Most disappointing cameras?

Sirius Glass · Sep 1, 2011

Mamiya C330f
I did not like it as a teenager when my father got it.
When I inherited it with the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses and every accessory in the known world for it, I liked it even less. The 65mm lens was too close to the 80mm lens for my taste and if I had kept the camera, I would have traded it for the 55mm lens. I found it too fiddlily => the 65mm and 80mm lenses automatically cocked, the 250mm did not. I had keep flipping the camera on one side and then the other to set the aperture and the shutter only to find that I need to manually cock the 250mm and miss the shot. I had it CLAed and then lost photos and even rolls of film that were unexposed because the repairman did not fasten the door correctly [not the camera's fault]. The view finder was too dark. After several dozen rolls I could not become one with the camera and traded it all in for the Hasselblad 503 CX and never looked back.

Steve

TimVermont · Sep 1, 2011

Mamiya 645 Super. Squeaky motor drive never felt securely attached, multiple failures in year one, shutter self-fired anytime it got cold, weird little cable adapter, inconsistent lens quality, cheap feel everywhere but my wallet, slow service from & overpriced by MAC.

moki · Sep 2, 2011

The very worst was a Kiev 88 CM which had a broken shutter after about 15 rolls, but before that it was a nice camera. Sadly, the price of repair was way above the price for a new one, so it's a very decorative paper weight now and I got a Kowa Six instead.
Buying a Kiev is like a lottery - you can hit the jackpot, but most of the time, you just pay for nothing.

There also was a Zorki 1e... basically a Leica II copy. It still works, but I just can't work with the tiny viewfinder, dark rangefinder and easily jammed shutter. I guess, I'd say the same about an original early Leica. I have no idea, what people like about those.

greylensman · Sep 2, 2011

Mamiya C220

I wanted to love this camera, picked it up on fleabay and it is a beautiful camera - but... The shutter was gummed, the film advance worked then failed, then worked, then failed, the back needed foam replacement. A good CLA would have fixed this, but I didn't know better.

Instead I sold it at a loss and found a Mamiya RZ67 I have been absolutely happy with ever since.

In 35mm, a Kodak Signet 35 - the camera my dad gave me to take a photography class with - made the class torture as I struggled over and over to overcome the limitations imposed by a very slow lens and rangefinder focussing.

I keep thinking I should get one of these to see if it really was as bad as I remember or if that was then - and then I recover and don't buy it.

BrianL · Sep 2, 2011

The Signet 35 is actually quite a decent camera but, like many mechanical items, it takes time to get used to it and one needs to make an effort to stop fighing it.

Shawn Rahman · Sep 2, 2011

All you wonderful people disappointed with your Leica experience after using M3s need to try again with M7s. Also, are you sure it's not rangefinders in general that you are disappointed with?

BradleyK · Sep 2, 2011

You have my agreement on that one, Shawn. I would add, however, that trying out one of the M6 series might also give pause to reconsider. I have to admit that, in my case, it took a good six months of steady shooting to reach the point where my Leica M6 (rangefinders in general?) felt natural in my hands and in front of my eye. Now (with apologies to Mr Heston), you would have to pry the camera from my cold, dead hands.

Ian Grant · Sep 2, 2011

Shawn Rahman said:
All you wonderful people disappointed with your Leica experience after using M3s need to try again with M7s. Also, are you sure it's not rangefinders in general that you are disappointed with?

Poor workmen blame their tools

The M3's, in fact all the M series, are superb cameras, you're right not everyone'shappy using a range finder camera but some of my best 35mm work has been shot with an M3 and mid 50's Summicron.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Sep 2, 2011

Ian Grant said:
Poor workmen blame their tools

What a bunch of crap!!!

My parents told that for years when I complained that my baseball mit was too stiff and even the coaches say something was wrong with it. The mit would not close on the balls and the balls bounced away. Years later the high school coach lent me his mit. The coach shagged balls to me for a half hour and I caught every ball. That night I confronted my parents. After that they never said that again.

Therefore whenever someone tells me that I know that they are saying that they are too lazy to understand what was being talked about.

Steve

Ian Grant · Sep 2, 2011

What a bunch of crap!!!

Sirius Glass said:
What a bunch of crap!!!

My parents told that for years when I complained that my baseball mit was too stiff and even the coaches say something was wrong with it. The mit would not close on the balls and the balls bounced away. Years later the high school coach lent me his mit. The coach shagged balls to me for a half hour and I caught every ball. That night I confronted my parents. After that they never said that again.

Therefore whenever someone tells me that I know that they are saying that they are too lazy to understand what was being talked about.

Steve

What a bunch of crap!!! That's what you've just written . . . .

Lets be realistic if a Leica's bought through a Leitz dealer and has been serviced then there's no excuses.

You're right in a way because there can always be exceptions. I bought my M3 as a user from a highly reputable Leitz dealer, and he's not expensive. The camera body had minor dings but is mechanically perfect.

I've seen a lot of work shot with M2/3/4/5/6 Leica's and they've always been outstanding in terems of quality, I'm talking about well known photographers. So I take comments taht Leica's are disappointing cameras as a pinch of salt. I'd add that I have an 80 year old Leica that still works flawlessly.

Ian

cluttered · Sep 2, 2011

Ian Grant said:
I've seen a lot of work shot with M2/3/4/5/6 Leica's and they've always been outstanding in terems of quality, I'm talking about well known photographers. So I take comments taht Leica's are disappointing cameras as a pinch of salt. I'd add that I have an 80 year old Leica that still works flawlessly.

Noone is arguing that an M3 can produce excellent photos, just that some posters find them disappointing. It's not the same thing.

Myself, a Nikon F4 was my recent disappointment. I really wanted one for many years and finally bought one, but just couldn't warm to it.

Aristophanes · Sep 2, 2011

Thread is camera, not lenses. Leica lenses good. Leica film loading is like trying to be a dentist with oven mitts.

fstop · Sep 2, 2011

Aristophanes said:
Thread is camera, not lenses. Leica lenses good. Leica film loading is like trying to be a dentist with oven mitts.

oh you met (name witheld)

Bill Burk · Sep 2, 2011

The Canon ML can lay waste to a roll of film faster than any camera I've known.

But the Canonet QL17 GIII is the one that opened my eyes to rangefinders.

Roger Cole · Sep 2, 2011

cluttered said:
Noone is arguing that an M3 can produce excellent photos, just that some posters find them disappointing. It's not the same thing.

Myself, a Nikon F4 was my recent disappointment. I really wanted one for many years and finally bought one, but just couldn't warm to it.

Exactly. A camera could be an excellent, even superb camera, and still disappoint someone and that wouldn't necessarily mean they're bad photographers either. Maybe it doesn't suit their style of working or doesn't fit their hands but fits other peoples or doesn't work the way they thought it did when they got it or any number of other reasons they could be disappointed.

I've never owned a rangerfinder camera. When I've played with them they've seemed, frankly, odd and awkward. I think I'd tend to shoot without focusing because the clear view would cause me to react as if it were in focus without pausing to align the rangefinder image. Of course I'd probably get used to that. I'm not saying I wouldn't like one, but I am saying "it would take getting used to" and I might or might not like it once I did.

In my case, I know that, but if I didn't know that and bought one on reputation alone I could easily be disappointed with it, even though it was a fine camera. Someone else would be disappointed with a view camera because they just wouldn't like working that slowly, where I enjoy it.

BrianL · Sep 2, 2011

Leica is not the cup of tea for many. Growing up in a SLR world the rangefinder seems almost like a throw back. Only one more difficult is the tlr with its reversed image finder. The RF does not show DoF, actual image due to offset and viewfinder while on the other hand is blessed that there is no blackout but, with speeds of 1/500 and above the shutter opening and closing and with most cameras mirror movement is fast enough practically it is not an issue. Shutter lag, though can be. SLRs handle Zooms whereas RF at best have framing for a few lenses unless an acc'y viewfinder is used. Forget zoom lenses, yes I know that is a plus for some persons including me.

Yes, loading a film can be a challenging new experience, requiring cutting of the leader. OTOH, the design makes for a very rigid body, one of the best out there and has a long back plate that holds the film flatter better than most other designs, I think I remember in the Contax RTSIII its system was judged as the only competitor to the Leica.

Leica has almost had excellent press and for those who read it is easy for them to be convinced the Leica experience has got to be the way to go but, when they actually live with the camera become disillusioned as it is slower than an SLR and does not have the same shooting style or ergonomics and hence a let down. It does not make them wrong, does not make the camera bad, just a miss match in mating them up to each other.

Roger, one difference beetween a RF and SLR is with an SLR you tend to rely on the focusing to be precise while most RF users who learn to use them learn some practical uses for DoF and Zone focusing. Using them can make it faster than an SLR and even an autofocus camera. When I shoot, I use my SLR as such and use zone focusing with the RF many times but as I walk with it, continually do check focus on various spots around me to gauge the distance. This leads to another difference and that is a tendency to use slower lenses on RF for general purpose use. I have not wory about a Leica lense with a f/4 but with an SLR with a max of f/4 could actually be too dark to accuately focus and view.

It all depends on habit, shooting style and subject and training. Happily I am old enouh with enough hours under my belt that switching between them is not an issue. I still need more hours to feel as comfortable with the inverse image of a waist level finder of an SLR or TLR but, I'll get there.

Sirius Glass · Sep 2, 2011

Ian Grant said:
You're right in a way because there can always be exceptions. I bought my M3 as a user from a highly reputable Leitz dealer, and he's not expensive. The camera body had minor dings but is mechanically perfect.

It is not about the camera, it is about what works for someone. I am very comfortable with range finder cameras, but I do not like the limitations in focal lengths. 135mm is just not long enough for some of the work I do. Does that make it a bad camera? No, but it is not the right tool for some people.

So if one needs a camera with a 250mm lens capability, then they would be disappointed with any M2/M3/M4/... YOU are going to be so arrogant that you will say it is there fault?

I have two Hasselblads, but it is not the right camera for everyone.

You need to throw out your script for responding. Listen to what people say without jumping to the responding with what you thought that you heard without listening. You were given two ears and one mouth ... there is a message there.

The "a poor workman blames his tools" response is the textbook example from someone who is too busy jumping to conclusions without listening to what is being said. To which I often answer, "If I wanted my ideas and thoughts ignored, I would have stayed married!"

darinwc · Sep 2, 2011

Wow, take it easy guys.. you are arguing about nothing.
Have a beer, get shagged, and forget about it.

Bill Burk · Sep 2, 2011

BrianL said:
...but, with speeds of 1/500 and above the shutter opening and closing and with most cameras mirror movement is fast enough practically it is not an issue. ...

It's a cheap shot to say this but I mean it with humor... It is true that you NEVER see the picture you took with an SLR.

Granted there are some Pellicle mirror SLR's.

fstop · Sep 2, 2011

darinwc said:
Wow, take it easy guys.. you are arguing about nothing.
Have a beer, get shagged, and forget about it.

The voice of reason, people, listen close...

Roger Cole · Sep 3, 2011

BrianL said:
Roger, one difference beetween a RF and SLR is with an SLR you tend to rely on the focusing to be precise while most RF users who learn to use them learn some practical uses for DoF and Zone focusing. Using them can make it faster than an SLR and even an autofocus camera. When I shoot, I use my SLR as such and use zone focusing with the RF many times but as I walk with it, continually do check focus on various spots around me to gauge the distance. This leads to another difference and that is a tendency to use slower lenses on RF for general purpose use. I have not wory about a Leica lense with a f/4 but with an SLR with a max of f/4 could actually be too dark to accuately focus and view.

It all depends on habit, shooting style and subject and training. Happily I am old enouh with enough hours under my belt that switching between them is not an issue. I still need more hours to feel as comfortable with the inverse image of a waist level finder of an SLR or TLR but, I'll get there.

All very well put and, interestingly enough, while I'm not sure I'd like a rangefinder (though I might) I got my first TLR less than a year ago and took to the waist level and TLR in general right away - instantly loved it. YMMV.

Newt_on_Swings · Sep 3, 2011

its good thing to wrap a new baseball glove, with a ball in center and a few big rubber bands around it. then throw it under the couch or foot of the bed for a while. I wouldn't advise this to break in a camera though. lol

sidearm613 · Sep 3, 2011

I want to bring up my two most disappointing cameras, the modern 645s, the Mamiya 645AF and the Hasselblad H series. No doubt the lenses are excellent and they are very complex and modern, but they are plasticky as all hell. Honestly the plastics used in the H1 are cheaper than those of a Canon Rebel, and yet the camera is massively expensive. Thanks but I'll be staying with the Pentax 67, a camera built like a tank

ozphoto · Sep 3, 2011

GumPhoto said:
Rollei sl66. Maybe I just got two lemons, but they were the most break-prone things I ever owned.

I had one that *never* synched properly - it was sooooo erratic that I traded it back (full refund) on a GS1 and have never looked back!!

Sirius Glass · Sep 3, 2011

darinwc said:
Wow, take it easy guys.. you are arguing about nothing.
Have a beer, get shagged, and forget about it.

I'll take the drink and extra shags. A push in the bush never hurt anyone.

Most disappointing cameras?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency