Kiev year of production vs. quality

[napchop]

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

It's worth noting that the Kiev was never a 'mass produced camera in the same way that the Fed/ Zorki ranges were. It took Arsenal 30 years to produce 1,000,000 Kievs, while fed could do it in 3 years!! The production of Kiev rangefinders was always aimed at the high end of the market (soviet) until the SLR cameras became affordable. That was when the quality of materials used in the Kievs fell dramatically. There's a big difference in quality between the early Kievs (pre 76) and the latter. Anyone who's opened a Kiev 4M or AM and compared it with a 4 or 4A will confirm it.

 

[napchop]

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

Hi Ian,
From 1977 the factory began using many workers who were mostly females in the period between school and University. These girls had to sign a contract for minimum three years work at Arsenal and were working in all departments. My wife worked as a design draughtsperson and was given the job of drawing blueprints of design changes requested from the factory floor. This involved work from all parts of the factory, parts for submarines, cameras, missiles nose cones and medical optics. Most of these girls resented having to work there, as they were mostly very inteligent women being given mudane work. (My wife is a geologist) They fealt they were used as cheap labour and resented their studies being delayed. Most guys went off to the army for this period and missed the training that would have made them more inspired to work in the factory, instead they were working alongside disgruntled women when they finished their military service and in this period consciencious workers were scoffed at.
I'm sure the rot began then. There were many accidents from this period on, mainly due to poorer working conditions (communication between management and staff was very bad) and pressure to meet new Moskow production figures.
Mike

 

[Jocko]

That sort of information is priceless, Mike - thank you!

Cheers, Ian 🙂

 

[ruben]

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.

Hi Eugene,
You are making two interesting points for further thinking.
What is the real "inside" story of the Arsenal factory ? My common sense tells me that the latter Kievs do reflect the status of latter arms production, as for me it doesn't make sense that within a military factory section A is highly quality surveiled while at section C everybody is sloppy and sleepy. I mean this may be but within rather stretch margins. Obviously, I am speculating.

Now lets remember a bit of Soviet history. After Brezhnev death and Chernienko passing by, then came that KGB fellow, Andropov, the first chief to face realities, who latter appointed Gorbachev to start deep and time-desperate reforms. By then it was obvious production and distribution in general was heading to disaster, within the context of the aggravating cold war. Kievs from the 80s' are Gorby Kievs, good intentions to improve - caos of quality materials, and no much help by the workers.

As for your second Gosplan idea, within reasonable tolerances it was not bad at all "popularizing", or simplyficating a bit the original pre-war Contax. Imagine from the point of view of today, if the Kievs left were just a few ten of thousands manufactured till 1954, and then production stopped.

The Kiev 4 is a good machine by itself, and we can show some tolerance ourselves for a camera that is highly good, even if not as good as its great grandpa. As for the further quality drop of the 70's, no excuses available but on the contrary; it was a kind of premonition of the comming collapse of the whole USSR.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[varjag]

Ruben,

Hi Eugene,
You are making two interesting points for further thinking.
What is the real "inside" story of the Arsenal factory ? My common sense tells me that the latter Kievs do reflect the status of latter arms production, as for me it doesn't make sense that within a military factory section A is highly quality surveiled while at section C everybody is sloppy and sleepy. I mean this may be but within rather stretch margins. Obviously, I am speculating.

The means end ends in planned economy go beyond pedestrian common sense 🙂

One big difference between military and (most of) civilian manufacture was amount of responsibility. In case of latter, you could get away with a lot of things, since quantitative approach prevailed. However, one could get very real personal problems for failing military acceptance, and more often it were people in charge rather than floor workers, since that's who high brass from military interacted with. Realities of Soviet manufacture everywhere made for a lot of tragic-comic stories, you can learn some from about anyone who been involved there.

A coworker at my fist job was a computer designer at a large design bureau in 1970s-1980s. Their job was mostly reverse-engineering DEC and IBM equipment (software, hardware, down to integrated circuits used) and producing blueprints for manufacturing of, accordingly, СМ-ЭВМ and ЕС lines. At some point, they had to deliver a mobile (that is, army truck mounted) computer solution for military. However, they were plagued with overheating problem, located down to a chip manufactured in (then Soviet) Estonia.

The chip was supposedly exact copy of Motorola military grade device, but failed to perform within spec. In despair the bureau located Korean facility that produced original Motorola microchips, but the chipset was already discontinued. So they had to place an order, through a KGB-controlled proxy company, for making a small run of those.

Which was great, except that new chips were coming to late. So during acceptance test, the said coworker had to sit in a room behind and fan the computer's problem area with a sheet of fiberglass. The project was accepted, Estonians managed to correct their manufacturing eventually and everyone was happy.

Why am I telling this? Because, no one in USSR would've bothered to do all that for non-military product.

Additionally, there was different range of parts and materials available for military and civilian sectors. E.g. some sorts of brass were unavailable to camera manufacture. In electronics, USSR had 7 grades of transistor quality (contrasted to 2 in the West): the better ones were prioritized for "important" applications.

It is not a whole picture of course, there been examples to contrary in both areas. But it should help understanding why Soviets could produce a perfectly capable, original battletank, or put man in the orbit, but fail to make a Lada that doesn't fall apart.

 

[zhang xk]

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.

My figures was related to a SLR camera sold at the same time although $30-40 could stilll be a lot of money in the 1960's. That was my point. People then thought that a SLR was a superior camera to a rangefinder so that they sold their beloved rangefinder cameras for a new SLR that is capable of micro, macro, astronomical, sports, wild life, etc. These subjects would be difficult for a rangefinder camera no matter how precision they were made, and how sharp their lenses are. I may not necessariely share the same opinion, because each type has its own best applications.

As for rangefinder cameras, I always think a Contax II,or a Kiev II is among the best ever made. They may have some short-comings compared to a camera made 20-30 years later(Leica, Nikon, Canon to name just a few), but the inconvenience is minor. They are basically the same thing. These precision cameras of older technology are like binoculars, microscopes that remain almost unchanged for almost 100 years for their performance, but has kept up with inflation for their prices. 😀 So why spent 100K for a microscope when a $300 used one could perform the same job?

 

[BrianT]

"So why spent 100K for a microscope when a $300 used one could perform the same job?"

Oh if only that were true. You state .

"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."



Many would then disagree with your opening remark. O.K. you go on in a later post to to explain why in your opinion the Pentax was MUCH superior but that is merely moving the goal posts. You then illustate you point by listing and comparing prices . A totally meaningless exercise. Comparing 10/20 year old cameras and no regard to condition to a brand new Pentaxwith an F1.4 standard lens just doesn't make much sense. If you want to compare two things ensure that the playing field is level.

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.

And the above just about takes the biscuit. You are saying that an early Kiev ll is the same as a Leica M6? WOW. I have a Kiev ll dated 1948 and I have an M6, My friend, they ain't on the same planet in any respect.

 

[rxmd]

"So why spent 100K for a microscope when a $300 used one could perform the same job?"

Oh if only that were true.

I think it is. If a $300 used microscope can perform the same job (which is Zhang's premise), there is no point in spending $100K for a used one. I don't think this can be argued at all, unless you're selling microscopes. Of course the $100K one will do a lot of extra stuff, and will be better at doing other jobs, but if you don't need those, it's OK not to spend the money. I have a Leica, but I don't think I've taken a picture with it yet where I couldn't have done with a Kiev instead. (On the other hand, I have taken pictures with a Kiev where a Leica would have been too noisy, but that's another story discussed elsewhere already.)

Concerning the factory worker argument, a Kiev was usually a perfectly capable picture taker, but a new Pentax was still seen as a much more progressive and modern camera. If you make adequate but outdated stuff, you'll be less motivated than if you make top notch stuff. So I see no contradiction there either.

You are saying that an early Kiev ll is the same as a Leica M6? WOW. I have a Kiev ll dated 1948 and I have an M6, My friend, they ain't on the same planet in any respect.

I think they are. I have a partly broken 1949 Kiev. I also have an M5. Of course the M5 is a much better camera, but that's kind of a non-argument; by the same argument an EOS 5D is or isn't "better" than an M6. The Kiev presently doesn't compare because it's sixty years old, its technology is thirty years older, and it's partly broken. But for a 1949 camera the Kiev was top notch. If you take into account the service life, it does compare to a 1939 Contax II, and it does compare to an M3; it does the job, it's much cheaper to get into top notch shape again, and this kind of comparison is notoriously prone to subjective value judgments and methodical errors anyway. Technically we aren't comparing cameras here, we're comparing camera preferences, and that's an exercise that can only be taken so far. That's just my own opinion.

Philipp

 

[BrianT]

We shall agree to differ, it'll save a lot of time.

 

[BrianT]

We shall agree to differ, it'll save a lot of time. :bang:

 

[BrianT]

We shall agree to differ, it'll save time.:bang:

 

[rxmd]

Hey Brian,

OK... and I understood you the first time 😉

Philipp

 

[zhang xk]

Hi Philipp,

Thanks! I often compare my Kiev 4 to a Carl Zeiss Jena Apochromt 100/1.32 objective that I bought very cheap but in like new condition. Today an APO 100x objective made by one of the famous companies could cost 5K USD. Yet they perform the same job. That is my point. I don't think a lever wind, a brighter finder, and a somewhat better finish is that important for a rangefinder camera. But that is only me. I could settle for an early Kiev 4A with no problems.😀

Kind Regards

Zhang