Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for the info -- I do think that it is a Kiev 4a. If you look at the rewind knob, it is not the same as a Contax rewind knob. Plus the serial number puts in the range of the no-name Contax serial numbers.
'No Name' Contax....
- Thread starter Vince Lupo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 11K
S.H.
Picture taker
Can't be a Contax II : the bottom of the Kiev 4 has no folding foot and a tripod screw styled like the Contax IIa. Also, the focussing wheel has no groove in the middle and the rewind knob is different without film reminder for a Contax.
On second thought, looking closely at your camera, the chrome on the faceplate is worn off, we see the brass. This is rare on Kiev but happens often on Contax : the chrome is better on the Kiev (compare it to the bottom, many scratches but no brass showing). The high magnification make the engraving more rough than it is, and it is hard to judge without having the camera in hand. So this Contax faceplate may well be an original spare part, slapped on a Kiev 4a.
On second thought, looking closely at your camera, the chrome on the faceplate is worn off, we see the brass. This is rare on Kiev but happens often on Contax : the chrome is better on the Kiev (compare it to the bottom, many scratches but no brass showing). The high magnification make the engraving more rough than it is, and it is hard to judge without having the camera in hand. So this Contax faceplate may well be an original spare part, slapped on a Kiev 4a.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yeah that's what I'm thinking -- this might be a conglomeration of Contax and Kiev parts, but the 63xxxxx serial number puts it in that 'no name' range.
Don't know if the lens is one of those 'leftovers' that I've read about in some of those earlier links that you guys provided, or if the lens has nothing to do with this body.
Don't know if the lens is one of those 'leftovers' that I've read about in some of those earlier links that you guys provided, or if the lens has nothing to do with this body.
S.H.
Picture taker
I'd say it has nothing to do: seems like the "leftovers" were mostly postwar lenses, Zeiss-Opton or Zeiss Jena (East German). But it is hard to give a definite answer. The "no name" Contax is a gray area almost by definition (as if the story of the Kiev/Contax wasn't confusing enough 😛).
Grytpype
Well-known
There's two types of Contax logo. Somewhere in the 'F' prefix serial number range the script changed slightly and the cross-bar on the 't' moved lower.
I agree that it does look engraved, but the brassing definitely looks very 'Contax'!
Edit: Pic. of early & late Contax scripts added.
there are at least two versions of this camera.
the Jena version made right after the war in Russia with Zeiss parts and tooling -- worth bucks
and the much more common no name Kiev from the early 1980's. Those were sold off for $99 while supplies lasted.
Stephen
Vince Lupo
Whatever
What about the ones that were made in '63 and '64? I was thinking that this was one of those. Or am I mistaken?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
If there ever was a no-name Kiev from the 1980's, I must have missed it - which would be a bit strange, as post 1989 German flea markets were crammed with any variation of Kiev ever made or faked.
The so called no-name Kiev was (presumably) made in 1963 (as evident by the 63 serials). By the way, I encountered none of these at GDR or USSR dealers after the fall of the wall, which supports the notion that they were a batch originally made for export to the West.
Whether post war un-engraved cameras can be considered a regular variation is another question - these do seem to have various origins and variations. Personally I'd count them under freaks and flaws, they certainly weren't made in series.
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
Vince,
Your camera body has all the signs of being a No Name Contax from 1963 except of course the name on the front plate. With a camera that is 50 years old, no one can tell what may or may not be original. So enjoy it, use it and don't worry about its pedigree.
Bill
Your camera body has all the signs of being a No Name Contax from 1963 except of course the name on the front plate. With a camera that is 50 years old, no one can tell what may or may not be original. So enjoy it, use it and don't worry about its pedigree.
Bill
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I think it's a pretty neat camera -- I have a roll of XP2 in it now, and hopefully will put it through its paces tomorrow.
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
Vince,
With the Sonnar lens you definitely need to use a lens hood (sun shade) or your hand as a shade. I've been using a similar pre-war Sonnar since 1968 and have always found this helpful.
If you find you want to keep using the camera a new take-up spool or a Contax Casette used as a take up spool would be worth getting. Some times the casetes are cheaper than the spools. The spool shown with the camera is a homemade one and may not give satisfactory results. Its flanges are too small.
When using these cameras set your f-stop and shutter speed prior to focusing. Otherwise you may shift your focus when setting the f-stop.
Bill
With the Sonnar lens you definitely need to use a lens hood (sun shade) or your hand as a shade. I've been using a similar pre-war Sonnar since 1968 and have always found this helpful.
If you find you want to keep using the camera a new take-up spool or a Contax Casette used as a take up spool would be worth getting. Some times the casetes are cheaper than the spools. The spool shown with the camera is a homemade one and may not give satisfactory results. Its flanges are too small.
When using these cameras set your f-stop and shutter speed prior to focusing. Otherwise you may shift your focus when setting the f-stop.
Bill
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for the advice Bill -- I have a 40.5 thread lens hood (actually I have a few!), so that's no problem. And like you, I've been using Contaxes and Kievs for a number of years (though admittedly only since about 1990), so I'm familiar with the 'routine', as it were. I hate to admit this though, but I actually find the Kievs a bit more interesting than the Contaxes (can't really explain why), though I do have a soft spot for the Contax I and II. I do have another Kiev (a III from 1954) that's been in my collection since 1990. Hopefully this recent acquisition will goad me into using it more as well.
I'll try to run that roll of XP2 through the camera today and post some shots, if any of them are of any worth.
Oh, and as far as the takeup spool goes, it worked out fine -- though I did have to wrap the leader around the spool a bit more than usual. You're right though, a better replacement spool is a good idea.
I'll try to run that roll of XP2 through the camera today and post some shots, if any of them are of any worth.
Oh, and as far as the takeup spool goes, it worked out fine -- though I did have to wrap the leader around the spool a bit more than usual. You're right though, a better replacement spool is a good idea.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Highway 61
Revisited
What you have is a regular production 1963 Kiev 4A with a genuine 1936-1937 Contax II frontplate installed on it. I don't even think it's been made off a "no name Contax".
The lens front element looks suspiscious to me. It looks coated and has a well known dark purple colour, but there is no red T on the front namering. As it's very easy to install a Jupiter-8 coated front element on a genuine Sonnar (to replace a scratched original front element), I'd suspect that. Might be an aftermarket coating of the original front element as well, but given that the camera body was faked...
Vince Lupo
Whatever
So how does one tell the difference between one of the 'no name' cameras and one of the 'regular production' Kievs? In looking at some of the 'no names' on various websites, a few of them are in the same general serial number range as this one (637xxxx), so I don't see why this wouldn't be included in that 'no name' batch.
As far as the coated element goes, the rear element appears to be coated as well. Did pre-War coated Sonnars have their rear elements coated?
As far as the coated element goes, the rear element appears to be coated as well. Did pre-War coated Sonnars have their rear elements coated?
Highway 61
Revisited
Some did but in this case there was a red T engraved on the front namering because they were post-1938 factory coated lenses.
You should have that lens taken apart and looked at by someone who could tell you which optical elements are inside the barrel... you may very well have an original Sonnar that got aftermarket coated but given that it found its way to land on a faked Kiev eventually... ahem.
My assertion about the camera being a regular prod. Kiev 4A comes from the fact that a "no name Contax" wouldn't have been faked using a genuine Contax II frontplate. Even for people (that is, everybody now) knowing that the "no name Contax" is actually a Kiev 4A, the camera would hold up more collecting value "as is", with its "no name" frontplate. Also, the "USSR occupied Germany" engraving usually found on the rear trim of the top cover isn't there.
As for the serial number on the accessory shoe you can't know if it matches the rest of the camera. Yes there isn't any "CCCP" engraving but not all Kievs had it.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Nobody seems to know - Kievs are easy to date by serial, but there is no (published) production log which would identify batches. That your camera is between recorded no-name numbers might mean that it started out as a no-name as well, but it might just as well mean that one out of four (or whatever) cameras in that range was a no-name. The latter is indeed a bit more likely, as a no-name is no very likely base for a fake - questions of collectability aside (which may have been different at the time and in the location the fake was made) the bulk of Kiev faking seems to have occurred in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the FSU, and the no-names seem to have been exported to the West in their entity, so that only few archive samples and re-imports would have been available for a fake.
Zeiss coatings always were supposed to be on all glass/air surfaces. But your lens serial places it in 1937, too early for a coating. And that purplish tint of the coating points to the fifties or sixties and the USSR as the place where the coating was applied - which pretty much excludes a after-market coating as well.
Given the above and that the camera is not what it pretends to be, my guess is that the lens is a fake as well. Not that Kievs of that period and their lenses are undesirable...
Bar8barian
Established
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
These were wet coated - with a entirely different (faint streaky or "rainbow") look and nowadays usually a bare patch on the centre of the front element, as it did easily wipe off.
Bar8barian
Established
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Similar threads
