Kiev-90 unicorn spotted!

[4season]

This seller isn't familiar to me, but I've been casually seeking a Kiev-90 since the early 1990s, and this is the first time I've seen a complete camera, not just a film back or empty box being sold. The asking price is too rich for my blood, but still, wow:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/265649534132

 

[Paul Howell]

How many were made, I don't recall seeing one on Ebay.

 

[itsdoable]

According to Princelle's, about 2000. Seems a little steep for a non-working model (does not appear to be a prototype either).

 

[4season]

How many were made, I don't recall seeing one on Ebay.

In his The Authentic Guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras, Jean Loup Princelle put the number at about 2000, referring to it as the "sea-serpent of the Ukrainian photographic industry". Of the units which found buyers, I imagine than many were returned, because this camera had a reputation for unreliability.

 

[flavio81]

This seller isn't familiar to me, but I've been casually seeking a Kiev-90 since the early 1990s, and this is the first time I've seen a complete camera, not just a film back or empty box being sold. The asking price is too rich for my blood, but still, wow:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/265649534132
View attachment 303286

Very cool, but LOL at that price.

At that price you can buy about 10 or more complete Bronica ETRS outfits...

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Quite cool camera. IF I had deep pocket I would get it.

Marcelo

 

[AgX]

According to Princelle's, about 2000 [samples].

"Sovietcams" state 200.


A sample of Arsenal burning money in the late 80's.

 

[LittleParallelograms]

How is the Volna-3 supposed to cover 6x9 when it vignettes at ƒ2.8 on 6x6?

 

[itsdoable]

The model

How is the Volna-3 supposed to cover 6x9 when it vignettes at ƒ2.8 on 6x6?

The model numbers do not reflect the format with Kiev's

Kiev-90 is a 6x45 camera

Kiev-88 is a 6x6 camera

 

[Sirius Glass]

The model

The model numbers do not reflect the format with Kiev's

Kiev-90 is a 6x45 camera

Kiev-88 is a 6x6 camera

Typical Soviet work. Next they will make the Kiev-86 an 8"x10" camera.

 

[gone]

As Picasso once said, "to search is one thing, to find is quite another". Or close to that anyway. Given my past experiences w/ Russian or FSU cameras, I'm not sure one of these is a good idea at any price.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As Picasso once said, "to search is one thing, to find is quite another". Or close to that anyway. Given my past experiences w/ Russian or FSU cameras, I'm not sure one of these is a good idea at any price.

 

[flavio81]

Typical Soviet work. Next they will make the Kiev-86 an 8"x10" camera.

LOL! Most likely!!

Because the Kiev-15 is a 135-format camera, the Kiev-88 a 6x6 camera... The Zenit-80 a 6x6 camera, the Zenit-12 a 135 camera...

The Industar-61 is a 135-format lens, the Industar-29 a 6x6 format lens...

Yes, it makes no sense!

 

[MattKing]

LOL! Most likely!!

Because the Kiev-15 is a 135-format camera, the Kiev-88 a 6x6 camera... The Zenit-80 a 6x6 camera, the Zenit-12 a 135 camera...

The Industar-61 is a 135-format lens, the Industar-29 a 6x6 format lens...

Yes, it makes no sense!

I'm looking forward to your thoughts about Durst enlarger accessories?

 

[flavio81]

I'm looking forward to your thoughts about Durst enlarger accessories?

What's wrong with the SIXPLA, VEGACOL, VEGASET 66, VEGACOLSET, SIRIOCON 80, SIVOPAR??

So, do we need the SIXMA 67 and the VEGACON 100 plus the VEGATUB 39 plus the VEGAFI...

Or do you want to order the SIRIOCUF or the SIRIONEG? ah and maybe a FLULAM 100 or perhaps a DULAMP. No, that last one makes too much sense.

How about a VEGAWAL?

People at Bolzano have a weird sense of humor...

 

[LittleParallelograms]

The model

The model numbers do not reflect the format with Kiev's

Kiev-90 is a 6x45 camera

Kiev-88 is a 6x6 camera

That makes sense

 

[AgX]

Back to the original topic...

I would like to know why this camera never made it.

It was designed and presented before the actual economic trouble in the USSR started and had a chance on the western market too.


And today we do not even know in what small numbers it actually was made...

Can someone shed light on what was going on at Arsenal those years?

 

[flavio81]

Back to the original topic...

I would like to know why this camera never made it.

It was designed and presented before the actual economic trouble in the USSR started and had a chance on the western market too.


And today we do not even know in what small numbers it actually was made...

Can someone shed light on what was going on at Arsenal those years?

This is a great question. There is an article on Kosmo Foto about the Zenit-E that I think can help answering this question. Well, two:

Life as a 1990s Russian newspaper photographer, shooting on a cheap Soviet camera

By Roman Yarovitsyn My name is Roman Yarovitsyn, a photojournalist from Nizhny Novgorod in Russia. I’m the editor of the photo department at the regional office of the Kommersant publishing house. …

kosmofoto.com

Amateur Photography in the USSR: Part One

By Roman Yarovitsyn To understand, what exactly was photography in the USSR, you must know, that any entrepreneurial activity was strictly forbidden here. Earning money by selling photographs bypas…

kosmofoto.com

My reasoning for the Kiev-90 failure based on the above articles:

- One of the main reasons for using 6x4.5 is spending less money on film. If you check out the articles, on the USSR the photographers had unlimited access to film, tons of film, so this feature wasn't an advantage on the soviet world.

- The other advantage is lower weight and size, however I guess the soviet pro photographers didn't care too much, after all, this was the land of big, heavy cameras (i.e. Photosniper kit, Kiev-15, etc.) and lenses (mir-3V anyone??)

- Reliability. The soviet camera industry released new, more sophisticated cameras like the Almaz-103 but they weren't succesful due to lower reliability. Thus the photographers probably sticked with what was more reliable to them. In medium format, perhaps the more reliable stuff was the Kiev-60 or even the Kiev-88.

And maybe a third one:

- Gosplan: To mass-produce something, it had to be approved from above. Perhaps the government saw no reason to increase the production figures of those cameras. "Kiev-90"? "We have Kiev-90 at home, it's called Kiev-60 and use more film".

 

[AgX]

The main market for the Kiev-90 I see abroad. Basically as the german camera SLR manufacturers they had to earn hard currency or be used in barter trading. But due to do their wealth on sought after natural resources the USSR was less dependent on selling such goods. Until the crude oil price dropped...

 

[4season]

I found an earlier (2013) auction in which a Kiev-90 outfit sold for 2280 Euros:
https://wlpa.auction2000.online/auk/w.object?inC=WLPA&inA=20131004_0909&inO=500
But this camera was also non-functional.

 

[AgX]

The most comprehensive description of this camera so far I found at the german edition of Wikipedia.


That Arsenal could not get the electronics running is hard to believe. Pentacon even earlier got cameras with flexboards and microchip into production. Made in hundred-thousands

 

[LeoniD]

This is a great question. There is an article on Kosmo Foto about the Zenit-E that I think can help answering this question. Well, two:

Life as a 1990s Russian newspaper photographer, shooting on a cheap Soviet camera

By Roman Yarovitsyn My name is Roman Yarovitsyn, a photojournalist from Nizhny Novgorod in Russia. I’m the editor of the photo department at the regional office of the Kommersant publishing house. …

kosmofoto.com

Amateur Photography in the USSR: Part One

By Roman Yarovitsyn To understand, what exactly was photography in the USSR, you must know, that any entrepreneurial activity was strictly forbidden here. Earning money by selling photographs bypas…

kosmofoto.com

My reasoning for the Kiev-90 failure based on the above articles:

- One of the main reasons for using 6x4.5 is spending less money on film. If you check out the articles, on the USSR the photographers had unlimited access to film, tons of film, so this feature wasn't an advantage on the soviet world.

- The other advantage is lower weight and size, however I guess the soviet pro photographers didn't care too much, after all, this was the land of big, heavy cameras (i.e. Photosniper kit, Kiev-15, etc.) and lenses (mir-3V anyone??)

- Reliability. The soviet camera industry released new, more sophisticated cameras like the Almaz-103 but they weren't succesful due to lower reliability. Thus the photographers probably sticked with what was more reliable to them. In medium format, perhaps the more reliable stuff was the Kiev-60 or even the Kiev-88.

And maybe a third one:

- Gosplan: To mass-produce something, it had to be approved from above. Perhaps the government saw no reason to increase the production figures of those cameras. "Kiev-90"? "We have Kiev-90 at home, it's called Kiev-60 and use more film".

Higher-ups just didn't really like Arsenal, it seems. Zenits were exported as much as possible, but the same can't be said about much better models like Kiev-10, Kiev-20 and even Kiev-19, which would cost a few bucks more than a Zenit, but is massively better than almost any Zenit. There is an article on KMZ site about reliability tests of Zenits, 2 Kiev-19 and some western cameras. Kievs that were used came after the state trials at GOMZ, so they had considerable amounts of wear and still performed better than Zenit 19. But it's not the most interesting part about that article. The test described in it led to development of the most unreliable camera of the SU, the soviet Nikon F2, Almaz. But, at that time Arsenal already had developed Kiev-18, that for some reason wasn't tested despite being much better and more technologically advanced than the Almaz. There even was Kiev-67, photos of which I unfortunately cannot post, that never saw the light of day, And, of course, there is Kiev-645 (improved and re-designed Kiev-90) that most probably would be decently popular if reintroduced today. And it's not like Arsenal couldn't manufacture all these cameras, this factory was and is manufacturing much more complicated devices
>the USSR the photographers had unlimited access to film, tons of film, so this feature wasn't an advantage on the soviet world
I wouldn't say so)) Sure, film was comparatively cheap, but you had to catch the moment when it was available at the shop. And even when some film was available, it might've been Foto 32 when you needed, for example, shoot in the evening

 

[flavio81]

Higher-ups just didn't really like Arsenal, it seems. Zenits were exported as much as possible, but the same can't be said about much better models like Kiev-10, Kiev-20 and even Kiev-19, which would cost a few bucks more than a Zenit, but is massively better than almost any Zenit. There is an article on KMZ site about reliability tests of Zenits, 2 Kiev-19 and some western cameras. Kievs that were used came after the state trials at GOMZ, so they had considerable amounts of wear and still performed better than Zenit 19. But it's not the most interesting part about that article. The test described in it led to development of the most unreliable camera of the SU, the soviet Nikon F2, Almaz. But, at that time Arsenal already had developed Kiev-18, that for some reason wasn't tested despite being much better and more technologically advanced than the Almaz. There even was Kiev-67, photos of which I unfortunately cannot post, that newer saw the light of day, And, of course, there is Kiev-645 (improved and re-designed Kiev-90) that most probably would be decently popular if reintroduced today. And it's not like Arsenal couldn't manufacture all these cameras, this factory was and is manufacturing much more complicated devices
>the USSR the photographers had unlimited access to film, tons of film, so this feature wasn't an advantage on the soviet world
I wouldn't say so)) Sure, film was comparatively cheap, but you had to catch the moment when it was available at the shop. And even when some film was available, it might've been Foto 32 when you needed, for example, shoot in the evening

Thanks for this info! Do you have the URL of the article? I can read it using a translator.

Слава Україні!

 

[LeoniD]

Thanks for this info! Do you have the URL of the article? I can read it using a translator.

Слава Україні!

Here you go, hope Google can translate bureaucratic soviet into English

ZENITcamera: Архивы -- Повышение надежности фотоаппаратов

Поиск путей повышения надежности фотокамер общего назначения и создания фотокамеры, отвечающей требованиям профессиональной работы | Increasing cameras reliability questions

www.zenitcamera.com

I've read it quite some time ago and misremembered that Almaz cameras weren't partaking.

Героям слава!

 

[flavio81]

Here you go, hope Google can translate bureaucratic soviet into English

ZENITcamera: Архивы -- Повышение надежности фотоаппаратов

Поиск путей повышения надежности фотокамер общего назначения и создания фотокамеры, отвечающей требованиям профессиональной работы | Increasing cameras reliability questions

www.zenitcamera.com

This is amazing info!! Thanks!!!

And it confirms my instinct, that the Kiev-4 rangefinders were the most reliable cameras to come from the CCCP/USSR.

What I didn't expect, was the Kiev-88/Salyut cameras having such good reliablity numbers!