For Sale Moskva 4 6x9 folder

[dkreithen]

FS: A Moskva 4 6x9 folding camera, with leather case.

The good: it works, was recently overhauled. Shutter speeds are accurate within reason (top shutter speed is wishful thinking, as usual). Lens is pretty clean (not pristine, but OK). The bellow are sound and light tight. Rangefinder works ok and is calibrated. Red window film advance works as intended.

The bad: well, it's kinda ugly, condition is about a 6 of 10. It looks old (which it is!). Case is in much better condition. If you're expecting results at the same level as a modern camera, you'll be disappointed. The lens is a 110mm f4.5 Tessar-clone, which is coated. It's just plain soft at full aperture. Stopped down it's an OK performer. This is a left-handed camera (shutter release is operated with the left hand). Ergonomics are perhaps the worst I've ever used, but it does produce negatives that are big. I haven't used this for color, so I can't tell you how it handles color - but I'd bet the look is unique. Oh, and tripod sockets are 3/8", not 1/4".

This camera is a clone of the pre-war Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C. Apparently the Russians carted the entire factory back to the motherland after the war, so the camera probably was produced using the same machining as the Zeiss camera.

Asking $75 + shipping/insurance. Cheap enough to play with, I guess. Thanks.

 

🛡️ Classifieds Safety Reminder: Please stay safe when buying and selling. Scams via hacked accounts are on the rise globally.

Best Practices: Always use a verified payment method with buyer protection (avoid "PayPal Friends & Family"). Services like Escrow.com are highly secure. Be suspicious of random unsolicited contact via Private Message. If you see suspicious behavior, please use the Report link on the post immediately.

[Donald Qualls]

I had a Moskva 5 a while back -- essentially the same camera, but with the viewfinder moved into a single nickel plated top cover (still two windows, though). I found the lens was quite okay -- the problem with softness was that it was almost impossible to trip the shutter from the top release without rotating the camera enough to show as motion blur. On a tripod, it was quite okay, even at f/4.

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

That said, there aren't many fully featured 6x9 rangefinder folders for this kind of money, and the one I had produced some good negatives when I could get it to hold still.

 

[Kyle M.]

I had a Moskva 5 a while back -- essentially the same camera, but with the viewfinder moved into a single nickel plated top cover (still two windows, though). I found the lens was quite okay -- the problem with softness was that it was almost impossible to trip the shutter from the top release without rotating the camera enough to show as motion blur. On a tripod, it was quite okay, even at f/4.

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

That said, there aren't many fully featured 6x9 rangefinder folders for this kind of money, and the one I had produced some good negatives when I could get it to hold still.

I have to say the same. I’ve made some pretty impressive photos with my Moskva 5, when there’s no motion blur. Funny I never had that issue with my ikonta with the same horrible shutter release.

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

THIS IS SO WRONG. Did you ever lived in that country, that you can judge. I had Moskva 5 a years back, and never had any problems with camera.

 

[btaylor]

You might check the rangefinder calibration, could be the cause of the not sharp photos. Or not. I had a Moskva 5 as well. Loved the big negative and it was sharp. But I just couldn’t get comfortable with it and sold it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

THIS IS SO WRONG. Did you ever lived in that country, that you can judge. I had Moskva 5 a years back, and never had any problems with camera.

I never had problems with mine, either, aside from the ergonomics. I sold my Moskva 5 because I found a lighter, slightly more compact 6x9 (30+ years older, too) that consistently gave me better negatives -- even without a rangefinder.

 

[dkreithen]

Price drop to $50 + shipping/insurance.

 

[MattKing]

Someone left handed like me should buy this!

 

[Alan9940]

Is the rangefinder window and patch clear enough that someone (me) with old eyes could still focus this camera properly?

 

[dkreithen]

Sold.

 

[Maude Summerside]

THIS IS SO WRONG. Did you ever lived in that country, that you can judge. I had Moskva 5 a years back, and never had any problems with camera.

What a useless comment....

What are you trying to proof here ?

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

What a useless comment....

What are you trying to proof here ?

Maude, I was replying to the comment made by Donald Qualls (see above post #6):

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 40 years. The people in that country wasn't pushed to work on the jobs what they don't like and don't chose by themselves. Same as in Canada or US, in USSR people chose by them self what they like to do, and where they prefer to work and they can change their job if they don't like any more current place or found a better opportunity. This is very wrong to say that the camera not good because the worker was pushed to do something what he don't like, or because he worked on the land or factory that was not his own. I don't think that every workers in US or Canada absolutely perfect at work and they having a feeling that the factory or a company where they work their own. The production of the manufacturing facility can be better or worse because of many technological reasons and factors. For example the factory uses old equipment and machinery and cant get to required level of precision, but to obtain new required equipment not possible by some reasons not related to the workers. Or let say the quality control of the production not on the highest level, or say material not the best for that particular detail, but it is hard to obtain another better material or it is more expensive and will reflect on the price of the produced item. I'm absolutely sure that a good worker in any country trying to do his job the best and fastest way he can, depends on equipment and materials available. I can give you a lot more examples, but don't think it is necessary, I hope you understand wat my comment was about.

About that particular camera. I was very happy when i own a MOCKVA 5 in 70ties. The camera was old, used of course, but worked perfectly. I don't remember any problems with ergonomics. Yes it maybe was not the lightest camera in the world, but not the heaviest to. It was a not bad camera, reliable and simple. I hope the new owner happy with it.

 

[Maude Summerside]

Maude, I was replying to the comment made by Donald Qualls (see above post #6):

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 40 years. The people in that country wasn't pushed to work on the jobs what they don't like and don't chose by themselves. Same as in Canada or US, in USSR people chose by them self what they like to do, and where they prefer to work and they can change their job if they don't like any more current place or found a better opportunity. This is very wrong to say that the camera not good because the worker was pushed to do something what he don't like, or because he worked on the land or factory that was not his own. I don't think that every workers in US or Canada absolutely perfect at work and they having a feeling that the factory or a company where they work their own. The production of the manufacturing facility can be better or worse because of many technological reasons and factors. For example the factory uses old equipment and machinery and cant get to required level of precision, but to obtain new required equipment not possible by some reasons not related to the workers. Or let say the quality control of the production not on the highest level, or say material not the best for that particular detail, but it is hard to obtain another better material or it is more expensive and will reflect on the price of the produced item. I'm absolutely sure that a good worker in any country trying to do his job the best and fastest way he can, depends on equipment and materials available. I can give you a lot more examples, but don't think it is necessary, I hope you understand wat my comment was about.

About that particular camera. I was very happy when i own a MOCKVA 5 in 70ties. The camera was old, used of course, but worked perfectly. I don't remember any problems with ergonomics. Yes it maybe was not the lightest camera in the world, but not the heaviest to. It was a not bad camera, reliable and simple. I hope the new owner happy with it.

Sorry, maybe I got myself wrong.
Just tired of seing some soviet bashing regarding cameras.
People talk about stuff they don't know.
The FED-4 with a light meter got into production before Leica even got a camera with a lightmeter out.

I have many cameras, many soviet ones and japanese too. The soviet ones work like a charm and are easy to fix when something goes bad.
And they have nice history.

I'm looking for a Mockva-5 one day....

Like you said, they ain't light but they are tough as a tank.

Sorry if you got my message the wrong way.

 

[Maude Summerside]

Maude, I was replying to the comment made by Donald Qualls (see above post #6):

That said, the Moskva camera factory was a glowing example of the Soviet Worker at Work -- people who were pushed into jobs they hadn't sought or, in the early days, working in a land that was not their own (along with the factory, as many workers as could be rounded up were carted away). Not a formula for the best the camera industry had to offer. Also, as noted, the ergonomics rather suck.

I lived in the Soviet Union for almost 40 years. The people in that country wasn't pushed to work on the jobs what they don't like and don't chose by themselves. Same as in Canada or US, in USSR people chose by them self what they like to do, and where they prefer to work and they can change their job if they don't like any more current place or found a better opportunity. This is very wrong to say that the camera not good because the worker was pushed to do something what he don't like, or because he worked on the land or factory that was not his own. I don't think that every workers in US or Canada absolutely perfect at work and they having a feeling that the factory or a company where they work their own. The production of the manufacturing facility can be better or worse because of many technological reasons and factors. For example the factory uses old equipment and machinery and cant get to required level of precision, but to obtain new required equipment not possible by some reasons not related to the workers. Or let say the quality control of the production not on the highest level, or say material not the best for that particular detail, but it is hard to obtain another better material or it is more expensive and will reflect on the price of the produced item. I'm absolutely sure that a good worker in any country trying to do his job the best and fastest way he can, depends on equipment and materials available. I can give you a lot more examples, but don't think it is necessary, I hope you understand wat my comment was about.

About that particular camera. I was very happy when i own a MOCKVA 5 in 70ties. The camera was old, used of course, but worked perfectly. I don't remember any problems with ergonomics. Yes it maybe was not the lightest camera in the world, but not the heaviest to. It was a not bad camera, reliable and simple. I hope the new owner happy with it.

I was also talking about Donald Quals comment...

I just saw that I quoted the wrong message.

Sorry again.

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

@Rudolf Karachun misunderstood Donald's comment. @Donald Qualls was NOT talking about Soviet citizens, he was referring to German prisoners of war who were forced to work in Soviet Union after WW2, getting the freshly relocated factories up & running.

... which is ironic, because the Soviet old-timers often say that the quality went down after the Germans were allowed to return home and the freshly trained locals had taken over.

Greg, most of the German prisoners was working on the big construction sites, in the mines or in the camps in Siberia. There was no camera factories in Siberia. The quality went down because in the Soviet Union, always the first and most important thing was the military industry, and most of the money was used for the military. Not because the soviets wanted to go on the over war, they never want the war, but because they want to protect the country from the other possible enemies. All the new technology and new equipment wat the country used to develop or purchase from the others was at first used in the military industry. And if that technology happens to be good for military, it became a secret and never used in other industries. I start working on the textile machine production plant in 1977. I was very surprised when i sow in the one of the shop of that plant the American made milling machine dated to the beginning of the 20 century. And that machine was in perfect working condition and was used in the production. Another problem that a lot of skilled people was killed during the war and country didn't have a good workers, the workers was young with little or no experience and when the tooling and jigs what was taken from Germany started wearing down the quality of production went down to. Of course on any worksite there always a person or few who don't care and don't like to do a good job. But most of the people was responsible for their duties. In short the problem was that the soviets never learn how to do the business. That was the biggest problem of that country.

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

Sorry, maybe I got myself wrong.
Just tired of seing some soviet bashing regarding cameras.
People talk about stuff they don't know.
The FED-4 with a light meter got into production before Leica even got a camera with a lightmeter out.

I have many cameras, many soviet ones and japanese too. The soviet ones work like a charm and are easy to fix when something goes bad.
And they have nice history.

I'm looking for a Mockva-5 one day....

Like you said, they ain't light but they are tough as a tank.

Sorry if you got my message the wrong way.

No problem Maude. I just see from time to time some kind of posts about the Soviet Union, and I understand that a lot of people don't have a real correct opinion of that country. Same as we there didn't have a good opinion about the US. Now I'm living more than 20 years in US and I can see that a lot of things in USSR was much better then in US and opposite to. So in reality there no ideal place in the world same as ideal social system.

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

Rudolf, KMZ was built by German POWs. Tough times, as Zeiss used Soviet POWs during the war too. We're all glad it's over.

Greg, I just open the KMZ site, and they have a short history of the plant there. The government order to start building the plant was given in February 1942. In 1942 there was not that many German prisoners in Soviet Union. Maybe some was and as i said they worked on the construction site, that can be of course. The first camera the photo sniper FS-2 was produced in 1944 even before the end of the war. The camera was made for the military, not for the public. And the main purpose of building the plant was to produce optical and photographical devices for the military use. The first camera for public was developed in 1946, it was the Moskva 1.
The design department was created only in 1948. In the middle of 1948 was produced first Zorki. The most of the prisoners was out from the USSR in 1950. Yes it was a prisoners camp in Krasnogorsk, and according to the internet that was a specific camp for the the highest range people from the German army, like the generals and other officers. For example general Fon Paulus was in that camp. It is very possible that the highest officers of the German army was very proficient in optics, and they build the first Soviet cameras. I don't know, i didn't find any information about this on the internet.