Old russian camera, worth buying? What price?

[Dustin McAmera]

Unless the OP has settled in Estonia, returning the camera later seems a lot of trouble. In the context of the costs that arise when travelling, a hundred and twenty euro isn't a bad risk.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

See if there is a return policy. One problem with some folders is that they can get out of alignment, resulting in pictures that are in focus on one side but not the other. You may not be able to notice that without trying it.

Agree. Like Donald said, a camera that looks good (meaning is not trashed/looks very used) may be less likely to have the problem. Also check that struts don't have apparent /visible bends/twist and that struts "snap" firmly in place when you open the camera. A camera with this problem may no snap correctly or be wobbly.

 

[xya]

It's funny to see the alignment problem coming more and more into focus (no pun intended). I have had much more than 100 folders. None of them had an alignment problem. All sort of failures, shutter in the first place, film advance in collision with double exposure prevention comes in second, and then leaks, aperture and bad fokus...

The Moskva 5 is a nice camera and not frail at all. So if it looks good, go for it.

 

[ic-racer]

Nice to have the rangefinder and two different formats. If you don't do your own repairs, have someone test the rangefinder and shutter, do a CLA and you should have a camera that lasts you many years.

 

[Dr. no]

A Moscow-5 is one of my main travel cameras... it fits in a (jacket) pocket, takes a large negative, tough and relatively light, a quite good lens/shutter, and is often a conversation starter. I'm on my second--they are not waterproof and the first one got wet and rusted in my backpack on a long hike.

Here's a shoot from Paris, set on a bridge railing.
https://lungehphoto.com/p789889842/hee006b27#hee006b27
Notre Dame before the fire...

 

[Donald Qualls]

they are not waterproof

Very few mechanical cameras are. Then again, if you know right away that it's gotten wet, you can usually save one with a prompt CLA (within days, I mean).

And if not being waterproof is its greatest weakness, I'd say it's a good choice indeed.

 

[JPD]

Very few mechanical cameras are. Then again, if you know right away that it's gotten wet, you can usually save one with a prompt CLA (within days, I mean).

And if not being waterproof is its greatest weakness, I'd say it's a good choice indeed.

I searched in vain for a Rollex 6x9 film holder in a Submariner version.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I searched in vain for a Rollex 6x9 film holder in a Submariner version.

I think you'd have better luck finding a housing for a Medalist...

 

[Dr. no]

Long enough hike that there was rust before I noticed.

Good enough camera to replace it, though. And replaced the backpack too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And replaced the backpack too.

Probably a good move...

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

In a way, I'm glad Moskva camera is getting a lot of love in this thread. Didn't expected that due to the (probably justified) preconceived idea that all soviet cameras are trash.

Moskva may be a copy but a well accomplished one IMHO.

 

[Donald Qualls]

all soviet cameras are trash.

Well, I don't think anyone actually thinks that. There were top quality ones (earlier Kiev/Contax models, some Zorki and Fed) and consumer models (Smena 8M, Drug, etc.) and some quality consumer cameras (Kiev Vega, 30, 303). The Soviet photographic industry was hobbled by the same economic and political system that hobbled everything else under Stalin and Kruschev, but from what I've seen, the actual workers did the best they could with what they had, and export cameras (like Moskva, Kiev, Zorki and Fed) got the best quality materials that were available.

 

[xya]

Well, I don't think anyone actually thinks that. There were top quality ones (earlier Kiev/Contax models, some Zorki and Fed) and consumer models (Smena 8M, Drug, etc.) and some quality consumer cameras (Kiev Vega, 30, 303). The Soviet photographic industry was hobbled by the same economic and political system that hobbled everything else under Stalin and Kruschev, but from what I've seen, the actual workers did the best they could with what they had, and export cameras (like Moskva, Kiev, Zorki and Fed) got the best quality materials that were available.

Yes, there are plenty of good Russian cameras indeed and the Moskva 5 is one of them. There is the Iskra, very handy, and the Iskra-2 one of the best (if you don't have 3000 € to spend on an Agfa 66 in working condition). Among the newer ones there is the Lomo LC 120, a unique camera. All are visible on my site https://www.120folder.com/compa.htm and not to speak of the smaller sizes...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, there are plenty of good Russian cameras indeed and the Moskva 5 is one of them. There is the Iskra, very handy, and the Iskra-2 one of the best (if you don't have 3000 € to spend on an Agfa 66 in working condition). Among the newer ones there is the Lomo LC 120, a unique camera. All are visible on my site https://www.120folder.com/compa.htm and not to speak of the smaller sizes...

And I'm very happy with my Kiev 2 (vintage 1955). As I said, the earlier models, made with the original Zeiss equipment that had been hauled to Kiev after the War, were nearly perfect copies of the pre-War Contax. A lot of the glass for them and the LTM Zorki and Fed was quite good, also (and of course with the slightest modification one place or another, my Kiev 2 will use any Contax rangefinder mount lens from any manufacturer).

To be quite honest, I'm a little surprised the Soviets didn't make a copy of the Minox -- their Minolta 16 copies/upgrades are also quite good (pending correction of long-rotted foam light seals).

 

[xya]

...To be quite honest, I'm a little surprised the Soviets didn't make a copy of the Minox -- their Minolta 16 copies/upgrades are also quite good (pending correction of long-rotted foam light seals).

But they did for the Hasselblad as Kiev 80/88. Inspite of all the rumours my copies do work nicely https://www.oddcameras.com/kiev_88.htm, just got hold of a 4.5x6 back which will be tested within the next weeks...

 

[neilt3]

The Kiev 88 was my first proper medium format SLR that I bought over twenty years ago and is still working great .
I've replaced the seals on the backs , and apart from one that somehow scratches the film , all others work fine . Including the 645 back .
I still occasionally use it , though at the moment if I'm not using TLRs I'm using either a Bronica SQ-AI or ETRSi.

I got a Kiev 4 around the same time from the same used camera shop .
It was made in 1974 , the same year as I was born , and it's in much better condition than me !
And unlike me , it's still in perfect working order .
I've since picked up a 4a in black .

I've had the Moskva 5 about four or five years ( or more ) and that's also in perfect working order . Shutter , rangefinder and bellows etc all spot on .

I've quite a few of the Zorky rangefinders that work well and quite a few of the FED rangefinders that don't !

So I think that answers the quality of the manufacturers .

I've a few original LOMO TLRs ( not these new ones ) one works right , another has a slightly slow shutter which you can allow for by setting a faster shutter speed . And one with stuff focussing.
So they need a service at some point .

Then , as today , expected as with anything with LOMO on it !!