gavinlg
Veteran
I think he's referring to wide open optical performance rather than actual light transmission performance...
The cool thing about Zeiss is that they made two 50s - one that's deadly sharp wide open and another that's a character lens wide open. Best of both worlds.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I can't really fault that either Gavin!
As a matter of curiosity ... with your gripe about the FM's cocked out lever that sort of irked me a bit with my FM3A when I first got but now I'm used to it.
You never considered shooting vertically 'shutter down?'
gavinlg
Veteran
Well for what it's worth the wide open picture you sent me demonstrated a very sharp lens @ f1.4!
With the FM's lever lock - I actually tried to shoot 'shutter down' for a while, but anytime I took my mind off the camera and saw something I wanted to shoot, I'd just instinctively raise it the 'shutter up', and poke myself in the brow again! I have to admit though, even if it weren't for that 'feature' I probably wouldn't have kept it... OM's and canon SLRs gel better with me (and I couldn't tell you why!)
Are you a left eye shooter, Gavin? I can see the advance lever being a pain for left eye shooters. But luckily I'm a right eye shooter so it doesn't bother me.
I've heard of some users modifying their FM2/FE2/FM3A's so that the power is not turned off when the advance lever is returned to the stowaway position. A fairly simple mod from memory...
gavinlg
Veteran
Nope, I'm not even a left eyed shooter! I swear I have normal features too - my brow is very average in size! Even if the lock wasn't present on the FMs, I'd have an f3 anyday - it's the one nikon SLR I really liked... Just felt special in use and I loved the look and feel of it.
pvdhaar
Peter
Most overhyped piece of rubbish: the first generation Nikon 24-120 AFD. I had one of the early ones, and it was bad, really really bad.
That lens had the bends.. at 35mm the pincushion distortion was so bad, that it was completely unusable. The distortion became acceptable from 50mm onwards, but there softness was the problem. You couldn't make a decent picture unless stopped down to f11-f16. The only focal length that was anyway near passable was 24mm; no distortion and decently sharp at f8.
This was the worst Nikon lens I've ever used. Nikon must have noticed too; when I look at the photozone tests, it's clear that Nikon must have changed something in the production process somewhere along the way. The photozone sample has barrel distortion at 24 and that way corrects the atrocious bends mine had at 35. Either that or the production quality control was ran by a moron.
That lens had the bends.. at 35mm the pincushion distortion was so bad, that it was completely unusable. The distortion became acceptable from 50mm onwards, but there softness was the problem. You couldn't make a decent picture unless stopped down to f11-f16. The only focal length that was anyway near passable was 24mm; no distortion and decently sharp at f8.
This was the worst Nikon lens I've ever used. Nikon must have noticed too; when I look at the photozone tests, it's clear that Nikon must have changed something in the production process somewhere along the way. The photozone sample has barrel distortion at 24 and that way corrects the atrocious bends mine had at 35. Either that or the production quality control was ran by a moron.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
'70s Canon SLR with zoom lens I had as a teenager in the '80s. It sucked! My Argus "brick" that I got for $10 at the pawn shop took better pictures. I also hated my Nikkormat. It was an SLR but it wouldn't frame accurately, so what's the point?
The Leica M5 was the first really good camera I used, and I was already over 30.
The Leica M5 was the first really good camera I used, and I was already over 30.
flip
良かったね！
Fujifilm finepix f30 - bought it for it:s performance in low light - which was quite good. However, I was reminded constantly how much I hate menus, 3x4 framing, viewscreens, shutter lag, and the overall digicam experience.
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
Zeiss Ikon. I may catch some flack for this, but i just was really let down by it. GREAT camera, very capable and all that. AMAZING finder... when it's aligned. Mine drifted in and out of good vertical alignment for the few months i had it. The batteries would also die incredibly fast. Camera had no personality or soul.
Every Voigtlander Bessa.
Every SLR-mount Pancake lens around 40mm. Every one of them is boring and overblown. Had both CV's in Nikon AI mount- they were lame. Had the Pentax 40, it was lame. I've used the Nikon 45, it is just overpriced.
Olympus OM2
... great camera, great system, but i really really wish it had AE lock. I much prefer my FE2's to the OM2n.
Olympus XA. Really neat camera, but i just couldn't get into the groove of shooting it. Doesn't fit into my pockets very well (semi-tight Levi's)....
I'm sure there is more, but that is all i could think of at the moment.
Every Voigtlander Bessa.
Every SLR-mount Pancake lens around 40mm. Every one of them is boring and overblown. Had both CV's in Nikon AI mount- they were lame. Had the Pentax 40, it was lame. I've used the Nikon 45, it is just overpriced.
Olympus OM2
... great camera, great system, but i really really wish it had AE lock. I much prefer my FE2's to the OM2n. Olympus XA. Really neat camera, but i just couldn't get into the groove of shooting it. Doesn't fit into my pockets very well (semi-tight Levi's)....
I'm sure there is more, but that is all i could think of at the moment.
leicashot
Well-known
I believe he was referring to the quality at f/1.4 being less than stellar, especially for Zeiss. It only gets good from f/2.....but then the 50/2 Makro beats it there too, albeit with a much higher price tage and a longer focus throw too.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
All digital point and shoots. I wouldn't say disappointed as such, I've never invested much hope in them anyway. Smaller DSLR's in general, lots of small finickity buttons, horrible ergonomics - at least for someone with my brutish hands.
But as long as I can put up with ergonomics and the end results, I am very tolerant when it comes to quirks. And all my camera have them in *****s.
But as long as I can put up with ergonomics and the end results, I am very tolerant when it comes to quirks. And all my camera have them in *****s.
filmfan
Well-known
gekopaca
French photographer
Sigma DP1. A cold black plastic box (no emotion shooting with), really really slooooooooooow in Raw, and hideous jpeg.
My Voigtlander 28mm f2. Actually a pretty good lens but I never know exactly how to use it with my R-D1. It doesn't stunning me because when I used argentic cameras I never knew how to use 35mm focals. Maybe the "neutrality" of angle steal all my creativity :-(
My Voigtlander 28mm f2. Actually a pretty good lens but I never know exactly how to use it with my R-D1. It doesn't stunning me because when I used argentic cameras I never knew how to use 35mm focals. Maybe the "neutrality" of angle steal all my creativity :-(
Agreed! They're all woeful. Save yourselves the stress and send your unwanted and unloved Nikkors to me
I will dispose of them properly Heck, I'll even cover postage 
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Agreed! They're all woeful. Save yourselves the stress and send your unwanted and unloved Nikkors to me
Actually, I agree with the guy who was disappointed by Nikkors. They're sharp, but most of the Nikkors I've used have rather harsh bokeh and their tonal rendering is not that great either. They're good, competent lenses but not great. Olympus OM lenses render much nicer, as do Pentax in the world of SLRs. I have the 24/2.8 AF-D, 28/2.8 AF-D, 35/2 AF-d, 50/1.4 AF, and 85/1.8 AF. All very sharp, none really great as image makers. They work well on digital (which is why I keep them), but have never been happy with them on black & white film. I'd choose an OM or Pentax lens anyday over a Nikkor. Compare them to the ZM lenses or Leica lenses and its no comparison. I have had Nikon system since I was 18 and can count on my hands the number of black and white photos on my website that were shot with them, and I have about 500 photos shot on 35mm film online.
gavinlg
Veteran
You could have taken the words out of my mouth right there.... I've used the word 'harsh' to describe them on this forum before too...
One exception though, in fairness to nikon. Current 24-70mm f2.8 is the best normal zoom I've ever used. Better than a lot of good primes.
btgc
Veteran
I can agree with this. I'm not disappointed in classic sense of this word, rather I like some cameras less than enough to use them on regular basis.
45/2.8 pancake - slower than very common 50/2 (read - darker VF), tiny controls, focus easily moves unintentionally. Usually costs 10x common 50/2
135mm lenses - who uses them, for what???
FL RF's with AE - destroy whole idea of rangefinder camera. To recover, take any fully manual (or with uncoupled meter) FL RF, even cheap and common-as-dirt Petri 7S has shutter release light years better than GSN or KAS2
Iconic P&S cameras - gold plating horse doesn't makes it an elephant, it's still ordinary horse. There are LOADS of underrated and cheaper cameras doing same job for a fraction of price. And when they fail (as P&S aren't built to withstand daily use for extended periods of time) they usually are very hard or impossible to repair, most of times replacing is cheaper.
Internet - first it helps (choosing camera, reading on basics of photography, etc.) and later it can become reason why one has less time to take pictures
zuikologist
.........................
I've had the opposite experience - the SP and the 40/2.8 are a delight. Even better is the DA AF version of the 40/2.8 which work beautifully on digital and film.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Disappointment is maybe too strong, but...
Disappointment is maybe too strong, but...
I've had a really hard time taking to any of the interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder cameras. And I've gone through a LOT of them recently... Leica M2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; CV R2, 3, and 4; Canon P and 7; ZI.
I just can't see how any of the engineers that worked on any of these cameras were glasses wearers, like me. All of these cameras create the same problem for me... I can never comfortably see the widest frameline if the viewfinder magnification is .72 or more. This means I always have to live with accessory viewfinders for the 35 or 40mm lenses. And if the magnification is lower, like .58, then the longer lens framelines look really dinky and make me think too much about focusing accuracy.
None of this is what I'd call a HUGE problem, just unnecessarily annoying. I really dislike the idea that I have to live without the widest frameline unless I make accomodations (the accessory finders or 'hunting around' inside the viewfinder window to look for those wide framelines. I'd be interested in finding out how what the percentage of rangefinder camera users wear glasses when using their cameras. I'd guess that the percentage must be quiet low.
Actually, the only Leicas I've been able to feel relaxed with are the screwmount cameras, for the simple reason that since they don't have anything other than the 50mm view available, I just don't bother buying other lenses for them anymore.
So I'm headed back to SLRs and larger format gear. I let some of you non-glasses wearers enjoy my RF gear... watch the classifieds.
Disappointment is maybe too strong, but...
I've had a really hard time taking to any of the interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder cameras. And I've gone through a LOT of them recently... Leica M2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; CV R2, 3, and 4; Canon P and 7; ZI.
I just can't see how any of the engineers that worked on any of these cameras were glasses wearers, like me. All of these cameras create the same problem for me... I can never comfortably see the widest frameline if the viewfinder magnification is .72 or more. This means I always have to live with accessory viewfinders for the 35 or 40mm lenses. And if the magnification is lower, like .58, then the longer lens framelines look really dinky and make me think too much about focusing accuracy.
None of this is what I'd call a HUGE problem, just unnecessarily annoying. I really dislike the idea that I have to live without the widest frameline unless I make accomodations (the accessory finders or 'hunting around' inside the viewfinder window to look for those wide framelines. I'd be interested in finding out how what the percentage of rangefinder camera users wear glasses when using their cameras. I'd guess that the percentage must be quiet low.
Actually, the only Leicas I've been able to feel relaxed with are the screwmount cameras, for the simple reason that since they don't have anything other than the 50mm view available, I just don't bother buying other lenses for them anymore.
So I'm headed back to SLRs and larger format gear. I let some of you non-glasses wearers enjoy my RF gear... watch the classifieds.
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
Rolleiflex 2.8F - beautifully made, superb condition, but the Planar was not as good as the Xenar on my previous Rolleicord Vb IMO. Mamiya C330 - great lenses, but awkward to use and like having a brick round your neck. Minolta Autocord - had a habit of firing its' cocked shutter without any user intervention.