Certainly the Fotron has to be on the worst camera list (though it's 828 format, so it might not qualify). Has anyone every actually used one of these? I would if I could find it at a bargain price, like $5 with free shipping.
But seriously, I think of all the cameras which broke after a few uses, where the film was too expensive to use much (like Polaroid), which lacked practicality, like fast lenses on scale focus cameras, or those "focus-free" crap cameras that used to be given away, whose manufacturers basically ripped off the buyers who sunk some portion of their income into the equipment only to come away disappointed with photography, with themselves, thinking they were the ones at fault when their photos didn't look like the ones in the brochure. Those are the worst cameras, the ones that made photography feel like a grievance instead of fun.
I have one stashed somewhere, might have tossed it, bought it for $1.00 at a yard sale, intended to find a cassette to see if I could put 35mm film in it, also had rechargeable batteries for the flash so needed to have the batteries rebuilt and find a cord, just never found a cassette. The film was 828 but respooled in the Fotron cassette, don't know if the film was Kodak or maybe GAF. I think the lens is a doublet or triplet, appeared to be coated. Mine does not have a "made in" stamp, not sure who made the camera for Fotron.
Nikon F. Shutter button in the wrong place. Really noisy mirror. Draws too much attention from hipsters.
It has to be the Pentacon 6 or Practisix 120 format slr's. Beautiful Zeiss lenses, but there was an inherrent problem with the wind on, with frames overlapping sometimes by as much as 50%. Plus it was very easy to lock the wind/shutter speed dial on so the lever jammed. A good idea but crap execution.
For me that would be the EastGerman Practical . With mine the shutter died after one week on a brand-new model.Not even good as a door stop.Is there a worst camera '35' or medium? or are we all blinded by love for our failing beauties ?? My Lubitel II from 1967 has a mind of her own about opening her shutter.(n.p.i.) But even 2 times ok on a roll of twelve I forgive her.
Depends on how you define "worst." Construction? Ability to be used? Quality of image? Least durable.
mine spent more time in repair than in my handsRolleiflex 35mm SLRs... So bad at reliability... The things you do to use those wonderful lenses
In all these categories, there is only one ultimate winner:
The Ouyama Canomatic
and its sisters and brothers (all also by Ouyama): the Charman, the Pearl, the Nippon, the Kamachi, the Olympia, the Nokina and last but not least the MAXIM (and whatever other names there were).
But then again, this depends on how you define "camera"
A few years ago, a friend sent me a Lubitel2 he found at a garage sale for $3.00. Knowing of my use of Dianas/Holgas, he thought it would fit in. I was actually surprised about the quality of the negatives it produced. Light years "better" than my usual cheap cameras. I was hoping for less...Is there a worst camera '35' or medium? or are we all blinded by love for our failing beauties ?? My Lubitel II from 1967 has a mind of her own about opening her shutter.(n.p.i.) But even 2 times ok on a roll of twelve I forgive her.
Certainly the Fotron has to be on the worst camera list (though it's 828 format, so it might not qualify). Has anyone every actually used one of these? I would if I could find it at a bargain price, like $5 with free shipping.
When I saw the thread title my first thought was Lubitel. It wasn't a terrible camera for its intended market, which was people who only had £12 to spend on a roll film camera, but it was awful judged by any other criterion. The body was made from the kind of brittle plastic that Christmas cracker toys were constructed, and the door was locked by a piece of bent tin. The lens wasn't too bad for a 3-element uncoated hunk of glass but the shutter would fail without warning. Selling it for the kind of premium camera prices that would have bought a Yashicamat or Mamiya in recent years was a joke.Is there a worst camera '35' or medium? or are we all blinded by love for our failing beauties ?? My Lubitel II from 1967 has a mind of her own about opening her shutter.(n.p.i.) But even 2 times ok on a roll of twelve I forgive her.
My first Lubitel cost £12, and when the Soviet Union collapsed they were about £20. The current price is £289 and as far as I'm aware the Lubitel hasn't been improved. eBay currently has a very nice Rolleicord for £199. I know which I'd buy.I was 15 when I bought her for the hefty sum of 25 Dutch guilders; that equals a lot of nights doing dishes in a restaurant. She's still around and shooting.
A few years ago, a friend sent me a Lubitel2 he found at a garage sale for $3.00. Knowing of my use of Dianas/Holgas, he thought it would fit in. I was actually surprised about the quality of the negatives it produced. Light years "better" than my usual cheap cameras. I was hoping for less...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?