Kiev kost ?

[dee]

There have beeen several comments about the cost of early Kievs and the almost inevitability that they won't work properly .

Now Autistic Spectrum dee [ Asdee ] is far from sensible , and I have aquired far too many potentially suspect 1950s Kievs .

But there is nervous-need- reassurance element - so initially , I bought Oleg Kiev 4 and 4am - even though I had read here about the loss of quality control on the later versions .The Oleg-factor and curiosity outweighed the concern .

I love using them , but was tempted by a K2 and K3 from one seller , despite knowing that these $100 each camera would probably need a $ 100 each service ! [ OUCH ! ] I have even bought some cheaper , and even more suspect K 2a and K 3a ... all within 1954 to 1956 ... but this is has little to do with taking pictures ... just Kiev Krazee .

But the possibility of finding a properly cla K 2 or 3 seemed remote .

if the cameras indeed had that indefinable quality feel good factor over the Kiev 4 / 4m - then I could consider what they , or ''THE CHOSEN ONE '' would be worth to me [ like the £60 copy Leica/Zorki S which is so great to use ! ] or whether i would outlay as much as it would cost to cla another 1947 Leica IIIc bought cheaply .

Well , they do have that special element , and it IS worth extending the magic by having one properly stripped and rebuilt in the Uk - so I have booked a space . And the Leica will have to wait .

The camera - whichever I dee cide [ or if e-bay sale allows ; two ] the total outlay will be around $250 each .[ DOUBLE OUCH ! ] The working Oleg Kievs , which will provide equally evocotive slides , being a sensible $75each

The K 2 or 3 cameras will be ''worth '' this to me , because I will love using them more than the lesser , but more convenient Kiev 4m , or , for that matter , a sensibly priced Nikkormat /Minolta etc

.. But , if finances don't permit this further madness , then I have the kiev 4/4m to use ... and the early cameras to just play with and enjoy / admire ... until , perhaps ... hope springs eternal ..

i don't know what the supply situation is with ex Soviet cameras , but if I find a camera which I really like , and wish to use , I am prepared , as I was with my Leica IIIf , to pay a premium for a reassuring cla , even if it means culling those that I can't relate to so effortlessly ... but not the Oleg Kievs !

What do you'all think ?

dee-luded ?

 

[Santafecino]

Dee--
It's very admirable to keep your enthusiasms out there in the world, as you do. I love Kievs too and only have one (K2) and am far too secretive about it but it is my passion. It sits in a small black bag under a table in my office and only comes out for private use.

I think that in a few I'll get a K3 or a K4 just to have one with that neat meter on top--the first modern camera, really.

I think that all Kievoholics (you, me, et al.) need to rush to find a repair wizard who will replace the meter cells on Kiev 4's and (saints be praised) Kiev 3's so that these wonderful gems can continue into the new millenium.

Please keep us posted on your brave ventures into Kiev-dom.
--Lindsay

 

[Xmas]

The Soviets made a lot of Kievs mainly in the 60s and 70s.

A nice pre '72 model will have leather covering a lot different from the post '72leatherette models, the GBP premium can be small.

You can pick them up real cheap at camera fairs and on this forum, if you are patient.

They are not necessarily reliable.

Ruben plans of addressing the meter issue.

Noel

 

[ruben]

Hi Dee,

There are several assumptions and theoretical issues involved in your op. Personally the farther I went into the past is with a Kiev 2a from the mid-fifties.

I think you are right in that the price of a really working kiev is in the camera, plus overhaul, plus shipments.

But had I been living in the UK, I would start the quest in finding the fixer who will perform the overhaul. There is one with a website, whose name is Steve Ash and hereby his site:

http://www.sdash.plus.com/

I am really really hungry for knowing the type of work he actually performs. Therefore, you Dee or anyone else with any opinion is kindly requested to send me a PM. His price is more than fair, i would like to know results.

Now, the question I am asking myself, given that Oleg has sold you one or two overhauled Kievs 4, (FROM WHICH PRODUCTION YEARS ?), is why are you prompted to look beyond. Oleg is supposed to be the end of the horizon. I will be glad to get a PM about it as well. This is a very very important question to me.

Back to the questions you ask, I can only speak from my limited experience in Kiev disassembling and adjusting. I strongly believe that if Henry Scherer actually performs all what he says in his website about the Contaxes, then his prices are not high at all.

What we are looking for ? We are looking for the combination of GREAT smoothness and accuracy of performance. I achieved the first, but I am battling with the second. Hence the Kiev Project is passing through a musical interlude. And I apologize for this. My first "prototype", a Kiev 4am from the eighties, seems almost ready for final reassembly and tests, but still carrying frame spacing issues. I have not cracked this issue yet.

From here that a too old Kiev will face the fixer many times with the question of wether to replace entire parts or not. For this the total disassembly and inspection of Henry Scherer with his Contaxes, is what is called for. But I tend to believe that a Kiev closer to the mid-sixties, should be much easier to the fixer to deal with, without total disassembly and inspection of each single part.

Think for yourself, we are talking about complex and fully mechanical machines, in which too many small parts have to work in harmony, to satisfy what we are looking for. It is a hell of a job to perform. Therefore I am not sure that buying a junky Kiev 2 and bring this to the fixer, may be the best idea, nor going to the opposite corner will make more sense. After all we are going to pay for a service.

So to end this, I repeat, I would start with who is going to be the fixer, and have several polite chats with him before the first triyal. Sense the man before commending the job.

Cheers,
Ruben

Kindly PM me.

 

[outfitter]

I differentiate between repairs required because of bad QC or design flaws and maintenance. The latter is required whether it is a Contax or Kiev - regardless of date or version.

There are plenty of Soviet cameras affected by QC problems or design flaws (just read Maizenberg on common problems). My observations (confirmed by Prof Hennig's opinion) was it is awfully difficult to mess up the basic Contax design so that even late and very cheapened Kievs tend to function well even if they sound like nutcrackers.

All pre-war Contaxes and Kievs, on the other hand, were designed to have the shutter curtains replaced every twenty years or so - this was a regular maintenance step. I have Contax/Kievs where the curtains broke in short order and other still going strong. No dealer overhauled Kiev will avoid this design element unless the curtains are replaced prophylactically. Similarly lubrication is critical to the Contax shutter and speed control design and 30 years of dried Soviet must eventually be addressed.

When it comes to the Contax/Kiev design Russian roulette is not limited to FSU made cameras. I've had a Contax III overhauled by the seller and then Olag that is now hopelessly jammed probably through no fault of either. I've had a Contax II wonderfully repaired by Russian techs and Kiev 2 butchered in the USA (and fixed by Olag). Nothing short of a Scherer overhaul will guarantee perfection but at a great cost in (Henry's) time and money.

Still most function well. The price of both Contax II and Kiev cameras are such that the downside risk is not great compared to the quality of the camera you are getting and if worse comes to worse you can send it to Olag or DYI without great monetary risk if you blow it.

Michael

 

[shadowfox]

Dee, all I can say is that the Kievs cured my Contax GAS.

I have two, one chrome 4AM and a black 4A. The 4AM is not a joy to use, but it is fully functional. Coupled with the Jupiter 8 or Helios 103, it takes darn good photos.

The 4A is the one I fall in love with, it has the *&!!#$ removable film spool which makes it a bit more pain to load compared to the 4AM, but when shooting, that one is buttery smooth.

I intend to use these two until they or I give up. I don't need another Kiev, and I never warmed to the hunky meter on top of some 🙂

Cheers from fellow Kiev fans.
Will

 

[ruben]

Hi Michael,

You seem to have quite a story to tell about both Contaxes and Kievs. This experience with both sides of the same coin, deserve quite a bigger post, perhaps a thread opening one. I am extremely curious about.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Hi Will,
Kievs 4am seem to be a mix of interesting improvements, not to be disdained at all, and the lowest qaulity parts Arsenal ever produced. Fortunately it seems that many surplus parts from the past went to these cameras, and in case of need we can exchange the 'newest' with the older parts. And on top of this sad situation, the external cosmetics are pitty evoking.

Nevertheless, so far, a well adjusted and really smooth kiev 4am, with its external cosmetics radically changed, it is my prefered shooter. In terms of smoothness it is not the same as older Kievs, but the difference is quite negligible. In terms of using it, that speed knob enabling you to see or select the speed from above, and the rewind lever, make a lot of difference for the street shooter.

But on the other hand, i have some doubts about the simplyfied pressure plate, which I will clarify in the future.

But I need to get more shooting experience in comparing it with older models, because by the same token I changed the exterior of the 4am, I may find some solution for easing the speed reading of the kiev 4a and olders.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Xmas]

Ruben

Simplified pressure plate, please clarify?

Noel

 

[outfitter]

Ruben

Simplified pressure plate, please clarify?

Noel

Kiev Rangefinders by Peter Hennig

Keeping up with the West German Jones's

In the 1950´s the Contax IIa and the Contax IIIa made by Zeiss Ikon AG in Stuttgart were of highest status at the camera market. Zavod Arsenal were influenced by the look of their West German competitors. In 1957-58 Zavod Arsenal designed some new Kiev prototype cameras, besides the ordinary production Kiev 2 A and Kiev 3 A.

The new camera has an exposure meter in outer appearance equal to the one of the Contax IIIa. The inner function however, is like the old meter. As a matter of fact, it is a simplified miniature variant of the Kiev 3 A meter - that made it possible to speed up the production further. The new camera back is, both in appearance and construction, like the Contax IIa and the Contax IIIa. This was not a very clever move, as the result will be a use of the back of the Contax IIa/IIIa on the film plane of the Contax II/III. It caused film flatness problems, especially since they abandoned the extra vertical spring at the film pressure plate (as in later Contax IIa/IIIa) a few years after production started. The official production starts in 1960, and the name of the new cameras are Kiev 4 and Kiev 4 A. From now on, the “A” stands for the camera without exposure meter.

http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

Michael

 

[outfitter]

Hi Ruben,

I don't know if I have much of a practical contribution to make. I sold off a large Contax collection in 1989, but I was only a collector and used Leicas for RF photography. When I realized how silly it was for an amateur who was usually too busy to take many pictures to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in Leica equipment I sold that off and started using an "as new" Contax IIa and lenses for my RF needs.

Even that seemed an indulgence as the "as new" outfit had more value not being used (especially the Stereotar) so I moved over to a Kiev 4a type 2 outfit left over from the sale of my collection (as "worthless") and that did very nicely.

Soon came the breakup of the Soviet Union and eBay and GAS set in and the rest is history (many peoples history on this forum). Ironically as interest in early Kievs heated up the Contax II became cheaper than many Kiev 2 cameras form the 1950s so I picked up a few. Of course now that I was acquiring FSU and Zeiss lenses two Contax IIa and one IIIa were soon to follow (along with Henry Scherer overhauls of two of them).

For I guy who stopped collecting I now have an uncomfortably large number of cameras of all stripes (including many pre-war folders), but I swear I'm using not collecting - I'm convinced, if only I could convince my wife. A familiar and all too common side effect of GAS but with all the fun left in and big bucks (mostly) left out.

Michael

 

[ruben]

Hi Michael,

What may be of further interest is how each of the cameras (both Contax and Kievs) you actually used did or do perform, feel, problems etc. This is not going to be the Final Judgement abuot Kiev vs Contax, but the experience of a particular user. Having you had or still having a Scherer Contax, make it even more interesting. Including a bit of the story of each of these cameras you used, will add more.
Sherer Contaxes for example are held as the pemium of the brand. I accept it without personal practice. But you could detail here too.

Now, in case all these amount to too much you could concentrate on two or three models, according to your judgement. Remember that you have touched much things many of us have not.

Regarding Dee quest, your quotation from Peter Hennig seems to strengthen going towards a Kiev II, but while Peter is speaking about the Kiev II and the Kiev 4, prizing the former, I am speaking about the Kiev 4 and the Kiev 4am. The 4am looks a more simplyfied version than the 4.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Ruben

Simplified pressure plate, please clarify?

Noel

Hi Noel,
Kindly excuss me for my delay.

Once you talk about yourself having a basket full of Kievs. Just take the back out of a 4 and a 4am, look and the differences will jump to your eyes faster than a lost spring.

Now, it is true, that it is still to study how these differences do affect in practive the image quality. Hence I left it for further study. I am not prompt to disqualify the later but on the basis of testing only.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Xmas]

Ruben

You do not have to apologise I was curious, and patient.

I'll inspect the laundry basked as you suggest. I've only one 4am and it is in the laundry basket and it does not have a film in it, PDA records are really useful. The 4am works real well. I store the washing in the front loader...

Normally I have to Dyson the carpet and drop a strong magnet into the dust collector to find springs. It saves a lot of time to tie monofilament nylon fishing line to a free spirit like a spring, the alternative is very clean carpets.

One of the problems with film registration is that the film and the pressure plate don't necessarily have a close relation, the film can bow away from the pressure plate and only be sandwitched (in contact) on the inner film rails. Having an optical flat glass plate (like early M3s) and a big spring does not necessarily help. It does stop the film going one way, but not the other.

The Russion engineers were pretty practical, indeed some were former residents of the holy land...

Noel

 

[zhang xk]

Hello Michael,

I didn't know official production of Kiev 4 and 4A started in 1960. So Kiev 4, 4A produced before 1960 are prototypes? These must berare cameras.

I have a 1962 Kiev 4A that still has the vertical spring for the pressure plate, but the spring is missing on a 1965 Kiev 4. This vertical spring could help keep the film flat, and also reinfore the rigidness of the back. Some later Kievs could have a slight dent on the back that was pressed by a strong thumb.😀 But I have used my 1965 Kiev 4 without any problems.

Cheers,

Zhang

 

[ruben]

Ruben
..................
The Russion engineers were pretty practical, ............

Noel

This is why I wouldn't rush into disqualifying the Kiev 4 on behalf of the Kiev II, nor the Kiev 4am on behalf of the Kiev 4. One thing is shortage of parts, the need to cheapen other parts, etc, and another thing is the basic design of the change. And the third thing, perhaps the most important of all, is how the changes passed through the abuse of time and previous owners.

One day once I have my IIa, 4, and 4am all working at high standards of accuracy, I will perform a test.

We should also consider that the Arsenal factory and stuff had some four decades of subsequent experience in Kiev production. So I am trying to be rather cautious in my approach and would like to hear Michael and everyone with relevant experience, rather than heated feelings.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[outfitter]

Hello Michael,

I didn't know official production of Kiev 4 and 4A started in 1960. So Kiev 4, 4A produced before 1960 are prototypes? These must berare cameras.

I have a 1962 Kiev 4A that still has the vertical spring for the pressure plate, but the spring is missing on a 1965 Kiev 4. This vertical spring could help keep the film flat, and also reinfore the rigidness of the back. Some later Kievs could have a slight dent on the back that was pressed by a strong thumb.😀 But I have used my 1965 Kiev 4 without any problems.

Cheers,

Zhang

Hi Zhang,

Hennig is very knowledgeable. Princelle says the start date for the Kiev 4 was 1957 and Kiev 4a 1958. I have a 1958 Kiev 4a and nothing about it seems like a prototype (eg no special markings etc) so I suspect Princelle was correct.

Michael

 

[outfitter]

Hi Michael,

What may be of further interest is how each of the cameras (both Contax and Kievs) you actually used did or do perform, feel, problems etc. This is not going to be the Final Judgement abuot Kiev vs Contax, but the experience of a particular user. Having you had or still having a Scherer Contax, make it even more interesting. Including a bit of the story of each of these cameras you used, will add more.
Sherer Contaxes for example are held as the pemium of the brand. I accept it without personal practice. But you could detail here too.

Hi Rubin as is the case with most GAS I have too many Contax/Kiev cameras to give them all a regular spin around the block.

The Scherer cameras are a Contax IIa and Contax IIIa respectively (another Contax IIa is getting sluggish in the slow speeds but it is difficult to justify the expense as I have so many working cameras (and the slow speeds "exercise" themselves to rights after awhile) While I prefer the larger viewfinder image on the Contax/Kiev, the Scherer bodies are much brighter so it is six of one and half dozen of another, but the crisp sound of the shutter and the precision movement of the focusing helix just says "new camera" (well new camera as they were in the 1950s - more like scientific instruments all heavy with chrome and brass). The smaller size of the Contax IIa is also a great plus. The apotheosis of Schererdom is the Contax IIIa with a Henry rebuilt meter. The Contax III and Kiev 3 are boat anchors but the IIIA is sleek and the meter will easily read indoors for iso400 film.

I have three well functioning non-collector condition eBay Contax IIs each bought under a $100. One very crisp one with a non-factory flash synch gets used more than the others but I tend to go for the Kiev 2 and Soviet lenses as an alternative to the Zeiss glass. I think the finish is better on the German made cameras but everything else is about equal. It would be a hoot to have a Contax II done by Scherer but I've never handled one.

As important as the bodies are, a Scherer cleaning and adjustment of the Zeiss lenses is a revelation. Indeed he has done all my 50mm Zeiss glass except a pre-war 50/2 which is clear and perfect in any event. My 35mm Zeiss Biogon is the postwar modification which is truly great, nevertheless the J-12 gets a lot of use from me in both Contax mount and LTM; this must be the best lens bargain of all time. I don't have the 85mm Sonnar but happily make do with the FSU glass, albeit I prefer the my Nikon 105mm in Contax mount. The one unique Zeiss lens is the 21mm Biogon which is a winner. Otherwise one need not feel in anyway deprived if only using Kievs and FSU glass.

Michael

 

[ruben]

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.

Well Dee, you are keeping quite quieet.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Xmas]

Hi Noel,
Kindly excuss me for my delay.

Once you talk about yourself having a basket full of Kievs. Just take the back out of a 4 and a 4am, look and the differences will jump to your eyes faster than a lost spring.

Now, it is true, that it is still to study how these differences do affect in practive the image quality. Hence I left it for further study. I am not prompt to disqualify the later but on the basis of testing only.

Cheers,
Ruben

Hi Ruben

I looked at a 4 and my 4AM and only could detect that the pressure plate mountings had been moved the plate in effect had been rotated through 180 degrees. Is that what you ment?

I dont think this would create a big difference - as the plate springs are almost 'bottomed' i.e. have little free movement when there is a film in the camera the plate is flat on the rails.

But you also may want to know about the Contax, because the Contax explains why I can damage sprocket holes...

The Contax II (as well as Kiev III and KievII) have a plate (riveted) to the back between the rotating pin and the pressure plate, the plate is still present in '55 Kievs, which have the early back with 'flipping' camera stand. Before I describe the form (shape) of this you need to visualise the rear chassis of the kiev.

After the four milled rail area the shutter module chassis shelves (slopes, drops) away before the sprocket shaft carrier. In a contax this sloping region diverts the film away from the back because the back has an applique plate with two smooth hillocks (lumps like camel) coinciding with the sprocket holes, and these humps push the film into this shelve area. The film is pushed on to the sprockets both at the feed and take up side, camel at the feed, rotating pin at the take up side.

I'd suggest this is why my '60 type 1 cameras and 4AM tear sprocket holes at frame 28 and after... when the take up spool is full the film rides up into the area previously occupied by the camel plate, and is torn on the tips of the sprocket teeth, when it should be dragged by the sides of the teeth.

The Contax pressure plate is also differently mounted allowing easier assembly, dont know why it was changed, perhaps fewer piece parts. The Ru were masters of production, they made T-34 up until the last days at Stalingrad, ran them out the door of tractor factory straight into hell.

I'd feel bad if you were not resident in Jrem, that I'd be making you home sick, mentioning - camels.

Shalom Noel

P.S. I'm not planning on altering my shooters, I can live with an occassional tear.