Your choice-Kiev 4 or 4a?

john341

john341

camera user
Local time
2:12 AM
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
387
Since Zeiss included an exposure meter on its III and IIIa rangefinders people have commented on the advantages or disadvantages of the meter. Lately I have read that the unmetered Kiev model is sleeker than the 4. I have two Kiev 4 cameras with accurate meters. The additional weight of the metered model is around 70gm. I love the look for the 4 (or 3) and find the meter very useful. What do you Kiev lovers think??
 
My preference is for the 4a. It is big enough as it is without the meter, which I find less than useful. I am an incident light man if I use a meter and my specimen of 4 no help there, at all. That plus I can't get any meaningful redings with mine anyway!. Yours is obviously in better shape then my meter.

Murray
 
I think lightmeter is ugly ;-) I used to have Kiev 4 some years ago. But 4a is so good looking I had temptation to get one for a long time. As there is my birthday coming I decided to have a gift for myself and just yesterday I won Kiev 4a from 1962. I'm hope it will arrive soon :)
 
4A here too. Lightmeter is ugly and the usefulness, due to age, is questionable.
Kiev 4A is damn sexy camera. But watch out that your middle finger is not in the way of rangefinder window. Due to the extreme RF base length of Kiev (Contax) the window’s at the extreme right corner of the camera and keeping your finger out of the way can be awkward.
Good luck.
 
I had wanted a Kiev with a light meter, but opted for the 4am when I got it off the 'bay at a very good price. Probably lucky since so many don't have accurate meters if they work at all. Based on the recent thread talking about making the metered Kiev's work, I may change my mind and go for that.

To me, things like that, just as cameras themselves, are tools to be used to get photos. If they look good too, so be it, but I want the tool for the job. When I got my first camera with a built in light meter, I found I liked it. That was in 1971, and I haven't changed my mind since.

I won't shy away from a camera that has no light meter it it is the right tool otherwise, but I like cameras with good working meters.
 
Another vote here for the 4A :) purely on looks. The meter on my (now broken) Kiev4 is reasonably accurate in daylight (after cleaning beneath the calculator panel) but I prefer "sunny 11" when using FSU cameras.
 
My first Kiev was a very nice '67 vintage 4a and I thought for a long time that the metered Kievs didn't look very good. And that the meters seemed to be fairly useless was just one more reason to prefer the 4a. But, I got a "Contax"--a repainted Kiev 4 and two things were quickly evident: the meter housing isn't nearly as large in real life at it always seemed to me in the pictures I'd seen and the meter on my example works well enough to be useful. Especially since my optometrist convinced me to try "transitions" lenses--they are what used to be called photo gray--my sunny 16 is a little off since I started wearing them.
So, if I had to choose, my choice would be based on condition more than anything else.
Rob
 
I got both, the K4a is sleeker and prettier yes, but that meter is so small and handy on the K4, and you do not have to carry a separate meter, or to remember to bring one along .

I find the extendable rewind knob more practical on the K4 for quicker rewinds without losing your grip on it.

so my walk around choice is the K4.
 
I have a black Kiev 4A. Love it, sleek, sleek, sleek.

But I also like my Contax IIIa with it's meter, smooth, smooth, smooth :D
 
I love selenium meters and the look of the Kiev 4 . Both my Oleg sourced Kiev 4 and 4m have new cells and are perfectly useful under normal conditons ....
Though I suspect that my Dad's Praktina SLR with it's oblong waist level finder , which makes the Kiev 4 look '' right '' !
 
Incidentally , I am eagerly awaiting my restored Contax III from Ukraine - with new meter cell !
Sublime 30s elegance .
 
Looks like the meterless Kiev is the winner.I just had my two 4's serviced by Eddy Smolov and the two meters give same readings and compare favourably with my han-deld meter so with my lovely K4 I don't need my WestomMaster. Love those Kievs, long based r/f and all. Greetings to all...John B
 
I use a metered Kiev 4 with slow film, a meterless 4A with fast film. The meter has a low end beyond which it is not useful, so it seems silly to load it with film that really only has an advantage in the low end of light.

I like them both. The metered Kiev/Contax is an elegant thing, the meterless is one step simpler.
 
Last edited:
All true, my one exception in the last model Kiev with or without meter. I have had three 4A(m) cameras and they were all rubbish. The built in takeup spool is flimsy and breaks easily. The J12 lens fitted two but not the third. They were true train-wrecks.
 
personally, I'd go for the 4a, I have a IIa and a 4, and the meter in the 4 is pretty dead, it makes the camera look ugly imho.
 
I have a kiev 3a and 3- kiev 4a's all with working and accurate meters for Kievs. the meter does come in handy sometimes, mainly for getting a good general idea of the light and than estimating f stop and shutter speed from there- bright , very bright etc.... but for precision light readings, I use a hand held meter or the meter in my Nilkon SLR's general appearances of these cameras- the Kiev 3a and 4a have a very funky and retro look to them and Kiev 2 and 4s have a very leicaish look to them. I definitlely get more comments on the 4a's- Like look at that funky old camera!!!!! -M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom