A beginer's trilema - Kiev, FED or a Zorki

[David Hughes]

Is it really Leica photography if you are using an FSU (or any non-Leica) lens? 😉

Hi,

Well, what is it when there's a big/lovely Zeiss ZM on the M9?

Anyway, all you get out of it is a slide or a print or (gasp) a one megapixel screen full. So what does it matter? My local lab says I'm the only one asking for 5 x 7 as everyone wants 4 x 6 anyway; so quality doesn't come into it... I can get as good out of my 50p (US 75cents) XA1.

Thinking about it and the logical thing would be a Leica lens on an old ex-USSR body. That will go down well here. ;-)

Regards, David

 

[Robert Lai]

It's not Leica photography, but rangefinder photography.
Now that I own Leicas, I don't really find much interest in the LTM Russian cameras. I'd rather use my DAG overhauled IIIG than a Zorki-1. Only because I know that the Leica IIIG I have is absolutely reliable and accurate.
Same with my Leotax S, and Canon 7s, Bessa R.
Don won't deal with repairing Soviet era cameras - I've already asked him.

However, I am curious about this whole Contax experience. The Kiev may be a good way to scratch that itch without the vastly greater expense of finding a good condition Contax color dial camera, then waiting years to have Henry Scherer overhaul it. If I then find out that I don't like it, then I wouldn't have put tons of money into it with a Kiev.

 

[Robert Lai]

Actually David, I was thinking if the Kiev camera turns out OK, that maybe I could just get a real Zeiss 50mm 1.5 Sonnar (Opton), and stick it on the Kielv. After all, in film photography the camera is just a box. The lens draws the image.

 

[David Hughes]

...Market does reflect it with cheap, dead Contax bodies with famous Zeiss bumps on the back...

Hi,

I'm fascinated by the fact that the bumps' causes are ignored and even copied when the cure appears to be known to every other camera maker.

I've seen it on R7's and they were made until the late 90's...

Regards, David

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hi,

I'm fascinated by the fact that the bumps' causes are ignored and even copied when the cure appears to be known to every other camera maker.

I've seen it on R7's and they were made until the late 90's...

Regards, David

What is R7? Known? Maybe, but I never seen it as bad as on Ziess.

 

[David Hughes]

Actually David, I was thinking if the Kiev camera turns out OK, that maybe I could just get a real Zeiss 50mm 1.5 Sonnar (Opton), and stick it on the Kielv. After all, in film photography the camera is just a box. The lens draws the image.

Hi,

Well, I'm sure you know the difference between the dealer's cameras and the auction site ones, so Ill say no more but will wish you luck.

You might like to consider this outfit:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KIEV-1956...049798?hash=item3ae14d6886:g:eswAAOSwHptY-2ud

My interest in it was because it shows that none of the flat metal lens caps have a logo or name on them...

I guess you can afford it if you are thinking of the Zeiss lens ;-)

Regards, David

PS Aren't those outfits tempting? I wish I was rich now and then but being poor and beating the system does me a lot of good.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Thinking about it and the logical thing would be a Leica lens on an old ex-USSR body. That will go down well here. ;-)

I wasn't even going to go there!

 

[David Hughes]

What is R7? Known? Maybe, but I never seen it as bad as on Ziess.

Hi,

The earlier the camera the worse they are, my R5 was middling but I've seen R5's in dealers with far worse and I figure they will all end up that way, although the ones on the R7's seen were just starting.

A pity as I really like Leica's SLR's but have had estimates for repairing mine and the estimates aren't cheap either...

Regards, David

 

[mich rassena]

I was just thinking something like a Canonet QL 17, Canonet 28, Olympus 35SP, etc. might be the ticket.

All of those are fine options too.

I could probably make another dozen recommendations myself that I'd prefer over gambling on a FSU rangefinder in unknown condition and at comparable cost.

I think the Leica/Contax mystique gets transferred a bit to the FSU cameras, and people think they can have some of the mystique at a discount. I don't think it's desirable to go that route. Those are big names, with a lot of cachet, but there are dozens of brands that are a bit more obscure with similar attributes, even if they wouldn't be considered quite as good.

As a more in-depth answer to the OPs original assertion that they were purchasing a rangefinder for street photography. Is a rangefinder even necessary? Wouldn't zone focus, fast film, wide lens, and f/16 be good enough to get fast, mostly in-focus images? Wouldn't that arrangement give more spontaneity than fiddling with the focus wheel?

 

[David Hughes]

I wasn't even going to go there!

Think about it; x hundred and 95 for the lens and then the odd 5 for a couple of FED 3 bodies and a Helios flash... Simples ;-)

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

I was just thinking something like a Canonet QL 17, Canonet 28, Olympus 35SP, etc. might be the ticket.

Hi,

Some of these are an expensive gamble, instead of a cheap gamble.

I'd dearly love to replace my original, long gone Olympus-35 SP but have had several fail since and discovered the hard way that once the metering goes, they are dead as 35 SP's but OK as a slightly odd mechanical camera. But the SP was so brilliant that nothing else is the same.

Regards, David

 

[Robert Lai]

Hi David,
I don't think I'm ready for such an expensive plunge as that ebay kit.
I'd rather just get one from Fedka, with a Helios 103 instead of a J-3, and go on from there.

When I had my Zorki-1, I did try putting my Leica Summicron collapsible on it. That's how I found out the lens register was different.

Correction - it was a FED-1, not Zorki. See correction post below also.

 

[css9450]

As a more in-depth answer to the OPs original assertion that they were purchasing a rangefinder for street photography. Is a rangefinder even necessary? Wouldn't zone focus, fast film, wide lens, and f/16 be good enough to get fast, mostly in-focus images? Wouldn't that arrangement give more spontaneity than fiddling with the focus wheel?

Or better yet - an SLR.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

SLR is not Rangefinder. For some here it is big difference for street photography. I just can't walk with SLR blocking my nose, head turned and focus screen blurry.
It is the reason why they call modern digital cameras like Fuji X100 series as "rangefinder style".

But if street photography is standing still and taking all of your time to focus and frame, yes, SLR then.

I'm 100% agree, than Olympus Trip 35 with ISO400 film, set to three people distance is easiest and safest way to get to rangefinder style street photography on the bright day.
Add flash on it, select f8, set distance to two people and you all set for Bruce Gillden way.
Also, the lens on this camera is very good:

 

[ForestCap]

When I had my Zorki-1, I did try putting my Leica Summicron collapsible on it. That's how I found out the lens register was different.

Strange. All the Zorkis (1,4,6) I owned and have share lenses (FSU and non-FSU) with my Canon RF and Bessa-R with no problem. I only know early FED-1 has non-standardized register distance.

 

[Robert Lai]

Sorry, I believe you are right. It was a FED-1, very early. I don't think I've ever owned a Zorki, now that I think back.

 

[rfaspen]

I've put Leica lenses on FSU bodies -- Went out and took pictures with them too.

Part of the great fun and attraction of LTM is the wide interchangeability of kit. I put Canon lenses on Leica bodies, Minolta on FSU, FSU on Canon, and the permutations go on.... I also like finding those oddball LTM items out there. Lenses from companies I never knew existed (or briefly mentioned on some obscure website). My "Arco" brand 135/3.5 LTM lens turned out to be sharp and accurate on many bodies. Minolta LTM lenses don't get much press, but my 45/2.8 is a good performer. And what's up with those "Sun" brand lenses? Ever see one of those in person? Zunow? (I wish)

Check out the LTM lens camerapedia page; quite a few lenses made to this "standard".

Now that non-FSU suggestions are gaining momentum, I support the Canon suggestions. Nice cameras all of them. Also, the Tower (Nicca) bodies are really quite nice, and some of them are the camera the Leica should have been.

And, in my opinion, actual Leica bodies a real value these days and can be quite inexpensive. You just need to be a little savvy to get a great Barnack (let's say a IIIc) for $200 -- and that could be a working camera that has possibly seen a CLA in its recent past, or at least its in good working order at time of purchase. I've seen just such a camera here on RFF classifieds recently. You can find Leica bodies for less than $200 with the understanding that they need service. A basic CLA service from Youxin Ye is quite reasonable. You will hear praise and criticism for this repair person, but I think for a basic Barnack CLA, his service would be good.

If it hasn't been mentioned before, I'll mention it now: The RFF Classifieds is a good place to find a camera offered by a knowledgeable seller, and known history, and fair price. I'm much more willing to believe "recent CLA" here than the giant auction site. That statement actually means something here. They haven't been too frequent lately, but Canon RF, Leica Barnack, Tower/Nicca, and even FSU can be found on RFF Classifieds. There's a cute little Minolta II LTM in there right now. Price is right and for a working Minolta, who else on the block has one of those? Right?

 

[ForestCap]

I've put Leica lenses on FSU bodies -- Went out and took pictures with them too.

Part of the great fun and attraction of LTM is the wide interchangeability of kit. I put Canon lenses on Leica bodies, Minolta on FSU, FSU on Canon, and the permutations go on.... I also like finding those oddball LTM items out there. Lenses from companies I never knew existed (or briefly mentioned on some obscure website). My "Arco" brand 135/3.5 LTM lens turned out to be sharp and accurate on many bodies. Minolta LTM lenses don't get much press, but my 45/2.8 is a good performer. And what's up with those "Sun" brand lenses? Ever see one of those in person? Zunow? (I wish)

That's why l like LTM too, there are more choices from different lens makers.

Sankyō Kōki 三協光機 made some nice lens, often branded as Komura, Acall, Force, etc. I have the 35mm f/3.5(double-gause type) in both M39 and Contax/KIEV mount. I've used them on Zorki and KIEV.

 

[newfilm]

I'd say Kiev 4a, why? because "The worls finest 35mm rangefinder camera":
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130393

 

[David Hughes]

I guess there's one or two we ought to mention that won't work on all LTM's, like the Steinheil Culminar 135mm f/4.5 etc, which has an odd RF coupling that would jam on the USSR versions and only works where the RF coupling is a roller like the Barnacks have.

Regards, David