sanmich
Veteran
Was such an animal ever produced ??
http://cgi.ebay.com/ISKRA-1-4-5x6-c...ItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
I specially loved the "only 38722 pieces were made"
What a precision...
For small figures like this...
But seriously, is it a 4.5x6 model, or only an additional plate was put there?
THX!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ISKRA-1-4-5x6-c...ItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
I specially loved the "only 38722 pieces were made"
What a precision...
For small figures like this...
But seriously, is it a 4.5x6 model, or only an additional plate was put there?
THX!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
We are talking 'FSU' here Richard!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sure, but the original hole is nice and smooth and the newer one looks like it isn't even painted, bare metal.
[R] If you don't like FSU's nobody is forcing you to buy one.
Izan Ontsa. [/R]
Hey ... I love my Iskra dearly and I find this one intriguing! Modifying the already erratic advance mechanism to give sixteen frames instead of twelve must have been interesting ... if it's been done that is. Or would you just rely on the red windows I guess!
And what about the viewfinder? You should buy it just so these questions can be answered! :angel:
chippy
foo was here
with only 38722 made you had better jump on this quick haha that cracks me up...
nah they made them 6x6 but i have noticed plenty of these 6x4.5 adaptions, ok-ish done by ruff backyard standards (i can imagine Ivan doing this in his garage with a half empty bottle of vodka hehe) or pretty poor looking job if done by proper techs. i have wondered myself whether they are recent adaptions , maybe because of film spacing problems and problems with the film wind mechanism, or whether they were done years ago because people wanted to save on film costs, my thoughts are probably the former as most of them i see are from the same dealers in these camera-probaly picking up cheap non correctly working examples and adapting them...also they dont look exactly 6x4.5 to me, closer to 6x5, which would explain the film spacing theory...
hacked up pieces of junk?
haha that cracks me up...nah they made them 6x6 but i have noticed plenty of these 6x4.5 adaptions, ok-ish done by ruff backyard standards (i can imagine Ivan doing this in his garage with a half empty bottle of vodka hehe) or pretty poor looking job if done by proper techs. i have wondered myself whether they are recent adaptions , maybe because of film spacing problems and problems with the film wind mechanism, or whether they were done years ago because people wanted to save on film costs, my thoughts are probably the former as most of them i see are from the same dealers in these camera-probaly picking up cheap non correctly working examples and adapting them...also they dont look exactly 6x4.5 to me, closer to 6x5, which would explain the film spacing theory...
hacked up pieces of junk?
sanmich
Veteran
So you think it is a custom / modified Iskra...
can be a hell of an opportunity for a rectanglular framing lover.
How would you think is the framing done?
can be a hell of an opportunity for a rectanglular framing lover.
How would you think is the framing done?
chippy
foo was here
there is no doubt at all that they are modified--they were made 6x6..
i can only guess the same as everyone else how the framing is done, but considering the red window drilled in is a reasonable guess its manual--but maybe not!!!
retangular framing lovers and oppotunists can jump all over it
[edit]spoke to some of the dudes selling, as i thought, the wind /double exposure mechanisums have been disconected (obviously didnt work-well known to fail), they are modified at least some of them relatively recently/not factory done apparently (which makes sence--some are a dogs breakfast)
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
what i like best about the Iskra is the cool name written in RED
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Considering my pefectly functioning standard Iskra cost me a round $140.00 I think this rather battered looking child of Frankenstein is a little risky!
I'll pass thanks!
I'll pass thanks!
kuzano
Veteran
Look at other Iskra's for comparision....
Look at other Iskra's for comparision....
I just unrolled a test roll of 120.... The 6X6 numbers are in the center of the roll (12 frames per roll), so the center hole on the back is the 6X6 red window. I rolled the film back onto a feed spool to check the placement of the 645 marks for the red window. It actually appears that both red windows have been added in a conversion process.
The 16 frames per roll marking is on the lower part of the film as it rolls off the feed spool to the takeup spool.
So, interestingly, it appears that both red windows have been added, but one is trimmed better.
In fact there are two others of the 645 variant on ebay in stores, and one only has one ruby window where the 16 frame marks are. So one has one window, strictly for 16 frames and two have windows for 6X6 and 6X4.5, suggesting there is a removable blind for the smaller format (meaning one should definitely ask if the smaller blind is present). One of the cameras represented as a 6X4.5 looks to me like it has a square hole at the back of the bellows, in front of the film platen.
The real bottom line here is that most Iskras did not have ruby windows at all, being 6X6 with an internal frame counting mechanism (at least most I have seen and if you look at the 6X6 examples on eBay, no ruby windows).
So, it appears that there were some factory revisions to 6X4.5, or actually the two sizes 6X6 and 6X4.5. It would also appear that the revisions would have included dismantling the frame counting/stop mechanism and putting in one or two ruby windows, depending on how the camera was sold.
Voightlander was quite handy with the dual formats of 6X9, and 6X4.5 with a blind, no film count/stop, and two red windows along the 8 frames per roll line, high on the back. You simply put the blind in for 6X4.5 and stopped the frame marks at each hole. When you took the blind insert out, one ruby window was disabled and you shot 6X9.
There were a number of other mfrs who did the dual 6X9/6X4.5 formats, and 6X6/6X4.5. Many Moskva (Zeiss Ikon copies) were dual format, and many are still found on eBay with the blind accompanying the camera.
While I cannot absolutely state that the conversions came from the factory, I wonder about the coincidence of three of the six Iskras on eBay being the 6X4.5 model
Look at other Iskra's for comparision....
I just unrolled a test roll of 120.... The 6X6 numbers are in the center of the roll (12 frames per roll), so the center hole on the back is the 6X6 red window. I rolled the film back onto a feed spool to check the placement of the 645 marks for the red window. It actually appears that both red windows have been added in a conversion process.
The 16 frames per roll marking is on the lower part of the film as it rolls off the feed spool to the takeup spool.
So, interestingly, it appears that both red windows have been added, but one is trimmed better.
In fact there are two others of the 645 variant on ebay in stores, and one only has one ruby window where the 16 frame marks are. So one has one window, strictly for 16 frames and two have windows for 6X6 and 6X4.5, suggesting there is a removable blind for the smaller format (meaning one should definitely ask if the smaller blind is present). One of the cameras represented as a 6X4.5 looks to me like it has a square hole at the back of the bellows, in front of the film platen.
The real bottom line here is that most Iskras did not have ruby windows at all, being 6X6 with an internal frame counting mechanism (at least most I have seen and if you look at the 6X6 examples on eBay, no ruby windows).
So, it appears that there were some factory revisions to 6X4.5, or actually the two sizes 6X6 and 6X4.5. It would also appear that the revisions would have included dismantling the frame counting/stop mechanism and putting in one or two ruby windows, depending on how the camera was sold.
Voightlander was quite handy with the dual formats of 6X9, and 6X4.5 with a blind, no film count/stop, and two red windows along the 8 frames per roll line, high on the back. You simply put the blind in for 6X4.5 and stopped the frame marks at each hole. When you took the blind insert out, one ruby window was disabled and you shot 6X9.
There were a number of other mfrs who did the dual 6X9/6X4.5 formats, and 6X6/6X4.5. Many Moskva (Zeiss Ikon copies) were dual format, and many are still found on eBay with the blind accompanying the camera.
While I cannot absolutely state that the conversions came from the factory, I wonder about the coincidence of three of the six Iskras on eBay being the 6X4.5 model
Last edited:
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
I doubt any 6x4.5 conversion was KMZ factory work.
Not officialy at least as it would require a decree from Moscwa for a new 10 year plan.
The Iskras have a transport mechanism that showed problems long ago so enough handicapped Iskras available then for a red window conversion. Add to that the better but expensive 120 film imported from the west and the desire to make a 6x4.5 frame type becomes understandable. The Iskra has been used by well known photographers in the USSR.
BTW, here are pages of a Dutch tinkerer that did a red window hack more recently, not in Amsterdam but in Roermond:
http://flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/page12/
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
| www.pigment-print.com
Muggins
Junk magnet
I thinik there has to have been a mask in the film gate, hasn't there? Certainly I have a Moskva-4 with a similar modification to 4x5, and that included adding two strips of metal to the 6x6 mask to shrink it. It works very well - no need to fiddle with a film spacing mech - but whoever did it ran out of ideas with the viewfinder, and when I want to go 4x5 I have to ut the two little pieces of card back in! Only other problem is that I can't do 6x6 without butchering the - presumably one-off - 4x5 mod.
I'd guess these mods weren't that common, but if you could only get one decent camera and you wanted to do more than one job with it...
Adrian
I'd guess these mods weren't that common, but if you could only get one decent camera and you wanted to do more than one job with it...
Adrian
Last edited:
john341
camera user
I had one of many Iskras converted to 6 x 4.5. Problems were, light seals were bad and the film advance knob stopped at 12 exposures..had to retreat to darkroom to remove the back then reattach to continue taking pictures. Lens approaching superb++ ditto colour rendition. If I were to purchase another, I would opt for a 6x6
R
ruben
Guest
I too think these are out of factory modifications - a fact that doesn't make them less effective at all. I own such an Iskra.
I think that the lacmus test we still are waiting for, to prove the modifications were made at KMZ, or at least at KMZ level, is to have a 645 Iskra whose film counter and winder work semi auto, i, e, without the red window in the back.
The temptation to change the format of a given camera exists too in the half format too 18x24, where we don't have any distance range finding metering camera. Here we don't see any mass transformations, due to the complications of adapting both the winding cocking and film counter. Besides, 35mm film runs nude inside the camera, without the black paper back of 120 film - So there is no way to make a red hole
In my opinion what happened with the Iskras to evolve into 645 where two fortunate accidents. The first is that the film advance semi auto mechanism proved unreliable, demanding from the users a red hole in the back to manually advance film according to the numbers in the film back paper. And from here the way to a 645 format went a piece of cake.
The second design accident is that the camera can work manually without the semi auto winding mechanism.
Therefore, in terms of reliability there is nothing wrong or suspictious in a 645 Iskra, nor in a 6x6 Iskra whose winding semi auto stopped to work and a red hole was installed for manual advance.
Cheers,
Ruben
I think that the lacmus test we still are waiting for, to prove the modifications were made at KMZ, or at least at KMZ level, is to have a 645 Iskra whose film counter and winder work semi auto, i, e, without the red window in the back.
The temptation to change the format of a given camera exists too in the half format too 18x24, where we don't have any distance range finding metering camera. Here we don't see any mass transformations, due to the complications of adapting both the winding cocking and film counter. Besides, 35mm film runs nude inside the camera, without the black paper back of 120 film - So there is no way to make a red hole
In my opinion what happened with the Iskras to evolve into 645 where two fortunate accidents. The first is that the film advance semi auto mechanism proved unreliable, demanding from the users a red hole in the back to manually advance film according to the numbers in the film back paper. And from here the way to a 645 format went a piece of cake.
The second design accident is that the camera can work manually without the semi auto winding mechanism.
Therefore, in terms of reliability there is nothing wrong or suspictious in a 645 Iskra, nor in a 6x6 Iskra whose winding semi auto stopped to work and a red hole was installed for manual advance.
Cheers,
Ruben
chippy
foo was here
perhaps not suspictious Ruben, so long as people dont believe that they are original with the red window installed...but still should be looked at with caution,
after that it is a matter of accessing the quality of the work done to adapt the camera. a number of things can affect the camera usability, including, whether the film counting mechanisum has been disabled, and correctly, and whether the red windows have sliding covers fitted, in many cases this is not the case and leaves the camera film suseptable to stray light entering. even with a sliding cover on the red window i have yet to see any with light traps installed behind the pressure plate. On the example shown in the opening post , the 6x4.5 hole is crudely drilled with possible ruff edges but worse than that the light can bounce easily around inside from behind the pressure plate of both the red windows
R
ruben
Guest
Yes Andrew you are certainly right. An assesment of the issues to be cautious about with the Iskras is due.
Upon my experience with four of them, for some silly reason of my own I hapened not to check either focus or rangefinder accuracy, as they all looked ok. And they happened to be ok, but I cannot say that upon checking and correcting a bit, another bit of accuracy may have not been gained.
In very general terms, the main issue is perhaps the status of the materials. Here there are serious differences between one model and other, and Andrew example about how crudely or refinedly the holes are drilled is significative. The variations are extreme. So an auction without clearly visible images of the cosmetics of the camera from all sides is an auction I would ignore without regret.
In the case of the Iskras you are looking for the less used one, within availability common sense limits, and you should ignore without doubt cameras which show a lot of wear. The areas in danger with a very used samples, whose repair is impossible and you will have to replace with a second camera, are the leaf shutter mechanism, the x synch lever, and the springs of the pressure plate, which are not screwed but fixed through pressure buttons.
On one of the four I have an issue I think another friend has been having recently and posted a thread: sometimes the external aluminium shutter lever at the lens compound (see attached pic), doensn't act in harmony with the hard black levers comunicating the firing push of your finger to the leaf shutter around the lens, via that aluminium lever. Here you have to twist either the black side lever with a lot of force (and this is dangerous) or softly twist the aluminium lever to match the black one, but only after studying beforehand how much and in which direction you should do it. The aluminium lever is delicate, so you will not have many opportunities untill it breaks. But some you will have.
In other sample of my quartet, the shutter mecanism around the lens sounded higly dry and crispy. So I added a small drop of oil and I think I saved the camera.
Finally the endemic problem of the Iskras, at the time I was in business, was the hard to move distance focusing ring, which together with a spartan little handle to push that ring by thumb friction, make the whole thing highly unpleasant. There is a solution to this problem. In fact there are two.
The enligthened fixer solution is to disassemble the basic parts of the lens compound, clean and relube.
But here is the trap. Not any grease or oil will give you the right smoothness and you have to be knowledgeable beforehand of the trademark to use. I never achieved this level so I went for another kitchinette solution:
After cleaning and relubing with what I have, I reasemble the whole thing, but I soften a tiny bit the screws fixing the lens compound to the bellows panel. These four screws are accesible only from the film gate. And also I do the same with one of the two rings holding the lens compound to the bellows panel, also accesible only from the film gate. It is not that you leave it free. You just don't close the torque like an inquisitor. I repeat, this is my kitchinette solution, because I think one of my Iskras was purchased from master Oleg, with everything tigthened as it should be, and the distance ring was still higly soft.
Now I will tell you why a supersilent rangefinder 645 Iskra is not good for me and I went instead for high decibile party noise 645 SLR (Kiev6c/60), against all my silent monastery monk beliefs. With a 645 Iskra, or a Bronica RF, or a Kiev 645 the image you have is portrait oriented. Therefore in order to have a landscape oriented image you will have to twist the camera. Most of the images most of us do are landscape oriented, so most of the times you will use your silent and comparatively light Iskra in a twisted position. And here comes for me a problem that has sent me to pay a lot of money for alternative gear: the Iskra in vertical position is highly difficult to manipulate its focus ring, no matter how soft it may be.
Ok, that's enough for a single post. I remind that good and reliable red hole Iskras are around, you just have to check carefully what are you buying. And as Andrew rightly said, the quality of the red hole border is a good indicator of what you may find inside.
On the other hand, one day I decided to go for an expensive Soviet Camera Store (Ukraine) Iskra with a working semi auto winding mechanism and no holed back, and guess what ? The mechanism proved randomly unreliable, and it was only due to having other Iskras around that I could terminate the auto and assemble a spare red hole back. Imagine what would happen had I not that spare red hole back.
Yet Keith owns a non holed Iskra with a soft distance ring, and C'est la vie, go protest to the sky. I ceirtainly didn't protested to Trofimov.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
There is a small Iskra group at flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/58258241@N00/
where there is the following 10MB image you can screen enlarge up to 1x1meter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnycaldwell/3253265740/sizes/l/in/pool-58258241@N00/
Upon my experience with four of them, for some silly reason of my own I hapened not to check either focus or rangefinder accuracy, as they all looked ok. And they happened to be ok, but I cannot say that upon checking and correcting a bit, another bit of accuracy may have not been gained.
In very general terms, the main issue is perhaps the status of the materials. Here there are serious differences between one model and other, and Andrew example about how crudely or refinedly the holes are drilled is significative. The variations are extreme. So an auction without clearly visible images of the cosmetics of the camera from all sides is an auction I would ignore without regret.
In the case of the Iskras you are looking for the less used one, within availability common sense limits, and you should ignore without doubt cameras which show a lot of wear. The areas in danger with a very used samples, whose repair is impossible and you will have to replace with a second camera, are the leaf shutter mechanism, the x synch lever, and the springs of the pressure plate, which are not screwed but fixed through pressure buttons.
On one of the four I have an issue I think another friend has been having recently and posted a thread: sometimes the external aluminium shutter lever at the lens compound (see attached pic), doensn't act in harmony with the hard black levers comunicating the firing push of your finger to the leaf shutter around the lens, via that aluminium lever. Here you have to twist either the black side lever with a lot of force (and this is dangerous) or softly twist the aluminium lever to match the black one, but only after studying beforehand how much and in which direction you should do it. The aluminium lever is delicate, so you will not have many opportunities untill it breaks. But some you will have.
In other sample of my quartet, the shutter mecanism around the lens sounded higly dry and crispy. So I added a small drop of oil and I think I saved the camera.
Finally the endemic problem of the Iskras, at the time I was in business, was the hard to move distance focusing ring, which together with a spartan little handle to push that ring by thumb friction, make the whole thing highly unpleasant. There is a solution to this problem. In fact there are two.
The enligthened fixer solution is to disassemble the basic parts of the lens compound, clean and relube.
But here is the trap. Not any grease or oil will give you the right smoothness and you have to be knowledgeable beforehand of the trademark to use. I never achieved this level so I went for another kitchinette solution:
After cleaning and relubing with what I have, I reasemble the whole thing, but I soften a tiny bit the screws fixing the lens compound to the bellows panel. These four screws are accesible only from the film gate. And also I do the same with one of the two rings holding the lens compound to the bellows panel, also accesible only from the film gate. It is not that you leave it free. You just don't close the torque like an inquisitor. I repeat, this is my kitchinette solution, because I think one of my Iskras was purchased from master Oleg, with everything tigthened as it should be, and the distance ring was still higly soft.
Now I will tell you why a supersilent rangefinder 645 Iskra is not good for me and I went instead for high decibile party noise 645 SLR (Kiev6c/60), against all my silent monastery monk beliefs. With a 645 Iskra, or a Bronica RF, or a Kiev 645 the image you have is portrait oriented. Therefore in order to have a landscape oriented image you will have to twist the camera. Most of the images most of us do are landscape oriented, so most of the times you will use your silent and comparatively light Iskra in a twisted position. And here comes for me a problem that has sent me to pay a lot of money for alternative gear: the Iskra in vertical position is highly difficult to manipulate its focus ring, no matter how soft it may be.
Ok, that's enough for a single post. I remind that good and reliable red hole Iskras are around, you just have to check carefully what are you buying. And as Andrew rightly said, the quality of the red hole border is a good indicator of what you may find inside.
On the other hand, one day I decided to go for an expensive Soviet Camera Store (Ukraine) Iskra with a working semi auto winding mechanism and no holed back, and guess what ? The mechanism proved randomly unreliable, and it was only due to having other Iskras around that I could terminate the auto and assemble a spare red hole back. Imagine what would happen had I not that spare red hole back.
Yet Keith owns a non holed Iskra with a soft distance ring, and C'est la vie, go protest to the sky. I ceirtainly didn't protested to Trofimov.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
There is a small Iskra group at flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/58258241@N00/
where there is the following 10MB image you can screen enlarge up to 1x1meter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnycaldwell/3253265740/sizes/l/in/pool-58258241@N00/
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator: