overrated equipment

[Pioneer]

Holga, totally over rated.

Where’s the fun in “getting a usable image out of a junk camera”?

Not nearly as much fun as "getting a junk image out of a usable camera!" I can do that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Robert Maxey]

I've carried around my RB and GSW690. I haven't been a noodle armed teen for 45 years.
You need to get off your high horse.

What would people say about "carrying" this 8x10 Twin Lens Reflex?

https://www.petergowland.com/gowlandflex-cameras

Bob

 

[reddesert]

Unfortunately, topics like this are always going to devolve into negativity because they are about contradicting someone else's opinion - to say X is overrated is implicitly disrespecting the person who likes X and asking for a defensive response. It is possible to cast aspersions on the motives of people carrying everything from a Diana to a Leica, but why are other people's motives important?

It's digital and thus off-topic, but I nominate the Lytro light field camera. It was relentlessly hyped as a revolutionary object that would change photography forever by allowing flexible focus and depth of field, and it really is technologically different from a regular camera (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field_camera ). But there is no optical free lunch - it has tradeoffs and ultimately was the solution to a problem that people weren't asking, and is now totally out of date. I will admit that this is an example of "over-hyped" rather than "over-rated," since no one rates it highly any more as far as I know.

 

[j-dogg]

Soviet lenses.

They're crap. I love using them and the quirky results that they give but lets call it what it is, they're horrible. If I had only those lenses to use use I'd be tearing my hair out.

I only use them because high quality lenses are cheap and available.

Also, I've yet to use a Soviet camera that did not break or had some sort of major flaw.

#NotAllSovietLenses I have a Zorki 2c with a Jupiter 3 50 f1.5 that produces amazing results. Very contrasty images, excellent color rendition. My Leningrad is nice too but agreed, a lot of them are in fact junk. They are fun and all of their flaws I have relegated to "love letters from the Kremlin" as another user pointed out. My 35 f2.8 J-12 and 135/4 are both very good lenses, if I had to use Soviet lenses for the rest of my life, as long as they were from the Khrushchev era I could deal. Once Breznev took power and prioritized quantity and production number targets over quality, they went down hill quick with quality.

 

[j-dogg]

Holga? Manufactured to be crappy (at least for the majority of its life), 90s sham authentic, commoditized, generic whimsy.
There are so many cameras out there, that will give you much more authentic “crap” artistic results

The Holga, Diana, Lubitel etc. are bottled “art” photography for the masses.

Lomo, bless their little hipster hearts for keeping interest in film alive during some difficult years, but could we please steer them in the right direction by voting with our wallets?

I have to remind myself periodically that my Leningrad was in fact made by the same company that made those plastic "art" LOMO cameras.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, back when they were called GOMZ they made something truly game-changing called a Leningrad which was an auto-advance 35mm RF that took standard (at the time) M39 LTM lenses. It's quirky and huge but innovative for 1958, it's ergonomic and feels great. The build quality is almost on par with my friends Leica M6. The RF patch is actually two superimposed images instead of a "ghost image" like most RFs. It has a winder that lets you expose 10-15 shots without winding.

When Communism was trying to prove something they made some really amazing stuff.

 

[KenS]

The 'best' camera is (most often) the one you have with you when you 'need' to record an image to film.

Ken

 

[Robert Maxey]

Unfortunately, topics like this are always going to devolve into negativity because they are about contradicting someone else's opinion - to say X is overrated is implicitly disrespecting the person who likes X and asking for a defensive response. It is possible to cast aspersions on the motives of people carrying everything from a Diana to a Leica, but why are other people's motives important?

Everything else being equal, the question "which camera is better" can be largely proven. Of course, there are many other factors to consider beyond sharpness and brand name. For me, personally, sharpness is most important. For awhile, before I dumped the whole of photography, I loved my little Minox 35mm. It fit in my pocket and took great photographs.

Bottom line: if you like it, use it.

Bob

 

[GRHazelton]

The key word is WAS a lot cheaper. At the time of introduction the K1000 made sense because it was significantly less expensive than the others I mentioned. But in the 21st century on the used market it's often more expensive. It may not fetch more money than a Nikon FM but would fetch more than an SRT and even a Pentax KX or KM which are similar but just better.
Back round 2009 or so I guy had a K1000 and a 50mm f/2 and a KX and a 50mm f/1.4. He wanted $100 for each camera. A guy came first and happily paid $100 for the K1000 and the 50 f/2. He offered $50 for the 50mm f/1.4 but didn't want the KX. The owner didn't accept it so he sold only the K1000 and the f/2 lens. So I offered $70 for the KX and the f/1.4 lens so if I were to sell to the other guy the lens for $50 the KX is only worth $20 a lot less than the K1000 in that guy opinion.

I remember scoring a really clean KX and a f1.4 50 for just over $100. IMHO the KX is what the K1000 should have been. The KX is much better for beginners than the K1000, again IMHO.

 

[Chan Tran]

I remember scoring a really clean KX and a f1.4 50 for just over $100. IMHO the KX is what the K1000 should have been. The KX is much better for beginners than the K1000, again IMHO.

The KX is what the K1000 should have been??? Pentax made the KX and the less expensive KM as the bottom of the line. Later they had the idea of making a super cheap camera the K1000 and tried to cut cost as much as possible. The KX price was about twice that of the K1000. That is why today the K1000 is overrated.

 

[removed account4]

What would people say about "carrying" this 8x10 Twin Lens Reflex?

https://www.petergowland.com/gowlandflex-cameras

Bob

Hi Bob
Sean ( site owner ) had a 4x5 gowlandflex (see his profile pic )
no way that 8x10 version of the camera is over rated!
besides if you ever got a chance to talk with Peter Gowland
he was one of the nicest people you will ever meet.
His wife is super-nice too!
=
im more in the camp of the mystical attributes of certain cameras and affiliated accessories being a bit over the top
and the cameras being over rated ... IDK 10 years ago when playboy's photographer was selling off
the 8x10 film holders there was all sorts of hype about how they would make you a great photographer
because of some magic pixie dust, or the enlarger that belonged to Diane Arbus being sold was gonna
make someone some sort of religious icon ..
I pretty much think great images can be found by any camera. its just a matter of
people leaving their egos at the door and enjoying what the camera might bring to the pot luck supper..
after all stone soup tasted pretty good !

 

[wiltw]

Here is my nomination, the Fotron

Fotron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fotron was a camera produced by the Traid Corporation of Glendale, California between 1962 and 1971 and mainly sold door to door. It had a highly unorthodox design and boasted several firsts for a consumer camera, including a built-in electronic flash, built-in motor drive, and drop-in film loading (beating Kodak's popular Instamatic to the market).[1] Other unusual features included push-button exposure and focus controls and an integrated rechargeable battery. The camera used standard 828 rollfilm packaged in a proprietary snap-in cartridge which had to be returned to the company for processing. It was aimed mainly at women, marketed as a "goof-proof" alternative to traditional cameras.[2]

Although innovative, the Fotron was also extremely expensive, unwieldy, and reportedly suffered from poor optical quality. Introduced at a list price of $139.95, by 1971 the camera was selling for $520 (equivalent to $3,323 in 2020), plus $3.98 per 10-exposure roll for film and processing (equivalent to $25 in 2020). Despite this, Traid claimed the cameras were sold at a loss and only the film processing operation was able to turn a profit.[1] Due to the high price, vendor lock-in of film and processing, and aggressive direct selling techniques used to market the camera, it is often regarded as something of a scam.[3] Traid faced multiple class-action lawsuits brought by Fotron customers and stopped selling the camera in 1971.[4]

Fraud allegations
The Fotron was the subject of a class-action suit filed against the Traid Corporation in 1972. The plaintiffs alleged that the Fotron cameras they had purchased were sold for over ten times their actual value and that Traid had misrepresented the product both implicitly and in writing.[5] The outcome of this case is uncertain.​

One of my uncles (still alive) gave me his. I still have it, complete with a roll of film and case!

 

[NB23]

I don’t know why there isn’t a camera myth as much as Guitar myths.

For example, Diane Arbus’ enlarger didn’t sell for as much as her guitar would have sold for, if she was a rock star.

For example, Peter Green’s Greenie sold for an insane amount (and then there are Gilmour’s, Clapton’s and other’s guitars) and we all know that the said guitars will not sound the same if played by anyone else. Same for Stradivarius being passed on in exchange of millions of Dollars... but cameras, niet. A few years ago one could buy Winogrand’s, Arbus’ (...) cameras for not much of a premium.

 

[warden]

Maybe Yashicas?



Old camera commercials on youtube? yes please

What a great commercial!!

 

[warden]

Time to fess up people. How many of the "overrated equipment" examples in this thread do you personally own? Not 20 years ago, I mean right now. I have two! A K1000 and a Holga and they're both great. I love it that some of you fools hate 'em.

Old Gregg almost promoted me to three examples, alas I have a Leica camera but no Leica lenses, so no deal.

 

[faberryman]

Apparently, none of my equipment is overrated. It might be one of those situations where if I told you what I was using you would say you had forgotten about that stuff and it is clearly overrated. Sometimes I look at my photographs and think that my equipment is overrated. It is the only possible explanation.

 

[warden]

It might be one of those situations where if I told you what I was using you would say you had forgotten about that stuff and it is clearly overrated. .

That would be cheating. ;-) I have some high end gear that a few angry people would claim is overrated, fiddly, poseur, wealth signaling, etc but I want to get to a high number honestly so I'm not sayin'.

 

[Don_ih]

The K1000 is a camera that people are told over and over again is a good beginner camera - that, more than anything else, has made them more desirable. If you say that a K1000 is not a capable camera, I'd like to see some proof that you can, using the same lenses, get a better picture with a different camera. The camera's price has gone up beyond what people should pay, maybe. But it is a pretty good camera - and more reliable than an AE1.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Time to fess up people. How many of the "overrated equipment" examples in this thread do you personally own? Not 20 years ago, I mean right now. I have two! A K1000 and a Holga and they're both great. I love it that some of you fools hate 'em.

Maybe 20 years ago, the smart ones sold their cameras because they were overrated and passed the saving one to someone infatuated with overrated cameras? You know, the greater Fool theory?

Bob

 

[cullah]

the alpa line were very overrated. while some of the lenses,were stellar, especillay the ones from angenieux, the camera bodies were problomatic. the alpas i used were the best hand-fit and by far had the best rewind i have ever come across, but all four of the ones i had, had shutters that were not dependable.

 

[alanrockwood]

the alpa line were very overrated. while some of the lenses,were stellar, especillay the ones from angenieux, the camera bodies were problomatic. the alpas i used were the best hand-fit and by far had the best rewind i have ever come across, but all four of the ones i had, had shutters that were not dependable.

We back when I got the impression that Alpa was sort of like an Exakta for the rich man, not that it was Exakta compatible, but that it had a lot of the quirkiness of the Exakta line.

 

[Auer]

Minolta SRT's are overrated.

Heavy clunky things.
I have 3 sitting in a drawer, there's nothing appealing about them at all.
To some, anything heavy enough is a "Tank" and therefore must be well made with high quality materials.

 

[Chan Tran]

Here is my nomination, the Fotron

Fotron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fotron was a camera produced by the Traid Corporation of Glendale, California between 1962 and 1971 and mainly sold door to door. It had a highly unorthodox design and boasted several firsts for a consumer camera, including a built-in electronic flash, built-in motor drive, and drop-in film loading (beating Kodak's popular Instamatic to the market).[1] Other unusual features included push-button exposure and focus controls and an integrated rechargeable battery. The camera used standard 828 rollfilm packaged in a proprietary snap-in cartridge which had to be returned to the company for processing. It was aimed mainly at women, marketed as a "goof-proof" alternative to traditional cameras.[2]

Although innovative, the Fotron was also extremely expensive, unwieldy, and reportedly suffered from poor optical quality. Introduced at a list price of $139.95, by 1971 the camera was selling for $520 (equivalent to $3,323 in 2020), plus $3.98 per 10-exposure roll for film and processing (equivalent to $25 in 2020). Despite this, Traid claimed the cameras were sold at a loss and only the film processing operation was able to turn a profit.[1] Due to the high price, vendor lock-in of film and processing, and aggressive direct selling techniques used to market the camera, it is often regarded as something of a scam.[3] Traid faced multiple class-action lawsuits brought by Fotron customers and stopped selling the camera in 1971.[4]

Fraud allegations
The Fotron was the subject of a class-action suit filed against the Traid Corporation in 1972. The plaintiffs alleged that the Fotron cameras they had purchased were sold for over ten times their actual value and that Traid had misrepresented the product both implicitly and in writing.[5] The outcome of this case is uncertain.​

One of my uncles (still alive) gave me his. I still have it, complete with a roll of film and case!

Your post makes me have a question regarding the OP post. Does he want to know an overrated camera in its time or now? I don't know this camera but according to you it did qualify at the time it was introduced but today I guess nobody cares about it. My nomination was the Pentax K1000 and in its time it's a good deal and only today it's overrated.

 

[Chan Tran]

Minolta SRT's are overrated.

Heavy clunky things.
I have 3 sitting in a drawer, there's nothing appealing about them at all.
To some, anything heavy enough is a "Tank" and therefore must be well made with high quality materials.

How are they overrated when there is nobody offers big money for them? Besides when anyone say a camera built like a tank they just say so. I don't want any camera that is built like a tank.

 

[Auer]

How are they overrated when there is nobody offers big money for them? Besides when anyone say a camera built like a tank they just say so. I don't want any camera that is built like a tank.

SRT's are in the same ballpark moneywise as a K1000.

 

[Don_ih]

Minolta SRTs routinely sell with lenses for 1/10th the current selling price of a K1000.

SRTs are also perfectly good, not at all over-rated. They, like most Minolta stuff, are normally undervalued.