Medium Format To Go

In past episodes I've made casual mention of "The Iskra" once or twice as though everyone knows what I'm talking about, a bit of a foolish assumption given that a year ago it would have meant nothing to me either. It occurs to me therefore that a few words of explanation might be in order.

The story begins early last spring with two things I was wishing I had. One was a proper take-everywhere camera, something I could just tuck away in the backpack I take most everywhere so that I'd never be without a decent camera should the unexpected opportunity arise. Having resisted modern notions that ranks portable telecommunications devices right next to shoes in terms of indispensability I don't even have a camera phone to fall back on in a pinch.  The second thing I was after was a medium format camera that would allow me to be a bit more free-wheeling than what I had. The RB67 is a wonderful tool and will remain my tool of choice, but it's not something you take along unless using it is the sole object of the trip, It's no surprise then that a lot of medium format SLR users have something like a twin-lens reflex for those times they need to go lightweight. In place of a camera bag of the kind that keeps chiropractors in business one can simply sling a lighter camera over the shoulder instead while sacrificing little more than lens interchangeability.

An Iskra photo demonstrating the virtue of procrastination. Can you imagine
 how dull this shot would be if I'd ever bothered to paint that door?

I like the idea of having a TLR at my disposal, but a TLR and a take everywhere camera are two different things for most people. In fact the terms medium format and take everywhere camera don't sound like they belong in the same sentence. There is in fact an option that, given a fairly generous space for totin allow both of these desires to be met with one camera - the medium format folder.

Medium format folders were a popular camera style in the decade or so following WWII, but seemed to lose appeal to consumers faster than other styles of medium format camera in the face of the increasing popularity of 35mm during the 60's. It makes sense I suppose as the appeal of folders is their compactness, and consumers who were looking for that would have been the first to switch to the smaller format. I have to say though that on a strict compactness vs. quality basis I think those who went for 35mm got a raw deal. (Of course there's probably more to it, like 3 times as many exposures on a roll.) Personally, I find it far easier to carry a medium format folder than a 35mm SLR, but I'm getting a bit ahead of myself.

As this style of camera had its day well enough before my time a bit of research was in order. There was a whole world of features, reputations for mechanical and optical quality, and of course prices to acquaint myself with. In term of features the only must-have was a rangefinder. Many cameras of this ilk require the user to guess at the subject distance then dial it in to focus, relying on depth of field to cover for any errors. That may be good enough for grampa's vacation snaps, but there's a difference between in focus and covered by DOF, and I need in focus. Also, my strong preference in terms of format is for 6x6 as this is what I end up cropping to most of the time with 6x7 negs anyway.

Features are features, but it gets trickier when it comes to optics and mechanical reliability. Being vintage cameras much of what one can learn about the various models comes in the form of their reputation, and it's been my experience at any rate that it can be difficult to separate what portion of a reputation is earned and what is brand mystique (or in some cases whatever you'd call its opposite.)

There is some objective information to be had in terms of optical and mechanical design. Laying aside things like quality control, mechanically some choice of materials, ways of putting things together, arrangement of parts that make things happen and so on are better than others. Further, leaving out considerations like how well or consistently lenses are assembled, their optical design itself is just a matter of what glass elements are involved, how their arranged and the types of glass used. In this regard cameras of this design and vintage nearly always have either a 3 element Cooke triplet or a 4 element design that is normally a Tessar variant. No surprise here, other things being equal the four element designs will have the more sought after characteristics. There's also the matter of whether or not the lenses are coated.

Finally there was price. I didn't want to spend too much either in absolute terms or in terms of value per dollar spent. If I just wanted the best there are dealers with unsullied reputations who sell the most sought after models, fully refurbished and warrantied  at a fully worth the price premium if you have it in your budget and just want something that will work with no questions. I could have done that but then I would never have been able to afford the 50mm lens for the RB that I don't know how I lived without and would probably just now be getting 'round to being able to buy film again. Also, where's the fun in that?

Instead I followed my usual instinct to find something that was a bit of a sleeper, a camera that performs well enough to be on the most sought after list but due to whatever oversight isn't. My search ultimately lead me to, well I guess you already know, the Iskra. So what's an Iskra?

The Iskra as it looked shortly after it arrived. I've since made a few cosmetic changes,
reskinning it in blue vinyl and restoring the logo to its original fire-engine red.

I'm sure you've already guessed that it's a medium format folder. It has my favoured square format, coated Tessar design lens and fully coupled rangefinder. Not only does the lens have a reputation as a solid performer, the focus mechanism has a superior helicoid design that moves all the lens elements together rather than just moving the front element with relation to the others. Adding to its sophistication is an advanced (for the time) film detection mechanism that obviates the need to line up start arrows or watch through a little red window as you wind. Best of all the Iskra usually goes for a fraction of what similar models on the sought after list do.

So what gives? Well, let's start with the logo on the camera, which if you can't quite make out the script in the photo above reads "Искра". These are Soviet cameras made from 1960-63 at the KMZ factory in Kiev. As such they come with the default reputation attached to all "Russian" cameras as cheaply constructed, mechanically unsophisticated and subject to spotty quality controls. Whether this reputation in general is deserved or the product of leftover cold-war biases and the "knock-off" stigma based on the fact that, unburdened by international trademark or patent agreements, many of these cameras either heavily borrowed from or outright copied from Western designs. A few things there doesn't seem to be much dispute about include the fact that light leaks in the bellows aren't uncommon, thought this would be true of any camera of this vintage that had bellows, and the fact that frame spacing is typically uneven, though I don't know if this is true of the Agfa model this camera is based on that has the same mechanism.

In this last regard the Iskra is no exception as one look at the functionally and cosmetically nearly identical Agfa Super Isolette of the late 50's should convince you. (The Agfa also sold in the U.S. as the Ansco Super Speedex.) Does this make the Iskra an inferior instrument to the Western model that inspired it, enough to account for the fact that it was selling for about 1/3-1/4 the price of an Agfa or Ansco in comparable condition? Opinions I was able to find online seemed remarkably polarized ranging from the notion if any Iskra out there still manages to function at all it's only been kept going with duct tape and rubber bands to those who contend that they're mechanically equal to and optically a bit superior to their Western counterparts. What to make of this?

I had an hour to kill and was parked right beside an old cemetery - perfect time
to remember I happen to have a medium format camera in the backpack with me.

A bit more digging though was enough to bring some sense to these wildly differing opinions. It came from a piece written by a collector of Soviet cameras (sorry, I couldn't find it again to give you the link) who shed a bit of light on the very different journey an Iskra may have taken to get through the past five decades to arrive in 2014 compared to a camera made in the West around the same time like an Agfa. Unlike, say an Agfa that got used regularly for a few years but otherwise spent most of that time on a shelf or in a box, Iskras were made for Soviet citizens who weren't running out to replace them the moment there was something newer and better on the market, and many of them were still in every-day use long after the Soviet Union dissolved and that Agfa had become a curiosity the original owner's grandson found while rummaging through the attic. How much use a particular Iskra may have seen over the decades could vary, but in the USSR a camera like this could represent a professional photographer's bread and butter. Until not that long ago they many of these cameras were used day in and day out and to be kept going at almost any cost. Not every Iskra out there has this kind of history but there are enough beaten up and barely functional to leave anyone who has seen a few that their condition is the result of poor initial construction rather than the fact they're doing the equivalent of comparing two cars of the same model year without considering the odometer on one reads twenty times higher than the other.

It didn't take too much effort to find a well priced Iskra on eBay from an experienced and highly rated seller who included enough good photos to convince me this one hadn't been run into the ground. The package travelled from the Ukraine to Canada and arrived faster than most things I order from the U.S. and for no higher higher shipping cost. Now here it is more than half a year and a good few rolls of film on and time enough to look back and and ask how well it has fared compared to my expectations. I don't have and have never used one the Agfa or Ansco cameras that would allow me to make that sort of comparison, but let's have a look at my actual experiences.

While loading the first roll into the camera I couldn't help but notice the spiked wheel that allows the camera to detect when film, and not just backing paper, is moving from the camera. It looks like a miniaturized version of a medieval instrument of persuasion. The same mechanism with the same spiky wheel is used on the Agfa Super Isolette. As I found it actually does perforate the backing paper and leaves its impression on the margin of the film. It look bad but I haven't seen any evidence that any light at all gets through to the film at any point.

My real concern when I unloaded that first roll was that it seemed alarmingly loose on the takeup spool, and indeed when developed it was obvious that light had leaked in along the edges, though for the most part it had not intruded into the image area. For the next few rolls I kept the film in camera when the last exposure had been taken, waiting until it could be unloaded and wound right onto the developing reel in one go under complete darkness. After a few rolls it was evident though that my first experience had been an isolated incident and I haven't had problems with film I changed in the field since, though there's always the concern it could happen again.

In the absence of issues like that the camera is the kind of capable performer that I'd hoped. I have no quibbles with the quality of the optics and the focus is accurate. Not quite as accurate is the viewfinder which experience has shown requires me to compensate by aiming up and a little to the right regardless of the subject distance. I've had some otherwise good shots ruined because of this. As for the frame spacing, yes it can vary from frame to frame, but only once have I found two frames actually touch and even here there was no overlap so I can't say I consider this a real practical concern.

Though aside from that one loosely wound roll I had no issues with light leaks for the first several rolls, a problem suddenly appeared a few months on. It traced back to a leak in the bellows which is more or less to be expected in cameras of this vintage. I found it easily enough by shining a light from inside the camera and did a spot repair with a dab of plasti-dip, the goop that's used to put a nice rubbery grip on the bare metal handle of tools. It's likely that once one hole appears others may begin to appear so every roll or two I'll have to remember to do a quick check on the bellows.

For the bulk of the summer the camera went largely unused. It was a surprise then that when the roll that had been sitting in it for a few months was developed it was almost completely done in with an entirely different kind of light leak. It might not be a bad idea to do a future post about diagnosing light leaks, but suffice it to say that unlike the blobby patch of leaked light that stayed within the frame area this roll had the linear stripes extending the entire width of the film that indicated light was coming in along the edges of the door in the back of the camera. The door of the Iskra isn't hinged, it comes right off and needs to be hooked over a protrusion that forms a sort of light trap to be closed. It was possible the door didn't seat quite right and it did have a few months to accumulate leaks, but though the next roll spent less than a week in camera a few leaks were visible in several frames here as well. Though the Iskra isn't really designed to employ the sort of spongy light seals found in more current cameras I decided to address the issue by taking some of the material that was left over after replacing the seals in the RB67 and try to place it strategically to prevent future problems. Results of this to be determined.

And so we've come to the part where it would be customary for me to offer some sort of conclusion. I'll take a pass on anything by way of passing judgement as this always involves some measure of foisting my own preferences and expectations to the foreground. By my count on average I've experienced some sort of operational issue with every other toll of film I've put through the camera. I know many out there wouldn't even consider taking that kind of chance with their photos while others would be overjoyed to be able to get the kind of quality this camera is capable of without paying a premium price for a device that, for its age, could be a whole lot less reliable. I'm sure the same could be said for many cameras of this ilk whether the factory they came from was located in the East or the West. I think the experience owes as much to how I bought it as what I bought. I got as good as could be expected from a reputable eBay dealer who was clear and honest about what he was selling. The camera works, the lens in clean and clear, the shutter fires, the film advances and all the rest but there's the occasional glitch. This is entirely different than purchasing from a highly regarded restorer who tests, calibrates, replaces what's not up to snuff and warranties everything. It may be triple the price, but if that's enough to get rid of the glitches I've run into I can't see where there'd be much else to quibble about with this camera.