Your choice-Kiev 4 or 4a?

[john341]

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??

[Murray Kelly]

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

[blazejs]

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 :-)

[Phantomas]

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.

[oftheherd]

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.

[Peter_Jones]

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.

[newspaperguy]

Meter - nyet.

[rbiemer]

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

[xayraa33]

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.

[shadowfox]

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

[dee]

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 '' !

[mnmleung]

My preference is for the 4a. It is big enough as it is without the meter

I am with Murray here: meterless for me.

Oleg told me mine is a Kiev 4 without meter... the name confuses me, but I'd go with Oleg.

Here is an old photo of my Kiev
http://flickr.com/photos/mnmleung/2864651418/in/set-72157594496068171/


Ming

[dee]

That is Kiev 4a , Ming - with later Helios lens .

dee

[dee]

Incidentally , I am eagerly awaiting my restored Contax III from Ukraine - with new meter cell !
Sublime 30s elegance .

[mnmleung]

That is Kiev 4a , Ming - with later Helios lens

Thanks, Dee. I asked Oleg before I bought it, and he said it was a Kiev 4, not a 4a. I wasn't going to argue. I was happy enough with my first (and only) roll.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnmleung/tags/kiev4/

Ming

[john341]

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

[40oz]

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.

[john341]

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.

[blacknoise]

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.

[kievman]

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

[DanOnRoute66]

It's not so much the additional weight or the looks; I prefer the meterless 4A because, with the kinds of photos I take with it, I also prefer to take incident light readings, which I do with a Gossen Luna Pro. Even when I need to take a reflected light reading, I prefer the Gossen.

[john341]

Fair enough-I often use my old Weston Master incident or reflected and the readings compare favourably with the meter on the Kiev (must have been lucky and bought a camera built on a Tuesday) but in the end, I like having the meter sitting on top - Kiev on hormones!

[acheyj]

Nope on the meter they are truly ugly ! .
Whole purpose for me playing with all these old RFs is to relive the days gone by, kinda like Capa, Bresson etc and my first intro to 35mm a book called My Way With the Minature by Lancelot Vining.
Love working on broken Kievs and I what I like abt a good one is I KNOW its going to break soon
cheers all
ron

[john341]

OMG mate, I hope you are wrong on their breaking down so soon! I was just about to load mine with some film tomorrow JB

[40oz]

My Kiev's are all good. Worst defect has been minor light leak along the sprocket holes. Of course, all of mine were got cheap - at least one has been dropped on the lens (matching dent in body and lens when it arrived), but mechanically sound and functionally fine for several years now.

[Murray Kelly]

Funny you should say that. I have had a J-12 that fitted the one (4) and not the other (4A). Close inspection revealed that the lens was fouling against the inside of the body where it looked like the piant was just a 'smidge' thicker. Scraped some off and it is now fine.
OTOH I have both C/K and LTM J-12s and they are both junk. Others rave about them but mine are hopeless.

Murray

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.

[dee]

I guess we all need one of each ... plus dozens of spares !!!
The problem being that even an authentic Contax from before the war will have both it's inate complexity and time against it ... though I hope to minimise this with a Kiev heart
in my nice condition parts Contax II .
Why don't we buy a reliable Leica M 3 instead ?
Because there is something about them .....

[ruben]

I think we should differentiate between two different issues.

One thing is if I love the metered Kievs.

But a totally different thing is what's the value of owning a Kiev with a working meter.

The last sentence points both to options for use, as for price when selling. A good Kiev with an accurate working meter is not an average us$ 70 Kiev, but much more. This average silly price answers the fact that the average Kiev is an untested and unknown Kiev, and possibly a Frankenstanized one.

And since we are talking abou fairly cheap cameras, I find it quite interesting to have a flat top Kiev besides a metered one for different shooting situations or states of mind.

A working meter Kiev is something to be.

Cheers,
Ruben