Kiev with 50mm Jupiter 3

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>As promised I have taken a roll of film with my rather beat up Kiev, more or less as a comparison to the Contax 11A that I used a little while back.<br>

It is interesting to use both of these cameras at the same time. They are basically the same of course, although I'm guessing that the Kiev is more of a copy of the pre-war Contax. They do look much the same, and the Jupiter 3 is a direct copy of the Sonnar 50mm 1.5 that I used on the Contax. My Jupiter is coated though, so I was interested to see how it also compared to the Zeiss made product, plus coated versus non - coated.<br>

While the Kiev is a good honest picture taker and does seem robust, the feel of both cameras is very different. Where the Kiev feels like it's full of gravel, the Contax is super smooth, even nicer than a Barnack Leica. Still the Kiev is still working after 50 odd years, so it's not too bad!<br>

The lens did surprise me as some Soviet lenses can be a lottery as you all know, but this one is really good. Maybe a smidgen less sharp than the Sonnar, but being coated it exhibited more contrast. Still, a really good lens, and one with that old world image quality that I love in the Sonnar, especially at wide apertures.<br>

I took the Kiev for a walk through the coastal ti-trees to Bournda Island, just to the North of us.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>The old girl is quite nice apart from some peeling leatherette. First pic.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>These were all taken at or near full aperture. No.4</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.9</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>That's all folks. The Kiev is a great alternative to a Contax if you are on a budget, and the Jupiter is impressive, at least my copy is! Film was Fuji Across in Pyrocat HD, scanned with an Epsom V700.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Great results, as ever! Especially number 2 and 3 have that cinematic character to them that I much like - newer lenses just don't know how to do this trick anymore! You put it to great use.</p>

<p>I recently got a Kiev-4a with the standard Jupiter-8 as a first encounter with rangefinders; mine does look a whole lot worse than yours, though! The rewind knob came off during shipment, and seems properly broken off - so I replaced it with a screw, which looks crap, but works fine. Take-up spool is an Ilford spool - I reinforced it with a bottom cap of a canister and that already made the camera a lot smoother.<br>

The frame spacing was way off, so yesterday I cleaned and lubricated the take-up spool fork (as recommended on several forums), and now it seems a lot smoother. I've got no Contax to compare, but given the horrorstories on Russian cameras, I'm not dissatisfied at all. The first roll did come out fine, and optically you won't hear me complain. To test, though, I've been using cheap colour film, and developed it in Rodinal to not waste good film nor money. Results are moody at best :-)</p><div></div>

[robert_marvin]

<p>"the Kiev is more of a copy of the pre-war Contax"<br>

Not really a copy, but a Contax legitimately made in Kiev as a result of war reparations. They DID, however, differ more and more from the original model as the Soviets made "improvements" over the years.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Tony,</p>

<p>You have done a fine job with this Kiev. I find the Soviet cameras to have a workman like quality. They are fine performers and if you get a good copy they can last a long time. They just lack that certain feel that makes some people want to spend the extra bucks on the German models.</p>

<p>The lenses can be first rate. Again you need to get a good copy. Buying off of Ebay can be a gamble so it is best to find a seller with a good rating. I have had good luck with a seller located in the US. He will check out the equipment and has a good reputation.</p>

 

[rick_drawbridge]

<p> Great work, <strong>Tony</strong>. I'm no great admirer of the handling qualities of either Contax or Kiev, but then I'm not a rangefinder aficionado, full stop! That being said, some of the lenses <em>are</em> great, and you've shown the fine qualities of the Jupiter 3 in this post. Oddly, the couple of Kievs that I have are smooth enough in their workings, but neither appear to have done much work, and as a bonus they have that glorious Russian aroma; I don't really believe it's due to the bear grease, but who knows? I really like the leaden feeling of the "Bournda Island" photograph. Thanks for a fine post.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks all, and Wouter, I also have a screw mount J8, and wasn't so lucky with that one...not good at all! Still, I hear that the J8 can be really excellent if you find a good one.<br>

Robert, thanks for that. Copy was really not the right word, and I guess that very early Kiev's would have been better until they used up all the German bits.<br>

Marc, this is my third attempt to get a good working Kiev, and although the body is a bit tatty, all the speeds work...minor miracle!<br>

Rick, thanks for that. Mine is definitely not smooth, at least not compared to the Contax. Also the Russian aroma is not present, but at least my old Zenit 3M makes up for that, with it's perfume spreading throughout the cupboard!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The first roll I did was processed regularly, I've got a few photos up (<a href="/photo/18127563">here</a>, or <a href="/photo/18127564">here</a>), and really, I can't find much fault with my Jupiter-8. Wide open shots are a bit lower contrast and dreamy, but I expected nothing else. No idea if I got lucky, or Tony unlucky.... but it works for me.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Wow. #6. Look at those clouds. Nice.</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>Kiev cameras reflect well the era in which they were made.</p>

<p>I have several and the 1955 model still seems to reflect the terrific influence of the recently deceased Josef Stalin. It relates well to my two 1938 Contax II's in perceived quality and smoothness of operation.</p>

<p>Later Kievs I own still seem to work well but they exhibit a degradation of quality after the fear of Stalin was removed. To me, it seems as if the long history of the Kiev version reflected the long demise of the Soviet Union, step by step, year by year. Not the first to post the theory by any means, but an objective examination of the cameras would seem to support the theory.</p>

<p> </p>

[donald_miller5]

Unlike like the Fed and Zorki knockoffs of the Leica, the Contax machinery was taken to Soviet Union lock stock and barrel. All the parts

on them are interchangeable. The only difference I found was the adaptor for the remote shutter release on the Kiev. Having no

machinery after the war Contax had to redesign the cameras anyway and Kiev developed their own designs at some point.

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks Brad, Donald, and Michael...that's exactly how it is,a kind of "we just don't care anymore " attitude. Also Brad I sent you a PM in reply to yours, but it keeps bouncing back?</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>I have to say <em><strong>Tony</strong></em>, you and <strong><em>Rick D.</em></strong> have a wonderful photographic eye along with very interesting camera equipment... </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Great results, Tony. Thanks for sharing.</p>