Musing on favourite Kiev/Contax...?

[dee]

I was pondering about my favourite from my 19 Kiev/Contax cameras.

They include hybrids such as the Arsenal/Kiev Technicians Contax IV and KNeB IV created from older style Contax/Kiev IIIa bodies with 1957 Kiev 4 top plates/meter and controls.

Plus the pair of nearly genuine Contax II rebuilt by Arsenal guys in Kiev from a derelict wreck to an original ,beautifully working silver paint and tan leather camera, together with a box of spares recreated with a new ex-stock Kiev shutter assembly.

Much better than a Contax fake made from later Kievs, and only a touch more expensive.

The most collectable is probably the 1952 KNeB II with matching lens which works perfectly , the 1951 KNeB II was bought with a later lens but is equally smooth and useable.

I like my 'set' of those Contax III/Kiev IV and Kiev III/IV, and genuine 1957 Kiev 4, which provide a fictional creation of Kiev 4 cameras spanning 1937 to 1957., which satisfies my ASD need for continuity and sameness, as does the entire story of the Contax/Kiev continuity across almost 5 decades.

But it's the Context in respect of Kontax which appears to win out here-

The mint, as new,virtually unsued, 1979 Kiev 4a with original UK TOE importer box, mint passport and instructions which brings me closest to both my wanderings around the musty TOE shops in London way back when, and, however compromised by alterations and poor quality control, it is the nearest to a NEW 1930s Contax which I will ever achieve.

Most of these ex-USSR cameras were bought as inexpensive curiosities from behind the Iron Curtain to accompany a contemporary camera so had very little use.
Indeed, Kievs which are known to be TOE imports are more likely to be still working well, despite the woeful quality control of the 1970s, the export cameras were both checked in Ukraine and by TOE.
Many from the country of origin have been back street repaired with dubious results.

It's quite amazing to recognise that a camera made in 1979 is effectively a derivative of on of the most desirable and expensive cameras ever created from 1935.

[iangreenhalgh1]

A postwar Stuttgart Contax is significantly nicer in design, fit and finish than any Kiev or pre-war Contax.

[scsambrook]

I agree with Ian that the post-war Contax IIa and IIIa are nicer in design but that doesn't diminish the status and virtues of the pre-war Contaxes which really did represent the then-pinnacle of complexity in 35mm camera design, even if they were 'masterpieces of misplaced ingenuity' to misquote J S Lipinsky. And Dee is musing, even philosophising, on the variety and significance of his own collection in a historical context, not asserting the superiority of the earlier artefact over the later.

Having said that, I can't really agree with Dee that the pre-WWII Contaxes were the 'most desirable' cameras created in that era . . . although that's down to individual tastes, innit? But they were very nearly the most expensive, their half-sibling the twin lens Contaflex being just a wee bit more costly.

I've got a Kiev from the era of TOE imports, and it works just fine (apart from the lightmeter).

[iangreenhalgh1]

Sorry, I was about o go out when I made my prior post so I was too brief. I owe 7 Kievs, from a 52 to a 88, I love Kievs, they are great, I love Russian lenses for them too, I have a copy of just about every model they made, including 5 J8s cos I adore the J8. I use a 1963 J3 on my Contax IIIa a lot, in preference to my pre-war Sonnar 1.5/50 as it's uncoated and the J3 is every bit as good. I do use the Sonnar with BW from time to time if I want the dreamy look it gives.

I do need to find a good Kiev repairman, three of mine have died on me.

[dee]

Thanks guys.

I was musing on the perceived 'value' based upon the emotional response to an object. The TOE 'New' Kontax stimulates contented recollections of an earl passion which helped with ASD 'lostness and bewilderment'.

I agree that the original Contax may not have been the best camera of it's era, but it appeared to be marketed to appeal to the very well healed, or as professional tool.
It's success in both those areas could be questioned, as it's the very unreliability and cost of repair which led to my four cameras being abandoned or split for spares, perhaps for decades.

ASD is however totally blinkered to 'other' cameras. The post war Contax is undeniably a much better camera, as is the Nikon, but ASD recognises only Leica II and Contax II/III as real and safe.
I guess that child me must have played with these specific 'cameras' which, as so few items are imprinted.
Indeed, my mind cannot resolve things properly, which I have worked out as seeing every detail, like snapshots which I can't edit or ignore.
It helps to have several rather than one, as my mind sees stimulus repeated rather that 3x separate stimuli.[ it's like a child seeing 'bus go by again ' before becoming aware of many buses going by.Intellect/leraning can override this, but it remains as the primary perception.
So the logic is alternative rather that strange.

Having a 'set' of the three profiles - Kiev II, Kiev III and Kiev 4 , all with either Contax or KNeB identities WITH THE SAME ORIGINAL CHASSIS is extremely comforting as the Kiev 4 revised body is perceived as wrong.

Which makes the TOE New Kiev 4a Konnection a touch out of sequence, but it seems to come from an alternative reality !!!

dee

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

as said in other discussions, I am a user and a fan of the Contax/Kiev rangefinder system.

I can say that a well-built Kiev can be an exceptional camera, at a very low price. I still use my grandfather's Contax-II (bought in 1937) and some Kievs, above all, my favourite 4A (made in 1968), bought back in 1975; also this one, perfectly working, and finished as one expects from a german-made camera.

Everybody knows too, how good the lenses of the Jupiter series can be, and it's interesting to use/compare them with their Carl Zeiss counterparts.

E.L.