Worst camera designs

[Roger Cole]

I think I have one around here somewhere if anyone is interested. RH version, though.

Humm. I've always sort of "half way wanted" a half frame of some kind or other, though I confess I really don't know why. Weren't there a couple of versions of the Samurai, one more deluxe than the other?

 

[benjiboy]

The Konica AiBORG was mentioned on the first page of this thread and it must be an outright winner. I wonder what Oskar Barnack would have thought about this design?

Besides being a big ungainly and ugly compact camera Clive it was as heavy as some medium format cameras.

 

[benjiboy]

The Konica AiBORG was mentioned on the first page of this thread and it must be an outright winner. I wonder what Oskar Barnack would have thought about this design?

When the AiBorg was born the midwife slapped it in the mouth

 

[E. von Hoegh]

When the AiBorg was born the midwife slapped it in the mouth

No, the midwife slapped it's father.

 

[flatulent1]

I've tried several times to get an AiBorg, just to add it to my collection of oddities. I'm dying to see if the lens is any good.

 

[lxdude]

I've tried several times to get an AiBorg, just to add it to my collection of oddities.

It and a Pontiac Aztek would go well together.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

Oh wow, I have to get one of those aiborgs!!!!

 

[benjiboy]

Oh wow, I have to get one of those aiborgs!!!!

They must be quite rare now because when I sold cameras for a living they were so uglyI never found anyone who wanted to actually part with money for one, but here's one to give you an idea of the price http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Konishiroku-(Konica)/Konica-Aiborg.html

 

[cliveh]

Actually I think the Leningrad Space FAS-1 no. YA61108 (1968) must now be a close second.

Dead Link Removed

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Actually I think the Leningrad Space FAS-1 no. YA61108 (1968) must now be a close second.

Dead Link Removed

At least that has the saving grace of having been a special purpose camera.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have just spent the last few hours doing CAD drawings of my latest field camera (despite the last two being not finished yet!) trying to get the folding front support mechanism to fit when the camera is folded up.

I have about 27 versions in the same drawing. I think at least 26 of those are the worst designs ever.


Steve.

 

[BradleyK]

Reconsidering the F4?

As I remarked in an earlier post in this thread, the Nikon F4 (actually the F4s, to be more specific) was the one offering from Nikon that really left me disappointed - ergonomically unfriendly, etc. was my assessment of the camera. I may now, however, be about to change my mind. Several weeks ago, I picked up, by sheer luck (a quick look-see on KEH's site), the MB-23 battery pack and replaced the MB-21 pack that came factory-installed with the camera. While my impression is still tentative - since I have only been using the camera for few weeks - I find the F4e an entirely different camera to shoot with. It would seem that simply relocating the entire power source to the bottom of the drive (as opposed to the two on side, four on bottom set-up on the F4s) provides the camera with a much improved balance and handling. Certainly the "chunkiness" of the F4 remains...but the handling and feel are much improved. Anyone else out there done the same modification? If so, what are your impressions?

 

[J Drew]

2nd Exaktas as worst

Zenits may be crude but they are extra cool these days apparently. The Exaktas have to be the very worst to use, ergonomics never entered into their equations at all! Funny thing is that I really like them...oh, and the Zenit too. Thing is I like being whipped as well

As an adolesent I wanted an Exakta. Then I got to shoot a few rolls w/ a Contax II. I was hooked. 3 lenses, EZ to focus, EZ to view to 85mm. I had perfect eyesight back then. Never did get a Contax. Shame. My Rollie was OK till a W.A. or Tele lens was needed.
But God was an EXakta aweful, Jay Drew

 

[Dan Fromm]

J., one of my late friends was a closeup photography specialist. He started with a Contax in the late 1930s, didn't discover the Exakta until after the war. He told me that for his purposes the Exakta was greatly superior. Moral of story, use the right tool.

 

[blockend]

The Nikon F had its share of idiosyncrasies, but the worst was the Photomic finder. The camera and finder were capable of accurately metered and sharp photos, so I used one for years despite its awkward handling. I do still use Nikon F, but with a neat and simple prism finder.

Selling a plain prism Nikon F (cheap too!) was probably my single worst photographic mistake, at least so far as equipment goes. A few years ago I bought an F2AS but it only reinforced the difference between the two and I sold it soon after. I liked the hinged back of the F2AS, but the finder destroyed all sense of balance and ergonomics.

So far as ugly goes, the T-Series Canons must be a major contender, and sold by the million in spite of their looks. I have a soft spot for my T90, despite the horrible, jelly mould, faux ergo design influencing nearly every SLR and DSLR since. And the logo is probably the worst bit of graphic design ever seen on any camera, never mind one with professional pretensions.

 

[AgX]

I agree about the look of the T-50/T-70/T-80. But they can be held better that the AE-1.

I do not agree about the general look of the T-90. And it fits my hand perfectly anyway.
Yes, that typography does not fit that camera. But it is true 80s style.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

As an adolesent I wanted an Exakta. Then I got to shoot a few rolls w/ a Contax II. I was hooked. 3 lenses, EZ to focus, EZ to view to 85mm. I had perfect eyesight back then. Never did get a Contax. Shame. My Rollie was OK till a W.A. or Tele lens was needed.
But God was an EXakta aweful, Jay Drew

I had an Exakta VX-IIa, with a Schneider Xenon. I thought it a bit quirky (OK a lot quirky), but far from awful. The best thing about it, I traded it to a neighbor - he wanted to use it on a telescope. What he offered in trade turned out to be an as-new Leica IIIG with a Summitar. He thought it was a IIIA, and I didn't know the difference at the time. When I apprised him of the error and pointed out that it was worth probably 10 times what the Exakta gear would bring, he just sort of stared at me for a few seconds and said "looks like you got lucky".

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can't think of any film camera ever made which is as idiotically designed, and less realistically ergonomic, and harder to focus and compose
with, than the millions of digi devices that have to be held at arms length while someone is looking at a tiny TV screen on the back. I can't even
see the image without reading glasses, but then I can't see the subject at the same time. Worst of all, I can't figure out where to hang the
darkcloth!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I agree about the look of the T-50/T-70/T-80. But they can be held better that the AE-1.

I do not agree about the general look of the T-90. And it fits my hand perfectly anyway.
Yes, that typography does not fit that camera. But it is true 80s style.

My friend of mine has a T-70. Not a bad camera.

Jeff

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I can't think of any film camera ever made which is as idiotically designed, and less realistically ergonomic, and harder to focus and compose
with, than the millions of digi devices that have to be held at arms length while someone is looking at a tiny TV screen on the back. I can't even
see the image without reading glasses, but then I can't see the subject at the same time. Worst of all, I can't figure out where to hang the
darkcloth!

You forgot those execrable layered menues, where it takes you throught three screens to set the self timer.

 

[Jesper]

Having a thread about bad design and ugly cameras it is hard not to mention Rolleiflex SL2000F. Trying to put every possible feature into the same camera can result in nothing but a total failure.
Whatever were they thinking?
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleiflex_SL2000F