A RETROSPECTIVE ON BAD CAMERAS

PentaxBronica · Oct 17, 2012

The thing to remember is that there were a lot of cheaper or more basic SLRs aimed at the same market as digital bridge cameras - people who wanted better quality than the average compact but didn't want to pay for a fully fledged bells and whistles pro-spec SLR. This is presumably where all the Miranda/Cosina/Chinon stuff came in, as well as the Pentax MV/MV1 (which are so simplified that they don't even tell you what shutter speed they intend to use!)

railwayman3 · Oct 17, 2012

I remember my Father being unhappy with the Exaktas he had in the 60's and 70's....querky solid cameras, very versatile and with a huge range of accessories, but, from day one, spending more time at the repairers than in use! Probably the same issues of indifferent factory QC as Prakticas, also from East Germany. He eventuallty switched to Rollei SL35's with West German Zeiss lenses, and never had any trouble, although they seemed lighter and more delicate than the East German products. I inherited the Rolleis and used them for several years before selling them on, still working as good as new.

Paul Howell · Oct 17, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
The "Brand" 4x5 "field" camera. The thing makes an RB67 feel like a Ricoh GR1 in your hand. The handle on the rear standard gives the illusion that you could somehow hand-hold this beast. The dual-rail chassis design is also something that could get mis-aligned, and due to the fact that all the standards and the tripod mounting block are cast metal bits, if they got bent (say, you dropped it on a concrete floor while trying to mount it on your tripod) there'd be no way to accurately re-align them or to repair the camera to any degree of precision.

I have a Brand, very odd camera, bought mine at a swap meet in the 80s's I think I paid $25 for it will an old Kodak uncoated lens, held togeather by duct tape and epoxy. All alumumimum so it cannot be welded. Someone told that Brand and New View were made of alumumimu because after WWII 1000s of plans were scraped. Still in alinement and bellow are light tight. I dont need a view camera very often so I use it only when I need more movement than I have a Crown and Speed. I get good negatives, use a 152mm Kodak commerical and old BL 210.

Yashinoff · Oct 17, 2012

That's odd because Exaktas tend to be very robust. With the exception of the clockwork for the slow speeds and self timer, they're very simple cameras. On the other hand the last ones, the VX1000 - the quality was really bad. The 1950s Exaktas are made about as well as anything, but by the 1960s Exakta apparently was competing on price instead of features. I think the VX1000 I had may have been the shoddiest SLR I've ever laid hands on. At that point I think there may have been a lack of pride or interest in the product as Exakta was enduring a lot of legal troubles with the copyright holders in West Germany.

I don't know if I would put Miranda in the budget group. The Sensorex cameras were very advanced and very expensive when they came out. Miranda also had one of the largest lens line ups, from I believe, 17mm to 500mm. Prior the introduction of the Nikon F, the Miranda was Japan's "pro" SLR, and even for a couple years after Miranda competed with Nikon. When Nikon came out with the 21mm lens (which needed MLU to work) Miranda came out with the 17mm lens the next year - and it worked with reflex focussing!

However Miranda was a small company, never made their own lenses, etc. etc. - IIRC Soligor bought them up in 1968 or 69, and managed to kill the whole operation in less than a decade (apparently through gross mismanagement).

Gerald C Koch · Oct 17, 2012

Never liked the Contax II. The design of the camera ignores how the human hand operates. The choice of lenses is limited by the design decision to include the focusing helix in the camera body rather than in the lens. A well made but very poorly designed camera.

werra · Oct 18, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
What about Mirandas? I have one I've never used, and everyone says it's crap.

I use Miranda MS-3 as my disposable SLR. Out in the rain, snow, sand. Has not failed yet.
Although I guess the common with 'original' Miranda is only the name. Mine is plastic-bodied K-mount with metal shutter, aperture-priority with pretty good metering and bright viewfinder.

okto · Oct 18, 2012

Canon A-1/AV-1/AE-1/AE-1P. They all have that godawful shutter squeal that's the social equivalent of farting every time you trip the shutter.

railwayman3 · Oct 18, 2012

Yashinoff said:
That's odd because Exaktas tend to be very robust. With the exception of the clockwork for the slow speeds and self timer, they're very simple cameras. On the other hand the last ones, the VX1000 - the quality was really bad. The 1950s Exaktas are made about as well as anything, but by the 1960s Exakta apparently was competing on price instead of features. I think the VX1000 I had may have been the shoddiest SLR I've ever laid hands on. At that point I think there may have been a lack of pride or interest in the product as Exakta was enduring a lot of legal troubles with the copyright holders in West Germany.

IIRC, my father had a Varex IIa (1950's)which was fine, then three IIb's (mid-1960's) all of which had shutter bounce on the 1/500 and 1/1000 speeds, and none of which were ever totally cured. Plus a couple of Pancolor lenses which were fuzzy at full aperture.

As you say, probably competition on price and loss of pride....I believe that, by that time, the semi-independent Ihagee works had been absorbed into the state-run Pentacon enterprise (perhaps with no option?). Again, IIRC, the UK distribution had passed through several different companies, so maybe poor back-up for warranties and repairs.

cowanw · Oct 18, 2012

I still have a full set of Topcon Uni gear. What's not to like about a leaf shutter that sync at all speeds with flash?

David Lyga · Oct 18, 2012

cowanw: Certainly that sync speed is to be desired, up to, what, 1/500? Great. But it is telling, indeed, that so few manufacturers wanted the leaf shutter and all its troubles. The curtain was far simpler and less prone to problems. Get a tiny bit of oil into that leaf mechanism and you would see what I mean.

Diverting just a mite: I ask all: has it ever been definitively determined as to what is better for a curtain, cloth or metal? Perhaps the hybrid, titanium on the Nikon F2, was the very best? Comments? I know that it it tempting to say the metal was best but what about Leica RF? - David Lyga

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 18, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
What about Mirandas? I have one I've never used, and everyone says it's crap.

My father used one for many years without a single hiccup. He took the attached photograph of his grandfather in 1963, which we printed on Ilford MG Art 300 together last year, and that same camera still works beautifully. I'm sure there are Miranda cameras that don't work well, but perhaps they haven't been looked after properly?

E. von Hoegh · Oct 18, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
My father used one for many years without a single hiccup. He took the attached photograph of his grandfather in 1963, which we printed on Ilford MG Art 300 together last year, and that same camera still works beautifully. I'm sure there are Miranda cameras that don't work well, but perhaps they haven't been looked after properly?

That's a great photo of your great granddad.

Well, my Miranda is in good cosmetic condition and everything functions well. I see lenses going as cheap as $15 - $40 for the common ones, I plan to get a 35 or 50mm lens and use it a bit. Also, it seems I can get or make an adapter to use my Nikkors on it.......

Sometimes I think I could start my very own cargo cult.

Jim Jones · Oct 18, 2012

The Miranda I bought new in 1967 developed several problems within months, so I switched to Nikon. However, its Soligar lenses performed well. A couple of Mirandas later bought because they were very cheap also had problems. Nikkormats have served me well. The Nikkorex F was awful.

Jeff Kubach · Oct 18, 2012

okto said:
Canon A-1/AV-1/AE-1/AE-1P. They all have that godawful shutter squeal that's the social equivalent of farting every time you trip the shutter.

I have a A-1 and the squeal dosen't bother me. I could have some wax buildup in my ears.

Jeff

Laurent · Oct 18, 2012

okto said:
Canon A-1/AV-1/AE-1/AE-1P. They all have that godawful shutter squeal that's the social equivalent of farting every time you trip the shutter.

I suffered from this squeak for 30 years (litteraly) but finally decided to give a cla to my first real camera. It's so silent now that I came to use the AE1P much more now

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 18, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
Sometimes I think I could start my very own cargo cult.

Do it!

narsuitus · Oct 18, 2012

Back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports magazine declared that Miranda Sensorex was the best buy for the money. Their declaration had a great influence on my decision to select the Sensorex as my first SLR. However, my Sensorex broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.

The other photographers at the newspaper where I worked used Nikons and convinced me that Nikons had the reliability that I needed. I immediately replaced my broken Sensorex with a used Nikon F. I have been using Nikons ever since because I have been very impressed with the dependability and ruggedness of their bodies and lenses.

My horrible experiences with my brand new Miranda Sensorex convinced me that it was and is a bad camera. I would not recommend it to anyone.

Paul Howell · Oct 18, 2012

werra said:
I use Miranda MS-3 as my disposable SLR. Out in the rain, snow, sand. Has not failed yet.
Although I guess the common with 'original' Miranda is only the name. Mine is plastic-bodied K-mount with metal shutter, aperture-priority with pretty good metering and bright viewfinder.

AIC produced Mirandas and Soligar until about 77 or 78 then closed, the brand name was sold and rebranded Cosina's were sold under the Miranda label, the K mounts were not the AIC models.

Paul Howell · Oct 18, 2012

I don't know if I would put Miranda in the budget group. The Sensorex cameras were very advanced and very expensive when they came out. Miranda also had one of the largest lens line ups, from I believe, 17mm to 500mm. Prior the introduction of the Nikon F, the Miranda was Japan's "pro" SLR, and even for a couple years after Miranda competed with Nikon. When Nikon came out with the 21mm lens (which needed MLU to work) Miranda came out with the 17mm lens the next year - and it worked with reflex focussing!

However Miranda was a small company, never made their own lenses, etc. etc. - IIRC Soligor bought them up in 1968 or 69, and managed to kill the whole operation in less than a decade (apparently through gross mismanagement).[/QUOTE]

Mirdands lens were made by a number of companies, Kowa was one, I think Tonkia was another. Lens were disigned by Miranda. As a collecter I would like to see any data about the lens line up. The lens listed in the cataglogs was limited, for EE 25mm to 200 the Sesnorex 25 to 300mm. I have seen a few 400mm and 500mm thrid party lens with the 44mm screw mount, Mirdanda had both the baynet(sp?) and a 44 screw mount, but 44 mm lens dont couple to the meter. AIC bought both Mirdanda and Soligor. AIC was an American owned company. The owner of Brookland Camera told me that AIC did not get tax breaks and other considerdations given to Nikon and other Japaness based companies and could not keep up with tech evolution of the late 70s. Dont know how much truth there is to his story.

Yashinoff · Oct 18, 2012

narsuitus said:
Back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports magazine declared that Miranda Sensorex was the best buy for the money. Their declaration had a great influence on my decision to select the Sensorex as my first SLR. However, my Sensorex broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.

The other photographers at the newspaper where I worked used Nikons and convinced me that Nikons had the reliability that I needed. I immediately replaced my broken Sensorex with a used Nikon F. I have been using Nikons ever since because I have been very impressed with the dependability and ruggedness of their bodies and lenses.

My horrible experiences with my brand new Miranda Sensorex convinced me that it was and is a bad camera. I would not recommend it to anyone.

My favorite camera is a Miranda D. Shutter speeds were still dead on when I got it. I had a much later Sensomat that would sometimes jam up for no apparent reason though. I think reliability may have dropped off after Soligor acquired the company in the late 60s.

Yashinoff · Oct 18, 2012

PDH said:
Mirdands lens were made by a number of companies, Kowa was one, I think Tonkia was another. Lens were disigned by Miranda. As a collecter I would like to see any data about the lens line up. The lens listed in the cataglogs was limited, for EE 25mm to 200 the Sesnorex 25 to 300mm. I have seen a few 400mm and 500mm thrid party lens with the 44mm screw mount, Mirdanda had both the baynet(sp?) and a 44 screw mount, but 44 mm lens dont couple to the meter. AIC bought both Mirdanda and Soligor. AIC was an American owned company. The owner of Brookland Camera told me that AIC did not get tax breaks and other considerdations given to Nikon and other Japaness based companies and could not keep up with tech evolution of the late 70s. Dont know how much truth there is to his story.

You can find every Miranda lens known on this Japanese site, listed in rough chronological order: http://miranda.s32.xrea.com/miranda/MSJ_html/lens/ Miranda had many manufacturers make lenses for them. Mostly Kowa and Tokina as you mentioned, but also companies like Norita and Zunow.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 18, 2012

narsuitus said:
Back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports magazine declared that Miranda Sensorex was the “best buy for the money.” Their declaration had a great influence on my decision to select the Sensorex as my first SLR. However, my Sensorex broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.

The other photographers at the newspaper where I worked used Nikons and convinced me that Nikons had the reliability that I needed. I immediately replaced my broken Sensorex with a used Nikon F. I have been using Nikons ever since because I have been very impressed with the dependability and ruggedness of their bodies and lenses.

My horrible experiences with my brand new Miranda Sensorex convinced me that it was and is a bad camera. I would not recommend it to anyone.

My 35mm kit has been Nikon (late 60s vintage) since the mid 1990s, they have been as reliable as complex mechanisms get.

This Miranda thing (mine is an Fv) is beginning to sound like a challenge! I can see myself getting into Russian cameras too...

Paul Howell · Oct 18, 2012

Yashinoff said:
You can find every Miranda lens known on this Japanese site, listed in rough chronological order: http://miranda.s32.xrea.com/miranda/MSJ_html/lens/ Miranda had many manufacturers make lenses for them. Mostly Kowa and Tokina as you mentioned, but also companies like Norita and Zunow.

Thanks for the link, the catalogs I have do not the 17mm, 21mm, 85mm or 400mm, I dont think I have see any of these on auction sites.

Dali · Oct 18, 2012

David Lyga said:
cowanw: Certainly that sync speed is to be desired, up to, what, 1/500? Great. But it is telling, indeed, that so few manufacturers wanted the leaf shutter and all its troubles. The curtain was far simpler and less prone to problems. Get a tiny bit of oil into that leaf mechanism and you would see what I mean.

Diverting just a mite: I ask all: has it ever been definitively determined as to what is better for a curtain, cloth or metal? Perhaps the hybrid, titanium on the Nikon F2, was the very best? Comments? I know that it it tempting to say the metal was best but what about Leica RF? - David Lyga

The trouble with central shutter is the fact that it greatly interferes with the optical design of the lens and is somewhat a limitation in that matter compared to a focal plane shutter. This and their allergy to high speed are for me their main drawbacks. But well designed, they are surprisingly durable, silent and without syncho speed limitation. They also have an edge on the maintenance aspect compare to focal plane shutters which are most of the time embedded into the camera body.

For your question about curtains, I vote for metal: no crack, no pinhole.

Take care.

okto · Oct 19, 2012

Dali said:
The trouble with central shutter is the fact that it greatly interferes with the optical design of the lens

How so? In most lenses with central shutters, the shutter is directly in front of/behind the aperture. Some even use one diaphragm for both functions.
From an optical perspective, a lens with and without a central shutter are basically identical.

Examples of this are large-format lenses, whose cells are routinely used in both barrels and shutters without any optical modifications at all.

A RETROSPECTIVE ON BAD CAMERAS

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency