|
Kiev 4a
Sept 9, 2007 20:09:53 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 9, 2007 20:09:53 GMT -5
My friend Peter C from RFF (Aurora_Photog on Flickr) dropped by for a cheery visit today and brought me two of his surplus Kiev 4a's to try out, so I can purchase one of them: My Helios 103 and Jupiter 12 Contax-mount lenses both fit nicely on this body so I'll be testing it out. My three previous attempts to get a working Kiev were failures. All three had to be returned because of problems ranging from bad light leaks (seriously bad) to equally bad film advancement. Peter is pretty sure this one, though scruffy, is clean and works fine. I'll be delighted if it does. There's something about Kievs (and Contaxes) that appeals to me. The immensely wide rangefinder base and the general look and feel. Gene
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 9, 2007 20:34:21 GMT -5
Post by herron on Sept 9, 2007 20:34:21 GMT -5
I like the look of the Kiev's too. Let us see some of the shots you take!
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 9, 2007 21:18:52 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Sept 9, 2007 21:18:52 GMT -5
Gene
Kievs are addicting but you are right that finding one that works correctly can be a chore. I have had much better luck with FSU lenses in Kiev/Contax mount. Right now I have a donor Kiev whose shutter I will attempt to put into another to get it working so we know about problems with the bodies. Be sure and add a J9 to your arsenal of lenses.
Bob
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 10, 2007 2:44:14 GMT -5
Post by Rachel on Sept 10, 2007 2:44:14 GMT -5
Gene, I always fancied a Kiev but I have enough different lens mounts as it is ...... I prefer the version, like yours, without the meter.
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 10, 2007 2:48:24 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 10, 2007 2:48:24 GMT -5
Ron, as soon as I'm able I'll do some shooting with it.
Bob, I'll keep my eye out for a J9.
Rachel, once you've started down the slippery slope of differing lens mounts, what's another? :-) Agree with you -- they look nicer without the meter hump.
Gene
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 10, 2007 3:22:28 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 10, 2007 3:22:28 GMT -5
Another view. The first was taken with my friend Peter's Nikkor-O 35/2. This was taken with his Nikkor 50/1.2 wide open. I think the 50/1.2 gives a film-like look on the D200: Gene
|
|
Wahoo
Senior Member
Danny
Posts: 95
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 10, 2007 16:59:36 GMT -5
Post by Wahoo on Sept 10, 2007 16:59:36 GMT -5
My Helios 103 and Jupiter 12 Contax-mount lenses both fit nicely on this body so I'll be testing it out. Gene, Do you have any experience with your Helios 103's performance ? My Kiev 5 has a similiar lens to the Kiev 4 Helios although they are not interchangable and I've read these 103's are a Summicron copy. I've owned the Kiev 5 a good while but unfortunately I've never seen a photo from it but I do have lots of exposed Pan F from this camera, some of it from July 1991
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 10, 2007 21:15:38 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 10, 2007 21:15:38 GMT -5
Daniel, one of my Kiev purchases that had to be returned had a Helios 103 and the frames that were salvagable were very good. Crisp, sharp, contrasty. I don't know what the Helios is based on but it doesn't, imo, have a Summicron feel. To me it more resembles a Canon 50/1.8 LTM. A little sharper and contrastier than a Jupiter 8, and a little faster at f/1.8. I really like J8's but the Helios is a notch better (depending on sample and variations of course).
I just developed some films this evening, including a test roll from the Kiev 4a with the Helios. If I see anything decent, I'll scan it and post a sample.
Gene
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 11:26:36 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Sept 12, 2007 11:26:36 GMT -5
Been so many postings recently that I've only just caught up with this one. Gene, you said you had three failed attempts to find a Kiev 4a in good order. This isn't uncommon. Numerous people have commented that the later Kiev 4 and 4a weren't as well made as the earlier Kievs. As is well known, the early Kievs were dead ringers of the Contax II, and some of the parts were made in Germany. But by the time the Kiev 4 came along the Russians introduced a number of internal changes designed to cheapen production. The changes worked OK but made the cameras less smooth to use. There were also problems with high production quotas and hurried assembly often with little, or no, proper lubrication. This led to numerous problems with parts seizing up. I came across this on a Kiev 4 (the one with the lightmeter) I bought very cheaply on ebay as 'looks good but not working, sold as display camera'. The drive to the top curtain roller goes through a diecast sleeve gear which has a spur gear at one end and a bevel gear at the other. It sits buried deep inside the chassis and runs on a brass bush screwed to the top part of the chassis. The drive for the film advance goes through the middle of them. It was one of the items the Russians cheapened. Light alloy diecastings and brass don't like each other very much. Unless they're kept lubricated the alloy corrodes and seizes. I don't think the sleeve gear on this Kiev had ever seen any lubrication because it seized solid on its brass bush. I think it must have happened after very little use because cosmetically the camera was almost perfect. It was a real pain to get the seized bits apart as it meant dismantling the film advance and most of the drive train, and taking the curtain roller out. I had to get the parts unseized before I could lift out the bush and get the gear out. Here's a picture of the bush and gear after I finally got it out. I made a slight boob when I took the picture. The sleeve gear is the wrong way round. The bush actually goes in the spur gear end, not the bevel gear end, but you can see the corrosion. PeterW
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 15:40:32 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 12, 2007 15:40:32 GMT -5
Peter, thanks for the info on Kiev 4's. Despite their less worthy construction, they're attractive cameras and this one turns out, finally, to be in decent working condition. No light leaks, good-enough spacing, and accurate exposures. Here are some results from my test roll (click on the small version if you want to see the larger version): Starbucks patron. Jupiter 12. Some flare (no lens hood used)
Port Credit shops. Helios 103
Inside my local. Helios 103
APX100, HC-110 A used Contax IIa with Sonnar 50/2 just arrived in the mail today from Australia. First impression: it looks and feels like a Kiev produced with quality control :-) Gene
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 16:17:29 GMT -5
Post by doubs43 on Sept 12, 2007 16:17:29 GMT -5
Gene, they look good to me. The Kiev-4 can be a decent camera and I have one that I bought brand new in London back in about 1975. The Russians had a store that offered many products from the USSR and the Kiev camera was one of them.
Isn't the Helios supposed to be based on the Zeiss Biotar formula? Seems that I've read that somewhere.
Walker
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 17:37:01 GMT -5
Post by kiev4a on Sept 12, 2007 17:37:01 GMT -5
The Kiev 4am was probably the worst from a quality standpoint. I have two 4as--one is the older model with the bump next to the lens mount and the other--a later model without the bump. The later one space the frames so far apart yoy can only get 18-20 exposures on a 24 exp roll. But it does take sharp pictures.
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 19:58:29 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Sept 12, 2007 19:58:29 GMT -5
Thanks Walker. Yes, I've heard the Helios lenses are based on Biotar designs. This one looks pretty good -- I paid a total of $20 (new old stock, 1984) shipped from Russia.
Wayne, this one has pretty good spacing. Two things I've been told to get better spacing on a Kiev 4a or 4am:
- Once loaded, use the rewind to take up all the slack, then don't touch the rewind again until the roll is finished
- Advance the film in two stages. You can feel the midpoint. Pause there, then wind the rest of the way
Don't know how effective this is, but I'm starting to practice it.
Gene
|
|
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 12, 2007 21:45:46 GMT -5
Post by herron on Sept 12, 2007 21:45:46 GMT -5
I don't know...but a Mamiya 35 rangefinder comes to my mind! ----- OK...I posted this in the wrong thread, so you're going to read it elsewhere, too. I'm chalking it up to my age-related dementia.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Kiev 4a
Sept 13, 2007 10:41:00 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Sept 13, 2007 10:41:00 GMT -5
Kiev 4 and 4a have some endearing(?) little quirks (other than complete seizure) because of hurried assembly and little or no lubrication at the factory.
On the Kiev (and on the Contax II) winding-on is in two stages. The first stage transports the film. The second stage winds up the shutter. The two stages are quite easy to feel on the winding knob, or you can see them if you watch the action with the back off the camera.
The first stage should always be the same amount of turn on the knob, but the second stage varies in amount of turn because when you adjust the winding knob to set the speed the curtain is wound round the top roller a greater or lesser amount depending on the speed chosen.
It's always a good idea to tension the film on the rewind knob on any mechanical camera after loading (you can't of course do this on a camera with built-in motor drive, automatic wind-on to frame 1 and automatic rewind because it hasn't got a rewind knob).
It's also a good idea to pause between the two stages of winding on a Kiev to make sure that, if the film transport mechanism is stiff because of lack of lubrication - or a film which is tight in the cassette, the transport function has finished before you wind up the shutter.
I've stripped and rebuilt two Kiev 4s so far. One was jammed, as I posted earlier. I marked the gears before taking it apart and, on re-assembly, found that the film transport gear had been mistimed so that it gave very wide spacing on an old film I use for testing. I moved the transport gear one tooth in relation to the rest of the train and got frame spacing with approximately 1.5mm between frames which gave me a full 36 exposures from a 36 exp roll. I can't think of anything that can be done in the operation of the camera to 'cure' a mis-timed transport gear.
Other little quirks I've come across, or heard of, due to lack of lubrication are:
The curtains run too slowly on the slow speeds (1/25 and below) and sometimes don't come down with enough 'snap' to latch properly at the bottom so they aren't capped. This leaves a gap which fogs the film next time you wind on. I don't think there's a 'cure' for this other than a CLA.
If you press the release button gently and slowly - as you should - it sometimes happens that the interlock sticks and the camera appears to have jammed. A couple of smart stabs at the release button sometimes frees the interlock and 'cures' this, but it's only postponing a CLA.
The old T&OE company in London that used to import all Russian cameras always checked and, if necessary, repaired and lubricated them properly before they went out to dealers, but those which come direct from Russia (with the exception I understand those from a couple of good dealers) have never been touched since they left the factory.
When properly assembled and lubricated a Kiev 4 is a nice camera to use, but remember that most of them are 30 or more years old, and most 30-year old cameras are overdue for a CLA - especially one as sensitive to proper lubrication as a Contax or Kiev.
PeterW
|
|