Gast
First of all, hello!
It’s a shame to keep reading time and again about how bad the Kiev 80 and 88 are. Apparently, everyone spouting such rubbish is an expert. I myself have never had a problem, apart from the usual servicing, but even a Hasselblad, Mamiya or Bronica needs that. I’ve been working with these cameras for over 25 years now, and lo and behold, I actually make a living from my work. The only problem I have is the smug grins from various colleagues, but I can live with that. As for the lenses, they’re all better than the Western stuff, whether it’s a 33 or a 1000. Yes, believe it or not, there’s a huge selection of them, and at a perfectly reasonable price. I have them all in my collection, along with Polaroid and digital backs. So suddenly the Kiev is a high-tech device; Mamya, Bronica and Hasselblad can no longer keep up when it comes to price and quality. Furthermore, I’m constantly surprised when it comes to geographical knowledge. Russian rubbish: the Kiev is actually made in Kiev, and that’s still in Ukraine. Oh yes, and then there’s the PISA study – I’m slowly starting to believe in it.
Wishing you all good light
Best regards, mephisto
Gast
> Oh yes, and then there’s the PISA study – I’m slowly starting to believe in it.
Me too ;-)
SamuliSchielke
Hello Mephisto,
I also take photos with a Kiev 88, but I can only partly share your enthusiasm. If you’re lucky, the Kiev is a really good camera, but if you’re unlucky, it’s a real source of frustration. I’ve had plenty of trouble with a light leak from the sides, reflections inside the camera, miscalibrated focus settings, and so on. I’ve had all these issues repaired, and in the end I’ve come to realise that the Kiev is actually a solid camera. But it’s a model that’s prone to faults in its basic construction (which is why Hasselblad stopped making it ages ago), and the manufacturing standard is subject to certain variations. However, I am currently working on a portrait series that requires a high, consistent technical standard (the creative side ultimately depends on me and not the equipment), and the Kiev 88 serves me well.
And the lenses are really good. Even my camera repairman in Cairo admits this, though he usually hates Kievs.
Samuli
PhilippReichmuth
Hello "Mephisto",
I’m also constantly surprised when it comes to geographical knowledge. Russian rubbish: the Kiev is also manufactured in Kiev, and this is still in Ukraine.
Ukraine used to be called Little Russia (in the trio of Russia, Little Russia and Belarus) and the Ukrainian language “Little Russian” (малоросійська мова); you still read that all the time in Chekhov. I occasionally tease Ukrainian nationals close to me with that. ;)
I have them all in my collection, including the Polaroid and digital back.
What sort of digital back do you have on your Kiev, and just out of interest, how does the shutter release work? Does the back itself detect when the curtain opens, does it go via the flash contact, or do you set the camera to B and control the shutter speeds via the back itself?
Philipp
mephisto
Hello Philipp!
Firstly, the back is made by Sinar; secondly, it can be triggered quite normally via the shutter. So it detects the shutter release, but you can also trigger it directly via the back itself. This requires the camera to be set to B mode. With the standard settings, the resolution is a staggering 65 million pixels, which is truly enormous. I hope this information is helpful, but I’m always available to answer any questions you may have.
Kind regards, mepisto
mephisto
Hi Samuli!
In a way, I have to agree with you – there are quite a few duds out there. But you find plenty of those from every manufacturer. I speak from personal experience with Canon and Minolta. I got my Kiev straight from Ukraine, complete with accessories, though I’ve already shot a good ten rolls of film. And lo and behold, it was a good buy. I’ve also tried out a Mamiya RZ 67 Professional, but it’s not really my thing – firstly, it’s far too fiddly, and the lenses are far too expensive for the quality.
Hope you continue to enjoy your Kiev and wish you good light.
Kind regards, mephisto
Gast
I’ve had a Kiev 88 since 1991.
It has the original Kiev bayonet mount (three-start thread).
And the following lenses:
Mir-26B (45mm/3.5), Mir-38B (65mm/3.5), Volna-3 (80mm/2.8) and Jupiter-36B (250mm/3.5). As well as a teleconverter and a few extension rings.
Points of criticism:
- Sticky, jerky bayonet mount.
- Sticky shutter release
- Rather poor viewfinder screen (dark)
- Bulky and heavy prism viewfinder (which is why I mostly use the ground-glass viewfinder)
Anyone who has ever seen a modern Mamiya ground-glass viewfinder knows what the Kiev ground-glass viewfinder is missing – a cover around the magnifier to keep out stray light
- Self-destruct mechanism on the film advance/exposure time selector dial
(Why not just use two separate buttons?!)
- Light leak with third-party film holders is practically a given (unless they’re individually adapted to the camera)
- Uneven film advance (even when you do everything correctly). You can live with it, but it’s not great.
- With long exposure times (up to 1 sec), the shutter release must be held down until the exposure is complete, otherwise the shutter remains open
- Aperture ring transmission via extension rings requires a delicate touch during assembly; otherwise, the ring hits the side of the extension and the lens lock fails to engage
- No mirror lock-up (Arax, Hartblei & Co. are now retrofitting this)
Advantages:
- Affordable price
- Interchangeable magazines
- Affordable price
- Affordable price
As an alternative, I have now purchased a Mamiya 645 1000-S and had a precision engineer make an adapter ring for me, so that I can use the Kiev lenses on the Mamiya ... (Fortunately, this works because the Mamiya’s flange focal distance is almost 20mm shorter than that of the Kiev 88).
Result:
A fine camera with smooth film advance, an excellent viewfinder with interchangeable focusing screens, a precise electronically controlled shutter, consistent film advance and, thanks to Kiev, affordable interchangeable lenses.
I also find the 6x45 format slightly more appealing than the 6x6 format ... though this is impractical for portrait shots due to the waist-level viewfinder.
SamuliSchielke
> Points of criticism:
> - Sticky, jerky bayonet mount.
> - Sticky shutter release button
Yep.
> - Self-destruct mechanism on the film advance/exposure time selector dial
(Why not just use two separate buttons?!)
Because Hasselblad originally designed it that way, and the Ukrainians adopted the concept with all its pros and cons. I don’t know why the Swedes designed it that way either.
> - Light leak with interchangeable magazines is virtually ‘factory standard’ (unless they’re individually adapted to the camera)
Black insulating tape around it. Annoying when you need to switch quickly from a Polaroid to a film magazine, but it guarantees no more light leak. And the fact that you can switch back and forth between Polaroid and film quickly at all (as quickly as the insulating tape allows) really makes a difference sometimes.
> - Uneven film feed (even when you do everything right). You can live with it, but it’s not great.
In return, you get 13 exposures per roll. Alternatively, look through the peephole and turn the magazine until the correct number appears. It’s all a bit fiddly, but why it’s worth it is explained below.
> - With long exposure times (up to 1 sec), the shutter release must be held down until the exposure is complete, otherwise the shutter remains open
Really? Mine doesn’t do that.
> Pros:
> - Affordable price
> - Interchangeable magazines
> - Affordable price
> - Affordable price
Don’t forget the good lenses. But ultimately, price is the deciding factor. That’s why you put up with the inconveniences. I once enquired whether it would be possible to mount Kiev lenses on a newer Hasselblad 200-series body. It would be technically possible (with a bit of modification), but my goodness, I had no idea cameras could cost that much...
> Besides, I prefer the 6x45 format slightly more than the 6x6 format...
For me it’s the other way round; otherwise I would have considered a Mamiya body as well. So ultimately it’s a question of taste and budget.
Samuli
cfb_de
Hi Claudius,
First of all: I don’t have an 88, I have a 60. And ever since I adjusted the film advance – over 300 rolls ago now – I’ve been very happy with the camera.
However, you’ve mentioned a few things that I’d like to comment on, particularly in comparison to the Hassi I use at work.
- rather poor viewfinder screen (dark)
The Swedes have that too. It’s just that the dim screen is actually more expensive than, for example, the brighter Rollei screen for the 88/60 from Baier. You just have to be able to replace and adjust a focusing screen.
- Bulky and heavy prism viewfinder
On the other hand, it’s very attractively priced and available in a very good spot version for just as little money.
Let’s be honest: anyone who wants to hold an MF cube up to their eye... should go ahead and do so. The bystanders will then call the doctor :-)
What the Kiev viewfinder lacks
A clear advantage for my 60. It has that. And what’s more, it has a lens that can be easily swapped by an optician; adjusting it to your own eyesight is then just a matter of about 20 marks for a replacement.
What’s the argument against doing that with two separate buttons?!
Nothing. It just makes the camera even more complicated (and the Soviets had already reached the limits of their industrial production with this camera).
What’s wrong with simply learning how to operate the camera? With certain Nikons, nobody complains because the quick-release lever has to be in your eye before the shutter fires, just because you’re left-handed.
- Uneven film advance (even when you do everything right).
My old Hasselblad magazines do that too. And they still do it *after* they’ve been back from Ahrensburg. My personal Rolleis show this effect as well, and my K-60 certainly does. Does it bother you? Are there overlaps? If not: leave it as it is; with roll film, there’s basically no other way. The Pentacon Six tries, but fails too. With my K-60, I consistently get 13 frames from a 120 roll. And I actually think that’s quite nice.
- with long exposure times (up to 1 sec), the shutter release must be held down until the exposure is complete,
Hmm. You’ve never held a V-Hassi in your hands? With that one, the auxiliary shutter closes before the front part of the lens has finished. Seen in that light, the K-88 seems to follow the operating philosophy of the Swedish camera with surprising consistency.
All in all, I deliberately bought a 60 back then because it doesn’t have many of those design quirks: viewfinder magnifier mask: standard, film advance/shutter: two buttons, film advance: setting it once is enough, no auxiliary shutter.
In return, I don’t have interchangeable magazines and bought my entire system for the price of a Hasselblad light-well viewfinder.
On the lenses:
- 50mm Flektogon SC: decent, slightly worse than the Zeiss for the Hassi.
- 65mm Mir: My second one is decent, but only from f/5.6 onwards.
- 80mm Volna: Mine holds its own in a direct comparison with the Planar on the Hassi. (!)
- 120mm Biometar: Optically superb, mechanically (aperture!) a disaster.
- 180mm Sonnar: *The* reason for shooting with a P-Six mount
- 250mm Jupiter: My trusty old one needs the Geli, but is then good from f/5.6. And with the WEP converter, it delivers a flawless 6.x/500.
One mustn’t overlook the fact that with these focal-plane shutter cameras, a major source of interference is eliminated: shutters in the lenses that run at different speeds. That’s why my three broken lenses (old 50mm, 80mm and 150mm) were sent off for servicing. Don’t ask about the cost. But now everything fits perfectly.
On the other hand, the rather poorly designed shutter of a K-88, like that of a 1000 or 1600 Hassi, is anything but durable and requires care and attention.
Compared to the rattletrap, I’d buy a K-60 again for home use. I can fix that one myself if anything goes wrong. But I wouldn’t dare do that with the crude construction of a K-88. And the K-60/P-Six lens kit is also incredibly unbeatably cheap. It’s reliable to boot, and you don’t have to put up with that ugly APS-MF business. Landscape format? Doesn’t exist. The world is that simple.
Best regards,
Fr(Rectangles are raped squares)anz
Claudius
> Hello Claudius,
>
> First of all: I don’t have an 88, I have a 60.
>
> I wasn’t aware of that at the time I bought my 88. Back then, I would have been put off by the lack of interchangeable magazines; today, that’s not such a big deal to me.
>
> > - rather poor viewfinder screen (dark)
>
> The Swedes have that too. It’s just that the dim screen there is already
> more expensive than, for example, the brighter Rollei screen for the 88/60 from Baier.
> You just have to be able to replace and adjust a focusing screen.
>
> That’s interesting; so Baier(?) is a source for alternative focusing screens.
> I’ll have to have a look at that.
>
> > Let’s be honest: anyone who wants to hold a medium-format cube up to their eye... should go ahead and do it.
> The bystanders will then call the doctor :-)
>
> Whatever you might mean by that...
>
> > What’s wrong with doing that with two separate buttons?!
>
> Nothing. It just makes the camera even more complicated (and the Soviets had
> already reached the limits of their industrial production with this camera).
> I won’t argue with that.
>
> > What’s wrong with simply learning how to operate the camera?
>
> Nothing. I’ve got no problem with that either. It’s just that a poorly designed piece of kit remains a poorly designed piece of kit.
> I know how to operate the thing; apart from a magazine I probably bought already faulty back in ’91, it’s remained fault-free so far.
>
> > Nobody complains about certain Nikons either, just because the quick-release lever
> has to be in your eye before the shutter fires, simply because you’re left-handed.
>
> I have no experience with Nikons, apart from the impression that they’d be too clunky for me as 35mm SLRs.
>
> > - uneven film advance (even when you do everything right).
>
> My Hassi magazines do that too. And they still do it,
> *even after* they came back from Ahrensburg. My personal
> Rolleis show this effect too, and my K-60 certainly does.
> Does it bother you? Are there overlaps?
> If not: leave it as it is; with roll film, there’s basically no other way.
> The Pentacon Six tries, but fails too.
> With my K-60, I consistently get 13 frames from a 120 roll.
> And I actually think that’s quite nice.
>
> Accepted. Overlaps only occur if you’re sloppy when loading the film. Who does that? Me, perhaps?!
>
> At least you can tell that the Ukrainians have delivered a truly perfect copy of the Hasselblad – they’ve copied the flaws too.
>
> > - with long exposure times (up to 1 sec), the shutter release must be
> held down until the exposure is complete,
>
> Hmm. You’ve never held a V-Hassi in your hands?
>
> No, never any other one either.
>
> > With that one, the auxiliary shutter closes before the thing at the front
> of the lens has finished.
> Seen in that light, the K-88 seems to follow the operating philosophy
> of the Swedish camera with surprising consistency.
>
> That sounds dreadful. Central shutters in the lens are actually quite appealing, at least when using flash (which I avoid).
>
> I only noticed the shutter behaviour I’ve described a short while ago (I hadn’t needed long exposure times with the Kiev until now, but then a new subject came along) and at first I thought the poor thing had kicked the bucket when I removed the magazine and noticed the shutter was open. There I was, out and about in an industrial ruin with a handful of unexposed films, and almost right at the start the Kiev breaks down – Grr.
>
> > All in all, I deliberately bought a 60 back then because it
> simply doesn’t have many of those design quirks: viewfinder magnifier mask: standard,
> film advance/shutter: two buttons, film advance: set it once
> and that’s enough, auxiliary shutter: not applicable.
>
> In return, I don’t have interchangeable magazines and, for the price of a
> lightwell viewfinder from Hasselblad, I bought my entire system
> .
>
> Hasselblad’s price lists could easily be mistaken for telephone directories because of the huge numbers in them.
>
> > On the lenses: (...)
> > - 180mm Sonnar: *The* reason for shooting with a P-Six mount?
>
> I also have a P-Six adapter for my Mamiya 645; let’s see when I come across a gem like that.
>
> > - 250mm Jupiter: My trusty old one needs the Geli, but is then good from f/5.6.
> And with the WEP converter, it delivers a flawless f/6.x at 500mm.
>
> I haven’t had it for very long, but the first impression is good. If necessary, you could even use the thing to knock someone out.
>
> > One thing you mustn’t overlook with these focal-plane shutter cameras
> is that a major source of interference is eliminated: shutters running at different speeds
> in the lenses.
>
> That can happen even with one of the most beautiful Mamiyas of all – the C330.
>
> > That’s why my three broken lenses (old 50mm, 80mm and 150mm)
> were sent off for servicing. Don’t ask about the cost.
>
> I’ll be wary.
>
> > On the other hand, the rather poorly designed shutter of a K-88, like
> that of a 1000 or 1600 Hassi, is anything but durable
> and requires care and attention.
>
> I’ve only ever seen the copy and am amazed that it works at all.
> The light reflections on the shutter are lovely when there is a light leak; I had to learn to interpret the strange effects on the negatives first – especially as the first magazine where this effect occurred also had a dreadful film plane alignment and I didn’t understand any of it at the time.
>
> > Compared to the clunky K-88, I’d buy a K-60
> again for home use. I can fix that one myself if anything goes wrong.
> But I wouldn’t dare do that with the crude construction of a K-88.
> And the K-60/P-Six lens kit is also incredibly unbeatably cheap.
> It’s reliable too, and you don’t have to put up with that ugly APS-MF
> thing.
>
> If I want something small, I take my Pentax ME Super. No APS, no MF, but neat and compact.
>
> The K88 and (if I ever get any) P-Six lenses are a reason for me to use them on the Mamiya 645. Thanks to the adapter, that’s no problem.
> Unfortunately, it means losing aperture control, but I can live with that.
>
> Would a K88-Mamiya adapter have any market potential? I’ve never seen anyone else offer anything like it; mine was custom-made by a precision engineer on my behalf.
>
> > Landscape format? Doesn’t exist. The world is that simple.
>
> Isn’t it more of a sphere?
>
> > Best regards,
> Fr(Rectangles are raped squares)anz
>
> My photo paper has about four corners too, after all. And regards back.
>
> ---
>
> Addendum: This thing here doesn’t like quoted quotes. Hence the angle brackets.
Gast
Hello Claudius,
First of all: much of your criticism of the K88 is entirely justified, and the camera certainly isn’t the most reliable ;) Here are just a few brief comments:
- No mirror lock-up (Arax, Hartblei & co. are now retrofitting this)
- Self-destruct mechanism on the film advance/exposure time selector dial
(What’s stopping them from doing this with two separate buttons?!)
What do you mean – that the dial should only be turned in one direction, or that the exposure time should only be changed whilst the shutter is cocked?
My 1985 K88 with an unmodified shutter copes with both without any problems and doesn’t have your shutter release issue with long exposures either. The general warnings and horror stories about broken shutters due to incorrect use of the speed dial probably became more prevalent when people started fitting mirror lock-up to their K88s in the 90s. In particular, there seems to have been an early version of the mirror lock-up mechanism from Hartblei where turning it in the wrong direction destroyed the shutter mechanism. I saw another example on a 1996 Urbi body that I took to Kiev for repair; on this body, the mirror lock-up was activated by pressing the shutter release halfway, and the second shutter curtain would consistently get stuck halfway through during long exposures if the shutter release was pressed all the way down too quickly. (Gevorg Vartanyan then tracked down the technician in Kiev who had installed the MLU back then; who said they’d built a small trial run of 10 units back then, realised it was a botched job, and passed them on with a clear warning to dispose of the remaining stock – ‘disposal’ apparently meant the Nuremberg dealer from whom Urbi’d bought the camera simply reselling it at full price without warning).
Such problems do not exist with all K88s, but on the one hand it is better to err on the side of caution, and on the other, a fault in a modified, ‘improved’ K88 is likely to damage the camera’s reputation particularly severely, even if the cause of the fault lay in the modification itself. That is one of the reasons why I consider retrofitting a mirror lock-up to be a bad idea, because it makes an already not very robust mechanism even more vulnerable by tinkering with additional, unplanned mechanics.
I’ve nevertheless got into the habit of winding first and then focusing since I started photographing with Russian Leicas. It’s not really asking too much :)
Anyone who’s ever seen a modern Mamiya viewfinder knows what the Kiev viewfinder is missing – a cover around the magnifier to keep out stray light
There is an old and a new viewfinder for the K88; the newer one has the rectangular cover with a magnifier in the middle that you mentioned, whereas the old one doesn’t. I find the new one far more pleasant to use.
Would a K88-Mamiya adapter have any chance on the market? I’ve never seen anyone offering anything like that; mine was made to order by a precision engineer.
Arax
offers one for €35; you’d then need the thread adapter for K88 lenses to P6 bayonet mount, but in return you could use all your Carl Zeiss Jena lenses on your Mamiya.
Philipp
Claudius
> [lots of details about shutters, modifications, etc.]
As I haven’t yet managed to break my Kiev 88, and it’s an unmodified model, my comments should probably be seen more as suggestions for improvements.
Judging by the serial number, I bought a practically new and unused Kiev back then (the serial number starts with 90; I bought it in ’91). Perhaps that’s why it still works?!
However, purely in terms of feel, I don’t like either the film advance mechanism or the shutter speed setting. To advance the film, you have to exert just that little bit more force that, with other cameras, makes the difference between it working and it breaking...
> > Anyone who has ever seen a modern Mamiya viewfinder,
> > knows what the Kiev viewfinder is missing – a cover around the magnifying glass,
> > which keeps out stray light
>
> There is an old and a new viewfinder for the K88; the newer one
> has the rectangular cover with a magnifying glass in the centre that you mentioned,
> the old one doesn’t.
> I find the new one far more comfortable to use.
Ah. I obviously only have an old one.
> > Would a K88-Mamiya adapter have any market potential?
> > I’ve never seen anyone else offer anything like that; mine was
> > made to order by a precision engineer.
>
> Arax offers one for €35; you’d then need the thread adapter
> for K88 lenses to P6 bayonet mount, but in return you can use all
> the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses on your Mamiya.
I see a difference between using a single adapter and two adapters that you have to combine.
Conclusion:
Thank you for the constructive discussion regarding my comments; I can see that by acquiring a new viewfinder screen and a new lightwell viewfinder, I will likely be able to improve my Kiev.
PhilippReichmuth
I can see a difference between using one adapter and having to combine two adapters.
Obviously, one less is always better.
Although with these two, it shouldn’t really be that bad. The P6-M645 adapter has a bayonet ring that allows you to tighten the K88-P6 threaded piece very securely. I tried this with a P6-FD adapter from Arax, and it actually held up very well. What’s more annoying is that the K88 lenses are simply screwed in but not locked in place, so they can unscrew themselves in awkward situations. I have the same problem when I use K88 lenses on the P6 mount of my Kiev. How is this solved with your K88-M645 adapter – does it have a locking mechanism?
Philipp
mephisto
What a surprise! Who would have thought there were still so many Kiev owners out there? Still, I have to shake my head at some of the posts. The beauty of the Kiev is still that it doesn’t need any frills; but anyone who needs that sort of thing to take photos really shouldn’t be dabbling in manual focus. As for the problem with the magnifying glass, I have to agree with you – the light leak does get in the way. But I solved it very simply with a cleaning cloth, as I work with GF anyway.
As for the film advance, I have to agree with you to some extent, but if you lubricate it properly, it runs smoothly. Every now and then, a tiny bit of grease in the mechanism and lo and behold, it works a treat – but why do we need two knobs? In my opinion, one is enough. Haselblüte did try it, but then stopped with the 500C as many customers found it annoying. Less is often more, that’s all I’ll say.
As for those complaining about a light leak in the magazines, well, I had the same problem with them. But I tested about ten magazines and then took four of them. The same goes for the lenses; I bought them all directly from Arsenal in Kiev. I don’t want to sing the Kiev’s praises to the skies, though – it has too many quirks for that – but compared to some so-called Western manufacturers, it certainly isn’t bad. As for long exposures, well, mine works perfectly; with the Mamiya RB67, you always have to reset it from T to one. At least my colleague does; I find it a bit fiddly.
So all in all, it’s always the same: everything has its quirks, no matter the brand. As long as it hasn’t been modified, it’s a good piece of kit – simple and robust – and that’s precisely why I love mine.
Wishing you lots more great shots and always good light!
Best regards, mephisto ;)
Claudius
Philipp, no, there isn’t a locking mechanism fitted at the moment.
The one from the extension ring we salvaged for this adapter* is too big and bulky to fit into the adapter, but we (me and the precision engineer) are still thinking about the most elegant way to solve this.
It would also be nice to have a stop that prevents the lens from being turned past the ‘remove’ position, otherwise this little stop screw just gets caught.
What makes it possible to fit both, and also made the construction of the adapter relatively simple, is the fact that the flange focal distance of the Mamiya is almost 20mm shorter than that of the Kiev; with the P6 bayonet, the difference is, if it exists at all, much smaller, so that no elegant design solution can be found there.
I haven’t yet seen any of these Kiev88-P6 adapters; if I understand correctly, it is a short cylinder with a three-start internal thread that is screwed onto the lens thread and forms the P6 mount on the outside.
Depending on the wall thickness of the cylinder, it would make sense here to drill a hole with an internal thread and secure the cylinder to the Kiev lens with a small grub screw, but that would only be a practical option if the wall is 2–3 mm thick or more.
Otherwise, one would have to commit sacrilege and drill the hole with an internal thread into the bayonet section of the Kiev lens and screw the grub screw through the adapter cylinder into the Kiev lens.
The wall thickness of the Kiev threaded cylinder would need to allow for this; after all, the original bayonet locking screw is fitted into the same cylinder.
Both considerations, however, presuppose that one
a) wishes to use the K88 lenses primarily as P6s and
b) has a separate P6 screw adapter for each lens.
(and c) have access to the appropriate tools or skills)
*) The adapter essentially consists of a conical aluminium casting, featuring the M645 bayonet at the narrower end and a K88 bayonet mount (from a salvaged extension ring) screwed onto the wider end. The cylinder must be conical, as M645 lenses are slimmer towards the camera than K88 lenses, and otherwise there would be insufficient space around the shutter release/self-timer.
Scrapping adapter rings to obtain bayonet mounts makes economic sense, as the production of such a three-start thread, where the thread flanks may also be under slight tension, is extremely costly.
-Claudius
Gast
Hmmmm,
when I think about the fact that during every Kiev/Rasselkrach thread I easily get 1–4 films exposed in my Zenzi without having to worry about a thing ;)
Hey Franz,
The AE prism and quick-release lever are brilliant. Action shots on 6x6, without the 35mm headaches of “Portrait or landscape or what now?!?”
So far, there’s never been a doctor on hand.
Regards
Martin
Schwedenstahl
Well, I’ve got two 88s – I bought the first one in ’92 with my first civil service pay, and I got the second one a few years later because everyone kept telling me that the next roll of film would be my last, which I’d hopefully be able to achieve proper exposure for. Well, both still work perfectly and have been up in the far north in wet and cold weather, as well as out in the desert several times. Apart from the 5.6 250mm, I have all the lenses, and I really can’t fault them either. Sure, the processing is a world away from my Leica, but that’s been in for repairs a few times now, whereas the Kievs haven’t. Surprisingly, in all these years I’ve only had to replace the seals on one magazine, and that was one I’d bought on eBay; the magazines in the set were perfectly fine. When I get 30x30 enlargements made from slides, everyone in the photo shop is always amazed, and some whisper, ‘Well, probably a Hasselblad?’ Well, I don’t want to make the lenses sound better than they are; backlighting and the like do cause problems, but where on earth can a normal person get this much kit for the price???? Sure, there’s Hasselblad, Rollei, Zenza and even Mamiya – all brilliant cameras with great optics and lovely to handle – but I’m not dealing in drugs or anything like that, so I can’t just afford them like that. But I can also understand those who think they’ve bought a Hasselblad for little money and are then disappointed when they’re holding a piece of junk in their hands – and even the Kiev is too expensive for a non-functional one.
A quick question out of interest... where can you get a digital back
adapted??? Who does that???
Regards
Marwan
mephisto
Hello Schwedenstahl!
I can answer your question about a digital back for a Kiev. I hope you’re sitting down! Sinar has had one in its range for two years now; the price back then was
Gast
Hi Dietmar,
So, a proper ( :) ) Sinarback? Was it the mechanical adaptation that caused all that rattling? (I seem to recall Brenner once advertising that the Kiev’s two mounts for the cassette and viewfinder were compatible with the Sinar.)
Or is there actually a dedicated Switzerland-Ukraine adapter?
Best regards
Martin
Schwedenstahl
Hi Max,
The backs offered by Brenner had been slightly modified so that they could be used on a Hasselblad.
I tried fitting the magazines to my Hasselblad 500 myself, but I couldn’t get it to work. Otherwise, the dimensions fit like a glove; I suppose something needs to be changed in the locking mechanism. Marek Wiese from Wiese Fototechnik still adapts the magazines. Surprisingly, the Polaroid back could be attached. I never tried to see if the photos would have turned out.
Regards,
Marwan
