A RETROSPECTIVE ON BAD CAMERAS

[David Lyga]

Yes, Pioneer, Pentax (and Minolta) made things to really last. And they also made their lenses easy to deconstruct and clean and repair.

Canon, on the other hand, was kind of unduly complex, engineering-wise, and more things could go wrong. But I an not knocking Canon: they are amongst the best, but, simply, have not reduced their products to the 'lowest possible denominator' without sacrifice to quality. Their FD mount is a nightmare to take apart and put back together again. And there is really no reason for that overkill. - David Lyga

 

[EKDobbs]

My first SLR, a Miranda Sensorex, was very unreliable when brand new. I doubt if it has improved with age.

I have the same camera. Works okay, but depending on where you set the meter (which is non-functional in mine) it will lock you out of the higher/lower shutter speeds unless you trip a hard-to-press button. It's also very clunky to hold. I can't speak much to the rest of it, as mine is a flea-market buy.

 

[GRHazelton]

My first 35mm SLR was a Praktica LTL. It never faltered, even after bouncing off a sidewalk, a spill which took a chunk off the bottom cover. It still works, although the lens diaphragm is sluggish. Leaf shutter SLRs a different matter. I have a Komaflex S 127 SLR which needs work, the diaphragm doesn't close. Estimates are in the $200 range, hardly feasible for a camera which, while pleasant, doesn't warrant that kind of money since 127 film is almost extinct.

A "bad" camera. I was given a Canon T50. This little beast is fully automatic exposure, all the user can select is film speed and selftimer. There is an underexposure warning in the VF, which by the way is pretty good. The interchangeable lens is a 50mm f1.8 seems pretty good. Now, get this. From all I can tell the ONLY flash compatible with it is a wimpy 2 AA unit, the 244T, offering automated use for ... ISO 100 and 400 films only! The camera, by contrast, can set ISO 25 to 1600. What was Canon thinking....

Now, this may be a reliable machine. I've run a roll of BW through it and it gave good results. But it is a dead end, unlike the Pentax K-1000 or any number of other, basic cameras, including...the Praktica LTL.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think Petri may be worse of the lot. Petri etween propriety mount and M42, I have nopt seen an example of an 35 SLR in good working order in years. Lens seem to be ok. Petri range finders seem to be more robust and with decent optics.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I know I'll take some heat for this but, the very first generation Minolta Maxxum cameras. I know, they were the first effective auto-focus cameras. But the ergonomics suck, and the autofocus is LOUD and not particularly fast or precise. Same with the mirror operation. Eventually it does lock in, but it hunts a lot in anything other than bright sunshine. Today there are much better options for a beginner.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Most of the first generation AF cameras suffered from this. There's a Youtube video showing a Pentax ME F and matched AF 35-70mm lens to demonstrate the AF function. I think most of us would be faster with a manual lens!

 

[David Lyga]

The current value of the Maxxum attests to that fact, TheFlyingCamera. - David Lyga

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, Mr. Lyga, you were the one soliciting cameras for beginners to stay away from...

 

[Pioneer]

I agree that the early Minolta AF cameras are not at the top of the heap and probably qualify as a Bad Camera. But interestingly there is even value with those cameras, bad as they may be. I have bought two Minolta Maxxums and given them to my grandchildren to use. As David has noted, they are unbelievably inexpensive. At $5 each it is very tough to do better. Second, though the auto focus is slow, it does work if you understand the principle behind it. The Maxxums are looking for big differences in contrast and the grandchildren have both learned that if you put the center point in the viewfinder across something in your scene with high contrast, the camera will focus pretty quick. That is teaching them to recognize contrast in a scene, and it is also teaching them the technique of focus and re-compose. It is also getting them to recognize the importance of focusing on the area you want to be sharp and clear.

So, even a bad camera can be useful if you know what you are looking for and what the limitations are. But I do have to say. Those old Maxxums certainly are not great sports cameras!

 

[benjiboy]

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.

I have one and I agree with you Gerald, but in the days when the Zeiss Contax system was designed in the early 1930s it wasn't an issue to most users, even the word ergonomics didn't exist until the 1950's.

 

[David Lyga]

Yeah, maybe the Maxxum IS THE ONE to consider here. They were decent but I hate them because they are autofocus and all the bells and whistles confuse me. But for value...... - David Lyga

 

[waynecrider]

I inherited two Maxxum's, a 7000 and a 7000i. Ergonomically the 7000i fit's my hands just great, but it is large, albeit reasonably light, and the camera is really simple overall with a just perfectly placed spot metering button. The focus screen is fantastic. I can manually focus without my glasses. The battery thing sucks tho taking the 2CR5. Slow autofocus as far as I'm concerned is due to a single AF sensor in many bodies in the pre 95 models. My 7000i has 3 lines. In comparison my Maxxum 70 has 8 lines and a cross, but the bodies flash pop's up easily which is annoying.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I know I'll take some heat for this but, the very first generation Minolta Maxxum cameras. I know, they were the first effective auto-focus cameras. But the ergonomics suck, and the autofocus is LOUD and not particularly fast or precise. Same with the mirror operation. Eventually it does lock in, but it hunts a lot in anything other than bright sunshine. Today there are much better options for a beginner.

The cheaper later ones weren't very good, either. I have some fuzzy shots from my first SLR. Heh. It wasn't *all* because I was inexperienced with the camera.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

I have one and I agree with you Gerald, but in the days when the Zeiss Contax system was designed in the early 1930s it wasn't an issue to most users, even the word ergonomics didn't exist until the 1950's.

Being a Contax IIa/IIIa devotee, I would continue to dispute that it is poorly designed. It is small, easier to load than a Leica III, is designed to keep your hands away from the rangefinder on both sides, because it is a highly accurate and durable range finder. The Nikon S and F series are obvious descendants in design. You are comparing a 1930s design with what??

 

[Pioneer]

Being a Contax IIa/IIIa devotee, I would continue to dispute that it is poorly designed. It is small, easier to load than a Leica III, is designed to keep your hands away from the rangefinder on both sides, because it is a highly accurate and durable range finder. The Nikon S and F series are obvious descendants in design. You are comparing a 1930s design with what??

I have a Contax IIa and a Contax II. The IIa came after World War II and it was a smaller and easier to use rangefinder.

The II came before World War II and was a larger and heavier rangefinder. The beamsplitter window is on the far right side front of the II and you are forced to reach over that window with your finger to focus the 50mm lenses using the on camera dial. More often than not your hand or fingers will interfere with the rangefinder window and the split image disappears as a result.

On the IIa the beamsplitter window was moved inboard on the camera just a little bit so that it is positioned under the focus wheel, not to the right of the focus wheel. With this re-design it was not as common to have your finger interfere with the split image.

However, keep in mind that the Contax II is far and away the most accurate rangefinder because the base length was so much longer than Leica's. In fact, it was so accurate that the Contax II was actually considered the professional camera at the time and the Leica was seen as an amateur camera. Of course, when the Leica M3 came out in 1954 it changed the entire game. Zeiss was never able to catch up after that.

I guess there are pros and cons to every design. Ergonomically I find the Contax II, Contax IIa and my Leica IIIc to be equally difficult to work with, for different reasons.

 

[rolleiman]

As a general rule, I'd concentrate on all mechanical bodies and avoid anything electronic. The more "basic" a camera is, the less likelihood of things going wrong. But much depends on how a camera has been treated by its previous owner(s). Cosmetic appearance gives a clue, also a camera that comes complete with its case, is often an indication the previous owner has treated it well. In my opinion, camera manufacture was at its best in that period between 1965 and about 1982. During this period appeared "classicis" like the Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon F series, Canon F1 Ftb's, Leica M4 etc. All solidly engineered cameras and lenses to the highest standards. Any of these in good condition should be a good buy, and will probably outlive you in terms of reliability.

 

[rjhelms]

I shoot primarily on a Minolta Maxxum 7000i. Definitely all the points about it are valid, but you can't beat that value.. just got mine for the asking, wihh a 35-105 zoom, and a 50mm f/1.7 was pretty inexpensive to add.

I don't find the ergonomics of it bad at all, but my hands are pretty big, and now that I've gotten used to it I find it pretty quick and intuitive to use. My only complaint is that in manual exposure mode, it takes both hands to set the aperture. I spend most of my time in manual focus and aperture-priority mode, unless I'm shooting a scene that I know will confuse up the meter.

But hey, whatever works for the person who has to use it, right? I have lots of love for full-manual cameras, but the Minolta works great for me.

 

[pdraver]

The worst camera I ever had was a Mamiya-Sekor 500DTL. The shutter would jam without warning. After I think the fourth time I sent it in for warranty repair (it never made it out of the warranty on warranty repairs period) they sent me a new one.

This one had a grinding, metal on metal feel when the film was advanced. Its shutter soon jamned too.

My conscience wouldn't allow me to trade it in, so I destroyed it. I replaced it with a Fuji ST701 which served me faithfully without a single problem for quite a few years.

Later on I thought about going to the 645 format, but after this there was no way I would ever buy anything Mamiya.

 

[37th Exposure]

ANYTHING made in China or the USSR.

Seagull TLR. One DOA, one failed in middle of first roll, third jammed/ focus inaccurate.

Smena 8M. for all the fancy quality control paperwork that came in the box it failed after about just 7 exposures. Shutter stopped firing. Didn't bother to develop film, tossed it. Camera is now paperweight.

Lomo LC Wide. $400 35 point and shoot. Total rip off. Worth about $4.00. Erratic film wind. Picture quality worse than disposable cameras.

Minolta X700 and Nikon F100. I loved the Minoltas. I had three. The oldest one dates back to 1985 and the other to 1991. Both still work great despite having taken a beating all those years. My last one from around 2000 was the only one to fail (shutter speeds suddenly went way off like 1/500 went to about 2 seconds etc.). I discovered this last one was no longer made in Japan but China, just like the 2 Nikon F100's which died (totally inoperable) as soon as the warranty expired.

 

[blockend]

Nikon F601. A good concept spoiled by a flimsy back release hook, both mine died in identical fashion while sitting in the drawer. The metal clasp is too strong for the toy town plastic hook and it snaps. There was an after-market fix which involved screwing in a stronger metal hook.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I just realized something: I've only had one camera made after 1985. It was the only camera that ever gave me crap results. I want to say it was a Maxxum QTsi, but I can't remember. God, that thing was a piece of crap.

 

[georg16nik]

ANYTHING made in China or the USSR....

There are a lot of excellent cameras from China and USSR.
Those folks got enormous top quality resources and skilled opticians, engineers etc. etc., and still make cameras, films, papers, chemicals and anything a darkroom needs.

Probably You don't even have the slightest idea where the cutting edge LF cameras Chamonix are made.

I just realized something: I've only had one camera made after 1985. It was the only camera that ever gave me crap results. I want to say it was a Maxxum QTsi, but I can't remember. God, that thing was a piece of crap.

I just realized that I have only one camera made after 1956, a Sinar P and its not piece of crap but sadly, is used once or twice a year in the recent years..

There are no bad cameras..., only photographers/customers who are cursed or just had a bad luck or wanted *something* good for cheap.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I just realized that I have only one camera made after 1956, a Sinar P and its not piece of crap but sadly, is used once or twice a year in the recent years..

There are no bad cameras..., only photographers/customers who are cursed or just had a bad luck or wanted *something* good for cheap.

I bought that Minolta new. I didn't know about Ebay, really, before I did. Had I known, I would have had a Nikon WAY earlier.

 

[cliveh]

There are a lot of excellent cameras from China and USSR.

Name one.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Name one.

A lot of the older wooden large format cameras from Russia are pretty nice. The Fed and Kiev-series rangefinders are actually decent if you can find the older ones. The Chinese large format cameras such as the Shen Hao and Chamonix are also very, very good.