>>3803398>Anyone have experience with the Contax clones such as the Kiev?Sure.
Also have Contaxes. The Kievs and Contaxes (II not IIa) are identical in ergonomics, viewfinder, rf, optics, etc. . They only differ in finish. The Contax for instance has real leather instead of the plasticky leatherette in Kiev and most cameras. Or the chrome is thicker and smoother.
The vf is small and has no framelines. But that's true for all cameras of the era. And it's better than pre-M Leicas and clones, since it's combined vf/rf and you don't need a separate finder for focusing.
I like the Kievs better than other RFs of the era for a number of reasons, many are subjective:
1. the rf will never go out of calibration unless something breaks. The Contax II/Kiev rangefinder arrangement is the best possible, just a huge ass prism and no mirrors and whatnot. Also long baselength. Any RF that isn't like this, is the result of cost cutting measures. This goes for any camera, including expensive ones.
2. you gain access to some nice (subjective) lenses for cheap. 35mm Jupiter-12 (original Biogon clone), 50mm Jupiter-3 and -8 (Sonnar clones), the 85mm f/2 sonnar clone etc. Also the relatively "modern" in rendering and characteristics lens, the Helios-103, is the cheapest of the bunch despite being the sharpest lens in contax bayonet mount (including Zeiss lenses).
3. the 50mm lenses are tiny because the focusing helical is built onto the body
4. the metal shutter won't burn pinholes when pointed at the sun for long. Also since it's more like a shutter than traditional metal curtains, it makes for a more muted, thump-y sound. It sounds better to me (subjective) than the cloth shutter of an Olympus OM-1 with mirror lockup
Honestly, just get a 35mm Minox for a compact that fits in any pocket, even shirt pocket. Nothing comes close. And they have more "modern" viewfinders, i.e. bigger, brighter, with framelines, easy to see with glasses.
Leningrad is the only soviet rf with good finder.
