UlfSpuhl
Hello everyone,
I’ve signed up here because of the excellent thread about the Kiev and would love to join in the discussion.
Having used various 35mm cameras, such as SLRs and DSLRs, I’ve now found my niche in black-and-white photography using medium format.
I work freelance in the fields of graphic design and art, and photography is currently my main focus.
As I don’t believe that the price of the equipment alone determines the quality of the images, but rather that a talent for seeing and a spirit of adventure are more important, I opted for an affordable Kiev 88 rather than the original Swedish Hasselblad.
Despite the many warnings online, which I ignored, the first exposure of the film went wrong.
Apart from four images, all the other negatives remained white, meaning they were not exposed. I initially suspected the shutter, but it turned out that the light meter in the prism viewfinder is so inaccurate that almost all the images suffered from underexposure.
The second roll of film, shot in the mini-studio under continuous lighting, with the exposure measured and transferred using the DSLR, resulted in consistently good exposure with selective sharpness. No shutter malfunction, no film transport issues; in short, the Kiev 88 is technically absolutely fine so far, apart from the light meter – an external handheld light meter is necessary – and it is excellently suited for taking photographs, particularly in the creative/artistic field.
As soon as the weather permits – it’s currently pouring with rain – I’ll be using the Kiev 88 for outdoor shots.
So far, I consider the development of my experience with this camera – from the many negative comments I’ve heard to my own recent experiences – to be a success.
Who else has experience with black-and-white photography or medium format?
Cheers, fluuu
cfb_de
Hello "fluuu",
Just so that some people don’t have to post the same thing twice, or you don’t end up getting frustrated by the lack of replies here and giving up: you’ve already received a reply to this
here in Baiser’s forum
.
And it seems to have helped, as you’re satisfied:
when posting in Baier’s forum,
please elaborate on your questions a bit more. A great many Kiev owners read more than just one forum.
Best regards,
Franz
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
I don’t think referring people to the Baiers forum is very welcoming here.
There’s a very interesting, lengthy thread on the Kiev 88 further down here,
and perhaps the people there are still active on the forum and we can
have a chat.
What is or isn’t written on other forums doesn’t
really matter; this is about communication rather than technical details.
I consider the Baiers forum to be purely a technical forum, for questions in case something isn’t
working.
Analogue black-and-white medium-format photography with the Kiev 88 is much more than just getting the camera
to work; it is the creative and artistic capture of photographic
images with form and content...
Regards, fluuu
SamuliSchielke
In my experience, a Kiev 88 can be a great camera if you’re lucky enough to get your hands on one that’s in perfect condition. I’ve become rather dissatisfied with my Kiev – the mechanics are too imprecise, I have focusing problems that I simply can’t resolve, and I’m slowly considering selling it. That doesn’t mean that Kiev is bad overall, but the camera I have has caused me too much frustration.
Best regards
Samuli
UlfSpuhl
Hello Samuli Schielke,
Don’t you think the Kiev 88’s faults can be fixed? When I decided to buy it, I was well aware from all the comments that it might cause problems, and I set out to sort them out. On the first roll of film, all but four of the shots were affected by underexposure; the negative was white. At first I suspected the shutter, but it turned out that the TTL light meter in the prism viewfinder I’d been using was inaccurate.
For the second roll of film, I used an external light meter to measure the exposure; it was consistently well-exposed with selective sharpness and no film advance issues. So it seems I’ve managed to get hold of an original Kiev 88, even with Cyrillic lettering, which is so well-made that there’s nothing technically wrong with it when taking photographs, and if anything does crop up, I’ll sort it out. In medium format, I currently consider the Kiev 88 to be the greatest adventure when it comes to shooting; perhaps the negative comments that are so often read are not entirely without merit.
Regards, fluuu
SamuliSchielke
Hello,
Most faults can be fixed if you’re technically minded. But ideally, you just get lucky – as you seem to have – and end up with a good one. And the lenses are brilliant when it comes to tonal range. The 65mm lens on my Kiev is reason enough in itself for me to have been taking photos with a Kiev for so long.
In itself, the Kiev can be a fine camera, but with my particular model, I find that I don’t have enough confidence in my camera and consequently take less good photos. That’s why, after Christmas – if I still have any money left – I’ll be on the hunt for the original Swedish model.
Best regards,
Samuli
Schwedenstahl
Well, I’ve also gone down the route of the Swedish ‘original’. Just to avoid any confusion for newcomers, the Hasselblad 500 series only resembles the Kiev 88 in appearance; technically, it’s a completely different beast. There are risks involved even with a second-hand Hasselblad – I only got lucky with my second one and had to sell my first one, with a heavy heart, as it was faulty. Sealing issues also occur with the Hasselblad magazines. The problem is the same as with the Kiev 88. I would strongly advise against the 2000 series, as spare parts are no longer produced. Lenses and magazines are also a significant cost factor. On the other hand, with the 500 series, you get a masterpiece both in terms of feel and function. In a direct comparison, however, I can say that you can’t tell from the photos. I tested this by taking comparison shots with the same or similar focal lengths and showing them to people with no photographic expertise – you tend to form your own opinions too quickly otherwise. Unless we’re talking about extreme backlighting situations, the Kiev can certainly hold its own with its lenses. Incidentally, regarding backlighting, do have a look at the prices for a filter and a lens hood from Hasselblad. You can actually find the odd lens for the Kiev there, and Wiese even offers a service for them. And a 30mm lens would be well beyond the budget for the Hblad. Unfortunately, the 30mm lens doesn’t fit the 500 series either, only the 2000 series. I myself own the entire official Kiev lens range, apart from a few rare models; even second-hand, that represents a huge financial outlay for Hasselblad. I’ll leave aside the discussion that Carl Zeiss and Schneider optics are beyond reproach, but under normal conditions, the Kiev optics still offer a tremendous creative scope. I’ve been absolutely lucky with my two since 1991; apart from replacing the seals with Hasselblad ones, I haven’t had any problems with the cameras, and both have been up north several times as well as in various deserts. However, with the Kievs, one should observe a few basic rules and get into the habit of working carefully. If you cock the shutter with the necessary delicacy and adjust the shutter speeds only whilst the shutter is cocked, and fit the lenses into the bayonet mount without force and without tilting them, you have already observed the most important points.
As I said, you read a lot about the 88s, but my past experience shows that many of the ‘so-called’ experts have never owned one themselves and, surprisingly, quote from other forums or specialist magazines. That’s one side of the coin; anyone who buys a Kiev approaches the camera with this background knowledge. You have a bad feeling about it from the outset, and when it then develops a fault after 4–5 years, it’s obvious: Kievs are rubbish. Everyone warned you, after all. On the other hand, the Kiev’s operating concept is something that was never intended for the mass market in the first place; the same applies to the Hasselblad and all cameras based on the same concept. Anyone who doesn’t engage intensively with the technology will get poor results from the outset and, in the worst case, damage the equipment.
My girlfriend was very taken with the camera and I put a kit together for her as well. It must be said that up until that point she had really only taken photos with automatic compact cameras. It became clear to me at that point what sources of error there are when operating these devices intuitively. Added to this is the fact that many Kievs come from rather dubious sources and are faulty from the outset. The Swedish ‘original’, on the one hand, is of higher quality but has also always been in expert hands from the outset, as Aunt Käthe rarely bought an Hblad just for casual snapping; moreover, professionals also change the magazine seals on the Hblad annually and have their cameras serviced very frequently.
Which prism viewfinder do you have? Still the old one with the rotary switch, or already the one with the red button to activate the metering system? It’s possible the battery voltage isn’t right, as the old one still relies on mercury cells. If it’s the new one, it’s quite easy to calibrate.
Long story short, I think the Kiev is worth a try.
Regards
Marwan
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
That’s a very insightful piece and a real pleasure to read.
It’s nice to see someone who can compare Hasselblad and Kiev in a truly realistic way
and highlight the pros and cons of both.
Of course, the argument about the investment required comes into play. A body from the 500 series
doesn’t cost much more than a modified Kiev, but the individual parts are incredibly expensive.
I have the opportunity to buy an old Hasselblad from a master photographer,
but I still need to negotiate the price and see if I really need it.
After the last roll of film, the Kiev 88 works perfectly, only the light meter is playing up.
I still have the old TTL prism viewfinder; I’ve got hold of an adapter for the batteries and fitted it with
three 1.5 V button cells. It’s not working; the light meter indicates light where there isn’t any.
I’ve read that it all comes down to how you handle and use the Kiev 88,
always wind it up first and then make all the settings and adjustments.
The camera requires a bit of craftsmanship to operate; it’s hard work, not something to be done on a whim on a Sunday afternoon,
as I’ve discovered.
So it’s not for snapping quick shots as they come, just for fun, but
for carefully planned photographic shots, perhaps a bit like our ancestors used to do.
I’m getting a bit impatient; I’ve shot two rolls of film in my mini studio, mainly for testing purposes,
the first one was rubbish but the second was a technical success.
The more substantial shots are, of course, meant to be taken outdoors, but the weather
has been consistently so poor, and I only take a camera out on a maiden voyage in optimal
lighting conditions, so there’s no point at the moment.
Waiting in the hope of good weather isn’t a failure yet; everything is still up in the air...
Cheers, fluuu
cfb_de
So it’s not really for snapping photos on the spur of the moment, just for fun, but
for carefully planned photographic shoots – perhaps a bit like our ancestors used to do.
I can’t really compare a Kiev-88 to a Hasselblad; I only have a 501 at work and a Kiev-60 at home.
But: even these two cameras—the K-60 in particular—are only really suitable, exclusively and with experience, for *planned* shots. Taking snapshots of the little ones is a frustrating endeavour with all that rattling noise.
Best regards,
Franz
Schwedenstahl
Hi, regarding the battery!!!
I think that’s where the problem lies. You say you have the old prism viewfinder. I’m guessing there are three LEDs: two red ones to the right and left of a green one in the middle.
If you check the serial number of the prism viewfinder, the first two digits indicate the year of manufacture. If it was manufactured before 1992, I’m sure you’ll need four PX 625 batteries, which at the time each had a voltage of 1.35 volts. That makes a total voltage of 5.4 volts. The user manual from the importer back then even specified 6V. The Kiev’s circuit diagram specifies 4 x 1.2 volts as the minimum voltage. With three 1.5V cells, you’re certainly too low. Unfortunately, the 1.35V mercury cells are no longer sold. Overvoltage reduces the lifespan of LEDs, although the overvoltage in this case isn’t very high. My tip is to use four 1.5V silver cells, wrap some insulating material around them and bridge the height differences with a small ball of aluminium foil or something similar. That should be enough for a test.
The three 1.5V cells you mentioned are for the newer viewfinders.
However, you’ll soon find that you can work much better with the Kiev using an external light meter and the light well. The advantage of the light well is that you get an unaltered image. Due to the way the human eye works, when looking through the prism viewfinder, the brain is tricked into perceiving a completely different depth of field, which differs greatly from the resulting two-dimensional image. With the light well viewfinder, you have exactly the two-dimensionality you need to create the image.
Get yourself a Lunasix F from Gossen or another high-quality light meter; with these, you also have the option of measuring light and subject exposure, and depending on the model, you can measure flash exposure too.
The prism viewfinder will then quickly cease to be an issue. If you want to take more snapshots, that’s possible too. A suitable lens is the 65mm. Combined with a prism viewfinder and a pistol grip or a stick flash, you can work very quickly with a bit of practice.
Regards
Marwan
UlfSpuhl
@ cfb_de, it goes without saying that you can’t take snapshots of the little ones with a medium-format camera,
I thought we were talking here about taking photographs with a deliberate search for subjects, not family snaps. I hardly ever take snapshots, no matter what camera I’m using.
@Marwan, You’ve written some very interesting things about the Kiev 88; now a few things are becoming clearer to me, especially why, with three 1.5-volt batteries, the middle green LED always flashes even though the batteries are full. According to the manual, this means the batteries are flat, or as you now suggest, 4.5 volts is too low an operating voltage. Apparently, there used to be a 5-volt battery that fitted perfectly into the compartment.
The prism viewfinder has an 89 at the start of the serial number, so it’s from the year of reunification, the old series.
I’ll try it with four 1.5 V button cells; that might be the solution.
Of course, I now have an external handheld light meter, a Lunasix 3, a cast-off from a master photographer. It’s just that the weather hasn’t been suitable for outdoor shots so far; it’s in the plans and I’ve even scouted out the location for it.
Regards, fluuu
Schwedenstahl
OK, it’s always good to be able to narrow down a problem. There are bound to be differences between the readings from the Gossen (note that this also requires 1.35 mercury cells – be sure to use an adapter) and the Kiev prism viewfinder, but that has to do with the metering area. You also need to play around with the scale a bit, as the 20DIN setting isn’t necessarily in the right place, so with a bit of experience you can adjust the value slightly up or down. Be careful with the ON/OFF switch – it’s easy to forget about it, and the Beli drains the batteries faster than you can blink. And make sure you adjust the initial aperture of the relevant lenses after changing them; it’s easy to forget that. If none of that helps, you’ll just have to recalibrate, but that’s quite simple with a bit of DIY skill.
One more tip: you should always carry a small watchmaker’s screwdriver and check the visible screws, both on the camera and on the magazines, as well as the grub screws on the lenses. The latter tend to come loose when travelling, causing the focus rings to loosen and the screws to fall out. Normally, the screws are secured with a locking varnish. With your older Kiev, I’d check this and, if necessary, secure the screws with a little (I SAID A LITTLE!!! and I mean very little!!!) clear nail varnish.
One more tip regarding the magazines. If there is no film in the magazine, do not leave the slider in place; this also applies to the Hasselblad. The seals are made of foam rubber and are naturally flattened in this state, requiring some time to return to their original shape. Therefore, for magazines that have been stored with film and kept with the seal in place, wait a while until they have expanded sufficiently before taking them out into direct sunlight again.
If a magazine ever leaks, you can order seals from Hasselblad; replacing them is very simple. The seal is almost identical in shape, although the Hasselblad seals are far superior in terms of the material used.
A common mistake when inserting the magazine slider is to insert it centrally with the tip of the slider first. Unfortunately, this also leads to a light leak (not just with the Kiev), as the seal is pressed in at the centre and light then penetrates at the sprockets; sometimes you can even see the insertion process on the negative or slide due to reflections from the silver slider. Position the slider correctly and, even if it’s fiddly, insert it evenly along its entire length.
Only load and unload roll films in the shade of your body, and then immediately place them in a dark container; even if they fall, there will be a light leak through the sprockets, and with the Kiev, you’ll soon find yourself suspecting the camera of being older than it is.
Well then, I hope you have lots of fun with the Ukrainian!
Regards
Marwan
UlfSpuhl
Thanks for the good wishes.
As I said, the second test film turned out absolutely perfectly from a technical point of view.
Since it was always raining or snowing in November and it’s now freezing cold in December, I won’t be able to shoot outdoors, so I’m setting up the mini-studio with continuous lighting and a diffuser to achieve appropriate exposure for films with artistic themes and motifs.
I’ve since come up with a working title for it: ‘Babotschka – Bridging Abysses’. It’s a somewhat lyrical description of the Russian word for butterfly = psyche = soul, i.e. ‘spiritual abysses’.
The light meter in the prism viewfinder now works with four button cells; the green light no longer flashes, but the meter definitely needs to be recalibrated as it is reading too much light. I’ve taken measurements with several light meters and have never come across such short exposure times or apertures. There’s still some tinkering to be done there.
Having decided not to wait for good weather but to take shots using the mini-studio, there will soon be another roll of film with exposure. As described in the other thread, the Rondinax 60 is still causing me grief when it comes to developing the films.
Here is a picture from the first roll of film on the Kiev 88:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Regards, fluuu
robat
Hello, it’s great to see that there are a few others here who are still using the Kiev 88. I bought mine on eBay in 2004 and have since picked up a few other lenses and bits and bobs. I love my Kiev and it’s never let me down, not even in extreme weather conditions.
I swapped the light meter prism for the waist-level finder (often referred to as WLF) fairly quickly, as the prism’s readings were too often way off the mark and the Kiev 88 is simply more manageable with the WLF. I find an external light meter (preferably with a spot function) essential...
fluuu, I’m looking forward to seeing more of your photos!
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
Yes, the Kiev 88 is a trusty camera that sticks with you through thick and thin without ever losing its quirky charm. Just seeing it sitting on the tripod in the mini-studio has a positive vibe.
The most recently exposed film is currently being developed; it’s a series on the theme of emotional abysses, or as the title playfully puts it, ‘Babotschka Abysses to Bridge’.
The Russian word that fits the Kiev 88 means ‘butterfly-psyche-soul’, and the English word refers to bridging the gap in globalisation, hence ‘bridging emotional abysses’. A very compelling subject for medium-format black-and-white photography that delves deeply into the human condition.
If these images, should they turn out well, are exhibited, I believe it will be an important contribution within the community to addressing human adversity.
The Kiev 88 is particularly well-suited to this, as it is so often ridiculed, belittled and mocked...
Regards, fluuu
SamuliSchielke
So it’s not really for snapping photos on the fly, just for fun, but
for carefully planned photographic shoots – perhaps a bit like our ancestors used to do.
I see it a bit differently. A medium-format camera is certainly not intended for the quickest of snapshots, but I use mine constantly ‘in the field’, for portraits and documentary photography. So I don’t just use it to take carefully composed pictures under optimal lighting conditions. I have a large-format camera for that. But it is precisely with portraits and documentary photography that I need to have confidence in the camera. My beloved Flexaret 2a (built in 1947), which I’ve sadly lost, was an extremely primitive camera but nonetheless unbeatable, because it was also extremely robust. I switched to the Kiev to have more focal lengths and interchangeable magazines, and I’d be reluctant to do without them. The quirks of the operation and other well-known ‘problems’ with the Kiev don’t really bother me much – nor is it a problem that it takes a few seconds longer to set up the camera. I almost always shoot in manual mode anyway (or, if there’s no time, by eye) and take a bit of time over the shot.
My specific problem is that, after two attempts at repair, the focus is still off, and it’s off in different ways with different lenses. I took the camera with me on a field trip to Egypt last autumn and took a few good photos, but they were all rather static shots because I didn’t trust the focus and so took each shot two or three times with different focus settings. To make matters worse, I like to shoot with a wide aperture. The result: I’ve taken fewer good pictures. I’m not sure if a Hasselblad is the solution. I’ve grown so fond of the 65mm MIR lens that I might just buy a new Kiev body instead – in any case, the Kiev will stay in my cupboard for the time being, which is a shame.
Happy New Year,
Samuli
cfb_de
Hi Samuli,
What kind of bayonet mount does your -88 have? P-Six? If so, you might want to consider a Kiev-60.
It’s more robust and, if need be, can be repaired in the field – true to the old Lada motto: “With a hammer, pliers and wire, you can make it all the way to Leningrad.”
Otherwise: buy a decent -88 and get your lenses standardised in terms of flange focal distance. In another forum, a Wolf-Rainer would now be roaring loudly for a ‘Wiese’.
IMHO, the 65mm is the finest lens the Soviets ever produced. For me, though, only the second one was any good; the first was so badly ground that it wasn’t in focus anywhere.
For 75/80mm, however, I consider my Flexons/Cords to be better suited. I have a 75mm Triotar for portraits, a 75mm Tessar for crisp sharpness, and the Xenars as all-rounders.
There’s nothing comparable to the Triotar in the P-Six bayonet mount, and the Rollei lenses are certainly more hand-luggage-friendly. When I take the K-60 with me, it’s usually with the 65 and 180 in the case.
Best regards,
Franz
SamuliSchielke
Hi Franz,
Thanks for the tip. The bayonet mount is an original Kiev part, so a Kiev 60 is out of the question. I might not need to replace the body at all, as apart from the misaligned mirror, it should be in reasonably good condition – and I actually have an idea where I might be able to find a new 65mm Mir lens... Maybe it’ll work out after all.
Samuli
Schwedenstahl
Is this a silly question? Have you checked the focusing screen? It happened to me once in Sweden – I couldn’t set the infinity focus on my 250mm lens, but luckily I had a spare one with me. When I got home, I realised that the focusing screen had come out of alignment.
Best regards,
Marwan
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
Once again, the Kiev 88 has served me well, and the exposure of the last roll of film went perfectly.
Using the mini-studio and various figures, the theme was ‘psychological abysses’ – a depiction of inner cruelties, pain and deeply ambivalent feelings, an aspect of human existence that is often conveniently ignored but is an inescapable part of life.
The black-and-white images are high in contrast, rich in the shadows and only occasionally slightly overexposed in the highlights.
As the depth of field is shallow at f/5.6, the subject is not entirely in focus; I was told it is better to increase the aperture and extend the exposure time. I will take this into account for the next roll of film. What are your general experiences with this exposure combination?
Regards, fluuu
