Which to start with? Kiev 88 CM MLU or Rolleiflex 3.5F

[cheshire_cat]

<p>I have been wanting to start using medium format lately and I am shopping around. I know I'm asking a dumb question, but honestly I've never used a rollei so I'm not really sure which way I want to go. First I should say that I am shopping on arax's website, Heartblei's website and ebay. Price is an object, but I don't want to sacrifice quality of the picture of longevity of the camera for price.</p>

<p>It's been years since I used film, so please excuse me if I sound stupid at times. It's been a while and I've never been much of a shutterbug, but I have been told I need a creative outlet, and I like obscure things (medium format) and I like upgradable mechanical instruments. That being said, both of these cameras have the same format, and their price is around the same. They both have a whole slew of different accessories.</p>

<p>The Kiev I have been looking at is the Arax CM MLU because I have heard that it does not have the same issues with setting the film speed and cocking the camera in a specific order, when I get carried away, I know I will screw that up. I've also done research into Arax and they have the same quality rating as heartblei. But their standard is a bit cheaper than heartblei.</p>

<p><br /> The rollei I am looking at is the 3.5F probably Type 1 as the price is around the same as the Arax if I get it on Ebay. (not including CLA which I will most likely need, but the price of this is worth it.) I am choosing the 3.5F as my rollei of choice because I would prefer a rollei with both a removable viewfinder and an internal light meter. I have heard horror stories about the light meter, but it's in case I forget my exposure meter which I've been doing a lot. On this point, the Rollei comes out ahead as either can have a prism viewfinder with a meter in it, but the rollei has it even with the waist level.</p>

<p><br /> Now I will be using both a prism and waist level viewfinder, so that is no matter. I'm not going to be doing telephoto, so that is not an issue either. I will be doing macro, X-ray, landscape, B&W, color, pretty much everything except high speed. I want what will give me the best quality in medium format while being a camera that will last me quite a long time. I keep very good care of the things I own, so durability is a plus, but as long as it is sturdy, I'm not going to drop it.</p>

<p><br /> Ease of use is not an issue as long as doing something in the wrong order will not break it. I work for a software development company so I can grasp complex procedures, but computers don't blow up if you put something in the wrong order.</p>

<p><br /> One ease of use point though is the interchangeable backs to the Kiev. If I want to reload, it takes just a few seconds if I am prepared. On the rollei, it takes longer. Although with time I will most likely learn to do this quickly.</p>

<p><br /> Types of film, I know the Kiev wins out here. I've heard that some rollei 3.5Fs can take 220, but I'm not sure about that and I know it's expensive to ship it off to have it converted to use both 120 and 220. While on the other hand, the kiev can use a wide variety including polaroid backs as easy as one two three. The polaroid back is a plus.</p>

<p><br /> Brightness of screens? I've never touched either camera so I have no idea, but I understand there are screens that can be changed that are much brighter for both.</p>

<p><br /> Cool factor. Doesn't really matter, but when talking to a friend about this, he made a point. More people will be intreged about the odd look of the rollei, but more people will just leave me alone and assume I know what I'm doing with the professional looks of the Kiev.But as for cool factor, I'm a geek and know it, I have no belief that a camera will make me look like a sex machine, nor is this my intention. But I appreciate fine machinery so I'd like opinons on why one appeals over the other to you.</p>

<p><br /> Well I pose it to you people! I need to figure out what I should get. I have been researching forums, reading manuals, and doing all the research. But I would like some experienced opinions. What is best for a beginner that will most likely be addicted to it for at least a few months, then use the camera once a month at the very least for a few more years. Then maybe upgrade in 5 or 6 years. I over-analyze, I know. Just stick with me folks and help me run the pros and cons. I have chosen these two because they are the two most popular medium format cameras short of a hassie(which I cannot afford)</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The Kiev 88 is a Russian knockoff of the Hasselblad 1000F. The "MLU" designation means it has a Mirror Lock-Up feature. Although they can be found for reasonably cheap prices compared a 100F, they do not have a favorable track record when it comes to durability and reliability.</p>

<p>I really don't know much about the Rollei, so I will defer to others who do, but if you are thinking of upgrading in 5 years, why not just get a Hasselblad 1000F or FC and never have to worry about upgrading?</p>

[robert meier]

<p>Once you've handled and used them both, your choice will be easy, even inevitable: Rollei. There really is no comparison in design, quality and workmanship of the cameras and the quality of the pictures they produce. Rollei is simply superior in every way.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>The two choices you list, Rollei hands down. It will work for years to come if its in good shape. Some of the Russian cameras never worked even when new.<br>

But I would probally not start out with a Hasselblad,at least not a old 1000F but if I did it would be a 500 series camera. But saying that after over 45 years of shooting film I have 4 Hasselblads now, but used a Rollei in the early 60s.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>I've got several Rolleiflex cameras and love the results.</p>

<p>I would recommend Rolleiflex.</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_martin]

<p>I used to own a Kiev 88 package with several backs (including a polaroid) and 3 lenses, and while I was able to get some decent results, I'm much happier with my Rolleiflex. The build quality is just so much better, it's not nearly as loud as the Kiev, and I can tuck the camera into the small bag I always have with me (the Kiev with backs needed it's own bag, and was quite a hefty load to lug around). Another thing to consider is that if you do decide to sell the camera at some point, the Kiev probably won't hold it's value, but the Rollei will.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>The two medium format cameras I use the most are a Rolleiflex 2.8E and an Arax 60 MLU. The Rollei is my favorite camera and it is much lighter and easier to hand hold than the Arax. The Arax 60 is considerably more reliable than an 88, but not as pretty and without interchangeable backs. IMO both cameras take photographs of comparable quality. The Rollei is certainly more durable (and is one of the finest mechanical cameras ever made), but my Arax 60 has proved reliable over the several years I've used it. I use the Arax when I want more than just the normal focal length lens.</p>

<p>BTW, as far as I know changing the shutter speed on ANY Kiev 88-based camera with an uncocked shutter (or possibly a cocked shutter--I forget which) WILL break it. This is not a problem with a Kiev (or Arax ) 60 (or, of course, a Rolleiflex).</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to start with a Rolleiflex and add a second camera, like an Arax (or Kiev) 60 (NOT 88)when you feel the need for additional lenses.</p>

[User_503771]

<p>Regardless of the general build quality of the cameras in question, the difference in optics will be noticed! The Rolleiflex typically has superb optics (unless it's been thrashed). I've shot through a couple of Kievs with various lenses, and the optical quality isn't up to that of the Rollei.</p>

<p>If you want the Hasselblad-style camera, you can either go with a used and serviced Hasselblad, or take your time and investigate other possibilities. Mamiya and Rollei and others have made cameras with a similar layout.</p>

<p>If you're in a hurry, I think you should just get the Rolleiflex to start with; it'll probably be more reliable and the pictures will be better because of the lens. Then, continue your research. Between browsing active eBay listings and googling cameras that look interesting, you can build up quite a bit of knowledge of what's out there, and what the situation is with each one that you look at. You might find that you're interested in something completely unexpected.</p>

<p>And meanwhile, shoot with the Rollei and thus find out what standard to compare the others to, in terms of picture quality.</p>

[paddy_macmahon1]

<p>The Rolleiflex is also utterly beautiful - mechanically and aesthetically. Sling one of them round your neck and you will immediately attract interest and admiration. It really is a wonder of German engineering too - everything just works and works well, and the negatives are amazing. The only thing it will let you down on is macro work - even with the close-up lenses you'll find it near impossible to accurately frame and focus.</p>

<p>The TTL prism on the Kiev 88, on the other hand, is downright ugly. Shame on you for even considering going out and about with a monstrosity like that.</p>

<p>Rollei, Rollei, Rollei.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>The Rolleiflex, while being a very fine mechanical camera, is a one trick pony only. You get one lens and that's it .</p>

<p>I know you stated that you don't need telephoto lenses but when time comes and you can get you hands on one of those Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180 or a flektogon 50's, you will be glad that you bought the Kiev. And if you get your hands on one of the Schneider - Kreuznach lenses for the exacta 66 there is no quality difference with any late 80's - early 90's Carl Zeiss Oberkochen lens</p>

<p>If you want reliability then instead get a Arax 60 mlu, its cheaper and has a better track record than the 88's. Also there are less problems to mount all P6 lenses where as the Kiev 88 CM as the lens mount on this one sits a little deeper than on the 60 series.</p>

<p>As for view finder brightness the kiev 60 and family are known for being among the brightest and for the cool geekiness factor don't worry the Arrax 60 will get you plenty of cool points, even more than with the 88.</p>

<p>There are one or two things that you need to "look" out for when handling a Kiev film lever;</p>

<ol>

<li>The first is to always "bring" the lever back to it's neutral position and not let it slap back. </li>

<li>The second one is to always wind the film in one full stroke. </li>

</ol>

<p>The first is there to alleviate as much as possible strain on the winding mechanism and is probably just good advise on any camera.<br /> The second prevents the dreaded irregular frame spacing on the film. Having said that, some irregularity on frame spacing is not unknown on lot's of medium format camera's.</p>

<p>Do keep in mind that removable filmback's while handy are also the source of many problems( lightleaks, frame spacing problems, jamming, and just plain mistakes when forgetting the darkslide ).</p>

<p>If I where you and this is your first MF camera, get the Kiev. I Know I did and 3 years later I still have to have my first sign of regrets ;-)</p>

[jean_moxhet]

<p>Few years ago, like you, I was discovering the medium format and what a joy. As many, I started with a old bellow vintage camera (Voigtlander Bessa2) and the result was so fabulous... waouw what a pleasure to look a big neg :-)<br>

So like you, I was thinking about what is the kind of "modern" MF camera that I need. A TLR? a "Hassy-like brick"? a RF? or a SLR?<br>

I was lucky to have in test a Bronica S2 with quite great kit of lenses and accessories. Nice camera but quite fast the conclusion was, such type of camera is not for me. No more dream about NASA like camera. I never succeded to feel how to use it correctly but the pics shooted were another proof of the need of MF camera. Next I bought cheap a Lubitel and I discover the TLR. Great camera but not for everyday use. Next step, the SLR and that was a Pentacon 6. A strange "not totaly reliable" uge camera but what a pleasure to use and with some so great lenses.<br>

Conclusions for me:<br>

The uge SLR (still the Pentacon6 but with Baier update) is what I prefer for shooting nature, landscape, ... except for the size it could be a nice vacation camera ;-)<br>

And for portrait, still life nothing beter than the TLR (no more Lubitel -even if I shooted great pics withit- but replaced by a Yashica) ... specialy child portrait because they don't known that you are shooting them and they don't even hear the shuter.<br>

Conclusion for you:<br>

Be sure of what you "really" want before investing too much money. So trying cheap solution can be a good idea.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>RE: optics, I usually use my Rollei 2.8E (Xenotar) when I want to shoot with a normal lens, but the 80 mm. f 2.8 Zeiss Jena Biometar I have for my Arax 60 is every bit as good.</p>

[harry_zet]

<p>a no-brainer: rolleiflexes haver documented the news around the world for more than two decades. the russians took a kiev up with them in the orbit - thats why there are no photos. the rolleiflex 3,5f is among the two, three best 6x6 cameras ever built, nobody was ever sorry buying one.</p>

[roelof_lucas]

<p>Start with a Rolleiflex 3.5F, I have one and I love it for all the reasons already listed above. Forget Kiev, Pentacon six and such, unless you suffer from a masochistic streak or enjoy camera repair. With the money saved on not buying those get a nice Hasselblad 500 C/M if you feel you need a camera with interchangeable backs and lenses.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>ROLLEIFLEX</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... I have been told I need a creative outlet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My advice is to focus the creative energy on how to make good photographs with the Rolleiflex, not worry about all the optional accessories and possible configurations of a modular medium format. I say that for the following reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>With the modular SLR, you will be forever tempted to spend money (and time) on this that or the other accessory and additional lens. This is nothing more than a distraction from the original quest.</li>

<li>With the Rolleiflex TLR 6x6 you have one film type loaded (forget about 220) and one focal length lens to work with. The rest is up to you. A substantial amount of photographic history has been made with Rolleiflex TLR cameras. The challenge is then about what <em>you</em> can do with it.</li>

</ol>

<p>I don't know if your leaning is toward colour or B&W images. May I suggest you take an hour or two to browse photography books at a library, yes, sit down and turn pages in a real book, starting with B&W.<br /> When teaching, I recommend students limit the pallet to start with, whether it be printmaking or painting, and the same with photography. Typically, I would buy in a bulk supply of one film type, for example ILFORD FP4 <em>or</em> Tri-X <em>or</em> EFKE R100. In the first segment of the course, they would all start with basic developing, according to the manufacturers guidelines and my instructions in darkroom management. This eliminates many variables, and focuses on learning to control working method. The work presented by the class at the end of the semester then highlighted the personal approach and achievement. Without fail, it was always impressive. Only after the fundamentals were understood, did we move on to push & pull processing and different developers with the same film. Only then did they move on to selecting another film.<br /> May I suggest you try a similar path, that is, to select one film for a start, and explore it's possibilities.</p>

<p>Other remarks</p>

<ul>

<li>In your statement you mention X-ray, ... did you mean to say Infrared? If so, the TLR is better suited, especially if you intend to use very dark, or opaque filters for strong IR effects. Because whilst the filter is on the taking lens, the viewing lens remains open for composing.</li>

<li>The TLR is not designed for macro. But you may wish to explore other fields first. Macro photography means scales of 1:1 or larger than life up to 10x on the film. "Close-up" photography is generally the region between the closest focusing distance allowed by the camera without accessories, to 1:1, thus requiring special accessories. This may be what you mean. </li>

<li>If you do choose to go the modular SLR MF route, Hasselblad or just about anything other than the re-furbished Iron Curtain stuff would be a far better investment. That said, if I needed to make a decision on the Kiev options, Hartblei would be the only one I would consider, short of giving up photography.</li>

</ul>

<p>Fundamental to all achievement: Whatever is given focus, grows.</p>

<p>Cheers, Kevin</p>

[kparratt]

<p>... and Harry Zet gives us:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Russians took a Kiev up with them in the orbit - that's why there are no photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Harry, I really needed that one to jolt me out of the Nordic Winter Blues and have a good laugh. But yes, I have often wondered.</p>

<p>Smiles, and goes back to work. Kevin.</p>

[waite_watson]

<p> So,let me get this straight. You want a camera that:<br>

1. Is affordable.<br>

2. reliable.<br>

3. has interchangeable lenses<br>

4. And you don't mind a TLR ?<br>

Well,between the two choices you've named the one to choose is the Mamiya C330.</p>

[cheshire_cat]

<p>OK, been a little over 24 hours, time to respond. Please excuse my bluntness, I do 14 hour days and only spend about 30 minutes on private life a day.</p>

<p>First: Scott Murphy. Duh... seriously, you didn't think I knew tht from my post? I did do some research... Waste of 10 seconds to read, next...<br>

Second: Robert Meier, Thank you, That is the kind of opinion I was looking for.</p>

<p>Russ, Another good opinon. People, this is what I would like.</p>

<p>Bill, same thing,</p>

<p>Joe Martin, Muchos gracias homey, I want to hear from people with both. I honestly had a feeling that the rollei would be heavier. I know they have a full metal construction and the Kiev uses plastic, but I've never held them. It's good to hear this.</p>

<p>Robert Marvin, thanks, but the Arax/Kiev 60 does not attract me at all. It's a medium format disguised as a rangefinder. I got more style than that.</p>

<p>Michael Hendrickson, Another great reply. I'd love to get a hasselblad. Jag ar Svensk och I love all swedish equipment, however I'm no longer living there and no longer have that great Swedish paycheck. So I have to settle. I went for the Kiev/Arax 88 CM MLU because I liked the Hassie style without the price, it's just that damn cocking/film speed issue that prevents me from taking the plunge there. I will get drunk and take a picture and break it. Or my father or nephew, or sister, someone will ignore my warning when I am not looking and there goes a couple hundred bucks.</p>

<p>Paddy, nice name, but didn't I say that I wasn't really interested in the prism lens? Ugly and not my style, but still a good option to keep standing by JIC.</p>

<p>Erwin, Ain't gonna happen. I hate the word ain't, but still. Not going to happen. Not into the 60, I really was hoping for more faith in the rolleinar lenses, but really I haven't heard much good about them. again, I think the 60's are boring and ugly. Just a personal preference, but not happening. Total bummer about the 88 shutter cocking, that is killing my opinon. I have that issue with my Zorki and I'm not going to deal with that again.<br>

Moxhet, I'm only looking at these two cameras, nothing else.</p>

<p>Marvin,</p>

<p>Thanks, but no Arax 60</p>

<p>Harry Zet, so more than just 20 years, I have done my research.</p>

<p>Roelof, Sounds like the 3.5F is my only option, thanks.</p>

<p>Parratt, I've bought books, 13 to be exact, read each one, I got the technical understanding down. I only developed a few rolls 13 years ago and I can tell you the exact steps and seconds and chemical names from memory. I'm a big MF Geek. I'm not going to buy bulk anything. For me it is more important to explore different options than to become comfortable. Sorry about the X-ray infrared mixed, I'm doing work while writing my posts on sites, so I get mixed up with medical reports and my own thoughs.... happens.</p>

<p>As for close-up photography, as long as it can make a nipple look good as a 30x30 image, I'm there. Long story, I have a crazy idea for some photos and you will see them when I am done. But in the mean time. I made my decision, mostly after a very poor reply from the Arax owner. I'm going with the rollei 3.5F type 1 or type 2, but I'm trying to keep it cheap. o now I leave, and sleep, back to work in 10 hours for another 14 hour day. Gotta love computers. Show of hands, anyone now understand why all my doctors (even my dentist) recommended I get a hobby that takes me outside?</p>

<p>Night folks, thanks for the replies.</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_alton]

<p>You will probably enjoy the Rolleiflex much more, particularly for trying out MF and the waist-level experience, except that it will not be a good solution for macro (personally I think digital may be better for macro, but I probably don't have the patience for macro generally). Keep in mind that you will probably be able to sell a rollei for not much more than you pay for it, so try it out and see.<br>

This is not to say the Kiev doesn't have its place (I have one and enjoy it), but it's a very different set-up. It is also capable of fine quality pictures. And for occasional use, 'minor' issues like light leaks or other quality/maintenance factors are a PITA, and this is not a strength of the Kievs. Bottom line, if you save much money over another MF SLR set-up, it'll cost you in time (or luck/risk, because some people do get lucky with Kievs with no issues over long periods).<br>

So it depends what you enjoy spending time/money/risk on, and in what proportion of each - keep in mind there are a lot of other MF SLR systems, Bronica, Hassy, Mamiya, available used at reasonable prices (or much higher prices if you want!).<br>

Someone mentioned a C330: much bigger and heavier gear than a Rollei, without the SLR approach. Also an excellent tool, mind, but for occasional use a bit of a beast. (Again, I say this as an experienced user of one - I still take out my beat-up Rolleicord copy because it fits better in the hand)</p>

[dandreisbach]

<p>For as much as everyone keeps knocking the Kiev 88 cameras some of the best pictures I have ever taken were done with a Kiev 88. That said Arsenal the company in the Ukraine that produces the Kiev has stopped making them and KievUSA has bought their remaining parts and inventory. People buy Kievs (myself included) because they are cheap and so are the lenses. That said the Carl Zeiss lenses are awesome. I would rate the other lenses as fair at best. For school assignments I do shoot with the Kiev over my Nikons as the 6x6 negatives with a Zeiss lens produce prints that a 35mm negative just can't do. If I could go back in time and my wife would let me spend the money I would have gone with a Hasselblad. If you do go the cheap route and get Kiev buy only rebuilt ones (Hartblei, Arax, etc). They also smell really bad - be prepared to replace the factory faux leather - I pimped my out in red. The camera and lenses both have a bit of weight. With my 300mm lens they weigh just over 13 pounds. Regardless of what MF camera you end up getting shoot a roll of Ektar, Velvia and Acros. You will be amazed by the results in MF. Good luck.</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>I have owned both thru the years and there is no contest...get the Rollei; MUCH better camera and lens.</p>