dee
Well-known
i slipped into Leica [ twin black II / twin IIIc + IIIf black dail ] and Russian well - derivatives ? because my Autism actually sees them as real cameras [ long story ]
i happened on a Kiev or two almost be accident , but it's simply my best '' user '' camera .
However , it always seems second best , and prices for an early Kiev are becoming silly .
I won't have money to spare shortly [ computers taking over hand drawing ! ] but am considering a Contax III which is said to be in fine condition .
it would become my most used camera - more so than my 1933 1st batch Leica II , which was my initial favourite .
Would it really , other than the sheer thought of the REAL THING , be a nicer camera to use ? And am I asking for trouble with such a venerable classic camera ? [ Leicas go on indefinitely ]
I would appreciate your thoughts .
dee
i happened on a Kiev or two almost be accident , but it's simply my best '' user '' camera .
However , it always seems second best , and prices for an early Kiev are becoming silly .
I won't have money to spare shortly [ computers taking over hand drawing ! ] but am considering a Contax III which is said to be in fine condition .
it would become my most used camera - more so than my 1933 1st batch Leica II , which was my initial favourite .
Would it really , other than the sheer thought of the REAL THING , be a nicer camera to use ? And am I asking for trouble with such a venerable classic camera ? [ Leicas go on indefinitely ]
I would appreciate your thoughts .
dee
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Hi Dee,
I have both - a Kiev 4A & a 1937 Contax III and a mix of FSU & CZJ lenses. Ultimately there isn't really all that much difference between a CLA'd Kiev or Contax from a users perspective. Both take the lenses and make fine photographs.
That said, the Contax will be a nicer camera unless seriously abused because CZ in Jena or Stuttgart will always have had better materials to work with and far higher quality control that was ever the case at the Arsenal works in Kiev. Even so, a good user camera from either place is still a good user camera.
Good luck with your choices!
William
I have both - a Kiev 4A & a 1937 Contax III and a mix of FSU & CZJ lenses. Ultimately there isn't really all that much difference between a CLA'd Kiev or Contax from a users perspective. Both take the lenses and make fine photographs.
That said, the Contax will be a nicer camera unless seriously abused because CZ in Jena or Stuttgart will always have had better materials to work with and far higher quality control that was ever the case at the Arsenal works in Kiev. Even so, a good user camera from either place is still a good user camera.
Good luck with your choices!
William
Spider67
Well-known
If you are looking for built quality than you should consider the earlier Kievs a comparison of my 80´s Kiev with a early 70´s one shows heavy deficiencies when you compare them! But then the older Kievs are well older.
dee
Well-known
Thanks.
I have actually dee-cided to look out for a real Contax , not bothered about which model , but a prewar one .
To compliment my Kievs !
Irrational as ever !
I have actually dee-cided to look out for a real Contax , not bothered about which model , but a prewar one .
To compliment my Kievs !
Irrational as ever !
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
There's a funky thing with the contaxes versus the kievs.
The contax iia and iiia have a rangefinder patch that moves in the same direction as the lens rotates.
The Kievs (and probably the pre-war Contaxes) have a atch that moves to the left when you rotate the lens focus to the RIGHT.
It's pretty weird for a difference.
The contax iia and iiia have a rangefinder patch that moves in the same direction as the lens rotates.
The Kievs (and probably the pre-war Contaxes) have a atch that moves to the left when you rotate the lens focus to the RIGHT.
It's pretty weird for a difference.