Kiev year of production vs. quality

[ruben]

Hi Ruben, unfortunately I moved away from Prague (most stupid decision in my life???) and am now living in French Riviera and searching for a job ...

so jobless at the Riviera, you will be selling the fine Kievs you bought in Prague, one by one! :bang:

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[darkkavenger]

I had sold them even before leaving Prague, Ruben 😉 now I hope I won't have to sell my Contax & Pentacon Six systems 🙁

 

[Jocko]

From appearance of insides of my 80s 4am it seems they used a hammer to fit shutter crate into the casting.

Those are exactly the words an experienced repairman used to describe the insides of my 1982 Kiev!

I recently had the joy to buy Mike Goldberg's splendid 1960 Kiev 4. The difference in quality - both in materials and workmanship - is striking.

Cheers, Ian

 

[physiognomy]

Sorry for coming late to the party with this thread... In my (humble) opinion there is a lot that can be said about the quality (parts, workmanship & finish) of the early Kievs, but there is also a great number of good working latter cameras. My collection only spans '54-'63, but I would be quite happy to pick up (& probably will in the future) a latter model Kiev from a reputable seller. The '80s 4am cameras that I have handled have been good performers, albeit a little rough, but in the end the only thing that matters is functionality. Are the majority of earlier examples better made? My answer is yes, but you can still have great fun with a Kiev that didn't cost you $100+

Peter

 

[dee]

OK- we have established that with Kiev it was downhill all the way from !947 - just like me ....
BUT - a good late Kiev is a heck of a lot better than no Kiev at all - and like so many old things , it's all about condition and who reserects it - I have no complaints whatsoever about my later Oleg Kiev 4 and Kiev 4m - but the early ones are lovely .
These led me to explore further with my K 2 and k3
Incidentally , I took a chance on a Kiev among several K4a/K4 being sold reasonably from an ex-USSR dealer - poor pics - because I could just see a foot under the camera .
It turned out to be a reasonable 1956 Kiev 2a , of similar quality to my K3 / K2 .
So it can pay to look at less obvious offerings .
Other than having two of my Kievs cla , I have returned to gathering in Leica copies in all sorts of wierd and wonderfull reincarnations - 'cos they are fun - almost the antithesis of the Kievs !

dee

 

[ruben]

but in the end the only thing that matters is functionality.


Peter

Nothing to add.

 

[BrianT]

I have Kievs in pairs of lls and llls from 1948, yes I have a 48 lll. 49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 all are very, very smooth and extremely well finished , the examples between 48 -54 especially. Cameras from 57 -60/61 are beginning to show a bit of shoddiness, and from there things do go down. The exception being the " No Name" which in every respect equals the very early types. But it's not only the mechanics, the overall build quality was just lost as demands for more production was made.

Just look at the detail on this 1956 lll . The aperture index is a work of art the equal of anything that ever came out of the original Zeiss works.

 

[zhang xk]

I wonder if Contax III, IIIa, and Leica M3 were made by the same company, whick would cost more? We may have a very similar camera, the Kiev III for a fraction of the cost.

 

[varjag]

Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.

 

[rxmd]

Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.

As evident, for example, by the fact that after WW2 it was possible for the Soviet Union to mass-manufacture a camera that had, before the war, required a very tedious craftsmanlike approach in Germany, and to keep up mass-manufacturing it for the better part of ten to twenty years in numbers in the hundred thousands before there was a significant quality drop.

Philipp

 

[zhang xk]

Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.

If it was not for the Soviet Union, a central planned economy with little consideration for cost, no one else would make a Contax III again at an affordable price. What I want to say is that it would be very, very expensive for a west company to make such a labour intensive product after the war.🙂

 

[Jocko]

If it was not for the Soviet Union, a central planned economy with little consideration for cost, no one else would make a Contax III again at an affordable price. What I want to say is that it would be very, very expensive for a west company to make such a labour intensive product after the war.🙂

I think there are several important points here. It's perhaps significant that throughout this period Arsenal was (as the name suggests) primarily producing (non-photographic) items for the military and aerospace sectors - clients that traditionally couldn't care less about cost and who place a premium on precision, quality and reliability.

It would be interesting to know how the factory was organised, because one might imagine that camera manufacture would create a reservoir of tooling and capable semi-skilled workers who could be quickly reassigned to other work as required. That would a great advantage.

I can't help wondering if the declining quality of the cameras in the 70s through to 1986 in some way reflects changes in military technology, away from mechanical and towards electronic items, thus placing less emphasis on traditional skills - just a thought 🙂

Ian

 

[rxmd]

I can't help wondering if the declining quality of the cameras in the 70s through to 1986 in some way reflects changes in military technology, away from mechanical and towards electronic items, thus placing less emphasis on traditional skills - just a thought 🙂

That's an interesting thought, but I would assume that it had at least as much to do with the general shift in production away from consumer goods towards capital goods and arms production under Brezhnev, where the military-industrial complex was basically running the state. That's also quite obvious in the 1970s in camera production - the 1970s were a lot less "creative" than the period between ca. 1957 and 1965.

The Soviet Union, like any planned economy, always had problems calculating demand for consumer goods; weapons, which aren't consumed by anybody except the state itself, are much easier to produce under the conditions of a planned economy.

Philipp

 

[TVphotog]

Man reading this post is making the anxiety of waiting for my '50 Kiev 2 even worse. I haven't even really looked at Ebay or other camera aquisition places. I am afraid that I would continue to purchase more just to quell the anticipation of waiting:bang: :bang:

 

[zhang xk]

......
I can't help wondering if the declining quality of the cameras in the 70s through to 1986 in some way reflects changes in military technology, away from mechanical and towards electronic items, thus placing less emphasis on traditional skills - just a thought 🙂

Ian

I assume by 70's, cameras like Kiev, Zorki, or Leica were considered backward products. SLR, eletronic P/S were much better cameras. A Zenit E cost much more than a Kiev 4M, and a Japanese Pentax SLR was much superior to a rangefinder camera of any brands. Used Leica, Nikon rangefinder cameras were sold for about $30-40. So workers did not have the pride in making these cameras as they did in the 1950's.

Today, people like these rangefinder cameras for their all metal, all mechanical, and precision charm other than their performance. An early Kiev II, III is the same thing like Leica M3, M6, etc. These are antique, expensive precision gears IMHO.😀

Zhang

 

[nzeeman]

it is very sad that sssr was too closed toward west after 50s - if they tried to enter west market more we would have very interesting competiton on camera market. and that could lead to development of more interesting lens and camera designs - but since they were too closed they just made copies or slight variations. everything original was abandoned - like rodina and kiev ttl. 🙁
i cant stop thinking about that kiev ttl - that would be most beautiful camera if it was produced imho. (maybe it just needed 35 mm field of view and 50mm framelines - and it would be absolutely ideal)

 

[varjag]

I think there are several important points here. It's perhaps significant that throughout this period Arsenal was (as the name suggests) primarily producing (non-photographic) items for the military and aerospace sectors - clients that traditionally couldn't care less about cost and who place a premium on precision, quality and reliability.

Ian, about every Soviet camera/optics manufacturer (maybe except FED) was a part of military-industrial complex. Camera manufacture at KMZ was minuscule side-business: military scopes, panoramas, sights, night vision devices, satellite and air recon cameras is what the factory specialized in. Those also tended to be better made, with no penny savings on materials and proper QC. Civilian sector in USSR was always fed with scraps from military table.

Phillipp, not sure how good example Kiev is in this case: until the end of its production it was the same German camera with design resembling 19th century timepieces, and if manufacture would've been kept at original level of quality, it would never reach Gosplan projected figures.

 

[BrianT]

a Japanese Pentax SLR was much superior to a rangefinder camera of any brands. Used Leica, Nikon rangefinder cameras were sold for about $30-40. So workers did not have the pride in making these cameras as they did in the 1950's.

And on what planet did that happen?

 

[zhang xk]

And on what planet did that happen?

The figures may not be very accurate, but I have a copy of 1969 back issue of MP with used price of Leica IIf for $49.50, Contax II with Sonnar 50/2 for $42.70, Canon IV with 50/2 $43.50, Nikon S body only $32.75. And a Pentax Spotmatic with 50/1.4 for $289.50 new on the same issue. So it was on this planet.😉

 

[BrianT]

To have any meaning your figures must be related to incomes for that period. In 1970 my wife was in her first year of teaching her salary was $160 PER Month. in other words your reported price for the Leica 11f would have represented 1.5 weeks of income or iwith today's pay rates less than one hours pay. In 1970 a new M3 was £247.4.7 or something like four months salary for her , in today's terms a sum not far short of £12,000. As another example I bought my first house in 1972 for £2,950, recently it sold for £340,000! I bought my first Leica in 1964, a lllg, £70 with a 50mm f2.8 Elmar.....at the time I was a photographer in the Royal Air Force and the cost represented a months wages.

Sorry Leicas and r/f Nikons might have seemed very cheap thirty years ago, truth is they have never been cheaper than they are today in real terms.

Re the Pentax I couldn't comment, not my sort of thing. By the way in the mid sixties a new Kiev cost just under £60.