Moskva 2, 4 and 5

[Grim Tuesday]

Can anyone speak to their differences in lens quality and reliability? Most discussions on the internet focus on their features all of which are mostly the same, but I imagine it's what is under the hood that counts most. With most cameras the later models tend to be better, but I also happen to know that with soviet stuff made on German equipment the ones that were made on the most original German equipment (i.e. most recently after the war) tend to be the best. At least that is what is said about soviet watches. Is the same true for lenses and cameras?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't used the earlier ones, but I've gotten the impression that the Soviet Zeiss copies (Moskva 2, 4, 5 and Kiev 2, 3, 4) tended to go downhill over time. The Moskva 2 was effectively a 100% clone of the Super Ikonta C from just before the War; the 4 and 5 were "upgrades" with things like double exposure protection and multi-format capability added.

I can say that the Moskva 5 I had had a very good lens and the shutter was accurate, but the top plate shutter release was very hard to use without moving the camera.. Double exposure protection worked well enough to be really annoying (it would still trip if you forgot to cock the shutter), and the format masks are fairly rare these days.

 

[hsandler]

I recently wrote this review of the Moskva-5. Front standard rigidity was the main issue I had with it. https://kosmofoto.com/2021/02/kmz-moskva-5-review/

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Thanks for the well wrote review hsandler

 

[Huss]

I have the 5. There is an issue with parallax as the vf is so far off from the center line of the lens, unlike the previous versions.
But as long as you realize that, you can guestimate to compensate for it.

It's a nice camera, I bought mine from Fedka to make sure I got a working one, and it also came with the 6x6 mask which is nice.
I recovered mine in white leather to make the White Russian. Kind of an homage to The ig Lebowski in a convoluted way!
I also have a spare set of leather in tartan for once I need to scratch that itch!

I may be selling mine - too many kameras..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

2 is often very worn out. But still works. 5 is just very odd camera, easy to find LN, but the reason might be with something wrong in it.
4 is golden middle.
Lenses are interchangeable, if you are willing to do so. But don’t expect Zeiss quality from any of them. Even with all lenses been coated.

As for watches I know person who worked in Switzerland as Soviet trade representative. USSR was sending watch mechanisms to Switzerland by freight trains.
My oldest working watches are from very late USSR. Cardinal brand.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Parallax isn't a big deal until your inside, say, three or four meters; at six meters, the distance between the lens and viewfinder is a small enough angle not to be noticeable.

 

[Huss]

Parallax isn't a big deal until your inside, say, three or four meters; at six meters, the distance between the lens and viewfinder is a small enough angle not to be noticeable.

I notice it all the time, so it is a big deal to me.
For stuff like portraiture/people shots. Landscapes? No.

 

[StrangestStranger]

I have a Moskva 2 and love it. The lens is very sharp. here's a photo of a print i made from a negative from the camera.

https://flic.kr/p/Ez57SH