Good Russian Cameras?

[Ko.Fe.]

True, but I don't that any item from exclusion zone would be radioactive unless it's covered with radioactive soil or dust, but I'm not really into buying extremely dirty cameras.

For people who like Japanese cameras, Japan has has much exposure to radiation, including 2 cities hit with atom bombs, and nuclear reactor meltdown in fukushima, which was more recent, so Japanese items should be worried about if this was an issue as well.

You must stay away from every Mazda you will see from now. At least ten meters. They are made in Hiroshima.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I think the Kiev 4 had more minor modifications for manufacturability, while the 4M was fairly major redesign. I really enjoyed my Kiev 4, and it led pretty quickly to a Contax iia.

Here is no major redesign in 4M. The just replaced few parts they could not make anymore after taken from Germany equipment worn out.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

the title of this thread is an oxymoron -- i suppose if you get luck you can find a kiev/contax that's reliable, but i wouldn't bet on it. My experience with soviet cameras, except for the early leica II copies, is uniformly bad.

if it's a cheap shooter you want, find urself a good solid nikkormat, pretty much any model. They're built like bricks, can be had for less than $50 for the body, and the lenses are all dirt cheap and amazing quality.

Exactly! I wasted heck a lot of time on fixing FSU junk. Now with Nikkormat, F2 and EM I’m just enjoying film photography and quality of gear.

 

[markjwyatt]

You must stay away from every Mazda you will see from now. At least ten meters. They are made in Hiroshima.

You might think twice about eating sushi or seaweed in Japan (Fukishima).

 

[brainmonster]

I actually have both. For whatever reason, I like the feel of the LTL3 a little better, but it has a small light leak, and I do not think the meter works (plus it requires mercury batteries). The MTL5 works well, the meter works and uses silver oxide batteries, and is one of my main "light meter functioning" M42 cameras now (the other is a Fujica 605n). I only need the light meter for adapted lenses (with uncertain aperture settings- mainly DKL mount Schneider Kreuznachs: I also have a Retina Reflex IV, but if it stops working...), so for standard M42 lenses I also have Spotmatics and a couple of other cameras available. The MTL5 is my favorite overall at this point given all the considerations.

The LTL3 is already on it's way. It was in excellent condition and the seller threw in a few lenses, and film tested it. I think the mercury batteries can be replaced with non-mercury replacements from what I've read? Please correct me if I'm wrong. The seller said the meter works on the one I bought.

Can you clarify what you mean by leading light meter for adapted lenses? Do you mean with lenses that don't have aperture markings on the aperture ring so you don't know what it's set to?

Interesting, this camera (LTL3) I think was a low-mid range camera for it's time, which I find interesting because it seems pretty well specced out. So I was looking at a Retina Reflex as well, but from reading up on them I hear they are really hard to fix and over-engineered, so you might buy one that's broken anyway.

 

[brainmonster]

Exactly! I wasted heck a lot of time on fixing FSU junk. Now with Nikkormat, F2 and EM I’m just enjoying film photography and quality of gear.

Y

There is only one of the FSU Kiev rf lenses that I am aware of that will not work on the postwar Contax IIa/IIIa- it is the Jupiter 12 the 35mm with the large, deep set rear lens element. I am pretty sure of that as I have had both the Kiev and Contax IIa. I used the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm FSU lenses on my IIa with no issues. The postwar 35mm Zeiss was a painful purchase!

I've read that the Leica iic does not work with soviet lenses at all, and the soviet lenses need to be calibrated in order to focus with a iic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Many people have recommended just using native glass with leica bodies, to avoid this problem, which would make the leicas out of reach for ordinary people. Maybe the contax is different.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Y


I've read that the Leica iic does not work with soviet lenses at all, and the soviet lenses need to be calibrated in order to focus with a iic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Many people have recommended just using native glass with leica bodies, to avoid this problem, which would make the leicas out of reach for ordinary people. Maybe the contax is different.

It doesn't matter which Leica, LTM or M, IIc or M9. FSU LTM lenses, if made under GOST regulations, should not focus accurate on Leica or any other RF. To make it focus correctly, they have to be collimated by shims. Plenty of FSU LTM are easy to modify. I did something like two dozens of them. I use 50 1.5 Jupiter-3 collimated between Leica and my FSU camera. Results are fine on both, wide open.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You might think twice about eating sushi or seaweed in Japan (Fukishima).

After Chernobyl my Italian co-worker told me how they were not allowed to collect and eat wild mushrooms for a while.
Some of Russians here were buying doze meters after last incident in Japan. I borrowed one for home and find some radiation in some fruits sold in common food chain stores.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think the Kiev 4 had more minor modifications for manufacturability, while the 4M was fairly major redesign. I really enjoyed my Kiev 4, and it led pretty quickly to a Contax iia.

The way I read what I've seen, the Kiev 4A and 4M had the same relationship as the Kiev 2 and 3, or Contax II and III -- the 4M had a meter, 4A none, and they were mechanically (and optically, in terms of RF) the same camera otherwise. I'm not a huge Kiev expert, but I've never seen a Kiev 4 offered on eBay or referenced in any web literature that wasn't actually either what I've learned as 4A or 4M. If there was a Kiev 4 that wasn't a 4A or 4M, how would I distinguish it from (presumably) a 4A?

 

[Dali]

The LTL3 is already on it's way..

Praktica LTL, MTL, etc... Best shutter release button location and best DoF lever location of ALL SLRs but LOUD shutter.

 

[John Will]

The way I read what I've seen, the Kiev 4A and 4M had the same relationship as the Kiev 2 and 3, or Contax II and III -- the 4M had a meter, 4A none, and they were mechanically (and optically, in terms of RF) the same camera otherwise. I'm not a huge Kiev expert, but I've never seen a Kiev 4 offered on eBay or referenced in any web literature that wasn't actually either what I've learned as 4A or 4M. If there was a Kiev 4 that wasn't a 4A or 4M, how would I distinguish it from (presumably) a 4A?

All the Kievs and their differences http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?3811309893

 

[StepheKoontz]

Y


I've read that the Leica iic does not work with soviet lenses at all, and the soviet lenses need to be calibrated in order to focus with a iic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Many people have recommended just using native glass with leica bodies, to avoid this problem, which would make the leicas out of reach for ordinary people. Maybe the contax is different.

All the canon and nikon LTM lenses work fine on a Leica. The FSU cameras use a "shoe" instead of a roller, so the pivot arm length on an FSU camera changes as you focus, all other LTM cameras use a roller. You can shim an FSU camera to work in the important close to mid distances and they work OK.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Aha! Thanks for that link. Based on their photos, I have a Kiev 4 Type 3 (1973 date code, 1250 top speed, low profile meter housing and small rewind knob) that's been retrofitted with the Type 4 style self-timer lever (black plastic insert rather than metal knob).

I'm in process of scanning a roll of Cinestill BWXX film from my Kiev right now. Nice, sharp images from both the Jupiter-8 and the Jupiter-12.

Kiev 4, Jupiter-8, Cinestill BWXX in Df96.

 

[btaylor]

Y


I've read that the Leica iic does not work with soviet lenses at all, and the soviet lenses need to be calibrated in order to focus with a iic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Many people have recommended just using native glass with leica bodies, to avoid this problem, which would make the leicas out of reach for ordinary people. Maybe the contax is different.

As mentioned above the FSU focusing standard is not identical to Leica, though Nikon and Canon work perfectly fine on Leica bodies. The Contax is different- because the Soviets picked up the Contax factory and moved it to Ukraine. Thus the mounts and rangefinder calibrations are identical.

 

[Dahod]

I really wanted to make this work but after 4Russian rangefinders (2 Zorki's.a FED and a Kiev) I've given up. All were sold as working but not one of them arrived without issues. Maybe you;ll have better luck than me but I think it's a bit of a crap shoot.

 

[brainmonster]

I really wanted to make this work but after 4Russian rangefinders (2 Zorki's.a FED and a Kiev) I've given up. All were sold as working but not one of them arrived without issues. Maybe you;ll have better luck than me but I think it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Yeah, I talked to a Ukrainian guy who had worked with Russian cameras, and he gave me a Russian saying something that things have to be filed down before they are assembled into a locomotive. He claimed that after servicing/cla the cameras will work for a good time. But I'm a bit wary after hearing so many bad reports, so I will avoid them and try to buy a better rangefinder if I decide to go that route.

 

[reddesert]

I have Russian/FSU cameras and lenses that work (a FED rf, a fisheye for SLRs), BUT I don't recommend them as a first step for someone making a step into manual film cameras from a mostly auto camera.

In say the 1990s, Russian/FSU cameras potentially made sense as an economic alternative in certain categories for people on a budget who were willing to deal with the idiosyncracies. Categories like interchangeable lens RFs, or 6x6 SLRs, where the professional options were very expensive. Now that film camera prices have been deflated, there are many other good options for someone who is beginning the manual camera adventure.

 

[brainmonster]

I have Russian/FSU cameras and lenses that work (a FED rf, a fisheye for SLRs), BUT I don't recommend them as a first step for someone making a step into manual film cameras from a mostly auto camera.

In say the 1990s, Russian/FSU cameras potentially made sense as an economic alternative in certain categories for people on a budget who were willing to deal with the idiosyncracies. Categories like interchangeable lens RFs, or 6x6 SLRs, where the professional options were very expensive. Now that film camera prices have been deflated, there are many other good options for someone who is beginning the manual camera adventure.

Can you suggest something good for an interchangeable lens RF? There seems to be a resounding "go for the Leica iic" message but I just can't justify $200. I've already got my LTL 3 on the way but I might want to pick up something smaller in the future, to keep an eye out for.

 

[Huss]

I've had zero issues with my Fed 3 and Zorki 4 bought from alex-ukr-alex on ebay, and my Mockba bought from Fedka.com

My Kiev4AM has a light leak in one corner on every 4th shot. It was bought from a different vendor.
In other news, my 1000 times more expensive Leica M5 has recently developed a very similar light leak.

 

[reddesert]

Can you suggest something good for an interchangeable lens RF? There seems to be a resounding "go for the Leica iic" message but I just can't justify $200. I've already got my LTL 3 on the way but I might want to pick up something smaller in the future, to keep an eye out for.

The Canon M39 screwmount rangefinders already mentioned by StepheKoontz are significantly more evolved than a FED/Zorki and less expensive than a Leica for what you get. There's already a lot written to describe them, just as an opinion, the Canon 7 is roughly the most evolved (most advanced viewfinder) and also relatively inexpensive because it's relatively common. They aren't super small though. Roughly the body size of a Nikon FE or maybe Nikkormat, but the lenses are smaller. But a FED-5 is about the same size anyway.

If you absolutely want something small, quiet, and affordable, then a fixed lens rangefinder like the Canonet - Canonets have become a bit of a cult, there are other similar ranegfinders that are a little larger and cheaper.

Speaking as a terminally cheap person, I don't think $200 is too much to budget for a system camera that works well, if you are going to use it regularly. If you pay for film and processing it adds up to over $200 after 10-12 rolls or so. If you process and print/scan yourself then it's a question of what your time is worth. Most of these cameras cost far over $200 in 2020 dollars during the heyday of film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you're looking for fixed-lens RF cameras that are good and aren't cult-following Canonets, I very much like my Petri 7S (f/1.7 lens). The shutter is loud for a leaf shutter, but that's still not that loud (though there is a very distinctive clunk at the end of the advance stroke). The Kodak Signet 35 is also nice, with f/3.5 Ektar lens, if a little old school (knob advance, rather than lever, separately cocked shutter). The Petri has a selenium meter, but it's in the lens surround, so it meters through any filter you might mount; the Signet is meterless and 100% manual (and the shutter is so quiet you might have to check if it fired); it requires an adapter to use standard screw-in filters. Yashica Electro has a good reputation, too, but I don't seem to have one, so I can't say much more about it.

If I were spending money on travel specifically for photography, I'd agree that a Canon or Nikon RF (depending on your preference for L39 vs. Contax mount) is likely worth the money to get a more reliable camera than the FSU breed -- but for that, I'd probably take a couple M42 SLR bodies and my lenses for that mount, instead. I got my Kiev because I wanted to see if I liked interchanging lens RF cameras -- and the answer is, I do, very much, but now I have to either find a way to live with the quirks of the Kievs (frame spacing seems to be the big issue -- last roll I processed has one patch with about five frames in the space of three, otherwise it overlaps a millimeter or two three-four times in a roll), or to afford something else that uses Contax-mount lenses (so I don't have to start over buying glass).

 

[Dali]

I've had zero issues with my Fed 3 and Zorki 4 bought from alex-ukr-alex on ebay, and my Mockba bought from Fedka.com

My Kiev4AM has a light leak in one corner on every 4th shot. It was bought from a different vendor.
In other news, my 1000 times more expensive Leica M5 has recently developed a very similar light leak.

The main difference is that you can easily get your M5 repaired but finding a reliable repairman for Kiev RF is a challenge by itself.

 

[Auer]

Fixed lens Voigtlanders are fun and affordable, I have a Vito CLR that is very capable and fairly compact.

 

[Huss]

The main difference is that you can easily get your M5 repaired but finding a reliable repairman for Kiev RF is a challenge by itself.

For the Kiev - yes - for the Fed and Zorki - no.

For the price differential? Well...

Don't get me wrong, the Leica is worth it but very very few techs touch the M5. Currently it is with DAG and hopefully he can fix it.

 

[brainmonster]

Fixed lens Voigtlanders are fun and affordable, I have a Vito CLR that is very capable and fairly compact.

I was looking at something like that. They look like they are from the 60's/70's? They look like they are little bulkier than a Canonet though, but I can't really tell without seeing in person.

My poor wallet...