A RETROSPECTIVE ON BAD CAMERAS

[Dali]

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.

Great aperture and central shutter don't fit along well. A real world example: Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Lenses for F cameras get larger aperture than those for C cameras. Wonder why?

 

[Someonenameddavid]

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.

Well I can understand your personal preference, but the Contax II/III was designed with engineering a reliable rangefinder so that large aperture lenses could be used accurately. Technology advanced and so your perception is skewed by what came later. The Contax is a better camera than the Leica IIIa/b/c/d, and I consider myself to be a Leicaphile

David

 

[Yashinoff]

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.

I think they mean it limits the max. aperture. Did anybody make an leaf shutter SLR with a faster than f2 lens? The other thing is that many interchangeable lens SLRs of this nature had the rear elements fixed in the body behind the shutter, so really only half of the lens was interchangeable which led to compromises in lens design and ultimately a limited number of focal lengths available to the user of these cameras.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think they mean it limits the max. aperture. Did anybody make an leaf shutter SLR with a faster than f2 lens? The other thing is that many interchangeable lens SLRs of this nature had the rear elements fixed in the body behind the shutter, so really only half of the lens was interchangeable which led to compromises in lens design and ultimately a limited number of focal lengths available to the user of these cameras.

Kowa for sure 1.9 and 1.8 and I recall a 1.4 but not sure, and I also recall Topcon with 1.8.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Another way of looking at this topic (as I sit here with my Bronica ETR/speed grip/prism/200mm lens with hood, which resembles some sort of anti-tank weapon):

Could it be said that even a good camera can be bad for certain uses? The Bronica (in this configuration) would be a terrible camera for street photography or hiking, but it handles beautifully and produces superb negatives when I get the exposure right.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Another way of looking at this topic (as I sit here with my Bronica ETR/speed grip/prism/200mm lens with hood, which resembles some sort of anti-tank weapon):

Could it be said that even a good camera can be bad for certain uses? The Bronica (in this configuration) would be a terrible camera for street photography or hiking, but it handles beautifully and produces superb negatives when I get the exposure right.

My Deardorff V8 sucks for action photography.

 

[Yashinoff]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about reliability here more than usefulness.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about reliability here more than usefulness.

That was my assumption, too.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.

 

[lxdude]

Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.

Maybe cameras just aren't supposed to have people names.

 

[Pioneer]

The worst cameras that I have ever owned or used are the Tower 50 and Tower 51. I have also owned a few of the Ansco/Agfa 35mm SLR folders that have defied all attempts to make them work properly though my problems have involved the film transport mechanisms or light leaks far more frequently than shutter problems.

Although completely anecdotal, the best camera I have ever owned is my Pentax K1000 SE. I bought it at a Reno pawn shop in 1984 or 1985, and it spent the next 20 years of its life bouncing around in the glove compartment, or behind the seat, of several pickup trucks in the dusty outback of Nevada, with not one single CLA. And it never missed a beat or missed a picture. For twenty years if there was a family picture or a hunting picture, it was taken with that camera. Only in the last 4 or 5 years have I begun to semi appreciate it and try to take care of it. The only saving grace of those 20 some years of total abuse is that it stayed inside its leather case unless it was taking pictures. That old case looks like hell but at least the camera body is still in decent shape. But God only knows what the inside looks like. I am almost afraid to send it off for a CLA for fear that Eric will tell me it is not salvageable. I would hate to lose it as it is truly the one camera that I own that I can operate whether I am sober or falling down drunk!

 

[okto]

Maybe cameras just aren't supposed to have people names.

+1

 

[okto]

Great aperture and central shutter don't fit along well. A real world example: Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Lenses for F cameras get larger aperture than those for C cameras. Wonder why?

Because an f/1.4 lens to cover 6x6 would be impractically huge. That's not an optical limitation, that's a design decision that has little to do with the central shutter.
There are dozens of reasons lenses for the F system are faster than those for the V system.

Comparing apples to oranges and criticizing one for being less round.

 

[SpunkySpine]

I had a Zenit E back in the late 60's to early 70's. Traveling as a passenger in the rear seat of a Ford Pinto with camera stowed under the front seat, was in accident where car rolled several times and once end over end. I was thrown from car (who wore seatbelts back then?) and car was write off... but not the camera.

Day after accident, I returned to car to try to find anything I could salvage from the wreck. Tow truck operator turned car upright and I found the Zenit ground into the dirt where it had ended up under the roof of the car. I took it to the hotel where we stayed and cleaned it up. Lens focusing was the worst problem but got it going enough that I could use it.

Next stop was to see the wreck of the Pinto. I took pictures of the wreck with the Zenit camera!

Camera was retired when I bought a Fujica ST701 that I used for about 20 years.

ps: I was thrown from car and did compression fracture of my spine that was never properly diagnosed for 25 years. (Diagnosed when I broke my neck in '97). Now you know where I got my user name.

 

[Yashinoff]

Kowa for sure 1.9 and 1.8 and I recall a 1.4 but not sure, and I also recall Topcon with 1.8.

I doubt there could have been a 1.4, if not for technical reasons than for price reasons. After some research it seems the Kowa produced the fastest leaf shutter SLR lens at F1.8, I had thought Topcon also had a 1.8, but it seems their fastest was F2. Things get worse when the lenses get longer, Topcon's 100mm and 135mm lenses were F4.

 

[David Lyga]

Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.

Where would lomo and Leica be in that universe?

 

[okto]

Where would lomo and Leica be in that universe?

Leica would make most of their money from point-and-shoots, and Lomo would only offer niche products at outrageous prices.

Oh wait, that's this universe...

 

[Dali]

Because an f/1.4 lens to cover 6x6 would be impractically huge. That's not an optical limitation, that's a design decision that has little to do with the central shutter.
There are dozens of reasons lenses for the F system are faster than those for the V system.

Comparing apples to oranges and criticizing one for being less round.

I would be interesting to know why comparing lenses for C and F Hasselblad cameras is meaningless? Is a 500C so different from a 1000F so their respective lenses can't be compared? Please elaborate.

 

[okto]

I would be interesting to know why comparing lenses for C and F Hasselblad cameras is meaningless? Is a 500C so different from a 1000F so their respective lenses can't be compared? Please elaborate.

Haha, I misunderstood you. When someone says "F System", I think Nikon.

The lenses are approximately the same size, yes? That makes it a mechanical issue, not an optical one. That was my main point. The central shutter takes up space, and the physical size of a fast MF lens with a central shutter would be unwieldy. It's got nothing to do with the optics.

 

[Dali]

Haha, I misunderstood you. When someone says "F System", I think Nikon.

The lenses are approximately the same size, yes? That makes it a mechanical issue, not an optical one. That was my main point. The central shutter takes up space, and the physical size of a fast MF lens with a central shutter would be unwieldy. It's got nothing to do with the optics.

It is a mechanical issue which puts a constraint on the optical design. You can't increase the lens aperture without taking into account the iris max diameter. No similar trouble with a focal plane shutter, you can do whatever you want, the only limitation being the bayonet diameter.

 

[waynecrider]

Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga

They seemed to suffer from bad meters tho.

 

[dynachrome]

I have three Miranda Autosensorex EEs. Two are chrome and one is black. My Miranda and Soligor lenses include 28, 35, 50, 135, 200 and 80-200. The EE is the camera I nearly bought in 1971. I was intrigued by the removable finder. It was a big decision for someone so young but I decided on a Konica Autoreflex T2 with the 57/1.4 silver and black Hexanon with the EE lock pin. By now in my years of collecting I have many of the other cameras which were sold in 1971: Canon FTb, Minolta SRT-101, Pentax Spotmatic II, Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F2, Canon F-1. The Miranda EE has a fairly dim viewfinder and its overall finish is not up to the level of the other cameras I mentioned. It is capable of good results for someone who has the patience to use it. The lenses are decent. I have both f/1.8 an f/1.4 standard lenses. These are probably better than the other focal length lenses. When I figure out what waist level finder fits the EEs I will get one. I would also like to find a nice EE2.

 

[PentaxBronica]

From observation of my KM and K1000 the metering is indeed a bit confused, but I think it's due to the film speed selector rather than the meter proper. The KM was spot on when I squirted a bit of lighter fuel in there but went bad again as it evaporated, making me think that it's dirt or poor contact. I've also had MXs (same design) where the meter reads wildly at the slowest shutter speeds - presumably as these are so seldom used that dirt builds up at the end of the normally-used conductive track.

The KX uses a completely different setup with the film speed dial under the rewind crank, like the other M series bodies, Super A, Program A, A3000, etc. While I've had an ME Super which consistently overexposed by two stops (squirt of alcohol-based cleaner, turned the control a bit, problem solved) it seems less common for this design to pick up gunge.

 

[Pioneer]

Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga

Oh I do agree with you there. Engineering simplicity, wide tolerances and the wonderfully forgiving latitude of color and black & white negative film.