kiev users, tell me why!

tedwhite said:
ON the positive side, the Helios 103 is top quality.
Click to expand...
I have been quite surprised with mine. Blows some serious competition out of the water with respect to rendering of fine detail. On the downside, it doesnt't like to have the sun inside the frame and produces big bad flare that way.

The 4am so far really makes me happy: Focus with the Helios is spot on near and far, no light leaks, tight but even spacing, no problems at all. I keep my fingers crossed it will stay that way for some time to come. Older Kievs were better build? Maybe, I don't care. What count's in my book is a well-working camera.

Stefan
 
Roger Vadim said:
Very long RF baselength. Therefore very acurate in focusing.
-Michael
Click to expand...
Baselength isn't the only factor, RF magnification is too. Out of interest, I made a comparison (only approximate since I don't know the exact magnifications) and there's actually very little to choose on the accuracy of all the FSU RFs. The FED 3, 4 and 5 are slightly less accurate than the others, all others are almost identical. The Kiev, despite the longest baselength, is only marginally the best.
 
I have to say the "Contax grip" doesn't suit me too well, so the Kiev isn't my favourite user. In terms of mechanical complexity it beats Zorkis and FEDs and the clever shutter is definitely better controlled. It's just a nice camera to use, in a way I can't define.

My main concern with a Kiev is that I haven't dared strip one yet, it's scarily complex. If mine went wrong in a serious way, I wouldn't want to strip it and I can't justify a professional repair. At the same time I don't like to see an old classic die, even if it's financially a loss and a common camera.
 
Today took a look on two Kievs - one I think is faulty as winder knob just turns around, not stoppoing. Another looks nice except leatherette peeling off , w/ light meter "box" on top which even reacts to light (probably not very accurate nowadays) - but problem is that I didn't see shutter lamels opening (with removed back). Sticky shutter syndrome ? I have to admit, Kiev is camera to have.
 
I enjoy using the Kiev, (hopefully I'll find the shutter ribbon soon and be back up & running) my example isn't as smooth as my IIIc for instance, but I will give it a bit of a CLA when it's in bits. I like how the Jupiter8M renders colour and has positive click stops, and love the shape of the aperture at f4/f5.6 (yet to see any effect this has on images). and the shutter sounds fantastic and I don't have to keep my hand over the lens (or lens cap on) on sunny days.

It seems like a camera that can be kept going with regular maintenence for years. OK there are a few things that could be better, stronger or smoother but it gives me pleasure to use - :D
 
For me it was a no-risk way of seeing if I wanted a Contax. I used to have a Nikon S2 black dial, but never used it enough to justify the cost; since I still had a hankering for a slow-focussing Victorian brick (;)), a Contax seemed a reasonable substitute, and playing with a Kiev helped me make up my mind.
 
Why? because you need to experience it to appreciate it. :)

Can't really talk about it. It's just cool to use.
 
wolves3012 said:
Baselength isn't the only factor, RF magnification is too. Out of interest, I made a comparison (only approximate since I don't know the exact magnifications) and there's actually very little to choose on the accuracy of all the FSU RFs. The FED 3, 4 and 5 are slightly less accurate than the others, all others are almost identical. The Kiev, despite the longest baselength, is only marginally the best.
Click to expand...

A long baselength isn't the same as higher magnification. A movement on one end results in a visible shift in the finder. Different magnifications can make the apparent offset in the finder similar, but the basic geometry makes a longer base more accurate, regardless of the finder mag.

Consider that any mechanism for syncing the rf to the lens focus has limits. A short base rf translates each degree of lens movement into a far smaller degree of mirror/prism/whatever movement than a long base rf. Any free play in the mechanism can result in no movement of the rf reflector even though the lens focus has changed. As your rf base increases, the tolerance for error increases - one degree of error in a short base can result in a large focus error, while the same one degree of error in a longer base will result in a much smaller error in focus. This is independent of finder magnification.

For example, my Canonet has a rf base of very roughly 30mm. At 1 meter, an error of 1/10 degree makes the focus of by almost 6mm. On my Kiev 4 with a rf base of very roughly 90mm, the same 1/10 degree error renders the focus off by not quite 2mm. At 5 meters, the error on the Canonet would be really close to 159mm, while the Kiev error would be only 49 mm. This addresses an error caused by a knock or drop that caused the same displacement on both rf mechanisms. The view through the finder would appear in focus. Errors induced by gear play would have similar implications. A small error in a long base rf has a minor effect, but the same small error in a shorter base does greater damage to focus accuracy, increasing as distance to subject increases. Finder magnification has no effect on this kind of error.

Obvously, error induced in an otherwise perfect rf mechanism by the user would have similar greater implications with a shorter rf base. But missed focus is missed focus :) One might argue that higher finder mag helps the user more accurately focus, but we have already seen how slight errors in rf alignment results in smaller focus errors with a longer base. It really doesn't matter if the error is user induced or not. Higher finder magnification is only "better" when compared to equal base rf mechanisms, basically.

Higher finder magnification only makes the rf spot alignment easier to see. It doesn't change the basic accuracy of the mechanism itself. With a longer base, even a low mag finder can be highly accurate and easy to align. In practice, assuming both rf mechanisms are accurate, higher mag on a shorter base is comparable to lower mag on a longer base. But if one has questions about the play in the mechanism or its current state of sync with the lens, a longer base is more forgiving of errors. The longer base can tolerate greater error between mount and finder spot with less focus error. As well as be more tolerant of eyesight failings.

With that said, I like my Kiev's because I like to use them, not for technical reasons. I was attracted to them because they were based on the Contax design vs. Leica. No dislike for Leica, I just made a choice I'm happy with. I have every intention of using something like a FED 2 and a Leica rf down the road, but it might be a longer road now that I have my Kiev's :)
 
Last edited:
It's purely a style thing.

The Kiev looks so ffrickk'in awesome, feels gorgeous in the hand, and it has a fascinating history. The killer feature was the shutter sound. I compared a Zorki 4 and a Kiev 4, and the Kiev shutter just sounded more right. Having a "Made in USSR" written in Cyrillic on the top plate is also fun.

I find also that the Contax design is perhaps one of the most influential in camera history. So many cameras are styled after the Contax instead of the Leica. The Contax begat the Nikon RF, the Kiev, the first Contax SLR, which all together begat cameras like the Pentax, the Praktica, the Contaflex and Contarex, the Nikon SLR, the Minolta SLR, the Canon SLR, and so on for generations until moulded polymers killed chrome and vulcanite.

Otherwise, the lenses are few, so it limits gas. Build quality and optical quality are pretty good for a camera that costs you 100$ with lens. It's a fun camera, in all its aspects, and it's very useable.
 
Last edited:
Many many years ago I hapenned to buy a Kiev, GAS attracted by the exhuberant beauty of its contours. Cleaning the rangefinding window I happened to break the glass and I don't remember how, also to misposition the convex lens. So I left the mess and passed by. Disassembling a Kiev by that time was out of question.

But some seven years ago I wanted to have a SILENT AND SYSTEM CAMERA, and remembered that broken Kiev.

My first year or two with the Kievs were very frustrating. The manipulation of the system appeared to me very ackward compared to my OM system, and I lacked the knnowledge to appreciate the advantages. Nevertheless I had a feeling there is something there. But the the beauty of the camera.... it never left me to rest.

So I get into collecting some pieces and re-design their manipulation at my free time.

But then.....Great Surprise ! the Kiev Survival Site emerged, revolutionazing the objective status of the Kiev camera in the planet. By this I mean that you can choose to use the KSS or not, to learn to drive the car or not, so to speak, but the keys are there.

At the third year of "being inside", I happened to learn by myself one of the greatest "mysteries" of Soviet cameras noise and stiffness, including the Kiev: in order to skip all possible problems, from misadjustments to dirt, Soviet cameras curtains come overtensioned. By cleaning and distensioning my Kievs I obtained a smoothness I can only be sorry you are not here to touch and feel.

This mystery is not unknown to good fixers. It was just kept secret.

So I achieved a good CLA level, and no more, and the "no" includes most of lens fixings and major camera issues as syncronization. But I can breath in peace. I have a camera system that will outlast me, or film.

Cheers.
Ruben
 
I picked up a Kiev 4AM with a Helios103 and found the camera was defective. Even so, the lens was amazing, better than any of my others, with the exceoption of the Industar 61L/D. So the first Kiev was returned with no gripes from the seller, my money refunded and I set away to Alex_photo on ebay for another. It arrived a few weeks ago. The self timer doesn't work, but I never use it. The frame spacing is bad, but I'll manage. The lens was the reason for the camera, since there is no Helios w/ LTM. The infinity lock is the bane for me, as it always locks up when I'm getting set for a near/far shot. I like it, I like it better than the light metered models because it is sleeker.
 
Camera Quest (Stephen Gandy) has some wonderful CV lenses for Nikon s and Contax mount.... brand new and super sharp.


oftheherd said:
I don't have any other FSUs to compare to. And I only recently got a Kiev. I do like the feel of the Kiev, and the infinity lock just doesn't bother me since when putting my finger on the focus wheel in automatically releases the lock with no hassle. Mine seems to have some random light leaks on the back I need to fix, but that should be minor. The only other concern I have is the lack of easily obtainable wide angle lenses wider that 35mm. That just isn't wide to me and I like wide.
Click to expand...
 
Oops:

On my post (#20) I complained about the dim patch in the viewfinder, blah, blah.

What a dim-wit - I had forgotten about the "Kiev Grip." And so, once I got my middle finger out from in front of the little window, Lo and Behold! An easily visible patch!

Ignore Post #20. I just put in a roll of film and will venture forth tomorrow.
 
I started using the Kiev a few years ago and loved it from the moment I picked it up. I liked the ergonomics of camera and the rendition of those Russian lenses.

I had a hell of a time with light leaks but thanks to the Kiev Survival Site, I was able to fix all that stuff. With good examples of the Jupiter 8, 9, 11 , 12 and Helios 103, I have all the lenses I need. I was lucky with my second Kiev which worked nicely after I did the initial cleaning.

Hope I didn't jinx my shutter ribbons with this post...:p
 
As for the suggestion by ray*j*gun to go CV lenses for the Kiev I still have to respectfully insist on the excellence of the FSU lenses, and, for me, the un-matched Helios 103. I plan to keep it on the Kiev at all times.

Yes, I have become more and more inclined to shoot a 35 instead of a 50, but this "normal" lens is too outstanding to sit on a shelf. So if you want a 35, I understand, and have no expertise or recommendation in the Contax/Kiev mount lenses other than my Helios epiphany.
 
40oz said:
A long baselength isn't the same as higher magnification. A movement on one end results in a visible shift in the finder. Different magnifications can make the apparent offset in the finder similar, but the basic geometry makes a longer base more accurate, regardless of the finder mag.

Consider that any mechanism for syncing the rf to the lens focus has limits. A short base rf translates each degree of lens movement into a far smaller degree of mirror/prism/whatever movement than a long base rf. Any free play in the mechanism can result in no movement of the rf reflector even though the lens focus has changed. As your rf base increases, the tolerance for error increases - one degree of error in a short base can result in a large focus error, while the same one degree of error in a longer base will result in a much smaller error in focus. This is independent of finder magnification.
Click to expand...
Technically you're quite correct and I'm not about to disagree with the gist of what you say. BUT...

Firstly, take a look at how the Kiev and FED/Zorki RFs actually work: The Kiev translates the helicoid motion via a worm gear and this WILL result in a small amount of backlash, giving small errors. A Zorki or FED, however, has a spring-loaded sensor pressing against a cam on the lens, which has NO backlash (at least, not for a 50mm lens anyway, there's no "translation" like on other focal lengths). They also have spring-loaded pivots to avoid bearing freeplay. So, we're not actually comparing like with like.

Secondly, a higher magnificaton allows a smaller difference in misalignment to be seen. I never intended to claim it increased the accuracy of the mechanism but it does increase the precision of a given mechanism.

Thirdly, the baselength is a compromise since going too far causes parallax errors - the two views become so different they can't be aligned at short distances.

I'm not about to suggest that the RF system of a Kiev is inferior but nor do I believe it is superior simply because of the longer baselength. The designers made various compromises (as in most things) that result in something that works well enough within its intended use. I don't see the Kiev or FED/Zorki/Leica system being a problem in normal use.

Just one other thing: focussing accuracy matters less as distance increases because DOF also increases with distance.
 
Last edited:
Comrades,

I have no doubt Kiev is a superb camera, and reading the posts of Kiev users here gives me GAS! I mean, I want one now! Correction, I want two! An old II and a new blackened 4am, and five or six lenses, Jupiters and Helios and what have you. I cannot afford this but I can dream.

However one thing worries me: I keep reading about all of these Kievs that work fine but suddenly break ribbons, about light leaks and uneven spacing, about how difficult it is to CLA them well etc.

While Fed-Zorkis are far from immune from problems, the ones I have fall into 2 categories, the good ones, which work flawlessly from day one. And 2-3 ones that had problems when I got them and I have not bothered to use them. But the good ones, some of them pre CLA'd, were very reliable.

It seems to my (subjective, FED-Zorki biased) eyes, that Kievs are more prone to sudden failures (ribons breaking for example) and that even recently CLA'd ones can fail, more so than
FED-Zorki. Would you say that is true in general?
 
I got my first Kiev in 1986 as a gift from my Brother ("You already have a decent camera!" he told me). At that time I wanted to have a newly built classic camera (That's what I thought at that time) and I gota 4am and it was funny to use it...after I had had it repaired although it was bought new then.
Great lenses especially J12 and J9 ...my best user Kiev right now is a Kiev 5 gret for taking pics at performances when quiet operation is is needed
 
Bought a black 4AM because I always liked that flat Contax-kind body. The camera handles well, mine has a very smooth focusing function, but ok it's a slower shooter than a M6 or a Bessa, especially because of the shutter rewind/film advance wheel. The viewfinder is better than the one of my FED-2, but of course not comparable to above mentioned models. Light-tightness wasn't a problem so far, and the shutter sounds accurate. The Helios-103 is a good allround lens, very sharp when stopped down, nice bokeh. All in all, combined with a VC-II meter, it's even more an eyecatcher than all other film cameras I have. Strangely, since I went digital, it has got even more mileage than my M6 on my occasional film shootings...
Didier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom