A Kiev-88 -- everything you didn't know about it...

flavio81 · Jun 11, 2022

Tel said:
I had a Salyut-S maybe 15 years ago. A nice enough camera and mine had been well maintained so it was pretty reliable. But in the end it convinced me to buy a Bronica.

That's so funny, i have two bronicas (etrsi system) with a lot of accesories and lenses and now i'm buying exactly the same camera as yours: a Salyut-S.

My other options were a Bronica S2A which everybody says it's noisy and has strong vibrations (even a magazine test mentions it). The other option is going for the bronica SQ system but i wanted something different from the ETRSi, since the SQ is basically the 6x6 version of the ETR system.

A friend of mine lent me his Kiev-88 (this is what started this thread) and i was surprised by the low recoil/vibration; i didn't expect that, i was expecting a "brutal" camera.

itsdoable · Jun 11, 2022

flavio81 said:
<snip> ...
Lens mount
...
The semi-automatic lenses (a) cannot be mounted in the Kiev-88 unless the diaphragm actuator at the rear of the lens is removed.
...

That's interesting, I did not know that. I have a semi automatic Industar-29 that worked fine on all my Kiev88 variation - it did not look modified, and the semi automatic aperture function worked fine. But I have since removed it as the huge flat spring that closed the aperture when triggered created a great big "whack!"

flavio81 said:
<snip>... My other options were a Bronica S2A which everybody says it's noisy and has strong vibrations (even a magazine test mentions it).

A friend of mine lent me his Kiev-88 (this is what started this thread) and i was surprised by the low recoil/vibration; i didn't expect that, i was expecting a "brutal" camera.

I also have, and used the S2a for several years. It is loud, but I've never had issues getting vibration-free pictures at lowish shutter speeds. It is, however, larger than the Hasselblad/Kiev/Salut, and I much prefer the more compact form factor for use. The S2a's are also pretty old, and most need replacement curtains and other worn parts. I have an original S that I'm planning to refurbish (need both curtains replaced as they have cracked) - I like it because of the built in rack focus shutter speed mechanism, and it has a mirror pre-release.

flavio81 said:
<snip>

A friend of mine lent me his Kiev-88 (this is what started this thread) and i was surprised by the low recoil/vibration; i didn't expect that, i was expecting a "brutal" camera.

It's a copy of the Hasselblad 1600f/1000f, which was pretty smooth, so I never expected anything worse - except poorer finish and workmanship.

Here's a related "project" I've been working on...

This is my 1983 KueB body with a Phase-One P30 digital back. It triggers off the FP shutter sync, which none of my later bodies have (they only have "X"), so I get full functionality. I had to widen the film gate a bit, as the original Hasselblads (1600f & 1000F) had a smaller film gate which was copied by Kiev - the Hasselblad backs fit all the bodies, but the P1 digital backs require the larger film gate.

Eventually, I'll modify my 88cm to an FP sync, that way I can use the better Zeiss lenses. The above setup is let down by the optical quality of the original K88 lenses - which are good but not great.

Then I'll modify a Hasselblad 2000 series for FP shutter sync so I can use a 2/110 - and look for a P45/P65, and...

Tel · Jun 11, 2022

flavio81 said:
That's so funny, i have two bronicas (etrsi system) with a lot of accesories and lenses and now i'm buying exactly the same camera as yours: a Salyut-S.

My other options were a Bronica S2A which everybody says it's noisy and has strong vibrations (even a magazine test mentions it). The other option is going for the bronica SQ system but i wanted something different from the ETRSi, since the SQ is basically the 6x6 version of the ETR system.

A friend of mine lent me his Kiev-88 (this is what started this thread) and i was surprised by the low recoil/vibration; i didn't expect that, i was expecting a "brutal" camera.

Something finally failed on my Salyut--I forgot what, exactly--but it became a cool shelf ornament for a while and then I got rid of it. I settled on the Bronica after I got to play with one in Blue Moon Camera in Portland. It's been very reliable (it'a an ETRSi) and I like the Bronica lenses a lot.

flavio81 · Jun 12, 2022

itsdoable said:
That's interesting, I did not know that. I have a semi automatic Industar-29 that worked fine on all my Kiev88 variation - it did not look modified, and the semi automatic aperture function worked fine. But I have since removed it as the huge flat spring that closed the aperture when triggered created a great big "whack!"

I also have, and used the S2a for several years. It is loud, but I've never had issues getting vibration-free pictures at lowish shutter speeds. It is, however, larger than the Hasselblad/Kiev/Salut, and I much prefer the more compact form factor for use. The S2a's are also pretty old, and most need replacement curtains and other worn parts. I have an original S that I'm planning to refurbish (need both curtains replaced as they have cracked) - I like it because of the built in rack focus shutter speed mechanism, and it has a mirror pre-release.

It's a copy of the Hasselblad 1600f/1000f, which was pretty smooth, so I never expected anything worse - except poorer finish and workmanship.

Here's a related "project" I've been working on...

This is my 1983 KueB body with a Phase-One P30 digital back. It triggers off the FP shutter sync, which none of my later bodies have (they only have "X"), so I get full functionality. I had to widen the film gate a bit, as the original Hasselblads (1600f & 1000F) had a smaller film gate which was copied by Kiev - the Hasselblad backs fit all the bodies, but the P1 digital backs require the larger film gate.

Eventually, I'll modify my 88cm to an FP sync, that way I can use the better Zeiss lenses. The above setup is let down by the optical quality of the original K88 lenses - which are good but not great.

Then I'll modify a Hasselblad 2000 series for FP shutter sync so I can use a 2/110 - and look for a P45/P65, and...

Thanks for replying! Lots of great information here. Some questions:

- Did you like the Industar-29?

- Amazing that the semi-automatic aperture system worked. I've been examining Salyut, Salyut-C and K88 bodies and what I saw so far is that only the first to have an additional notch on the mount, which I believe is required so the aperture actuator can pass through the mount. You'll see some people mention that you require to remove this actuator on the I-29 and other ancient lenses to make them fit the Kiev 88.

Kiev 88 from 1982 -- only one notch, at about 2pm:

Salyut camera: Two notches 2pm and 4pm.

The digital back looks pretty neat, although i prefer to use film.

itsdoable · Jun 12, 2022

flavio81 said:
Thanks for replying! Lots of great information here. Some questions:

- Did you like the Industar-29?

- Amazing that the semi-automatic aperture system worked. I've been examining Salyut, Salyut-C and K88 bodies and what I saw so far is that only the first to have an additional notch on the mount, which I believe is required so the aperture actuator can pass through the mount. You'll see some people mention that you require to remove this actuator on the I-29 and other ancient lenses to make them fit the Kiev 88.

<snip>...

Industar-29 - Optically, not a great lens, lots of spherical aberrations wide open, and never gets that sharp. Mechanically, it's great, better than the later lenses. None of the f/2.8 Tessar's for MF were that great, it was pushing the limits of that 4-element design. I also have the Tessar 2.8/80, and it is better, but it's also quite radioactive - it's one of the hottest lenses I've measured.

The notches on those mounts are for the lock pin. The pins on the Kiev lenses are taller than those on the Hasselblad version, so they interfere if you try to put them on a Hasselblad. The Kiev mount threads also start a little earlier in the mount, so the Hasselblad lenses have to turn past the lock pin latch to seat properly. I talked about using Kiev lenses on a Hasselblad 1000f on the other form:

Saluyt-S / Kiev-88 lens on a Hasselblad 1600f / 1000f

There is no information on the web for this, and the 2 related articles I found were incomplete and incorrect, so here it is for the record. [A modified Mir-26b 45mm f/3,5 on an unmodified Hasselblad 1000f] The Salyut/Kiev 'b" mount is very similar to the original Hasselblad screw mount on their ...

www.photo.net

Hasselblad 1000f + Salyut mount (and back)

I may have the possibility to get a Hasselblad 1000f body for cheap (few speeds unaccurate). I was thinking, i may experiment: replace the mount, included whatever required slight dremeling and register distance adjustement, with one of a Salyut/Kiev-88. So all range of soviet bayonet-V available...

www.photo.net

I do not know what the second notch is for on the Salut, the only lens I have from that era is the Industar-29, and it only has one pin there.

The semi-automatic aperture pin is the same pin as the fully automatic aperture pin for the later lenses, which is on the back on the lens. There is a tendency for that pin to jam inside the Salut/Hasselblad body on the horizontal shelf inside the mount at the bottom. I think this is what you may be thinking of - the later automatic lenses with the aperture pins will jam on the original Salut unless you remove the pin. However, some of those lenses are designed that the pin self retracts when you open the aperture ring on the lens, so most of those lenses can be mounted on the original Salut, you just have to open the aperture to un-jam the pin, and you can remove the lens.

I like film better too, it covers the format properly. But the digital back is very nice when fixing and testing lenses - much easiser to locate tilt and field curvature with a digital back. And around here, film has really increased in price and rarity...

flavio81 · Jun 12, 2022

itsdoable said:
Industar-29 - Optically, not a great lens, lots of spherical aberrations wide open, and never gets that sharp. Mechanically, it's great, better than the later lenses. None of the f/2.8 Tessar's for MF were that great, it was pushing the limits of that 4-element design. I also have the Tessar 2.8/80, and it is better, but it's also quite radioactive - it's one of the hottest lenses I've measured.

Wow, you're an even more commited user than me!! Awesome to see you also have the Tessar, i guess you mean the one for the 1600F, right?

I thought exactly the same as you regarding the f2.8 Tessars, usually they're not too good (although the one in my Contessa, a 50/2.8, is nice). But what about rendering? Better rendering than the Vega-12B? I've been looking at many samples from flickr and I can't reach a conclusion so far.

itsdoable said:
The notches on those mounts are for the lock pin.

But there's only one lock pin, and the early bodies, as you can see, have two notches. The second one must be for the aperture actuator on semi-automatic lenses, I'd say. Please check picture:

You can see the angle between the two protrusions (aperture actuator and locking pin) is similar to the two notches on the Salyut and Salyut-S camera mount.

itsdoable said:
The pins on the Kiev lenses are taller than those on the Hasselblad version, so they interfere if you try to put them on a Hasselblad. The Kiev mount threads also start a little earlier in the mount, so the Hasselblad lenses have to turn past the lock pin latch to seat properly. I talked about using Kiev lenses on a Hasselblad 1000f on the other form:

Saluyt-S / Kiev-88 lens on a Hasselblad 1600f / 1000f

There is no information on the web for this, and the 2 related articles I found were incomplete and incorrect, so here it is for the record. [A modified Mir-26b 45mm f/3,5 on an unmodified Hasselblad 1000f] The Salyut/Kiev 'b" mount is very similar to the original Hasselblad screw mount on their ...

www.photo.net

Hasselblad 1000f + Salyut mount (and back)

I may have the possibility to get a Hasselblad 1000f body for cheap (few speeds unaccurate). I was thinking, i may experiment: replace the mount, included whatever required slight dremeling and register distance adjustement, with one of a Salyut/Kiev-88. So all range of soviet bayonet-V available...

www.photo.net

Ahh! It was you!! I did find your post days ago and wanted to find them again, so BIG THANKS.

itsdoable said:
I do not know what the second notch is for on the Salut, the only lens I have from that era is the Industar-29, and it only has one pin there.

The semi-automatic aperture pin is the same pin as the fully automatic aperture pin for the later lenses, which is on the back on the lens.

I get really confused here. The automatic lenses have a pin on the back of the lens that has a natural tendency to push out (and close the iris). The camera body keeps the pin in, but at the moment of taking the picture it lets the pin pop out. Thus, the iris closes.

The semi-automatic lenses don't have such pin, please see pic above. Thus, i'm very confused.

itsdoable said:
There is a tendency for that pin to jam inside the Salut/Hasselblad body on the horizontal shelf inside the mount at the bottom. I think this is what you may be thinking of - the later automatic lenses with the aperture pins will jam on the original Salut unless you remove the pin. However, some of those lenses are designed that the pin self retracts when you open the aperture ring on the lens, so most of those lenses can be mounted on the original Salut, you just have to open the aperture to un-jam the pin, and you can remove the lens.

Ah, this is great info. The Salyut manual, and the Salyut-S manual, talk about the conditions that must be met for the lens to mount and they mention this. In my experience very very few people bother to read manuals, this would explain everything.

The manuals also don't mention (so far) compatibility issues (or absence of issues) between the older semi-automatic lenses and the new bodies.

xya · Jun 13, 2022

Great information here indeed. Thank you so much. I just got the last of the 80mm lenses for the Kiev 88, the Arsat 80mm. I have not tested it yet, but I will do so this month.

itsdoable · Jun 13, 2022

flavio81 said:
Wow, you're an even more commited user than me!! Awesome to see you also have the Tessar, i guess you mean the one for the 1600F, right?

I thought exactly the same as you regarding the f2.8 Tessars, usually they're not too good (although the one in my Contessa, a 50/2.8, is nice). But what about rendering? Better rendering than the Vega-12B? I've been looking at many samples from flickr and I can't reach a conclusion so far.

But there's only one lock pin, and the early bodies, as you can see, have two notches. The second one must be for the aperture actuator on semi-automatic lenses, I'd say. Please check picture:

View attachment 307944

You can see the angle between the two protrusions (aperture actuator and locking pin) is similar to the two notches on the Salyut and Salyut-S camera mount.

Ahh! It was you!! I did find your post days ago and wanted to find them again, so BIG THANKS.

I get really confused here. The automatic lenses have a pin on the back of the lens that has a natural tendency to push out (and close the iris). The camera body keeps the pin in, but at the moment of taking the picture it lets the pin pop out. Thus, the iris closes.

The semi-automatic lenses don't have such pin, please see pic above. Thus, i'm very confused.

Ah, this is great info. The Salyut manual, and the Salyut-S manual, talk about the conditions that must be met for the lens to mount and they mention this. In my experience very very few people bother to read manuals, this would explain everything.

The manuals also don't mention (so far) compatibility issues (or absence of issues) between the older semi-automatic lenses and the new bodies.

Interesting!

I dug out the semi-automatic aperture mechanism from my parts box, and it indeed resembles the mechanism above. But I clearly remember shooting with the lens on my Kiev-88's, with the mighty thwack of that mechanism when triggered, so I re-installed it. And... the lens still mounts on my bodies, which do not have the second notch in the mount. When mounting, you have to tilt the lens a bit to get that tab past the threads, but one past, it mounts normally. Not sure if that works on all variants of this camera.

The mechanism to activate the aperture mechanism is the same for both semi-auto and auto, the plate in the camera pushes the pin in to open the aperture. In the semi-auto mechanism, that plate pushes the rod (where the c-clip is) up against the back of the lens, which allows you to arm the spring. When the mirror goes up, the plate in the body allows the pin to extend out, and in the case of the semi-auto, that rod where the c-clip is pops out releasing the spring loaded aperture mechanism.

I have to admit - I don't read manuals unless I cannot figure something out. And now a days, its easier to google...

The 2.8/80 Tessar I have is a Hasselblad lens - it came with my 1000f (which is a noticably nicer camera than the Kiev-88's). The 2.8/50 Tessars for 135 format were decent, but the 2.8/80 varrients were never that great - they had to cover a wider FoV. As far as rendering... that is personal taste. But it renders like most 4-element Tessar type lenses, which is distinct from the 5~6 element Planar types.

reddesert · Jun 14, 2022

An interesting discussion that I participate in vicariously since my Kiev 88CM doesn't quite work ...

itsdoable said:
I also have, and used the S2a for several years. It is loud, but I've never had issues getting vibration-free pictures at lowish shutter speeds. It is, however, larger than the Hasselblad/Kiev/Salut, and I much prefer the more compact form factor for use. The S2a's are also pretty old, and most need replacement curtains and other worn parts. I have an original S that I'm planning to refurbish (need both curtains replaced as they have cracked) - I like it because of the built in rack focus shutter speed mechanism, and it has a mirror pre-release.

The Bronica S/S2 also has an instant return mirror, unlike most of the other cuboid medium format SLRs (Kiev, Hasselblad 500, even Bronica SQ, etc). Some of the Bronica S's famous noise-making is from the return phase of the mirror and the other pieces of the mechanism (light shield curtain), which makes noise but doesn't shake the image.

itsdoable said:
View attachment 307856

This is my 1983 KueB body with a Phase-One P30 digital back. It triggers off the FP shutter sync, which none of my later bodies have (they only have "X"), so I get full functionality. I had to widen the film gate a bit, as the original Hasselblads (1600f & 1000F) had a smaller film gate which was copied by Kiev - the Hasselblad backs fit all the bodies, but the P1 digital backs require the larger film gate.

Eventually, I'll modify my 88cm to an FP sync, that way I can use the better Zeiss lenses. The above setup is let down by the optical quality of the original K88 lenses - which are good but not great.

Then I'll modify a Hasselblad 2000 series for FP shutter sync so I can use a 2/110 - and look for a P45/P65, and...

That's pretty ingenious. How much lead time do you need (5 msec?) and how do you modify it for FP shutter sync? Bending a mechanical contact so it closes earlier? I wonder if it would be possible to build the lead time into a cable release, so that the cable release closed an electrical contact shortly before firing the shutter. Ah, I just realized that is exactly the function of a Graflex solenoid.

flavio81 · Jun 14, 2022

itsdoable said:
Interesting!

I dug out the semi-automatic aperture mechanism from my parts box, and it indeed resembles the mechanism above. But I clearly remember shooting with the lens on my Kiev-88's, with the mighty thwack of that mechanism when triggered, so I re-installed it. And... the lens still mounts on my bodies, which do not have the second notch in the mount. When mounting, you have to tilt the lens a bit to get that tab past the threads, but one past, it mounts normally. Not sure if that works on all variants of this camera.

Well, that would explain why it can mount: because you're carefully circunventing the limitation of the one-notch mount...

itsdoable said:
The mechanism to activate the aperture mechanism is the same for both semi-auto and auto, the plate in the camera pushes the pin in to open the aperture. In the semi-auto mechanism, that plate pushes the rod (where the c-clip is) up against the back of the lens, which allows you to arm the spring. When the mirror goes up, the plate in the body allows the pin to extend out, and in the case of the semi-auto, that rod where the c-clip is pops out releasing the spring loaded aperture mechanism.

EUREKA

Thank you very much. This is new information not found elsewhere, at least not in english (and believe me i've been searching through some russian forums too).

itsdoable said:
The 2.8/80 Tessar I have is a Hasselblad lens - it came with my 1000f (which is a noticably nicer camera than the Kiev-88's). The 2.8/50 Tessars for 135 format were decent, but the 2.8/80 varrients were never that great - they had to cover a wider FoV. As far as rendering... that is personal taste. But it renders like most 4-element Tessar type lenses, which is distinct from the 5~6 element Planar types.

Understood.

flavio81 · Jun 14, 2022

reddesert said:
That's pretty ingenious. How much lead time do you need (5 msec?) and how do you modify it for FP shutter sync? Bending a mechanical contact so it closes earlier? I wonder if it would be possible to build the lead time into a cable release, so that the cable release closed an electrical contact shortly before firing the shutter. Ah, I just realized that is exactly the function of a Graflex solenoid.

He probably means putting the switch from the earlier Kiev 88s inside his Kiev. Earlier Kiev 88 cameras, as well as the Salyut-S and Salyut, have FP sync. This is achieved by an internal switch that has contacts for both FP and X. So it's just a matter of fitting the correct switch inside the camera and wiring it.

Moreover it's highly likely that the switch is already there, and only needs a lead to be connected.

flavio81 · Jun 14, 2022

reddesert said:
How much lead time do you need (5 msec?) and how do you modify it for FP shutter sync?

From the service manual:

" The closure of the (X) contacts should occur after the frame is fully opened, but not later than 2 ms, and the closure when setting the FP - 16±4 ms before the start of exposure."

Инструкция и ремонт фотоаппарата Киев-88. Советские фотоаппараты

itsdoable · Jun 14, 2022

reddesert said:
<snip>... How much lead time do you need (5 msec?) and how do you modify it for FP shutter sync?

Hasselblad digital backs specs want a 40ms pre-trigger for the shutter. Basically the back needs a shutter trigger before the focal plane shutter starts to open, that way the system can detect an exposure.

That is why I was using my 1983 body, which has a X-FP sync selector - the FP was for flash bulbs. The FP & M syncs closed before the shutter starts to open, which allows the flash bulbs to come to full brightness before the film gets exposure. FP and M have slightly different delays, depending on the type of Flash Bulb and shutter (leaf vs focal plane).

My later Kiev88 bodies only have an X-sync, hence my thoughts of modifying them... Modification would require the connector to trigger before the shutter opened - much like the 1st curtain flash sync on digital for HSS flash.

Similarly, I can use this digital back with Hasselblad CF lenses on a 2000F body by using the Focal Plane shutter X-sync, and exposing with the leaf shutter. Some early 500c bodies also had a barn door shutter sync (for microscopy and astro work), but I don't have one of those to try (yet!). But that is off topic!

StrangleMeRandy · Jun 14, 2022

Excellent read, thank you! I should really browse these forums more often, or you should have a blog.

flavio81 · Jun 14, 2022

itsdoable said:
Hasselblad digital backs specs want a 40ms pre-trigger for the shutter. Basically the back needs a shutter trigger before the focal plane shutter starts to open, that way the system can detect an exposure.

As you can see above, the FP delay is about 16mS as per the specs of the camera.

Often, the delay for FP is that short or even shorter, usually FP is triggered just before the mirror rises (or even after...)

The Kiev 88 service manual says 16mSec and i'm betting that that's the curtain travel time too. So this would mean that the FP contact is triggered before the first curtain opens, but after the mirror rises. Perhaps you can try fitting a new switch that closes before the mirror rises, and thus gain more delay.

40mS is a LOT of time... to put into perspecitve, M-type bulbs reach their peak after 20mSec. Cameras with variable delay, like the Zorki-4, doln't have that much time. The Zorki has 25mSec max.

The other option, and it's doable (pun intended), is to relax the curtain tension so the FP delay is longer too. You will lose the top speeds, and the X-sync speed will be lower (say, 1/15, 1/8), but it would work, and if the camera is well lubricated the camera should still work.

itsdoable · Jun 14, 2022

40ms is just the spec for digital backs on Hasselblads - which means the back is expecting to get triggered 40ms before the exposure. But you can use a shorter delay - it really just needs to trigger before exposure starts. This is only for Focal Plane shutters, when using leaf shutters, you can trigger off the X-sync.

The spec for M sync is 20ms, which is the flash bulb sync on Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. S-sync is longer, and F-sync is shorter. FP stands for flat-peak, which is a flash bulb for shutter speed faster than the X-sync of focal plans shutters.

Saddly, I've used eash type of flash bulb! (You could get a box of them for pennies at swap-meets when I was a kid!) FP flash bulbs were actually useful - and is the same idea as HHS flash on current digital cameras.

40ms is 1/25 sec, which is about the time it takes for the mirror to go up. Some of the really old digital backs probably needed 40ms to trigger... 1/25th is also the X-sync shutter speed on old Kievs

flavio81 · Jun 14, 2022

itsdoable said:
40ms is 1/25 sec, which is about the time it takes for the mirror to go up. Some of the really old digital backs probably needed 40ms to trigger... 1/25th is also the X-sync shutter speed on old Kievs

Yes but X-sync won't work. It will close (fire) when the 1st curtain is opened. Then the 2nd curtain will immediately start closing, thus the time the film gate is fully open is very brief, it could even be close to zero. The 1/25 or 1/30 shutter speed (sync speed) factors in the time it took for the 1st and 2nd curtain to travel, which is probably 16mSec or more.

itsdoable · Jun 15, 2022

flavio81 said:
Yes but X-sync won't work. It will close (fire) when the 1st curtain is opened. Then the 2nd curtain will immediately start closing, thus the time the film gate is fully open is very brief, it could even be close to zero. The 1/25 or 1/30 shutter speed (sync speed) factors in the time it took for the 1st and 2nd curtain to travel, which is probably 16mSec or more.

I think you believe digital backs behave rationally...

All Hasselblad compatible digital backs will trigger on X-sync with shutter speed up to the max for X-sync, on all types of shutters, That means on the Kiev's you can use 1/30 to 1/2 second. On the C and CF Hasselblad lenses,, it 1sec ~ 1/500, and on the 2000 series bodies, it's 1 sec ~ 1/90. For faster focal plane shutter speed, you need a pre-trigger signal.

flavio81 · Jun 17, 2022

Update.

So my own, my very own Salyut-S ("Salyut-C") arrived, and i've spent the past days doing some checks on it. Of course I bought one where the seller assured all speeds worked fine, also it looked great cosmetically.

Checked for correct focusing at film plane - correct, amazingly...
Checked for light leaks on the camera back - yes, there's the typical light leak coming from the slot for the dark slide. Plus, the rear peephole is also leaking light, it seems this is "by design", but I've since lightproofed it with some wool thread.
Checked film spacing -- well, it wasn't so good, so...
Fully dissassembled the film back. The back looked good from the outside but the inner mechanism was full of dirt and with zero lubrication (!). So i cleaned, relubed everything, and fixed the light leaks. Now film spacing appears correct.
Lens helicoid needs lubrication to feel like new.

Improvements i am pending to do:

Flocking kit for the mirror chamber -- i already ordered one from Ukraine.
I'm considering painting the diaphragm leaves black, my lens (vega-12B) has shiny aperture blades.
Lens helicoid care

I should suggest NOT to operate the camera with an un-serviced back. When the back mechanism isn't clean and lubed, you will hear horrible gear meshing/crashing sounds once you get past the 7th or so frame. This should not happen at all, and will cause undue stress on the camera.

AgX · Jun 17, 2022

flavio81 said:
Flocking kit for the mirror chamber -- i already ordered one from Ukraine.

I'm considering painting the diaphragm leaves black, my lens (vega-12B) has shiny aperture blades.

For a repairer/tinkerer as you I would have expected you cut it down fom sheets yourself

With painting diaphragm leaves my first thought was that such over time would produce paint dust within the lens. My second thought was that likely I got some sort of paranoia... My third thought was that likely I would blacken them chemically.

flavio81 · Jun 18, 2022

AgX said:
For a repairer/tinkerer as you I would have expected you cut it down fom sheets yourself

With painting diaphragm leaves my first thought was that such over time would produce paint dust within the lens. My second thought was that likely I got some sort of paranoia... My third thought was that likely I would blacken them chemically.

I don't have sheets of flocking material because I usually service cameras that don't require additional flocking...

As for painting diaphragms, so far the methods i've found for chemical blackening are not easy. Painting would produce paint dust, yes, this is a minor problem (dust is of no consequence). The major problem is that the leaves would probably not work anymore, or work too slowly (they need to slide against themselves).

I've seen some people paint such blades with permanent markers, it works (and reduces reflections), no dust generated, no problems. But it looks a bit tacky.

flavio81 · Jun 18, 2022

Today I compared my Salyut with my friend's mint Hassy 500C/M. I've always said that the 500C series have rather strong camera vibrations. While the Salyut-S (and Kiev 88) had pretty low vibrations (that's why I felt compelled to buy one).

Well, both my friend and I did the comparison and indeed the Salyut has much less vibrations.

I'm starting to think that the rear blinds of the Hasseblad are a important source of vibrations...

Anyways, back to the Salyut, today i'm shooting its first roll.

OAPOli · Dec 19, 2022

I just received a Kiev 88 (Kueb 88). I'm pairing it to a Kodak Ektar 80mm preset lens from the 1600f/1000f era (1949). A 4/3 Tessar that's presumably better than the Zeiss that followed it. Had to relube the helicoid on the Ektar, it was very stiff.

Shot a roll despite the back having issues (sigh... at least the shutter is ok). The lens needs to go past the lock and focuses a bit passed infinity. Looks pretty good at infinity and need to test it further for portraits.

@flavio81 how did your test go? If you have pointers on how to service the back it would be great. Mine also feels crunchy like @itsdoable , plus the manual winder doesn't work. And how did you check for focus accuracy?

4season · Dec 19, 2022

flavio81 said:
Today I compared my Salyut with my friend's mint Hassy 500C/M. I've always said that the 500C series have rather strong camera vibrations. While the Salyut-S (and Kiev 88) had pretty low vibrations (that's why I felt compelled to buy one).
...
I'm starting to think that the rear blinds of the Hasseblad are a important source of vibrations...

Hasselblad isn't the smoothest or quietest camera, but there should be small strips of foam dampening vibrations of the rear blinds as well as the mirror.

guangong · Dec 19, 2022

flavio81 said:
You're very kind. I was thinking of you when writing this post since you're such a Hasselblad fan. And in all confidence i say that i'd love to own a 1000F with a Kodak Ektar lens. In fact i did find a 1000F some years ago for a really cheap price and passed on it simply because I recalled it was the "bad" hasselblad. Now I have a deep regret!

As for the camera, it's not mine, and I've yet to decide if i'm going to service it fully or not. These soviet cameras can be troublesome, for example I am unable to service one of the backs since it has iron screws and two of such screws have rusted. The heads are very soft so you can't apply too much force either. All in all not an easy task.

When my 1000F died, there were no regrets, except for no longer being able to use my Leitz, Zeiss, Kilfitt, and Nikon lenses via adapters. When Hasselblad introduced 2000FCM able to use lenses.

A Kiev-88 -- everything you didn't know about it...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency