Most disappointing cameras?

[blockend]

First generation auto focus SLRs must have been the biggest anticlimax in photo history.

 

[NB23]

Anything Russian. Geez, why did they even bother??? I've had countless brand new ones break in my hands. And the sound of those cameras! *SpRiNg!!*

 

[BradS]

8x10 Deardorff. I had a nice one. It was beautiful to look at and I liked some things about it but in actual use, it simply never lived up to its overblown reputation. :munch:

 

[klop]

Kiev 60. I didn't expect refinement - it was built like a tank, weighed a ton and smelled of oil and grease. I did think something so heavy and industrial would be tough and rugged and - in it's own way - be reliable. In reality it was fragile, temperamental and riddled with faults. Shutter and film transport, mostly. The first one went back for a film spacing fault. The replacement had a lesser film spacing fault, but the shutter juddered and jammed. I never got a fully working one. The dealer did the honourable thing and refunded my money after about 3 months.

Shame - there was something about them that appealed - including lots of interesting lenses. I got a Pentecon 6 instead, a much better buy

I had high hope for mine also, just felt right for me but, it would only space correctly after a couple of rolls of film went through it and intermittently the aperture would stop down to a egg shaped hole. I had even bought a Jena lens for it but ended up packing it (camera) away and bought a F mount adapter for the Jena.... I did like the gun grease smell of it....:w00t:

 

[trythis]

Anything Russian. Geez, why did they even bother??? I've had countless brand new ones break in my hands. And the sound of those cameras! *SpRiNg!!*

I bought two zenit 12xp's within a week for $9 with nice m46 lenses. The first one shutter curtains came off before I got film into it. The 2nd lost the shutter speed dial before I could try a 2nd roll. They made a nice noise landing in the waste bin...The lenses are on ebay now funding a new 645 camera.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Are any of the cameras mentioned worthy of the Cheap Camera Challenge?

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

 

[johnha]

First generation auto focus SLRs must have been the biggest anticlimax in photo history.

Depends how you classify 'first generation', are we talking generally (Minolta 7000, Pentax SFX, Nikon 501, Olympus OM707, Canon EOS) or are we talking really early stuff - Pentax ME-F, Nikon F3AF or the non-TTL-AF Ricoh AF lenses?

If the former group, the technology was new and users expectations weren't great - most users would be happy enough with the performance. The press however ignored it until the Nikon F4 arrived - which they then bought in droves.

The really early stuff was ahead of it's time. I have a Pentax ME-F and 35-70/2.8 Kf lens outfit, it has the standard split-image/microprism collar focus aid and the < o > AF indicators in the finder. I found it quite eerie to see the AF drive the focus to a perfect split-image/Microprism collar focus - especially considering that today 'AF calibration' occupies so many forum discussions. Then again, every AF system since then has promised that 'you'll never take an out-of-focus shot ever again' and that it is better than any previous AF system.

 

[jscott]

Excellent thread. There are certain genetic flaws that are rarely discussed, and other cameras that are simply hard to use.

I will dump on my Leica M3 a bit. Over $1000 into it (CLA included), yet the film counter does not work. Mr Ye says that it is a known problem with early M3's. Meh.

I tried to love Zeiss folders, but they are so hard to use and results for me were never better than mediocre.

Most other cameras (I have over 100) I find quite magical and wonderful.

 

[jscott]

What's with the Land Rover bashing? I've used my LR3 as a field geologist and it is outstanding in the field (western Montana), IMO. Reliable, comfortable, durable and sturdy. It is a 5800 lb tank, so of course maintenance is important, but with the weight you get fantastic performance in the mountains, snow, mud, etc.

Don't compare it to an peek squeak little urban runabout: 1991 Acura Integra RS Coupe MT 2560 lbs
A light little Honda simply can't do the same things. Don't even take it off paved roads...

Apples and Eggs of a comparison = not useful.

 

[pdeeh]

All of them.
Whatever I buy, my photographs never seem to get any better

 

[removed account4]

i know what you mean pdeeh
every camera i own disappoints me
it is too much effort to even bother to
take photographs anymore ..
at this point, i wish i had an asimo to do it all for me

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The camera in which you will be most disappointed is the camera for which you have the least realistic expectations.

 

[Alan Gales]

The camera in which you will be most disappointed is the camera for which you have the least realistic expectations.

I'll buy that one!

Everyone kept telling me how great DSLR's were so I finally caved in and bought a brand new Nikon D200. There was nothing wrong with the camera and I later upgraded to a used Nikon D300. It's just my expectations were unrealistic due to what I had read and heard from others.

Digital is a nice companion to film but in no way replaces film for me.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'll buy that one!

Everyone kept telling me how great DSLR's were so I finally caved in and bought a brand new Nikon D200. There was nothing wrong with the camera and I later upgraded to a used Nikon D300. It's just my expectations were unrealistic due to what I had read and heard from others.

Digital is a nice companion to film but in no way replaces film for me.

I learned that hard lesson a very long time ago.
I recently bought a Kiev 4a, made in 1959. I'd decided I wanted a high quality rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, and had become interested in the FSU stuff. Along the way, I lucked into a cosmetically beautiful Canon IIb body and needed a cheap lens - so I got a mid 70s Jupiter 8. Bingo!! A nice little coated version of the f:2 Sonnar I had years ago on a Contax II. An FSU lens that works!! Who'd a thunk it?
Months go by, and I get more and more intrigued with the Kievs. I finally buy one... it comes in the mail... I open the box... and it's just like having my Contax back. It has none of the problems I read about on the internet - frame spacing is even; no lightleaks; rangefinder is spot-on; the lens is great (albeit neither of my J-8s behave like a modern lens until somewhere around f:5.6-f:8... they aren't modern lenses though being designed in 1931 when the option was darkness); the camera feels works and sounds like a Contax. Just about everything I read was rubbish, I'd got to the point that I realized that the only way I would actually know was by having one in my hands.

Edit-
It seems that some very common wisdom is "buy one, try it, if it's not for you, sell it". Whatever happened to doing one's homework? I don't mean reading some ignorant bloviation on a computer screen - I mean actually researching and thinking. I bought my first, only, and last 4x5 in 1987. Still have it and use it. An 8x10 came along in '89, ditto.
Possibly the only disappointing camera I've ever had was an OM-4 - which was a gift. It ate batteries and was a nice paperweight without electricity - I sold it and got a Nikon F which I still have and use.

 

[benjiboy]

You may not believe this but in 62 years that I've owned cameras I can't say that I have ever owned one that I have been disappointed with, but having said that I'm not an compulsive camera buyer, in all the time I've been interested in photography have probably not owned a total of more that 18 cameras in all that time ( 8 of which I still own ). I don't buy cameras from auction sites or anywhere else I haven't had in my hands and tested them first.

 

[Alan Gales]

Edit-
It seems that some very common wisdom is "buy one, try it, if it's not for you, sell it". Whatever happened to doing one's homework? I don't mean reading some ignorant bloviation on a computer screen - I mean actually researching and thinking. I bought my first, only, and last 4x5 in 1987. Still have it and use it. An 8x10 came along in '89, ditto.

E., I'm guilty of giving that advice.

I am a firm believer in doing research. Back in the day that was pretty much all you had except for holding a camera in a camera shop.

Today, as cheap as many used film cameras are you can buy them and try them out for a few months and then sell them and get most if not all your money back if they don't suit you. I still highly recommend doing research first but sometimes there is just no substitute for actually using a camera or lens. I have shot all kinds of medium format SLR's but have never used a TLR. I've held a Rolleiflex in my hands before but have not actually shot one. I honestly don't know if I would like a TLR or not unless I used one for a while. I always thought I wanted a ball head so I finally bought one used on Ebay. I ended up hating it so I sold it. Yes, I do still own my first 8x10 camera and am happy with it.

I'm monogamous with my wife but not with camera equipment. I guess you could call me a camera whore! In my defense I am a small time Ebay Seller so I have been able to try out a lot of equipment.

 

[Eric Rose]

I love my F5 but am disappointed that I will have to sell it. It is just to heavy for my sore joints these days.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

E., I'm guilty of giving that advice.

I am a firm believer in doing research. Back in the day that was pretty much all you had except for holding a camera in a camera shop.

Today, as cheap as many used film cameras are you can buy them and try them out for a few months and then sell them and get most if not all your money back if they don't suit you. I still highly recommend doing research first but sometimes there is just no substitute for actually using a camera or lens. I have shot all kinds of medium format SLR's but have never used a TLR. I've held a Rolleiflex in my hands before but have not actually shot one. I honestly don't know if I would like a TLR or not unless I used one for a while. I always thought I wanted a ball head so I finally bought one used on Ebay. I ended up hating it so I sold it. Yes, I do still own my first 8x10 camera and am happy with it.

I'm monogamous with my wife but not with camera equipment. I guess you could call me a camera @#!*% ! In my defense I am a small time Ebay Seller so I have been able to try out a lot of equipment.

As am I. You'll never really know until you use one; as I pointed out anent the Kiev. But, do some due diligence first!
So long as you buy one at a realistic price, it's like free tuition. When I got my 8x10 - a Deardorff - I had no opportunity to see or handle one but I did have access to a 4x5 Special which led me to believe the V8 was for me. It was and is.

 

[GarageBoy]

The pile of broken Nikon N2000s I got off ebay- Something with a Nikon mount, with full manual controls, small (unlike the later AF Nikons), has a real focusing screen- what more could I want? Took me 3 dead ones to get to a working one... Also, the N2020's AF is a novelty "it can focus by itself, coool! Okay, lets get back to work..." ::turns AF off::

Also, the dead N8008 I got (I just can't win...)

I agree with the comments about Rolleiflex SLR products (SL66 stories)
My dad picked up a pair of SL35Es NOS in the 90s - both DOA
SL35s eat their winding system
SLXs are just unreliable
But their lenses are soooooo nice

 

[film_man]

Olympus OM. I had a OM1. Yes it is small, light, looks cool and I like the shutter ring. I had a 50/1.8 which was sharp but bland, a 135/3.5 that was sharp but just as bland in rendering, a 35/2 that was unusable wide open and a 28/2 that flared real bad and wasn't even sharp (probably was a dud). The only lens I actually liked was a 35/2.8. But the dark standard focus screen didn't make it nice to use. I also had a OM-4Ti. Never felt right.

So I swapped both for a FM2n. Which I then sold for a EOS 3. Which looks, weight an sounds like a pig but is actually really ergonomic and fast to use. Doesn't look as cool as FM2n with a Zeiss 50 though.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Some surprising responses here - such as the M3 and F4, which are two of my favorites. I held off on getting an F4 for so long (because it was an AF camera and all my cameras were MF). Then, on a total lark, I discovered how much fun a Rebel G was. So, that changed everything. I love the controls on the F4: the last Nikon pro body to have all of its settings done entirely by manual knobs and switches. Until the Df, it was also the body best capable of using all the lens types, from NAI to the latest AF-S and G (with some caveats).

None of what I have has been a disappointment. But, before my first serious camera, I came across a ... I hate calling it a camera... I came across a *thing*. I absolutely hate and loathe it. If you were to give me one, I'd throw it in a dumpster - a dumpster far from my house because I don't want it near me. What is it? It's a horrible, monstrous, concoction called...

Argus C-3 <shudder>.

It feels worse than a brick, it's physically painful to focus, and its "viewfinder" is an insult to photographers.

 

[Alan Gales]

No matter what the camera someone doesn't like it and conversely just about all cameras have their fans.

I don't know anyone into Argus C-3's though.

 

[dugrant153]

This is going to be surprising like Theo's post but... my answer is the Nikon F3. All this hype and everything. Used it for a while. Then I got a "new" one and suddenly the shutter started to have issues at 1/2000 of a second... right where I'm shooting . Nearly destroyed a wedding. Thankfully I was shooting a few other cameras that day.

I've since sworn off the Nikon F3 and am looking to sell them! (I have 2). The Nikon F4 has been a tank but it's mainly a back-up for now.

 

[snapguy]

No Leica

I used a Leica 3f for several years beginning around 1960. Hard to load, two tiny pin-sized holes to squint through to focus and compose, a 50mm f 2 lens Leitz lens that was fuzzy. I had a 90mm Elmar for it that was very nice, though. I got rid of the thing and got my hands on an M2R which is light years ahead of the 3f. I consider the 3f a toy camera.

 

[Jim Jones]

I used a Leica iiif from 1953 until it got bashed in ten years later, and loved it. Its original 50mm f/3,5 Elmar wasn't as satisfying as a Minolta 50mm f/2.8 and faster Nikon lenses. However, the compact size was valuable, even though it made a tiny viewfinder necessary. The bottom film loading was no great problem until film makers shortened the tongue on the film leader. Even then, there was a simple work-around for that. The iiif was the culmination of compact focal plane rf cameras. It was like a surgeon's scalpel compared to the machete-like M series. The versatile viewfinder/rangefinder and faster film loading of the Leica M series sacrificed the really pocketable size of the earlier models. As for Leica's 50mm f/2 lenses, they accounted for maybe half of my photographs over several decades. They served quite well. Occasionally an inferior 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens was necessary for indoor sports. Longer and shorter Leica lenses also never let me down.