Hamster
Established
I have just finished cleaning up the viewfinder and rf optics on my kiev, which was previousely unusable below EV 5. Now that I have my camera opened up, do any of you chaps here know of anyway to improve the brightness of the vf/rf on the kiev?
I thought about replacing the front glass on both rf windows with coated glass taken from a dead UV filter, but beyond that, I have no other ideas.
Another question, did kiev ever made rf prisms that were not green? All my Kievs were made in the 50s so I was thinking perhaps they might have used a different mater in later Kievs.
And finally, do anyone have any idea why thay have made the eyepiece optics so small? I am always suprised at how small it is compared to recent cameras.
I do most of my photo work at night indoors, is kiev really a practicle option or am I just making my life difficult? Jupiter-8 is my favourite lens and I want to use it as much as possible. Currently, my main camera for this type of work is a Spotmatic+1.4 Takumar, but i would really like to use RF instead as they are less visible.
I thought about replacing the front glass on both rf windows with coated glass taken from a dead UV filter, but beyond that, I have no other ideas.
Another question, did kiev ever made rf prisms that were not green? All my Kievs were made in the 50s so I was thinking perhaps they might have used a different mater in later Kievs.
And finally, do anyone have any idea why thay have made the eyepiece optics so small? I am always suprised at how small it is compared to recent cameras.
I do most of my photo work at night indoors, is kiev really a practicle option or am I just making my life difficult? Jupiter-8 is my favourite lens and I want to use it as much as possible. Currently, my main camera for this type of work is a Spotmatic+1.4 Takumar, but i would really like to use RF instead as they are less visible.
captainslack
Five Goats Hunter
First place to look, if you haven't been there already, is The Kiev Survival Site.
Have you thought about getting an accessory finder? The CV finder is very bright and has framelines. Granted, you'd have to compose in one window and frame in another, but it would solve the problem.
Have you thought about getting an accessory finder? The CV finder is very bright and has framelines. Granted, you'd have to compose in one window and frame in another, but it would solve the problem.
Spyderman
Well-known
How about getting a completely different camera? on the cheap side is the Zorki 4, 4k, then Zorki 3M, the more expensive could be a Bessa or a Canon...
The good news is that you can get a Jupiter 8 in LTM
The good news is that you can get a Jupiter 8 in LTM
Hamster
Established
Spyderman said:How about getting a completely different camera? on the cheap side is the Zorki 4, 4k, then Zorki 3M, the more expensive could be a Bessa or a Canon...
The good news is that you can get a Jupiter 8 in LTM
I was feeling kind of zen from my recent GAS fulfilment, now you have disturbed the force....... :bang:
Austintatious
Well-known
Hello Hamsterson,
The Kiev will work well in low light photography. Clean the RF inside well and that will help. Also consider the Heilos 103 lens. It is a bit faster at F1.8, the Jupiter is F2.
The Kiev will work well in low light photography. Clean the RF inside well and that will help. Also consider the Heilos 103 lens. It is a bit faster at F1.8, the Jupiter is F2.
Hamster
Established
Austintatious said:
I just acquired a Helios 103 today, but won't actually get to use it till the summer's out. I know H 103 will give me another 1/3 a stop, but does it have the Jupiter Glow?
captainslack
Five Goats Hunter
Hamster said:
Haven't compared the two myself, but most folks say it's sharper than the J-8 at wider apertures. If you do a search on the forum, you're bound to find a comparison somewhere.
Spyderman
Well-known
Considering the viewfinder, Zorki 3 or 4 wins hands down.
howgh.
howgh.
Hamster
Established
OK, the GAS is building again.....
Zorki 3 or MIR? I choose reliability over everything else.
Zorki 3 or MIR? I choose reliability over everything else.
Duncan Ross
Say it with flashbulbs
Hamster said:
I've often wondered this too. Is there any possibility that by reducing the 'zone' that the eye has to enter to see the rf patch the errors caused by viewing it off-centre are reduced? One of my now-gone RFs had a very large viewfinder and the image in the RF patch seemed to shift around as you looked through different parts of the viewfinder.
The original contax design seemed to be marketed as a highly-precise machine and maybe this was part of it. BTW did the original Contaxes have hopelessly optimistic depth-of-field scales or is this just a Kiev thing...?
Ok I'm talking drivel here...
kvanderlaag
my autofocus is broken.
No slow speeds on the Mir, if I recall.
Unless they are crucial to you, they are just another thing which could possibly go wrong on your camera.
No slow speeds == no slow mechanism to quit working.
I'd say Mir.
Unless they are crucial to you, they are just another thing which could possibly go wrong on your camera.
No slow speeds == no slow mechanism to quit working.
I'd say Mir.
zhang xk
Well-known
kvanderlaag said:
I'd say a Zaya. It could be the most reliable Russian rangefinder camera as there is little that could go wrong. Besides, its viewfinder is the brighest. No rangefider is not really a big deal for a J-12 IMHO.
Hamster
Established
Duncan Ross said:
I really have no idea, I have thought about transplanting a Spotmatic eyepiece onto a junk kiev to see if it will work better, I have a dead ESII and I tried putting th eyepiect behind the prism and it seems to work. I have a junk kiev 4 that i plan to convert to a 4a, and i might experiment with the spare top-casting once I am done on that.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
As far as I know, both the Contax II and the Kiev 4 (I´ve both) have the same DOF scale, even having the Kiev the J8 f2 (a Sonnar f2 clone) and the Contax II a collapsible Tessar 2.8. the same DOF scale applies also for the Sonnar f1.5.
Ernesto
Ernesto
Hamster
Established
ErnestoJL said:
Since you have both kiev and contax, do both of them have green RF prisms? I was also wondering too if Kiev 5 also have a green prism. And idea why it was green?
wyk_penguin
Well-known
The green is from the gold plating in the beam splitter. When gold is used, the reflected beam (rf patch) is golden yellow and the transmitted one is of the complemmentary colour (bluish green). This is used in all FSU RF cameras, LTM cameras and the M3.
Modern RFs use aluminium (aluminum) plating in the beam splitter, so both beams have no colour cast.
The green and yellow colour scheme was said to enhance contrast between the RF patch and the surrounding image and would hence improve accuracy. IMHO, it does (my Kiev pops and I don't mind seeing the world in blues). However, a more practical reason may be that plating gold onto glass is a million times easier than doing the same thing with aluminium.
Modern RFs use aluminium (aluminum) plating in the beam splitter, so both beams have no colour cast.
The green and yellow colour scheme was said to enhance contrast between the RF patch and the surrounding image and would hence improve accuracy. IMHO, it does (my Kiev pops and I don't mind seeing the world in blues). However, a more practical reason may be that plating gold onto glass is a million times easier than doing the same thing with aluminium.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
You´re right, both are green. And being my Contax made in 1937 and the Kiev in 1966, both have today exactly the same patch colour and contrast. Unfortunately I didn´t have any Kiev 5 in my hands yet...
wyk_penguin is right in regard of why was gold used instead of other metals, specially thinking that gold is one of the few metals that are almost impossible to corrode by humidity or other chemicals. This would also assure a long lasting patch brightness as well as an almost permanent contrast.
If the patch colour survived almost 70 years, then I guess the choice was the right one.
OTOH, aluminum is easier to corrode than gold however newer techniques (regarding 1936) made it more resistant to chemical attack, perhaps in form of special alloys, or applied under special conditions (telescope mirrors).
I´ve also been wandering why the eyepieces of both cameras are so small, however I didn´t find yet a good explanation. The only I would think is that Duncan Ross is right, as the other RFs I have force you to place your eye in a certain position to see the patch, which otherwise may fade or remain unseen.
Ernesto
wyk_penguin is right in regard of why was gold used instead of other metals, specially thinking that gold is one of the few metals that are almost impossible to corrode by humidity or other chemicals. This would also assure a long lasting patch brightness as well as an almost permanent contrast.
If the patch colour survived almost 70 years, then I guess the choice was the right one.
OTOH, aluminum is easier to corrode than gold however newer techniques (regarding 1936) made it more resistant to chemical attack, perhaps in form of special alloys, or applied under special conditions (telescope mirrors).
I´ve also been wandering why the eyepieces of both cameras are so small, however I didn´t find yet a good explanation. The only I would think is that Duncan Ross is right, as the other RFs I have force you to place your eye in a certain position to see the patch, which otherwise may fade or remain unseen.
Ernesto
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
Hampster
There are 10 air to glass interfaces so there is about one stop loss in the viewfinder glass.
A typical filter glass is thicker than the viewfinder cover glass at about 0.0475 of an inch, you might not get filter glass material in, coated microscope slide glass might do instead, but this would only be about 8% better, the other 8 surfaces are very lossy.
At night the exit pupil of the camera eye piece is smalled than the eyes pupil so it will make a difference, in theory as well as your perception. Focus by scale using a torch.
Zeiss understood 'night glass' exit pupil design in their 7x50 binocs, the camera was not designed to the same ambient darkness rules.
The new Leica Ms are coated for even better transmission, but I dont have one of these alas.
The early Kievs have more black paint where it would help contrast, that is easy to do if you have the camera apart.
Noel
There are 10 air to glass interfaces so there is about one stop loss in the viewfinder glass.
A typical filter glass is thicker than the viewfinder cover glass at about 0.0475 of an inch, you might not get filter glass material in, coated microscope slide glass might do instead, but this would only be about 8% better, the other 8 surfaces are very lossy.
At night the exit pupil of the camera eye piece is smalled than the eyes pupil so it will make a difference, in theory as well as your perception. Focus by scale using a torch.
Zeiss understood 'night glass' exit pupil design in their 7x50 binocs, the camera was not designed to the same ambient darkness rules.
The new Leica Ms are coated for even better transmission, but I dont have one of these alas.
The early Kievs have more black paint where it would help contrast, that is easy to do if you have the camera apart.
Noel