David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The Kiev 2a, and perhaps the 2, has a little foot under it in the centre like a Contax II has. Very useful, imo, as you can put it down without it tipping forward. All cameras should have them, especially Leicas that are very prone to tipping forward.
Regards, David
PS If you are going to get one of each (although you may not plan it), try and get one of each lens too. And did you realise that the first Zenit SLR's started as modified Zorkis?
The Kiev 2a, and perhaps the 2, has a little foot under it in the centre like a Contax II has. Very useful, imo, as you can put it down without it tipping forward. All cameras should have them, especially Leicas that are very prone to tipping forward.
Regards, David
PS If you are going to get one of each (although you may not plan it), try and get one of each lens too. And did you realise that the first Zenit SLR's started as modified Zorkis?
Robert Lai
Well-known
David,
Would you get the Jupiter 8, Helios 103, or the Jupiter 3 with your Kiev IIa?
Would you get the Jupiter 8, Helios 103, or the Jupiter 3 with your Kiev IIa?
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Personally, I liked the FED 3 better than the 2.
Whatever you, don't get a copy of Jean Loup Princelle's Book...Thank you all for help!
Instead of choosing one, as I read all your posts, I ended up wanting all three. I guess it's what happened to all of you guys
The Micron I had was pretty good--not perfect, I never could get the pin-head screw that attached the wind lever to stay tight. Other wise, I quite enjoyed that one.
Can't speak for David, but I will be looking for a J-3 to go with the Kiev to I've recently bought. I do not anticipate anything being wrong with the lens it has now but I do use my cameras at night and indoors so the extra lens speed can be useful to me. And, unlike the screw mount J-3, the Kiev mount doesn't seem to have the isssues or problems that the screw mount version does. Same thing for the J-9, actually.
Rob
JeffS7444
Well-known
I am especially proud of my FED-2 because it's how I learned to replace cloth shutter curtains! I made many mistakes and had to start over and over again, but finally I got it to where the shutter needed only light tensioning as recommended by I. Maisenberg. Not fancy, but it's a relatively straightforward design it's well-made. I have the version with the larger wind knob and find it charming. If you go this route, consider buying one which has already had new shutter curtains installed, and you should be good for the next 50 years.
I don't have a Kiev 4A, but I do have a Brezhnev-era Kiev 4 (no meter). Frankly I don't like it as much: Yes, it offers more shutter speeds and is some ways a more advanced design, but it's also kind of large, heavy and not so comfortable to use.
I don't have a Kiev 4A, but I do have a Brezhnev-era Kiev 4 (no meter). Frankly I don't like it as much: Yes, it offers more shutter speeds and is some ways a more advanced design, but it's also kind of large, heavy and not so comfortable to use.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I always use my KIEV-4A as a winter camera. I find that the knobs and rings on KIEV very friendly to gloves-wears. Plus you don't have to worry about uneven exposure when it's cold. The heaviness of the camera also fits winter wears.
Valkir1987
Well-known
Well I would recommend to buy something from Fedka, DVDtech or Oleg Khalyavin in the first place. Unless you want to learn how to repair cameras, and that is quite a long road.
For a beginner I would recommend a serviced Zorki 6 (the late serial numbers '65 and onward). Large base, bright finder, hinged back.
The Zorki 4 is perhaps the most versatile camera, but really needs an extra finder. That's part of the fun.
For a beginner I would recommend a serviced Zorki 6 (the late serial numbers '65 and onward). Large base, bright finder, hinged back.
The Zorki 4 is perhaps the most versatile camera, but really needs an extra finder. That's part of the fun.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Well I would recommend to buy something from Fedka, DVDtech or Oleg Khalyavin in the first place. Unless you want to learn how to repair cameras, and that is quite a long road.
For a beginner I would recommend a serviced Zorki 6 (the late serial numbers '65 and onward). Large base, bright finder, hinged back.
The Zorki 4 is perhaps the most versatile camera, but really needs an extra finder. That's part of the fun.
I've bought from Fedka and from Oleg and been very happy but a few years back, I asked DVDtech a question about some camera they had listed and did not recieve any response. So, I can't offer any experience with them. But they do have a good selection and their prices are reasonable.
Rob
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
OK, I'll chime in even though plenty of good suggestions, etc. have been provided.
First, I would favor one of the LTM options. The Kiev (with its Contax mount) can be a perfectly fine camera, I think there's a lot more LTM lenses out in the world that you can play with. And the budget can be whatever you want to spend; from $15-20 all the way to $2000 or more.
I know that often the Contax mount version of a lens is cheaper than the LTM version of the same lens, but overall there are just plain fewer Contax mount lens options. So the price difference between Contax - LTM lenses is really only an advantage for a small number of lenses.
If you have not used a Contax/Kiev camera before, it might be good to try one out before getting one. You have to hold the camera just the right way to be able to focus and keep the rangefinder windows clear so that they work. Its frustrating and nearly impossible for some people (yes, I'm one of them) so you might want to see if you can do "the Contax hold" before you commit to one.
Among LTM bodies, there's some good choices. There are some quite good options among the FSU models in my opinion. When it comes to FSU cameras, I focus on their strengths. Simplicity that can associate with reliability. Yes, I said "reliable" and I meant it. I own quite a few FSU cameras, and there are some that I think are good representatives of simplicity, ruggedness, size, handling, and reliability. Three top choices would be:
1. Fed-3(b). The Fed-3 with lever advance is a very simple body. Its one of those cameras that if its working, its going to keep working. They are very simple mechanically, and so they're easy to repair if you like to do your own camera repair. The lack of slow speeds keeps the mechanism simple and reliable. The removable back makes film loading very easy. The viewfinder and rangefinder are plenty good for this type of camera. Better than the early Leicas (e.g., III, IIIa) and other FSU (e.g., Fed-1) with tiny squinty little peep holes. Just a good plain camera. I take one with me when I'm doing fieldwork at the coast.
2. Zorki-C Another simple and reliable FSU camera. Aside from that, this one is smaller than a Fed-3 (or Fed-2 or many others), and it has flash synchronization. I don't use flash with RF very often, but its there if ya want it. I've used a Zorki-C/I-22 combination many times.
3. Zorki-6 Probably the most advanced of the FSU. Kind of small, lever wind, easy film loading. However, I've found that this model can be less reliable than many other models. Get a good working one and its great to use. There's a member here on RFF (Klaus?) who quite likes the Zorki-6. Do a search and you'll find him and more on these.
I'm not a big fan of the Fed-2. They're fine, but I like the Fed-3 more for practical reasons (film loading, lever advance). There's folks who really like the Zorki-4 models. I have a couple, but they're not working well, so I can't comment on them.
And.....And there's more out there than just FSU cameras. Quite a few LTM cameras were produced (so-called Leica copies) by many companies over the years. The Canon cameras are great. I have a few of them and the quality is excellent. They can be found at prices not much more than FSU cameras. Look out for a Canon 7, Canon P, Canon IVSB, or Canon L-1. That's just a few of the models made in LTM that happen to be well liked by rangefinder people.
If you stick with FSU stuff, Fedka is a good source for FSU gear. Not as cheap as ebay sellers in Russia or Romania, but he gives a warranty and checks to make sure his stuff works as expected. Worth the higher price.
First, I would favor one of the LTM options. The Kiev (with its Contax mount) can be a perfectly fine camera, I think there's a lot more LTM lenses out in the world that you can play with. And the budget can be whatever you want to spend; from $15-20 all the way to $2000 or more.
I know that often the Contax mount version of a lens is cheaper than the LTM version of the same lens, but overall there are just plain fewer Contax mount lens options. So the price difference between Contax - LTM lenses is really only an advantage for a small number of lenses.
If you have not used a Contax/Kiev camera before, it might be good to try one out before getting one. You have to hold the camera just the right way to be able to focus and keep the rangefinder windows clear so that they work. Its frustrating and nearly impossible for some people (yes, I'm one of them) so you might want to see if you can do "the Contax hold" before you commit to one.
Among LTM bodies, there's some good choices. There are some quite good options among the FSU models in my opinion. When it comes to FSU cameras, I focus on their strengths. Simplicity that can associate with reliability. Yes, I said "reliable" and I meant it. I own quite a few FSU cameras, and there are some that I think are good representatives of simplicity, ruggedness, size, handling, and reliability. Three top choices would be:
1. Fed-3(b). The Fed-3 with lever advance is a very simple body. Its one of those cameras that if its working, its going to keep working. They are very simple mechanically, and so they're easy to repair if you like to do your own camera repair. The lack of slow speeds keeps the mechanism simple and reliable. The removable back makes film loading very easy. The viewfinder and rangefinder are plenty good for this type of camera. Better than the early Leicas (e.g., III, IIIa) and other FSU (e.g., Fed-1) with tiny squinty little peep holes. Just a good plain camera. I take one with me when I'm doing fieldwork at the coast.
2. Zorki-C Another simple and reliable FSU camera. Aside from that, this one is smaller than a Fed-3 (or Fed-2 or many others), and it has flash synchronization. I don't use flash with RF very often, but its there if ya want it. I've used a Zorki-C/I-22 combination many times.
3. Zorki-6 Probably the most advanced of the FSU. Kind of small, lever wind, easy film loading. However, I've found that this model can be less reliable than many other models. Get a good working one and its great to use. There's a member here on RFF (Klaus?) who quite likes the Zorki-6. Do a search and you'll find him and more on these.
I'm not a big fan of the Fed-2. They're fine, but I like the Fed-3 more for practical reasons (film loading, lever advance). There's folks who really like the Zorki-4 models. I have a couple, but they're not working well, so I can't comment on them.
And.....And there's more out there than just FSU cameras. Quite a few LTM cameras were produced (so-called Leica copies) by many companies over the years. The Canon cameras are great. I have a few of them and the quality is excellent. They can be found at prices not much more than FSU cameras. Look out for a Canon 7, Canon P, Canon IVSB, or Canon L-1. That's just a few of the models made in LTM that happen to be well liked by rangefinder people.
If you stick with FSU stuff, Fedka is a good source for FSU gear. Not as cheap as ebay sellers in Russia or Romania, but he gives a warranty and checks to make sure his stuff works as expected. Worth the higher price.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I was just thinking something like a Canonet QL 17, Canonet 28, Olympus 35SP, etc. might be the ticket.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I have a knob-wind version of the Fed 3 and it works as smoothly as my Leica IIIf. Which means it works more smoothly than all other cameras in my collection. I would say the overall quality of the build and fit and finish is about on par with "typical" Japanese quality of the same era - and noticeably better than the quality of later soviet cameras made in the 70s and 80s.
It is a better camera than the IIIf in several respects - easier loading, combined VF/RF, and more ergonomic advance knob.
It is a better camera than the IIIf in several respects - easier loading, combined VF/RF, and more ergonomic advance knob.
steveyork
Well-known
over the last two decades, I've owned everything from Leica MP and M7 to a Zorki 4, Fed 2 and 50's Kiev 2 and 2A. In my experience, the early Kiev are the best of the FSU cameras.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, um, I got my Kiev 2A with the Jupiter-8 but that was because I had the Contax II from the 1930's with the Sonnar and wanted to compare the two. I was also curious to see how the J-8 in the Kiev 2a compared with the (modified) J-8 in a FED or Zorki.
In the 39mm cameras I've a Jupiter-3 and I guess you can get to love it regardless of its foibles but it seems to me that you have to love it to use it. I wouldn't recommend it as a good, everyday lens. It's also overpriced, imo, but what have prices to do with anything?
I hear/read good things about the Helios and, like the Zenitar, I shall probably find one and play with it one day but I've no opinion of it at the moment.
(EDIT) I just realised you are thinking of getting a Kiev, so I'd say go for the 2 or 2a and look for an instruction book first. There's also a good series of books on the Contax by Focal that are worth having. There's lots out there for the 4's and one of them would do at a pinch. There are two versions (I've seen so far) and the larger one of them looks as though it started as a book about the 2's and was modified for the later models.
Using a Contax or Kiev is different to every other camera I own and can be a nuisance as you get half way into the cassette before feeling at ease, then you change lenses and realise it's even weirder than you thought. And if you've the 135mm lens as well as the 35mm then you can multiply that by 2 or even 3. I often think that in the 30's pro's used them and fumed at the problems they had to put up with to use superior "pro" cameras. The Leica and FED/Zorkis are wonderfully simple and consistent by comparison. And after using the Contax/Kiev you have to rethink using normal cameras, but it feels a lot better.
The main reason given is that Leitz got there first and had patents on everything and the Contax had to be designed to avoid legal patent troubles. Many also thought that the Zeiss lenses were superior to Leitz' offerings and the Contax was worth the extra trouble. There were some incredibly expensive modified Zeiss lenses available for the Leicas in the 30's... The lucky Soviets could have the best of both worlds with the FED/Zorki and a Jupiter-8...
Sorry I can't say more to help you.
Regards, David
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Off topic but might be an interesting trivia for some: Back in 1970 Yashica Electro 35G was more expensive than most other top of the line fixed lens RF models from other brands, namely Canonet QL GIII 17, Olympus 35 SP, Minolta Hi-Matic **... and so on. The aperture priority (real auto exposure rather than trap-needle mechanism) and the accurate long time exposure was really a space era killer feature back in the days (now taken for granted).
Every time I decide to take Rollei 35 SE out for shooting, I need to makeup some reasoning to convince myself not to take the Yashica Electro 35 MC instead..
I'd say get a Helios-103 instead of paying much money to get the J-3. It's less than 2/3 stop difference and the Helios is sharper wide open than J-3
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Re: " ...interesting trivia for some... "
I couldn't agree more and I'd add Konica to the list. Yashica and Konica turned out some superb cameras and lenses but these days you can pick up examples for next to nothing, thanks to general ignorance...
Regards, David
PS And please, no one mention specific models to burst the bubble and put prices up and up and up.
Re: " ...interesting trivia for some... "
I couldn't agree more and I'd add Konica to the list. Yashica and Konica turned out some superb cameras and lenses but these days you can pick up examples for next to nothing, thanks to general ignorance...
Regards, David
PS And please, no one mention specific models to burst the bubble and put prices up and up and up.
David Murphy
Veteran
Why one would mess with all these notoriously unreliable cameras from the Soviet era is beyond me (and I've owned and used several by the way). Japanese made Leica copies in working condition are now quite inexpensive, probably as a result of the advent of so many Japan-based sellers on eBay. Any rangefinder made by Canon, for instance, is vastly superior to the best from the Soviet. Right now for example, Canon 7's are often sold for less than $100 in good condition and it is one of the most usable and durable LTM bodies ever made.
David Murphy
Veteran
At the risk of having hell rained down on me, regarding the Kiev 4 and 4a in comparison to Contax, they are not even remotely comparable in build quality or fit-finish. The Contax IIa/IIIa and its Zeiss lenses are better compared with the Leica M2/M3 at its lenses. Their prices reflect that fact too, now and then. They are priced the way they are for a good reason, the market is telling a story.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Simple answers in my case:
A, Curiosity; I read so much about them and, knowing that the internet is a notoriously unreliable rumour exchange, I just had to buy one to see for myself. That's my acid test, BTW.
B, They are dirt cheap; I've bought bodies for a pound*, lenses and lens hoods for half that and other exotic accessories for a penny or so. Even working meters for 2 to 3 pounds, but I can say that about Westons but no one attacks Westons the way they do USSR stuff. I often wonder why...
Having bought them, read the manual and so on I put films through them and been very pleased with the results.
C, Notoriously unreliable; well, um, there's several out there that are not made in the USSR costing from 150 to 600 pounds that are appallingly unreliable; and digital ones costing a lot more. I've just looked on ebay at the completed sales of a famous (not notorious) P&S and was even more amazed by those actually selling them with the notorious "ERROR 02" openly advertised. Again no one attacks their makers the way USSR made ones are attacked...
D, Bargains, the best of the USSR made lenses are good and cheap. A lot of Leica users know this is a cheap way into Leica photography after spending a fortune on a digital one. And repair costs are not in the Leica/Contax class either; just look at Oleg's price list.
The fact is, some of us like playing with cameras and the FED/Zorki/Zenit stable is a good source of cheap and fascinating toys for boys. Even if you want a pre-war FED with the 1000th shutter speed and the f/2 lens, you can get them and they don't cost an arm and a leg compared with the Contax II, or even a pre-war Contax II instruction manual or lens hood or lens cap. The pre-war FED lens caps do though, be warned...
Regards, David
* When bought for US dollars I've got between $1.60 and $1.25 for a pound sterling.
David Hughes
David Hughes
But, surely, the only way we can comment on build quality up to 80 years or so after the camera left the factory is by finding one still in use that has been the personal property of a died in the wool film enthusiast, senior engineer or technician at one of the factories and so has been maintained in the same way as their German or Japanese competitors have been by their rich owners?
Otherwise, we are looking at ones owned by non-camera engineers or technicians that were bought second or third or fourth-hand on ebay or worse. By "or worse" I mean those repaired by idiots who just know one end of a screwdriver from the other and don't think what's at the working end is that important...
Regards, David
Last edited:
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
IMO, People are buying FSU often because they are influenced by FSU. This way or another.
I don't think here is as much services for IIa/IIIa as for M2/M3. Market does reflect it with cheap, dead Contax bodies with famous Zeiss bumps on the back. IIa not working for under 200$ is common on ebay. IIIa isn't much different if not less for camera which needs CLA forty years "already", somewhere...
M2/M3, first you have to find them in dead condition, because most of them are looked after and they are in fact more expensive than IIa/IIIa.
IIa/IIIa have basically two lenses with as primitive as in FSU viewfinder. 50/2 and 50 1.5. The faster one is notorious for optic problems. Both costs significantly less than Leitz 50/2, 50 1.4. Even same optics "quality" Leitz 50 1.5 costs more.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Is it really Leica photography if you are using an FSU (or any non-Leica) lens?