Late Kiev -are they THAT poor ?

[dee]

Just a thought-I love my Kiev IIs and ex-Arsenal rebuilt Kontaxes but - I have been exercising my mint boxed TOE , UK import , Kiev 4a against a recently rebuilt Contax II ex-rat camera .
This , of course , is one of those that got away to be re-lubricated and sorted by the importer , so is as good as was possible to buy.

Somehow , I always think of a 1979 camera as 'new' so it's a shock to recognise that it is 35 years old .

The engraving/stamping is crude, but the finish is no worse that a Praktica SLR of the period .

It's a touch stiff now , but the controls work perfectly and the shutter snaps quietly at all speeds.

I also have a couple of ex-Oleg Kiev 4/4m of the period one of which was played around with to experiment with a silver finish and tan leather and currently needs cosmetic TLC , and another 1979 Kiev 4 which was advised to be a UK import .
They also work perfectly. Indeed Oleg recommended later Kievs as less likely to have been messed with .

Maybe it's more about the poor construction which , when properly sorted actually forms a fine classic camera .

dee

 

[hamradio]

I think some confuse poor construction in with overall poor condition. The general thought toward FSU gear seems to be that if it's broken, just buy another and throw the first away, because it's all so cheap. Higher-value gear gets sent off for a CLA, which in most instances, costs far more than a piece of FSU gear. I think that gear sitting around for decades will universally be a crapshoot--be it Leica, Contax, Kiev, etc.

I have two screwmount leica bodies, both pristine cosmetically. Both also happen to have trashed shutter curtains. I recently took in a late Contax II. I compared bits and pieces during disassembly with a '67 Kiev 4a (from when quality supposedly took a dive). The exterior chrome, fit and finish, etc. all look the same as the Contax II on my bench.

Basically, I don't think the FSU stuff itself is really any more prone to unreliability than a similarly-neglected piece of higher end gear. I did notice some definite finish differences on internal pieces of a Kiev 60 from the late 80s when compared to an '82 Kiev 6s, but functionality was still identical and the differences were purely cosmetic, like more pronounced mill cutter marks on bits of aluminum. This stuff sure offers a hell of a value when it's working properly, and is capable of some very unique images.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Late Kiev is 4 M, AM. I had one just for curiosity on this RF family.
Nothing really bad, but I have to fix numerous light leaks.

But the story of late Kievs RFs I read n Russian is in many of them left factory in not working condition.

 

[BillBingham2]

Gotta tell you Ko.Fe., that is one beautiful camera the 4 M.

B2 (;->

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Trouble is we are talking of cameras that are old and may not have have been used since digital appeared. Worse still, a lot of people think they are easily repaired at home and go ahead and wreck them. And they are cheap and people don't care about things with a low price tag. And people who "know nothing about cameras" sell them regardless...

My 2d worth is that there may have been a few duds and these are the ones we'll hear about on forums.

What often amazes me is the number of people who know the quality is low but haven't visited the factory, nor talked with the staff there but have read about it on a forum...

Regards, David

PS I never noticed any difference between my Kiev 2, 4a and the Contax II apart from the price; both Kievs were second-hand and worked OK the Contax tapes failed expensively.

 

[oftheherd]

...

But the story of late Kievs RFs I read n Russian is in many of them left factory in not working condition.

I have only owned one, a Kiev 4am with 84 date. The top shutter doesn't close on slow speeds now. I think I know the fix but haven't gotten to it yet. What I have read is that about the 80's the quality started back up. But I haven't talked to a lot of people who own them, nor have I owned any others myself, so I don't know.

As to Ko.Fe. above, I don't recall where now, but I recall hearing of a former Russian resident, talking about the government, saying "The government pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work."

 

[Pioneer]

Two Kiev 4 cameras have arrived at my door, one with a meter and one without. Both continue to work just fine, meter included. Because of that neither has been taken apart but the outside appearance is nice.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
As to Ko.Fe. above, I don't recall where now, but I recall hearing of a former Russian resident, talking about the government, saying "The government pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work."

Yes, I have witnessed it as entering soviet working force at my factory practice during University.
We worked at "closed" plant for summer. A lot of old equipment which was taken from Germany after war. In very bad condition.
After few days I realized people weren't working full day. Maybe one hour, maybe two. The rest was time to kill. I remember the guy in charge was staying with his deputy in the middle of the main room. They have umbrella open and casual conversion for one hour or so. Surreal picture in my memory.
Later after relationship was established I asked why nobody working for full time during full time shifts. "We used to work hard and made more, after they have to follow with Gorbachev new policies, but all they did to us was cutting the paying rate per made unit, to keep the same salary"....

 

[btgc]

I am happy that era is over and wonder about people who want it back...what about loading my FED5...or CHAIKA][ which both had to sit for decades in drawer until they were brought into working condition.

 

[dee]

More and more interesting background .
I understand that the ex-Arsenal techs loved rebuilding my basket case Contaxes even removing the broken self timer on one for a streamlined look and stripping the paint to polish it silver .
One guy fixed a Contax III meter with new cell and parts from another Contax III as the Kiev parts are not compatible which was seriously tricky.
They also made a KNeB IV from a 1956 KIII and 1957 K4 meter plus face plate . Also , the spare Contax III body with another Kiev 4.

This is seriously non cost effective but I simply enjoyed the procedure of procuring dead cameras with the knowledge that this was a unique opportunity .
incidentally , one Contax built from parts has a brand new late Kiev shutter which , I was assured is as functional as any Kiev/Contax shutter .

The opinion of these technicians is that a Kiev is a great camera betrayed by poor construction to meet quantities , and that any Kiev can be made to work superbly within the constraints of the original complex design .

dee

 

[pschauss]

I won't claim that this is a statistically significant sample, but I have purchased five Kiev 4's over the past several years. The three oldest worked perfectly right out of the box. The two newer ones had light leaks. One of the latter was a newer Kiev 4 with the rough covering and top speed labeled as 1/1000 instead of 1/1250. The other with a light leak was a Kiev 4AM.

 

[dee]

I agree pschauss - but properly serviced etc , a late Kiev can be excellent .
dee

 

[popavvakum]

From my own very limited sample of two cameras, the quality of workmanship, assembly and parts, in 1980 Kiev-4 is significantly poorer than of a 1964 Kiev. Up to the point that one poorly machined lever meant that the 1980 camera has probably never worked as it should. Both lens are fine but the Jupiter-8M lens of 1980 seems slightly sharper - I did not do any "scientific" tests but am very pleased with it.

The very common problem of many cameras is the corrosion of internal parts; many Kiev's inner parts are made of mild steel and, if stored in loft, killed by rust. The second very common problem of this particular camera is that the lubricants harden and go sticky with age if the camera was not being exercised for several years. Cleaning and re-lubrication requires shutter removal.

 

[popavvakum]

I agree pschauss - but properly serviced etc , a late Kiev can be excellent .
dee

The construction of shutter and rangefinder seems the same between 1964 and 1980 so if there are no machining defects, there are no particular reason why should one be worse than another. Millions of those cameras were made, there should still be quite a few in rude health around.

 

[David Hughes]

Yes, I have witnessed it as entering soviet working force at my factory practice during University.
We worked at "closed" plant for summer. A lot of old equipment which was taken from Germany after war. In very bad condition.
After few days I realized people weren't working full day. Maybe one hour, maybe two. The rest was time to kill. I remember the guy in charge was staying with his deputy in the middle of the main room. They have umbrella open and casual conversion for one hour or so. Surreal picture in my memory.
Later after relationship was established I asked why nobody working for full time during full time shifts. "We used to work hard and made more, after they have to follow with Gorbachev new policies, but all they did to us was cutting the paying rate per made unit, to keep the same salary"....

Interesting, thanks. Can I ask which factory that was and when?

Regards, David

 

[tunalegs]

Of the three Kievs I have, only the late Kiev 4am works properly. But it's also the worst in terms of fit and finish.Outwardly it looks terrible. To compare it to a Praktica would be an insult to Prakticas. It's not quite as bad as the 1990s Fed 5 I had - but pretty close.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I own 3 Kiev cameras, a 1957 Kiev 2, a 1966 Kiev 4A and a 1981 Kiev 4A.

The difference in overall build quality is evident between the 3 cameras. The Kiev 2 shows an excellent level of build quality and craftsmanship. The 1966 Kiev 4 is not as carefully made, but still a good camera. The 1981 version is the least refined -- everything from the nameplate to the shutter markings and winding knob are more 'rough'.

Amazingly, I haven't had any issues with any of the 3 cameras in terms of light leaks or faulty shutters. They all work within acceptable tolerances.

Which one do I enjoy using the most? The Kiev 2. It's a beautiful camera, almost on par with the post-war Contax IIa.

Anecdotal note: a couple years ago I spoke with a local camera repairman. He grew up in post-war Poland, so he knew about life under Communism. He said that there was a certain protocol that people followed when they purchased a Soviet camera.

1. Buy the camera brand-new from the shop
2. Take the camera immediately to a repair shop to have it 'fixed'
3. Use the camera for a couple years
4. Return the camera (with original receipt, 'passport' etc.) for a new one for a nominal fee and get it 'fixed'.

He said there was a policy in place at state-owned shops that a consumer could return a camera after a couple of years of use and receive a brand-new camera basically for free. It was part of the Soviet "customer satisfaction" program. Very odd.

At any rate, it kept the grey-market camera repair shops in business for many years.

Here's a shot of my Kiev 2A, one of my fave rangefinders:

And my Contax IIa with its cousin, the Kiev 4a (1966 version):

 

[bobby_novatron]

BTW the Soviet lenses are no slouches either, the Jupiter-8 is pretty good for a 'cheap' lens, and the Helios-103 is IMHO even better.

 

[bobby_novatron]

One final glamour shot: the 1957 Kiev 2 showing the top plate engravings. You can tell I'm a big fan of the Kiev cameras! 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks to bobby_novarton for nice pictures!
Now I know which Kiev I want. Made in 1966 🙂

Behind the wall we had regular warranty.
Two years return warranty was satisfaction program from Soviet Union to Eastern Block.
My cousin went to East Germany under another satisfaction program as Red Army officer.

Interesting, thanks. Can I ask which factory that was and when?

Regards, David

"Closed" means I can't tell you, even now. 😱
Second half of eighties.
Decade or so later I went to this factory store to buy "cultivator" to use it at our dacha. My back was hurting for months every time I used it in the spring.