outfitter
Well-known
Well many Contax cameras have gone through my hands and I'm definitely in the "can match the Contax" camp. I think the problem is that people are not usually comparing apples with apples. Just as a Scherer rebuild cannot be compared with a less aggressive CLA, a CLA's camera cannot be compared with a camera suffering from dried grease and dirty viewfinder/RF. I am certain that a Scherer done Kiev would be impressive.ruben said:Thank you Michael for all the info. There seem to be two opposed schools of thought in the Contax/Kiev question. One saying throw the Kievs to the trash basket, the other saying a good Kiev can match a Contax.
Cheers,
Ruben
BTW Scherer claims the Kievs suffer from being build by people who didn't care (probably true) and with looser tolerances (also true). On the other hand Scherer says the Zeiss built Contax rarely met their own specs and that his rebuilds usually are better than when the camera left the factory. Now I frequently disagree with Henry's pronouncements (he is a bit eccentric) but I agree with these.
Shutter tapes (that wear out) and wheezing speeds give the impression the camera is delicate but in fact they are very robust. The design works very well even when the engineering specs are not met at the factory. My 1978 Kiev 4 that I bought new in the box a quarter century ago feels like a pepper mill and sounds worse but functions well and its J-8M lens is perfectly adjusted for the body. This camera is almost 40 years younger than my most recent Contax II and that has advantages.
Michael
Last edited: