A conclusion about the Kiev Shutter

[Valkir1987]

It should be about 2 years ago since I got my first Kiev 4 in parts. I bought it together with the Zeiss Contax repair manual from Peter Took.
I bought a second parts camera and built one Kiev out of two, having some parts left over including a shutter unit.

Not so long ago there was many discussion about Kiev's, enthusiast which kept buying earlier samples to get closer to the Contax. And poeple dis recommending the Kiev for its unreliable shutter, light leaks and frame spacing problems etc. At that time I considered the shutter of my Kiev as a time bomb which could break down any time.
Then it showed up that the tapes of the shutter where easy to replace.

I spend most of my time repairing Feds Zorkis and Zenits. But the last two weeks I took the broken spare Kiev shutter, the book of Maizenberg and Took, and I disassembled and cleaning the shutter as far as possible.

Studying its concept and functionality I found it hard and harder to imagine its production. And yes the shutter is complex, but its mechanisms can be viewed separately.

I managed to get everything back working in good order. I honestly admit they are less well built than a Contax, but not that bad. And like any other FSU camera that I had in my hands, they aint bad if they get the right attention. They can be good!

 

[wolves3012]

I have to agree, it's a complex but a nice piece of engineering. I like the fact that it's metal (no sun-burns!) and it never gives an uneven exposure. I just dislike the "Contax" grip but I'll live with that. Must admit I've run several rolls through my 4A recently and been very pleased with the results.

 

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

I totally agree with Valkir: the Kiev can be less accurately mounted than an original Contax, but surely there are pieces that are admirably assembled and finished.

My Kiev 4A from 1968 is excellently finished and it works without any problems since I have it and of course it's my favourite camera.

Best wishes,

Elmar Lang

 

[Spider67]

I had the great luck to buy a Kiev from 1962 from Spyderman a guy who keeps his Kievs in good order ad can see barely any differences between it and the Contax IIa I have

 

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

I think that besides a wide public of disappointed users, there is a numerous group of true fans of rangefinder Kievs.

It's a camera with an interesting history, it's mechanically very complex, but after all, not extremely difficult to repair.

A good and well-assembled example, a set of well-assembled lenses, can give any photographic satisfaction. Ok, the "Contax-feel" with it's rather strange position of fingers while focusing and shooting can be curious, but once used to it, everything goes on smoothly.

I admit, I am a Kiev (and Contax, of course!) fan, so my point of view can be quite partial...

Best wishes,

Elmar Lang

 

[oftheherd]

I have a Kiev with a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. It is a nice camera and has worked well since I got it off ebay. Somehow I just haven't cottened to it as much as I thought. I think it isn't the Kiev per se, but just that in that form factor, I haven't gotten used to the fact that it isn't an SLR.