Kiev 4. Nice.

4

40oz

...
Local time
5:32 PM
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
1,332
My Kiev 4 came the other day. Took a few test shots, looking for light leaks, meter out of whack, rangefinder alignment issues, whatever. I had been led to expect some issues based on the large number of people reporting "quality issues" concerning FSU cameras. My particular model is apparently a Kiev 4 with a J-8M 53/2, dating from 1979. I developed the two short test rolls tonight.

Wow. I'm impressed. Quality control issues my ass. For starters, the finish on the camera is is fine shape, hardly any noticeable wear. The vulcanite(?) looks like it might possibly have been replaced in the last few years, but maybe not. The rangefinder takes a bit of getting used to, as does the grip, but damn. Well worth it. Accurate, and easy to use if you forgo the focusing wheel for the most part. My Canonet is hardly worth carrying around anymore, IMHO. The Kiev's ability to focus precisely over a relatively big range is a huge improvement over the Canonet, as is the quality of the Jupiter-8M.

My only real complaint is the difficulty of changing aperture when the infinity lock is not engaged, especially without changing focus inadvertantly. Not a big deal, I just need to set aperture prior to setting focus. The meter readout on top of the camera instead of the rear is a minor hassle, as it would be nice to read the meter when the camera is in the taking position.

To be fair, my Minolta SRT101 always seemed to take far better photos than the Canonet, but that seemed reasonable given the differences in the cameras. But now I know that the Canonet is just the "cheap" camera it always seemed next to the SRT101 - it isn't a function of the rangefinder design. Don't get me wrong, it is a fine piece of kit, but the Kiev shows it to be what it is - an OK shooter at best. Those folks at Zeiss/Contax knew what they were doing, and the talented crafts-comrades :))) at Arsenal knew their stuff as well.

My hat's off to the fine folks of the Kiev factories. :bow:
 
Last edited:
To be fair, one has to keep in mind that when people complain about quality control issues they don't necessarily mean that the camera is bad per se but rather that the quality between two cameras of the same model can vary greatly.

That being said, I don't know anything about FSU cameras and have never used or held one. I'm quite interested in getting one, though! My next camera purchase will probably be either a FSU rangefinder or a Rollei 35T. However, I'm still recovering from buying that Hassy kit :)
 
I think it is important to realize that there are plenty of cameras on ebay in rough shape, with peeling covering, dinged and corroded lens barrels, scratched elements, etc. It's like buying a used car - you don't buy one that leaks oil, engine knocking, and is rusted out, then complain that quality is crap, or you look like an idiot. If you buy the cheapest FSU camera you can find on an auction site, you should expect exactly what you pay for. The fact you might have bought a parts camera is not an indictment of quality, but of your purchasing savvy.

I bought mine after passing on tens of models with obvious issues visible in the pictures - issues from lack of care. I'm not in any position to know if they all left the factory like mine, but the fact that mine exists leads me to believe that they were constructed with care. What are the odds I'd get the only camera that was well-made in 1979, versus the odds mine is simply a typical example, and you just hear people complain when they made a poor choice/got burned?

Living in the US, I am fully aware that there has been a whole lot of unfair generalizations against the then-Soviet world shoveled out for the last half century for political reasons, very little of which was true. Again, like cars - people constantly slam American car quality, yet year after year, survey after survey, companies like Cadillac and Buick finish in the top ten brands in America for quality. People get it in their head that something is somehow inferior, and point to a particular example as proof, ignoring all the fine examples that would put the lie to their argument. Superstitions are the same way - you forget all the times it turned out false, and only remember the times it seemed true.
 
I've always purchased good examples of FSU camera or lenses from *ebay regardless of the price. Am I lucky or are the quality control rumors false? From my experiences I'd say I'm fortunate to have gotten things that hasn't been tampered with by anyone who didn't know what they were doing.


40oz said:
Living in the US, I am fully aware that there has been a whole lot of unfair generalizations against the then-Soviet world shoveled out for the last half century for political reasons, very little of which was true. Again, like cars - people constantly slam American car quality, yet year after year, survey after survey, companies like Cadillac and Buick finish in the top ten brands in America for quality. People get it in their head that something is somehow inferior, and point to a particular example as proof, ignoring all the fine examples that would put the lie to their argument. Superstitions are the same way - you forget all the times it turned out false, and only remember the times it seemed true.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to hijack this thread. My buddies have stopped asking me for advice on cars in recent years. :p I've always suggested domestic vehicles because of what you mentioned above.

Some men are Baptists, others Catholics, I'm an Oldsmobile man. (Slightly tweeked quote from A Christmas Story). :)
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
My only real complaint is the difficulty of changing aperture when the infinity lock is not engaged, especially without changing focus inadvertantly. Not a big deal, I just need to set aperture prior to setting focus.
Click to expand...

I find if you hold your finger on the focus wheel while setting the aperature, it tends to hold the lens in place.
 
I just got a Kiev 4a a couple of weeks ago and I too am impressed with it. I already like it better than most of my Feds and Zorkis. It just ... feels good, really. Hopefully the images it produces are commensurate with how I feel while using the camera.
 
I have 3 Kiev 4's; a 1959, a 1960, and a 1972 model. The curtains on the '59 are stuck, but usuable for parts otherwise, the 1960 had a very stiff focus wheel, but I tore that apart, as I could salvage it, and it's fine otherwise, but the 1972 model is in excellent shape - almost no brassing, clean, leather is in like new condition, tight focus with my J-3, and even has a 1/4" tripod mount. :)

I will say, that the eariler Kiev's are finished much nicer however.

My J-12 from 1970 on the other hand... :(
 
I have used most of the Kiev rangefinder cameras over the past decade and have found few problems with any of them. Never buy a lens with a dented filter ring unless you have a replacement lens.
I personally like the 4AM with its hotshoe flash. I have used almost all of the available FSU lenses with the exception of the Orion- -too expensive for my blood unless I get one in trade.
 
Gotta agree with some of the comments above. Both my 4A and my 4AM are in great shape and are very nice shooters. What an incredible way to be able to put together a complete interchangeable-lens rangefinder kit for not a whole lot of money.

-Randy
 
I was told for years that Russian cameras/lens were trash so I never tried them. Several months ago I came across some photos taken with a Kiev and desided to try one. My first was a 4am. I now have 2 Kiev 4a's with J-8, J-12, J-9, and J-11 lens..
None of these cameras came to me with problems. In fact the only thing I have done to them is to replace the channel light trap seal.
 
I played with just one Kiev so far, and I immediately fell in love with it... I gotta have one. Or two :) It's definitely true they feel better than Zorkis and Feds...

If only the focussing was the same direction :(
 
Spyderman said:
I played with just one Kiev so far, and I immediately fell in love with it... I gotta have one. Or two :) It's definitely true they feel better than Zorkis and Feds...

If only the focussing was the same direction :(
Click to expand...

Quality wise I believe they are made better than Feds or Zorkis. While they are all good cameras the Kiev was based on a high quality proven German camera.

However I'm not getting rid of my Feds or Zorkis. :eek:
 
I only have a Kiev 4 and a Kiev 4AM. The 4 is smoother in winding, but the separate take-up spool can be a bit of a pain and the meter stuck on top makes it feel 'clunky.' The AM has a fixed take-up spool. Winding on the AM feels gritty, but it seems to work o.k. Betwen the two of them, the AM gets more use.

Realistically, the basic design stayed pretty much the same through all the variations, with the biggest difference being metered/ meterless. Personally, I'd go for one without the meter (it probably won't work anyway.) You'll pay a premium for an older model, so if you're looking a user, go with a 4A or a 4AM and spend the difference on film.

My 2 cents...
 
Here's what I'd like to know: How does a Kiev compare to a real Contax ? Has anyone owned and used both? I used to have a Kiev 4 and it was a very decent camera for the money -- a little rough in some ways, but reliable. I am now considering a Contax II or IIa.
 
David Murphy said:
Here's what I'd like to know: How does a Kiev compare to a real Contax ? Has anyone owned and used both?
Click to expand...

I owned a Contax II several years ago and currently own 2 4a's.
Overall handling is about the same.

The coated Jupiter lens are in my opinion excellent optics. They are based on the pre-war Zeiss lens for the Contax II and III which were uncoated. My old Zeiss lens were somewhat prone to flare but I have not noticed that problem with the Jupiter lens..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom