View Full Version : Kiev year of production vs. quality
Spyderman
09-07-2007, 11:35
About a week ago I've been on a vacation and in a small used camera store I bought me a nice Kiev 4 from 1971 (still leather covering and the old style self-timer).
Right now I'm working on its "intestines" :D
What I noticed right from the beginning (and much more at diassembly process) is, that this camera seems to be MUCH better assembled than my 2 later 1975 Kiev 4a's. Every screw was really easy to unscrew, everything went apart easier...
There must be something about the early Kievs... And if the 50's Kiev 2 and 3's are that much better than the Kiev-4's, then I'm sure they are worth every cent they cost.
What is your experience with Kiev "quality" (smoothness, loudness, reliability, feel) versus the year it was manufactured?
edit: another thing I noticed is that the shutter mechanism was full of dirt and film chips, but still worked smoother than my other 2 Kievs... I hope after cleaning it will be even better...
TVphotog
09-07-2007, 11:44
My 73 is a nice camera. The shutter was nice and smooth until the ribbons gave way. The 63 shutter that I replaced it with is just as smooth, but a bit harder to switch speeds as you get to the slower ones. I have a 56, but it was in terrible shape when I got it and is in the middle of a complete tear down and repaint. I have a '50 coming and will give a full report when it arrives.
I have a '55 or '56 Kiev2a that is superb. Operation is very, very smooth. I also have a mid 70's 4a, that isn't too bad, but it's not in the same league as the 2a. I haven't taken either one apart, but just using them the difference in quality is apparent.
The build of the 2a is, in my mind, very close to what I'd expect from a vintage Leica or Nikon. Maybe not quite that good, but close to it.
I'm waiting to get my 1949 Kiev back from repairs, then we can talk :)
My other Kiev is a 1984 4AM, and while certainly not a champion of build quality, it's not a bad camera either. I guess there was some variation even then.
Incidentally, what happened to the "Pass the RF" FED?
Hi Ondrej,
I think that kiev 1971 is an off spring of the good decade of the sixties, from which I like to crop my samples.
I have had a bad experience with a 56 Fedka 2a, as daily shooter. Fedka was not guilty, but the camera started to extinguish. Nevertheless I have not passed these decade cameras under my treatment, so I have no practical experience of real value. The same with Kievs from the seventies.
I have not yet surgered cameras from the sixties, but after buying some 4 of them, i must say that they come in quite satisfactory condition, making them a real bargain for around $50. Not perfect, but very good relative condition. Seems as the most simple to fix.
But I have treated 4am's and the situation here is controversial. You really see there outside and inside, cheapened parts and endemic misadjusting (which you can fix), mixed with a more functional design provided by the winding knob, giving you the posibility to clearly read speed from avobe, then the rewind knob and the hot shoe. These cameras cannot but remember me Gorbatchev. Right now I have finnished my first "prototype" of advanced quality, which I will be daily carrying and see how long it lasts.
Right from DVD these cameras came fully working, but in somewhat crude way. Black versions near the hundred dollars.
The winding knob of the 4am, and all what it is beyond, can be softened almost like previous models, yet not to the same level. But the difference is more for collectors than for users. For us it can be softened for more than we need. Yet the last stage of the winding, when the curtains rise, the feeling of the knob is like those old table clocks when you winded their gear. But again this is very very negligible.
I have heavily invested in the Kievs 4am, to change their front plates into black ones, painting, puting those old chromed self timer buttons, changing the re-wind knob into those of the Olympus RD ($15 each) and the oldest Kiev cases which suit the 4am as a glove.
So far what I know.
Cheers,
Ruben
zhang xk
09-07-2007, 18:32
IMHO, 70's Kievs are still worth every penny of the $50 or so price, but a nice early Kiev is an even better deal. Those 60's Kiev 4s are the same precision top grade cameras such as Contax 3A. Kiev price was reduced from RMB1,250 for early version to RMB 600+ for later ones in China in1970's. So I guess They were not sold at the same price when new in USSR. I remember their prices were printed on some instruction manuals. They were much more expensive than a Zorki 4 or Fed 3 when new. all my early Kievs are better finished, and are very smooth except that there seems a quality drop for 1954's Kiev 2s. The numbers are not as well engraved as other early Kievs.:D
Spyderman
09-09-2007, 04:16
I know it's generally known that earlier Kievs are of higher quality andbetter finish, but I meant to say, that it surprised me, that within 4 years (1971-1975) the manufacturing standard could drop so much! This '71 Kiev was much much better finished than the 2 from '75.
I think I'm gonna find the earliest Kiev 4a... (yes 4 - because I don't like the bottom locks on 2 and 3 :rolleyes:)
I know it's generally known that earlier Kievs are of higher quality andbetter finish, but I meant to say, that it surprised me, that within 4 years (1971-1975) the manufacturing standard could drop so much! This '71 Kiev was much much better finished than the 2 from '75.
I think I'm gonna find the earliest Kiev 4a... (yes 4 - because I don't like the bottom locks on 2 and 3 :rolleyes:)
I've read an interesting suggestion that in the first years of the 70s the original Zeiss-trained staff from the 40s had either reached retirement age or been promoted off the shop-floor and into other sections of the Arsenal works, thus changing the skills base and working culture of the RF production line.
Cheers, Ian
rick oleson
09-09-2007, 15:29
I have two Kievs, a 1963 '4' and a 1984 '4am'. The 1963 is certainly more nicely finshed, but the 1984 is every bit as good for a user. I have heard that there were serious quality problems around 1980 or so, don't have any way to prove that.... and I have seen one 4AM with gears so loose that it couldn't be made to work (don't recall the serial number on that one).
Let's not forget, that we are talking about manual cameras from 30 and more years ago. There is the previous users factor here, more than in an semiautomatic camera, because the how do you use or abuse or refix or dis-fix plays an important role too.
We all know that from time to time some of us have gotten the miracle of getting a Kiev in pristine virgin state and then...heaven itself.
Finnally take notice that upon looking at eBay Kievs, I cannot but notice that a high process of canibalization is taking place, specially regarding the models 2a.
Cheers,
Ruben
darkkavenger
09-09-2007, 16:39
Hello Ruben, could you elaborate about what you mean by "cannibalization" ? I can't grab the meaning correctly (my english is sometimes not sufficient enough)
Thanks & cheers!
max
zhang xk
09-09-2007, 19:33
Let's not forget, that we are talking about manual cameras from 30 and more years ago. There is the previous users factor here, more than in an semiautomatic camera, because the how do you use or abuse or refix or dis-fix plays an important role too.
We all know that from time to time some of us have gotten the miracle of getting a Kiev in pristine virgin state and then...heaven itself.
Finnally take notice that upon looking at eBay Kievs, I cannot but notice that a high process of canibalization is taking place, specially regarding the models 2a.
Cheers,
Ruben
Hello Ruben,
Do you mean some 2as are faked with 4as?
Cheers,
Zhang
Make a simple search for "Kiev 2a" at eBay. The exterior will tell something about the interior.
I am not talking about faking, but mixing some parts in order to have by whatever means a 2a for sale. This is how I understand the term canibalization within photography gear context.
Cheers,
Ruben
darkkavenger
09-10-2007, 07:36
Now I see what you mean Ruben, weird enough to see a 2a with self-timer from waaay newer camera, and I guess that is not all... I would rely only on trustable sellers -or better- buy from known local shops.
Hi Max,
In my opinion it is not that easy. The problem of problems seems to be the relative fast decay in peoples income, creating all sorts of problems starting with the poor man selling his Kiev there and so on. Some countries are "used", so to speak, to live in poverty for decades or centuries, but when a sudden decay in the level of incomes happens - this is a totally caotic situation, generating the worst. I have seen this in Argentina at the time.
So the basic situation seems to be one of desperation, and hence our eBay Kievs come.
So I repeat once again, the real price of an eBay Kiev is the camera plus additional CLA, which I would be interested to know about its possibilities in Europe.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
No need to say that I write this with my strongest symphaty towards the FSU peoples, and I do not extend here in order not to go beyond from what affects our Kievs.
darkkavenger
09-10-2007, 08:29
many possibilities in Prague & czech republic, i bought more than a dozen nice kievs there, old ones in good cond, even found a '51 J3 in perfect shape. exc. the shortt msg, i'm biking home ;)
This makes sense. Yet from a short stay in Prague I remember several photo stores full of Pentacons and others, but at quite high prices. May be it was due to the center locations I walked through.
But if you happen to know a respectable shop with reasonable prices, then perhaps we all can establish some type of contact for buying and shipping.
Cheers,
Ruben
in serbia on photo fairs kievs can be easily found for around 10 euro. but not very early ones - mostly from 60s and 70s. and they are usually in pretty good shape.
(OT yesterday on photo fairs i saw contax II with sonnar 1.5 for only 100 euros :( i was happy and sad in same time - great price but no money)
darkkavenger
09-11-2007, 01:03
Hi Ruben, unfortunately I moved away from Prague (most stupid decision in my life???) and am now living in French Riviera and searching for a job ... and maybe thinking of returning in Prague to work and live... I'll see as time goes by.
Nevertheless, it's true that Pentacon Six are at high prices (esp. on fotoskoda), but quality is unparallelled for me. I own a PSix body that I sent to Pentacon Dresden (sort of "Zeiss-Ikon" heir) for full revision, it performs smoothly, and with its Sonnar 180/2.8, it's my ultimate 6x6 system.
I've noticed an increase in Kiev prices but only in Fotoskoda, maybe because they keep an eye on ebay prices. I bought my 2a there for about 50 euros 2 years ago. I bought in Jan Pazdera several kievs at lower prices, but you have to check them thoroughly, same for the small shop located near Betlemské Namesti (it's sharing entrance with a jewellery). I saw there a Contax II for 4600 CZK (about 120 euro).
good luck to you all :)
I agree that after early 70s the build quality dropped sharply, and the later the worse it gets. From appearance of insides of my 80s 4am it seems they used a hammer to fit shutter crate into the casting.
Hi Ruben, unfortunately I moved away from Prague (most stupid decision in my life???) and am now living in French Riviera and searching for a job ...
so jobless at the Riviera, you will be selling the fine Kievs you bought in Prague, one by one! :bang:
Cheers,
Ruben
darkkavenger
09-11-2007, 05:46
I had sold them even before leaving Prague, Ruben ;) now I hope I won't have to sell my Contax & Pentacon Six systems :(
From appearance of insides of my 80s 4am it seems they used a hammer to fit shutter crate into the casting.
Those are exactly the words an experienced repairman used to describe the insides of my 1982 Kiev!
I recently had the joy to buy Mike Goldberg's splendid 1960 Kiev 4. The difference in quality - both in materials and workmanship - is striking.
Cheers, Ian
physiognomy
09-11-2007, 15:24
Sorry for coming late to the party with this thread... In my (humble) opinion there is a lot that can be said about the quality (parts, workmanship & finish) of the early Kievs, but there is also a great number of good working latter cameras. My collection only spans '54-'63, but I would be quite happy to pick up (& probably will in the future) a latter model Kiev from a reputable seller. The '80s 4am cameras that I have handled have been good performers, albeit a little rough, but in the end the only thing that matters is functionality. Are the majority of earlier examples better made? My answer is yes, but you can still have great fun with a Kiev that didn't cost you $100+
Peter
OK- we have established that with Kiev it was downhill all the way from !947 - just like me ....
BUT - a good late Kiev is a heck of a lot better than no Kiev at all - and like so many old things , it's all about condition and who reserects it - I have no complaints whatsoever about my later Oleg Kiev 4 and Kiev 4m - but the early ones are lovely .
These led me to explore further with my K 2 and k3
Incidentally , I took a chance on a Kiev among several K4a/K4 being sold reasonably from an ex-USSR dealer - poor pics - because I could just see a foot under the camera .
It turned out to be a reasonable 1956 Kiev 2a , of similar quality to my K3 / K2 .
So it can pay to look at less obvious offerings .
Other than having two of my Kievs cla , I have returned to gathering in Leica copies in all sorts of wierd and wonderfull reincarnations - 'cos they are fun - almost the antithesis of the Kievs !
dee
but in the end the only thing that matters is functionality.
Peter
Nothing to add.
I have Kievs in pairs of lls and llls from 1948, yes I have a 48 lll. 49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 all are very, very smooth and extremely well finished , the examples between 48 -54 especially. Cameras from 57 -60/61 are beginning to show a bit of shoddiness, and from there things do go down. The exception being the " No Name" which in every respect equals the very early types. But it's not only the mechanics, the overall build quality was just lost as demands for more production was made.
Just look at the detail on this 1956 lll . The aperture index is a work of art the equal of anything that ever came out of the original Zeiss works.
zhang xk
09-13-2007, 03:42
I wonder if Contax III, IIIa, and Leica M3 were made by the same company, whick would cost more? We may have a very similar camera, the Kiev III for a fraction of the cost.
Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.
Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.
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
zhang xk
09-13-2007, 07:49
Zhang, I can't see pre-war Contax being made by same company as post-war Contax and M3. They are different approaches to design and manufacturing, highlighting the tremendous impact WW2 had on technology.
If it was not for the Soviet Union, a central planned economy with little consideration for cost, no one else would make a Contax III again at an affordable price. What I want to say is that it would be very, very expensive for a west company to make such a labour intensive product after the war.:)
If it was not for the Soviet Union, a central planned economy with little consideration for cost, no one else would make a Contax III again at an affordable price. What I want to say is that it would be very, very expensive for a west company to make such a labour intensive product after the war.:)
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
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 :)
That's an interesting thought, but I would assume that it had at least as much to do with the general shift in production away from consumer goods towards capital goods and arms production under Brezhnev, where the military-industrial complex was basically running the state. That's also quite obvious in the 1970s in camera production - the 1970s were a lot less "creative" than the period between ca. 1957 and 1965.
The Soviet Union, like any planned economy, always had problems calculating demand for consumer goods; weapons, which aren't consumed by anybody except the state itself, are much easier to produce under the conditions of a planned economy.
Philipp
TVphotog
09-13-2007, 12:02
Man reading this post is making the anxiety of waiting for my '50 Kiev 2 even worse. I haven't even really looked at Ebay or other camera aquisition places. I am afraid that I would continue to purchase more just to quell the anticipation of waiting:bang: :bang:
zhang xk
09-13-2007, 19:20
......
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
I assume by 70's, cameras like Kiev, Zorki, or Leica were considered backward products. SLR, eletronic P/S were much better cameras. A Zenit E cost much more than a Kiev 4M, and 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.
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. These are antique, expensive precision gears IMHO.:D
Zhang
it is very sad that sssr was too closed toward west after 50s - if they tried to enter west market more we would have very interesting competiton on camera market. and that could lead to development of more interesting lens and camera designs - but since they were too closed they just made copies or slight variations. everything original was abandoned - like rodina and kiev ttl. :(
i cant stop thinking about that kiev ttl - that would be most beautiful camera if it was produced imho. (maybe it just needed 35 mm field of view and 50mm framelines - and it would be absolutely ideal)
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.
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.
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.
And on what planet did that happen?
zhang xk
09-16-2007, 07:59
And on what planet did that happen?
The figures may not be very accurate, but I have a copy of 1969 back issue of MP with used price of Leica IIf for $49.50, Contax II with Sonnar 50/2 for $42.70, Canon IV with 50/2 $43.50, Nikon S body only $32.75. And a Pentax Spotmatic with 50/1.4 for $289.50 new on the same issue. So it was on this planet.;)
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.
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.
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
That sort of information is priceless, Mike - thank you!
Cheers, Ian :)
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
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
09-17-2007, 02:35
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. :D So why spent 100K for a microscope when a $300 used one could perform the same job?
"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.
"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
We shall agree to differ, it'll save a lot of time.
We shall agree to differ, it'll save a lot of time. :bang:
We shall agree to differ, it'll save time.:bang:
Hey Brian,
OK... and I understood you the first time ;)
Philipp
zhang xk
09-18-2007, 06:44
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.:D
Kind Regards
Zhang
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.