comfortablynumb
Hello everyone,
As I assume there might be one or two photographers on this forum who are familiar with Eastern European products, here’s my query. I’ve just seen a few listings on eBay from a seller in Ukraine. He’s offering cameras at very reasonable prices, shipped directly from Ukraine.
I’m looking for a very affordable medium-format camera (6x9) that can also produce excellent negatives. I enlarge at 30x40 and am very particular and detail-oriented. Otherwise, I shoot with a Minolta X700 on Foma film. Including postage, I could get a Moskva 5 (Zeiss Ikonta copy) for around 50 euros. Is that a waste of money?
Best regards,
Andreas
MirkoBoeddecker
Andreas,
With medium format, it’s just like with 35mm – it’s not the camera but the lens that makes the picture.
A camera costing around 50 EUR is unlikely ever to give you top-quality results. If it’s a very simple design (e.g. a bellows camera with a 4-element Tessar lens), even this lens can produce surprisingly high levels of sharpness in black-and-white images. But as I said, this would need to be tested on a case-by-case basis with the specific lens in question.
Have a look further back in the forum; there was something there about Pentacon Zeiss lenses. They’re relatively inexpensive and already quite high-quality – as are the good series manufactured in Kiev (Kiev 66 and Kiev 88 mount).
Personally, I’d recommend saving up for a Yashica Mat 124 or another Rollei or Mamiya.
That way, you can be sure of the mechanics and optical performance of the lens.
After all, roll film costs more and you’ll be carrying more weight around with you. You shouldn’t necessarily invest just €50 in the camera.
Also, don’t forget: 5% import duty, possibly a 25 EUR fee for customs clearance by the parcel service, and 16% VAT. All of that will be added on top in any case (sorry, but as a specialist retailer, I can’t stress this enough ;-)
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hello Mirko,
I’ve spent a lot of money on good prime lenses for my 35mm photography, and I know that the value of a good lens cannot be overstated.
I’ve read a lot about the Mat 124 G on the de.rec.fotografie forum; apparently it offers really good value for money. As I definitely want to have 6x9 format negatives as well: can I convert the Yashica to 6x9, or is it only 6x6?
The Mamiya C330 is also said to be a fine piece of kit, but much more expensive on the market than the Yashica.
Yeah, and then there are the import duties and fees on top of that. That’s right. ;-)
You could still have a look at the auction anyway. You can find it at
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...ssPageName=WDVW
.
Regards
Andreas
Gast
Hi Andreas,
I and others here in the Sindelfingen area have only had good experiences with this seller. It’s also very handy that he has a German bank account.
A MAT124 cannot be switched between 6x9 and 6x6; it can only shoot 6x6. Furthermore, I only consider the Yashinon (I have one on my Yashica D) to be truly impressive in terms of sharpness from around f/8 onwards; this Tessar clone, which is prone to stray light, isn’t that outstanding.
With 6x9, you should bear in mind that 30x40 is just a fivefold enlargement. You can put up with a few optical shortcomings and still get better results than with 35mm.
Best regards,
Franz
MirkoBoeddecker
Andreas,
Franz is right about the Yashinon.
Only use any of those yellowish, single-coated lenses from the 70s with a lens hood.
Newer models are better, though.
As for the Moskauische, I have my doubts about whether the lens and the film plane are parallel – have a look for yourself:
http://www.ua-project.com/images/foto/0312/moskva5_3.jpg
No, of course a Mat 124 can’t be switched to 6x9, but on the other hand, focusing and setting the exposure is much easier......
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Well then...
I own a Moskva 5 myself (incidentally, a Russian copy of the Zeiss Super Ikonta) – and mine is quite OK; the lens has sufficient sharpness, though not really razor-sharp (that said, the same criticism is levelled at its model, the Zeiss Super Ikonta – the post-war Tessar 105mm for the 6x9 Ikonta is generally considered an exception among the otherwise very good and sharp Zeiss lenses). With 6x9, the corners aren’t quite as good (just like with many other 6x9 folding cameras), but on the other hand, you only need a lower magnification, which makes this less noticeable. However, I only use my Moskva 5 with the 6x6cm reduction frame.
I don’t know the seller from your auction, but the price is VERY good. Regarding the issue Mirko raised about the parallelism of the lens and film planes: the camera shown in the example photo is clearly not fully extended – with Moskvas, you generally have to give it a bit of a nudge and pull until the front standard clicks into place; furthermore, you cannot use the front of the camera as a reference point, as it is not parallel to the film plane; the camera body is very slightly wedge-shaped. Generally speaking, the Moskva 5 isn’t often said to have problems in this area; issues are much more likely to arise with the adjustment of the rangefinder and the front lens.
Had you not said that you absolutely wanted to shoot 6x9, I would have recommended the Russian Iskra to you – one of the best medium-format folding cameras around, with a large, bright viewfinder (almost up to Leica standard) and a stunningly sharp lens – but it only does 6x6.
You can find more information about the Moskva 5 (and sample photos taken with it) here:
http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=25
http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/moskva5/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/morninglp/MOCKBA/Mockba.html
Roman
Gast
No, of course a Mat 124 can’t be switched to 6x9, but on the other hand, focusing and setting the exposure are much easier......
PS: Regarding Mirko’s claim that focusing with a Yashicamat 124 is easier, I can only say: I also have a Yashicamat (not a 124), and I absolutely cannot confirm that; admittedly, the focusing screen and mirror on mine could do with a clean, but generally speaking, rangefinder cameras are much easier and more accurate to focus than those with a focusing screen (although the latter do show the selected frame more precisely; with the Moskva 5 in particular, you have to guess a bit as to where exactly the edge of the frame is...)
Urnes
Hi Andreas,
Perhaps you should first think about why you’ve ended up considering the Mokwa. I’ve been eyeing it up for a few years now, too, because it would be a way to carry a large format camera with relatively compact dimensions. Although it’s clear, of course, that the image quality isn’t as high as with a modern 6x9 from Fuji. I’d be concerned that, in the end, you’d be better off using 35mm with high-quality prime lenses than the Mokwa.
But when it comes to medium format itself, the real question is whether you actually need 6x9 or whether 6x6 would suffice, provided you have a high-quality camera. I myself use a Mamiya C 33 and am completely satisfied with it. The advantage was simply that I got a medium-format camera with three top-class interchangeable lenses (50, 80, 135 mm) for under 1,000 euros. What’s more, Mamiya in Munich still provides servicing for these old-school cameras, so you can get the back-panel rubbers replaced for a really fair price, and all within a week. So I’m really enjoying it.
Regards, Sven
comfortablynumb
Hello Sven and Roman,
I settled on the 6x9 format because, naturally, I’ve been used to the rectangular format for many years. Furthermore, studying Imogen Cunningham’s photographs has recently reinforced this choice. Her flower photographs, in particular, are frequently seen in this format.
Of course, I can already take very good pictures with my 35mm prime lenses and the Manfrotto tripod. I’m constantly surprised by what’s possible with the Foma 100 and a cable release. But I also have the medium-format prints by my colleagues in the photography club in mind. I find the level of detail and sharpness overwhelming. However, these guys are in a completely different league, with their newer Mamiyas and Hasselblads.
I simply have a very small budget, even though photography is my great passion. There’s nothing I can do about the lack of money. And the balancing act between a small investment and very good prints is just difficult. If necessary, I’d even get used to 6x6. The Iskra-2 that Roman mentioned, produced 40 years ago (!), is excellent at negative exposure. I’m itching to own such a Russian camera, which, with a bit of hard work and precision, I could get to produce a quality comparable to that of a Mat 124 or C330. Is that possible? Then there’s the question of servicing again. Who can repair such a piece of kit these days?
Are such Russian cameras available in good condition on the second-hand market?
Regards
Andreas
Gast
Hello!
Well, I feel differently – I find the 6x6 square format much more harmonious than the rectangle...
For an Iskra (it doesn’t have to be a -2), you should expect to pay around 100 euros, plus postage; as I said, the camera has a superb viewfinder and an equally superb lens, but it does have one weak point: the film advance mechanism (with automatic film start detection and automatic film advance, including a double exposure lock) is quite complex in design, and therefore prone to faults due to age – I’d only buy an Iskra from an eBay seller known to be reliable (such as ‘alex-photo’/‘asr-photo’ or ‘cupog’), or from Oleg (www.okvintagecamera.com – Oleg also repairs them) or Fedka (www.fedka.com).
However – having heard what you intend to use it for (flower photos – or have I misunderstood?), I must advise against the Iskra and Moskva once again: Viewfinder cameras are not particularly well-suited to such close-up subjects due to viewfinder parallax (the discrepancy between the image in the viewfinder and the image on the negative) – their forte is quick photography on the go, for which their compactness makes them particularly well-suited.
For medium-format close-up photography, an SLR is more advisable (TLRs are also not ideal due to the parallax between the taking and viewfinder lenses, although the Mamiya C-series in particular would be ideal for close-up work thanks to its long bellows extension). Have you ever considered a Kiev 60 or a PentaconSix TL? With an 80mm lens and extension rings, you’re already set for close-up work, for around 100 to 150 euros...
But if you really want to shoot 6x9 on roll film, and a slow, static working style doesn’t bother you, how about an old 6x9cm plate camera with a roll film back (which would also be contemporary with Imogen Cunningham’s equipment)? I’m no expert on this, though, so others will have to step in with further tips...
Roman
Urnes
Since Roman has just brought this up, if you’re happy with a static working style and are looking for real quality – and in a rectangular format at that – then you really should look into a large-format camera. Something in the 4x5" range, perhaps with a 6x9 back. You can get American Graflex cameras quite cheaply, or a Plaubel. I reckon they’re cheaper to buy at the moment than high-end medium-format cameras. It really makes sense, especially with flowers, to take your time setting everything up on the large focusing screen, once you get used to the image being upside down and reversed.
If you’re interested, have a look here:
Large Format Forum
If in doubt, I’d advise you to save up a bit more and then get the equipment that really suits your images and your working style. In my opinion, you can’t take decent flower stills with the Mokwa and Istra because the minimum focus distance is 1m and you can’t compensate for the rangefinder’s parallax. I have to agree with Roman that in this case you’re better off with a Pentacon and extension rings. And you can get the Pentacon repaired in Dresden or have it upgraded with the Rollei focusing screen and mirror lock-up. The quality with extension tubes at close range is so good (I sometimes use one when I want to take something small with me on holiday) that, with a bit of work and patience, you can really make something of it.
Regards, Sven.
Gast
On the subject of MF cameras, Falters and Zweigiges:
I’ve been on a long search.
First, an RB with practically perfect optical performance, but as is well known, not exactly petite. I still have that camera.
Then a Moskva-5 in perfect condition, with excellent mechanics, a clear and beautiful-looking lens, and a precisely adjusted rangefinder. The only drawback: the rangefinder indicated the exact point where the sheep were at their closest... unfortunately, you could have hit those sheep with the bottom of a Coke bottle; even with an enlargement to 13x20, the images were noticeably out of focus. Ended up on eBay.
Next, I managed to get hold of an equally perfect-looking Moskva-2. It came in an original green box with instructions and a bag. Great-looking optics, a shutter that worked perfectly; 20% of the images achieved 35mm quality, the rest did not. No discernible play in any of the joints; the camera was carefully extended and locked into place, and rangefinder tests were carried out. No success – off to eBay.
Then came a Rolleiflex Automat from 1949/50, a dim glass matte screen, mercilessly sharp, perfect negatives that were in no way inferior to the RB. This was the first in a whole series of Rollei TLRs, each one better than the last; I still have most of them.
A borrowed German 6x9 folding camera – I can’t remember the make – with a bottle-bottom trifocal lens. Returned.
Mamiya C3/33/330s. Battleships of decreasing bulk; a difficult-to-adjust focusing screen in the C3 and 33, a very good one in the 330s; my black lenses just shy of the Zeiss league, good enough for all manner of misdeeds.
Rolleiflex SL66, a fully mechanical marvel, a bit slow, great lenses. In a league of its own.
Mamiya 6 and 7: top of the range, unfortunately in price too.
Iskra-1. The surprise. Fine mechanics, neatly adjusted, image quality as you’d expect from a Rollei, the price of a round 120 euros (from ‘cupog’) perfectly reasonable, speedy delivery. Recommended by a reliable dealer, I’m happy to take it with me when travelling light.
I’m not saying that every Moskva is rubbish; mine just happened to be, and I don’t want a third one. The low-end Falters from the 1950s haven’t convinced me so far; if you hold a Rolleiflex shot next to one, you just know what’s what. With a good lens, 6x6 is more than enough, even if you enlarge a rectangular crop.
Martin
skahde
As for the Moskauische, I have my doubts about whether the lens and film plane are parallel – have a look for yourself:
Hello,
The camera might well be fine; it’s just not fully extended, as you can see from the rivet on the guide bracket. Its condition is a bit worrying, though.
Best regards,
Stefan (currently restoring an Agfa Billy Record II as a 6x9 soft-focus camera ;-))
Urnes
Hello,
I’d completely forgotten about our Chinese friends. Seagull (or, as they’re known these days, ‘crank cameras’) make a Rolleiflex replica. I bought it years ago at a flea market for 60 marks(!). So, stopped down to f/5.6, the image quality is surprisingly good. OK, I’ll admit it takes a bit of getting used to when you realise that the 1 sec. and 1/15 settings are swapped. But for the price, it was really great. Seagull also makes a rangefinder camera that’s very similar to the Iskra; if the lens is similar to that of a TLR, it would also be worth considering.
@ Stefan: Tell us a bit about the soft-focus conversion for the Billy Record
Regards, Sven.
Gast
@ Stefan: Tell us a bit about the softening upgrade for the Billy Record
That’s not to be taken quite literally. With the three-element lens (Apotar), I’m hoping that the uncorrected aberrations will give it a character that should be useful depending on the subject. I’ve got an idea in mind that’s just waiting to be realised, and €9.90 is a price worth splashing out on.
The restoration work involves dismantling and cleaning the lens, patching the porous bellows corners with black silicone, adjusting the infinity setting and a thorough clean. The jute and patches are still to be done, but the dirt between the lenses and on the outside has already been removed.
Best regards
Stefan
Gast
Seagull also makes a rangefinder camera that is very similar to the Iskra; if the lens is similar to that of a TLR, it would be worth considering.
...the Seagull 203! However, the similarities are purely cosmetic; this model is said to be quite prone to faults. Furthermore, it focuses only by rotating the front element of the three-element lens, not by shifting the entire (four-element, Tessar-type) lens via a helix (which is responsible for the Iskra’s superior optical performance).
comfortablynumb
First of all, I must thank you all for the many constructive comments. Brilliant. Everyone went to great lengths to help out. I really like the tone in this forum. It’s nowhere near as aggressive or know-it-all as on de.rec.fotografie, where you’re often put down straight away or people mock you for minor errors in your post.
You’ve already got it spot on: flower photography is going to be a major focus for me. Up until now, my main subjects have been trees, rock formations, portraits, cemetery sculptures and landscape scenes. For all these subjects, medium format naturally adds a wealth of detail.
I’ve now set my sights on the Pentacon Six TL, having weighed up the pros and cons from what I’ve read or researched online. All in all, it seems I’d be well advised to go for the camera and a Carl Zeiss lens. They’re currently being sold off in droves on eBay. I often assume that these auctions are simply people clearing out their attics, with the camera having been lying around there for 20 years, etc.
Which 80mm lenses are very good, and which models should I steer clear of?
Are there any well-known eBay sellers, or shops in eastern Germany, that specialise in GDR cameras? They’re hardly to be found here in Unna or Dortmund.
Are there significant differences between production batches, as is the case with the Kiev, for example?
Many thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Andreas
Urnes
Hi Andreas,
I’ve dug out an old thread from the forum where we discussed the Pentacon Six; I reckon this will be a bit of a help to you:
Pentacon Six
Wishing you a Merry Christmas,
Sven
Gast
Hello Andreas,
I can only agree with your decision to go for 6x6, because:
1) Darkroom equipment for hobbyists is generally designed for formats up to 6x6. I’m assuming you already have a decent enlarger capable of handling up to 6x9. Otherwise, it’ll be a struggle, as apart from the Meopta Magnifax, there’s hardly anything affordable and usable in this format. And that’s precisely why the Magnifax fetches a higher price on eBay than, say, an Opemus. You can now pick one of those up for next to nothing (if you don’t already have one).
2) As you’ll certainly want to take 6x9 shots in portrait format as well, you’ll also need a suitably sturdy tripod and a solid tripod head so that the camera can be panned. The tripod head in particular can be quite expensive.
In my opinion, however, you’ll achieve more if you stick to high-end 35mm lenses than if you resort to cheap medium-format kit.
For close-ups, for example, the Zück-Schnecke with a Componon-S would be a fine choice. (As it’s an expensive apochromatic lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.0, you can also use it brilliantly for portraits.) If you work with an enlarger that remains properly stable even when fully extended, you’ll also have a top-quality lens for enlarging. Otherwise, you’ll need to fit a very good, smaller lens into the enlarger. If you also use filters when taking photos, I guarantee that the results will be more impressive than with simple roll film point-and-shoot cameras.
But generally speaking, once you’ve decided to switch to medium format, you don’t give up on that intention. That was the case for me too. In any event, the roll film format has the advantage that I’m always a source of amusement to those around me when I turn up with my big black box. ;-)
Happy Holidays
Dierk
mau
Most of the blurry ones are caused by camera shake. Of course, with a 50
