dll927
Well-known
It's no news that the Russians highjacked the Zeiss company - and some of its enloyees. After reading so many comments about FSU cameras though, I've come to the conclusion that the quality may depend on how much vodka the comrades consumed the night before.
As to Bill's question about the best alternative for a Kiev (of which I have three), the easy answer is -- a Contax. But they do cost more.
As to Bill's question about the best alternative for a Kiev (of which I have three), the easy answer is -- a Contax. But they do cost more.
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
My favourite flavor of Kiev RF is the model 2 or 2A, though a III / IIIa can be sexy as well 
manfromh
I'm not there
I have a Kiev 4a. When I first got it, i didnt like its size or the focus wheel. But now, few months later, I just have to pick it up everyday. The size doesnt bother me anymore and screw the focus wheel. And i think its beautiful. I just need to calibrate the rangefinder and find a take up spool, then i can finally shoot with it.
JohnM
Well-known
I've had a 4a and I currently have a 4am. I have owned a Contax IIIa and comparing the two cameras directly, the Contax was clearly built to a higher standard - it wasn't close.
However, a Contax kit with a 35 and a 50 with an external finder can run $700 - the Kiev with a 35 and a 50 (ok, 53) with a Soviet finder cost me a grand total of $97. Even if there were differences in the quality of the photos each was capable of making, (the Sonnar is better than the Helios), I am not good enough to exploit it often enough to justify the extra cost -- so the Contax is gone and the Kiev remains.
I don't think the fit and finish of the Kiev is anything special - dials and such are roughly finished and there are literally gaps where metal parts are supposed to fit flush. None of it affects the photo-taking ability of the camera so I don't mind. (And for $97, I REALLY don't mind.)
Summary - the quality is a clear step below some other makes. The bang for your buck, though, is off the charts. It's almost addicting - I take the Kiev anywhere and everywhere - I have an M3 kit and the Kiev sees more use, basically, because it's not only a stellar performer, but given it's replacement value, I don't mind putting it in harm's way.
The only real annoyance in my mind is the fiddly nature of the lens' adjustments - fairly easy to knock the aperture when you're using the focusing ring and not the focusing wheel. When it happens, you know it, so you won't blow an exposure, but it's something you have to be mindful of when using the camera.
The 'Contax' grip becomes second nature pretty quickly and the focusing wheel is easy enough to use or ignore, depending on your preference.
All in all, I highly recommend the Kiev.
However, a Contax kit with a 35 and a 50 with an external finder can run $700 - the Kiev with a 35 and a 50 (ok, 53) with a Soviet finder cost me a grand total of $97. Even if there were differences in the quality of the photos each was capable of making, (the Sonnar is better than the Helios), I am not good enough to exploit it often enough to justify the extra cost -- so the Contax is gone and the Kiev remains.
I don't think the fit and finish of the Kiev is anything special - dials and such are roughly finished and there are literally gaps where metal parts are supposed to fit flush. None of it affects the photo-taking ability of the camera so I don't mind. (And for $97, I REALLY don't mind.)
Summary - the quality is a clear step below some other makes. The bang for your buck, though, is off the charts. It's almost addicting - I take the Kiev anywhere and everywhere - I have an M3 kit and the Kiev sees more use, basically, because it's not only a stellar performer, but given it's replacement value, I don't mind putting it in harm's way.
The only real annoyance in my mind is the fiddly nature of the lens' adjustments - fairly easy to knock the aperture when you're using the focusing ring and not the focusing wheel. When it happens, you know it, so you won't blow an exposure, but it's something you have to be mindful of when using the camera.
The 'Contax' grip becomes second nature pretty quickly and the focusing wheel is easy enough to use or ignore, depending on your preference.
All in all, I highly recommend the Kiev.
burninfilm
Well-known
I've had several Contax cameras, including a Contax II, Contax III, and Contax IIIa. I agree with previous statements that the Contax is built to a MUCH higher set of quality standards. Where you see maching marks on a Kiev, you see nice, smooth surfaces on the Contax. I'm not saying that the Kiev is shoddily built as a general rule, just that the Contax is generally a better built camera. In addition to the Contax II I currently have (I sold the Contax III and IIIa a while back) I use a Kiev 4a and "No-Name" Kiev. The "No-Name" is an very nice camera, well finished, and with a smooth winding and focusing action. However, this camera was used very little, and is in excellent condition. My 4a is rather ugly, but it has been CLA'd recently, and though not as smooth in focusing or winding as the "No-Name", it still works great and takes fantastic pictures. The Carl Zeiss Sonnar that originally came with the "No-Name" does perform better than the Jupiter-8 on the Kiev, but the difference isn't significant. Currently, my Contax II is out for repair, and after it is returned, I'll have about $300 invested in it. I bought my CLA'd 4a with the 50mm J-8, 35mm J-12 w/ finder, and 85mm J-9 w/ finder, all for $150. Bang for the buck? You bet!
Xmas
Veteran
A contax is a collectors piece and the silk ribbon is more difficult to obtain. The price for a contax can overlap with a Kiev (in UK), depends on condition, and year. It is very difficult to get a pre war lens that is not ground glass.
A contax (apart from finish) is not really diffirent from a Kiev 48-52, the chrome is different but you need to have one in each hand to tell the difference. A prewar sonnar collapsibe has one more screw than a ZK47. The sonnar will be cheaper as well.
A contax (apart from finish) is not really diffirent from a Kiev 48-52, the chrome is different but you need to have one in each hand to tell the difference. A prewar sonnar collapsibe has one more screw than a ZK47. The sonnar will be cheaper as well.
colyn
ישו משיח
manfromh said:
Alex-photo on ebay has original Kiev take-up spools. He's quick to deliver and highly recommended..
Do a search on ebay.
manfromh
I'm not there
colyn said:
I dont use ebay. Shipping is so expensive and i dont have a credit card.
Mister_Hat
Established
manfromh
I'm not there
Mister_Hat said:
Thanks. Ill give it a try.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
I´m owner of a Contax II made in 1937 and a Kiev 4 made in 1966. I bought first the Kiev back in 1982 and the Contax in 2005. Both needed some light CLA action prior to start shooting (they were really OLD!)
Tested side by side, both are almost the same, however I must admit (as stated in some previous posts) that the Contax was made for a higher Q standard than the proletarian (not so much) Kiev.
Both performed equally well: the Kiev a little noisier than the Contax, but in terms of general performance, they are almost the same.
I have no doubt that the Contax is a very well designed camera for the time it was designed and made, but the Kiev is just a german designed camera made and assembled in the USSR.
The Russian optics are well made and I´ve some of them (not as much as I wish), however a bit lower in finishing Q than the German counterparts (aluminum barrels instead of solid brass). Glass (if well cared) is perfect and as good as original Zeiss lenses, but way cheaper.
I love both cameras, and being honest, I´d be eager to buy another one, be it either a Contax II/III or a Kiev 4/4a.
Anyway, where else can anyone find Leica quality at a bargain price??
Ernesto
Tested side by side, both are almost the same, however I must admit (as stated in some previous posts) that the Contax was made for a higher Q standard than the proletarian (not so much) Kiev.
Both performed equally well: the Kiev a little noisier than the Contax, but in terms of general performance, they are almost the same.
I have no doubt that the Contax is a very well designed camera for the time it was designed and made, but the Kiev is just a german designed camera made and assembled in the USSR.
The Russian optics are well made and I´ve some of them (not as much as I wish), however a bit lower in finishing Q than the German counterparts (aluminum barrels instead of solid brass). Glass (if well cared) is perfect and as good as original Zeiss lenses, but way cheaper.
I love both cameras, and being honest, I´d be eager to buy another one, be it either a Contax II/III or a Kiev 4/4a.
Anyway, where else can anyone find Leica quality at a bargain price??
Ernesto
micromoogman
Well-known
I have a Contax III from 1938 with a Sonnar 1,5 and a Kiev 4a from 1959. I like them both. I tend to use the Kiev more as it's lighter and it's no big deal if I drop it or abuse it a little. As for the quality department it's not that much of a difference.