dll927
Well-known
I tend to agree with doing without the meters. After all, they're selenium type and probably long since aren't accurate. I have three Kievs - 3, 4, and 4a, and of the three I think the 4a (no meter) is better looking to boot.
I bought my 4a from the above-mentioned Fedka in NYC. He e-mailed me that the lens on the camera (Jupiter-8) had "minor cleaning marks", so he threw in a Helios-3 and the camera arrived with both lenses. Not every seller does that! He might be a little more expensive than e-bay, but he goes over the cameras before selling them, so you have more assurance that they will be in working condition.
The CameraQuest story mentioned above is worth reading through. No need to go into details here, but a number of websites seem to agree that the earlier, pre- about 1965, models are better cameras, since the Russkis started going for production numbers after that rather than quality. And being copies of Contaxes, they are darned well worth a try.
I bought my 4a from the above-mentioned Fedka in NYC. He e-mailed me that the lens on the camera (Jupiter-8) had "minor cleaning marks", so he threw in a Helios-3 and the camera arrived with both lenses. Not every seller does that! He might be a little more expensive than e-bay, but he goes over the cameras before selling them, so you have more assurance that they will be in working condition.
The CameraQuest story mentioned above is worth reading through. No need to go into details here, but a number of websites seem to agree that the earlier, pre- about 1965, models are better cameras, since the Russkis started going for production numbers after that rather than quality. And being copies of Contaxes, they are darned well worth a try.
R
RichardS
Guest
captainslack said:
I think you'll like the Kiev. I have two, a Kiev 4a that works and a Kiev that has a bad shutter. I bought the Kiev with the bad shutter about 25 or 30 years ago from Cambridge Camera, which at that time was selling Russian and East German cameras. I don't know exactly what model it is, but it has a meter. The shutter stopped working around the first of this year and it was cheaper to buy a used one then to get it repaired. If you're like me, you'll never get used to holding the camera so you finger doesn't block the rangefinder window, but when you can't focus, you'll remember to move the finger.
I got the Kiev 4a from Cameta Camera but I don't remember the price.
Does anyone know if Cambridge Camera is out of business or did magazines just quit running ads for it because of complaints? Actually I never had any complaint about Cambridge but I know plenty of others did.
Dick
R
ruben
Guest
wlewisiii said:
Dear Friend,
Kindly allow me to dis-agree with your quoted statement, upon my experience. One of my five Kievs is a 1969 model looking as never used, yet it is the one performing in the smoothest way. The only porblem with it, and quite a small one, is a very slight mis-aligment in the distance metering function at infinity.
Cheers,
Ruben
R
rick oleson
Guest
Hand-wringing about the extra investment of a second FSU lens series seems a little much to me, these aren't a life-ending investment.... but then i have a whole lot more lenses and cameras than i can even use, so my viewpoint is a little warped.
I have only encountered one Kiev that seemed to have a real defect; it happened to be a 4AM. But I have another 4AM that's excellent, and a 4 that is as well. The main recurring problem that I have found with Kievs is a light leak through the right hand RF window and past the seam between the chassis casting and the film gate casting just at the top of the film sprocket shaft. A bit of tape over that seam (or even a heavy dose of black paint) generally takes care of that.
The Kiev is an excellent camera. The shutter is very consistent and reliable, its only weak point being the occasional need for ribbon replacement - but if you just regard this as a maintenance issue, you're likely to have no complaints. Unlike nearly all other focal plane shutters, the Kiev (and prewar contax) does not fade. The viewfinder too is exceptionally good: it is essentially immune to vertical misalignment, one of the great headaches in all other designs, it is exceptionally precise and it does not require the rather irritating eyepiece focus correction that you find in the later Zorkis.
As for getting fingers in front of the windows, you just have to learn how to hold the camera: Your Index finger goes across the wind knob (press the shutter release with the bottom of your first knuckle); your Middle finger goes on top of the focus wheel. If you hold it this way, you will discover that there are no fingers left to block the rangefinder and it works perfectly.
rick : ) =
I have only encountered one Kiev that seemed to have a real defect; it happened to be a 4AM. But I have another 4AM that's excellent, and a 4 that is as well. The main recurring problem that I have found with Kievs is a light leak through the right hand RF window and past the seam between the chassis casting and the film gate casting just at the top of the film sprocket shaft. A bit of tape over that seam (or even a heavy dose of black paint) generally takes care of that.
The Kiev is an excellent camera. The shutter is very consistent and reliable, its only weak point being the occasional need for ribbon replacement - but if you just regard this as a maintenance issue, you're likely to have no complaints. Unlike nearly all other focal plane shutters, the Kiev (and prewar contax) does not fade. The viewfinder too is exceptionally good: it is essentially immune to vertical misalignment, one of the great headaches in all other designs, it is exceptionally precise and it does not require the rather irritating eyepiece focus correction that you find in the later Zorkis.
As for getting fingers in front of the windows, you just have to learn how to hold the camera: Your Index finger goes across the wind knob (press the shutter release with the bottom of your first knuckle); your Middle finger goes on top of the focus wheel. If you hold it this way, you will discover that there are no fingers left to block the rangefinder and it works perfectly.
rick : ) =
captainslack
Five Goats Hunter
I've read the CameraQuest article and it was quite informative. In fact, I've yet to read anything at CameraQuest that wasn't extremely informative!!!
As for the switching lens mounts, if I'm going to do it, now would be a good time. I'm still fairly new to rangefinders and haven't acquired a massive collection of gear yet (although my wife would disagree). I have a Bessa-T, a FED 2d, and a Zorki 4 with a grand total of one lens each, all 50mm's. If I got a Kiev now and decided to go Contax-mount, I won't have a lot invested in LTM or M-mount lenses.
Not that I can afford any of this stuff, mind you.
As for the switching lens mounts, if I'm going to do it, now would be a good time. I'm still fairly new to rangefinders and haven't acquired a massive collection of gear yet (although my wife would disagree). I have a Bessa-T, a FED 2d, and a Zorki 4 with a grand total of one lens each, all 50mm's. If I got a Kiev now and decided to go Contax-mount, I won't have a lot invested in LTM or M-mount lenses.
Not that I can afford any of this stuff, mind you.
R
rick oleson
Guest
There is one advantage in the Contax/Kiev mount vs the Zorki/Leica mount in FSU lenses:
While the lenses are of equal quality, there seems to be (anecdotally at least) a higher risk of getting a "bad" tele or WA lens if it's in the screw mount.... I constantly read opinions about the screwmount lenses being of lesser repute than the bayonets.
My personal explanation for this is that many of these lenses, of either mount type, have been disassembled for service at some time. When reassembling a screw mount lens of other than 50mm focal length, getting not only the lens itself but also the rangefinder cam back on the correct thread in the helical is absolutely critical. I know from personal experience that this is difficult to do and requires advance planning; and I also know from personal experience of at least one Jupiter-9 that was reassembled with the RF cam about 1/2mm off. An error of 1/2mm (or less) in the RF cam position is enough to make the lens give consistently unsharp images, regardless of how good the lens is.
In the Kiev/Contax mount, the RF coupling is based on the rotational position of the lens barrel as it is turned for focusing, not on axial movement of a separate cam; it is therefore easier to get it back together correctly and less likely for the lens to be misassembled after service.
While the lenses are of equal quality, there seems to be (anecdotally at least) a higher risk of getting a "bad" tele or WA lens if it's in the screw mount.... I constantly read opinions about the screwmount lenses being of lesser repute than the bayonets.
My personal explanation for this is that many of these lenses, of either mount type, have been disassembled for service at some time. When reassembling a screw mount lens of other than 50mm focal length, getting not only the lens itself but also the rangefinder cam back on the correct thread in the helical is absolutely critical. I know from personal experience that this is difficult to do and requires advance planning; and I also know from personal experience of at least one Jupiter-9 that was reassembled with the RF cam about 1/2mm off. An error of 1/2mm (or less) in the RF cam position is enough to make the lens give consistently unsharp images, regardless of how good the lens is.
In the Kiev/Contax mount, the RF coupling is based on the rotational position of the lens barrel as it is turned for focusing, not on axial movement of a separate cam; it is therefore easier to get it back together correctly and less likely for the lens to be misassembled after service.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
It is true, as long as the focusing system is inside the camera body (and remains untouched), the lens is not the cause of problems unless dismantled and badly assembled.
I´m wondering that it would be interesting to make some kind of adapter to couple other makers lenses to my Kiev and Contax and check how well the RF works with non Kiev/Contax designed lenses (of course, it may not work also!).
Ernesto
I´m wondering that it would be interesting to make some kind of adapter to couple other makers lenses to my Kiev and Contax and check how well the RF works with non Kiev/Contax designed lenses (of course, it may not work also!).
Ernesto
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Actually if you search Cameraquest you will find a "Contax/Kiev --> Leica M" adapter, but I don't think there is one for "LTM --> Contax/Kiev".
And I wonder why nobody uses the Contax rangfinder design. IMO, I think it may be cleverer and it is obviously less prone to misalignment (though I think it would be difficult to project brightlines).
And I wonder why nobody uses the Contax rangfinder design. IMO, I think it may be cleverer and it is obviously less prone to misalignment (though I think it would be difficult to project brightlines).
ErnestoJL
Well-known
One reason (not the most important I guess) to avoid using this design is the complication that will add to the design for the brightlines projection. Being an RF based on prisms rather than mirrors, the only way to do this would be to have as many other cameras have printed brightlines in the rear element of the VF, simple for a fixed lens, but not convenient for multifocal finders.
Many years ago, Miranda offered one adapter for using Contax lenses in any Miranda camera, and other for using Miranda/Soligor lenses in the Contax. I hope I´ll find one of those.
The reason why this design wasn´t used anymore (but in the Kiev family) is that even being it far better than the mirror based RFs, the added cost for making prisms is far higher in regard of the benefits it brings. I guess that adjusting the prism system is a lot more complex and requires higher precision during manufacturing, something that can be easily replaced for a carefull factory adjustment.
Many years ago, Miranda offered one adapter for using Contax lenses in any Miranda camera, and other for using Miranda/Soligor lenses in the Contax. I hope I´ll find one of those.
The reason why this design wasn´t used anymore (but in the Kiev family) is that even being it far better than the mirror based RFs, the added cost for making prisms is far higher in regard of the benefits it brings. I guess that adjusting the prism system is a lot more complex and requires higher precision during manufacturing, something that can be easily replaced for a carefull factory adjustment.
VinceC
Veteran
A previous poster was right -- cost of the lenses is almost inconsequential for most anyone who can afford photography in the first place. And you do get stunning quality for the money.
A drawback of Kievs is, if you wear eyeglasses, they are VERY hard on the lenses because the viewfinder edge is metal and there's almost no eye relief. On the other hand, the secondary image is so bright and contrasty on my 1957 Kiev that it's the only camera I own that I can focus without my glasses (I'm extremely near-sighted).
A 5cm f/2 Jupiter-8 will more than likely come with the camera, and the superb Jupiter-12 35f/2.8 is a bargain for it's quality. The wider Orion 28mm F/6 is mainly a daylight-only lens but is a good performer (and kind of hard to find, I paid about $100 for one in Germany fifteen years ago).
One advantage that's often not mentioned -- these lenses are really, really, really lightweight and compact. If I'm on vacation and don't want to haul a lot of weight, all three of those lenses weighs as much as one Nikon SLR prime.
Vince
A drawback of Kievs is, if you wear eyeglasses, they are VERY hard on the lenses because the viewfinder edge is metal and there's almost no eye relief. On the other hand, the secondary image is so bright and contrasty on my 1957 Kiev that it's the only camera I own that I can focus without my glasses (I'm extremely near-sighted).
A 5cm f/2 Jupiter-8 will more than likely come with the camera, and the superb Jupiter-12 35f/2.8 is a bargain for it's quality. The wider Orion 28mm F/6 is mainly a daylight-only lens but is a good performer (and kind of hard to find, I paid about $100 for one in Germany fifteen years ago).
One advantage that's often not mentioned -- these lenses are really, really, really lightweight and compact. If I'm on vacation and don't want to haul a lot of weight, all three of those lenses weighs as much as one Nikon SLR prime.
Vince
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
Hmm. Some time ago I was curious about Kiev's, too. In a few months I ended up with a body and J8, J9 in hands and J12, H103 (plus external finders for all mentioned focal lengths) on the way )) No regrets, though - great route to the classic rangefinder experience Below J9 and J8 samples (got 30x40cm enlargement from both):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12680&cat=4996&page=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11752&cat=4996&page=1
)) No regrets, though - great route to the classic rangefinder experience Below J9 and J8 samples (got 30x40cm enlargement from both):http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12680&cat=4996&page=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11752&cat=4996&page=1
CZeni
DaDa is everywhere.
captainslack said:
If you wanna touch/feel a Kiev, let me know...I have a II and a 4 you can take a look at one Saturday
captainslack
Five Goats Hunter
CZeni said:If you wanna touch/feel a Kiev, let me know...I have a II and a 4 you can take a look at one Saturday
Ohh... that's tempting!!!!
My wife's in a craft fair in Smithfield Saturday, but I might could run to Cary for a bit. I'll let you know.