R
ruben
Guest
Recently I had the honour of exchanging some opinions with Henry Scherer, the celebrated Contax repairman, about the Kievs. In my initial mail I asked Mr Scherer for his opinion about how a Scherer CLA-ed Kiev will perform vis a vis a Scherer CLA-ed Contax. I asked him too if he entitles me to directly quote his answer.
Since about the latter issue I did not get any answer, I will abstain.
First of all, I would like to state in my most sharp words, that as far as my limited knowledge of the Kievs, goes and deepens, I happen to respect more and more Mr Scherer, and I find his prices rather low than expensive, taking into account the amount of work he dedicates for each camera, and not taking into account wether my wallet is able to afford it or not. These two issues should be take each one by itself.
In his opinion about the Kievs, Mr Scherer was very harsh. But taking into account that in his own website Mr Scherer stated that only one out of three Contaxes went out of factory well assembled, due to the salary system of the factory, I conclude, perhaps wrongly, the the basic criticism of Mr Scherer on the kievs is due to the building of its different parts, in terms of the quality of the materials used and the accuracy tolerarnces. This to start with, and then the assembly quality issue.
I tend to agree very much with this opinion. Contaxes the Kievs are not.
But fortunately for me, SCOTFORTHLAD brught to us just on time that pathetic article by Damien Demolder, who by taking his viewpoint to the extreme, clearly enabled me to appreciate the factor he was not including in his prose: the price factor.
So Kievs are not Contaxes, but also never demmanded the prices Contaxes did. This is very important to remember. The Soviets produced a kind of cheap Contax, a very ambitious target according to their technological level, that went cheaper and cheaper with time. The Soviets were never in the most technological elite, but they were original in their designs, and managed to maintain a balance of military power.
Now, as I wrote to Mr Scherer, if we forget for a moment the Contax factor, the camera commanding the highest worldwide price of its time, manufactured at the most technologically advanced country of the world, by the corporation bearing the biggest advances in the idustry, how should we view and appreciate a Kiev ? What is a Kiev by itself ?
As we are not any more in the fifties or the sixties, the golden Soviet camera era, we are talking about the Kievs as we get them from the seller. We have a camera with stiff grease, misaligned, hard to operate, but at the same time wrinkling with one eye about some inner potential.
In my opinion, a Kiev is very much those outstanding pictures we see here at RFF.
And on the other hand, I have no words to describe the gap between what I purchase and what I have after I perform a CLA. Perhaps some of you have got Kievs from Fedka or Oleg, and can have an idea of what I am talking, although both sellers don't have the same standards, and I will not start qualifying each of them. I am still a student and no more. But an enthusiastic student.
And I feel a deep frustration for not being able to let you touch the Kievs I have in my desk. A well CLA-ed Kiev is a hell of a camera, most of us have never touched.
It is in order to enable each one with the will to know and measure, that I am undertaking the Kiev Project. Wether in the way some Kiev is silenced for a while, i guarantee you that you are going to get a tremendous positive surprise. A tremendous positive surprise - this is for quote.
Very much like Peter Hennig has said, the basic Contax prototype was so good, that no matter how much it was later simplyfied at the Soviet Union, it was able to survive.
But I would like to reverse Peter Hennig's view point. We are going to take our Kievs to their best shape and have a great camera, very much putting in quetion marks wether is worth for us to buy a Contax with its undiscussionable upper quality. And it will be just out of our home factories.
Cheers,
Ruben
Since about the latter issue I did not get any answer, I will abstain.
First of all, I would like to state in my most sharp words, that as far as my limited knowledge of the Kievs, goes and deepens, I happen to respect more and more Mr Scherer, and I find his prices rather low than expensive, taking into account the amount of work he dedicates for each camera, and not taking into account wether my wallet is able to afford it or not. These two issues should be take each one by itself.
In his opinion about the Kievs, Mr Scherer was very harsh. But taking into account that in his own website Mr Scherer stated that only one out of three Contaxes went out of factory well assembled, due to the salary system of the factory, I conclude, perhaps wrongly, the the basic criticism of Mr Scherer on the kievs is due to the building of its different parts, in terms of the quality of the materials used and the accuracy tolerarnces. This to start with, and then the assembly quality issue.
I tend to agree very much with this opinion. Contaxes the Kievs are not.
But fortunately for me, SCOTFORTHLAD brught to us just on time that pathetic article by Damien Demolder, who by taking his viewpoint to the extreme, clearly enabled me to appreciate the factor he was not including in his prose: the price factor.
So Kievs are not Contaxes, but also never demmanded the prices Contaxes did. This is very important to remember. The Soviets produced a kind of cheap Contax, a very ambitious target according to their technological level, that went cheaper and cheaper with time. The Soviets were never in the most technological elite, but they were original in their designs, and managed to maintain a balance of military power.
Now, as I wrote to Mr Scherer, if we forget for a moment the Contax factor, the camera commanding the highest worldwide price of its time, manufactured at the most technologically advanced country of the world, by the corporation bearing the biggest advances in the idustry, how should we view and appreciate a Kiev ? What is a Kiev by itself ?
As we are not any more in the fifties or the sixties, the golden Soviet camera era, we are talking about the Kievs as we get them from the seller. We have a camera with stiff grease, misaligned, hard to operate, but at the same time wrinkling with one eye about some inner potential.
In my opinion, a Kiev is very much those outstanding pictures we see here at RFF.
And on the other hand, I have no words to describe the gap between what I purchase and what I have after I perform a CLA. Perhaps some of you have got Kievs from Fedka or Oleg, and can have an idea of what I am talking, although both sellers don't have the same standards, and I will not start qualifying each of them. I am still a student and no more. But an enthusiastic student.
And I feel a deep frustration for not being able to let you touch the Kievs I have in my desk. A well CLA-ed Kiev is a hell of a camera, most of us have never touched.
It is in order to enable each one with the will to know and measure, that I am undertaking the Kiev Project. Wether in the way some Kiev is silenced for a while, i guarantee you that you are going to get a tremendous positive surprise. A tremendous positive surprise - this is for quote.
Very much like Peter Hennig has said, the basic Contax prototype was so good, that no matter how much it was later simplyfied at the Soviet Union, it was able to survive.
But I would like to reverse Peter Hennig's view point. We are going to take our Kievs to their best shape and have a great camera, very much putting in quetion marks wether is worth for us to buy a Contax with its undiscussionable upper quality. And it will be just out of our home factories.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
