Should I buy a Moskva-5?

I don't know this camera, but there are some tips on it at photosensitive.ca:

Photosensitive » Moskva 5 Tips

A 2¼x3¼-inch coupled RF is quite a rare thing. Like Jochen, I don't need this one; I have my Century Graphic (what I need is a large box of get-up-and-go to make me get out there and use it).

I've only ever seen and handled one example, and it was in poor shape. The lens looked cloudy and the shutter speeds sounded erratic. Only to be expected from a 60+ year old camera I suppose.

There are a few sample photos on flickr. More if you search for 'industar 24'. The pictures look good, but I suspect you might have to search quite hard to find a Moscau 5 in good condition.

Certainly cheaper than an overpriced Super Ikonta or similar though.

Like all ancient and used kit, condition is everything. I'd describe myself as 'well used - - and showing definite signs of use/amateur repair'.

I have two Moskva 5s, one good one and one for spares. The good one is in very good condition but I haven't used it yet however I expect it to be a good picture taker because the shutter works superbly, the rangefinder is accurate and the lens is clean

There are problems to watch for when buying Zeiss copies and Zeiss folders as well, they derive common faults after much use

The Chrome struts may not click into place due to worn parts

The self timer brackets break off due to owners forcing them and not knowing how to set it properly

The focus wheel may be hard to turn due to gummed gears in which case it's easier to turn the lens ring

To remove the top cover on a Moskva 5, the three rangefinder glasses need to be removed first, this can be a problem if they're not reasonably loose enough to start with

And of course, there may be pin holes in the bellows

Lucky for me mine has none of these problems but I did carefully search and choose a good one online. The important thing is the chrome struts, study the photos in the description and check the struts are fully seated down over the chrome rivets on the lens standard

I have two Moskva 5s, one good one and one for spares. The good one is in very good condition but I haven't used it yet however I expect it to be a good picture taker because the shutter works superbly, the rangefinder is accurate and the lens is clean

 

There are problems to watch for when buying Zeiss copies and Zeiss folders as well, they derive common faults after much use

 

The Chrome struts may not click into place due to worn parts

 

The self timer brackets break off due to owners forcing them and not knowing how to set it properly

 

The focus wheel may be hard to turn due to gummed gears in which case it's easier to turn the lens ring

 

To remove the top cover on a Moskva 5, the three rangefinder glasses need to be removed first, this can be a problem if they're not reasonably loose enough to start with

 

And of course, there may be pin holes in the bellows

 

Lucky for me mine has none of these problems but I did carefully search and choose a good one online. The important thing is the chrome struts, study the photos in the description and check the struts are fully seated down over the chrome rivets on the lens standard

Thanks. I was aware of some of this, but not all.

LINK Moskva-5

Older varieties of the Moskva were pretty much clones of the Zeiss Ikonta C, but I understand the 5 model like the Leica and Contax cameras made in the USSR) was beginning to move on.

Another camera in this family is the East German Ikonta C, the Ercona (LINK)

So there is some choice of different variants.

Thanks. I was aware of some of this, but not all.

Another couple:

The back is not hinged, it falls off when the catch is unlocked , so it needs to be held to prevent surface damage from dropping

The original tiny knobs for sliding the red window film number doors are often missing and in some cases replaced with screws

I just recently acquired a Moskva 5 a few months ago but only used it once so far. My initial impression is that it's every bit as solid as the Super-Ikonta C it emulates. I think I have a decent unit, from what I can tell the Industar 24 lens is easily as sharp as the Tessar (Pima Air Museum, Tucson Arizona, 400TMY-2):

The rangefinder on mine is accurate and my only complaint really is the film wind knob has no lift-up key to assist in winding as is found on its Zeiss counterparts. After a few rolls, I was starting to build calluses on my thumb and forefinger!

I just recently acquired a Moskva 5 a few months ago but only used it once so far. My initial impression is that it's every bit as solid as the Super-Ikonta C it emulates. I think I have a decent unit, from what I can tell the Industar 24 lens is easily as sharp as the Tessar (Pima Air Museum, Tucson Arizona, 400TMY-2):

 

 

The rangefinder on mine is accurate and my only complaint really is the film wind knob has no lift-up key to assist in winding as is found on its Zeiss counterparts. After a few rolls, I was starting to build calluses on my thumb and forefinger!

Thanks for the nice example shots. Cool aircraft too.

YES , At one time I actually had 3 Mockba 5 cameras . I have many pics I felt were just fine , it wasn't

until I compared similar shots with my Mamiya 7 that I felt it could be a bit better ( These were on Provia 100F)

And to be quite honest that Mamiya sets the bar awfully high . There was always space in the saddlebag for it .

And did I mention they were dirt cheap :) , Peter

ps:^ those shots are great !

Best of luck wogears, I look forward to seeing your results!

I had a Moskva 5 in good condition, and was hopeful for good results. The lens was very sharp, and the general construction good, giving me hope. However, the shutter went off with a bang. Combined with a folding construction that was not really as rigid as a Zeiss Super Ikonta, the vibrations from the shutter robbed the image of critical sharpness. I have been much happier with the results from Super Ikonta's, which I have found to deliver negatives every bit as good as a similar-era Rolleiflex.

@allancobb: what is the plane(s) on the first image of your post #10? I see two front-facing propellers (unlike the B-36 on the second photo) and two pod-mounted jet engines. First reaction is they belong to distinct planes, but the shadow on the ground is of a single wing. What is that frankenplane? A test bed for early jet engines?

Splendid tonality in the metal and the clouds.

I just recently acquired a Moskva 5 a few months ago but only used it once so far. My initial impression is that it's every bit as solid as the Super-Ikonta C it emulates. I think I have a decent unit, from what I can tell the Industar 24 lens is easily as sharp as the Tessar (Pima Air Museum, Tucson Arizona, 400TMY-2):

 

 

 

The rangefinder on mine is accurate and my only complaint really is the film wind knob has no lift-up key to assist in winding as is found on its Zeiss counterparts. After a few rolls, I was starting to build calluses on my thumb and forefinger!

@allancobb: what is the plane(s) on the first image of your post #10? I see two front-facing propellers (unlike the B-36 on the second photo) and two pod-mounted jet engines. First reaction is they belong to distinct planes, but the shadow on the ground is of a single wing. What is that frankenplane? A test bed for early jet engines?

Splendid tonality in the metal and the clouds.

Thanks! “Frankenplane” is an apt description. This is a KB-50J, this particular example at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson Arizona. The B-50 stemmed from the B-29; as they got older and eventually replaced as bombers, they were converted to aerial refueling tankers. In order to fly faster for the higher-speed aircraft they refueled, the external tanks were replaced with J-47 turbojet engines. A description of this very plane is here.

My experience with the Moskvas is that it mostly depends on the general shape of the camera. Obviously there are many worn out samples around, with bend struts, scratched lenses, worn bellows etc. Sometimes you have to buy two or three of them to assemble a decent one. Once you get them to work, they are not too bad. The lens does not compare to a post-war Zeiss Jena Tessar but is far better than most 3-element designs. The shutter can be reasonably accurate once it is cleaned and adjusted properly. The rangefinder is a bit difficult to adjust but works nice. The built-in viewfinder is more handy than the frame finder on the Ikontas (and earlier Moskvas) but its image is much smaller.

So I would recommend to buy one on a camera show, not by mail order. You will pay more than when buying from a russian or ukrainian dealer, but, as mentioned, you might two or three buys to end up with something that compares with a nice sample from a camera show.