Can't decide Kiev 4a or 4am???

S

Sam

Guest
I can't decide between the 4a and 4am. Its seems most the users here use a 4a but everything Ive read points to the helios 3 as beinga slightly better lens I was thinking of ordering from either dvdtechnikk or fedka.

Do any of you have both? Any recomendations?
 
First Kiev? First, there is no such thing as a totally bad kiev. Some are, however, better than others....

Get a 4am (for the rewind crank) and get it with a Jupiter 8/8m rather than the Helios. The am will be newer and hence farther from needing repair and buy from Fedka. He _will_ cost more but the customer service will more than make up for it...

Oh, and find yourself a Jupiter 9 as soon as you can. Exquisite lens...

Your local kiev-aholioc,

William
 
Yes this will be my first. I have several Zorkis, my favorite being my Zorki 1 with Industar 22. I have a Yashica GSN and, for paying assignments, a Leica M6. I love the russian stuff. I carry my Z1 everyday!
 
I find that 4a looks sleeker than 4am, with the knobs matching the chrome finish. But then, as a 4a owner am deeply biased :)

Still both 4a and 4am from a reputable seller should be equally good performers. As for the normal lens, I got J-8M with my Kiev but now waiting for Helios-103 to arrive (ordered it from rafcamera.com - Rafael is also on this forum occasionally). I find that the Jupiter opened wider than f/4 performs too soft in low contrast and dim light. H-103 should be more contrasy and should have better resolution wide open.
 
The quality tends to be better on the 4a -- at least the ones made on the '60s. On the other hand, you are more likely to get a 4am in proper operating condition because it is a much newer camera.
 
Why not getting the older ones ?

Why not getting the older ones ?

Advantage of a Kiev II, IIa, III, or IIIa that nobody seems to care :
- a nice contax II at 1/3 the price and that had not make WWII !
- a better film flatness because of the better pressure plate system on the older Kiev, like the original Contax. I made mesurement with a depth micrometer on two samples, my '57 Kiev IIa and a '72 Kiev 4.
Results for the first : film bulges forward 0.02 to 0.04mm in the center of the image.
Results for the second : film bulges forward 0.08 to 0.12mm
With the result of the Kiev 4 every time you use a lens at full aperture the focus will be off due to that. An you will hear people saying, ooh Jupiter 8 ? Too soft for my taste at f/2 or F/2.8...
- Better quality materials, finish and quality control.
-An opportunity to have a wonderful user-collectable with a value that will increase again and again, thing that will not happen to the K4 before years...
-Why purchasing three K4 at 45$ before getting a good sample where you can get a nice-totally working KIIa for 150$ from fedka or other ?

Inceasing film flatness will increase lens resolution, lens sharpness, and contrast to their original value at all aperture settings, and especially wide open.
 
supermarcel23 said:
With the result of the Kiev 4 every time you use a lens at full aperture the focus will be off due to that. An you will hear people saying, ooh Jupiter 8 ? Too soft for my taste at f/2 or F/2.8...
Click to expand...

Hate to interrupt you Marcel, but it *is* soft in in-focus areas; at several meters and 2.8 the DOF is wide enough to compensate for any marginal focal plane error. The softness is not objectable in normal light, but I find it excessive in poor lighting.

Also, try measuring the actual working distances of a few J8 samples and compare to your measurement of the film table flatness. Otherwise it is a pointless excersise.
 
I must assume you're right for poor lighting, but the sonnar design is from the twenties, I think. Otherwise, I must say focus will be in the tolerance if the lens to film distance has been checked and/or corrected, but will not be better than a perfectly flat film. There is a compromise between the center and edge resolution that will be given by the quality of film flatness and the lens to film distance. The better they are, the better image you will get. And demanding lenses like the F/1.5 sonnar or J-3 will need very thin tolerances for well performing.
For the J-8 like other lenses the film flatness defects plus the lens curvature will affect the resolution, and you will go through well, acceptable and poor resolution through the same picture..
Perhaps I'm wrong varjag, and correct me if so...
 
Marcel, certainly there's no such thing as excessive precision. Wide open and focused at a close object it might probably result in degradations; it's just that I don't usually shoot that close as to receive a papersheet-wide DOF.

Still, I don't find film flatness to be an issue with my 4a. Meanwhile the Helios-103 have arrived; it feels cheaper than my chrome J8, but first roll shows pretty good performance at 2.8 and acceptable at 1.8.

So my point is that Kiev-4 is a decent performer, even if it isn't as finely tooled as earlier versions.
 
Yes I agree with you the 4 series, they are great user cameras. I must admit sometimes I'm boring because I want the better, and as the proverb says : The better is the enemy of the good... The Helios is a pretty nice lens, even wide open, at f1.8. And you can get them at more affordable prices. The only trouble I experienced with my helios is that it doesn't have painted aperture blades, and sometimes the flare is terrible... Does your helios have black blades, or is it just in mine it has been forgotten ?
Otherwise, thank you to remind me to take pictures rather too much thinking of film flatness troubles !!
 
The blades on H103 are dark grey, nearly the same as on my 1976 J8. It doesn't look too bad: I've seen some late Soviet lenses where the aperture blades were *shiny*. I didn't try it against point light sources yet so don't know how prone is it to flare.

Judging by the shots I have, it should be a good user lens; am going to stick with it for a while. At 2.8 it looks as sharp as the J8 at 4 or 5.6, and at 1.8 it performs noticeably better than the J8 at 2.8 (there's a huge drop from 4 to 2.8 on my Jupiter sample). When I look at a same object through them side to side the difference in color rendition is also apparent, although for a BW shooter it is a minor concern. However, being a different design (Biotar?), the Helios lacks that distinctive smooth Sonnar/Jupiter bokeh, but given its high usable speed I can live with that.
 
I have both, and if I'm really.. REALLY... honest I prefer the 4M and the 4AM (the Meterless version) with the Helios 103, the J8 is great but the Helios 103 is just that little bit sharper wide open. I like them both, but I've had a lot of problems with the 4's and their meters, the seleniumcell is sometimes intact but the internal ring (which is a carbon like resistor) of the meter is sometimes unusuable the resistormaterial is gone making the meter useless..... this is the only reason I prefer the M versions well.... that and that they are a little smaller.

L8tr... Tom
 
early kieves are better

early kieves are better

In terms of bulid quality, early kiev 2, 2a, 3, 3a and kiev 4 in the early 60's are way better. The best buy right now is kiev 2a, 3a, and early 60's kiev 4. I have not tried helios 103 on old kieves. It's very hard to find kiev 2 and 3 in good conditions. It's also very hard to get scratch-free jupiter 8 or 8m. The chance of getting scratch-free Helios 103 is extremely high. The early kieves are heavier than later kieves. You will have a very solid feel with the early kieves. The aperture of 1.8 in Helios is something I like. With film (ISO 400 rated at 250), I can shoot the film comfortably at 1/50 in a low light condition to catch slightly moving subject.


Richard
(a new kiev fan, having 22 kieves so far (2 more kiev 3, 1 kiev 5 on the way), 4 jupiter 9 (silver arsenal, KMZ, Ly** silver and black), etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom