Photography Gear that never caused you GAS

A Polaroid Land camera that could only take B+W film. I could never load the film so that the next tab came out ready to be pulled after taking a photo. I always had to reload it so the tab would stick out a bit.

A Kodak 177x camera. No focus and only had two lens settings: One; Bright sun Two; Overcast/Flash. I think I put one 126 cassette into it. Mind you I was about 10 at the time and had about 35p per week spending money, so not really enough to do more than buy a comic and a few sweets. I certainly didn't have the patience to save up for anything.
 
Out of curiosity, have there been any photography related gear that never caused GAS to you? I can think quite a few but the most obvious one for me are flash guns.

View attachment 4885186
I had an Agfa flash gun and when that failed in a spectacular way, I bought a vivitar one to suite my Praktica camera.

I used to bypass all magazine articles about flashgun reviews and still do. I very rarely use them anyway.

What about you? Are there any photo-gear that failed to capture your imagination.

Autofocus lenses

Zoom lenses

Any Nikon film camera after the F3

Leica digital

Any film Leica after the M5
 
Flashes for sure. I had to use them at one time and hated using them. The last one I owned was sometime around 1990. Of course many of the cameras I've owned have the little pop gun flashes on them but I never used them.

Monster lenses. The high-speed normal, wide and short tele lenses that have 793 elements to correct everything except disc herniations.

Polaroid cameras. I've owned several but I have never enjoyed using them. I'll pass.

Tripods. I have an old Gitzo and an even older Manfrotto (Bogen). I never use them. Somebody said there are carbon/plastic ones now that are really lightweight. I don't care.

Camera cases and luxury straps. I like leather and a decent leather strap can be had cheap. It may start stiff but it will get soft with use. Cases? C'mon.

Film Leicas. I've owned three. Nice cameras. Don't want another.

Digital Leicas. Never owned one. I use Nikons with adapted M-mount lenses. I get a faux rangefinder fix with Fuji X-Pros and get AF as well.

Medium format digitals. I'm not into big files.

..................................................
 
Here goes: Leica RFs!

I have really liked compact, fixed-lens RFs for travel. They are small, light, easy and quick to use, and they produce sharp, well-exposed slides. I have had two Olympus 35 RCs, a Vivitar 35 ES, and a couple of Canonet QL 17 GIIIs. Compared to these, Leicas, though exquisitely manufactured, are big and clunky.

(What I really like are TLRs, mostly shot on a tripod.)

- Murray
 
DSLRs. Never owned one, never will. Hated every one that I ever had to use in any capacity.

Also, Hasselblads. Great lenses, awful to use. Always preferred TLRs - lighter, smoother, quieter.
That is interesting. I’ve always been a TLR shooter, but wanted the Hassy. Finally, I got one (with 150mm lens) - the potential seller allowed me to test it before I commit to buy. I did not like it. Maybe I needed more time to get used to it. But the itch is gone. I still have three Rilleiflexes and cannot force myself to sell at least one.
 
I've never really been drawn to medium format or super telephoto lenses. The latter is something I ought to be into, given that I shoot field sports, but I get away with an aps-c DSLR and a 70-200 fairly well. But medium format always seems too big, too expensive, and just too whatever.
 
I have a completely irrational dislike of Canon SLRs and DSLRs. The logical side of my brain knows they are every bit as good as Nikons, or perhaps even better, but something about them just repulses me for reasons I can't understand. Which is odd, because I quite like Canon's point-and-shoots and rangefinders.

I have a similar dislike for Nikon compacts and point-and-shoots. I've never had the chance to handle a Nikon rangefinder, so I don't know how I'd feel about them.

Another weird pet peeve: I really, really dislike lenses where the maximum aperture is not a full stop on the scale. For example, my 28mm f/3.5 S-M-C Takumar. Great lens, I love the images it produces, but something about the fact that it doesn't open up to a full f/2.8 bugs me every time I look at that lens.
 
I have a completely irrational dislike of Canon SLRs and DSLRs.

Was about to say similar, in particular when they went all roundy roundy, the older boxy SLRs are OK but the newer ones just don't feel right in my hands, I hired one once with a 80-200 2.8 and never liked using it and couldn't wait to give it back.

Saw some and handled some beautiful Hasselblads at the Focus on Imaging Photo Exhibitions in the 90s, but nothing, no desire to own one either or any Leica as nice as they might be!
 
Last edited:
Anything digital. I had to buy them for me and my staff at the weekly newspapers I owned and edited. We needed them for turnaround time and color, but I never had GAS for them. We spent a lot of money upgrading over the years, from the early Nikon mount Fujis to our final set of EOS DSLRs and lenses. I still have a couple, and their lenses, just in case but I haven't shot them since I retired at the end of 2024. They were bought as necessities.
 
Back
Top Bottom