newspaperguy
Well-known
“This is not a Soviet camera - it is a German camera, made in the Soviet Union”
I just found this link (thought I had lost it) to comments by the noted Zeiss historian, Peter Henig:
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm
Added 8/18/10: Here's the '56 Kiev II in my gallery -
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=137417&ppuser=20714
I just found this link (thought I had lost it) to comments by the noted Zeiss historian, Peter Henig:
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm
Added 8/18/10: Here's the '56 Kiev II in my gallery -
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=137417&ppuser=20714
Last edited:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
You have the added value of it, along side its relatives the Contax and Nikon-S, possibly being the most good looking camera ever, at least the un-metered ones. I'm tempted myself, based on looks alone - especially one thats had a factory black repaint.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Reading this thread makes me miss my Kiev 5. Big ugly camera but it was fun to use with a 35/2.5 SC mount Skopar & 85/2 Sonnar. Reliable beast too.
William
William
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
the Kiev, especially in its early versions can be a very fine camera.
As we all know, the problem with ex-USSR photoequipment is the quality control.
A well assembled/checked camera, although not exactly comparable to a Contax II/III is anyways of a high level and capable of excellent results.
I've inherited my grandfather's Contax II (purchased in 1937 and used during WW2 and after); when I was a schoolboy it was a fascinating "watch-don't-touch" thing so, as soon as I've had the money, I bought a Kiev II with some lenses.
I now use both cameras with great satisfaction: the mix of Zeiss and USSR-made lenses is very interesting too.
In 1984 I was in Warsaw as an exchange student and, went to a photography store, bought a Kiev 4m: the camera was not properly working (unadjusted rangefinder and oblique shutter curtains): taken the camera back to the store, the very kind man at the counter, tried to check all the available Kievs and all were defective; one was even without shutter curtains! In a showcase, they had an used 1958-made one and it was sound and best finished: I bought it immediately, of course!
The Contax/Kiev system is 180° opposite to the Leica one, but both in the wonderful world of "thought" photography.
Best wishes,
E.L.
the Kiev, especially in its early versions can be a very fine camera.
As we all know, the problem with ex-USSR photoequipment is the quality control.
A well assembled/checked camera, although not exactly comparable to a Contax II/III is anyways of a high level and capable of excellent results.
I've inherited my grandfather's Contax II (purchased in 1937 and used during WW2 and after); when I was a schoolboy it was a fascinating "watch-don't-touch" thing so, as soon as I've had the money, I bought a Kiev II with some lenses.
I now use both cameras with great satisfaction: the mix of Zeiss and USSR-made lenses is very interesting too.
In 1984 I was in Warsaw as an exchange student and, went to a photography store, bought a Kiev 4m: the camera was not properly working (unadjusted rangefinder and oblique shutter curtains): taken the camera back to the store, the very kind man at the counter, tried to check all the available Kievs and all were defective; one was even without shutter curtains! In a showcase, they had an used 1958-made one and it was sound and best finished: I bought it immediately, of course!
The Contax/Kiev system is 180° opposite to the Leica one, but both in the wonderful world of "thought" photography.
Best wishes,
E.L.
Last edited:
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Really early Kievs
Really early Kievs
This will be heresy for Contax collectors, but I am of the opinion that the early Kievs are as good, and in at least one way better than the prewar Contaxes from which they were derived. FSU camera fans do a lot of rationalizing about the quality control of Ukrainian/Russian cameras, which is generally pretty miserable, but no excuses are needed for the older Kievs.
I have a few really early Kievs, 1949 and 1954 Kiev 2's and a 1955 Kiev 3 (with a meter that is still accurate). The build quality is every bit as good as the Contax 2 and 3, and the chrome plating is far better than I have ever seen in any Contax RF, pre- or post-war. The tricky shutter is a true copy of the dubious original Zeiss design, and as far as I can see there is no difference between them. The 1949 Kiev 2 still has a number of war booty Contax parts, but the 1955 model is all local. While some parts are noticeably different, there really is no difference in finish. And the chrome is superb.
After 1955, the quality seems to have been on a long, gradual decline. I have examined a number of sync-equipped 2A and 3A models, and while they are nice cameras, they are not quite in the same league. And the later still 4/4A models are a different and sadder story altogether. I never really believed the story that towards the end of the production run of these cameras the factory would build their assigned quota and ship them directly to the dump, but there is usually a reason for legends like that to be created.
Interestingly, the last Kiev model, the scarce Kiev 5, seems to be a return to high quality construction. While its excessive clunkiness manages to make an earlier Kiev look sleek and sexy by comparison, you could probably run over this thing with a Stalin tank without seriously damaging it.
In my opinion, the early Kievs are head and shoulders above the other Ukrainian/Russian cameras in terms of quality, but it needs to be an early one. They are not hard to find. There are several good ebay vendors from Russia or Ukraine that seem to always have some, and a really good one can be had for about $125 with a decent Jupiter 8 lens.
Cheers,
Dez
Really early Kievs
This will be heresy for Contax collectors, but I am of the opinion that the early Kievs are as good, and in at least one way better than the prewar Contaxes from which they were derived. FSU camera fans do a lot of rationalizing about the quality control of Ukrainian/Russian cameras, which is generally pretty miserable, but no excuses are needed for the older Kievs.
I have a few really early Kievs, 1949 and 1954 Kiev 2's and a 1955 Kiev 3 (with a meter that is still accurate). The build quality is every bit as good as the Contax 2 and 3, and the chrome plating is far better than I have ever seen in any Contax RF, pre- or post-war. The tricky shutter is a true copy of the dubious original Zeiss design, and as far as I can see there is no difference between them. The 1949 Kiev 2 still has a number of war booty Contax parts, but the 1955 model is all local. While some parts are noticeably different, there really is no difference in finish. And the chrome is superb.
After 1955, the quality seems to have been on a long, gradual decline. I have examined a number of sync-equipped 2A and 3A models, and while they are nice cameras, they are not quite in the same league. And the later still 4/4A models are a different and sadder story altogether. I never really believed the story that towards the end of the production run of these cameras the factory would build their assigned quota and ship them directly to the dump, but there is usually a reason for legends like that to be created.
Interestingly, the last Kiev model, the scarce Kiev 5, seems to be a return to high quality construction. While its excessive clunkiness manages to make an earlier Kiev look sleek and sexy by comparison, you could probably run over this thing with a Stalin tank without seriously damaging it.
In my opinion, the early Kievs are head and shoulders above the other Ukrainian/Russian cameras in terms of quality, but it needs to be an early one. They are not hard to find. There are several good ebay vendors from Russia or Ukraine that seem to always have some, and a really good one can be had for about $125 with a decent Jupiter 8 lens.
Cheers,
Dez
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
although being a Contax-fan, I need to say that early Kievs are really of high quality, with some details even better than pre-1945 Contaxes.
Let's not forget that at the Zavod Arsenal worked german technicians and specialists, side-by-side with the Soviet workers.
I have a Kiev made in 1947 (serial no. 47367) with the collapsible lens "3K F=5 CM" with red cyrillic "P", the year indication "1947" divided by a stylised prism and serial no. "000064". It shows strong signs of use, but it works almost perfectly.
E.L.
although being a Contax-fan, I need to say that early Kievs are really of high quality, with some details even better than pre-1945 Contaxes.
Let's not forget that at the Zavod Arsenal worked german technicians and specialists, side-by-side with the Soviet workers.
I have a Kiev made in 1947 (serial no. 47367) with the collapsible lens "3K F=5 CM" with red cyrillic "P", the year indication "1947" divided by a stylised prism and serial no. "000064". It shows strong signs of use, but it works almost perfectly.
E.L.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
1947 Kiev
1947 Kiev
WOW! That must have been a really early prototype. Would you have a picture of it?
Cheers,
Dez
1947 Kiev
WOW! That must have been a really early prototype. Would you have a picture of it?
Cheers,
Dez
Bill58
Native Texan
I think the vintage Russkie lenses are fine (have several), but the cameras are crap. IF I ever bought one, however, I'd get it CLA'd by the reputable seller or his repair tech person and make sure I had a 100% warranty.
W
willmaes
Guest
I got a Kiev4 73 on e-bay, which was sent to me from Israel. The leather covering was crap but the camera seemed to function and to my astonisment still does everything it supposes to do. It seems Kievs were reserved for Party members and therefor of a higher technical level. Mine functions fine and looks nice, after I put a new camera leather and had a sunshade for the lens.
rolleistef
Well-known
Source?
With 3000 cameras a month and over one million kievs manufactured, that would have been a lot of party members. 1970s kiev were either very good either total crap. The quality went further down in the 1980s, until they released the updated 4a and 4am with a rewind crank. With a production extrema ranging from 1947 to 1989 (not counting the original 1935 contax) the Kiev is the longest produced camera...
However, good for you your Kiev is correctly working. it's a been of a russian roulette for that periode!
cheers,
With 3000 cameras a month and over one million kievs manufactured, that would have been a lot of party members. 1970s kiev were either very good either total crap. The quality went further down in the 1980s, until they released the updated 4a and 4am with a rewind crank. With a production extrema ranging from 1947 to 1989 (not counting the original 1935 contax) the Kiev is the longest produced camera...
However, good for you your Kiev is correctly working. it's a been of a russian roulette for that periode!
cheers,
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
With tongue i cheek: 1 Million party members a lot? You must be kidding! the CCCP had over 250 million inhabitants at its peak, I would have thought the advantages of being a member would guarantee at least a 0,4% membership ratio.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
as said in previous posts (see also in the RF Contax room), the problem of ex-USSR cameras was the irregular level of quality control.
It happened that one OTK technician considered a camera as perfect, with the rangefinder was out or even the shutter was missing of parts; in the same time, another technician checked and approved only perfectly working cameras.
An OTK man told me that quite often, non-approved cameras, went into a "parallel" marked, privately sold, especially abroad.
Kiev RF cameras weren't to KPSS hyerarchs, not necessarily. Kievs were expensive cameras, compared to Feds and Zorkys. So an average USSR citizen preferred to buy a good camera, but for less money.
I've rarely been disappointed with a Kiev RF camera (except the one bought new in Warsaw back in the late '80s, then changed with a much older, used, perfectly working example).
All my USSR Kiev lenses are fine and satisfying in the use.
Regarding my 1947 Kiev-II, I've taken today a couple pictures: please excuse me; having done them in a hurry, they're not as good as they should be.
Best wishes,
Elmar Lang
as said in previous posts (see also in the RF Contax room), the problem of ex-USSR cameras was the irregular level of quality control.
It happened that one OTK technician considered a camera as perfect, with the rangefinder was out or even the shutter was missing of parts; in the same time, another technician checked and approved only perfectly working cameras.
An OTK man told me that quite often, non-approved cameras, went into a "parallel" marked, privately sold, especially abroad.
Kiev RF cameras weren't to KPSS hyerarchs, not necessarily. Kievs were expensive cameras, compared to Feds and Zorkys. So an average USSR citizen preferred to buy a good camera, but for less money.
I've rarely been disappointed with a Kiev RF camera (except the one bought new in Warsaw back in the late '80s, then changed with a much older, used, perfectly working example).
All my USSR Kiev lenses are fine and satisfying in the use.
Regarding my 1947 Kiev-II, I've taken today a couple pictures: please excuse me; having done them in a hurry, they're not as good as they should be.
Best wishes,
Elmar Lang
Attachments
Last edited:
