Kiev 88 -- still junk.

[Dr Croubie]

A Soviet camera company with the name "Arsenal". Doesn't make sense, and not inspiring towards making me want one. But then I'm still trying to figure why they call it "The" Ukraine. Isn't it just a country called Ukraine? It's not The Canada, or The France, or whatever. So why The Ukraine? And why would a camera company sound like a munitions factory? I'd be more likely to buy goods to shoot varmints from a factory called "Arsenal". Just my pondered 2¢.

It's only called the ukraine only by people who like doing it wrong.

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London. "Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country," she says. "This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution."

And yes, Arsenal did produce military stuff too. Like nightvision glasses, and lenses for spy/aerial cameras. My M42 Cyclop 85/1.5 started life in a nightvision monocular. I've also got a 100/1.2 still working as nightvision.

 

[AgX]

And why would a camera company sound like a munitions factory? I'd be more likely to buy goods to shoot varmints from a factory called "Arsenal". Just my pondered 2¢.

Because it WAS a weapon factory in its beginning.

The nucleus of industrialisation in that region, founded in mid 18th century.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Bought a KIEV-88 set a couple of years back for a 100 Euro;

It developed some slow speed problems, the airbrake bracket was bent out of shape. Easily fixed once the problem was identified.
Next, I installed a anti-reflection kit from Aki-Asahi. A slighly misplaced part of it caused the mirror to stick up. Easily fixed once the problem was identified.

Light leaks, biggest source of them is the single folded mylar seal for the dark slide in the magazines. These will always cause a light leak when removing or replacing the dark slide. I make sure I remove it before I wind the film to the first frame and only replace it after the last frame has been wound past.

Apart from all that, I do like the camera. It grinds, it creaks and I certainly wouldn't count on it as a daily shooter, but it capable of producing some very nice images

 

[mweintraub]

I've had one Pentax/HasselbladSki (Kiev 60). No problems. Yes, they are known for spacing issues and can be fixed... just like Hassys have locking up issues that can be fixed. Most people don't take care of their Kievs like they baby their Hassys and get them CLA'd...

I also have a horriable photo taken with my Kiev 60 and Russian glass.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I suppose this thread caught my eye because it sparked a question in my mind. If you're going to make something like this camera, isn't it just as easy to go ahead and do it right than to do poor work? To me it always seemed like it ended up being more trouble doing something poorly, as to do it right.

if you're working for a company whose survival (and your job) depends on quality products, happy customers, and a good reputation (e.g. Hasselblad), then yes, you produce quality products.

If you're working for a "company" funded and supported by the government, whose customers have no other choice (i.e. cannot afford or obtain a better product), and the outcome of your work is meaningless (or made meaningless by other workers who don't care), then you get a shoddy product.

For the most part (T-55 tanks possibly excluded), when the Soviets needed to produce a good product, they did - such as the MIG-21 and 29, the Cosmos spacecraft, or the AK-47. Maybe not the most sophisticated or elegant examples of their category, but they were reliable, simple, and got the job done.

 

[NB23]

A Soviet camera company with the name "Arsenal". Doesn't make sense, and not inspiring towards making me want one. But then I'm still trying to figure why they call it "The" Ukraine. Isn't it just a country called Ukraine? It's not The Canada, or The France, or whatever. So why The Ukraine? And why would a camera company sound like a munitions factory? I'd be more likely to buy goods to shoot varmints from a factory called "Arsenal". Just my pondered 2¢.

LOL!

Because Ukraine basically means "that part over there"...

 

[CatLABS]

if you're working for a company whose survival (and your job) depends on quality products, happy customers, and a good reputation (e.g. Hasselblad), then yes, you produce quality products.

While not nearly as bad as Kievs etc., Hasselblads are awfully unreliable cameras, especially when compared to the most basic modern Japanese cameras, so its all relative.

In eastern Europe, and i fell like for the most part in the former Soviet Union, the same as in the middle east, things are done differently then they are in the "west" and or in Asia. Different morals, culture and history, and different tolerance levels (literally or not), drive this difference. And its not to say one is bad or better then the other, but that its hard to understand or place reasoning on why things are done a certain way in a place we do not have the mental tools to understand the inner workings of. That just like with that billion dollar Nasa "space pen", which in the arms race was matched with a 1 cent russian pencil in space ...

Arax have clearly found a way to make Kievs work like hasselblads, but i doubt they can make the lenses not flare.

 

[AgX]

I have seen assembling faults with soviet cameras that would affect usibility and thus should not have passed quality control.

But I also have west-german cameras that are stupidly designed in first place making them hardly usable.


Furthermore we are speaking of manufacturing of decennia ago.
What about the junk (not photo-related) manufactured today in Western-Europe? Including renown manufacturers licenced to ISO quality-control standards.

 

[CatLABS]

What about the junk (not photo-related) manufactured today in Western-Europe? Including renown manufacturers licenced to ISO quality-control standards.

+1 !!!

 

[Xmas]

While not nearly as bad as Kievs etc., Hasselblads are awfully unreliable cameras, especially when compared to the most basic modern Japanese cameras, so its all relative.

In eastern Europe, and i fell like for the most part in the former Soviet Union, the same as in the middle east, things are done differently then they are in the "west" and or in Asia. Different morals, culture and history, and different tolerance levels (literally or not), drive this difference. And its not to say one is bad or better then the other, but that its hard to understand or place reasoning on why things are done a certain way in a place we do not have the mental tools to understand the inner workings of. That just like with that billion dollar Nasa "space pen", which in the arms race was matched with a 1 cent russian pencil in space ...

Arax have clearly found a way to make Kievs work like hasselblads, but i doubt they can make the lenses not flare.

If you strip and reassemble a Kiev they are pretty reliable apart from the ribbon that will wear with use, but that is as true for the Contax II i.e.not a Soviet designed item.

Most of the Ja cameras have foam which needs replacing and eats optical coatings like prisms e.g. in Oly OMs and Nikon DE-1s... to be fair the little FSU spy style enlargers also have 'hungry' finish eating foam.

I'd doubt that the Russian pencils were as expensive as 0.01 USD or Ca.

 

[Roger Cole]

While not nearly as bad as Kievs etc., Hasselblads are awfully unreliable cameras, especially when compared to the most basic modern Japanese cameras, so its all relative.

In eastern Europe, and i fell like for the most part in the former Soviet Union, the same as in the middle east, things are done differently then they are in the "west" and or in Asia. Different morals, culture and history, and different tolerance levels (literally or not), drive this difference. And its not to say one is bad or better then the other, but that its hard to understand or place reasoning on why things are done a certain way in a place we do not have the mental tools to understand the inner workings of. That just like with that billion dollar Nasa "space pen", which in the arms race was matched with a 1 cent russian pencil in space ...

Arax have clearly found a way to make Kievs work like hasselblads, but i doubt they can make the lenses not flare.

Actually that's a myth:

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A Soviet camera company with the name "Arsenal". Doesn't make sense, and not inspiring towards making me want one. But then I'm still trying to figure why they call it "The" Ukraine. Isn't it just a country called Ukraine? It's not The Canada, or The France, or whatever. So why The Ukraine? And why would a camera company sound like a munitions factory? I'd be more likely to buy goods to shoot varmints from a factory called "Arsenal". Just my pondered 2¢.

Because they were made at Kiev Arsenal, built in the 1760s as a cannon foundry, among others things. I have a pair of Kiev 4s that are superb by any standard and yes I have the original 1936 Contax to judge then by.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

LOL!

Because Ukraine basically means "that part over there"...

Or, to my mind, "(at) the frontier". Although my family escaped Communist Hungary, I was initially a Russian translator of scientific and military journals. Admittedly, Ukrainian is different from Russian, but when I hear "Ukraine", then the concept of a frontier springs to mind.

 

[zehner21]

A Soviet camera company with the name "Arsenal". Doesn't make sense, and not inspiring towards making me want one.

Don't forget that Ferrania was, in its first days, a factory that produced explosives!

 

[AgX]

As some celluloid-plants.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I'm not sure I'd say Hasselblads are unreliable. At least not in that doing something like walking into a wedding with just one camera would be smart, either. Perhaps I know them too well. I was never particularly highly impressed with their engineering. ...

Ok, that's interesting. I know nothing of their inner workings and just thought they were a bit special. Maybe their genius is in their modularity.

After having added a 553 ELX to my Hasselblad collection, I was a bit surprised some of the modes worked as they did - that is, were simple rather than sophisticated. For example, none of the automatic modes keep the mirror or baffles up across multiple shots. After researching this, I found a discussion forum where a knowledgeable person explained how Hasselblad engineers just did the simplest and most straightforward approach to creating these motorized modes from the basic operational cycle (*). Even so, it's a cool camera.

So, my question is: what then is the most impressively engineered and sophisticated medium format camera?

... The question is, would a Kiev been carried to the moon by Soviets? Or would they have just bought a few Hasselblads and Mamiyas for the cosmonauts?

For national pride, I think it would have to be a Kiev. I'm sure it would've been carefully gone through to ensure proper functioning.

(*) For the 500-series that being: close lens shutter, raise mirror, close aperture, open baffles, cycle shutter, close baffles, open aperture, lower mirror, open shutter. I thought in the motorized modes the mirror would stay up and the baffles would remain open. Between frames, the shutter would stay closed. Nope: it does the whole cycle between frames. You can control a pre-release state in the auto modes, but that's nothing to brag about. The 2000/200-series apparently allows true mirror lock up, but these aren't motorized.

 

[CatLABS]

Probably a NASA re-engineered Hasselblad. They basically re-engineered the camera to make it utterly dependable. After all, Niel and Buzz weren't likely going to get to do a re-shoot if the cameras jammed or had light leaks.
The Mustang Shelby of cameras.
Other than that, Mamiya was really the only other worthy game in town. But they are big. Hasselblads barely are bigger than the basic necessity of the 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative size. They are as lean as earthly possible for the film size.

BTW--if there's a Hasselblad factory rep on this site, you owe me a sales commission check for all my writing on the subject.

I do not think so. In any case the first EVA in history by Alexey Leonov, was only documented by 16mm cameras mounted on the outside of his capsule, because he could not operate his chest mounted camera (model is a mystery) because of a problem with his suit.

 

[CatLABS]

This does not look like a hassy either, more like a zenyth...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This does not look like a hassy either, more like a zenyth...

No. Zeiss Contarex I think, but not the Bullseye model.

 

[AgX]

The question is, would a Kiev been carried to the moon by Soviets? Or would they have just bought a few Hasselblads and Mamiyas for the cosmonauts?

On all soviet missions cameras (being it series cameras or custom scientific ones) were from COMECON origin.

 

[Pioneer]

Never owned a Kiev 88 or a Hasselblad.

But I do own a Kiev 4a bought off Ebay a couple years ago. Just a sample of one but I am very happy with it. The camera and the two lenses that came with it were very inexpensive yet they work just as smoothly as any other camera kit I own.

In my opinion the Soviets did just fine with what they were given. Perhaps the original German Contax II design was a bit more robust in the first place than the original Swedish Hasselblad design?

 

[polka]

Yes, the Hassleblats are lighter and smoother to operate, but I have two Araxen bodies (one with cloth shutter and one with metal shutter) and four magasines (two 6x6 and two 645, all of the NT type), and never had any problem with all that stuff :

Indeed, the shutter speeds are not "nominal", the 1/1000 acts more like 1/500 : the metal shutter is more accurate than the cloth shutter (but of course, you have to avoid absolutely touching it the slightest way, it is much more fragile).

Any of my magasines suits any of my bodies, without leaks and accurate focal placement of the film.

Out of curiosity, I bought once an OT back, but I used it only once with my bodies, it is now converted into a pinhole camera.

The NT backs control the advance of the film the same way as most TLRs : with a spring loaded palper rolling on the paper cover of the receiving film reel. This works really nice with any brand of films.

However, I had some issues with the lenses : some of them were not closing fast enough to preselected diaphragm.

One Arsat 80mm/2.8 had oily diaphragm blades that I had to clean thoroughly.

My 250mm teleobjectiv could never be adjusted for automatic preselect, I had to modify it for manual preselect.

On the whole, I am rather satified with all this harware...

Paul