Finally...8-9 months later, I shot a roll, and 'went the wrong way' metering shadows and ADDING stops instead of taking away...all overexposed...maybe I can scan negs and at least look at them that way. Duh...
Still haven't been able to tighten the rivets. I had a tool made and I wanted too much flexibility for everycamera and didn't work.
Reworking the tool so it's stronger and will try again.
not to drive you away for this fine forum, but- there is a group of knowledgable
Russian camera owner/users/repairers at ;
"Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."
Just a few comments:
Originally Posted by Murray@uptowngallery
I have a pretty much complete set of Moskva Cameras, including the Moskva 1. All of them are of post WW-II manufacture and all have coated lenses.
The cyrillic character (the upside down "n") simply indicates that the lens is an "Industar." It is a quite decent Tessar design lens.
The weakest point of the camera design is the strut support system for the folding bed/bellows assembly. The struts are easily bent and can cause lens/film plane misalignment.
The Moskvas are good picture takers if everything is properly aligned and functioning correctly. However IMO the best Russian MF Folder is the second model of the Iskra
Everything is analog - even digital :D
Yes, that 'N mirror image' letter stand for an uppercase "I" but the red, uppercase, "pi" letter was used in the 50's and earlier 60's by the soviets to mean that the lens was single coatted, it appears on my Jupiter-3 (1964), Jupiter-8 (1956), Jupiter-9 (1959), Industar-24 (1957) but not on my Jupiter-8M (1977), Helios-103 (1983) and Jupiter-12 (1984). I think they stopped to mark the lens around 1972/72. It was sexy to have a single coated lens in the 50's and 60's.
Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
I signed onto the Best Stuff forum, too.
I'm determined to tighten those rivets and 'stop the flop' in the front standard.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have added some pictures taken with my Moskva-5's to the galery on Best
Stuff, they both seem fine regards focusing, only one of them seems to have
a slight light leak on the left side
I'll go have a look!
Originally Posted by vazquez
I've got a "4" and am very pleased with it as I only paid $69 for it. I had some trouble with the lens focusing properly but once I disassemble and cleaned every thing it works great. I've made some 11x14 enlargements
of images I took in San Fransico and was very pleased with the sharpness and contrast. And you can fold it up and wstick it in your pocket!
No escaping it!
I must step on fallen leaves
to take this path
My Moskva 5 experience
My Moskva 5 body is just OK, looks better since I painted the top plate with black wrinkle-finish paint, tho the eyepiece fell out somewhere. But the lens is an absolute gem!
I've used many, many cameras of all formats and manufacturers, and this 105 Industar truly is equal to the very best medium or large format lenses I've ever dealt with, in both sharpness and contrast, out to about 6x7. It truly is spectacular; I can shoot leaves against the bright sun, and they are THERE.
It is so good, matter of fact, that I'm close to mounting it in a Horseman lens board and using it on my 985. I wouldn't even take it apart, lest I change the spacing. This must be an example of one of the statistical few that came out right; I wish I had more of them on decent bodies.
While I am quite fond of my Moscva 5, I wouldn't got that far on the lens.
Originally Posted by Agiyo
Below is a picture of a house, and two pictures of the house number. The really sharp one is a Kodak 105mm. Reputedly one of the real sharp lenses. The Kodak resolution is better than my scanner's ability with negatives. The Industar, while good, is not in the same class.
I should note that both were taken about f16 with a tripod and a shutter release. Perhaps I have a bad Industar...