Kiev 4

[rolleistef]

that's right, one may not be rely too much on built-in-selenium meter... It's just a feature that makes them look prettier and was useable at the glorious era of b&w (long life to Emofin!). The 16-Rule works pretty well too!
More of all, as I 'm rather looking for a IIIa than a 4, the meter has 90% of chance of not working! If it does, it'd be nice though... I'd love playing with it! 😀 😀 😀
Photographers are big kids... who never enjoyed winding his/her Rolleiflex at the last frame, singing a music-box tune 😀 😀 (it's what makes a Rollei perfect!)
Stéphane

 

[rolleistef]

hi again,
a last question :
I'm hesiting between a 4 and a IIIa. Which one you think is better? What are exactly the advantages of the 4 over the IIIa, except a (so useful 😛 ) more accurate selenium meter?
Thanx to all
Stéphane

 

[FrankS]

Kiev III's are rarer (I think) than 4's, made earlier and closer to the Contax connection, so better build quality is likely. I prefer non-metered Kievs!

 

[darkkavenger]

I prefer non-metered Kievs as well. 🙂

 

[ricpr]

I second the opinion on the Kiev 4 from the 80's. Maybe it was luck, but mine has a working meter and takes great pictures. A cheap *bay buy for $70.

 

[FrankS]

I have 2 Kiev cameras, a 1959 4a and a 1980's 4am, and a Contax IIa (post-war, no meter). The earlier Kiev 4a feels more like the Contax than it does to the later Kiev 4am.

 

[rolleistef]

Wow,
thsese were hyperspace-speed answers! IIIa then?.. OK. f I find a 1959 4 (same year as my Rollei!) it may be all right as well.
Stéphane

 

[FrankS]

Earlier/older Kiev's (1940's, 50's, 60's) are generaly better made than later (1970's, 80's) ones

 

[darkkavenger]

I second FrankS words... I currently own a Kiev-2A (meterless, flash sync) from 1956 and it feels very solid and is a very reliable companion. I've had besides this one, a Kiev-2 from 1955 (the closest to a pre-war contax-II) and despite the lens (a 1955 J-8) showing some wear, the camera operated very well all the same. In comparison, I had a 1970 Kiev-4 (metered, lens: J8M with click-stops) that although feeling like a nice camera, didn't give the same impressions of robustness. But maybe that's just subjective!

 

[ErnestoJL]

My choice would be : any prewar Contax be it either a II or III; any Kiev made before 1970, earlier the best (increased Contax resemblance). My Kiev is from 1966, and works as a charm.
Regarding the question Metered or non metered, I think It´s a question of personal preferences.
I usually prefer metered cameras, but I´m carrying allways a handheld meter (a LunaPro CdS).
If you find either a Kiev 4 or a Contax III with the meter working (even out of calibration), buy it. The cell can be replaced, recalibrated and it´ll be allways of some help.
Non metered cameras force you to think and calculate the exposure, and the most important, to not rely only on the meter reading alone, but to make a reasonable judgement according to what do you want to obtain.

Ernesto

 

[Stanton]

I have an '81 with a meter which still works, and the camera is fine, and an 83 without the meter. Both have been fine, no tinkering, no adjustments, no servicing. While the majority may be correct that the earlier models are more reliable, I must say that my newer models have been consistently good. Dave

 

[rolleistef]

what concrete difference between a 4 and a 4m (except the flash thing?)

 

[varjag]

4M/AM has fixed takeup spool, rewind crank and the left lock on the back serves as rewind switch.

 

[FrankS]

Also, the 4M/AM is newer and has poorer build quality compared to an early 4 or 3 or 2.

 

[ruben]

Well, if we are talking about Kievs to shoot, I have to disagree with all chaps on two points:

a) The main issue is not production year but how good your Kiev performs, and how good are the lenses you have for it. Obviously between a perfectly working 1956 Kiev and a perfectly working 1984 Kiev - I choose the first one for esthetical reasons, sacrifying the more practical later model. BUT older models, besides being truly lovable, are more prong to becoming disaligned, with lose screws, etc, just for having being more used, and having older materials, as the synch cable of the IIa. And even this is just bla-bla, when you are going to buy any kind of Kiev as you can not foresee what are you going to get.

b) One of my 4 Kievs has a working meter. But what the hell is it practical to use, being marked for Russian rocts and with a very limited range, instead of using your Kiev with a modern handheld meter ?

Sorry this time,
Ruben

 

[FrankS]

Ruben, of course the main issue is how well your camera performs once you have it, but if you are in the process of buying one, the year of manufacture is an excellent indicator of build quality. I'm sticking to that point.

 

[ErnestoJL]

IMO a working meter even if it´s selenium, is a help, perhaps not perfect, but a good help anyway, especially if you don´t have any other meter.
If it´s calibrated in GOST (roct), it´s not that bad as long as you have the conversion table.

Ernesto

 

[ruben]

build quality. I'm sticking to that point.

In historical terms I agree, but for practical purposes, who is the seller is in my opinion a better stick.
For a beginer asking what type of Kiev should he/she buy, I would advise: first of all start with choosing the seller.
My No.1 seller is Trofimov from the Ucranian "Soviet Camera Store", offering both CLA and warranty. This doesn't mean I would not buy from anybody else. Thus for example Trofimov seldom have Kievs from the sixties. Then I pick anything else (DVD Technik for example) but I do it counciously I am running a certain risk. If I choose anyone from eBay I know I am running a big risk - and even then I may buy if the lower price is a counter-weight. But for sure I would not pay $150 or over to an untested seller for a glorious Kiev 1947.
Rgds
Ruben

 

[FrankS]

Hi Daniel,

As said, I have 2 Kievs, one built in 1959, the other in 1980 or so. To me, there is a real and significant difference in feel, fit and finish, and perceived build quality between the 2. I have not looked inside them so I can only infer from what the outside looks like. Do you not notice this with the many Kievs that you have?

 

[claidemore]

I have two Kiev 4's, a 1958 and a 1969. The 58 was rough looking, had seen some hard use and been touched up with black laquer, had Zeiss bumps, and a couple missing screws (inside the works, where there are sets of three) and the self timer did not work. I've since torn the 58 apart and it's in the process of being refurbished. ( I bought it because I had read that the older ones were better made)

The 69 is really nice, one tiny Zeiss bump and functions perfectly (except the self timer which quit after two weeks). It feels much better than the 58, everything is tight and the impression you get when you pick it up is that of a good solid camera. It feels right and works right.

Both have working meters, and though I use 'sunny 16' most of the time, it's nice to have the meter to double check. I have shot rolls using only the meter for exposure, and they came out great. Not a liability in my opinion, though not a necessity either.

We gotta remember that these cameras are 40 years old. Logic dictates that a newer camera will have a better chance of working properly and testimonials support this.

Other user opinions indicate that the late 50's early 60's cameras may be better than the later ones, BUT...they will probably need to be worked over by a technician.

Two ways to go.

Glen