Kiev-303 - Infinity focus appears off

[ObsidianLycan]

Hi!
I adore these 16mm cameras, I have a Kiev-30 and Kiev-30. The Kiev-30 I popped open to sort out light leaks, and that one is wonderful now. However, my Kiev-303 is out of focus/blurry in my test shots. Mostly I shoot at infinity, and these are always out of focus/blurred no matter the shutter speed. Interestingly, maybe, is that a couple of closer shots I have taken (where I did adjust the focus) do appear a little bit sharper (to my eyes, a little anyway). Certainly these close-ups are more inline with the Kiev-30 in sharpness (if you can use that as a milestone, in this case I think so hehe)

I have opened up the Kiev-303 since these shots were made, and can verify the lens does move as the focus wheel is turned. Another thing is the front of the lens had some clouding/gunk/fungus which came off with a Q-tip dipped in peroxide/alcohol and doesn't appear to have etched anything. I will need to shoot a test roll to see if there is any difference, but thought I would as is it likely crud on the lens could cause this blurring?

If its likely a focus adjustment that's needed, I am happy to open it up and try again. Any suggestions for how I can calibrate the focus on this is some sort of logical fashion?

 

[ObsidianLycan]

No Kiev-303 buffs in the audience?

 

[xkaes]

It's difficult to judge the images regarding correct focusing due to the "crud". It seems very noticeable in the shot of the building. It basically is like adding a soft-focus filter -- so correct focusing can't be determined.

Now that you've cleared up the lens, make a shot at infinity, with the distance set at infinity, 2 meters & 1 meter (using a ruler). Use a 1/250 shutter speed in the sun -- so you can stop down. ISO 100 film will be f11. Then see what's what.

 

[Donald Qualls]

so you can stop down.

Wouldn't you get more information on wrong focus setting by shooting wider -- say, f/5.6 or even f/4? Stopped down enough to be sharp at critical focus, but not so much as to make DOF a big player? Using slower film will play into that, and give finer resolution in scanning or printing the negatives to get the magnification needed to assess focus. After all, a Kiev 303 is hyperfocal at not much beyond 1 m at f/11...

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Throw it into the ocean and get a Mamiya 16

But seriously, the results seem to be on par with just about any antique 16mm camera. I really doubt anything from an earlier model would have had any better mojo. Maybe you could post some examples from the 30.

In any case, troubleshooting these sort of simple problems is usually an onus of the OP around here.

 

[ObsidianLycan]

It's difficult to judge the images regarding correct focusing due to the "crud". It seems very noticeable in the shot of the building. It basically is like adding a soft-focus filter -- so correct focusing can't be determined.

Now that you've cleared up the lens, make a shot at infinity, with the distance set at infinity, 2 meters & 1 meter (using a ruler). Use a 1/250 shutter speed in the sun -- so you can stop down. ISO 100 film will be f11. Then see what's what.

Thanks for the suggestion. I just loaded up some more film and I will try this soon. I took the whole thing apart again tonight, balanced the lens part on a tripod and stuck some scotch tape over where the film plane would be. I must say it looks okish with a loupe (hard to tell on such a teeny image, many just wishful thinking ). I am hoping that it was the crud on the lens making the soft focus effect....I will report back when I have tested with measured distances and made some notes while shooting

Wouldn't you get more information on wrong focus setting by shooting wider -- say, f/5.6 or even f/4? Stopped down enough to be sharp at critical focus, but not so much as to make DOF a big player? Using slower film will play into that, and give finer resolution in scanning or printing the negatives to get the magnification needed to assess focus. After all, a Kiev 303 is hyperfocal at not much beyond 1 m at f/11...

This is a good point, I will throw in some different f-stops into my testing (and make notes). Thanks for the suggestion; more information will certainly help troubleshoot this.

Throw it into the ocean and get a Mamiya 16

But seriously, the results seem to be on par with just about any antique 16mm camera. I really doubt anything from an earlier model would have had any better mojo. Maybe you could post some examples from the 30.

In any case, troubleshooting these sort of simple problems is usually an onus of the OP around here.

D: If I threw this one away, my Kiev-30 would get lonely!

I understand they are antique small cameras, so I am certainly not expecting epic quality. Just reaching out in case anyone has any tips, and I do accept I will probably just have to open it again and have another tinker about

Same film strip, cut in two and shot on the two cameras in one weekend, and also developed together. It does systematically look like the 303 is blurry, at least to my eyes after scanning and working on the negatives. Maybe it is just some effect of the crud that was on the lens, I will test again soon!

Kiev-30

Kiev-303

 

[koraks]

The blurriness in the lower left frame (Kiev 303, cherry blossom and church) looks like motion blur for the most part.

The initial example with the motorcycle has the advantage that it has foreground as well as background, so logically, something should be in focus in that image. It seems like the actual point of focus is around the handle bars of the machine, and since that area is fairly blurry as well, I suspect that much of the lack of sharpness you're seeing is just inherent to the optics. This may be a sub-optimal lens design, or, quite likely, poor quality control in lens manufacture.

You could shoot a series of exposures of a scene with lots of detail ranging from close to the camera all the way to infinity. Set the focus to different spots; e.g. as close as it will go, at around 10 meters and at infinity. Evaluate the results, preferably on the negative itself with a loupe. I'd suggest using b&w film instead of color because it's often easier to interpret. Check if the area of best focus agrees with how you set the focus on the lens/camera. If so, and there's still considerable unsharpness left, you'll just have to take it for what it is.

Another thing is the front of the lens had some clouding/gunk/fungus which came off with a Q-tip dipped in peroxide/alcohol and doesn't appear to have etched anything.

I'm sure that didn't help with overall contrast and apparent sharpness. Good job removing it!

 

[xkaes]

I suggested a fast shutter speed and a stopped down lens to see if the camera is capable of good pictures at all. If the three exposures don't come out perfectly, there are serious problems with the camera. If they do come out OK, then further tests could determine the problem.

Why start out with complex testing, when a simple, quick test might be all you need? When your car stops running, you first check if there is gas in the tank, you don't do a complete tune-up. Well, maybe you do -- I don't.

 

[xkaes]

But seriously, the results seem to be on par with just about any antique 16mm camera. I really doubt anything from an earlier model would have had any better mojo.

Quality results from a submini camera? An Oxymoron???


http://www.subclub.org/library/doubt.htm

 

[Donald Qualls]

This may be a sub-optimal lens design, or, quite likely, poor quality control in lens manufacture.

The Kiev 30 and 303 have triplet lenses, just like the Kiev Vega and the Minolta 16 and 16II they were patterned after. I have both a 30 and 303, and both are capable of sharp images; mine, at least, also have accurate scale focusing (I've shot at the closest 0.5 m setting with good results on a number of occasions).

Now, a poor example lens is a very real possibility, especially in a 303 (like the Contax-pattern Kievs, the older cameras seem to be better made). My own preference is for the 30, but both of mine are capable.

 

[xkaes]

The great advantage of the Vega's and Kiev's over the Minolta's is the focusing lens. OK, they were all f3.5 triplet lenses, while the Minolta's were typically four-element f2.8 lenses, but that's why the Kiev's were f3.5. It's the same thing as with the Rollei 35 cameras. They had f3.5 triplet Tessar versions, and f2.8 Sonnars -- but they both produced great results.

I like my Vega 2, but they are all simple, well-made, rugged cameras. Sure, this could be a lemon, misused or damaged, but it's more likely to be something else -- in my opinion.

 

[ObsidianLycan]

Hi guys, just checking in for anyone who is following (or anyone in the future that this may be relevant to).

Part of the blur was likely from some crud on the lens, I cleaned this which helped the general quality.

For the general blur, my latest thinking is that using the fastest shutter speeds is causing some kind of shake/shock/vibrate. Most images show at slower shutter speeds are looking sharper, anything at 1/30 and 1/60 seems to always look amazing (well, relatively ). At 1/250 every shot (pretty much) has this blurring, thanks to @koraks as your message made me think more about movement and the penny dropped. Looking at the photos, most of the 1/125 shots are also a little blurry as well.

I decided to play a little further. I tried holding the camera firmly on a flat surface to take the shot ( a piece of wood on top of my tripod). Shot at 1/250 again, the shot held on a tripod surface was much less blurred, perhaps due to some vibration absorbing. This shot is much more like the handheld shots at 1/30 and 1/60, so it feels like an overly aggressive, faster shutter might be the issue.

 

[xkaes]

That is odd that the higher speeds are showing more blur, but the shutters on these small cameras can "pack a punch". Are the exposures coming out OK with the higher speeds?

I wish I had a suggestion. You don't want to find a tree to use a fast shutter speed.

 

[psfred]

Next time you have it apart, paint the areal between the lens and film with Tesstor's Flat Black. The factory painted them wil SHINY black paint, and flare from internal reflections can be terrible. Makes the image appear "foggy and flat" due to greatly reduced contrast.

Also make sure the rear lens element doesn't have haze on it. Same result, very low local contrast in the image, which looks out of focus.

 

[SMD]

I see some flare in the upper part of the image from the Kiev-30. (The white-blue building.) You could remove the glass that is before the lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You could remove the glass that is before the lens.

I don't recall my 303 having any glass in front of the lens.

 

[xkaes]

Some Kiev cameras allow the use of a filter in front of the lens, but the 303 does not have that feature. There shouldn't be any glass in front of the lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Some Kiev cameras allow the use of a filter in front of the lens

The ones with a metal shell would accept a slip-in filter similar to those made for the Minolta 16 and 16 II -- but at least the Kiev 30, due to its larger frame, has a larger opening in the shell. The Vega probably can accept a Minolta 16 filter (or close-up lens, but with the focusing lens it's not needed or desirable). The 303 has a plastic shell that's much thicker than the metal one on a 30, and a slip-in filter that works with a 30 most likely wouldn't fit.

 

[xya]

Some Kiev cameras allow the use of a filter in front of the lens, but the 303 does not have that feature. There shouldn't be any glass in front of the lens.

The 303 doesn't have a glass indeed, but the 30 and the 30M have. @SMD was refering to the 30 photos (first row).

 

[xkaes]

The 303 doesn't have a glass indeed, but the 30 and the 30M have. @SMD was refering to the 30 photos (first row).

If you check, I think you will find that the glass in front of the lens is a filter. Push it to the side and it slides out. At least it does on mine. There is no permanent glass in front of the lens.

 

[xkaes]

The ones with a metal shell would accept a slip-in filter similar to those made for the Minolta 16 and 16 II -- but at least the Kiev 30, due to its larger frame, has a larger opening in the shell.

Despite having a larger format size, the Kiev 30 has a smaller lens opening than the Minolta 16 II. The Kiev 30 filters are too small for the Minolta 16 II.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Kiev 30 filters are too small for the Minolta 16 II.

Well. I guess I didn't know that because I've never had them both in hand at the same time. For that matter, I don't think I've ever seen a Kiev 30 filter...

 

[xkaes]

That's interesting. All of my Kiev & Vega cameras -- except the Kiev 303, of course -- came with clear filters. I assume these are UV, but the are unmarked. I assume they are the same size as the original Minolta 16, but I've only compared them to the Minolta 16 II filters, which are slightly larger. I assume that the Kiev filters are the same size as the original Minolta 16 filters. They are supposedly interchangeable, but I've never tried it.