Differences between Kiev II and IVa

[RolleiPollei]

Hey guys,
About 6 months ago I bought what I was told to be a Kiev IVa with a Jupiter 8. However upon closer inspection and some internet research it turned out to be a Kiev II with a Jupiter 3. Is there any practical differences between the II and the IVa? From looking up the cameras online they seem to be practically the same camera.

 

[ForestCap]

4a has flash sync. 4a usually sells for cheaper price.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had II with flash thing professionally added. 🙂 purchased on RFF, sold on RFF.

 

[farlymac]

You can check this site for all the variations.

PF

 

[Dez]

The II usually has far better build quality, and the J3 is the more valuable lens. It looks like you got lucky.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Paul T.]

I've owned both, and really preferred the Kiev II. I had an early Jupiter 3 on it. I sold both reckoning I had too many cameras and regret it; looking at the photos, the Jupiter 3 helped produce a beautiful look.

The Kiev 2 was also made in period when they were producing the cameras in smaller numbers. AS I'm sure you've read, the 4a is slightly simplified for larger-scale production, and are more crudely made.

So in short, well done.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks for saying that; saved me a bit of typing.

FWIW the Kiev II feels more like my old Contax II...

Regards, David

 

[Highway 61]

http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

 

[RolleiPollei]

Thanks for the information! I love this little camera and I'm glad I decided to go for it. The Jupiter 3 is an early 1953 example and a really spectacular lens. The camera is from 1955 and feels very well built. I can only imagine the poor reputation they sometimes carry is from the later production models.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks for the information! I love this little camera and I'm glad I decided to go for it. The Jupiter 3 is an early 1953 example and a really spectacular lens. The camera is from 1955 and feels very well built. I can only imagine the poor reputation they sometimes carry is from the later production models.

I blame the internet for a lot of the reputations; people pass on what they've heard and so one dud gets several mentions...

Also, look around and you'll see that a lot of people try and repair cameras, thinking it's easy and that no special tools are needed. And others expect a 60 or 70 year old camera to behave like a brand new one. And some just lie about repairs and servicing when selling the things and the makers get blamed.

Regards, David

 

[Dez]

I blame the internet for a lot of the reputations; people pass on what they've heard and so one dud gets several mentions...

Also, look around and you'll see that a lot of people try and repair cameras, thinking it's easy and that no special tools are needed. And others expect a 60 or 70 year old camera to behave like a brand new one. And some just lie about repairs and servicing when selling the things and the makers get blamed.

Regards, David

Hi, David. What you say here is of course true, but notwithstanding I think you will admit that the finish and overall build quality was considerably better in the older Kievs.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[David Hughes]

Hi, David. What you say here is of course true, but notwithstanding I think you will admit that the finish and overall build quality was considerably better in the older Kievs.

Cheers,
Dez

Hi,

Well, um, yes and no...

I'd be able to comment on the finish and build quality if I had a brand new one to look at but I've only had used ones and since one was nearly 65 years old and the other was 20 years younger I can't.

However, both had been looked after by considerate owners and so I rated them both highly and only decided to keep the older one because it was "nearer" to the Contax. It had that little foot underneath to stop it tipping over and the right lens came with it and I don't like splitting lenses and bodies. (The instruction manuals and ERC's condition came into the decision too.)

I have owned a couple of Leicas and a Contax II in a disgraceful condition due to the previous owners stupidity and am more inclined to wonder about photographers, rather than the original makers. It would help if owners and cameras had log books like pilots and aircraft but, alas...

Now add in the clowns who think cameras are easy to repair, even if you've never repaired anything before and don't have the tools and you'll see why I blame the internet.

There's also a political dimension to a lot of the discussions, or was a few years ago, and, of course, in the FED/Zorki and Leica debates we see a lot of glossy magazine adverts for Leicas and they get lots of publicity. I think this influences people, until they've had a sensor failure (or a complete write off of a P&S), as I have; I've no complaints about how they deal with it but I didn't expect it to fail so catastrophically.

That raises the other point, FED/Kiev/Zorkis cost as much to repair as Leica/Contaxes but people won't pay for it; so they get neglected or bodged. Treat a FED/Kiev/Zorki like a Leica/Contax and the cameras will behave the same way and feel the same. Or rather that's my experience and a lot of others have agreed with me over the years...

Regards, David

 

[dee]

Good catch on the Kiev II.

Quality control dropped drastically around the mid 60s . The finish of a Kev II is better overall .
But according to master engineer Oleg - most early Kievs were messed with as owners tried to keep them going , this does not mean that a later Kiev is better , just that a properly serviced Kiev of any vintage is a rare and special experience .
I have a Kiev 4m from Oleg and it's super smooth .
I also have a mint boxed UK issue 1979 Kiev 4a , well into the suspect period , but the importers did a superb job of checking and adjusting , so it's also lovely camera .
A backstreet update from a Kiev III to a Kiev 4 using parts borrowed seemed to be a popular modification.

I love the Kiev 4 with a selenium meter , so the ex-Arsenal techs made me a scrap £30 Contax III , with all original parts except for a spring and screws with a 1957 Kiev meter and controls ... from the Techs , i also have a pair of Contax II ,one in silver and tan another with a late brand new Kiev shutter assembly , which makes it virtually a new Contax ! A point with dead Contax Cameras is that the are put aside for decades as it's too expensive to fix one , so a parts camera can still be brought back to life , in this instance in a new role .

O.K . this was seriously OTT , but at £150 each , I have 3 superb vintage cameras which work exquisitely.
The engineers were proud of their adaptation and update and quality was initially excellent . It was the relentless pressure for quantity which ruined the Kiev reputation .

The best Kiev ? Any that has been overhauled by Oleg of OK Vintage Camera ,, at around $125 plus post to Ukraine .

It may sound odd , but a $50 camera plus a $150 rebuild becomes a bargain @200 vintage delight !
On the other hand Oleg sometimes has a Kiev body for around £60 which is a true bargain .

I have no ties to OK Vintage other than the cameras they sell .

dee

 

[RJ-]

Rediscovering my Contax II, I recall the painful effort of dissassembling my very first one which ended up rejuvenated and working in your reborn Contax. Was it really 10 years ago?!

Pleased to hear Oleg put the useful left over to good use. I've still not touched a Kiev II - just the IV. It has been amazingly reliable, outliving 3 Contax rangefinders - before their repair cycles. The IIs required their shutter ribbons attached; the IIa, the rangefinder beam splitter repaired. I'm amazed that the 3 sample matched with the Kiev IVa is sharper than the wider Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8 version, although perhaps accounted for by the multi-coated higher contrast. I found the Sonnar 5cm f1.5 & f2s more pleasing though - so it had to go.

RJ

 

[David Hughes]

FWIW, getting a 30's Contax II and getting it working cost me more than 10 times the price (averaged) of my Kiev's.

And the Sonnar on the Contax is, no surprise, filthy and needs cleaning so more expense coming up.

Here's the 4a for a bit of pleasure:-

All of them feel and behave the same, apart from the dirty Sonnar.

Regards, David

 

[dee]

Thanks RJ - the Kontax is still going strong !
David , my UK [TOE] 4a looks like yours .
Aside - a new at the time , Helios is superb on my Contax adapted Leica M3.
dee

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks RJ - the Kontax is still going strong !
David , my UK [TOE] 4a looks like yours .
Aside - a new at the time , Helios is superb on my Contax adapted Leica M3.
dee

Hi,

TOE was a good firm, like the best makers, they tested everything before releasing it to the customers.

Regards, David

 

[Fotohuis]

I have a Kiev-4A completely refurbished together with a J-8M (M improved with better coating). A FED-3 50 October revolution refurbished too which means a complete new RF in it. So the price for the refurbishment was 2x the price of those cameras which is still cheap. So far both cameras are working fine, just a bit less fine then my Leica M7 from 2005 but everything is working smoothly and with the new modern type grease even better then it ever was.

 

[jgrainger]

It sounds like the op was really fortunate.

In terms of the mechanics of the Contax and Kiev II/III/IV.. I've spent some time practicing servicing mine, to eventually offer as a service.. a few down and a few to go.

There are some differences to the way they are assembled, such as one of the setting levers which runs on the outside of the shutter casting near the escapements, that's held on a shared shaft with one of the escapements. The contax has a fancy fastener with a couple of washers, the early Kiev IV I last disassembled is held with a screw and shimmed with washers to get the correct depth / fit.

The main functional difference (and source of some irritation) to me are the screw heads, nice ones on the Contax vs inconsistent head slot depths on the Kievs. The light seals can be a little different - but as much between Contaxes.

Interestingly I've also found 2 different diameter escapement wheels among different Contax II / III's, with it seems, a slightly differently weighted escape lever to compensate for the difference in torque relative to the different diameter.. thinking of the escapement gear train for the horrible pinned in place escape wheel.

I get the impression the Contax shutter castings were made in batches, possibly with parts separated and selected by size to be hand fitted, while the Kiev seems to be much more fitted by shimming.. It doesnt mean the Kiev is inferior though, and I feel the shutter ribbon difference could be considered to make the Kievs a slightly more serviceable to factory standard proposition.

Some Kiev II were synchronized for flash but regardless of model it may or may not work depending on the cameras past life and initial build. The part of the shutter which hits the switch can become a little deformed over all these decades of use from new.

Jonathan