Mockba-5 (Moskva-5, or Moscow 5): First Impressions

[silent1]

Yesterday, I received a Mockba-5 6x9 folder, purchased from

"sovietfoto" on a certain auction site. I thought I'd post my

impressions, given the recent discussion of Ziess-Ikon cameras and the

fact that the Mockba cameras were copied from (and then improved upon)

the Ziess Super Ikonta (C Model, 6x9 format) as produced in the 1930s.

 

The Mockba-5 was the final iteration in the line; my particular unit

appears to have been made in 1959, making it most likely a few months

older than I am, and one of the last examples made. It has the

folding prismatic coupled rangefinder first seen in the Super Ikonta;

this operates by means of two contrarotating prisms that, working

together, progressively deflect the light path for one side of the

rangefinder -- the contrarotation, given a correctly calibrated

rangefinder, cancels any vertical component of the refraction. This

deflection, of course, is calibrated to superpose the images when the

lens is focused at the same distance. This rangefinder is bright and

sharp, with adequate image scale to allow precise setting.

 

The first thing I noticed as I unwrapped the camera was its size --

it's much larger than my other 6x9 folder, a Wirgin Auta 6.3. On

consideration, this is as it must be; the Mockba has a much larger

f/3.5 lens, and the rangefinder adds bulk both on the front standard

and under the top plate. In addition, the viewfinder and rangefinder

don't fold flat as does the sports finder on the Wirgin, so the camera

is taller at all times, as well as thicker because of the lens and

rangefinder arm. The rangefinder arm folds in order to allow the

front standard to retract fully into the body -- some later Super

Ikonta B (6x6) models (from the 1950s) used a fixed prism housing and

extended the bed to cover the entire rangefinder, but I prefer this

setup, as it prevents the need to make the camera too tall.

 

I've read reports of problems with excessive wear in the prism gear

train -- the main shaft bearing wears after forty to sixty years of

service, creating sufficient play to allow the gears to jump teeth,

destroying the calibration of the rangefinder. There's no sign of

that in this camera, and the rangefinder appears accurate within the

limits I've had time to test so far -- setting it on various nearby

objects gave a focus setting on the lens ring that matched estimated

distance very well (and I'm quite good at setting focus by scale,

assisted by the DOF of f/8 to f/5.6 aperture at the same 105 mm focal

length, so my estimates are at least good enough to ensure against

gross miscalibration).

 

This example is very clean; it appears to have been freshly serviced

before the sale, and given the price I paid, this can only be possible

because labor costs in the former Soviet bloc are so much lower than

in the United States. The only flaws I've found are those set forth

in the auction: a small mark on the front prism of the rangefinder,

and an inconsequential dent in the top cover. Neither affects

operation. The shutter speeds look and sound accurate, including 1/2

and 1 second, and the self timer works. The double exposure interlock

works as well; this prevents the body release from being operated a

second time without winding the film forward far enough to disengage

the lock (a distance which corresponds, roughly, to the width of a 6x6

frame). Double exposures can, however, be intentionally produced by

using the release on the front standard for the second snap.

 

All published reports of the viewfinder being too small are true --

with my glasses on, I can't tell the difference between the 6x6 and

6x9 masks in the viewfinder, though when I'm wearing my contacts I

shouldn't have any problem. The rangefinder is pretty nearly useless

for composition, as it has a field of view less than 1/4 that of the

6x6 viewfinder -- fortunately, I seldom do any shooting when not

wearing my contacts.

 

I purchased the 6x6 format mask with my camera; this, combined with

the flick of a lever inside the back and the twist of a dial above the

viewfinder, allows the same camera to convert from 6x9 to 6x6. The

camera is quite bulky for a 6x6 folder -- more than twice the size of

my Ansco Speedex Jr. -- but for that format the lens is a nice

portrait length, and it's certainly smaller and lighter than carrying

two cameras (though in fact I'm likely to carry three, since I have

the Speedex Jr. and the Wirgin Auta, including 6x4.5 format mask,

already).

 

I haven't had a chance to get any film processed from the Mockba yet

-- it's only been a little over 24 hours since I unwrapped it, and

because I don't have a darkroom set up yet, I'm dependent on

commercial processing -- but within the limits I can test, this looks

like a fine example of a well designed camera. There have been

numerous reports of spotty quality in the Mockba, most commonly

related to variance in the Industar-24 lens or to unsteadiness of the

front standard (which can masquerade as lens problems). I won't know

where I stand on that until I can get some film through the camera,

but so far I'm very pleased -- especially given that camera, format

mask, and shipping from Ukraine was less than $75.<div></div>

[jaroslav_ilnytskyi]

Congratulations, Donald, on your purchase and good luck with it! Another possible thing to look for which is not mentioned by you is the possibly quite strong spring in Moment shutter. It may kick the lens assembly quite a bit (I had this in Moskva-4). It might be related to the rigidness of the front standard as well, as you mentioned. Another possible source of lens shake is the linkage between the top shutter release and the one on the shutter. I would recommend to try both. Sometimes, what people might thing is the lens softness can be just a lens shake. Other obvious thing to check is the infinity focus, but if the camera was serviced before the sale this should be OK.

[connealy]

Looks like it will be great fun, and another plus for the Ukraine dealers. I think that was also a good thought on looking out for camera shake at low speeds on the bigger shutters. I just put the first two rolls through an old 6x6 with a whopper old Compur and saw a big difference in sharpness between the shots at a 50th and those at the higher speeds. Not too surprising as the assertive sound of the old shutter is a tip-off that the Compur is moving a large mass of metal at high speed. Being used to the whisper of my 35mm folders, it was a bit of a shock to hear the 6x6 go off the first few times.

[jordan_w.]

They certainly are solid. I had one a while ago, sold it, and have since bought another. Both came from sellers in the US. My general impression of them is positive -- I've made some great prints from it. There are a few negatives, too (no pun intended) The format-reducing mask can scratch your film if you're not careful, so do a test roll before you try anything critical. Also, they can be prone to light leaks, although those may be easily fixed.

 

The first of the two photos below is from my "first" Moskva, used with the 6x6 mask (on a roll on which the film didn't get scratched). The second is from my latest Moskva, light leaks and all. Scanned both of them with the film edges to look all artsy-like.<div></div>

[jordan_w.]

Here's the second photo, taken a few weeks ago on my current Moskva.<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here my Moskva-5 had a tiny pin hole in the bellows; which caused a light leak with the first roll. A drop of black Liquitex; from an art supply store; fixed the problem. I shot some artwork with it that was 28 by 50 inches; with the image filling the negative. The sharpest negative at this ratio was F16. We then scanned the negative; and printed a full 28x50 inch ink jet print. It worked because the artwork was not that detailed at all. The biggest problem was some of the pastel blue's on the artwork came out way off; with the Fuji film. This was when the Kodak color control patch next to the artwork all was calibrated correct on the print. Both the chromes and the prints had a goofy shift; with one of the pastel blues. I had to color correct the blue areas; and merge this as a corrected blue area; in the final print.

[silent1]

Thanks for all the responses! Yes, the shutter on this Mockba is more, um, "energetic" than the ones in my Speedex Jr., Wirgin Auta, or even my Seagull; it's a pretty big area to open and close behind the f/3.5, 10.5 cm lens, and a shutter that will go to 1/250 with that size opening requires some snap in the springs.

 

With more time to examine the camera and make a few shots (though still no images) I can see some flex in the front standard; it's especially prone to shifting "sideways" (oriented with the camera standing in vertical format, bed/door at bottom). Though it appears this shift, due to the parallelogram effect, has little effect on the orientation of the focal plane, it would act like a rapidly changing movement in a field or view camera, which would mean shifting the image on the film -- a very bad thing for sharpness. More disturbing, because simply damping vibration won't necessarily fix it, is that the standard can also allow the lens to tilt (what would be tilt in a view camera, again with camera in vertical orientation); that can lead to part of the image being sharp while another part, at the same object distance, is out of focus.

 

Finally, I've noted that the rangefinder's vertical collimation isn't perfect, which likely means that the two prism aren't perfectly synchronized to cancel vertical refraction. That's an adjustment I'm confident I can improve, once I have time and space to spread parts around, and for the time being, as long as the distances are accurate (and they still seem to be in every test I've made) I can live with it -- it's really only noticeable at infinity, which I can just as easily set by scale.

 

I do note a minor annoyance -- if I forget to cock the shutter, it's still possible to depress the body release enough to trigger the double exposure interlock, which then requires using the front release to make the exposure (insult to injury, after missing a shot due to the uncocked shutter). I don't expect this to be a long term problem; I've gotten used to cocking shutters on two of my other three classics, and if the shutter is cocked, it's a non-issue. Even better, there's no indication this shutter is harmed by changing settings while cocked (unlike the one in my Seagull), so I can (at the minor risk of long term weakening of springs -- which I think would have happened by now with a 44 year old camera) simply cock the shutter when I advance the film after each shot and avoid this annoyance.

 

I'm already aware of the possibility of masks scratching film; the masks in my Wirgin Auta scratched the first roll I put through with them in, but a diligent search for rust pits and light but thorough dry scrubbing with a Scotchbrite pad cleaned it up and it hasn't scratched again since. The same may be necessary with the Mockba -- I'll be sure to check the mask carefully before setting up for 6x6.

 

I'll know a lot more in a few days, when the first roll is processed, but it's looking like I did reasonably well. Of course, now I'm getting the urge to try to add 6x4.5 capability -- should be possible; the body interlock requires only about 1/3 turn to unlock the release for each shot, and 6x4.5 frames will take around 1/2 turn to advance each frame. It would require cutting a hole in the back of the camera, fitting another frame shutter and possibly ruby window, and making or modifying a mask -- I'm not sure it's worth it, except that this lens is so much faster than the one in the Wirgin...

 

Oh, and I was right -- the viewfinder is no problem when I have my contacts in; it just requires getting my eye closer to the window than my glasses will permit.

[jaroslav_ilnytskyi]

<i> It would require cutting a hole in the back of the camera, fitting another frame shutter and possibly ruby window,...

</i>

 

With most films it is perfectly possible to live with only one window for 645. All Fuji slide films have a series of black circles before the frame number, the first one coinsides very well with the half frame for 6x9! So, after frame 1 watch the first circle for frame 2, then the next number and so on. The same applies to Ilford films with star-like circles (more difficult to see, though). Sacrificing one film and measuring the distances on the backing paper may reveal some corrections are required (say, wind until the circle is slightly before or after the center of the red window, etc).

 

If the mask is scratchy then one of the options is to make a mask of thin black carton and put it inbetween the filmgate and the bellows. The size should be individually adjusted for the camera. The corners of the mask can be rounded a bit. This works and normally mask is not moving around and is just pressed when the camera is folded.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

"Finally, I've noted that the rangefinder's vertical collimation isn't perfect, which likely means that the two prism aren't perfectly synchronized to cancel vertical refraction. That's an adjustment I'm confident I can improve."

 

I hope you can - although it might be difficult. Dante Stella describes the alignment procedure of the rangefinder prisms on his site (www.dantestella.com - hidden somewhere in the photo stuff), but IIRC he mentiones that you can only adjust the rangefinder for horizontal alignment and horizontal travel of the superimposed image - but not for vertical misalignment.

[jaroslav_ilnytskyi]

I recall reading somewhere on the net that the prisms should be displaced one against another to help with vertical alignment (sort of take out and reinsert one tooth further). But on my Moskva-4 the prisms were mounted not straight on the toothwheels but on some sort of rings with two notches and then the rings were mounted on the toothwheels. That helped a lot to correct the vertical displacement by just turning the inside rings! Not sure whether the same applies to Moskva-5, but well could be and is easy to check. After correcting a vertical displacement one should realign the horizontal alignment, as usually.

[tito sobrinho]

For 5 years, I have a mint Moskva 5, a gift from a friend of mine. It came with the box, 6x6 mask inside and, a BW exposed roll of film that I need to process. I took several rolls of film without any light leak. I had to adjust the speeds as per my Metrolux II. The only caveat, was the helicoidal focusing mount on the first element that was binding and, the little wheel was difficult to turn. The focusing gears are made of brass and this explains the "breakage". I removed the front element and cleaned the grooves that were full of "crud" due to eletrolysis of metal to metal of employed alloys. Leave the front cell extended in order to avoid groove contact.

 

I have 4 super Ikontas and the focusing wheels are very easy to turn.

 

BTW the Super Ikonta B came with the rigid focusing arm since its inception.

[silent1]

Well, good news and bad news on my Moskva-5. First the good news:<p>

 

I got the pictures back from the first roll, and every one was sharp and printable -- confirmation that shutter and rangefinder are working correctly. Here's an example:<br><center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1892945&size=lg"></center><p>

 

Now the bad news: while loading the third roll of film, I tried to close the 6x6 frame window after switching the back from 6x6 to 6x9 format, and broke off the tiny button that fastens to the window shutter. On examination of the button and frame shutter, I think this part was repaired previously, and the repair was shoddily done. I can pretty easily repair this, though I'm currently vacillating between reusing the original part (for appearance) or fabricating a completely new button -- fabricating new would allow for a stronger, more durable repair, and with a camera I bought for use, rather than display, I lean that direction.

[davecollopy]

Since the back is removable I would just wait for a parts camera to show up on Ebay and switch the back out. Probably run $10 to $15. If you plan to use the camera regularly, a parts camera would be a handy thing to have.

[silent1]

<i>Since the back is removable I would just wait for a parts camera to show up on Ebay and switch the back out. Probably run $10 to $15. If you plan to use the camera regularly, a parts camera would be a handy thing to have.</i><p>

 

Not a bad suggestion, and an alternate I was contemplating -- but I haven't seen any/many parts cameras on eBay since I started looking for folders. Seems the parts cameras may now be getting snarfed up to make more working cameras to sell to stupid rich American photographers who don't know enough to use a modern camera.<p>

 

I'll probably do both -- repair this one, since it's relatively trivial (file off the old peened section, drill and tap the resulting flat end of the old button, thread for a 2-56 screw, and install with washers on both sides of the shutter; probably about an hour's work for a Sunday afternoon, and cost under $10 for the drill and tap set and small bags of screws and washers from the hobby shop) and keep an eye open for a loose back or parts camera. Say, does anyone know if the back from a Moskva-4 will fit a Moskva-5? There seem to be more of them in the low price categories...

[silent1]

<i>Say, does anyone know if the back from a Moskva-4 will fit a Moskva-5? There seem to be more of them in the low price categories...</i><p>

 

Okay, replying to myself, but in case anyone else is still following this thread, I finally got a good look at the backs of some of the Moskva-4 cameras on eBay -- and no, the back's don't appear to interchange with the Moskva-5. The shutters on the framing windows are completely different (less prone to breakage, but without the lockout to prevent advancing on the wrong window for the camera's mask/no-mask state), and the door is hinged instead of coming completely off the camera. So, it's either find a Moskva-5 suitable for parts (I've seen one recently with a bad rangefinder, but it's still almost what I paid for mine) or repair this back. For now, however, I'll just keep shooting in 6x9 until I have time and space for the repair...

[silent1]

Further followup, in case anyone cares.

 

The hole in the framing window shutter for 6x6 was oversize for the original pin, and there wasn't enough material left to repeen the pin in any case. I had originally intended to end drill the pin to some tiny size and use an equally tiny screw (with washer) to attach the pin to the plate, but realized that there wasn't any practical way to grip the original pin, and in any case it's likely to be months before I have my lathe set up again and can perform this kind of work.

 

Instead, I went to a hobby shop and bought some 2-56 fillister head brass screws, with matching nuts and washers, intending to put the head inside and let the nut ride in the slot in the camera back. Unfortunately, a 2-56 hex nut was barely too big to fit in the slot -- I probably could have done it with a 1-80. So, I tried instead to put the screw head outside, nut inside, and sandwich the washers over the back (instead of trying to work a washer down inside the slot to hold against the plate directly, as originally intended). This worked, but the protrustion of the screw (and, after filing it off, the nut) was too great, and interfered with the pressure plate, at first preventing the back from latching on and then, after more trimming, preventing the framing window shutter from moving freely due to friction against the pressure plate (and I was afraid to think what it would do to film drag etc.).

 

Okay, plan C: I took the nut off the inside and used an improvised bucking setup and hammer to peen over the inside end of the screw onto the inner washer, like a rivet. This seems to have worked; there's no friction or interference on the pressure plate, I got the tension right with minimal play but without excessive drag, and with a little careful staking (hitting a miniature screwdriver with a hammer -- not recommended for the faint of heart or those with expensive tools) got the thing secure enough I was confident it wouldn't come loose and rattle around inside.

 

Total cost, including parts I didn't use: just under $6. Time spent on the repair: about an hour. And no permanent alterations to original parts; I can clip or file off the peened screw at any time to remove it and allow a neater repair in the future, if needed or desired.

 

Ah, the joy of a camera with little collector value, simple enough for a lowly nail gun mechanic to work on... B)