Most disappointing cameras?

bobwysiwyg · Sep 3, 2011

I've likely disappointed more cameras than the cameras disappointing me.

DaveO · Sep 3, 2011

Disappointing cameras

I had a Mamiya 528tl camera I bought around 1970 that was really bad. The mirror flipping up was the shutter. It only lasted a year or so before it self-destructed. Replaced it with a Pentax SP500 that was really good till they replaced the screw mount with a bayonet mount. Fortunately I did not spend a lot of money for it.

DaveO

waynecrider · Sep 3, 2011

My disappointing cameras were the Minox GTE (for construction) which self destructed. The light baffling around the lens was b.s. and the electronic shutter died not long after getting it. In fact the strobe for it died first. They should have made it a fixed lens camera. A Hell of a picture taker tho with the Leica lens. My second nomination would be for the meterless Leica M, only because the RF focus patch is so different then focusing a slr. I get too hung up in looking at the "small" patch for focusing instead of zone focusing like with the GTE. I'm still goading myself to use it just because it cost so much. And in third place comes, hmm, well for the cost of it, it's got to be the Hassy. I think that my downfall with it was the WL viewfinder. I never did appreciate WL's that much and cost wise the camera couldn't do anything better then other equipment at half the price. I thought of expanding the outfit with a metering prism and another lens and then decided that carrying that much bulk, and spending that much money was not for me. So the last two were really disappointments with what I thought would be cameras that would click with me, since it seemed everyone else loved them, but they both became drawer dwellers instead.

leicarfcam · Sep 3, 2011

warrennn said:
I bought a mint condition M3 in 1969 and found it to be a great disappointment (in an era when it was far less hyped than it is now). I found the build quality mediocre (lots of stamped metal parts)

I've never come across a Leica M3 with stamped metal parts and I have owned and used them since 1967. Internal parts are machined to exacting specs and are then hand fitted. The only "stamped" part is the flash pc block..

warrennn · Sep 3, 2011

It has been nearly 40 years since I sold the camera, but I seem to remember being a little surprised that things like the lens release mechanism and some of the levers seemed cheaply made on a camera with such a reputation for quality. There might also have been other items which didn't impress me.

Let's move on, shall we?

BrianL · Sep 3, 2011

Wayne, try using the Leica as a you did the Minox, zone focus. Allow the DoF scale guide you. A long time ago I learned a RF and manual focus camera can be used and treated in the same way. Makes life much easier. As for the Hassey using a WLF, it gives a differnt perspective. Lower than using a pentaprism or manual focus/RF. Once you get the hang of using the perspective to your advantage, it really can make some uninteresting photos much more interesting. I have a Bronica with both the WLF and a pentaprism and find I change them more than lenses in composing a shot. You can crouch with the pentaprism but, it can be uncomfortable and you can only go so low before having to lie down. I agree that the Hassey is a lot of bucks for the camera, as well as a Leica but, sometimes it costs multiples for even a small % of improvement as as you go up the ladder, the multiples increase. Usually you get to a point of diminishing returns where the limitation is the user. When I sold stereo equipment I used to tell customers that when I demonstrated 2 pieces where the customer could not differentiate, then the customer has hit the bar where he is the limitation and needs to decide whether to stay with the less expensive unit or go with the more expensive (and presumably better) and psh his education to appreciate the benefits.

When I got my Bronica I also tried a Hassey and found no advantage. About 6 years later I again tried a Hassey and found it could produce a somewhat better image all things being equal but the difference wa so small and the cost so great, it made no sense to move up. The difference was only noticable in test shooting and not in my normal shooting so I could not justify the investment. Admittedly, I never have lost a desire to own a basic Hassey 500 kit; like owning and driving a Rolls vs a Jag XJ-6. Both excellent units but the Rolls had more bling and feels more refined. Same for the Hassey vs the Bronica.

I also agree about the Minox, sadly. With the Leica sourced glass they ground it was such a great camera until it failed which sadly was all too often for me. I had the totl ML.

tony lockerbie · Sep 3, 2011

Never been dissapointed in a Leica M, they are just not for everyone. The Kiev's though..... I was told that they were a very viable alternative to a Contax, they aren't! It took three cameras before I got one that worked, and that cluncked and grinded like you wouldn't believe.....'orrible!
Finally bought a couple of actual Contaxes and the difference is amazing, truly lovely cameras.

panzerfaustnl · Sep 3, 2011

Dissapointment is something you get when you have unrealistic expectations of a camera.

I really can't imagine a camera what dissapointed me. My first camera had a weak point, but as usual you work around that soft spot.

My first real camera was a Canon EOS 500. That one was a little bit slow, so I had to think ahead, and when I discoverd that I could do anything with it.

removed account4 · Sep 3, 2011

i take back what i said, that none of my cameras have disappointed me ...

now that i have thought about it, all my cameras are a disappointment -
i am tired of focusing, and determining exposure and loading/unloading film, even composing images.
i am probably going to be selling them all in the next few weeks... maybe i'll get something fully automatic, and even get an someone else to take all the photographs for me ...
i won't even tell him / her what to take, that will take too much effort ...
and ultimately end in disappointment as well

MattKing · Sep 3, 2011

jnanian said:
i take back what i said, that none of my cameras have disappointed me ...

now that i have thought about it, all my cameras are a disappointment -
i am tired of focusing, and determining exposure and loading/unloading film, even composing images.
i am probably going to be selling them all in the next few weeks... maybe i'll get something fully automatic, and even get an someone else to take all the photographs for me ...
i won't even tell him / her what to take, that will take too much effort ...
and ultimately end in disappointment as well

John:

I think you need to drink some good coffee

blockend · Sep 4, 2011

BrianL said:
Wayne, try using the Leica as a you did the Minox, zone focus. Allow the DoF scale guide you.

I agree. If you look at Gary Winogrand (try YouTube) a lot of the time he shot his Leica pre-focused, as do other street/documentary guys. There's a good chance someone brought up on SLRs will never get to search out a focus patch as quickly as a fresnel screen. Use fast film and zone focus and you can work with rangefinders or even old zonies and still have everything sharp, especially with wide lenses.

By contrast an out of focus manual SLR demands the photographer focus to see the subject. This isn't a pro or anti rant BTW, I like SLRs and rangefinders. Just pointing out that you can shoot a rangefinder without ever touching the focusing ring.

snegron · Sep 5, 2011

My most disappointing camera was a Nikon F2A.

I always wanted the F2 when I was young, but when I finally got a chance to purchase one in near mint condition, I wasn't impressed. I found it difficult to grip compared to my Nikon F. The rounded edges of the F2A made it too easy to slip from my hands. Also, I found it to be rather top-heavy; even more so than my F with FTN Photomic metered prism. When my F2A started getting the jumpy meter syndrome, I removed the batteries, bubble-wrapped it and placed it into storage with the rest of my rarely used cameras.

Vilk · Sep 5, 2011

snegron said:
My most disappointing camera was a Nikon F2A.

:w00t: :confused:
SACRILEGE!

lxdude · Sep 6, 2011

blockend said:
By contrast an out of focus manual SLR demands the photographer focus to see the subject. This isn't a pro or anti rant BTW, I like SLRs and rangefinders. Just pointing out that you can shoot a rangefinder without ever touching the focusing ring.

Hmmm...if I use an aerial image (clear) screen in my MX, maybe with a split image or microprism dot, I'd have a small, no-parallax, more or less rangefinder camera equivalent...
That might be really cool...

blockend · Sep 6, 2011

lxdude said:
Hmmm...if I use an aerial image (clear) screen in my MX, maybe with a split image or microprism dot, I'd have a small, no-parallax, more or less rangefinder camera equivalent...
That might be really cool...

You could also shoot on a 28mm or wider with a modest maximum aperture and everything will appear in focus. The advantage of a rangefinder is the view is close to daylight. Pick one with a life size finder and you can shoot with both eyes open and not fall over!

fstop · Sep 6, 2011

Vilk said:
:w00t: :confused:
SACRILEGE!

Thats better than ebaying it where the great unwashed can get their grubby paws on it.
Yeah its top heavy, the solution is to put the motor drive on it.But to be honest its still a match needle manual camera that gets its butt kicked by the less expensive more capable F3 at every turn.However the F3 doesn't have the cache the F2 does and will not appreciate as much.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Sep 6, 2011

Most terrible cameras I have ever used were Nikon , Canon and Olympus.
I am an Leica user and nobody could not write that how much they are good. I bought my Leicas and lenses with comparing their shots and others starting from 70 years old magazines to newest ones.
Leica cameras are a school and teach you your next move.
Nikon , Canon and Olympus cameras had the worst lenses I have ever seen and happily they dont print that stuff at a magazine. They were mechanically working but I prefer a zenit and kiev to them. Lenses were horrible.

Rick A · Sep 6, 2011

I believe the absolutly most horrid disappointing experience with a camera was the Zorky 4 I picked up last summer. Even more disappointing was the lens on it(IIRC) a Jupiter 8(I'm not up on Russian gear)Thought it would be a fun shooter, couldn't figure it out.

BrianL · Sep 6, 2011

Mustafa, I too love Leica and generally Zeiss glass over glass from Japan but much of the Japanese glass was not bad just a different look resulting for its use. Sort of what you get used to and regional tastes. Chocolate in the US is not the same as in Canada I found nor the same as Switzerland or the U.K. I can not get used to the Canadian flavoring even after 16 years here and crave the US version, right down to M&Ms, Hershey and Mars bars.

fstop · Sep 6, 2011

Miller Lite, tastes great

bdial · Sep 6, 2011

I'd ask my camera who it's most dissapointing owner has been.
But, I might not like the answer.

PeterAM · Sep 7, 2011

My first serious camera was a Voigtlander Vitessa (L, I think), bought around 1957 or so. Terrific piece of workmanship/great lens, produced great pictures. A year or two later I read in the photo mags about the then new SLR's and decided that I had to have one. Traded in the Vitessa for a Practica of some kind; wlf, no prism. Where the Vitessa was a beautiful piece of machinery, the Practica was probably stamped out from tin cans and a complete PITA. And no, it wasn't rangefinder vs SLR; the camera was junk. Took it to college and it expired in the middle of a photo course that I then completed using a friend's Miranda (remember those?).

Bottom line is that the experience pretty much cured me of GAS. The next camera that I bought was a Pentax Spotmatic, purchased in an Air Force PX. Still have it, still works.

X. Phot. · Sep 7, 2011

I must admit that I'm a magnet for crappy cameras. Most cameras explode after only a few seconds in my hands, and small cameras seem to be the worst. As my monthly budget for new gear is only a few dollars, my choices can be limited. Thrift stores, antique stores, estate sales, ebay, and Goodwill are perty much my sources for different equipment. Though I have pulled off some amazing deals this way, sadly I must admit that a good 75% of the cameras I purchase end up being crapola. But, from my own experience the "Worst-of-the-worst" award falls squarely on the PAX M2 cameras. I had purchased a number of these cameras, thinking I would eventually get lucky. Please, if you spot one of these PAX cameras . . . run away. Run as fast as you can.

Other cameras that left me wanting . . . Aires 35, Practica FX 3, Olympus PEN F, Olympus PEN EE, Olympus XA2, Minolta 16, Pentax Auto 110

Rick A · Sep 7, 2011

The only camera I'm disappointing is my 4x5. I am just not spending enough time with it, not getting to know it well enough to do what I would like.

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2011

Rick A said:
The only camera I'm disappointing is my 4x5. I am just not spending enough time with it, not getting to know it well enough to do what I would like.

Humm, don't know what you have of course but LF definitely has a learning curve and demands time and effort much more so than 35 or MF but the rewards are substantial. I get a big grin every time I lay out a 4x5 on the lightbox and the prints...ah!

Most disappointing cameras?

Moderator

X. Phot.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency