Worst camera designs

[graywolf]

The Exaktas have to be the very worst to use, ergonomics never entered into their equations at all!

Actually, the Exakta was ergonomically designed. Put it on a copy stand and everything falls neatly into place. Of course if you try to use a copy camera as a hand held general photographic instrument, it does not work too well. Since it was the only 35mm SLR around for awhile, people put up with it, but mostly for close up and telephoto photography, sticking to their RF camera for general use.

 

[graywolf]

A vote for the Kodak 35
http://sheldonbrown.com/org/cameras/kodak-35.html

That is actually the Kodak 35 RF, I had one once. Almost impossible to use & ugly to boot. Worst $20 I ever spent on a camera. I sold it to a guy, who would not believe it was as bad as I said, for $10. I doubt if it was usable brand new, and can not understand why Kodak ever made it. Without the rangefinder the same camera was merely a cheap camera, not a nightmare.

 

[Bill Burk]

Now the Kodak 35 is not a bad camera...

Every little part serves some purpose. There's that little pop-off cover that gives you access to field adjusting the RF. Double-exposure prevention (enforced by an aluminum cover over the cocking mechanism that also protects the shutter release from accidental tripping), automatic shutter cocking. Red painted cocked indicator. Simple shutter that is not likely to fail, even if left for 50 years in a drawer.

I put a roll through a few weeks ago and just realized that many shots were out of focus. Just checked and the rangefinder was accurate as far as the feet indicated on the lens. But the lens was out of whack. I think the rear element may have been tampered with because on inspection, I was getting infinity focus at the film plane when the scale indicated 15 feet. The front element is drilled tapped and pinned to the cam, so it isn't easy to reposition that scale... So I just adjusted the RF so it is accurate and I am going to have to ignore the indicated feet from now on...

It's not as easy to use as a Leica. But it is a capable camera, albeit a bit slow (dad, hurry up and take the picture already!)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That is actually the Kodak 35 RF, I had one once. Almost impossible to use & ugly to boot. Worst $20 I ever spent on a camera. I sold it to a guy, who would not believe it was as bad as I said, for $10. I doubt if it was usable brand new, and can not understand why Kodak ever made it. Without the rangefinder the same camera was merely a cheap camera, not a nightmare.

Impossible? I had no real difficulties using mine. But I was 13 at the time, and had never held a "better" camera.

edit - It seems that, without their knowing it, some are being judged by this little camera. I find this very interesting.

 

[Bill Burk]

.. But I was 13 at the time, and had never held a "better" camera..

Like you, I was a kid, around 16. I picked my first one at a garage sale for $7.50

But I had held a better camera. And therein lies my frustration with the Kodak 35. I used it because I had to.

My Dad would let me use his Spotmatic II but since he "needed" it for work he would not let me keep it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Like you, I was a kid, around 16. I picked my first one at a garage sale for $7.50

But I had held a better camera. And therein lies my frustration with the Kodak 35. I used it because I had to.

My Dad would let me use his Spotmatic II but since he "needed" it for work he would not let me keep it.

I still have quite a few slides I made with my 35rf, including a few rolls of High-Speed Ektachrome used in existing light, and a lot of Kodachrome 25. The lens was quite good, no real flare problems, the shutter accurate, in all it was a very capable camera. Demanded that you know what you were doing, I doubt I could have chosen a better camera to learn on. (not that I actually 'chose" it)

edit - I used the camera with a Weston 650 (late '30s) meter my great uncle gave me. This was about 1974.

 

[Bill Burk]

I still have quite a few slides I made with my 35rf, including a few rolls of High-Speed Ektachrome used in existing light, and a lot of Kodachrome 25. The lens was quite good, no real flare problems, the shutter accurate, in all it was a very capable camera. Demanded that you know what you were doing, I doubt I could have chosen a better camera to learn on. (not that I actually 'chose" it)

edit - I used the camera with a Weston 650 (late '30s) meter my great uncle gave me. This was about 1974.

'74 for me too. I had a Master II (from a garage sale too). I took it on spring break trip a "$15" trip (packed peanut butter/jelly sandwiches) with friends. We spent one night on a trail near San Gorgonio and said "forget the snow let's go to the Grand Canyon". Last time I used that camera I took it river rafting because I didn't care if it got ruined.

I tossed it out at some point. Lost the Master II somehow... Only recently I changed my mind and started to reflect on its virtues.

The lens doesn't have flare... It's the body, when the sun is out of frame but on the interior surface near the back of the camera, it is black matte paint but highly reflective when the sun is directly on it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like the Weston Masters, I have a pair of Master IIIs, one I use, with an Invercone set, and one NIB as a backup. I use the Master pretty much all the time, unless I need low light metering - then I use an old Lunasix. I still have the 650, the cell is active, but no longer accurate. I think I'll send it to someone and see if it can be brought back to life.

 

[Diapositivo]

Polaroid EE44.
My one broke (shutter release stuck) without a reason and without a symptom one sad day during my childhood, and it was not economically repairable. Cameras must not just stop working for any unjustifiable reason. Besides, the trip of the shutter release was very long before actuation (talk about "lag"), the cube flash was at the nearest point to the lens, even the shutter - diaphragm commands were not clear (are not clear today). A disappointment.

This happened in 1977 or 1978, between my Kodak Instamatic 36 (gifted in 1973 or so) and my first "real" camera, Minolta SrT100x, 1979 or 1980 I think. I almost forgot about my Polaroid. It worked for less than two years, I think.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

My first camera was an Instamatic around 1979 , film was extremelly expensive. I remember how my mother and I say oh wow to film prices. Turkey was in chaotic turbulence and machine guns and bombing were everywhere. Single book was a big treasure. I was 8 years old that time.

 

[Slixtiesix]

As for me, camera designs have went generally downhill since the major manufacturers abandoned the exposure dial and aperture ring...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

As for me, camera designs have went generally downhill since the major manufacturers abandoned the exposure dial and aperture ring...

+1

 

[BradleyK]

Let the brickbats fly: I have never warmed to the Nikon F4s. I picked up one on ebay several years ago (on a whim) and have wondered why ever since. Yes it was Nikon's first foray into building a camera with an integral motor drive, and yes the camera - for those of us who shoot transparency films - had a great metering system...but the ergonomics just did not feel quite right. And, compared to the later F5 and F6, the F4s (and I am sure the F4e) feels...well...a little ad libbed, shall we say.

The camera has seen so little use by yours truly that I even went so far as to give it away to my sister ( a certifiable "F3-a-phile"), who, after a few short weeks (time enough for a few rolls of her favorite film (Fuji Astia) to be run through the camera) returned the camera, basically saying "no thanks" to the gift, and comparing the F4s' ergonomics to those of a brick.

I have the camera - temporarily - back in my arsenal (loaded with E100G) and I am prepared (keeping an open mind here) to give it another go. This weekend I am going to shoot some architectural details while visiting my sister in Calgary. We will see how I feel about this camera by Monday. Given past experience...

Nope...still cannot warm to the beast. Sooo....I gave it away to my 17 year-old nephew (who shoots only film, by the way - PanF Plus and Velvia) who, hopefully, will not return it. Since I just picked up an F6/MB40 from KEH last week (and gave the combo a good workout at the Calgary Stampede last weekend), I had no real use for the brick anyway (when out shooting colo(u)r, I generally load one body with E100G and a second with E100VS)...

 

[Jim Jones]

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. In comparison, Leica RF cameras seemed to be designed by photographer/engineers to handle well, deliver fine images, and last for decades.

My first half decent 35mm was the often maligned Mercury II. Build quality and reliability were better than the Argus C3, but it was as ugly as the brick and lacked a rangefinder.

 

[Roger Cole]

As for me, camera designs have went generally downhill since the major manufacturers abandoned the exposure dial and aperture ring...

+1

+2

 

[lxdude]

The Speed Graphic was a wonderful camera for its day and purpose (mostly news photography). And you could smash the heck out of any perp who tried to "smash your camera." It could be used as a closeup copy camera, had a huge negative which you could blow up from here to the moon if you got it in focus and your exposure was okay. There was a time when people KNEW you were a news photog if you carried one. Of course it was big, akward and slow but some people took 'em to the battlefield.

For example, Joe Rosenthal, who took the picture of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima.

 

[ezwriter]

Worst camea

Dont konw if this is mentioned but my Nikon FE wont click the shutter unless
the wind lever is partway out. So it sticks u in the eye when u look thru viewfinder.
Did they not use this camera first???

 

[LJSLATER]

Dont konw if this is mentioned but my Nikon FE wont click the shutter unless
the wind lever is partway out. So it sticks u in the eye when u look thru viewfinder.
Did they not use this camera first???

If you attach a motor drive, you don't have to extend the lever. But if you DO extend the lever and trip the shutter using the motor drive, the stupid thing will jam.

 

[MattKing]

Dont konw if this is mentioned but my Nikon FE wont click the shutter unless
the wind lever is partway out. So it sticks u in the eye when u look thru viewfinder.
Did they not use this camera first???

Apparently all Nikon designers are pirates with just one working eye - the right one .

I understand what you mean, as I too use my left eye for viewing.

 

[benjiboy]

This must be one of the most butt ugly but interesting cameras ever made , and I used to have to sell them to the public to make a living about twenty years ago, http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Konica_AiBORG, Darth Vader lives

 

[Steve Smith]

I think Ben has found the winner!


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Dont konw if this is mentioned but my Nikon FE wont click the shutter unless
the wind lever is partway out. So it sticks u in the eye when u look thru viewfinder.
Did they not use this camera first???

Nikon's last proper camera was the F2.

 

[benjiboy]

I think Ben has found the winner!


Steve.

If any of my former customers are reading this, I apologise for selling one of these to you, but at the time I had a mortgage and two teenage sons at university, one in the U.K and one in America and I needed the money

 

[DBP]

I am still on the look-out for a Yashica Samurai (cheap) - however my friends would most likely push me into oncoming traffic if I showed up with one around my neck.

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

 

[cliveh]

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?