Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply. To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
T O P I C R E V I E W
dee
Posted - Oct 18 2009 : 07:24:17 AM I should very much like your opinion upon Kiev / Contax in terms of perceived value / quality .
My 1952 K II is evidently of equal quality to a Contax - as has been said many times by those who know . Just using my more worn-in 1951 indicates this . Yet the nicely worn '51 does not call out to me as '' SEE ME '' It took a virtually mint Kiev to do that .
However , in many respects a very little early used Kiev II must be BETTER than a pre war Contax II - unless it's a shelf queen . It's a decade at least younger , has been circulated only within a community whereby many would prefer to shun it in prefernce for Western cameras Ukrainian engineers who , even now , knowing how many early cameras have been messed with , recommend the latest camera possible , which does not help much in establishing the credentials of pre 1955 Kievs LOL
HIistory distorts perception - Contax is associated with exclusivity and quality , Kiev is lost among the comparitively ordinary later issues .
Wear for a Contax is ' patina ' , dignifying , Wear for a Kiev is damage , lessening .
I admit to this prejudice from decades of Western indoctrination . It took a new KNeB II to awaken me . I ' knew ' that an early Kiev is the equal of Contax , but now I am aware .
Honestly - am I crazy , or is there any validity in this perception ?
