murrayatuptown
Established
Hello:
I just activated my membership. I posted first to MF other because my Moskva V is what really needs the most attention.
My other RF's are three Argus C3 variants (wrong forum).
Anyway, this is pretty much just a test to make sure I'm now interactive here.
I read about 'good and bad' FSU cameras. It seems the 35mm ones and the 645/6x6 SLR's have the most variation. The discussion about Moskva quality seems to be more focussed on whether they are operator-damaged or not.
So, I am trying to assess whether a CLA will accomplish anything. I have run some film thru it but as you all know there are a lot of variables and I can't tell good from bad yet due to inconsistent results. Using transparent tape over the film plane, it seems like infinity focus is horribly off (8-15 meters focusses best), yet the rangefinder seems to track correctly with a separate Blik rangefinder (close anyway, 1-1.5 meter). I think I will retry focal plane testing with a piece of ground glass so I know it's flat.
Unfortunately my first two rolls were a self-induced failure; I insisted on trying 220 film with the red window taped over and hand counting exposures. I also masked the 6x6 mask down further to about 6x4.5. I got 27 exposures hand counting (of course the spacing was erratic). I gave up fighting light leaks. I tried a 'real' roll of 120 film and the lab said 'looks like Holga'. I laughed, although I guess that's not funny. I had forgotten where I put the 3/8-1/4" tripod adapter (cmaera was ou tof it's case to use a tripod), so I shot the roll simply leaning against the tripod but exposures up to 2 seconds...so with 'Holga' results accordingly.
Is there an issue with 'good' or 'bad' lenses on this camera? It would be a waste of $ to have it CLA'ed if it was problematic from the beginning.
I'm aware of Tessar-corner syndrome, bellows opening before winding, etc, but I still find ways to screw up a roll!
These don't look any sharper than my pinhole work!
Murray
I just activated my membership. I posted first to MF other because my Moskva V is what really needs the most attention.
My other RF's are three Argus C3 variants (wrong forum).
Anyway, this is pretty much just a test to make sure I'm now interactive here.
I read about 'good and bad' FSU cameras. It seems the 35mm ones and the 645/6x6 SLR's have the most variation. The discussion about Moskva quality seems to be more focussed on whether they are operator-damaged or not.
So, I am trying to assess whether a CLA will accomplish anything. I have run some film thru it but as you all know there are a lot of variables and I can't tell good from bad yet due to inconsistent results. Using transparent tape over the film plane, it seems like infinity focus is horribly off (8-15 meters focusses best), yet the rangefinder seems to track correctly with a separate Blik rangefinder (close anyway, 1-1.5 meter). I think I will retry focal plane testing with a piece of ground glass so I know it's flat.
Unfortunately my first two rolls were a self-induced failure; I insisted on trying 220 film with the red window taped over and hand counting exposures. I also masked the 6x6 mask down further to about 6x4.5. I got 27 exposures hand counting (of course the spacing was erratic). I gave up fighting light leaks. I tried a 'real' roll of 120 film and the lab said 'looks like Holga'. I laughed, although I guess that's not funny. I had forgotten where I put the 3/8-1/4" tripod adapter (cmaera was ou tof it's case to use a tripod), so I shot the roll simply leaning against the tripod but exposures up to 2 seconds...so with 'Holga' results accordingly.
Is there an issue with 'good' or 'bad' lenses on this camera? It would be a waste of $ to have it CLA'ed if it was problematic from the beginning.
I'm aware of Tessar-corner syndrome, bellows opening before winding, etc, but I still find ways to screw up a roll!
These don't look any sharper than my pinhole work!
Murray