing with a loupe at 35mm slides, a 6x9 is a real joy to
behold (and needs no loupe for my eyes, yet) ;-)
Surely, a large format slide is in another class, but in the kind of
railroad photography I do it's "a bit" hard to freeze trains in motion...

> Same problem exists with the cheaper 6X9 cameras as far as holding the film
> flat, they don't either! So it doesn't really matter how good a lens you

As far as I know, there are no slide mounts for bigger sizes than 6x7 (maybe
Gepe has slide mounts? Don't know...)
In such a size, it's really hard to keep it flat (and the heat from the
projector lamp probably destroys flatness at any rate...)

> have on the camera when the flm isn't being held flat and where it's
> suposed to be. A fuji 6X9 is way over the OP's budget as well!

That's true, but if he can catch a good deal, he should be able to resell it
without a loss if he's not satisfied.
(there are the Fujica G690 interchangeable lens too, in Ebay, these may be
found cheaper than the latest fixed lens rangefinders).
I thought about a field camera with a rollfilm adapter in these, but that's
another can of worms.

Regards from Greece,
Nick Fotis
RolandRB - 22 Apr 2004 14:33 GMT
"Nick Fotis" <nfotis@gtp.gr> wrote in message

<snip>

> It's a bit hard to justify buying a high-end digital SLR at these costs for
> me
> Now, where can I find a minilab printing 6x12 (I'm eyeing a Noblex panoramic
> camera at the moment... ;-) )

<snip>

There has been a lot of information posted about the 120 film Noblex
models on this newsgroup (mostly by me). Note that these cameras are
not focussed to infinity but rather a shorter distance to get more in
the depth of field. Not all people like this at it gives increased
depth of field at the expense of far distance sharpness. As for the
focussing models, infinity focus setting for them is not infinity and
from what I can deduce from the information available to me, the
principles behind the focussing method of the focussing models are
unsound. However, I am not an optical designer and would be glad to be
proven wrong.
Martin Jangowski - 22 Apr 2004 15:19 GMT
> "Nick Fotis" <nfotis@gtp.gr> wrote in message

> <snip>

>> It's a bit hard to justify buying a high-end digital SLR at these costs for
>> me
>> Now, where can I find a minilab printing 6x12 (I'm eyeing a Noblex panoramic
>> camera at the moment... ;-) )

> <snip>

> There has been a lot of information posted about the 120 film Noblex
> models on this newsgroup (mostly by me). Note that these cameras are
> not focussed to infinity but rather a shorter distance to get more in
> the depth of field. Not all people like this at it gives increased
> depth of field at the expense of far distance sharpness.

I use a Noblex Pro6/150E with fixfocus lens. I have several handheld
pictures from it using a 100 ASA film with 1/250s and f-stop depending
on brightness, mostly f8-f11. So far, the negatives I have are extremely
sharp at infinity, those that aren't have no sharp point (i.e. not held
stable enough). I have an enlargement to 50cm x 1.20m hanging in my
room, you can easily see details much less then 1mm on this enlargement.

Martin
Nick Fotis - 24 Apr 2004 20:11 GMT
> I use a Noblex Pro6/150E with fixfocus lens. I have several handheld
> pictures from it using a 100 ASA film with 1/250s and f-stop depending

A Noblex owner I met here in Athens told me that a trick is to hold the
camera steady with the aid of the camera strap - ie., you have the
camera hanging from your neck, and try to keep it stable enough.
He claims it's easy to shoot good, sharp photos without a tripod in this
way (at 1/250 sec of course)

It's encouraging to hear that a photo from a Noblex can be so sharp. Of
course, I plan on using a tripod for these tasks...

Regards,
N.F.
Ralf R. Radermacher - 22 Apr 2004 19:37 GMT
> There has been a lot of information posted about the 120 film Noblex
> models on this newsgroup (mostly by me).

Really? How come Google doesn't show any of this with the exception of
your recent assumptions in response to one of my messages in this group
and the one quoted above?

> from what I can deduce from the information available to me, the
> principles behind the focussing method of the focussing models
> are unsound.

Just for the record: have you ever owned or used a Noblex 150? Or are
you just ad-libbing on a few remarks I made here about two weeks ago?

Why is it that each time I read one of your messages, something in the
back of my mind decides to perform the tune of "a modern major-general"?

Ralf

Signature

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated March 30, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

RolandRB - 23 Apr 2004 08:17 GMT
> > There has been a lot of information posted about the 120 film Noblex
> > models on this newsgroup (mostly by me).
>
> Really? How come Google doesn't show any of this with the exception of
> your recent assumptions in response to one of my messages in this group
> and the one quoted above?

Check Google groups for your initial thread on "The opposite of a
close-up lens?" and you will see that I have posted detailed
calculations of the effect of moving a lens towards the film plane for
a swing lens camera. You will find two detailed posts from the 6 April
2004 and another detailed post from 7 April 2004. There is another
post from 14 April 2004 where I directed people to a very interesting
site about amateurs who built their own swing-lens camera. There is a
photo taken with this camera at the bottom of the page which can be
viewed at full size and you will see that their camera is clearly
working correctly and well. What they say on that site supports my
calculations.

> > from what I can deduce from the information available to me, the
> > principles behind the focussing method of the focussing models
> > are unsound.
>
> Just for the record: have you ever owned or used a Noblex 150? Or are
> you just ad-libbing on a few remarks I made here about two weeks ago?

I have one in storage at the moment. Because it is so heavy and bulky
I haven't had the chance to use it yet.

> Why is it that each time I read one of your messages, something in the
> back of my mind decides to perform the tune of "a modern major-general"?
>
> Ralf

I am  not qualified to make a diagnosis of your mental state. I
suggest you seek professional help.
Ralf R. Radermacher - 23 Apr 2004 08:52 GMT
> I have one in storage at the moment. Because it is so heavy and bulky
> I haven't had the chance to use it yet.

Oh, sure.

Ralf

Signature

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated March 30, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

RolandRB - 24 Apr 2004 13:51 GMT
> > I have one in storage at the moment. Because it is so heavy and bulky
> > I haven't had the chance to use it yet.
>
> Oh, sure.
>
> Ralf

You don't believe me? I bought one last century. Do a search on
"Roland and Noblex".

I have not used the Noblex yet. I am aware that it is not focussed at
infinity and I will do the calculations sometime to work out what
effective resolution I can get at infinity distance. I don't want to
take it on a serious shoot with me if it is incapable of doing the
job. If I find a firm that is capable of doing a sensible conversion
then I would be interested in getting it changed to focus at infinity
(with the secondary principle point still on the axis, I would
stress).

I have the Horizon 202, the Horizont and the Widelux F8 as well and
have used those last three. The Horizont has only had a test roll
through it. I will have to strip it down and fix the clutch. I got
more into the physics of these cameras after I was very disappointed
with the results of my Widelux F8 that I took on a tour of Europe.
Even when stopped down at the smallest aperture the far distance
(which was what I was most interested in) was not in sufficiently
sharp focus for me. I took it into Lee's of Holborn and they explained
this business about magnification and how, because of this, they could
not do any work on the camera to set the lens fuurther back. I now
note that the manufacturers of the Noblex have focussing models but
from the information available to me and my understanding of the
situation they are focussing by moving the secondary pprinciple point
away from the axis and to me this is totally wrong. If you look at
that web site where some amateurs made a swing lens camera then they
mention how important it is to make sure this secondary principal
point has to stay on the axis. They say it might take a week to adjust
it in.

But don't let me put you off buying one of these expensive focussing
Noblex 150 models. If you get one then please report back on this
newsgroup, your findings of the horizontal resolution you are
achieving at the various focus settings.

Roland
Martin Jangowski - 24 Apr 2004 17:48 GMT
> I have not used the Noblex yet. I am aware that it is not focussed at
> infinity and I will do the calculations sometime to work out what
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (with the secondary principle point still on the axis, I would
> stress).

It would be _much_ easier to put the camera on a tripod, expose a film and
examine the results. Anything else is pure BS. After all, a Noblex is
a rather specialized and not really cheap camera and, believe me,
is used without modification by lots of professionals with really
high quality demands. The fixfocus Noblex model is more than sharp
enough at infinity, even wide open. I have more then enough pictures
made with it to prove this, get your own camera and try it out instead
of spouting theoretical BS.

Martin
RolandRB - 26 Apr 2004 09:01 GMT
> > I have not used the Noblex yet. I am aware that it is not focussed at
> > infinity and I will do the calculations sometime to work out what
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Martin

Theoretical BS is the stuff our universe is made of and there is no
escape from it. Lifting a pencil is easier than lifting a Noblex on a
tripod. Theory often precedes physical design.
Ralf R. Radermacher - 26 Apr 2004 09:23 GMT
> Lifting a pencil is easier than lifting a Noblex on a
> tripod. Theory often precedes physical design.

Chorus:

He is the very model of a modern newsgroup theorist.

Ralf

Signature

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated March 30, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

RolandRB - 26 Apr 2004 15:28 GMT
> > Lifting a pencil is easier than lifting a Noblex on a
> > tripod. Theory often precedes physical design.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ralf

I hope to earn that reputation soon with some detailed calculations of
the maximum theoretical resolution of the Noblex at infinity. I will
post them to this newsgroup.

Roland
Ralf R. Radermacher - 26 Apr 2004 16:59 GMT
> I hope to earn that reputation soon with some detailed calculations of
> the maximum theoretical resolution of the Noblex at infinity.

Heaven help us.

Signature

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated March 30, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Martin Jangowski - 26 Apr 2004 19:07 GMT
>> I hope to earn that reputation soon with some detailed calculations of
>> the maximum theoretical resolution of the Noblex at infinity.

> Heaven help us.

There's an old saying:

Those who can - do
Those who can't - teach

Martin
jjs - 26 Apr 2004 19:48 GMT
> There's an old saying:
>
> Those who can - do
> Those who can't - teach

Those who can do neither say that.
Nick Fotis - 24 Apr 2004 20:03 GMT
> There has been a lot of information posted about the 120 film Noblex
> models on this newsgroup (mostly by me). Note that these cameras are
> not focussed to infinity but rather a shorter distance to get more in

I've read that "back-focus" thread, I still wonder if this is the case.
Oh well, if I win a Noblex at Ebay and test it I'll tell you the
results.
But I'm sure it'll be much better than a Horizon 205PC I tried, which
was horribly unreliable (and 2000 Euros!) for my tastes...

Regards from Athens,
N.Fotis
PS. I think we drifted reeeeeallly off topic now... :-)
Ralf R. Radermacher - 22 Apr 2004 15:10 GMT
> Now, where can I find a minilab printing 6x12 (I'm eyeing a Noblex panoramic
> camera at the moment... ;-) )

Forget it. Certainly not at a minilab.

Your options are a professional lab, a large-format (4 x 5 inch)
darkroom set-up, or an Epson 3200 or equivalent scanner and either an
inkjet printer or have the scans output on real photo paper by some
place running an Agfa e-Lab or Fuji Frontier.

Ralf

Signature

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated March 30, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Nick Fotis - 24 Apr 2004 20:16 GMT
> > Now, where can I find a minilab printing 6x12 (I'm eyeing a Noblex panoramic
> > camera at the moment... ;-) )
>
> Forget it. Certainly not at a minilab.

well, I was half-joking.

> Your options are a professional lab, a large-format (4 x 5 inch)
> darkroom set-up, or an Epson 3200 or equivalent scanner and either an

Scanning is a pain in the you-know-what, I would prefer to avoid it as
much as possible

> inkjet printer or have the scans output on real photo paper by some
> place running an Agfa e-Lab or Fuji Frontier.

Fuji Frontiers are very common here in Athens.
My Fuji GSW690 prints (up to A3, 30x45cm) are done in a Noritsu minilab
here, maybe there's a 6x12 mask somewhere available? (hopefully)

Agfa and Durst Lamda printers aren't very usual here (there's exactly
one Lamda here in Athens).
I'll have to investigate the matter further.

Regards,
N.Fotis
Martin Jangowski - 21 Apr 2004 08:14 GMT
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 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
RolandRB - 21 Apr 2004 08:23 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> 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).
Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= - 21 Apr 2004 08:52 GMT
<...>
> 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
RolandRB - 22 Apr 2004 13:30 GMT
Lassi Hippeläinen <lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote in message news:<408628B2.D934EFCB@ieee.orgies.invalid>...

<snip>

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

Was it the Super Ikonta IV by any chance? I know these had a small
reflective metal plate in the back door that allowed light through
onto the film if the back was exposed to fairly bright light. The
purpose of it was to trigger the frame count when the door was closed,
I think. It needs to be painted matt black with a paint that won't
flake (I use black nail varnish for this sort of job) and then the
problem goes away.
Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= - 22 Apr 2004 15:05 GMT
> Lassi Hippeläinen <lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote in message news:<408628B2.D934EFCB@ieee.orgies.invalid>...
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> flake (I use black nail varnish for this sort of job) and then the
> problem goes away.

It was a mundane Nettar 6x6. It didn't even have a frame counter. But a
folder felt so nice that after it I bought a Moskva 2 at the same price,
and it was a good one. It's no Zeiss, but I got a coupled rangefinder as
a bonus...

-- Lassi
Pierre L - 21 Apr 2004 14:50 GMT
I don't think a Russian folder, or for that matter, a folder of any kind is
the way to go for you. To get a good folder that has had a CLA and has a
good, pinhole-free bellows, it's going to cost. But even then, the picture
aren't on a par with other types of cameras. Folders were designed for
compactness, not for the best possible photo quality. But of course, it
depends on what you want. Some people do want a more vintage look and aren't
after super detail and super sharpness across the whole picture. In that
case, an old folder might do. If so, I would look at a 6x6 rather than a
6x9.

People these days often say how "cheap" used medium format cameras are.
Well, good ones still aren't that cheap! In your price range, I would
consider a Lubitel, or maybe a 6x6 folder with the less desirable lens (like
Agfa Apotar instead of Solinar, Zeiss Novar instead of Tessar). However, I
think a good folder that has been cleaned and adjusted will cost more than
what you want to pay. The pictures from a Lubitel can be surprisingly good.

Another excellent possibility is, believe it or not, Polaroid. You can get
an old pack film camera for very little money. Polaroid got a bad reputation
for the poor resolution of its pictures from the SX-70 and Spectra type
instant films. They were/are easy in terms of use (no pulling out any tabs,
etc.), but there's a price to be paid for that in terms of image quality.
But, the pack films, still readily-available, are excellent, and they work
in any old pack film Polaroid. A 450 model in good condition is an excellent
picture taker. The only drawback is that it's an autoexposure system. For
manual aperture and shutter settings, you need the similar but much more
expensive model 195 (or a converted model 110). There's even a B&W pack film
that gives you a high-quality, almost large format negative.

In the end though, very high quality medium format is costly. The lesser
alternatives may not be better than what a modern 35mm camera/lens can give
you when properly used.

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Thanks!
> Trevor Longino
jjs - 21 Apr 2004 15:33 GMT
> [...] Folders were designed for
> compactness, not for the best possible photo quality. But of course, it
> depends on what you want. Some people do want a more vintage look and aren't
> after super detail and super sharpness across the whole picture. In that
> case, an old folder might do. If so, I would look at a 6x6 rather than a
> 6x9.

I strongly disagree on every point. Addressing just your points - first,
vintage cameras don't produce vintage images. The old FILM is largely
responsible for that "look" and while you can mimic the old film to some
extent, it requires certain expertise. The vintage "look" is not the default
behavior.

And how quickly people forget that there are several folders that include
shift (that's one perspective control), rangefiners, and many had good
lenses. The 6x* format with an average lens will produce very good images
when compared to 35mm and an excellent lens.

Wouldn't it be interesting for a "mere student" to turn in properly composed
and corrected images while the rest of the neolightstoppers defaulted to the
latest and greatest lesser-than POS that are out today - helpless to mediate
perspective in any way.

Bellows pinholes are elementary to fix, and for advanced students I'd think
such matters should be SOP.
Pierre L - 21 Apr 2004 20:46 GMT
Always remaining within the context of the original question, especially as
regards price, the student is very unlikely to find a folder in good
condition that has one of the sharper 4-element coated lenses. In the given
price range, it's more likely going to be a 3-element lens. When I say a
certain "vintage" look, what I'm talking about is the quality of these
lenses. For example, a Radionar isn't likely to be able to compete
sharpness-wide with a more modern, more expensive MF lens. But it still
produces very satisfying pictures. Not cutting edge sharpness, but the
slight softness combined with the richer tonality of the larger format film
can be quite nice. Some people like that - I do myself, but if the student
who asked the original question is misled into thinking a 1950's folder with
a Radionar, a Novar, an Agnar, Apotar or similar lenses is going to give him
to same quality of pictures that a modern, professional MF lens or say, the
Planar lens on a Rolleiflex is going to give him, he will surely be
disappointed. This is what I meant by "vintage" look - ie. an acceptance of
lesser sharpness across the whole frame. I don't disagree that there are
some superb folders, but they cost more because of the better lens and
shutter.

A Moskva 5 seems to have a better lens, but better be sure to buy from a
reliable dealer who offers a return guarantee. A lot of it is junk. Maybe a
Flexaret TLR would be a better option at that price level. I've seen many
pictures taken with various Lubitels, and they seem to compare favourably
with those from early 1950's 6x6 folders (the affordabe ones, that is).

> > [...] Folders were designed for
> > compactness, not for the best possible photo quality. But of course, it
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Bellows pinholes are elementary to fix, and for advanced students I'd think
> such matters should be SOP.
Gordon Moat - 22 Apr 2004 02:24 GMT
> Always remaining within the context of the original question, especially as
> regards price, the student is very unlikely to find a folder in good
> condition that has one of the sharper 4-element coated lenses. In the given
> price range, it's more likely going to be a 3-element lens. When I say a
> certain "vintage" look, what I'm talking about is the quality of these
> lenses.

The contrast perceptible in images from 3 element lenses is often less than
images using 4 element lenses. Finding ways to boost contrast can help that
difference. Pushing film is one way to compensate. While most of the 4 element
lenses will produce better results, I think quite a few people would be
surprised at the good results of some three element lenses. This is even more
true for those not use to better (modern) medium format gear.

> For example, a Radionar isn't likely to be able to compete
> sharpness-wide with a more modern, more expensive MF lens. But it still
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Planar lens on a Rolleiflex is going to give him, he will surely be
> disappointed.

Definitely agree on that.

> This is what I meant by "vintage" look - ie. an acceptance of
> lesser sharpness across the whole frame. I don't disagree that there are
> some superb folders, but they cost more because of the better lens and
> shutter.

The slightly softer image can actually be more flattering for people
photography. Another hidden side benefit is that often people are more willing
to have you take their picture when they see your old folder camera. The
novelty can make for curious amusement, which in itself can give more
compelling images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com
Stacey - 22 Apr 2004 03:34 GMT
> The slightly softer image can actually be more flattering for people
> photography. Another hidden side benefit is that often people are more
> willing to have you take their picture when they see your old folder
> camera. The novelty can make for curious amusement, which in itself can
> give more compelling images.

I've found this true as well. One thing a 6X9 folder works great for is
portraits if the camera comes with a 6X4.5 mask. The 105mm lens on 6X9
works great and since you're using the center of the lens even a radionar
is fine.

Signature


 Stacey

Trevor Longino - 21 Apr 2004 18:56 GMT
Hi again,

Thanks to all of you for answering with such helpful advice. I really
appreciate it. I'd already made up my mind and was getting ready to purchase
the Moscva-5, but figured that it wouldn't hurt to ask the advice of some
very knowledgable people. After all the advice that suggests that maybe a
folder isn't the way to go, I guess I need to think and do more research.

There goes my weekend.  ;)

Pacem!
Trevor
Gordon Moat - 22 Apr 2004 02:36 GMT
> Hi again,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> very knowledgable people. After all the advice that suggests that maybe a
> folder isn't the way to go, I guess I need to think and do more research.

I will give very much against the grain here. While I have used the most modern
of equipment on occasion, I also have some really old folder gear, and little
of it at collectible status. The reality I have found is that these are immense
fun to use, and your subjects will enjoy being in front of your old folder
camera. My suggestion is to buy two similar cameras, each a back-up of the
other.

My initial old camera was a gift from an ex-girlfriend. After that box camera,
I bought an old AGFA 6x9 folder for $10. It took four hours to clean and repair
everything, and even then I had to repair the bellows after each roll. I got
another similar AGFA, with the hope of having parts, but also to assemble a
working example for a friend. Cost was similar, but the bellows was shot.
Recently, I found a source for replacement bellows, at about $5 each for 6x9
size. They are not ready to install, but with a little work, both 6x9 folders
are now working. I also have a really nice even older 645 AGFA folder, and an
extra lens and shutter for it. Add in a few low cost accessory rangefinders,
and I am ready to take photos.

I have actually done four jobs using these old folder cameras, so they have
paid for themselves many times over. Other than time doing repairs (rainy days
mostly), I have maybe $30 in each camera and rangefinder combination. The
transparencies I have shot are quite impressive. The 6x9 is surprisingly good,
even though I know it should have all sorts of problems.

Basically, buy cheap, give it a try. You might be surprised how much you
actually like images from these low cost cameras. To qualify this a bit, you
would likely not like them if you only did super critical architecture images,
or only wanted to the exact edge framing accuracy, which may be where many of
the comments come from.

The Moscva is slightly higher cost, but the difference in image quality to an
old AGFA or Zeiss folder might not be worth the extra money. If you want to
contact me off this NG for my sources for parts, please feel free to pop me an
e-mail.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.