Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > FSU Former Soviet Union RF

FSU Former Soviet Union RF This forum is for the Former Soviet Union rangefinder cameras, especially the many and various Fed, Zorki, and Kiev.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Helios 103/Kiev 4AM question.
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #1
xavyr
Registered User
 
xavyr is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 12
Helios 103/Kiev 4AM question.

Good morning.

I have a long-ago bought but never used Kiev 4AM (a 1981 model) acquired years ago that I have never used (ummm, digital got in the way ).

My new-to-me Oly XA got my enthusiasm for RF rekindled, so I began reading-up on the 4AM to re-familiarize myself with the manual-of-arms.

I notice, however, that the Helios 103 itself has a tiny bit of rattly play in its components off the camera, and also that the mount to the camera is somewhat loose.

I've heard great things about the Helios, but think it's likely pointless to try even a test roll, given that the lens and its mount are in this wiggly condition.

My question is: is it worth (or even possible) to have these things fixed? If so, can anyone recommend a repair service? Or should I just start looking for a better specimen among the Contax-clone family?

With thanks for any input!
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #2
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is online now
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by xavyr View Post
Good morning.

I have a long-ago bought but never used Kiev 4AM (a 1981 model) acquired years ago that I have never used (ummm, digital got in the way ).

My new-to-me Oly XA got my enthusiasm for RF rekindled, so I began reading-up on the 4AM to re-familiarize myself with the manual-of-arms.

I notice, however, that the Helios 103 itself has a tiny bit of rattly play in its components off the camera, and also that the mount to the camera is somewhat loose.

I've heard great things about the Helios, but think it's likely pointless to try even a test roll, given that the lens and its mount are in this wiggly condition.

My question is: is it worth (or even possible) to have these things fixed? If so, can anyone recommend a repair service? Or should I just start looking for a better specimen among the Contax-clone family?

With thanks for any input!
It is one of the best FSU lenses IMHO, especially for colour work.

Go through the exterior of the lens and tighten any tiny screws, don't overdo it and strip them. Snug up any loose beauty rings on the front if they are loose with a piece of rubber hose of the right diameter. You can slightly bent the locking tab to fit the lens mount latch spring for a snug fit on the camera body.

These lenses are cheap to replace, at one time sellers were offering them for 25 dollars with shipping and in like new condition, they are not much more now.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #3
xavyr
Registered User
 
xavyr is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 12
Thanks, xayraa - tried your suggestions, but took a closer look (as I should have done before I posted).

Following the instructions on the old 'Kiev Survival' site, I tried to put a slight upward bend to the lens flange tabs so that they exert more pressure on the underside of the mounting plate tabs - no help, but I could see that someone has done this before.

Howeve, it seems as though the focusing mount itself (within the mounting plate) is slightly wiggly. I can grasp the edge of the distance scale ring and wiggle the whole mount within the plate - the screws holding the scale ring in place will not tighten further.

Hmm - searching now for a diagram...
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #4
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
I think that's normal. The whole mount in the camera will have a tiny amount of play because it has to rotate easily when focused by the tiny focusing wheel without tearing your finger tip apart. Maybe the older ones were tighter, but that's how my 4AM is.

As for the lens to the mount, if you take the lens off the camera, you'll see the tabs on the lens mount are cut in such a way that they have some capacity for spring in them. If somebody was a ham-fisted gorilla when mounting the lens they may have bent the tabs inward resulting in a loose fitting lens. You can gently pry them back out with small screwdriver to get a tight fit again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5
xavyr
Registered User
 
xavyr is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
As for the lens to the mount, if you take the lens off the camera, you'll see the tabs on the lens mount are cut in such a way that they have some capacity for spring in them. If somebody was a ham-fisted gorilla when mounting the lens they may have bent the tabs inward resulting in a loose fitting lens. You can gently pry them back out with small screwdriver to get a tight fit again.
Thanks, TL, for your help in this -

May I ask: with your own specimen, when the lens is locked at infinity, does the distance ring still have a small bit of movement? So locked, mine has about .5 mm wiggle side-to-side, and a much tinier bit front-to-back.

Following xayraa's earlier suggestion (as also seen on "Kiev Survival"), I saw that the cuts make for a sort of "torsion bar" to exert pressure in the right direction for a solid mount, and could see that they've been worked on before.

The, uh, "upwards"-direction adjustment of those springs had little effect - I found that one was already "pegged", maybe someone's earlier tightening attempt.

Maybe I am making too much of this lens-to-film-plane/consistency thing: I appreciate your advisory that I might be seeing "just how they are."

The lens itself is another story. The aperture ring alone still has a bit of slop, but doesn't appear to be of much consequence, since all else is tight.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #6
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by xavyr View Post
Thanks, TL, for your help in this -

May I ask: with your own specimen, when the lens is locked at infinity, does the distance ring still have a small bit of movement? So locked, mine has about .5 mm wiggle side-to-side, and a much tinier bit front-to-back.

Following xayraa's earlier suggestion (as also seen on "Kiev Survival"), I saw that the cuts make for a sort of "torsion bar" to exert pressure in the right direction for a solid mount, and could see that they've been worked on before.

The, uh, "upwards"-direction adjustment of those springs had little effect - I found that one was already "pegged", maybe someone's earlier tightening attempt.

Maybe I am making too much of this lens-to-film-plane/consistency thing: I appreciate your advisory that I might be seeing "just how they are."

The lens itself is another story. The aperture ring alone still has a bit of slop, but doesn't appear to be of much consequence, since all else is tight.
Yes, mine has a bit of play when turning the lens while locked in infinity. It has barely perceptible in-out play as well (in the mount itself, not in the lens).
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:32.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.