Kiev 88 -- still junk.

[summicron1]

Years ago I made the mistake of buying a Kiev 88, the poorly made Ukranian imitation of a camera model that Hasselblad abandoned. It made three trips to the repair shop under warranty the first month, the last one-way for a refund.

But, being ever the optimist, when a friend said he had one to test for a friend, I said sure, I'll give it a shot, but with the strict understanding that if parts start falling off it is not my fault.

I am happy to report no parts fell off.

It is a heavy beast -- are Hassys this big? -- and while this was allegedly an upgraded one, and has a bayonet lens, it still felt a bit cheap. The advance is a bit mooshy, and while, yes, i was very careful to make sure and not even look hard at the shutter speed dial without advancing the film, it still got weird. At one point it seemed to resist shifting from 1/30th to a higher speed directly, so I gently turned it all the way around the other way. Then the camera started firing only the first curtain, not the second, and I had a moment of panic before it got itself sorted out and firing properly again.

At which point, having finished two rolls of film, i put it back in its bag and backed slowly away, hands raised.

The images are what I saw last time I tried this -- except for one taken at 1/1000 where the shutter capped halfway across, the image area is fine, the lens seems very sharp, but there are fogged strips between the frames, and with higher speed film (EDU 400) the camera evinced a light leak along the bottom edge between the film back and the camera body. The two parts made with a simple metal ridge/channel, no foam or other sealant to prevent leaks. If it were my camera i'd find some thin foam to line that channel with. What does Hassy do?

But it's not mine. Back it goes to its owner, with a warning to be gentle with it.

Here's some images. Note light leak on the one.

 

[mike c]

The Hasselblad back is made the same way flat with a ridge that mate's up with a channel on the film back, have not had problems with that but do get light leaks from the dark slide if the foam used to seal it gets to worn, it is easy to replace.

 

[summicron1]

The Hasselblad back is made the same way flat with a ridge that mate's up with a channel on the film back, have not had problems with that but do get light leaks from the dark slide if the foam used to seal it gets to worn, it is easy to replace.

Hadn't thought of the dark slide. thanks.

 

[DannL.]

I once had the Salut version of the camera. It had all of the defects mentioned. It was horrible for light leaks. I'm perty sure mine was made from pounding soup cans into the shape of a camera.

 

[gone]

The deal w/ stuff from the former Soviet Union is one should buy the cameras for the lenses. Then use the camera for a door stop, and get a decent body for the lenses, which are usually good to fantastic. Doesn't much matter which body (although the ugly, later Feds SEEM to be occasionally OK).

 

[Paul Howell]

Years ago I made the mistake of buying a Kiev 88, the poorly made Ukranian imitation of a camera model that Hasselblad abandoned. It made three trips to the repair shop under warranty the first month, the last one-way for a refund.

But, being ever the optimist, when a friend said he had one to test for a friend, I said sure, I'll give it a shot, but with the strict understanding that if parts start falling off it is not my fault.

I am happy to report no parts fell off.

It is a heavy beast -- are Hassys this big? -- and while this was allegedly an upgraded one, and has a bayonet lens, it still felt a bit cheap. The advance is a bit mooshy, and while, yes, i was very careful to make sure and not even look hard at the shutter speed dial without advancing the film, it still got weird. At one point it seemed to resist shifting from 1/30th to a higher speed directly, so I gently turned it all the way around the other way. Then the camera started firing only the first curtain, not the second, and I had a moment of panic before it got itself sorted out and firing properly again.

At which point, having finished two rolls of film, i put it back in its bag and backed slowly away, hands raised.

The images are what I saw last time I tried this -- except for one taken at 1/1000 where the shutter capped halfway across, the image area is fine, the lens seems very sharp, but there are fogged strips between the frames, and with higher speed film (EDU 400) the camera evinced a light leak along the bottom edge between the film back and the camera body. The two parts made with a simple metal ridge/channel, no foam or other sealant to prevent leaks. If it were my camera i'd find some thin foam to line that channel with. What does Hassy do?

I was given a Kiev a couple of years ago with 3 lens, it was mess, light leaks, poor flocking, overlapping frames, the 120mm lens had a bad diaphragm would not stop down. I reflocked it, fixed a couple of the light leaks, but never found a way to fix the frame spacing issue. I have read that the Kiev's that were rebuilt are much better than those that came from the factory, the few rolls I shot were very sharp, but no better than my Kowa to make the aggravation worth it. I gave it way as well, maybe someone make the effort have it looked after.

 

[benjiboy]

As a precision engineer by training Kiev medium format SLR's always struck me as machines that were designed and built by people more used to manufacturing agricultural machinery than precision cameras because the quality of materials their suitability for the intended purpose and engineering tolerances they were built to were far outside the original Swedish design they were copying, the Hasselblad 1000 F.

 

[summicron1]

As a precision engineer by training Kiev medium format SLR's always struck me as machines that were designed and built by people more used to manufacturing agricultural machinery than precision cameras because the quality of materials their suitability for the intended purpose and engineering tolerances they were built to were far outside the original Swedish design they were copying, the Hasselblad 1000 F.

yes, and you have to think that there's a reason Hasselblad discontinued the 1000F and went to in-lens shutters even though it made the lenses cost a lot more.

Unworkable design even with Swedish engineering? Perhaps...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry that you had so many problems with the Kiev 88. On the positive side since all this time has gone by perhaps you have the money to buy a Hasselblad, a film back or two and one lens now.

 

[summicron1]

Sorry that you had so many problems with the Kiev 88. On the positive side since all this time has gone by perhaps you have the money to buy a Hasselblad, a film back or two and one lens now.

I could, I guess, especially the way prices have come down, but if a Hassy is as big and heavy as this thing is I probably wouldn't use it much. I vastly prefer my Rolleiflex, and when I want multiple lenses and interchangeable backs on medium format I can use the Graflex XL.

 

[Nick Merritt]

No, a Hassy is noticeably lighter (and a little smaller too, I think). I'm referring to the 500 series, with lens shutter. For what it's worth, the Kiev 88CM is a big improvement. Mine works flawlessly, in any event, and access to the CZJ lenses is a big bonus.

 

[snapguy]

Kiev88

It sounds to me like you got one of the better examples. There was a firm in New York that got Soviet-era cameras and fixed them up so they worked pretty good but I don't know if they are still in business. The Soviet system had a lot of problems. Like a Polish shipyard worker said back in that era -- we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us. And their monthly quota of output was primary, not quality. I had an East German Prakitsix 2 1/4 SLR that was wonderful until it died and nobody and I mean nobody said they could fix it. The lenses, though, were wonderful including the Olympic Sonnar 180mm f2.8. I had that one modified to use on my Nikon F and it was a killer at the time. Big and heavy but, boy, what images.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The deal w/ stuff from the former Soviet Union is one should buy the cameras for the lenses. Then use the camera for a door stop, and get a decent body for the lenses, which are usually good to fantastic. Doesn't much matter which body

I second that, the lenses are just great.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It sounds to me like you got one of the better examples. There was a firm in New York that got Soviet-era cameras and fixed them up so they worked pretty good but I don't know if they are still in business. The Soviet system had a lot of problems. Like a Polish shipyard worker said back in that era -- we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us. And their monthly quota of output was primary, not quality. I had an East German Prakitsix 2 1/4 SLR that was wonderful until it died and nobody and I mean nobody said they could fix it. The lenses, though, were wonderful including the Olympic Sonnar 180mm f2.8. I had that one modified to use on my Nikon F and it was a killer at the time. Big and heavy but, boy, what images.

You need these people in Ukraine:

http://araxfoto.com/

 

[Sirius Glass]

The deal w/ stuff from the former Soviet Union is one should buy the cameras for the lenses. Then use the camera for a door stop, and get a decent body for the lenses, which are usually good to fantastic. Doesn't much matter which body (although the ugly, later Feds SEEM to be occasionally OK).

How do they work as boat anchors and for building jettys and seawalls?

 

[BobMarvin]

Whatever one might think of the Kiev 88, it's ugly duckling sibling, the Kiev 60 is pretty good. My Arax 60, an overhauled slightly modified model, has been very reliable.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

only a Hasselblad is a Hasselblad.If it walks like a duck and sqeaks like a duck...

 

[Dr Croubie]

Sorry that you find Hasselbladskis junk from a sample size of one.
From my own personal sample size of one, I've never has a problem (mine is an 88CM, serial is 08xx so maybe it was made in 2008?).
I've had a light leak only once, and that's because I jammed the darkslide back in at an angle and ripped the foil bit. My own stupid fault, and it was testing a fleabay-bought back from 1960. Never had a problem with an NT back.

But the Zeiss aus Jena MC lenses are magnificent.

 

[DBP]

You need these people in Ukraine:

http://araxfoto.com/

Agree. I've had mine from them for 10 years with no issues.

 

[CatLABS]

.........it still felt a bit cheap....

It is about 85% cheaper then a hasselblad, when new. So, thats not a big surprise.



My dad was an army mechanic, and after some war or another, where they had captured some soviet T55 tanks, they had a very hard time getting them to work, as even though they had what appeared to be 3 identical tanks, each had a different engine, mounted differently, with different type screws and bolts. No parts were interchangeable, and, alas, nothing really worked even when it did work. I later learned that these were made in a bazzilion different factories, each with its own engineers and designs working with what was available at the time. Some were so far away from the original, there was no one person who could fix them all.

The same is true of Kiev cameras, and i doubt there are two exactly alike. Couple that with the fact they are indeed VERY inexpensive, and you get a pretty crappy camera. When i was a student, it was all the rave of "hey, i got an el cheapo hasselblad, with a carl zeiss lens check it out", later turned into "man, all the frames are bunched up on the first half of the roll, wow, and each and every frame has massive flare and light leaks".

As for the lenses - sure, they are sharp - but what good is that when they flare so badly, you must have a very dense filter, shoot only BW, and not anywhere near the direction of the light, to not get any fogging. Like the cameras, they are useless.

You have to credit the effort, i had some friends who did their entire education with a Kiev, and they did get some photos. All ended up with a real hasselblad by the last semester.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Yep, those lenses sure do suck. I mean, I've seen lenses suck before, but they're the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked.

Good thing I didn't shoot this in colour, just look at that flare!
:munch:

 

[Patrick Robert James]

In the late 90s I took a trip to Prague and ending up buying a Kiev 88 with a Pentacon Six mount after seeing how cheap the Pentacon Zeiss lenses were there. I shot a few rolls with it while I was in Prague, but that was about it. The shutter capped something fierce. I took it apart a few times, but couldn't get it working right. I think I ended up throwing it out. I kept the lenses for a few years with the goal of getting an Exakta 66, but never did. I eventually sold the lenses to someone who had bought an Exakta. These days I don't know why someone would want to deal with a Soviet MF camera when a Pentax 67 is so cheap, and the lenses for the Pentax are less than the Pentacon Zeiss lenses too. The Zeiss lenses are nice though.

​

 

[summicron1]

Sorry that you find Hasselbladskis junk from a sample size of one.
From my own personal sample size of one,

actually, it is a sample of two, double yours -- and this one is, by far, the more reliable in that it is, to some degree, sort of, a bit, for the time being, reliable.

It says "Kiev 88 CM" on the side, so I guess that's what it is. It has an 80mm ASRAT C lens wich I presume is Ukrainan? The interior of the camera body is vastly better flocked and blackened than the one I tried 20-odd years ago.

Maybe I'll try my brother's Hassy next, just for grins. But using these things inevitably makes me load the Rollei next, just for therapy.

 

[NB23]

I've had three. The most useless piece of crap on the planet.

 

[mnemosyne]

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?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844
same pattern exists in German language, btw, also for other countries like Netherlands, Congo, Philippines etc.