tyrone.s
Well-known
Hi All,
I'm wondering if anyone can suggest reasons for this issue.
I've got a Kiev 4a where every so often I'll wind film on but the winder just seems to move freely without activating the winding mechanism/gears and the film doesn't advance.
It happens with most rolls. But not all. If I keep turning the advance knob it eventually (sometimes 20/30+ turns) catches and turns the film advance mechanism.
This problem occurs regardless of film being in the camera or not so I know it's not a film problem per se (I use bulk roll film predominately).
I've had this camera for years and don't really want to send it to Oleg for service as the Aussie dollar is once again so low. I have other Kiev's as well, but, I like all my cameras to be workers. Any ideas?
I'm wondering if anyone can suggest reasons for this issue.
I've got a Kiev 4a where every so often I'll wind film on but the winder just seems to move freely without activating the winding mechanism/gears and the film doesn't advance.
It happens with most rolls. But not all. If I keep turning the advance knob it eventually (sometimes 20/30+ turns) catches and turns the film advance mechanism.
This problem occurs regardless of film being in the camera or not so I know it's not a film problem per se (I use bulk roll film predominately).
I've had this camera for years and don't really want to send it to Oleg for service as the Aussie dollar is once again so low. I have other Kiev's as well, but, I like all my cameras to be workers. Any ideas?
Sid836
Well-known
Ensure that the switch that releases the film advance mechanism does not get accidentally engaged during operation. Also put a few drops of lighter fluid on the shutter button just to make sure nothing got stuck due to age and dirt around it.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I haven't encountered this problem.
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/the basics top casting removal.html
Maybe remove the top and do some cleaning?
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/the basics top casting removal.html
Maybe remove the top and do some cleaning?
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Ah, the joys of antique Soviet film cameras and their quirky ways. My wonderful 1957 Kiev 2a has a similar problem, but it doesn't present exactly the same way.
When I wind the film after taking a photo, inevitably the film spacing is uneven. And the problem is not predictable or consistently reproducible.
Best of luck solving your winding issue, hopefully it's not a major fix. Let us know what you find out.
When I wind the film after taking a photo, inevitably the film spacing is uneven. And the problem is not predictable or consistently reproducible.
Best of luck solving your winding issue, hopefully it's not a major fix. Let us know what you find out.
Sounds a lot like the pin on the shutter speed setting knob has broken off. Perhaps every now and then the stub catches enough to wind it? Symptoms seem to fit.
tyrone.s
Well-known
Thanks to all for the replies. At this stage (as I don't have the camera in front of me) I think this answer might well be on the money as there does seem to be that feeling, when the problem presents, that there's a whole lot of spinning but not much engaging ... and then suddenly, engagement.
I have a strong like for the Kiev's (and their Contax forefathers) so I'm tempted to open and investigate but that could mean, open - investigate and somehow kill camera, based on my track record. I also have a 55 which needs new ribbons and an 84 body on it's way, Plus a 37 Contax II. So perhaps it is worth taking a risk and opening it up and see if I can do a DIY repair or ID the broken bit.
tyrone.s
Well-known
This is pretty common with Kiev's, and Contax II's for that matter. It can be alleviated by shooting no more than 24 exposure rolls. My Contax II was serviced and sold to me by a member here on RFF and the chap into some detail to explain frame spacing to me. In any event the Contax I bought is spot on over 24 frames and presents no problems for me when scanning. However a well serviced Kiev shouldn't display wild frame spacing either provided the mechanism isn't completely worn out from spec. A CLA would be likely to solve this. Is the spacing too tight, too wide, or simply all over the place?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
There's obviously a slipping mechanism between the take-up spool and the sprocket's cogs. Like slipping the clutch on a car, and so my money's on that. I had the same trouble with a Leica IIIc, luckily it was repaired under guarantee. (That was said as a pre-emptive blow against rants about USSR quality!)
Take-up spools measure around 11 to 13mm in dia. at the centre and 37mm (say) of film needs to go on with each wind on. So at the centre a complete turn of 360° will take up only 34.6mm of film with an 11mm centre and nearly 41mm of film with a 13mm centre. So clearly the spool has to slip and then stop. When fully covered in film at say 35 exposures the dia. is about 22mm and a complete turn of 360° would take up 69mm of film. So clearly a turn of only/roughly 190 to 195° of the spool is needed, which the clutch provides.
I hope that's obvious... Apologies if it isn't.
Regards, David
PS (Edit) and that made me wonder if the cameras are designed to turn the spool 360° and so the wrong spool fitted would affect the spacing at the beginning of the roll. (2nd edit) And as the film fills up the spool and expands the diameter of it the spacing between frames would get smaller and then overlap...
There's obviously a slipping mechanism between the take-up spool and the sprocket's cogs. Like slipping the clutch on a car, and so my money's on that. I had the same trouble with a Leica IIIc, luckily it was repaired under guarantee. (That was said as a pre-emptive blow against rants about USSR quality!)
Take-up spools measure around 11 to 13mm in dia. at the centre and 37mm (say) of film needs to go on with each wind on. So at the centre a complete turn of 360° will take up only 34.6mm of film with an 11mm centre and nearly 41mm of film with a 13mm centre. So clearly the spool has to slip and then stop. When fully covered in film at say 35 exposures the dia. is about 22mm and a complete turn of 360° would take up 69mm of film. So clearly a turn of only/roughly 190 to 195° of the spool is needed, which the clutch provides.
I hope that's obvious... Apologies if it isn't.
Regards, David
PS (Edit) and that made me wonder if the cameras are designed to turn the spool 360° and so the wrong spool fitted would affect the spacing at the beginning of the roll. (2nd edit) And as the film fills up the spool and expands the diameter of it the spacing between frames would get smaller and then overlap...
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I think this would help.
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/kievspool.jpg
I used two small ~1mm screws instead of the copper wires (so only two holes were needed instead of 4) to make the film cassette cover stay and be able to spin freely.
The film cassette cover provides support to the spool and prevent them from wobbling when winding, which is considered (by some) to be the culprit of extra large frame space.
I've used the home made spool and have taken 2 rolls of film in my newly bought KIEV 4A. Both rolls gave about 37 frames. The third roll is still unfinished and inside the camera, with film counter showing number 30, so I guess it would go well too.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/kiev4/discuss/72157632296342556/
There is a lengthy reply in this link describing a similar solution.
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/kievspool.jpg
I used two small ~1mm screws instead of the copper wires (so only two holes were needed instead of 4) to make the film cassette cover stay and be able to spin freely.
The film cassette cover provides support to the spool and prevent them from wobbling when winding, which is considered (by some) to be the culprit of extra large frame space.
I've used the home made spool and have taken 2 rolls of film in my newly bought KIEV 4A. Both rolls gave about 37 frames. The third roll is still unfinished and inside the camera, with film counter showing number 30, so I guess it would go well too.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/kiev4/discuss/72157632296342556/
There is a lengthy reply in this link describing a similar solution.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I wondered if the spool turns more than 360° when empty; so I searched for the 4a and could only find a 2a. Anyway, winding on turns the spool more than 360° by about 20° to 30°. It's difficult to measure and a bit pointless. So obviously the slipping clutch can cope with a wide range of spool centre diameters.
That's assuming the slipping clutch is doing its job and not stuck.
Having said that the sprocket should turn for exactly 8 holes (=one frame) and so should stop afterwards. Varying frame spacing mentioned suggests it isn't and so I now wonder about the sprocket's clutch. Looking at the 2a it's clear that he sprocket is freed by the button in the base plate going up and I wonder if that could be stuck and so let the take-up spool pull less or more film through...
As the Contax II and - I guess - the Kievs are fiendishly over complicated I won't be looking further.
Regards, David
I wondered if the spool turns more than 360° when empty; so I searched for the 4a and could only find a 2a. Anyway, winding on turns the spool more than 360° by about 20° to 30°. It's difficult to measure and a bit pointless. So obviously the slipping clutch can cope with a wide range of spool centre diameters.
That's assuming the slipping clutch is doing its job and not stuck.
Having said that the sprocket should turn for exactly 8 holes (=one frame) and so should stop afterwards. Varying frame spacing mentioned suggests it isn't and so I now wonder about the sprocket's clutch. Looking at the 2a it's clear that he sprocket is freed by the button in the base plate going up and I wonder if that could be stuck and so let the take-up spool pull less or more film through...
As the Contax II and - I guess - the Kievs are fiendishly over complicated I won't be looking further.
Regards, David
kuzano
Veteran
Clutch Screw....????
Clutch Screw....????
First, I don't know if the term "clutch screw" is accurate, but that's what I would call it.
If you look into the prongs that engage the roll of film and advance it, you should see a screw head just under 1/4 inch. This kept coming loose on my Kiev and ceasing to grip the roll to advance it. Symptoms were poor frame spacing, poor film advance if any, and film roll jamming (ruining roll). In attempts to adjust this screw (easy access and normal flat blade driver - #2) it was hit and miss. I did read that this was a fine adjustment that needed to be made with care by someone with CLA knowledge on these camera's.
Have to say it all seemed way to obvious in observing it, but I never mastered the touch. That was a 1951 Kiev that was the sweetest I ever used/owned. Had to try that adjustment about every two rolls. I was told this was probably one of the first camera's to come out of KIEV and likely built with Contax parts, after the theft and rape of "Berlin" by the Allies after WWII.
However it worked sweet and had a phenomenal Jupiter 8 f2 on front.
Clutch Screw....????
First, I don't know if the term "clutch screw" is accurate, but that's what I would call it.
If you look into the prongs that engage the roll of film and advance it, you should see a screw head just under 1/4 inch. This kept coming loose on my Kiev and ceasing to grip the roll to advance it. Symptoms were poor frame spacing, poor film advance if any, and film roll jamming (ruining roll). In attempts to adjust this screw (easy access and normal flat blade driver - #2) it was hit and miss. I did read that this was a fine adjustment that needed to be made with care by someone with CLA knowledge on these camera's.
Have to say it all seemed way to obvious in observing it, but I never mastered the touch. That was a 1951 Kiev that was the sweetest I ever used/owned. Had to try that adjustment about every two rolls. I was told this was probably one of the first camera's to come out of KIEV and likely built with Contax parts, after the theft and rape of "Berlin" by the Allies after WWII.
However it worked sweet and had a phenomenal Jupiter 8 f2 on front.
popavvakum
Member
There is no clutch
There is no clutch
My understanding that the actuation of the film advance mechanism comes through the cogwheel 16 engaged by the disk 12, see the picture from an old soviet repair manual. The disk 12 is positioned in such a manner that the cogwheel is engaged after a certain amount of rotation which depends on the set exposure.
So, coming back to the fault - if the tooth (cog?)18 is broken then it could be felt as the raised knob 1 would have a plunging depth different from the normal one. However, it may be that the disk 12 does not engage the wheel 16 because it somehow got (and stuck) below its normal position. Try to raise and turn by a small amount the knob 1 WITH DEPRESSED SHUTTER as it may release the disk. BUT DO NOT APPLY MUCH FORCE in case any resistance is felt. If this does not work, then the shutter mechanism work needs to be inspected.
There is no clutch
My understanding that the actuation of the film advance mechanism comes through the cogwheel 16 engaged by the disk 12, see the picture from an old soviet repair manual. The disk 12 is positioned in such a manner that the cogwheel is engaged after a certain amount of rotation which depends on the set exposure.
So, coming back to the fault - if the tooth (cog?)18 is broken then it could be felt as the raised knob 1 would have a plunging depth different from the normal one. However, it may be that the disk 12 does not engage the wheel 16 because it somehow got (and stuck) below its normal position. Try to raise and turn by a small amount the knob 1 WITH DEPRESSED SHUTTER as it may release the disk. BUT DO NOT APPLY MUCH FORCE in case any resistance is felt. If this does not work, then the shutter mechanism work needs to be inspected.
Attachments
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
A disc without cogs engaging something, by coming up flat against it; sounds like a clutch to me...
Regards, David
PS They are complex aren't they? I think the Ukrainian and Russian engineers were right to adapt their versions of the CZ lenses (Jupiter & Industar) to work with their version of the Leitz (FED & Zorki) bodies. It gave the comrades the best of both worlds.
A disc without cogs engaging something, by coming up flat against it; sounds like a clutch to me...
Regards, David
PS They are complex aren't they? I think the Ukrainian and Russian engineers were right to adapt their versions of the CZ lenses (Jupiter & Industar) to work with their version of the Leitz (FED & Zorki) bodies. It gave the comrades the best of both worlds.
popavvakum
Member
The disk and the cogwheel in question are engaged not by friction but through two teeth (cogs?!) which may be seen on the picture. The disk moves down when the shutter speed is changed and occasionally, and often if the camera is dropped or shocked, got stuck there. However, if an excessive force was applied for changing shutter speeds or because the friction assembly is over-tightened, then the disk and its tooth (cog?) may become deformed and sliding past the cogwheel rather than engaging it. If this is the case, the repair is, regrettably, far from trivial.
I cannot comment on M39 optics as I have only ever used Industar 51 L/D on a bricky FED-5 with that mount. The results were acceptable but always left wishing... Kiev and Jupiter-8M is by far more pleasureable to handle and the shots come out nicer..
I cannot comment on M39 optics as I have only ever used Industar 51 L/D on a bricky FED-5 with that mount. The results were acceptable but always left wishing... Kiev and Jupiter-8M is by far more pleasureable to handle and the shots come out nicer..
Last edited: