rs1

<p>My other Kiev 4a (1979 vintage) I haven't yet opened up. The

Kiev 4AM does have a metal washer at the top of the sprocket shaft but it's small and doesn't do the job too well so I put in a seal just above it and also taped that body seam from the top as well as the bottom. Anyway, let's hope my Fuji Superia 400 roll also turns out good, then I'll be singing...</p>

Congratulations Ron! Very cute baby, only a week old but already has sharp eyes. You are very lucky to be sorrounded by so many grandchildren.

Rick,<br>

<p>I dabbed a little paint on that seam as you had suggested in my earliest post regarding the light leak. It did help somewhat but it was still appearing seemingly at random. It was definitely less but not gone completely. Then as I started digging deeper, I noticed that it all depends on how the light is incident on that rangefinder window. Sometimes when I was taking a side lit picture and sunlight was falling at oblique angles, it would cause the leak to appear in the <i>previous</i> frame (the sprocket being under the previous and not the current frame). Sometimes it will appear faintly in an indoor shot because maybe the camera was held in such a way that the light from a bulb got through. It was crazy but there was a pattern.</p>

<p>Anyway, I got in and 'baffled' the crap out of it. Good thing is Kiev 4s are easy to open even for a idiot like me. Ran a roll of Tri X yesterday, developed it in the evening and it seems good. No leaks! Now I've put a roll of C41 400 ASA film, if this is also clear, I will call it good.</p>

Another thing I forgot to say. What makes the shot even nicer is the angel looks like he's really suffering but the pigeons don't seem to care... :-)

Well, then I should feel a little relieved. At least my cameras work. Light leaks I can fix but bad shutters, not a chance. Even if Rick Oleson stood over my shoulder... ;-)

It is a nice shot! The red sky and the angle you chose, makes the angel look very tormented and very fallen.

<p>Makes sense Vivek. I guess it's up to us to take that 'diamond in the rough' and turn it into a gem. I spent a few hours disassembling the camera, putting in all the light sealing and 'baffling'. We'll see how the photos turn out now. In this case, apart from the intermittent light leaks, both Kievs work fine.</p>

<p>Rangefinder adjustment is fairly easy if it's out of horizontal but adjusting vertical is harder. Kiev Survival Site rocks!</p>

Thanks Gene! :-)<br>

Speaking of upside down text, have you checked out Rick Oleson's website recently?

Hello all,

<p>This is a question for Kiev 4 users. I have been using this camera

for only a few months and have had a nagging problem with light leaks

(more visible with 200 ASA film and above). I finally got the time to

open the camera up to fix the damn leaks once and for all. To my shock

and horror, I found that there was no baffle behind the rangefinder

window. This is likely to be the exact reason for my light leak

because on the negatives it shows up as radiating from the sprocket

and without the baffle, the rangefinder window will illuminate the

entire area quite nicely. </p><p>My question, is there usually no

factory installed baffle behind the rangefinder window? Or is this

just my luck at "Russian Roulette"? I have another Kiev and it has the

same pattern of light leak.</p>

<p>ps I also have to salute the Kiev Survival Site and its owner.

Without using the information on that website, I wouldn't have

"survived". :-)

</p>

<p>Just sharing a few recent photos with my '61 Jupiter 12. This

particular lens was bought for $4 at a flea market. It was infested

with fungus. Luckily the lens is easy to take apart and clean. Fungus

has not returned and the lens performs well as long as there is no

major backlighting.</p>

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/rajivsankranti/img881.jpg"><br><br>

<b>----- Squirrel spots Jupiter 12 -----</b><br><br><img

src="http://members.shaw.ca/rajivsankranti/img882.jpg"><br><br>

 

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/rajivsankranti/img888.jpg"><br><br>

Beautiful photos! That lens almost looked like it had the super duper Ricoh petal lens hood... ;-)

Thanks H.P. <br>Yes, it is very true that they didn't mess up the original German design. I am lucky to have six soviet era lenses for the kiev mount and two for M42 thread and they all perform very well. None of those quality control problems that we hear so much about. I got them at fabulous prices too!

Luis,<br>

Wow! Very sharp. You have a nice late model J12. Mine is the silver one and serial number 6113**. I guess it must be true that the late model ones are less prone to flare and are sharper too.

Luis,<br>

Is your J12 black or silver?

Thanks Luis. :-)

Thanks very much for the answers everyone! I think I am now a little less in bokeh about 'bokeh'. Looks like it depends on many factors, correction of lens aberration, subject distance, lighting, presence of highlights etc., just as you all have pointed out. Thanks again.

Hello everyone,<br>

The "B" I refer to is the word "Bokeh". I am familiar with the word as

it's what my wife calls me when I am being absent minded but I have

only recently become acquainted with the term in photography. I am

posting this question because after half an hour of searching and

reading through lots of posts, I am still as confused as ever. Need a

"Bokeh for Idiots" book or something. <br>I realize that what is

considered good/bad bokeh is subjective thing but having noticed

smoother looking OOF backgrounds with the Jupiter 12 has got me asking

this question. I have read that the way OOF is rendered depends on the

shape of the diaphragm and the degree of lens corrections. My Jupiter

12 lens diaphragm has only five blades (compared to the 9 of the

Helios and Jupiter 8) and the shape is definitely a pentagon, yet I

think I get good bokeh from it. I am posting an example of what I

consider good rendering of the bokeh. So, does the shape of the

diaphragm not matter much then?<div></div>

Gregg,<br>

All the other items took between 14-18 days to reach.

Nice one Vivek! Welcome to the 4 AM club... ;-)<br>

I am glad you didn't dismantle it, would've broken my heart.<br>

I too have the uneven frames (on both Kievs), I guess it's one of the many quirks of this camera.

I agree with James and Stephen. On one of my items, the two weeks turned out to be two months but it arrived in good shape. I guess sometimes delays like that happen, so contact the seller but don't give up hope on it just yet. I have bought a total of four times from Russia/Ukraine and only once did I have a delay.

<div></div>

<p>My first camera was a Smena 8m. It was given to me when I was 10 years old. My father, at that time, was sent to Moscow for four years as the station manager of an airline and the family went along. Russia had excellent subsidized resources for photography and I used them to the fullest. After returning home it was a different story. Photography was a very expensive hobby and my parents put the kybosh on my photographic "career". </p><p>

A few years ago, my interest in photography was rekindled. I bought a Minolta Maxxum 4 with a couple of zoom lenses. Photos were ok but not that great and I started investigating why. I started learning about photography. Learned about metering, the advantages of a prime lens over a zoom etc.<br>

I then looked on evilbay and bought a Konica AutoReflex T4 with the 50mm hexanon lens. I was totally amazed with how my photos improved in quality and composition. I got myself a Konica T2, T3 and a few more lenses. I was starting to like it. I bought lots more after that but that's an answer to a different question</p>

<p>

Sorry to add one more thing but I started using classic gear because they give me better results than the modern gear I own. I am cheap and I can't think of spending a thousand dollars or more just on camera equipment (a new Nikon FM3A with 45mm lens is close to $900 in the B&H catalog). I care mostly about the end result i.e., the print and my classic cameras give me excellent prints.</p>

Shoot! I sometimes used to carry the lens in my pants pocket... :-)

I just checked my lens and acually it is not a super takumar but an "55mm f1.8 auto takumar" and it looks more brown now. I think I gave it sun treatment. I could have sworn it was dark yellow because on colour prints, there was a noticeable dark yellow cast in the shadow areas.

Rob,<br>

I also have the 55 1.8 Super Takumar. Mine has yellowed a little with age. I think the prescription to remove that yellowing is to put it out in sunlight, which I need to do one of these days. The yellow is not that bad because it gives me nice skies in B&W.