PDA

View Full Version : Moskva-4 First Picture


doubs43
12-31-2004, 22:00
The Moskva-4 camera, a copy of the Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta C, takes a 6x9cm or 6x6cm picture on 120 roll film. Dummy me used the 6x6 window to advance the film while using the camera as a 6x9 so I had considerable overlap of the images. The attached picture is from the first frame, taken at 1/100th on ISO 100 film at f/11 handheld. These cameras are not noted for being overly sharp but I have no complaints about this shot. I'm going to post a second picture of a small area of the first picture that I've cropped. IMO this particular camera will do quite nicely.

Walker

doubs43
12-31-2004, 22:03
Here's the section that I cropped from the first picture above. This was scanned at 600 dpi. (The first picture was reduced to 100 dpi and resized.)

Walker

Todd.Hanz
12-31-2004, 23:31
Wow, looks sharp to me. What's the difference between the Moskva 4 and 5?

Todd

laurentvenet
01-01-2005, 00:27
great quality and details. I should have bought a scanner able to scan negatives above 24x36

taffer
01-01-2005, 02:04
Looks sharp Walker !

GeneW
01-01-2005, 03:31
Walker, looks great to me!

Gene

Natalia
01-01-2005, 06:24
This look fine, Walker.

dmeledon
01-01-2005, 09:37
What ISO 100 film is that? I love the tone of that image!

doubs43
01-01-2005, 10:17
Originally posted by Todd.Hanz Wow, looks sharp to me. What's the difference between the Moskva 4 and 5?
Todd
Todd, the Moskva-5 has an injection-molded metal body, redesigned top, improved shutter and new lens that's supposed to be better than previous models. Earlier models use a stamped metal body but it's possible to find some of the later Moskva-4's with injection-molded bodies and the Moskva-5 style tops. The shutters and lenses will still be of the older type.

My Moskva-4 is in exceptional condition although completely old-style with stamped metal body and earlier top end. When I received it, the rangefinder was perfect but on ground glass the focus was off. I corrected the focus - an easy adjustment - and you can see the results. It's possible that the original owner wasn't happy with their pictures and put the camera up without ever having it checked.

Walker

doubs43
01-01-2005, 10:25
Originally posted by dmeledon What ISO 100 film is that? I love the tone of that image!

The film is JandC Photo's Pro 100 and it's only $1.39 a roll. I developed it in Rodinal (new type) diluted 1:25 for 7 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees F (20C). J andC's chart doesn't show a time for greater dilutions but I may experiment with 1:50 and 1:100 dilutions.

CORRECTION: The above times are incorrect. The JandC Pro 100 film was developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 13 1/2 minutes. It was the FreeStyle EDU-200 that was developed for 7 1/2 minutes in Rodinal diluted 1:25. I apologize for the incorrect information.

Another member of RFF whose name I can't recall gave a good report of his experience with Pro 100 recently. I decided to give it a try and I'm also impressed.

Here's a link to JandC Photo: http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=2

Walker

peter_n
01-01-2005, 11:02
Looks like this is Lucky film from China, and although JandC know it's from China they deny it is from the Lucky plant. Whatever, it look like excellent quality. Good shot Walker!

JandC Pro 100 (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7362)

doubs43
01-01-2005, 13:46
Originally posted by peter_n
Looks like this is Lucky film from China, and although JandC know it's from China they deny it is from the Lucky plant. Whatever, it look like excellent quality. Good shot Walker!

JandC Pro 100 (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7362)
Peter, I've looked closely at the film to see if I could determine who made it but it lacks any markings or way to tell where it's from. The film base is a very pale blue.

I also have some Arista Edu-200 film from FreeStyle Photo that I used yesterday in my 530/16 model Super Ikonta B with uncoated 80mm f/2.8 Tessar lens. It's not quite as fine-grained as the JandC 100 film but that's to be expected. It's made in Hungary so I believe it to have been made by the people who make Foma films. I'll post a couple of pictures later.

Walker

Roman
01-01-2005, 14:01
Walker, if it was made in Hungary, it was made by Forte, not by Foma (who are located in the Czech Republic, and IIRC don't sell their films under different companies' names).
Those are very different, too: Forte films are rather old-fahsioned and grainy (even more than Efke 100), Foma films are more modern, kinda like Agfa APX100 - I use Fomapan 100 a lot; BTW, Foma medium format films are easily recognisable - the film base is coloured turquoise, as the anti-halation color is dyed into the base, not part of the emulsion as with most other films.
As for Lucky, those have got a bad rep on German forums for being really flare-prone - it is said to produce massive halos around bright or backlit objects - did you notice any of that? I have not used Lucky myself, but saw some prints from a friend who tried it, and they were rather bad (don't know whether it was only the film's fault...). Maybe this film is produced to different specifications by the Lucky factory?

Roman

Doug
01-01-2005, 16:42
Walker, that pic sure has a smooth and rich sharpness to it, evident even at such small size. Looks great!

doubs43
01-01-2005, 18:20
Originally posted by Roman
Walker, if it was made in Hungary, it was made by Forte, not by Foma (who are located in the Czech Republic, and IIRC don't sell their films under different companies' names).
Those are very different, too: Forte films are rather old-fahsioned and grainy (even more than Efke 100), Foma films are more modern, kinda like Agfa APX100 - I use Fomapan 100 a lot; BTW, Foma medium format films are easily recognisable - the film base is coloured turquoise, as the anti-halation color is dyed into the base, not part of the emulsion as with most other films.
As for Lucky, those have got a bad rep on German forums for being really flare-prone - it is said to produce massive halos around bright or backlit objects - did you notice any of that? I have not used Lucky myself, but saw some prints from a friend who tried it, and they were rather bad (don't know whether it was only the film's fault...). Maybe this film is produced to different specifications by the Lucky factory?

Roman

Hi Roman. I meant to say that the FreeStyle EDU-200 film was likely made by Forte.... not Foma. I even researched film manufacturing companies in Hungary just to see who the likely maker was.

I also mixed up my development times between the JandC 100 film and the FreeStyle EDU-200 film. The 100 film from JandC was developed for 13 1/2 minutes in Rodinal diluted 1:50. I think it's old age setting in! :bang:

BTW, the film base of the JandC 100 film is a pale blue color and not deep enough IMO to be turquoise. It would be interesting to know who actually makes the JandC Pro 100 film but if they aren't talking I suppose the best we can do is quess. I like it and haven't seen any halos yet. If I do, I'll let you know. I have a roll of it drying now that I took this afternoon.

Added: I just cut the negatives and this film curles worse than any other film I believe I've ever used. Nice exposures and seem to be sharp but it wants to curl into a ball!!! :(

Walker

peter_n
01-02-2005, 06:49
Originally posted by Roman
As for Lucky, those have got a bad rep on German forums for being really flare-prone - it is said to produce massive halos around bright or backlit objects - did you notice any of that? I have not used Lucky myself, but saw some prints from a friend who tried it, and they were rather bad (don't know whether it was only the film's fault...). Maybe this film is produced to different specifications by the Lucky factory? Was it 35mm film, Roman? I read on the APUG forum that the 35mm Lucky has a poor reputation, but the larger format films are good.

Roman
01-02-2005, 08:16
Peter,
yep, that was 35mm film!