I just got one of this cameras and quite frankly I was lost. But thanks to your very informative video now I know what I’m doing. Thank you so very much sir.
I enjoyed your video. I suggest you use black vinyl / electrical tape along the sides and bottom of the camera back to solve your light leak problem. When I was shooting film I had some problems with light leaks and black tape worked every time.
Cheers James, I had considered the electrical tape solution, although where possible I like to try to fix whatever the issue is on the camera itself. I've added some more sealing foam to the back since I got that film processed, but I know that light leaks from the rangefinder window are very possible on the Kiev, so that's still a possibility. I might set up a better testing solution to check for those before the next roll goes into the camera.
That was a very well made video! I have bit of a love/hate relationship with these vintage Soviet rangefinders. I've bought a few of those camera's (mainly for the lenses) but always ended up selling them again as they weren't really my cup of tea.
Cheers ohjajohh, I do love the quirkiness of them, and if I hadn't set my expectations so high for the Kiev I'd probably have got on better with it, although it wouldn't change the fact that some of the build quality isn't that great. I will bung another film in it soon and give it another try because I really do want to like it!!!
Excellent video. I like your style and pace of presentation. I used to own the same model of camera. I think it was referred to as the “4A”. I bought mine new in 1975 and it was on this camera that I learned the basics of photography. Also owned a Zorki 4K too. You needed to think what you were doing when using these rugged Russian machines!
Hi Tony, yeah, I think you learn a lot more when you do photography the hard way, not that digital doesn't have it's plus points, but having a grounding in film photography is definitely a good place to start from.
Cheers Mark, having done the video I really want to pop another film in the Kievtax (great name) and try it again. I think I need to use it more to fully bond with it!!!
Tim I started with my Dad's Contax in high school but I wanted to have my own, so I got the Kiev 4 RF in BLACK, as been using it as I use it in Japan, and the Philippines. When using in Japan that I had a person came up to me, and as he said it in his broken English - NIKON - NIKON!, and told him no it is a Kiev, and he asked me if I could hold it, as he love it. Since then that I got the 35mm, wide angle, and then the 90mm both Jupiters as they were very sharp. But I wanted something that I want to honor my Dad's Contax I search for a Zeiss Contax II, and III as found them, as they say CONTAX but still have the Kiev, and have use the lenses from Kiev on my Digital models, as was blown away with the colors, and contrast. Love these models, and still have them...
Hi Alex, I've really enjoyed using the Jupiter lenses on a digital body in the past, they seem to perform very well when attached to a digital body. The second film I put through the Kiev worked much better due to it being a slightly faster film and not shooting in the middle of winter - that allowed me to stop down a bit more and the results were much sharper. The only issue still to resolve is a little bit of a light leak that still remains, other than that I'm pretty happy with my Kiev.
The thing about the Contax shutter design used in the Kiev is that, whilst it has some relatives, Eg the pre-war Contaflex shutter-it really is unique. No other type of shutter produced in any quantity uses only a single set of ribbons for both curtains. At short exposure times, because the slit is pre-set, ribbons and both curtains run off together as a single cohesive unit (until the second curtain caps the gate, at least). At longer exposure times, when the curtains run individually, the ribbons must slip through their friction buckles. The shutter is not "struggling" at longer times. It's entirely normal. It's how they are designed to operate. The tricky bit of course is getting them to operate correctly in the first place as these days, ribbons will be weak and mechanisms in need of cleaning, lubrication and adjustment. Ribbon replacement in itself is easy enough (perhaps not for beginners in camera repair, but it's not a difficult task). Getting the mechanism clean enough to eliminate friction and ideally adjusted so that the short times are decent can be trying, though. Apropos the unsharp images-these cameras are all old enough that they will probably have been disassembled at least once previously if not more. You can be at the mercy of whomever last "worked" on them. There should be shim washers beneath the focusing module which calibrate the back focus from lens mount to film plane. These can be misplaced and/or incorrectly positioned on reassembly. Given that you've found unsatisfactory results from two different lenses, I suggest measuring the parallelism between mount and film rails to ensure it is (a) plumb and (b) to specification. It's the only way one can be definitive about where the optical faults lie, because any good lens will only perform at its best if it is correctly mounted. One bonus at least, is you can take the opportunity to clean and lubricate the focusing helicals whilst you are re-shimming the focus, as the module will be out of the body. I can only recall ever running a couple of rolls through my own Kiev 4a when I acquired it some years ago, but I was pleased enough with the images. Having exposed rather more film in their 1930s antecedents, however I can attest that a good Zeiss 5cm Sonnar and Contax II or III is capable of image quality which is phenomenal for the period, and easily stands comparison with many far newer combinations.
Hi Brett, cheers for all the info. I'd figured that the shutter was working correctly because the timings are correct (well apart from the fastest which is a bit sluggish), it was just that the shutter sounds a bit uninspiring when shooting at slow speeds due to it's unique design. I was much happier with the second and third film through the Kiev (light leaks aside) and the sharpness is great so long as I don't have the aperture too wide (film 2 and 3 were higher ISO and we weren't in the middle of winter so there was more light anyway). The shots that I was particularly disappointed with on the first film were the ones that I used hyperfocal focussing to get the maximum depth of field - I do this with many lenses to great effect, but the Jupiter 8 didn't perform so well - the point of focus was sharp but stuff in the distance was less so - I've resorted to just shooting at infinity for landscapes and the results have been fine. I always check rangefinder cameras with a piece of ground glass and a loupe before I use them and I'm happy enough that the lens mount is correctly set. If a camera doesn't work when I get it, I'll strip it and repair it so I can use it, but as the Kiev was more or less working I just did enough to take it out and shoot film. However the Kiev is a fussy little camera, over complicated and under engineered, and it clearly wants more attention. When I get the chance I'll strip it down again, although there are many other cameras ahead of it in the queue!!! The remaining issues are the light leak, which can only be from light getting past the baffles behind the rangefinder window as far as I can tell, so I'll make new ones from scratch. Also, on film 2 and 3 the frame spacing has become a bit erratic, so that's another thing to take a look at....
@@GrumpyTim Tim, there should be some light sealing under the top edge of the removable film gate plate and between the top cover casting and the body, too, ideally. At least, this is what the genuine Contaxes used. You might well be right about the source of your particular leak, but in the interests of being thorough it's worth being aware of these other sealing locations. Zeiss originally used black woollen yarn to exclude light in those places, and thin ply pure natural wool is what I have always fitted myself. It lasts and lasts and works. FYI.
Cheers Brett, the Kiev is due back on the workbench soon, and hopefully then I'll get it working more or less how I want it. I'm still relatively sure that the light is still finding it's way in through the rangefinder window and on to the film. I'll strip the camera down a bit further than I did before, replace the baffles behind the rangefinder and seal any possible gaps. Kind of looking forward to taking it out to shoot another roll of film.
Excellent run down of the Kiev 4, maybe the best yet. Very thorough without unnecessary fluff. I own two Kievs (4 & 4A) and agree with pretty much everything you said. I subscribed.
Thanks Julian, that's really kind. The Kiev is definitely a strange camera, many people seem to love them, and I do kind of love mine, it just isn't quite as good as I'd been led to believe. Hopefully if I stick at it, I'll sort any little niggles with my copy and then I'll really enjoy shooting with it.
@@GrumpyTim Thanks for the reply, Tim. Yes, there's no way Kievs can be considered as easy to get along with as Japanese and German cameras. They are just not as well put together. I also own a Contax II from 1937 on which the Kievs are based. They look identical, but the fit, finish and quality control on the Contax is superior. However, once the bugs on the Kiev are ironed out, they can be fun. Film cameras in general make you take your time when shooting.
Thanks Julian, I had a hunch that the mighty Contax would be better, I'd just never got my hands on one. I'm loving shooting film again - like many people I drifted into digital only, for probably about 18 years or so, then I got interested in using vintage lenses on mirrorless cameras, which in turn led me to buy some film cameras purely to borrow the lens, or at least that was the plan - the cameras I got seemed so nice to hold and operate that it was only a matter of time before I started shooting film again and wondering why I ever stopped in the first place.
Loved the rundown and photos taken from it, especially that one of the Lamborghini! You can one up the "pics or didn't happen" with pulling out the negative!
Cheers Zed John, I sometimes (often) forget to show the negatives on my videos, although on some occasions this is because I haven't got them back from the lab yet, but in this case I did have the negs, I just didn't think to show them.
I have the final version Kiev 5 (bought it NOS 30 years ago from a soviet seller) with enlarged viewfinder and that thing is superb. It puts some leicas to a shame. I also have a Kiev 4m in almost NOS...it works flawlessly. There are many clapped out cameras on the market now. During the 1990 you could find NOS ones.
Hi Schlipperschlopper, judging by the lack of any wear on the case of my Kiev, I have a feeling it left the factory more or less as it is now, certainly some of the very badly fitting case and chassis components are "as manufactured" and the poor method for realigning the rangefinder is just how it always was. I suspect that over the years the dies for casting components and the tools for pressing parts might have been a bit neglected, leading to some less perfect examples rolling off the production line. That said, I do actually like the camera and I've got some great shots using it. I've still got to get to the bottom of the light leak, which is better, but not fully cured after my second video - the Kiev is due back on the workbench in the next few weeks, so with a bit of luck there will be video number three before too long..... Love your turntable collection by the way, definite turntable envy here - I was just looking at your Korvet 038S, that's a real beauty.
Kiev was higher regarded than FED and Zorki in USSR mainly because of its metal shutter: more resource, higher fastest speed, less prone to burning holes in the sun and most importantly: it does not freeze in Russian winter as fast as cloth shutter does. Another advantages are wider rangefinder base and faster lens changing due to use of the bayonets instead of M39 thread. Also Kievs had built-un exposure meter while earlier FED's and Zorkis didn't. On the downside, Kiev is over-engineered and harder to repair. I wonder why they never ditched the inner bayonet and the wheel focusing, for instance - that would make the camera cheaper, simpler and lighter. You're lucky to find a camera with working light meter, on my cameras it is dead completely. Regarding lenses, I would advise to look for: Jupiter-3 , Jupiter-9, Jupiter-12, Helios-103. I think Kiev lenses are much (like twice) cheaper than M39 counterparts because they are harder to adapt to digital. That's one more reason to try Kiev nowadays.
Awesome, cheers for that Sergey, I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for some additional lenses, as you say, the Kiev versions tend to be cheaper due to the difficulty in adapting them to fit digital cameras. I hadn't thought about the cold weather performance, probably because we don't really do cold weather in the UK, so it didn't cross my mind.
I got this exact camera but, im guessing, a newer model since mine is in mint, i acquired it from my best friend's grandma, and she said she never used it, i cleaned the dust and everything works, even the exposure meter. A great find for my first CCCP camera💪
Cheers Andrew, I hadn't heard about the Kiev 19 - I've got plenty of lenses that would fit one of those, so A Kiev 19 is going on the future shopping list.
@@GrumpyTim in fact, there are 3 models of Kiev cameras that have bayonet F - 17, 19 and 20. Model 20 is overengineered and too complex to repair if something goes wrong, model 17 is entry-level camera and just boring, but model 19 is the golden mean. I've got one for a modest price. Adding to that, the kit lens (Helios-81H / Гелиос-81Н) has one of the nicest bokehs. I really hope that you will be able to purchase this camera in good condition for your collection and future videos!
Thank you for the review, just got this camera from my grandma, u helped me understand wvery single little thing about it! Even tho it is not the best, its my first vintage camera and i will use it with the tips u gave :)
Hi Tim - the 1970s Kievs are renowned for having a not so great build quality my 1975 Kiev 4 had massive light leak issues from the rangefinder baffle.... I loved the Jupiter 12 it came with - sold the lot for parts on Ebay and instantly regretted selling the lens... I have just bought a 1978 without the meter... easier to work on and it has a 30 day money back so next week I'll be putting a film through it when it arrives... It has the Jupiter 8 - however I've just bought a near mint Jupiter 12 again... If it doesn't satiate my need I might have to find another rangefinder!
Hi David, hopefully I'm making some progress with the Kiev - I've just taken the third roll of film into the lab so I'll see if I've managed to cure the light leaks now. I was happier with the second roll of film (apart from light leaks) - slightly faster film and more daylight meant that I could stop the Jupiter 8M down a bit, which produced much more satisfying results. I was fixing a rather battered old Fed 4 last week - everything just fitted together better than the Kiev and it was much nicer to work on, but I still like the Kiev, so I'll keep on using it and attending to any issues as they arise.
Good video, I have a Kiev 4 without the light meter, to improve the grip I used a L bracket designed for my Nikon fm2 , fits well enough, I found it stops me obscuring the rangefinder and means I can use the little cog for pre zone focusing for street photography. I find the 8m a lovely lens with character. I don't like that infinity lock and uneven negative spacing though
Hi Cine Wales, that L bracket idea sounds good, I might cobble something together. I will return to my Kiev 4 soon, just need to strip it apart a bit more and finally fix the light leaks - they are better since my second video looking at Th Kiev but still not fully cured. Also, the frame spacing has got steadily worse over the 3 films I've put through the camera, so I'll take a look at that too. I enjoyed the 8M lens far more on the second and third films, stopping down a bit more made all the difference, I just didn't love it wide open, and also it didn't perform all that well when using the hyperfocal distancing scale.
Yeah, I think the Zorki is definitely the one to go for first, they're cheaper and easy to get hold of. Then, if you love the Zorki, you can always get a Kiev later on if you feel the need. The Zorki still has it's quirks, but they're great fun to use.
You have a dirty/unserviced rangefinder. Once cleaned completely, the rangefinder system is unbelievably clear and crisp. How do I know? Because I've cleaned the one on my Kiev, and actually transplanted the whole prism into an older Contax III (pre-war) camera, improving it.
Sadly my Kiev 3A isn't working (shutter issues) but I do have the original Contax II so get to play with this style of rangefinder. Really enjoyed this video and you got some good shots from it despite the issues. Cheers!
Pity your Kiev 3A isn't working Morris, but I guess having a genuine Contex is quite a good alternative. I could do with getting a right wreck of a Kiev to completely strip down and learn from - I only did what was necessary on my copy because there's always room for something to go wrong when stripping a camera, and I didn't want any disasters.
I own a fed 4l. The cheese grater soviet leica range finder. Along with the Zorki and kiev I would consider them acquired tastes. If you are prepared to work within the operating regimen than they are capable cameras. However it’s worth pointing out you are dealing with at best 40 year old cameras using pre war technology. Good luck and I hope to see the results of your second film roll and possibly a video on the lubitel 2/166b.
Hi Bob, I actually like the Kiev more than you might think from my video, it just wasn't quite as brilliant as some people seem to say. I love my Zorkis and I've just got a Fed 4, which was in a pretty sorry state when I got it, but it's now got film in and I'm loving using it. Compared to the Kiev, the Fed is a joy to work on, and everything fits, unlike the Kiev. The second roll was already in the Kiev when I got the first roll processed so I wasn't able to address the light leak for film 2, but, light leak aside, I was much happier with roll 2 - I'd pushed the film one stop, plus it was shot in spring rather than winter, so there was more daylight anyway - that allowed me to stop down a bit more and the results are great. The third film is now at the lab, so I'll see if I've managed to cure the light leak, or if it's going to be back on the workbench for more attention.
The info on the lining up of the two red dots on the shutter button may be the answer to my problems...I'll wait till daylight. This was extremely thorough. It does appear that when these do break down, it's like trying to fix a grandfather clock. I heard the common mistake was to fire the shutter without winding first, which can jam things up. Correct me if I have this wrong.
Hi sclogse1, I think a Grandfather clock is easier to work on than many old cameras - at least to a certain extent anyway, it gets a bit more tricky when they need to be re bushed (which is most of the time), because you either need the right equipment (expensive) or to be a bit creative - I have a couple of clocks waiting to be re bushed when I get round to it.......oops, I drifted off topic a bit there. I only stripped enough of my Kiev to get it working correctly, so I've observed the release mechanism for the lead curtain but not the one that releases the rear curtain - I can't particularly see any reason why the camera would jam if you press the shutter button without winding the camera first - it certainly wouldn't have any effect on the front curtain, and I doubt there would be any parts "latched" that pressing the button would then release. For what it's worth, I've just tried pressing the shutter button without the camera being wound on, at all speeds, and nothing bad happened. I wouldn't say definitively that it couldn't be a problem because I haven't stripped and observed that part of the mechanism, and it's also possible that there were design changes over time that removed a previous potential fault - a bit like the Olympus OM-1 - I've heard that the early versions can jam if you change the shutter speed before advancing the film, and that issue was sorted by the time you got to the OM-1N - again I haven't experienced that fault for myself, so I'm only taking other peoples word for it.
Hi Guarim1000, all the music I use is my own self penned stuff - the track for the gallery on this video was "Where Was I Going" and the music for the outro was "As Yet Untitled", you can listen to the full tracks on my Bandcamp page grumpytim.bandcamp.com - there's nothing brilliant on there, I just fumble my way through the best that I can!!!
Hi Haffschlappe, if I stumble upon a Kiev 5 that I like the look of, and can afford, I might feature it in a video one day, but I'm trying not to buy too many cameras at the moment - the "to be repaired" queue is quite long at the moment!!!
@@GrumpyTimsome people even wax lyrical about the lubitel, the worst camera I've ever used. If you include China as part of the Soviet Bloc, there is one camera I did love using and that was the Seagull TLR, 4A I think? It was my introduction to medium format and such an upgrade from 35mm. It was a dream at multi exposure, so I could strap it to a tripod, so that solid structures would remain fixed whilst trees and vegetation could flicker around it. A technique lifted from John Blakemore.
I had wondered what the Lubitel was like - maybe I'll give one of those a miss. I did pick up a Yashica 635 a few months ago, and after fixing it, I put a film through it - I'm amazed by just how good quality it is - I'd technically shot medium format when I was a kid, but possibly the advantage of the large negative is lost by the lens on a Box Brownie, not to mention that I wouldn't have had a clue what I was doing at that time.
@@GrumpyTim I discovered medium format quite early on in my photographic journey. The Seagull cost me around £22 when my Pentax ME super cost around £125 but the difference in negative quality was astounding. I was using the darkrooms in a community art centre at the time and found the medium format negatives to be so much easier to print. I was instantly hooked.
I had always said "I don't need medium format", but now I've tried it I think it's only a matter of time before I get a Mamiya 645/Bronica or whatever - I should have got one a few years ago because the prices seem to be creeping up. I picked up a Pentax ME Super the other week - it's in lovely condition apart from the seemingly common problem with the sticking mirror lever - I've tried the easy fix but it's not 100% fixed and still doesn't cock the shutter/mirror properly all the time, so that one is going to be a pretty big strip down. I will do it though, because I've got plenty of PK fit lenses to use on it and it's such a nice camera.
Hi Sabe, it could be that the selenium cell is dead, that does happen quite a lot. Or one of the wires might have become detached if someone has meddled inside the camera in the past. Or the meter itself might be physically stuck - you can check for this if you look down on the meter and rotate the camera rapidly beneath you - if you can see the needle moving as you rotate the camera, then the needle itself isn't jammed. For what it's worth, I rarely bother using the internal meter on many of my cameras, I'm so used to using a Sekonic hand held meter that it doesn't really take me any longer, and the readings are probably better too.
I really like rangefinder cameras Ben, although SLRs are still my default camera to use, but the rangefinders have a certain cuteness about them. I think my problem with the Kiev was in the high expectations I'd built up having heard so many people harp on about how good it is. If I'd have approached it with no expectations at all I think we'd have got on a lot better. The fit of the back and a few other chassis components was so poor, and the latching mechanism for the shutter seems a bit ridiculous, that it put me off before I even did much work on it, however, the basic design comes from the 1930s, so possibly I'm being a bit unfair in my judgement. Having filmed the video I'm now wanting to use it again to see if I can enjoy it a bit more second time round.
I do like mine too David, I just didn't find it quite as amazing as I expected, but I'm sure once I've sorted out a few problems I'll enjoy using it a bit more.
Cheers Michal, someone else had also suggested a few alternative lenses including the Helios 103 - I'll keep my eyes peeled for something else, although I've enjoyed the Jupiter 8M more on the second roll of film - slightly faster film and more daylight allowed me to stop down a bit more, and the 8M performed much better like that. There seem to be loads of late model Helios 103 lenses on ebay at the moment, but no idea how good those are compared to earlier versions.
You have glorious eyebrows, sir. If I were to try and grow mine out like that, my girlfriend would be on me with a pair of scissors in about 5 minutes.
I just got one of this cameras and quite frankly I was lost. But thanks to your very informative video now I know what I’m doing. Thank you so very much sir.
Hi Carlos, glad it helped, and I hope you have fun shooting with the Kiev.
I enjoyed your video. I suggest you use black vinyl / electrical tape along the sides and bottom of the camera back to solve your light leak problem. When I was shooting film I had some problems with light leaks and black tape worked every time.
Cheers James, I had considered the electrical tape solution, although where possible I like to try to fix whatever the issue is on the camera itself. I've added some more sealing foam to the back since I got that film processed, but I know that light leaks from the rangefinder window are very possible on the Kiev, so that's still a possibility. I might set up a better testing solution to check for those before the next roll goes into the camera.
That was a very well made video! I have bit of a love/hate relationship with these vintage Soviet rangefinders. I've bought a few of those camera's (mainly for the lenses) but always ended up selling them again as they weren't really my cup of tea.
Cheers ohjajohh, I do love the quirkiness of them, and if I hadn't set my expectations so high for the Kiev I'd probably have got on better with it, although it wouldn't change the fact that some of the build quality isn't that great. I will bung another film in it soon and give it another try because I really do want to like it!!!
Excellent video. I like your style and pace of presentation. I used to own the same model of camera. I think it was referred to as the “4A”. I bought mine new in 1975 and it was on this camera that I learned the basics of photography. Also owned a Zorki 4K too. You needed to think what you were doing when using these rugged Russian machines!
Hi Tony, yeah, I think you learn a lot more when you do photography the hard way, not that digital doesn't have it's plus points, but having a grounding in film photography is definitely a good place to start from.
As an owner of a Kievtax camera, I have to say this is the best over view I've ssen of the good, the bad and the how to use of this camera.
Cheers Mark, having done the video I really want to pop another film in the Kievtax (great name) and try it again. I think I need to use it more to fully bond with it!!!
Tim I started with my Dad's Contax in high school but I wanted to have my own, so I got the Kiev 4 RF in BLACK, as been using it as I use it in Japan, and the Philippines. When using in Japan that I had a person came up to me, and as he said it in his broken English - NIKON - NIKON!, and told him no it is a Kiev, and he asked me if I could hold it, as he love it. Since then that I got the 35mm, wide angle, and then the 90mm both Jupiters as they were very sharp. But I wanted something that I want to honor my Dad's Contax I search for a Zeiss Contax II, and III as found them, as they say CONTAX but still have the Kiev, and have use the lenses from Kiev on my Digital models, as was blown away with the colors, and contrast. Love these models, and still have them...
Hi Alex, I've really enjoyed using the Jupiter lenses on a digital body in the past, they seem to perform very well when attached to a digital body. The second film I put through the Kiev worked much better due to it being a slightly faster film and not shooting in the middle of winter - that allowed me to stop down a bit more and the results were much sharper. The only issue still to resolve is a little bit of a light leak that still remains, other than that I'm pretty happy with my Kiev.
The thing about the Contax shutter design used in the Kiev is that, whilst it has some relatives, Eg the pre-war Contaflex shutter-it really is unique. No other type of shutter produced in any quantity uses only a single set of ribbons for both curtains. At short exposure times, because the slit is pre-set, ribbons and both curtains run off together as a single cohesive unit (until the second curtain caps the gate, at least). At longer exposure times, when the curtains run individually, the ribbons must slip through their friction buckles. The shutter is not "struggling" at longer times. It's entirely normal. It's how they are designed to operate.
The tricky bit of course is getting them to operate correctly in the first place as these days, ribbons will be weak and mechanisms in need of cleaning, lubrication and adjustment. Ribbon replacement in itself is easy enough (perhaps not for beginners in camera repair, but it's not a difficult task). Getting the mechanism clean enough to eliminate friction and ideally adjusted so that the short times are decent can be trying, though.
Apropos the unsharp images-these cameras are all old enough that they will probably have been disassembled at least once previously if not more. You can be at the mercy of whomever last "worked" on them. There should be shim washers beneath the focusing module which calibrate the back focus from lens mount to film plane. These can be misplaced and/or incorrectly positioned on reassembly.
Given that you've found unsatisfactory results from two different lenses, I suggest measuring the parallelism between mount and film rails to ensure it is (a) plumb and (b) to specification. It's the only way one can be definitive about where the optical faults lie, because any good lens will only perform at its best if it is correctly mounted. One bonus at least, is you can take the opportunity to clean and lubricate the focusing helicals whilst you are re-shimming the focus, as the module will be out of the body.
I can only recall ever running a couple of rolls through my own Kiev 4a when I acquired it some years ago, but I was pleased enough with the images. Having exposed rather more film in their 1930s antecedents, however I can attest that a good Zeiss 5cm Sonnar and Contax II or III is capable of image quality which is phenomenal for the period, and easily stands comparison with many far newer combinations.
Hi Brett, cheers for all the info. I'd figured that the shutter was working correctly because the timings are correct (well apart from the fastest which is a bit sluggish), it was just that the shutter sounds a bit uninspiring when shooting at slow speeds due to it's unique design.
I was much happier with the second and third film through the Kiev (light leaks aside) and the sharpness is great so long as I don't have the aperture too wide (film 2 and 3 were higher ISO and we weren't in the middle of winter so there was more light anyway). The shots that I was particularly disappointed with on the first film were the ones that I used hyperfocal focussing to get the maximum depth of field - I do this with many lenses to great effect, but the Jupiter 8 didn't perform so well - the point of focus was sharp but stuff in the distance was less so - I've resorted to just shooting at infinity for landscapes and the results have been fine. I always check rangefinder cameras with a piece of ground glass and a loupe before I use them and I'm happy enough that the lens mount is correctly set.
If a camera doesn't work when I get it, I'll strip it and repair it so I can use it, but as the Kiev was more or less working I just did enough to take it out and shoot film. However the Kiev is a fussy little camera, over complicated and under engineered, and it clearly wants more attention. When I get the chance I'll strip it down again, although there are many other cameras ahead of it in the queue!!! The remaining issues are the light leak, which can only be from light getting past the baffles behind the rangefinder window as far as I can tell, so I'll make new ones from scratch. Also, on film 2 and 3 the frame spacing has become a bit erratic, so that's another thing to take a look at....
@@GrumpyTim Tim, there should be some light sealing under the top edge of the removable film gate plate and between the top cover casting and the body, too, ideally. At least, this is what the genuine Contaxes used. You might well be right about the source of your particular leak, but in the interests of being thorough it's worth being aware of these other sealing locations. Zeiss originally used black woollen yarn to exclude light in those places, and thin ply pure natural wool is what I have always fitted myself. It lasts and lasts and works. FYI.
Cheers Brett, the Kiev is due back on the workbench soon, and hopefully then I'll get it working more or less how I want it. I'm still relatively sure that the light is still finding it's way in through the rangefinder window and on to the film. I'll strip the camera down a bit further than I did before, replace the baffles behind the rangefinder and seal any possible gaps. Kind of looking forward to taking it out to shoot another roll of film.
Excellent run down of the Kiev 4, maybe the best yet. Very thorough without unnecessary fluff. I own two Kievs (4 & 4A) and agree with pretty much everything you said. I subscribed.
Thanks Julian, that's really kind. The Kiev is definitely a strange camera, many people seem to love them, and I do kind of love mine, it just isn't quite as good as I'd been led to believe. Hopefully if I stick at it, I'll sort any little niggles with my copy and then I'll really enjoy shooting with it.
@@GrumpyTim Thanks for the reply, Tim. Yes, there's no way Kievs can be considered as easy to get along with as Japanese and German cameras. They are just not as well put together. I also own a Contax II from 1937 on which the Kievs are based. They look identical, but the fit, finish and quality control on the Contax is superior. However, once the bugs on the Kiev are ironed out, they can be fun. Film cameras in general make you take your time when shooting.
Thanks Julian, I had a hunch that the mighty Contax would be better, I'd just never got my hands on one. I'm loving shooting film again - like many people I drifted into digital only, for probably about 18 years or so, then I got interested in using vintage lenses on mirrorless cameras, which in turn led me to buy some film cameras purely to borrow the lens, or at least that was the plan - the cameras I got seemed so nice to hold and operate that it was only a matter of time before I started shooting film again and wondering why I ever stopped in the first place.
Loved the rundown and photos taken from it, especially that one of the Lamborghini! You can one up the "pics or didn't happen" with pulling out the negative!
Cheers Zed John, I sometimes (often) forget to show the negatives on my videos, although on some occasions this is because I haven't got them back from the lab yet, but in this case I did have the negs, I just didn't think to show them.
I have the final version Kiev 5 (bought it NOS 30 years ago from a soviet seller) with enlarged viewfinder and that thing is superb. It puts some leicas to a shame. I also have a Kiev 4m in almost NOS...it works flawlessly. There are many clapped out cameras on the market now. During the 1990 you could find NOS ones.
Hi Schlipperschlopper, judging by the lack of any wear on the case of my Kiev, I have a feeling it left the factory more or less as it is now, certainly some of the very badly fitting case and chassis components are "as manufactured" and the poor method for realigning the rangefinder is just how it always was. I suspect that over the years the dies for casting components and the tools for pressing parts might have been a bit neglected, leading to some less perfect examples rolling off the production line. That said, I do actually like the camera and I've got some great shots using it. I've still got to get to the bottom of the light leak, which is better, but not fully cured after my second video - the Kiev is due back on the workbench in the next few weeks, so with a bit of luck there will be video number three before too long.....
Love your turntable collection by the way, definite turntable envy here - I was just looking at your Korvet 038S, that's a real beauty.
Kiev was higher regarded than FED and Zorki in USSR mainly because of its metal shutter: more resource, higher fastest speed, less prone to burning holes in the sun and most importantly: it does not freeze in Russian winter as fast as cloth shutter does. Another advantages are wider rangefinder base and faster lens changing due to use of the bayonets instead of M39 thread. Also Kievs had built-un exposure meter while earlier FED's and Zorkis didn't. On the downside, Kiev is over-engineered and harder to repair. I wonder why they never ditched the inner bayonet and the wheel focusing, for instance - that would make the camera cheaper, simpler and lighter.
You're lucky to find a camera with working light meter, on my cameras it is dead completely.
Regarding lenses, I would advise to look for: Jupiter-3 , Jupiter-9, Jupiter-12, Helios-103. I think Kiev lenses are much (like twice) cheaper than M39 counterparts because they are harder to adapt to digital. That's one more reason to try Kiev nowadays.
Awesome, cheers for that Sergey, I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for some additional lenses, as you say, the Kiev versions tend to be cheaper due to the difficulty in adapting them to fit digital cameras. I hadn't thought about the cold weather performance, probably because we don't really do cold weather in the UK, so it didn't cross my mind.
I got this exact camera but, im guessing, a newer model since mine is in mint, i acquired it from my best friend's grandma, and she said she never used it, i cleaned the dust and everything works, even the exposure meter. A great find for my first CCCP camera💪
@@GrumpyTim you should definitely try KIEV-19 camera. It has bayonet F, the same that Nikon cameras have! 😊
Cheers Andrew, I hadn't heard about the Kiev 19 - I've got plenty of lenses that would fit one of those, so A Kiev 19 is going on the future shopping list.
@@GrumpyTim in fact, there are 3 models of Kiev cameras that have bayonet F - 17, 19 and 20. Model 20 is overengineered and too complex to repair if something goes wrong, model 17 is entry-level camera and just boring, but model 19 is the golden mean. I've got one for a modest price. Adding to that, the kit lens (Helios-81H / Гелиос-81Н) has one of the nicest bokehs.
I really hope that you will be able to purchase this camera in good condition for your collection and future videos!
Thank you for the review, just got this camera from my grandma, u helped me understand wvery single little thing about it! Even tho it is not the best, its my first vintage camera and i will use it with the tips u gave :)
That's great AKA-K, you should have a lot of fun with that.
Great videos on this channel and some great photography.
Cheers Dexter, glad you're enjoying the videos, thanks for watching.
The visual of a toy truck taking Contax from Germany to Ukraine is quite funny, would never have thought to use it 😂
Oh yes, only the finest special effects on this channel!!! Cheers for watching Amerajank
Hi Tim - the 1970s Kievs are renowned for having a not so great build quality my 1975 Kiev 4 had massive light leak issues from the rangefinder baffle.... I loved the Jupiter 12 it came with - sold the lot for parts on Ebay and instantly regretted selling the lens... I have just bought a 1978 without the meter... easier to work on and it has a 30 day money back so next week I'll be putting a film through it when it arrives... It has the Jupiter 8 - however I've just bought a near mint Jupiter 12 again... If it doesn't satiate my need I might have to find another rangefinder!
Hi David, hopefully I'm making some progress with the Kiev - I've just taken the third roll of film into the lab so I'll see if I've managed to cure the light leaks now. I was happier with the second roll of film (apart from light leaks) - slightly faster film and more daylight meant that I could stop the Jupiter 8M down a bit, which produced much more satisfying results.
I was fixing a rather battered old Fed 4 last week - everything just fitted together better than the Kiev and it was much nicer to work on, but I still like the Kiev, so I'll keep on using it and attending to any issues as they arise.
Good video, I have a Kiev 4 without the light meter, to improve the grip I used a L bracket designed for my Nikon fm2 , fits well enough, I found it stops me obscuring the rangefinder and means I can use the little cog for pre zone focusing for street photography. I find the 8m a lovely lens with character. I don't like that infinity lock and uneven negative spacing though
Hi Cine Wales, that L bracket idea sounds good, I might cobble something together. I will return to my Kiev 4 soon, just need to strip it apart a bit more and finally fix the light leaks - they are better since my second video looking at Th Kiev but still not fully cured. Also, the frame spacing has got steadily worse over the 3 films I've put through the camera, so I'll take a look at that too. I enjoyed the 8M lens far more on the second and third films, stopping down a bit more made all the difference, I just didn't love it wide open, and also it didn't perform all that well when using the hyperfocal distancing scale.
Realy thinking about getting a zorkiy, plenty of them around for cheap and in great condition. Kievs always looked a bit too bulky and unwieldy to me.
Yeah, I think the Zorki is definitely the one to go for first, they're cheaper and easy to get hold of. Then, if you love the Zorki, you can always get a Kiev later on if you feel the need. The Zorki still has it's quirks, but they're great fun to use.
The Kiev without the exposure meter looks a lot less bulky.
You have a dirty/unserviced rangefinder. Once cleaned completely, the rangefinder system is unbelievably clear and crisp. How do I know? Because I've cleaned the one on my Kiev, and actually transplanted the whole prism into an older Contax III (pre-war) camera, improving it.
Sadly my Kiev 3A isn't working (shutter issues) but I do have the original Contax II so get to play with this style of rangefinder. Really enjoyed this video and you got some good shots from it despite the issues. Cheers!
Pity your Kiev 3A isn't working Morris, but I guess having a genuine Contex is quite a good alternative. I could do with getting a right wreck of a Kiev to completely strip down and learn from - I only did what was necessary on my copy because there's always room for something to go wrong when stripping a camera, and I didn't want any disasters.
I own a fed 4l. The cheese grater soviet leica range finder. Along with the Zorki and kiev I would consider them acquired tastes. If you are prepared to work within the operating regimen
than they are capable cameras. However it’s worth pointing out you are dealing with at best 40 year old cameras using pre war technology. Good luck and I hope to see the results of your second film roll and possibly a video on the lubitel 2/166b.
Hi Bob, I actually like the Kiev more than you might think from my video, it just wasn't quite as brilliant as some people seem to say. I love my Zorkis and I've just got a Fed 4, which was in a pretty sorry state when I got it, but it's now got film in and I'm loving using it. Compared to the Kiev, the Fed is a joy to work on, and everything fits, unlike the Kiev.
The second roll was already in the Kiev when I got the first roll processed so I wasn't able to address the light leak for film 2, but, light leak aside, I was much happier with roll 2 - I'd pushed the film one stop, plus it was shot in spring rather than winter, so there was more daylight anyway - that allowed me to stop down a bit more and the results are great.
The third film is now at the lab, so I'll see if I've managed to cure the light leak, or if it's going to be back on the workbench for more attention.
The info on the lining up of the two red dots on the shutter button may be the answer to my problems...I'll wait till daylight. This was extremely thorough. It does appear that when these do break down, it's like trying to fix a grandfather clock. I heard the common mistake was to fire the shutter without winding first, which can jam things up. Correct me if I have this wrong.
Hi sclogse1, I think a Grandfather clock is easier to work on than many old cameras - at least to a certain extent anyway, it gets a bit more tricky when they need to be re bushed (which is most of the time), because you either need the right equipment (expensive) or to be a bit creative - I have a couple of clocks waiting to be re bushed when I get round to it.......oops, I drifted off topic a bit there. I only stripped enough of my Kiev to get it working correctly, so I've observed the release mechanism for the lead curtain but not the one that releases the rear curtain - I can't particularly see any reason why the camera would jam if you press the shutter button without winding the camera first - it certainly wouldn't have any effect on the front curtain, and I doubt there would be any parts "latched" that pressing the button would then release. For what it's worth, I've just tried pressing the shutter button without the camera being wound on, at all speeds, and nothing bad happened. I wouldn't say definitively that it couldn't be a problem because I haven't stripped and observed that part of the mechanism, and it's also possible that there were design changes over time that removed a previous potential fault - a bit like the Olympus OM-1 - I've heard that the early versions can jam if you change the shutter speed before advancing the film, and that issue was sorted by the time you got to the OM-1N - again I haven't experienced that fault for myself, so I'm only taking other peoples word for it.
Congratulatios, Fineeee Review. A question please: what music is this? So much good
Hi Guarim1000, all the music I use is my own self penned stuff - the track for the gallery on this video was "Where Was I Going" and the music for the outro was "As Yet Untitled", you can listen to the full tracks on my Bandcamp page grumpytim.bandcamp.com - there's nothing brilliant on there, I just fumble my way through the best that I can!!!
Could you please Review Kiev 5?
Hi Haffschlappe, if I stumble upon a Kiev 5 that I like the look of, and can afford, I might feature it in a video one day, but I'm trying not to buy too many cameras at the moment - the "to be repaired" queue is quite long at the moment!!!
Nice video, but what is up with Ukraine's map :D
Ah, maybe map drawing isn't one of my strongest subjects!!!!!
Nice to see an objective review of this camera, there are so many uncritical reviews of this and other soviet cameras on vintage camera sites.
Cheers Phil, I nearly didn't finish making this video because I thought I was being too negative and critical!!!
@@GrumpyTimsome people even wax lyrical about the lubitel, the worst camera I've ever used. If you include China as part of the Soviet Bloc, there is one camera I did love using and that was the Seagull TLR, 4A I think? It was my introduction to medium format and such an upgrade from 35mm. It was a dream at multi exposure, so I could strap it to a tripod, so that solid structures would remain fixed whilst trees and vegetation could flicker around it. A technique lifted from John Blakemore.
I had wondered what the Lubitel was like - maybe I'll give one of those a miss. I did pick up a Yashica 635 a few months ago, and after fixing it, I put a film through it - I'm amazed by just how good quality it is - I'd technically shot medium format when I was a kid, but possibly the advantage of the large negative is lost by the lens on a Box Brownie, not to mention that I wouldn't have had a clue what I was doing at that time.
@@GrumpyTim I discovered medium format quite early on in my photographic journey. The Seagull cost me around £22 when my Pentax ME super cost around £125 but the difference in negative quality was astounding. I was using the darkrooms in a community art centre at the time and found the medium format negatives to be so much easier to print. I was instantly hooked.
I had always said "I don't need medium format", but now I've tried it I think it's only a matter of time before I get a Mamiya 645/Bronica or whatever - I should have got one a few years ago because the prices seem to be creeping up. I picked up a Pentax ME Super the other week - it's in lovely condition apart from the seemingly common problem with the sticking mirror lever - I've tried the easy fix but it's not 100% fixed and still doesn't cock the shutter/mirror properly all the time, so that one is going to be a pretty big strip down. I will do it though, because I've got plenty of PK fit lenses to use on it and it's such a nice camera.
bAsICaLLy x100VI
Kind of similar.
Hi! A little help here!! I recently got a Kiev-4, and the selenium light meter doesn’t move. Does that mean it’s broken?
Hi Sabe, it could be that the selenium cell is dead, that does happen quite a lot. Or one of the wires might have become detached if someone has meddled inside the camera in the past. Or the meter itself might be physically stuck - you can check for this if you look down on the meter and rotate the camera rapidly beneath you - if you can see the needle moving as you rotate the camera, then the needle itself isn't jammed.
For what it's worth, I rarely bother using the internal meter on many of my cameras, I'm so used to using a Sekonic hand held meter that it doesn't really take me any longer, and the readings are probably better too.
Did you say what film you used? I love the b&w
Hi Lx-hk, it was Ilford FP4, just shot at box speed, so fairly predictable and easy to compare with results from other cameras and lenses.
Curious camera. Shame it is a bit disappointing. I think I might have a Yashica range finder somewhere.
I really like rangefinder cameras Ben, although SLRs are still my default camera to use, but the rangefinders have a certain cuteness about them. I think my problem with the Kiev was in the high expectations I'd built up having heard so many people harp on about how good it is. If I'd have approached it with no expectations at all I think we'd have got on a lot better. The fit of the back and a few other chassis components was so poor, and the latching mechanism for the shutter seems a bit ridiculous, that it put me off before I even did much work on it, however, the basic design comes from the 1930s, so possibly I'm being a bit unfair in my judgement. Having filmed the video I'm now wanting to use it again to see if I can enjoy it a bit more second time round.
@@GrumpyTim Fair enough. Let us know how you get on.
Will do.
Yashica Electro series are wonderful, if you can live with one fixed lens and batteries.
@@SergeyGalin Cheers. I have a Yashica Mat 124G, so I can.
I like how yall funny speaking English call a flashlight a torch. Makes me laugh every time. Murica!
Hi Jose, I think even English people laugh at how I speak, so I must sound really weird to anyone from overseas!!!
I love my Kiev 4
I do like mine too David, I just didn't find it quite as amazing as I expected, but I'm sure once I've sorted out a few problems I'll enjoy using it a bit more.
1:08 interestingly accurate map of Ukraine 😊
I've been told that I needn't apply for the job as a cartographer - hurtful, I thought it might be a new career!!!
@@GrumpyTim 😂
You forgot Crimea but ok 😅
Try a helios 103 instead of the jupiter 8. Is much much cheaper and should be considerable sharper.
Cheers Michal, someone else had also suggested a few alternative lenses including the Helios 103 - I'll keep my eyes peeled for something else, although I've enjoyed the Jupiter 8M more on the second roll of film - slightly faster film and more daylight allowed me to stop down a bit more, and the 8M performed much better like that. There seem to be loads of late model Helios 103 lenses on ebay at the moment, but no idea how good those are compared to earlier versions.
You have glorious eyebrows, sir. If I were to try and grow mine out like that, my girlfriend would be on me with a pair of scissors in about 5 minutes.
Out of the Russan rcfs.. Kiev is the best in quality