Regular readers who have managed to stay awake will know that I am was the proud owner of three Kiev cameras. To refresh your memory:
I say “was”, because I no longer have three Kiev cameras….
Yes, now I am the proud owner of eight Kiev cameras….
When I was a young chap I rather enjoyed fiddling with cars and eventually built one almost from scratch. Things were easier in those days, particularly when it came to the electronics. Wiring up the car took me weeks; but it was just a matter of getting my brain around hundreds of wires and attaching them to the right things; attaching them somewhere else when it didn’t work, and always having a fire extinguisher handy.
Nowadays there are black boxes and minimal wiring. If it breaks, you replace the black box; and where is the fun in that?
Same with cameras. If my GX1 failed I would not where to start fixing it; it’s more electronic than mechanical, and you can’t troubleshoot electronics by just looking at them.
But the Kiev is old-school. It’s all mechanical and full of gears and levers and shims and weird metal parts (a total of 730 separate metal pieces) which appear to have no function but are probably fundamental to the operation. I want to understand it; but know that my level of mechanical sympathy and aptitude means that anything I take apart for the first time is unlikely to function as the maker intended ever again. What I need is a low-cost example to practice on.
Enter my job lot of five severely fucked Kievs:
$5 each, a price I felt it wise to impart to she who must be obeyed immediately after advising her with some glee that this latest parcel contained five cameras. They certainly look crap, but some have workings shutters (I can soon de-rectify that), one has a working exposure meter; and they all have internals that can be removed, studied, photographed and catalogued so I may understand the functioning of the beast.
Then, when one of my three working Kievs inevitable fails, I will be able to repair it (or more likely destroy it and sell it off for $10).
Right, where’s my screwdriver (and hammer)….
Comments 🔗
2012-07-02| Clive saysSpike, A stoopid, off-topic question for you…
Canon, Nikon, et al offer a range of lenses for their cameras, but there appears to be no rhyme or reason on prices set. A quick glance at the Canon range indicates that “the longer the lens, the higher the price” - i.e.:-
100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L £1,250 300mm f2.8 L £6,000 400mm f5.6 L £1,160 500mm f4.0 L £5,800-£6,800
If challenged, I dare say that Canon, Nikon and the other manufacturers would give “supply and demand” as the reason for these high prices. I can’t see many folk wanting to spend £6,000 on a lens like your 300mm f2.8L…
But…
Surely the design and construction of the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is actually more complex and expensive than the 300mm f2.8L? The only aspect of the 300mm that might cost more would be the larger diameter lens elements.
10 years ago, the only people willing to fork out the cash for 500mm optics would be professional photographers and/or obscenely wealthy amateurs. Today, thanks to the digital revolution and the incredible progress in image quality from even modest DSLRs, the potential market for better quality lenses must be literally huge.
Are there other good reasons that a 300mm f2.8L costs 4 times more than a 400mm f5.6L, or is it just down to sales volumes and spreading the cost of R&D over a smaller number of sales, coupled with stinging punters for more cash?
I ask only because I’d love to invest in some better quality glass, but the stoopid prices make it impossible…
Second question if you’re up for it:-
In the medium/long lens category [say anything over 150mm] is there a reason that companies offer relatively slower optics? What would be the difference in weight and price for say a 400mm f2.8L, or a 250-500mm f2.8-f4.0L Lens? Would this sort of glass just be too unwieldy, or is it just the chicken/egg of not having enough buying customers to make the R&D viable?
I just wonder if Canon, Nikon & others have been asleep and not realised what “the digital revolution” is driving? Maybe the market is there, if only they would build for it?
2012-07-02| Spike saysThe development of the 300mm and 400mm F2.8, and the 500mm F4 lenses were, if I recall correctly, the result of an $11 million development programme by Canon in the 1990s. The glass is specially produced, their construction is carefully monitor and the results are spectacular. I used to have the 300mm F4 and it was very good. The F2.8 blows it away in terms of sharpness, colours, contrast, speed of focusing. Simply the best lens I will ever own and I will be sad to part with it when the time comes. It costs so much because indeed they need to recover development costs against a relatively few copies; plus the thing is packed with glass. In spite of having a magnesium body; it still weighs twice as much as the 100-400mm, and the difference is the glass, which is expensive. Achieving F2.8 at such extreme focal lengths needs massive volumes of glass. I have tried the 100-400mm. The copy I used was shit; although I believe there is some variation in quality (which you won’t find with the big lenses, every copy is perfect). So, they cost a lot because they are expensive to develop and produce and sell relatively few copies. Worth every cent as far as I am concerned. When I bought mine it really made my photos stand out and it paid for itself very quickly. I don’t know the physics behind it; but building fast zoom lenses seems to be difficult; zooms always seem to be slower; and they are not as good as primes anyway. Making a zoom faster may just involve too much glass. Check out this Signma 200-500mm F2.8 (at $28,000): http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/images/200-500mm/sigma-200-500-D3R_4567.jpg Longer lenses tend to have slower optics because there is just too much glass (and therefore cost) to make them faster. If I was wanting a long lens on a lower budget, I would look at the 300mm F4. Takes great photos and also focuses so close it can act as a macro lens.
2012-07-02| genuinej saysYaaaawwwwnnn. Inevitably btw.
2012-07-02| Spike saysThe management and staff of Pattaya Days would like to point out that our terms and conditions clearly state that all offerings contained herein are solely for our own amusement and any peripheral enjoyment bestowed upon others is entirely coincidental. Those who are not interested are respectfully requested to sod off.
2012-07-02| chang Noi saysGood luck with fucking-up 5 once beautiful working machines of art. Give it a try and try to make 1 again working unit of it? Makes me think when my mother once bought a present for me and the sales lady ask “Shall I put it back in the box or will he dis-mantle it here right away?
2012-07-02| Pete saysYou missed your vocation when you were young. I was thinking you were an ex-accountant, but there’s an engineer lurking in there somewhere.
2012-07-02| Spike saysLurking very very deep. Partially dismantled on this afternoon and there were screws, springs and little bearings bouncing of the walls, never to be seen again. Four to go.
2012-07-02| Grant saysTip, dismantle the next one inside a plastic bag…
2012-07-02| Jock saysWhy not keep the spare parts … stick them on a piece if cardboard, frame it, call it Art, stick it on the wall of your home office or flog it on e-bay … somebody would pay you 100 bucks for it (not me by the way) - or take a photo of the assembly and flog some posters … maybe try Roman Abramovic … he´ll buy anything or anyone !!
2012-07-03| Spanky saysYou mentioned the most important tool; hammer. I’m sure after using that versatile tool you will have all the parts you need and then some.
2012-07-03| Wally saysBut make sure not to close the bag when you are inside it, you’ll suffocate.