DSLR Photography Forum

This is a Kiev-4A rangefinder camera with Helios-103 (53mm f/1.8) lens. I just bought one of these on eBay. (photo source: http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/kiev_4a.html)
Ok, I know Kiev isn't actually in Russia, but these FSU (Former Soviet Union) cameras are often simply referred to as "Russian Cameras", so that's where the Russian bride reference comes in. In other news it seems the UK contains more than just England, and America is bigger than just the United States.

I've been wanting a rangefinder to play with ever since I discovered the power a discrete little GF1 has when compared to a DSLR, but I know I won't use it enough to justify paying a lot of money. I also have a fascination about ex-soviet culture and all the stuff that went on behind the iron curtain that I never learned about in school during the cold war. So something like this was inevitable. In fact I suspect there might be a few other ex-soviet cameras headed my way in the future (Lubitel TLR, Zenit Photosnaiper, etc).

The story behind this (and other similar) camera and lens is fascinating. After WW2 the Germans were forced to dismantle a number of factories, including some Leica and Zeiss optics factories. The soviets ended up with all the tooling and dies needed to produce German Leica and Zeiss cameras and lenses. As a result there are a range of soviet cameras and lenses (Kiev, Zorki, Fed, Jupiter, Helios, Industar, etc) that are clones of pre-WW2 Leica and Zeiss designs. Of course there's a lot more to the story, but that's the TL;DR version. Edit: This story may not be accurate (at least not as it relates to Leica clones). See my next post below for a Leica clone story.

The Kiev-4A shown here is a clone of the Contax II camera designed by Zeiss in 1936. While Ziess stopped production in 1942, these cameras were produced in the USSR right up to 1987 (based on basically the same 50 year old design!). There are quite literally millions of them floating around, many still in great condition, rediculously cheap on eBay. I hunted around for a very nice example, and paid US$44 for camera and lens. They can be bought on eBay for as low as about $30 if you're happy to have the Jupiter-8 lens (which is 1/3 stop slower than the Helios at f/2, but is still very highly regarded).
The Helios-103 53mm f/1.8 lens is based on a Zeiss clone, and is very similar to the Leica Summicron 2/50 lens.

While these cameras and lenses aren't quite built to the same standards as their Leica and Zeiss counterparts (particularly ones from the 1970's when it seems the quality control took a bit of a nosedive), they are still very solid and reliable and perfectly usable today. The exception to this reliability is the light meter that came with the Kiev-4 and Kiev-4M models. In most cases these selenium light meters no longer work or are wildly inaccurate, so I simply opted to buy a Kiev-4A which doesn't have the meter to begin with (and looks much sleeker).
While the genuine Zeiss and Leicas are certainly more desirable to collectors and far more expensive, the Russian clones are a better proposition for someone who wants to go out and actually take photos because the original Contax IIs are all around 70 years old, while you can buy a Kiev-4 that's functionally identical, only 25 years old, and 1/10th the price.

In addition to the camera and "kit" lens, I also seperately bought a Jupiter-12 lens (35mm f/2.8) and turret viewfinder (adjustable for 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm). If I end up using this camera regularly then I might add a Jupiter-9 (85mm f/2) lens and perhaps even a Jupiter-3 (50mm f/1.5).

Here's a pic I found on Flickr showing this exact lens/viewfinder combo on a Kiev-4A. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/siimvahur/3887753784/
Funnily enough, the external viewfinder was more expensive (at $80) than the camera and two lenses combined! But the viewfinder has a generic hotshoe mount allowing me to use it on other cameras as well (ie GF1).

I'll post more when it arrives and I've run a roll of film through it...

Here's a bunch of info about this and other Russian cameras: http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/kiev_4a.html or http://www.keithberry.telinco.co.uk/Kiev-4.htm
Here's some info about the lenses available for the Kiev-4: http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/le...ptics.html
And some info on the original Contax II: http://www.cameraquest.com/zconrf2.htm

ooo... it seems my info on the history behind these clones of German cameras might be a bit off, or at least as it relates to the Leica clones (particularly FED). Perhaps the info above only applies to Kiev cameras (Ziess clones), or perhaps it's wrong altogether?

Regardless, here's a very interesting (and credible) article outlining the history of FED and the Russian Leica clones which pre-dates WW2 by many years and involves an orphanage and the secret police. It's stories like this that make me so interested in the old Soviet Union.
http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune...mune_A.htm

And finally, here is a photo I took last year of a shop window belonging to a Leica shop in the GUM (pronounced Goom) department store in Red Square, Moscow.

The shop window features photos taken of the GUM building during what looks like the 1920's or 1930's. It was an odd feeling to walk into that Leica store with a 5DMk2 slung over my shoulder feeling somehow apologetic and a little inadequate.

Fascinating purchase and story. I like how we are providing more information beyond the strictly technical in our posts these days - this trend is vaulting the Shuttertalk forums into a new league IMO.

Its a lovely, sleek looking little thing and the stylized cyrillic text on the front gives it a really exotic look. The gatling gun style viewfinder is also a peach. I'll be interested o see how it performs.

Nice aesthetic but Toad's last sentence is the proof of the pudding. That said, I'm reminded of how splendid a medium-format camera the cheap-as-chips Seagull was(Chinese I think?) Really hope it does the biz, to be honest;.... if they brought steam technology into cameras I confess I'd buy.

You're right Zig.

While good examples of these cameras are well regarded (especially the early ones made in the 50's and 60's), the Soviet factory quality control was nowhere near as good as the Germans, so getting a good copy is more hit-and-miss with these clones. Fingers crossed. But to be honest, I'd like one with a bit of a unique character to it too. That's half the fun.

When it costs just $44 for a camera and lens, it's a risk I don't mind taking. That's cheaper than a Diana camera with a plastic lens!
Of course I hope I get a good one, but as long as it works to some degree, even if I only get one afternoon of enjoyment playing around with it and then end up with a nice looking paperweight, I won't feel ripped off. That's about the same price as just two movie tickets, and I've wasted my money on plenty of bad movies in my time.

Looks like it might be a lot of fun, and certainly inexpensive. You should check the accuracy of the shutter in a camera that is 60 or 70 years old. Recently I tried using some of my old film cameras from the 60's and 70's and found out that the exporsures were way off, even using a hand held exposure meter.

I don't mean to worry you; just something to consider.

Regards.....Dennis

Thanks for the tip Dennis.

hmm.. upon closer inspection of the eBay photos, it seems the camera I bought is in fact a Kiev-4AM. The "M" is the slightly more modern version made in the 1980's. I think the only differences between it and the earlier models are a fixed take-up spool, different rewind lever, and a couple of very minor cosmetic differences. But it does place it at the new end of the spectrum.

I also found a source that better explains better than my botched effort how these Contax cameras ended up being cloned in the Soviet Union after WW2.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zeiss_Ikon

Wow – 4AM – I can't even think of the last time I was awake that early.

(Somebody was going to make the joke, so it might as well be me.)

Congratulations to you and good luck with your new relationship. I'm a big fan of cheap film cameras from the 80's; my most recent acquisition was built in 1981. Thirty years is nothing, and film is timeless. Or at least, it's unlikely to become any more obsolete.

Do you have film picked out yet?

Excellent.

I meant to follow-up on this earlier.

Matt, I don't have a particular film picked out yet (although I do have several rolls of expired Neopan 400 which need to get used). To be honest, I haven't had all that much experience with film. And that's part of the reason I'm interested in these old cameras. I want to really get my hands dirty and have some fun with them before film is completely forgotten.

I must confess I only took an interest in photography towards the end of the film era. The first "proper" film camera I bought was an EOS 300 in about 2001 (which I promptly gave to my mum when I bought an Olympus 4mp digicam in 2003). Before then I'd been using crappy old point-and-shoots and didn't care. I came from a computer graphics background (anybody remember Deluxe Paint on the Commodore Amiga??) back when "computer graphics" was a seperate field to "photography".
It was really only when digital cameras became affordable consumer devices that my interest in photography took off. Originally I was more interested what I could do with the photos in Photoshop (or rather Corel PhotoPaint which is what I was using back then), but slowly my interest moved away from what I could do with the computer and more towards the what I could do with the camera.

So here I am now gathering a very modest and inexpensive collection of cameras that I find interesting to play with and to get a better appreciation of where we've come from. I'm not looking for expensive or rare models; quite the opposite. I'm looking for "everyman" cameras that are representative of an interesting period in time, are significant to the history of photography, are quirky or have loads of character, or just have a great story behind them. I'm looking for the Volkswagens and Ford Transit vans of the camera world, not the vintage Ferraris. And importantly, I want cameras I can actually take photos with.

The Olympus XA in your avatar pic is a classic example Matt. I love the idea of high-quality sub-compacts (Every time I look at my GF1 I want to go travelling). I don't have an XA, but I did find something else along similar lines..
Even though my Kiev hasn't arrived yet, last week I stumbled across a Rollei 35 SE on eBay going for a very good price and I couldn't resist. It'll be a great fun camera to keep handy in my pocket, it has a bit of a cult following, a gorgeous lens, fantastic build quality, and the dodgy ergonomics just seem to give it more charm.
So now I'm waiting on two cameras to arrive. Here's a pic from the eBay auction:


I'd love to get an Olympus Pen FT at some stage too, but most of them are going for crazy prices. I'll just keep an eye out for that occassional one that slips under the radar.

Dinky Rollei...a real feat of engineering, by all accounts. Nice.

Cool. I love the dials on the front. It will be interesting to see how these cameras stack up against your digicams. I expect rather well (other than the workflow issues associated with scanning film).

It might not shoot 10 frames/second or capture 1080p video (in fact you need to zone focus because there is no rangefinder or TTL viewfinder), but there aren't many other cameras this small that offer a lovely lens in front of a "full-frame sensor".

Kombisaurus Wrote:...in fact you need to zone focus because there is no rangefinder or TTL viewfinder...

I think what you mean is that there is no focus assist via the rangefinder because it looks to me like it does have a rangefinder onboard. Maybe I have that wrong though - does the optical viewfinder *not* qualify as an actual rangefinder if it doesn't assist you to guess the focus distance?

No matter - I know what you mean. I am actually becoming quite good at zone focusing with the Leica. I won't go so far as to say that its "liberating" - but its certainly possible and not that hard unless you are ultra close.

This looks like about the same size as the Olympus XA, and I'm sure the lens is a cracker. Enjoy!

P.S. All this discussion is making me want to dig out my old XA from the massive pile of miscellaneous photographic junk that I have collected over the years. Might be fun to play with...

Kombisaurus Wrote:I don't have a particular film picked out yet…

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice, check out Kodak's New Portra 400 for colour, and/or Ilford XP2 Super for monochrome. Portra 400 is very forgiving of overexposure, and has a fairly natural colour reproduction. XP2 is also very forgiving, and is a chromogenic film that can be processed in any mini-lab – no special chemicals or processes. It's different from traditional black and white film: XP2 has grain in the shadows instead of in the highlights, and overexposure just opens up the shadows and decreases the grain (at the expense of a bit of sharpness).

Kombisaurus Wrote:I must confess I only took an interest in photography towards the end of the film era. … So here I am now gathering a very modest and inexpensive collection of cameras that I find interesting to play with and to get a better appreciation of where we've come from. I'm not looking for expensive or rare models; quite the opposite.

That sounds very familiar. I started out with a Yashica GSN, and it's all been downhill from there. Nikon F100, Zeiss ZM Ikon, Fuji GX680iii, Hasselblad 500c/m, the Olympus XA, and now another medium-format Fuji is on its way to me from Japan. None of them are collector's models, and at least a couple of them have been relatively inexpensive.

I knew I was really in trouble when I was doing some trip planning, and my film budget became my largest single cost. I could take that amount of money and buy a lens I want and use my D700 instead, but that just wouldn't be the same.

Robert, you should dig out your XA – we can form a very small club. Technically a rangefinder camera is one with the optical triangulation focusing, in the same way that the new fixed-peiilicle-mirror Sony digital cameras aren't really SLRs. My XA has a rangefinder, while the XA1 through XA4's have viewfinders and scale focusing – the classic guess-the-distance-and-hope is actually what I usually do with my XA – but retain the framing viewfinder and bright lines. If I'm not mistaken, that's the same as Adrian's 'new' 35. One of my co-workers had one of these cameras, and compared to its intricate clockwork-like feel the XA is a cheap plastic P&S.

Matthew: what model of battery does the XA take? Manuals long gone and old battery corroded to sawdust... Mine is the original model with screen screen focus assist.

Excellent! Not the battery=dust part, but the finding part.

The XA takes either one 1/3N battery (second on this Duracell page) or two SR44 batteries. The SR44 is a better version of the LR44 battery (full cross-reference on wikipedia) and the LR44 should do in a pinch. The LR44 has the advantage of being pretty common, as oddball batteries go, to the point where I was able to get a pair of them from a convenience store on the main drag of Coney Island. The downside is that they're not that powerful, which is why I was looking for them in the first place. But all of these batteries are cheap.

I find the 1/3N batteries at Futureshop, but The Source should also have them. Insert so that the Positive side is facing the battery compartment door.

There's a PDF of the XA manuall here: http://www.cameramanuals.org/pdf_files/olympus_xa.pdf

LR/SR44 are if I remember correctly 1.5 v and if you want them cheap go to a hearing aid shop rather than 'Boots'. A pack of 6 will cost you less than a single. Something 675 will be the equivalent.

Of course tell them it is for a hearing aid not a camera.

http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_357.htm

Thanks guys for the battery info and manual. My XA also has a flash unit that clips on the right side of the camera. That looks like it takes a single AA battery

A strange side-effect of this search for the XA is that I also found my very first camera: a Kodak Instamatic 134 (didn't find any flash cubes though), and also a Yashica-Mat 21/4" medium format camera that I vaguely remember accumulating as part of some horse trade, but not ever really using. Interesting trip down Memory Lane...

Shuttertalk switches to analog!
That would make an interesting monthly challenge.. Everyone shoot some film in a dodgy old camera and share our favourites.

Rob in answer to your question, yes the Rollei 35 has a viewfinder (for framing the shot), but no it isn't a rangefinder (for estimating focus).
But you're right about the size, it's very similar to the Olympus XA. I just did a google search for a comparison and found this...

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html Wrote:
The Great Olympus XA versus Rollei 35 Debate
In defence of the Olympus XA, its design is so elegantly simple a novice photographer can begin using it immediately. Also, because it has some automation, while the Rollei has none, this speeds up the shooting process. In a nutshell, while the XA doesn't match the level of manual control or the superb optics of a Rollei 35 SE, it is far less of a work out to shoot with. Its far from perfect, miniscule rangefinder focusing patch offers a more precise means of focusing in daylight than the Rollei's guesstimation method. That said, the XA's rangefinder is problematic indoors or in low light, since it's rangefinder patch isn't as large or bright as any of the full-featured fixed-lens rangefinder cameras from the 1970's. So, in low light situations, one must use the scale focusing just like on a Rollei, but one that isn't as accurate. Lastly, the lack of the ability to use filters with the XA is almost a show stopper with regards to B&W photography. Hence, the main advantage of the Olympus is that it utilizes an integrated circuit to automatically operate an electronically controlled shutter, which, as mentioned, makes for convenience and quick shooting. There is, of course, a not so minor drawback to all this convenience. The XA, like any modern electronic camera, will cease to function should its batteries ever give up the ghost. With the Rollei or any of the older rangefinder cameras from the 70's one will be able to soldier on, so long as if he or she can forego using the light meter and instead use the "Sunny 16 Rule" to set the exposure. In the end the decision as to which is the best pocketable 35 mm camera essentially comes down to choosing between precision or convenience.

Thanks for the film suggestions Matt. I would like to dabble in a bit of developing myself at some point, hence the interest in traditional b/w films. But for the moment I'll just get a lab to do it for me, so I'll check out your suggestions of Kodak Portra 400 and Ilford XP2 Super; forgiving film is good.

But if we're going to continue this trip back to the past then I think we should all close our browsers, disconnect the internet, and TTY chat on a BBS using 2400bps external dial-up modems.

Kombisaurus Wrote:But if we're going to continue this trip back to the past then I think we should all close our browsers, disconnect the internet, and TTY chat on a BBS using 2400bps external dial-up modems.

2400bps?? You young guys have things soooo easy. What's wrong with my old phonebook sized 300bps modem? (to which the *really* young guys say... "what's a phonebook?")

Hey, when I was starting out, we called it 'baud' – none of the fancy bits-per-second business. I started out with a 1200baud dumb terminal that could only connect on an unusual parity, which limited me to WWIV, Telegard, and one other minor BBS platform.

Robert, the accessory flash does take a AA battery, but why? (I know someone else with the XA, and he's never used the flash either.)

Adrian, I've been trying to convert Pavel and Denis, but I suspect that we'll have better luck convincing Zig to go medium-format. (More on that in a day or two.) But I'm really eager to see these two additions that you have coming your way, the process of getting them going, and the results from them. Do you have any sort of ETA on the packages?

And thanks for that link/quote – I went looking for a comparison like that, but never found anything that good.

matthew Wrote:Robert, the accessory flash does take a AA battery, but why? (I know someone else with the XA, and he's never used the flash either.).

I hear you, but it absolutely has to increase its eBay value, yes?

Robert, true, ebay does like to have complete collections. When I was buying my XA KEH and Adorama would sell the camera on its own for about 60-75% of what the camera with flash would cost. By that standard, it's better to have the bigger A16 than the more common A11 flash; mine came with the A11 that I don't use, while my colleague has the A16 unit sitting in a drawer at home.

No sign of the packages yet Matt, and no idea when they'll arrive. Assuming the postal services of former-USSR countries are all still fairly similar to each other, and the fact the postage was pretty cheap, I'm not expecting the Kiev to arrive for a while. I sent some packages from Russia back to Australia and they took over 2 months to arrive. Same thing from Czech Republic.
I've got higher hopes for the Rollei 35 SE to get here soon(ish) from Germany though.
I also scored a nice cheap little Sekonic L-248 light meter locally to have handy for the Kiev, and ordered a few substitutes for the obsolete batteries for both light meter and Rollei camera. I can use my iPhone as a light meter in good light, but it has some issues in low-light. I might discuss that in your iPhone thread...