Back to topic

On Kiev / Contax Quality in Context .

Printed from: USSRPhoto Forums

Topic URL: http://localhost:8088/modern/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1402

Printed on: 5/9/2026 4:23:05 PM


Topic

Topic author: dee

Posted on: 20091018072417

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 ?