acheyj
Well-known
Hi all, re the Kiev take-up spool yoke etc, whilst I was in the mood took another image of the parts layout/order of the assembly.
I lost the sequence of the one I imaged for the previous post so was in a real mess !. Had to disassemble onother spare I had to put the demo one back together ! bugger !.. anyway I photographed the damn thing this time so maybe some help to another poor Kievaholic, here is ----
I lost the sequence of the one I imaged for the previous post so was in a real mess !. Had to disassemble onother spare I had to put the demo one back together ! bugger !.. anyway I photographed the damn thing this time so maybe some help to another poor Kievaholic, here is ----
Attachments
R
ruben
Guest
Thanks again to acheyj !
This pic brings to my mind two comments, which may be of importance in case you have followed my posts at the thread opened by SCOTFORTHLAND on the Kiev Frame Spacing issue
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65607
a) from the fork outwards there is no washer beyond the disk with its rectangular center. Any way, even if you want it, you will have no free space for another washer if the disk is to catch the rectangular end of the shaft.
b) as for the accurate order of washers and spring, I don't give it much importance if you make the whole compound work. But here there is a highly important precondition to remember when you are battling to insert the screw: The upper teeth flat head of the shaft must match the other gears up there in its neighbourhood. You do not see them unless you open and disassemble the top casting.
From here another implication flows:
b1) If your camera is in no need of a general CLA, but to clean and reassemble the take up fork (you may have inherited a misadjusted disk - this is the case when a ridiculous irregularity takes place) then you can just disassemble the top casting to overview the fork and shaft harmony with the other gears pushing the take up fork. And with a dissasembled top casting you will be able to insert a finger or a tool to maintain the shaft in place while you press with the screw.
Finally a required word about common sense. We have digged here quite deep concerning the frame spacing issue. I do not expect a perfect frame spacing from this mechanism, not for being a Kiev instead of a Contax, but because of its basic design. I don't expect it to match a simple rangefinder from the sixties and onwards. But insofar as the open spaces at the begining are not too wide and the close spaces at the end of the film don't begin to overlap, and both patterns are consistent from film to film, I will not disassemble the fork compound but just adjust a little bit the screw, either to the right or the left, and see the results.
A consistent frame spacing irregularity pattern from film to film, provided all other factors mentioned in the above quoted thread are given, indicates that the disk is in place. This is just my attitude. You can try yours and don't take me for granted.
Cheers,
Ruben
Cheers,
Ruben
This pic brings to my mind two comments, which may be of importance in case you have followed my posts at the thread opened by SCOTFORTHLAND on the Kiev Frame Spacing issue
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65607
a) from the fork outwards there is no washer beyond the disk with its rectangular center. Any way, even if you want it, you will have no free space for another washer if the disk is to catch the rectangular end of the shaft.
b) as for the accurate order of washers and spring, I don't give it much importance if you make the whole compound work. But here there is a highly important precondition to remember when you are battling to insert the screw: The upper teeth flat head of the shaft must match the other gears up there in its neighbourhood. You do not see them unless you open and disassemble the top casting.
From here another implication flows:
b1) If your camera is in no need of a general CLA, but to clean and reassemble the take up fork (you may have inherited a misadjusted disk - this is the case when a ridiculous irregularity takes place) then you can just disassemble the top casting to overview the fork and shaft harmony with the other gears pushing the take up fork. And with a dissasembled top casting you will be able to insert a finger or a tool to maintain the shaft in place while you press with the screw.
Finally a required word about common sense. We have digged here quite deep concerning the frame spacing issue. I do not expect a perfect frame spacing from this mechanism, not for being a Kiev instead of a Contax, but because of its basic design. I don't expect it to match a simple rangefinder from the sixties and onwards. But insofar as the open spaces at the begining are not too wide and the close spaces at the end of the film don't begin to overlap, and both patterns are consistent from film to film, I will not disassemble the fork compound but just adjust a little bit the screw, either to the right or the left, and see the results.
A consistent frame spacing irregularity pattern from film to film, provided all other factors mentioned in the above quoted thread are given, indicates that the disk is in place. This is just my attitude. You can try yours and don't take me for granted.
Cheers,
Ruben
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
dll927
Well-known
Here's this do-it-yourself repair stuff again. I find it interesting that so many seem to regard FSU cameras as invitations to experimentation. Would they do the same to a Leica IIIg?
Granted, most such people probably have at least some mechanical dexterity and understanding. But I'm still reminded of the guy who serves as his own lawyer -- he has a fool for a client. Apparently, some feel that the availability and low prices of FSU cameras make them to some degree disposable and replaceable.
Granted, most such people probably have at least some mechanical dexterity and understanding. But I'm still reminded of the guy who serves as his own lawyer -- he has a fool for a client. Apparently, some feel that the availability and low prices of FSU cameras make them to some degree disposable and replaceable.
Last edited:
SCOTFORTHLAD
Slow learner,but keen!
Thanks again to everyone for the helpful advice.I have some work to do in putting new leather covers on my Kiev,and will hopefully attend to this issue as well.
Cheers,
Brian.
Cheers,
Brian.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi dll,
True, unfortunately many friends loving FSU cameras don't have the necessary time to try their luck in bringing these cameras to highly good performance. Others don't find even the need, and that's ok too.
But some two three years ago a group of folks here at RFF were making a common effort to unveil many secrets of the Kievs, not answered at the KSS. Some of those friends are not active any more, and some are keeping a low profile.
Personally I happened to be one of the less dexterous there, with a single achievement concerning the distensioning of the shutter.
Your statement is true. Being these cameras cheap, they do invite to learn them. I personally know a well known Contax repairer, who learnt his craft disassembling Kievs.
Those of us who had been lucky to learn the basics of Kiev CLA, do enjoy of unbelievable cameras. Not that they are perfect, but their rangefinder is very accurate, the cameras are smooth and the shutter very very quiet - all in all a delight and an efficient tool still holding its own.
Cheers,
Ruben
dll927
Well-known
Well said, and I don't mean my remarks as criticism. If anything, I'm just not much at mechanical dexterity!! But we all learn by doing, and if Kievs serve as a practice for Contaxes, so be it. (As long as it's not the other way around!!)
I suppose the story of how the Contax-Kiev thing came about is well-known to those who are interested. Suffice it to say that the comrades had to be pretty good at what they were doing to come up with cameras that even pretended to be Contaxes. Now, if their quality control had been up to snuff, maybe all those repairs wouldn't have been necessary.
I suppose the story of how the Contax-Kiev thing came about is well-known to those who are interested. Suffice it to say that the comrades had to be pretty good at what they were doing to come up with cameras that even pretended to be Contaxes. Now, if their quality control had been up to snuff, maybe all those repairs wouldn't have been necessary.
R
ruben
Guest
This is interesting. According to Henry Scherer (in his site) the assembly of Contax cameras suffered from the workers trying do finnish as many cameras as they could to earn more money. BTW, let's remeber that before WWII the world has been in a depression starting a decade before.
Now, according to Henry in an email to me, the Kiev assembly shows a pathetic disregard of the workers for what they were doing.
But I am less and less prong to accept the Kiev explanation at least, as I start to deal with the mechanisms of other cameras. From this perspective it is very obvious to me that the Kievs are cameras (Contax designed) to last much more than others, but only in a kind of mummy status.
According to the technology of its time design, the Kievs cannot but work with grease, and grease cannot last for decades, nor abstain from gathering some dirt along time. Hence the customary need of CLA for these cameras.
So I would not say that the Kiev assembly line was award wining, but rather that from the perspective of today bad assembly is not the main factor for the Kiev need of CLA. These complex old-designed mechanisms cannot be expected to work as they went out of factory, even if they went out in the best possible health.
On the other hand, what is remarkable is the capacity of these cameras to come back to life, despite their complex manual mechanisms, after a very basic CLA.
I use the word "basic", in contrast to "easy". It is not easy because you have to memorize a lengthy process with the help of a parts box, as unfortunately almost no set of screws is alike the other, and you have some dozens of sets.
If you loose one screw there, you will not find another to replace it of the same size.
But it is basic in the sense that after you learn and repeat the process, it is not complex at all.
Lastly, kindly note that I have been refering to a basic CLA. Fixing problems is another totally different story, whose complexity depends each time on the problem in question, and most of the times it is hard or very hard.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
dll927
Well-known
So much for interchangeable parts!! Do I understand you to mean that, even from one camera to another, the screws, etc. are not similar? That would seem to mean that they grabbed whatever was handy.
I've heard it said that the quality in Soviet factories depended on how much vodka the boys consumed the night before. But the lack of concern for the workers is no surprise, nor is the attempt to produce as many as they could. By now we all know that the Soviet system failed, but they didn't know that yet in 1946 or so. Which is not to say that they are necessarily paragons of virtue even now.
I've heard it said that the quality in Soviet factories depended on how much vodka the boys consumed the night before. But the lack of concern for the workers is no surprise, nor is the attempt to produce as many as they could. By now we all know that the Soviet system failed, but they didn't know that yet in 1946 or so. Which is not to say that they are necessarily paragons of virtue even now.