View Full Version : Kiev 4. Nice.
My Kiev 4 came the other day. Took a few test shots, looking for light leaks, meter out of whack, rangefinder alignment issues, whatever. I had been led to expect some issues based on the large number of people reporting "quality issues" concerning FSU cameras. My particular model is apparently a Kiev 4 with a J-8M 53/2, dating from 1979. I developed the two short test rolls tonight.
Wow. I'm impressed. Quality control issues my ass. For starters, the finish on the camera is is fine shape, hardly any noticeable wear. The vulcanite(?) looks like it might possibly have been replaced in the last few years, but maybe not. The rangefinder takes a bit of getting used to, as does the grip, but damn. Well worth it. Accurate, and easy to use if you forgo the focusing wheel for the most part. My Canonet is hardly worth carrying around anymore, IMHO. The Kiev's ability to focus precisely over a relatively big range is a huge improvement over the Canonet, as is the quality of the Jupiter-8M.
My only real complaint is the difficulty of changing aperture when the infinity lock is not engaged, especially without changing focus inadvertantly. Not a big deal, I just need to set aperture prior to setting focus. The meter readout on top of the camera instead of the rear is a minor hassle, as it would be nice to read the meter when the camera is in the taking position.
To be fair, my Minolta SRT101 always seemed to take far better photos than the Canonet, but that seemed reasonable given the differences in the cameras. But now I know that the Canonet is just the "cheap" camera it always seemed next to the SRT101 - it isn't a function of the rangefinder design. Don't get me wrong, it is a fine piece of kit, but the Kiev shows it to be what it is - an OK shooter at best. Those folks at Zeiss/Contax knew what they were doing, and the talented crafts-comrades (:)) at Arsenal knew their stuff as well.
My hat's off to the fine folks of the Kiev factories. :bow:
Jamie123
09-02-2006, 02:24
To be fair, one has to keep in mind that when people complain about quality control issues they don't necessarily mean that the camera is bad per se but rather that the quality between two cameras of the same model can vary greatly.
That being said, I don't know anything about FSU cameras and have never used or held one. I'm quite interested in getting one, though! My next camera purchase will probably be either a FSU rangefinder or a Rollei 35T. However, I'm still recovering from buying that Hassy kit :)
I think it is important to realize that there are plenty of cameras on ebay in rough shape, with peeling covering, dinged and corroded lens barrels, scratched elements, etc. It's like buying a used car - you don't buy one that leaks oil, engine knocking, and is rusted out, then complain that quality is crap, or you look like an idiot. If you buy the cheapest FSU camera you can find on an auction site, you should expect exactly what you pay for. The fact you might have bought a parts camera is not an indictment of quality, but of your purchasing savvy.
I bought mine after passing on tens of models with obvious issues visible in the pictures - issues from lack of care. I'm not in any position to know if they all left the factory like mine, but the fact that mine exists leads me to believe that they were constructed with care. What are the odds I'd get the only camera that was well-made in 1979, versus the odds mine is simply a typical example, and you just hear people complain when they made a poor choice/got burned?
Living in the US, I am fully aware that there has been a whole lot of unfair generalizations against the then-Soviet world shoveled out for the last half century for political reasons, very little of which was true. Again, like cars - people constantly slam American car quality, yet year after year, survey after survey, companies like Cadillac and Buick finish in the top ten brands in America for quality. People get it in their head that something is somehow inferior, and point to a particular example as proof, ignoring all the fine examples that would put the lie to their argument. Superstitions are the same way - you forget all the times it turned out false, and only remember the times it seemed true.
I've always purchased good examples of FSU camera or lenses from *ebay regardless of the price. Am I lucky or are the quality control rumors false? From my experiences I'd say I'm fortunate to have gotten things that hasn't been tampered with by anyone who didn't know what they were doing.
Living in the US, I am fully aware that there has been a whole lot of unfair generalizations against the then-Soviet world shoveled out for the last half century for political reasons, very little of which was true. Again, like cars - people constantly slam American car quality, yet year after year, survey after survey, companies like Cadillac and Buick finish in the top ten brands in America for quality. People get it in their head that something is somehow inferior, and point to a particular example as proof, ignoring all the fine examples that would put the lie to their argument. Superstitions are the same way - you forget all the times it turned out false, and only remember the times it seemed true.
Don't mean to hijack this thread. My buddies have stopped asking me for advice on cars in recent years. :p I've always suggested domestic vehicles because of what you mentioned above.
Some men are Baptists, others Catholics, I'm an Oldsmobile man. (Slightly tweeked quote from A Christmas Story). :)
captainslack
09-02-2006, 08:02
My only real complaint is the difficulty of changing aperture when the infinity lock is not engaged, especially without changing focus inadvertantly. Not a big deal, I just need to set aperture prior to setting focus.
I find if you hold your finger on the focus wheel while setting the aperature, it tends to hold the lens in place.
PhotoJim
09-02-2006, 08:14
I just got a Kiev 4a a couple of weeks ago and I too am impressed with it. I already like it better than most of my Feds and Zorkis. It just ... feels good, really. Hopefully the images it produces are commensurate with how I feel while using the camera.
guinness
09-02-2006, 08:35
I have 3 Kiev 4's; a 1959, a 1960, and a 1972 model. The curtains on the '59 are stuck, but usuable for parts otherwise, the 1960 had a very stiff focus wheel, but I tore that apart, as I could salvage it, and it's fine otherwise, but the 1972 model is in excellent shape - almost no brassing, clean, leather is in like new condition, tight focus with my J-3, and even has a 1/4" tripod mount. :)
I will say, that the eariler Kiev's are finished much nicer however.
My J-12 from 1970 on the other hand... :(
Zorkiiglaza
09-02-2006, 08:40
I have used most of the Kiev rangefinder cameras over the past decade and have found few problems with any of them. Never buy a lens with a dented filter ring unless you have a replacement lens.
I personally like the 4AM with its hotshoe flash. I have used almost all of the available FSU lenses with the exception of the Orion- -too expensive for my blood unless I get one in trade.
Gotta agree with some of the comments above. Both my 4A and my 4AM are in great shape and are very nice shooters. What an incredible way to be able to put together a complete interchangeable-lens rangefinder kit for not a whole lot of money.
-Randy
I was told for years that Russian cameras/lens were trash so I never tried them. Several months ago I came across some photos taken with a Kiev and desided to try one. My first was a 4am. I now have 2 Kiev 4a's with J-8, J-12, J-9, and J-11 lens..
None of these cameras came to me with problems. In fact the only thing I have done to them is to replace the channel light trap seal.
Spyderman
09-03-2006, 06:54
I played with just one Kiev so far, and I immediately fell in love with it... I gotta have one. Or two :) It's definitely true they feel better than Zorkis and Feds...
If only the focussing was the same direction :(
I played with just one Kiev so far, and I immediately fell in love with it... I gotta have one. Or two :) It's definitely true they feel better than Zorkis and Feds...
If only the focussing was the same direction :(
Quality wise I believe they are made better than Feds or Zorkis. While they are all good cameras the Kiev was based on a high quality proven German camera.
However I'm not getting rid of my Feds or Zorkis. :eek:
picp2601
09-04-2006, 09:25
I am interrested in purchasing a Kiev 4.
Anybody bought theirs directly from http://www.kievcamera.com?
Mister_Hat
09-04-2006, 09:42
No experience with Kiev Camera. I buy my 'shooters' from Fedka. (http://www.fedka.com/catalog) IMHO, the best dealer in FSU gear.
What is the best Kiev variant?
Mister_Hat
09-04-2006, 17:58
I only have a Kiev 4 and a Kiev 4AM. The 4 is smoother in winding, but the separate take-up spool can be a bit of a pain and the meter stuck on top makes it feel 'clunky.' The AM has a fixed take-up spool. Winding on the AM feels gritty, but it seems to work o.k. Betwen the two of them, the AM gets more use.
Realistically, the basic design stayed pretty much the same through all the variations, with the biggest difference being metered/ meterless. Personally, I'd go for one without the meter (it probably won't work anyway.) You'll pay a premium for an older model, so if you're looking a user, go with a 4A or a 4AM and spend the difference on film.
My 2 cents...
David Murphy
09-04-2006, 18:13
Here's what I'd like to know: How does a Kiev compare to a real Contax ? Has anyone owned and used both? I used to have a Kiev 4 and it was a very decent camera for the money -- a little rough in some ways, but reliable. I am now considering a Contax II or IIa.
What is the best Kiev variant?
I have 2 Kiev 4a's and plan to buy a 2a soon.
What is the best Kiev variant?
Common wisdom is that the older the better for Kiev's so the 2 or 3.
My 3a is my current favorite camera.
Here's what I'd like to know: How does a Kiev compare to a real Contax ? Has anyone owned and used both?
I owned a Contax II several years ago and currently own 2 4a's.
Overall handling is about the same.
The coated Jupiter lens are in my opinion excellent optics. They are based on the pre-war Zeiss lens for the Contax II and III which were uncoated. My old Zeiss lens were somewhat prone to flare but I have not noticed that problem with the Jupiter lens..
It's no news that the Russians highjacked the Zeiss company - and some of its enloyees. After reading so many comments about FSU cameras though, I've come to the conclusion that the quality may depend on how much vodka the comrades consumed the night before.
As to Bill's question about the best alternative for a Kiev (of which I have three), the easy answer is -- a Contax. But they do cost more.
darkkavenger
09-05-2006, 08:54
My favourite flavor of Kiev RF is the model 2 or 2A, though a III / IIIa can be sexy as well :)
manfromh
09-05-2006, 10:26
I have a Kiev 4a. When I first got it, i didnt like its size or the focus wheel. But now, few months later, I just have to pick it up everyday. The size doesnt bother me anymore and screw the focus wheel. And i think its beautiful. I just need to calibrate the rangefinder and find a take up spool, then i can finally shoot with it.
I've had a 4a and I currently have a 4am. I have owned a Contax IIIa and comparing the two cameras directly, the Contax was clearly built to a higher standard - it wasn't close.
However, a Contax kit with a 35 and a 50 with an external finder can run $700 - the Kiev with a 35 and a 50 (ok, 53) with a Soviet finder cost me a grand total of $97. Even if there were differences in the quality of the photos each was capable of making, (the Sonnar is better than the Helios), I am not good enough to exploit it often enough to justify the extra cost -- so the Contax is gone and the Kiev remains.
I don't think the fit and finish of the Kiev is anything special - dials and such are roughly finished and there are literally gaps where metal parts are supposed to fit flush. None of it affects the photo-taking ability of the camera so I don't mind. (And for $97, I REALLY don't mind.)
Summary - the quality is a clear step below some other makes. The bang for your buck, though, is off the charts. It's almost addicting - I take the Kiev anywhere and everywhere - I have an M3 kit and the Kiev sees more use, basically, because it's not only a stellar performer, but given it's replacement value, I don't mind putting it in harm's way.
The only real annoyance in my mind is the fiddly nature of the lens' adjustments - fairly easy to knock the aperture when you're using the focusing ring and not the focusing wheel. When it happens, you know it, so you won't blow an exposure, but it's something you have to be mindful of when using the camera.
The 'Contax' grip becomes second nature pretty quickly and the focusing wheel is easy enough to use or ignore, depending on your preference.
All in all, I highly recommend the Kiev.
burninfilm
09-05-2006, 11:45
I've had several Contax cameras, including a Contax II, Contax III, and Contax IIIa. I agree with previous statements that the Contax is built to a MUCH higher set of quality standards. Where you see maching marks on a Kiev, you see nice, smooth surfaces on the Contax. I'm not saying that the Kiev is shoddily built as a general rule, just that the Contax is generally a better built camera. In addition to the Contax II I currently have (I sold the Contax III and IIIa a while back) I use a Kiev 4a and "No-Name" Kiev. The "No-Name" is an very nice camera, well finished, and with a smooth winding and focusing action. However, this camera was used very little, and is in excellent condition. My 4a is rather ugly, but it has been CLA'd recently, and though not as smooth in focusing or winding as the "No-Name", it still works great and takes fantastic pictures. The Carl Zeiss Sonnar that originally came with the "No-Name" does perform better than the Jupiter-8 on the Kiev, but the difference isn't significant. Currently, my Contax II is out for repair, and after it is returned, I'll have about $300 invested in it. I bought my CLA'd 4a with the 50mm J-8, 35mm J-12 w/ finder, and 85mm J-9 w/ finder, all for $150. Bang for the buck? You bet!
A contax is a collectors piece and the silk ribbon is more difficult to obtain. The price for a contax can overlap with a Kiev (in UK), depends on condition, and year. It is very difficult to get a pre war lens that is not ground glass.
A contax (apart from finish) is not really diffirent from a Kiev 48-52, the chrome is different but you need to have one in each hand to tell the difference. A prewar sonnar collapsibe has one more screw than a ZK47. The sonnar will be cheaper as well.
I have a Kiev 4a. When I first got it, i didnt like its size or the focus wheel. But now, few months later, I just have to pick it up everyday. The size doesnt bother me anymore and screw the focus wheel. And i think its beautiful. I just need to calibrate the rangefinder and find a take up spool, then i can finally shoot with it.
Alex-photo on ebay has original Kiev take-up spools. He's quick to deliver and highly recommended..
Do a search on ebay.
manfromh
09-06-2006, 00:18
Alex-photo on ebay has original Kiev take-up spools. He's quick to deliver and highly recommended..
Do a search on ebay.
I dont use ebay. Shipping is so expensive and i dont have a credit card.
Mister_Hat
09-06-2006, 03:10
If you look here (http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/kievspool.jpg) at Rick Oelson's site you can find Henry Fisher's description of how to make a Kiev take-up spool from an old 35mm spool. I've done it... it works fine.
manfromh
09-06-2006, 04:37
If you look here (http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/kievspool.jpg) at Rick Oelson's site you can find Henry Fisher's description of how to make a Kiev take-up spool from an old 35mm spool. I've done it... it works fine.
Thanks. Ill give it a try.
ErnestoJL
09-06-2006, 22:19
I´m owner of a Contax II made in 1937 and a Kiev 4 made in 1966. I bought first the Kiev back in 1982 and the Contax in 2005. Both needed some light CLA action prior to start shooting (they were really OLD!)
Tested side by side, both are almost the same, however I must admit (as stated in some previous posts) that the Contax was made for a higher Q standard than the proletarian (not so much) Kiev.
Both performed equally well: the Kiev a little noisier than the Contax, but in terms of general performance, they are almost the same.
I have no doubt that the Contax is a very well designed camera for the time it was designed and made, but the Kiev is just a german designed camera made and assembled in the USSR.
The Russian optics are well made and I´ve some of them (not as much as I wish), however a bit lower in finishing Q than the German counterparts (aluminum barrels instead of solid brass). Glass (if well cared) is perfect and as good as original Zeiss lenses, but way cheaper.
I love both cameras, and being honest, I´d be eager to buy another one, be it either a Contax II/III or a Kiev 4/4a.
Anyway, where else can anyone find Leica quality at a bargain price??
Ernesto
micromoogman
09-07-2006, 12:05
I have a Contax III from 1938 with a Sonnar 1,5 and a Kiev 4a from 1959. I like them both. I tend to use the Kiev more as it's lighter and it's no big deal if I drop it or abuse it a little. As for the quality department it's not that much of a difference.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.