Any thoughts on the Kiev 4a?

[markjwyatt]

Couple more...

 

[markjwyatt]

Robert Couse-Baker argues that his Kiev 4a was factory black.

For the discussion, “Was there ever a black-body Kiev 4A?” The quality of the paint on this 1969 model -- patina and all -- indicates the paint was applied at the factory. Nothing indicates otherwise.


kiev nour 1
by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr

kiev nour 2
by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr

 

[RJ-]

Cosmonaut mastery of the Contax grip

Sunny f16 must be funny to use on a black Kiev - simply out of this world.

Proof positive that the Kiev 4a, Type 2 came in black. (Image by Robert Couse-Baker)

cosmonaut's camera 7 by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr

 

[Chuckwade87]

I have a Kiev 4A, and I've never had problems with it and I enjoy using it when I get the chance

 

[markjwyatt]

Ran another roll of 36 through. I purposely wanted 36 to see if the issues I had last roll were related to camera operation on my part, or a mechanical issue. I was very deliberate and careful winding the entire roll, and I did have problems starting around 32 or 33 pictures. Looks like I limit myself to 30 shots (or try and buy 24 exposure rolls), or get the camera checked out.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Robert Couse-Baker argues that his Kiev 4a was factory black.

For the discussion, “Was there ever a black-body Kiev 4A?” The quality of the paint on this 1969 model -- patina and all -- indicates the paint was applied at the factory. Nothing indicates otherwise.


kiev nour 1
by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr

kiev nour 2
by Robert Couse-Baker, on Flickr

The only credible factory painted Kiev would be with factory passport, indicating what it was done.
Sorry, but Robert's assumption has zero credibility. Here is no patina, but scratches on the bottom and top plates are typical for DIY soft paint. One scratch on top plate is very typical for scratch while paint is still not settled in.

It was not on demand to have black cameras instead of chrome. It was no a-la carte either. But if you know some one on factory they will paint it to any color you want for bottle of vodka.

 

[Frank53]

Just picked up a Kiev 4a, Type 2 (black) with Jupiter 50/2 lens. After struggling a bit (long time no film, and this is a finicky loader) I ran a test roll through. It is a bit tricky to use, but could be fun. I hope the test roll comes out ok. Seemed to wind and rewind properly.

View attachment 200219

Just got one, because it came with some lenses I did not yet have and was cheap. It seems to work, but next to my contax iii and iiia it feels, sounds and looks like the biggest mistake Zeiss never made. But anyway, I’m going to give it a try and maybe my first impression is completely wrong.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Huss]

Nice pics and that black Kiev is a stunner.

 

[btaylor]

Just got one, because it came with some lenses I did not yet have and was cheap. It seems to work, but next to my contax iii and iiia it feels, sounds and looks like the biggest mistake Zeiss never made.

You have the real Contax, apparently the relationship between the original Contax and the Kiev copy gets progressively strained the longer the years stretch from the conclusion of WWII. I had a ‘50’s era Kiev and a ‘70’s era one. Neither was close to the quality level of my Contax IIa, but the earlier one was better fit and finish wise. Apparently the early post war Kiev’s were top notch. I really like the look of the OP’s black one, makes me want one.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like the feel of it. Even the "Contax hold" is comfortable and easy to get used to. It has a satisfying feel for a shutter release also. Unquestionably, you need to be cognizant of all your actions as you take pictures.

"Cognizant" is certainly the correct word! One of the many things I like about the Contax/Kiev cameras. As for the black finish, there is no credible evidence that Arsenal ever produced black Kievs, a one off is certainly possible, but witbout provenance...
As for Kievs as users, I have '59 K4a and '69 K4, the 4a will need new ribbons very soon, the 4 is running very well with accurate shutter and meter. The J8 behaves like a coated prewar Sonnar, the H103 is a very good double Gauss, the J9 is just lovely, typical early Sonnar glowiness wide open but very sharp at f:4 and smaller; the J12 will not tolerate sun in the frame, but keep the sun behind your shoulder and it's excellent, slightly dark in the corners at wide apertures but by f:5.6 you'll love it, very nice tonality and SHARP.
The flash synch is simple and reiliable, the rangefinder second to none, if the shutter is clean, properly lubricated, and properly adjusted it really does give an accurate 1250th.
My K4a shows signs of very extensive use, the advance knob is worn to shiny brass and the pressure plate has some anodising worn off, plus one of the ribbons is getting fuzzy - also, just about all of the paint is gone. So it's due for an overhaul and I'm thinking of repainting the castings with white lacquer while it's apart.

 

[Frank53]

You have the real Contax, apparently the relationship between the original Contax and the Kiev copy gets progressively strained the longer the years stretch from the conclusion of WWII. I had a ‘50’s era Kiev and a ‘70’s era one. Neither was close to the quality level of my Contax IIa, but the earlier one was better fit and finish wise. Apparently the early post war Kiev’s were top notch. I really like the look of the OP’s black one, makes me want one.

May be true. Both my Contaxes are from my year of birth 1953 and this Kiev is from 1971. And yes, the black one looks great.
Regards,
Frank

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just got one, because it came with some lenses I did not yet have and was cheap. It seems to work, but next to my contax iii and iiia it feels, sounds and looks like the biggest mistake Zeiss never made. But anyway, I’m going to give it a try and maybe my first impression is completely wrong.
Regards,
Frank

My '59 K4a stands comparison to my '36 (very clean, recently given a very thorough overhaul i.e. stripped to the bare castings) Contax II very well. My '69 K4 has less-well-fettled castings, but is functionally as good as the Contax.
BTW, Zeiss-Ikon did not make the Kiev, although Zeiss personnel did (under duress) certainly assist.
Thd earliest Kievs (II & III) were superb, every bit a Contax and with better chrome to boot!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

May be true. Both my Contaxes are from my year of birth 1953 and this Kiev is from 1971. And yes, the black one looks great.
Regards,
Frank

If yours date from '53, they are both -a (postwar) Contaxen, comparable to a Leica M3 in fit, finish, smoothness, and general gorgeousness. The prewar Contax is none of these, nor is any Kiev. FWIW, I prefer the prewar Contax - I think it's less finicky regarding lubrication, it will keep going in pretty sub-optimal condition.

 

[markjwyatt]

"Cognizant" is certainly the correct word! One of the many things I like about the Contax/Kiev cameras. As for the black finish, there is no credible evidence that Arsenal ever produced black Kievs, a one off is certainly possible, but witbout provenance...
As for Kievs as users, I have '59 K4a and '69 K4, the 4a will need new ribbons very soon, the 4 is running very well with accurate shutter and meter. The J8 behaves like a coated prewar Sonnar, the H103 is a very good double Gauss, the J9 is just lovely, typical early Sonnar glowiness wide open but very sharp at f:4 and smaller; the J12 will not tolerate sun in the frame, but keep the sun behind your shoulder and it's excellent, slightly dark in the corners at wide apertures but by f:5.6 you'll love it, very nice tonality and SHARP.
The flash synch is simple and reiliable, the rangefinder second to none, if the shutter is clean, properly lubricated, and properly adjusted it really does give an accurate 1250th.
My K4a shows signs of very extensive use, the advance knob is worn to shiny brass and the pressure plate has some anodising worn off, plus one of the ribbons is getting fuzzy - also, just about all of the paint is gone. So it's due for an overhaul and I'm thinking of repainting the castings with white lacquer while it's apart.

I am having a hard time getting a full roll of film through my Black Kiev 4a. With 36 exposures it fails around 32-33 shots. I tried a 24 roll, made it through, but it got rough at the end.I thought maybe it was good to 30 shots (based on the 36 exposure rolls), but it looks like it may be related to getting close to the end of a roll (based on the 24). Not sure how the camera feels it gets near the end of a roll (else maybe it is deteriorating as I use it). I am being very conscious to wind smoothly and evenly. Any ideas what is happening?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My '59 K4a stands comparison to my '36 (very clean, recently given a very thorough overhaul i.e. stripped to the bare castings) Contax II very well. My '69 K4 has less-well-fettled castings, but is functionally as good as the Contax.
BTW, Zeiss-Ikon did not make the Kiev, although Zeiss personnel did (under duress) certainly assist.
Thd earliest Kievs (II & III) were superb, every bit a Contax and with better chrome to boot!

O

I am having a hard time getting a full roll of film through my Black Kiev 4a. With 36 exposures it fails around 32-33 shots. I tried a 24 roll, made it through, but it got rough at the end.I thought maybe it was good to 30 shots (based on the 36 exposure rolls), but it looks like it may be related to getting close to the end of a roll (based on the 24). Not sure how the camera feels it gets near the end of a roll (else maybe it is deteriorating as I use it). I am being very conscious to wind smoothly and evenly. Any ideas what is happening?

Describe the spacing, please.
There is on the film advance shaft an arrangement of a spring and a couple washers, this functions to provide an even tension on the film as it is pulled onto the takeup spool; it's likely this needs cleaning lubrication and adjustment of the tension.
The actual frame spacing is determined by the sprocket, but if the drag on the takeup is far too much or far too little, there will be issues.

 

[markjwyatt]

O

Describe the spacing, please.
There is on the film advance shaft an arrangement of a spring and a couple washers, this functions to provide an even tension on the film as it is pulled onto the takeup spool; it's likely this needs cleaning lubrication and adjustment of the tension.
The actual frame spacing is determined by the sprocket, but if the drag on the take-up is far too much or far too little, there will be issues.

I have only developed one roll (36 exp.), and the spacing was very even all the way through until the issues started at the end of the roll. There was some slight overlap in frames at the end of the roll, and I could tell the roll was not winding right in all three cases. I need to get the next two rolls developed.

 

[Bobkins]

I bought 2 cameras -Kiev 4 and 4a,
shoot 1 roll and...sold both.

for sure will buy again

markjwyatt -your Kiev looks great, no matter it was painted or not

 

[markjwyatt]

I bought 2 cameras -Kiev 4 and 4a,
shoot 1 roll and...sold both.

for sure will buy again

markjwyatt -your Kiev looks great, no matter it was painted or not

Nice looking Kiev's. Congratulations- have you taken any pictures yet? I sent mine in for repair to see if I can get the end bunching issue resolved. In the mean time I picked up a Contax iia also (couldn't resist). It is getting CLA'd.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Here is a purported factory Kiev 4M/Am era prototype from 1976. Clearly they were playing with black at that time (still open that mine is not factory). http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

This one looks nothing like 1976 or original all around. It is from later versions, at least some bits are. It appears it was put together, but that does not take from its uniqueness. If it works, then all the better.

 

[Paulmj74]

Just picked up a Kiev 4a, Type 2 (black) with Jupiter 50/2 lens. After struggling a bit (long time no film, and this is a finicky loader) I ran a test roll through. It is a bit tricky to use, but could be fun. I hope the test roll comes out ok. Seemed to wind and rewind properly.

View attachment 200219

Just picked up a Kiev 4a, Type 2 (black) with Jupiter 50/2 lens. After struggling a bit (long time no film, and this is a finicky loader) I ran a test roll through. It is a bit tricky to use, but could be fun. I hope the test roll comes out ok. Seemed to wind and rewind properly.

View attachment 200219

About 20 years ago, I purchased a "brand new" black Kiev just like yours from Mike Foreman of Kiev Camera (USA Kiev importers), and should still have the receipt. However, I realised from the serial number that the camera was quite old, and I believe that it was refurbished and given its new finish at the Kiev factory - created perhaps from stockpiled factory returns. The finish on my example was certainly brand new in c.2002; if Mike Foreman is still about, perhaps he can answer this question in more detail?

 

[henryvk]

I asked two Ukrainian eBay sellers who both offer black Kievs. Yurets.perfect says they were "painted on Arsenal plant (Kyiv, Ukraine) after 1991" and grizzly33bear says theirs are "painted in black by our technicians."

So I'm guessing there were/are both factory as well as "aftermarket" paint jobs.

 

[Donald Qualls]

From my experience a Kiev 4 of any stripe that works (shutter, RF, and film transport/spacing) is unique. I have three; one with a good shutter, one with good frame spacing, and one (4M) that I haven't checked the transport in because the shutter is so mangled ("serviced and tested" -- refund was prompt, however).

 

[Paulmj74]

I printed the attached page from Mike Fourman's Kiev Camera website in 2002. It shows a black Kiev 4a, and states that the cameras were newly refurbished in that year.

 

[Paulmj74]

Also, here is a copy of a Kiev Camera receipt with Mike's former business address on it.

 

[Paulmj74]

By the way, I fully agree that there are relatively recent factory produced black cameras and also "aftermarket" examples. Thank you for the information.