worst camera

[k.hendrik]

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

Worst ever has to be the Purma's. They have mazing gravity shutters and dreadful Beck lenses.

Ian

 

[Kodachromeguy]

About the Argus C3 brick? I know there are fans, but consider that when Argus was making this camera with its rather mediocre lenses and un-ergonomic body, across the ocean, Leitz and Zeiss were engineering and manufacturing their magnificent rangefinder cameras.

 

[Alan Gales]

This 35mm camera was given away with a magazine subscription. I never shot one but I saw plenty of them at yard sales for only a dollar or two and unsold.

https://petapixel.com/2013/06/25/di...e-gave-away-free-35mm-cameras-to-subscribers/

 

[benjiboy]

In the all the years I've been a photographer I have never had a camera that wasn't a better photographer than I

 

[Photo Engineer]

The first Petri reflex camera. It looked beautiful and had a nice lens, but the interior was soft metal that broke easily or just wore out.

PE

 

[Paul Howell]

About the Argus C3 brick? I know there are fans, but consider that when Argus was making this camera with its rather mediocre lenses and un-ergonomic body, across the ocean, Leitz and Zeiss were engineering and manufacturing their magnificent rangefinder cameras.

The brick sold in the millions, most working stiffs could not afford a Leica or Contax, for that matter even a good quality Japanese camera was out of reach. Like saying that a Rambler Chevy was poor car because it wasn't a Jaguar. A few top quality rangefinders were made Kodak and Bell and Howell, but after the war could not compete against the cost of German labor. For worst, my vote goes to Petri. I have a number of the beasts, the lens are rather good, ergonomics are good, the Ft has a separate dial for the ASA setting, the stop down lever that operates the light meter and stops the lens down is nicely placed ever the shutter release which on the from of the camera. Build quality is horrible. (PE beat me.)

 

[MattKing]

The camera that you leave at home when you are out and a photographic opportunity presents itself.

 

[Cholentpot]

About the Argus C3 brick? I know there are fans, but consider that when Argus was making this camera with its rather mediocre lenses and un-ergonomic body, across the ocean, Leitz and Zeiss were engineering and manufacturing their magnificent rangefinder cameras.

You take that back! The poor dears...just because they're ugly, heavy, a pain to carry around, need 8 steps to take a photo, have a mediocre lens and cut me now and then is no reason to shame them!

But seriously, I own two C3s and they are fun to use and look interesting. I think back in the days there were the step up from a Brownie or box camera. You have to know what you are doing to shoot one of these. This is the farthest camera from a point and shoot. It also makes a wonderful PDW.

 

[summicron1]

Depends on how you define "worst." Construction? Ability to be used? Quality of image? Least durable.

My nomination is the Kiev 88, which has entire web sites dedicated to saying it is a good camera but -- and then lists half a dozen problems/traps/dangers. The one I had, briefly, started to fall apart, brand new out of the box, the instant I bought it. Absolute crap. The images were good, when it worked, but that was seldom. It went back for repair 3 times in the first month, third time was one-way trip.

 

[summicron1]

On the other hand, I am the proud owner of a Leica CL I bought in 1974 which, despite needing to go to the shop a few times including after I dropped it and messed up the rangefinder, is still ticking along, producing excellent images, the picture of leica durability even if Minolta did use a little plastic when they built it.

 

[GarageBoy]

Rolleiflex 35mm SLRs... So bad at reliability... The things you do to use those wonderful lenses

 

[Sirius Glass]

The brick sold in the millions, most working stiffs could not afford a Leica or Contax, for that matter even a good quality Japanese camera was out of reach. Like saying that a Rambler Chevy was poor car because it wasn't a Jaguar. A few top quality rangefinders were made Kodak and Bell and Howell, but after the war could not compete against the cost of German labor. For worst, my vote goes to Petri. I have a number of the beasts, the lens are rather good, ergonomics are good, the Ft has a separate dial for the ASA setting, the stop down lever that operates the light meter and stops the lens down is nicely placed ever the shutter release which on the from of the camera. Build quality is horrible. (PE beat me.)

The Rambler was from American Motors not GM [Chevy].

 

[Arklatexian]

About the Argus C3 brick? I know there are fans, but consider that when Argus was making this camera with its rather mediocre lenses and un-ergonomic body, across the ocean, Leitz and Zeiss were engineering and manufacturing their magnificent rangefinder cameras.

Those who were fans were the lucky majority who had cameras that produced sharp photographs. I have known of new cameras, right out of the box which were incapable of producing a sharp image and had to be returned to Argus but the point made above is well taken. This condition, not with just Argus and 35mm but with some medium format cameras and Rolleis and Zeiss continued even after the second world war......Regards!

 

[railwayman3]

Rolleiflex 35mm SLRs... So bad at reliability... The things you do to use those wonderful lenses

Yes, I had one for a while when Dixons were selling these off relatively cheaply, with the various lenses and accessories. The lenses (Zeiss) were amazing, but you felt that you needed kid gloves to handle the cameras, so very light and "delicate". I would have liked to have kept the lenses when the camera gave up, but they didn't fit anything other than Rollei.

 

[anfenglin]

I nominate the East German Pouva Start. I had five, believe it or not, and none of them worked for longer than two rolls.
They either had haze (almost non-repairable because the elements are glued in or held with crappy circlips, once out, never back in), the shutter would bounce back open, the finders broke or fell of and one died slipping out of my slippery, sweaty summer hands. The camera, being made of bakelite, did not fare well.
Some of the have metal clips on the feed roll side which scratch the film.
I finally gave up and never had the urge to get one again.

When it did work, it produced great images, was super light and the finder, provided it is clean, is very useable, even for a glasses wearer.
There were just too many downsides.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Rambler was from American Motors not GM [Chevy].

Yeah I stated with Chevy then switched to Rambler and neglected to erase Chevy, too much in a hurry.

 

[Paul Howell]

My Ward's Catalog from 1952 lists the C3 at $62.50 the Contax IIA $444.00. The C3 while not a Contax gave a lot for the money.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The Rambler was originally a Nash.

 

[guangong]

For worst camera, include me in with the Petri gang. As for the C3, when a dollar was real money any other camera was out of reach for any regular teenager. At least I was able to take some memorable Kodachromes, although not as sharp as other much more expensive out of reach cameras, but I have the pictures. Exposure determined by the guide that came with the film.

 

[bergytone]

I'm with you guys on the C3. It's a turd alright, but it works every time, and probably will for another 100 years. And it even has an interchangeable lens!

Someone gave me a Petri rangefinder, the "Petri 35". I shot a few pixs as a test roll, and other than a slow shutter it worked well. Can I expect it to fall apart in my hands, or is the crappy camera award only for the Petri reflex?

 

[Paul Howell]

Petri rangefinders are pretty good, better build quality than the SLRs, I have a couple of rangefinders, one needs serviced shutter is frozen, likely just needs lubed, the other is ok, lens are good, not as good as Konica S3, but good. The SLRS, maybe older models are better, the PTs and EE are a lesson in how not to build a camera. Not only poor build but Petri changed mounts from a breech mount to M42 just as everyone else were moving away from screw mounts, also sold under the K mart Focal brand. The screw mount lens were very optically, build quality is better than the bodies. I take it in Europe that someone bought the Petri trade mark and rebanded Chinons were sold under Petri.

 

[michr]

About the Argus C3 brick? I know there are fans, but consider that when Argus was making this camera with its rather mediocre lenses and un-ergonomic body, across the ocean, Leitz and Zeiss were engineering and manufacturing their magnificent rangefinder cameras.

I'm not sure why the C3 gets so much flack, but I'm thankful they do so that I can still pick them up cheap. Even if I agreed with you, I'd argue the Argus C was a worse camera, same body without the rangefinder coupling. Surely that's worse.

 

[michr]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.