K4a and M3
Hello Stephanie and APUG Forum.
I will add a few thoughts. I bought a Kiev 4a in 2001, after having bought an M3 in 1999. I was just curious, and wanted to know more about Soviet era cameras, never having owned one before.
I must tell you, I am
very pleased with the K4a. Its 50mm f/2 Jupiter 8 (copy of a Carl Zeiss Sonnar) is a fine optic. Its images are crisp, and display excellent contrast. The focusing is easy and accurate. The rangefinder's base is very long.
Comparing the images of my 1969 K4a's Jupiter 8 with those from my 1954 f/2 Summicron, it would be difficult to characterize either as plainly superior or plainly inferior to the other. I often use the Kiev when shooting someplace where I don't want to use my M3.
The images between the two do have a different "feel," somehow. Images from the J8 seem crisp to my eye, and one might think that they are actually sharper. Maybe this is because of newer, superior lens coatings. On close inspection, however, the Summicron's images are also very sharp, and display plenty of contrast. To my eye, the Summicron seems to give a somewhat more pleasing result when doing people photography. I can see it, but I don't know why it is so.
There is a special way one needs to learn to hold a Kiev (or a Zeiss Contax II, of which it is a copy). In this special "Kiev Hold," the fingers are positioned so that none will block the rangefinder's window.
I found that my K4a had irregular frame spacing, wasting just a little film. I get 22 or 23 frames out of a roll of 24, but not 24 or 25 as might be expected with most Japanese cameras. Since the frames are widely spaced and not overlapping, I have not bothered with correcting it.
If one wears glasses, she/he might find the K4a's wee little peephole excuse for a viewfinder a big disappointment. It is impossible to see the entire frame with glasses. One must pan the eye back and forth to construct a mental picture of the entire frame. I wear glasses, so this puts me in the market for an auxilary finder that shows the whole frame. Such a finder from Leica or Voigtlander could cost as much as the K4a, or more.
If someone knows an economical solution to this fractional viewing issue, I am very interested to learn about it.
I created a "washer" of plastic electrical tape, and attached it to the viewfinder trim, to keep the knurled metal from scratching my glasses. Now the glasses can be pressed tightly up against the camera, improving the view a little, while not damaging the glasses' coatings.
From what I have read, one likely point of failure for a K4a is a shutter ribbon letting go. I was winding mine way too hard (snappily) one day and a ribbon let go. I ordered some new Arsenal silk ribbon from Oleg Khalyavin in Moscow (okvintagecamera.com), and replaced the ribbon. I am no technician, so it was tedious for me to do it, but instructions on how to do it are available at Rick Oleson's website and at others. The K4a has worked flawlessly since. There is a Russian Camera interest group at Beststuff.com. Those guys are very helpful, and they know who the reputable dealers are ... and some of those who are not.
Needless to say, I wind the K4a more gently now, never snappily. I have read that in normal use the ribbons can last ten to thirty years without needing replacement. I think one should order one which has had a clean, lube, adjust (CLA), where the ribbons have either been replaced or verified to be in great shape. The CLA will be much cheaper at purchase than later.
As to the point of lenses, while it may be true that there are fewer of them available for the Kiev than for the Soviet Leica copies, there are nevertheless more than anyone could ever need. There is no shortage, and they are affordable. Any rangefinder will not need a lens wider than 20 something mm, or much longer than about 90 or so mm. You doubtlessly know that RFs are not particularly well suited for telephoto work and for anything where parallax could be an issue, as with things closer than about a meter. Those domains are more suited to SLRs.
The Ukrainians made a lot of Kievs, maybe even millions, I think. I am told that in the sixties a Kiev cost about 100 rubles, more or less, and which was about what a Russian engineer made in a month at that time, not counting buried perks like subsidized rent. It was regarded as being a level above many of the Leica copy Soviet era cameras, many of which cost about half as much as a Kiev did back then.
I would not buy one of these cameras from anyone who does not already possess a very good reputation. The Kiev 4a is a rock solid design, and can last forever. But sometimes manufacturing QA was a problem. Getting a good working sample is the key. And that is best achieved by buying from a reputable source.
My K4a came without a takeup spool. Most Kievs do not have the built in take up spool, as the camera supported the option of winding the film into a second cartridge. I made a take up spool that may be of interest to some who have a Kiev RF. I shared the idea with Rick Oleson, and it is on his website:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/kievspool.jpg
Be sure to hit the expand button in the window. The print is not easily read otherwise. The captured free-spinning cassette end keeps the spool from wobbling, keeping the spool 90 degrees from the axis of film motion, same as it would be if there were a proper Kiev/Contax take-up cassette in its place.
In summation, this is what I think: The K4a is not a Leica in terms of features, fit, and finish, but it is a
very capable and durable RF. It makes
beautiful images in the hands of anyone who understands how to use it. It is a tremendous value. One can have a very good classic rangefinder learning and shooting experience with it. And one can build a good "kit," without breaking the bank.
I have no regrets in buying one. I just wish I didn't need to wear glasses.
Good luck with your decision, Stephanie.
Henry
Just kidding! Although its not a bad option, hehehehe.
