Unpopular Cameras You Like

[cooltouch]

Geez, 73 replies as I come across this thread! The topic gave me pause, though, cuz I had to think about it. The OP's T70 is actually a very good but underrated camera. What I like best about it is its Partial metering mode -- an attempt by Canon to duplicate the Partial modes found on the F-1s. Very useful, especially if you shoot slides, which I do. So to me the T70 is not really an "unpopular" camera.

I'm not so sure I own any "unpopular" cameras -- something like an old Miranda POS a friend of mine once owned, for example. Probably the closest I could come to this is a Fujica STX-1n I own, which I still wouldn't describe as unpopular -- just obscure.

Okay, I thought of an unpopular one I own. It's a Pentax ZX-7, which I picked up at a Goodwill store with zoom lens for chump change. Fortunately -- nay, some may even say, miraculously, it still works. The ZX-7 and others of its ilk have a plastic gear inside somewhere that strips easily, rendering the camera inoperable. And because of that, it's really unpopular.

 

[Alan Gales]

Concerning the past I have never found any hint at a student's camera in any german textbook, magazine, ad or so I got from back then.

Today? What students?

(One dealer told me that the AE-1 is now bought by young people.)

Here in the U.S. we have community colleges. They are two year schools and their classes are cheaper to take than that of a four year school. Many get their basic subjects out of the way at the community college before going on to a four year school.

Community colleges also teach adult education classes and Photography among other things. Teachers would often recommend the K1000 to students who were on a budget. It had full manual exposure as needed for class, was reliable, and could be purchased relatively inexpensive, especially on the used market.

Thus the K1000 was given the name "Student Camera". Yeah, it's a U.S. thing!

 

[Chan Tran]

I would say Both our experiences are somewhat Anecdotal, but.....my recent experience is that if you had -
10x Pentax K1000
10x Canon AE-1
you would sell the Pentax faster and for more money.
In 1978 i would have gone for the AE-1. In 2018 i would take the K1000, and i think ( i could be wrong) that a lot of people would do the same.
But, circa 1978, the AE-1 would have been touted as the "better" camera and would have sold for more money.......hence the "Irony".

In my opinion the AE-1 is a better camera although I don't like it. So I bought the AE-1 (for $5 and use it) and sold my free to me K1000 for good money. In fact I sold the K1000 with the 50mm f/2 and bought a KX with the 50mm f/1.4 (which I like very much) and still have some money left.

 

[Pentode]

For a while my two main cameras were a Petri Color Corrected Super 1.9 and a Seagull 203.
The Petri is a fixed-lens RF from the late 50s and the Seagull is a Chinese MF folder.
Neither camera is especially popular with anyone, as far as I can tell, and both are excellent performers.
I haven't used either of them in a while but this thread has me thinking I should get them dusted off again.

 

[M-88]

Is the fan shutter and mirror smooth? I have the opportunity to buy one. How's the viewfinder like?

Not at all. In fact fan shutter is the worst invention of Arsenal factory, terribly unreliable and impossible to fix unless you take the camera apart completely. BUT 1200 grams of metal compensate clunkiness of mirror/shutter so it's much smoother than Zenit. At least so it seems to me. VF is also a bit larger and brighter than Zenit. If it's in a good working order, you should definitely get one.

 

[hsandler]

I just picked up a Koni-Omega Rapid. Many consider them ugly, but I find it kind of cool. I don't think they are very popular.
Koni-Omega Rapid by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[Kino]

The Kiev 88 medium format camera.

A lot of people practically froth at the mouth in hatred of this camera, but I find they buy a Hasselbad 1000 copy made in Russia and are somehow shocked that the camera is not as robust or that it does not operate exactly like the 1000 from which it was "inspired". I mean, Soviet quality control; what the Hell are you thinking?

The fit and finish is at best competent, the leather smells like shoe leather that's been buried under an outhouse in Siberia for 20 years, the magazines are totally intolerant of being loaded imprecisely and will happily overlap shots all day long, makes a noise like grinding up walnuts when you cock the shutter, the shutter slap will wake babies and cause buffalo to stampede and a full kit of lenses weighs about the same as a Volkswagen Beetle.

The love/hate relationship is summed up very nicely at the Kievaholic website: http://kievaholic.com/.

"Yes, we love (and sometimes hate) our Kiev cameras. Some call us crazy. Some think we're a bunch of losers who can't afford "real" cameras. Heck, those people may even be partially right!
But most of us really do enjoy using our funky, temperamental, unforgiving cameras. Take a tour of this site and you may see why.

Or *gasp* you may even find yourself WANTING one to call your very own!

Be warned: Purchasing your first Kiev camera could be the beginning of a slide down towards becoming a Kievaholic. But at least you wouldn't be alone."

That being said, I love this camera. When I purchased my system, I bought about every lens and 2 bodies (with the exception of the 30mm) for about the cost of one Zeiss Lens for a Hasselblad. The 30mm, which I still covet, can be purchased for about $300 and gives the Carl Zeiss version very stiff competition for mere pennies of the dollar.

Yeah, its a smelly, heavy beast; but I love it...

 

[blockend]

I think Canon's lack of esteem is based on a few factors, most of them misplaced. Canon were the first Japanese company to produce plastic bodies for their top line lenses. This was accompanied by dire warnings, but 40+ years on, they still work fine. Secondly the company introduced plastic SLR bodies to a market where heavy metal was synonymous with quality, and aggravated their effrontery by making them cheaper than the opposition. The final nail in Canon's reputation, which was hitherto pretty high, was they put consumer electronics in their cameras, at a stroke removing much of the mystique which serious amateurs attached to the photographic process. Added to which they changed lens mounts, orphaning some excellent lenses including superb professional ones.

In the process Canon sold millions of cameras, and the marque became as common as muck. Ten years ago when I returned to buying film cameras, a 50mm FD 1.8 was thrown in with bodies that were already dirt cheap, and I accumulated an involuntary collection of the things. It's a perfectly good standard lens, better than most, but the volume available counted against them. In the law of supply and demand Canon were never short of supply, and apart for a few exotics, FD lenses are cheaper like for like than any premium brand.

Edit: I forgot one. Because the FD mount has a short flange distance - along with Minolta's old MD mount - DSLR owners who were gobbling up every other film era lens to retrofit, could not do so with the old Canon mount. So they slopped around the system until the advent of mirrorless cameras.

 

[chuck3565]

Lots of them about, so they sold well back in the day...but not a highly thought of camera.....the Halina 35x. It's far from my favourite camera, but it has it's charm. It might be heavy, but it's as small as any 35mm camera, the lens is sharp (in the centre, at least), has a decent range of apertures and shutter speeds and the whole thing is very shiny. The best part? I have three, all given to me....so if I drop and break one I have a spare! I've actually shot some nice photos with it, from out and about in sunlight to 3200ISO at a rock concert.

Would the Praktica B series of SLR's count as unpopular? I have five, and one or two always go with me on my travels.

I have over 20 B and BX series Prakticas and think the B series are great. Most of mine have been reliable. Pretty much no mechanical issues. Had a few electronic failures, some I have been able to repair; some not. B lens including the Sigmas and Vivitars are quite sharp. The view finders are bright and exposures are accurate. As far as popularity, I can't say because other than Cambridge Camera in NYC, they weren't sold in the U.S..

 

[cooltouch]

Hsandler, that's a cool looking Koni Omega Rapid you have there. I've always thought the Koni Omegas were cool cameras. Very industrial looking and from everything I've read and seen about them, they are capable of fantastic images.

Regarding the ubiquitous nature of the Canon AE-1 -- as a former owner of one -- several actually -- I can't help but feel a considerable amount of surprise that here we are, over 40 years since its release, and that thing is still chugging right on along. Its longevity is a real testimony to its durability. Nonetheless, as a "student's camera" I can think of any number of cameras that would make better student's cameras than the AE-1. To me, a student camera should be easy and comfortable to use in Manual mode. Many cameras are, including such Canon models as the FTb (a wonderful camera, especially for the student), but the AE-1 isn't one of them, and this is due entirely to the fact that, when in Manual mode, the aperture value shown by the meter is what the camera recommends, not the value actually selected. This makes it necessary for the photographer to look away from the viewfinder, dial in the appropriate aperture setting, recompose and shoot. It also makes things more awkward if the photographer is thinking of intentional over or under exposure and who prefers to watch how the meter reacts to the aperture selections that will bring this about.

 

[Scott Micciche]

My little Rollei 35s, used on occasion yet still has extremely accurate shutter speeds, great working meter and is a great, compact camera when traveling as a third body.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It occurs to me I should've said Exakta. I don't think they're popular at all, but I love them: three VX's, a VXIIa, and an Exakta 500.

Within the last nine months I've used all of them and they're still within spec - even the slow speeds and timed speeds.

I photographed the August 2017 solar eclipse with an Exakta.

 

[TheRook]

I like my Minolta Weathermatic Dual 35. Although the Weathermatic is a simple automatic camera with limited control features, I can use it in the rain, in the snow or on the beach, and not worry about it getting wet.

 

[TonyB65]

I fairly recently picked up a Kiev 60 at an auction, including metered prism finder, waist-level finder, some other bits and bobs and the Volna 80mm F2.8 lens for just £30, and it is in mint condition. So I thought what the hell, I'll run some film through it and see what happens ( I was intending to sell it all ). Actually I'm quite surprised by it, the film spacing is fine (as long as you wind full on and back to the hard stops), the viewfinder is brighter than the one on my Pentax 6x7 and even the prism meter worked perfectly. The only downer is that the lens is not great, in fact it's worse than that, it's very soft. However, I'm going to get another lens and probably keep it now, it's grown on me. Even though it's as a refined as a T34 tank, and not much lighter, I've become quite attached to it. The meter is hilarious, dancing between two red traffic lights, but it is accurate and possible to use it. They seem to have a bit of a reputation but I think mine is a later model, clearly not built on a Friday afternoon after lashings of vodka, though obviously the lens was. It's the antithesis of a Hasselblad, and took a severe beating with the ugly stick, but that's what actually makes it appealing, you actually feel sorry for it, and want to give it a good life before the inevitable happens.
My other choice would be the Minolta 7000, the worlds first mass produced camera with in-body AF, another auction find, if you want to make a camera that encapsulates 80's design, don't bother, Minolta beat you to it, the only thing it's missing is shoulder pads. That being said, it's actually a very capable camera and the AF works very well, and I like it's 80's charm. I showed it to a mate who knows nothing about cameras and asked what decade it was made in, there was no hesitation "80's", I rest my case on that one.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I love my Nikon FG. They didn't exactly put their best materials into this camera; it feels small and cheap. Tripping the shutter seems to make the whole camera shake, and every time I advance the film, the advance lever feels like it is going to pop right off. But I love how small it is with a 50mm pancake lens. I have an F3HP and FE which are much better built and have better metering, but the FG is the perfect walking around camera and so I have a hard time parting with it.

 

[CMoore]

I love my Nikon FG. They didn't exactly put their best materials into this camera; it feels small and cheap. Tripping the shutter seems to make the whole camera shake, and every time I advance the film, the advance lever feels like it is going to pop right off. But I love how small it is with a 50mm pancake lens. I have an F3HP and FE which are much better built and have better metering, but the FG is the perfect walking around camera and so I have a hard time parting with it.

Absolutely.
While my son was growing up, i took LOTS of great photos with a Canon Sure-Shot 80. For those "snapshot" types of photographs, we do not need a Nikon F2 or Pentax MX.
Looking back at that Canon Sure-Shot, i can see why people are very pleased with the results they get from the camera in their cell-phone.

 

[flavio81]

Some great choices here.

I loved my Nikon FG although rhe build quality was inferior to a Nikon FE which in turn is inferior to the Nikkormat EL, which was the camera I eventually kept. Compare the FG build quality with its most direct competitor, the Canon A-1. The Canon is better built outside and inside (i have seen the innards of both and owned both.)

The AE-1 in my opinion is a well finished camera, and the mechanics are good as well; the shutter and mirror action is very smooth. Here it is very popular.

As for the Kiev 60, i regret not buying one after twice having the chance. Instead I had a pentacon six, whose film advance mechanism is shit; and a Pentax 67, which has nasty shutter vibrations.

 

[Eric Rose]

Leica M5. Best film Leica ever made imho. It was a real "photographers" camera.

 

[CMoore]

Leica M5. Best film Leica ever made imho. It was a real "photographers" camera.

I know nothing about Leica.....what was it about the #5 that Made/Makes it less desirable than the other Leicas.?
Thank You

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I know nothing about Leica.....what was it about the #5 that Made/Makes it less desirable than the other Leicas.?
Thank You

Leica M's are usually pretty. The M5 is ugly as shit.

Seriously, though, I don't think my assessment there is too far off. It's just the ugly duckling of the bunch. All indications from actual users is that it is a fine shooter, with better controls. But it is clunkier, and - heaven forbid - just doesn't look like the others.

 

[blockend]

I know nothing about Leica.....what was it about the #5 that Made/Makes it less desirable than the other Leicas.?
Thank You

The M5 is a very well made camera. It's considerably bigger than its predecessors, in line with the growing professional SLRs of the period, but out of kilter with the miniature camera aspiration of the original rangefinders. It also included a light meter for the first time. Steam punk is one description, it's a lollipop that lifts up behind the lens and can interfere with some of them. The M5 gained a (partly untrue) reputation for almost bankrupting the original Leica company that has never quite gone away.

 

[CMoore]

I see. Thanks for the info.
I guess they are a bit Uglier/Clunkier/Bigger than the previous models.......

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-M5-2...840185?hash=item214124a079:g:nh0AAOSwjzJbGuTO

 

[flavio81]

Not at all. In fact fan shutter is the worst invention of Arsenal factory, terribly unreliable and impossible to fix unless you take the camera apart completely. BUT 1200 grams of metal compensate clunkiness of mirror/shutter so it's much smoother than Zenit. At least so it seems to me. VF is also a bit larger and brighter than Zenit. If it's in a good working order, you should definitely get one.

Mmm.. i'll pass then. I'm sorry to hear that. I thought the shutter was going to be excellent.

 

[blockend]

I see. Thanks for the info.
I guess they are a bit Uglier/Clunkier/Bigger than the previous models.......

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-M5-2...840185?hash=item214124a079:g:nh0AAOSwjzJbGuTO

A few years ago the M5 was a steal, a seriously underrated camera with a price to match. Now not so much. I sold mine for less than any of those, and bought it cheaper still. As M5 prices creep closer to smaller M's it wouldn't be my first choice, but if you see one for a great price you won't regret it.

 

[flavio81]

Leica M's are usually pretty. The M5 is ugly as shit.

Influential camera as well. The Canon EF (1973) directly copies the shutter button + speed dial + advance lever configuration and placement.