disapointment/overated kit

shadowfox said:
Your equipment list, straight from your signature at this date:
Leica M9 : Leica Noctilux 50/0.95 : Zeiss Planar 50/2 : Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 : Thumbs Up Grip : Leica 1.4x Magnifier

May I ask why don't you shoot with a Nikon D3x? or Canon 1Ds MarkIII? you certainly can afford those. Probably because you *prefer* M9, yes? Does that mean those are bad cameras? not at all.

That's all I read in this thread, people discussing tool preferences over the other. And it's fun to read the reasons (or the non-reasons).
Click to expand...

That's a good question and I do use the Nikon kit more often than my Leica for most of my work. I use the Leica for personal stuff and wherever I can fit in my work...and I certainly never implied they were bad cameras.
 
Rollei QZ35w. Big, heavy and the lens gets trounced by the lens on my Rollei Prego 90 which cost 25x less. Has a seperate bolt on flash that is nearly bigger than the camera. Awful design, awful ergonomics. Viewfinder average. Noisy. I hate it to be fair. It sits on a worktop looking like a large posh paperweight. Because thats what it is!!!

Paul
 
Yashica Electro GS. Love Yashica rangefinders, have all the Ministers and the Lynxes. And now a screw-mount Leica-clone YF. But the Electro... just couldn't deal with the AE, which was constantly getting confused in tricky light, which is where I shoot mostly. I guess better than that. And the awful long shutter release. Add to that the chunky SLR-style ergos, need for a battery, and tinny-feeling build-quality and it didn't last long next to my Lynx 1000 (same lens, just f1.8 instead of f1.7).

Olympus XA. Feels like a cheap toy camera or a digicam. One of the most awful viewfinders ever (comparable to my Agfa Record). The focusing lever. After all the hype I was pretty disappointed.

With both of the above the results looked good. But you can't carry something around that irritates you.
 
jonmanjiro said:
That one too ;)

This is the 503CX I was referring too...


black hussy by jonmanjiro, on Flickr
Click to expand...

You're using the old style C-lenses, those are godawful to shoot with. Optically great, ergonomically awful. The focus rings are hard to turn, the aperture and shutter speed a pain to change because of the interlocked controls. I like the CF lenses better, they have wider rubber focus rings and the aperture and shutter rings only interlock if you push a button to make it so. They're much faster to work with.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You're using the old style C-lenses, those are godawful to shoot with. Optically great, ergonomically awful. The focus rings are hard to turn, the aperture and shutter speed a pain to change because of the interlocked controls. I like the CF lenses better, they have wider rubber focus rings and the aperture and shutter rings only interlock if you push a button to make it so. They're much faster to work with.
Click to expand...

I sold my 503CX kit long ago.

I also tried Gabor's CF 80/2.8 (and 500C/M), and it didn't strike me as being any faster to shoot with than the older 80/2.8 (and 503CX). I know they have their fans, but Hasselblads just didn't work for me :rolleyes:
 
Another good camera that didn't work for me was a Zeiss Super Ikonta BX, a 6x6 folder with ingenious coupled rangefinder, and 80mm f2.8 Tessar. Sure, it folded to become more compact, but it was still a too-heavy brick of a thing. I preferred the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex for 6x6.
 
Gumby said:
ditto (as unpopular as such an opinion might be)
Click to expand...

That makes three of us :) <-- talking about not seeing what's so great about the famous Canonet G(whatever the rest of the name is), the one with 40/1.7 lens.
 
Last edited:
IMHO nothing I have ever used has lived up to the hype of marketers or enthusiasts. I've sold some gear because it did not fit my needs, or my hands.

But I made some treasured images with the stuff I have sold as well as the stuff I continue to use. I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention that "it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools"? Those are words I live by.
 
Guess I've been lucky as I can not think of any film camera I really disliked using. Some took time to feel comfortable with but none I've sorry I bought. Oh, wait. I did get a $5 Samsung out of a thrift bin not long ago that is loaded with computer programming and ever time I set it for a particular shot such as no flash, after the shot it reset to a default that required me to spend changing back. If there were some way to keep the settings, it actually would have hit one of my favorite daily carrier lists as it even included a diopter adjustment and felt decent to hold.
 
Interesting about the canon lenses.... Come to think of it, the Canon 35/2 didn't suit me.

This lens has a low contrast, retro rendering that I enjoy in 50mm but found less useful in a wider lens. Changing to the UC Hex was the right move for me. Murphy's law says that as I grow as a photographer, I will realize it had a quality I need, but I try not to look in the rear view too much.

I have actually had similar misgivings about the Pen F's Zuiko 20/3.5 lens, but lacking compact alternatives for that system, it maintains its place.
 
Minox 35 GL: completely unreliable shutter. Great pocketable camera, but that's irrelevant if it doesn't work.

Was dissappointed that the Olympus E-P2 wouldn't work in very low light. It doesn't have a focus assist light, but frustratingly it didn't even activate the focus light built into the larger Olympus flashes, only the Olympus SLR's would do that. I really liked the camera but this was a dissappointing deal breaker. Returned it for a GF1 and I'm happy with it.

Steve
 
I can't say I have ever owned any gear that I didn't like, but I have had some gear that I suspect didn't/doesn't like me.

I think my Rolleicord is cool, but I have to admit that I'm not sure I've got the hang of it (back alley is right: if you're not into that way of seeing, it'll make you dizzy. which coincidentally is the name of one of our dogs. Dizzy the dog is blind now, so perhaps there's some hidden truth here). I like the big negatives, but I've realized that I'm too accustomed to the RF way of visualizing to make the switch easily to a TLR.

Anything I've owned that was garbage, I bought cheaply and had appropriate expectations (my $12.00 Mercury Universal half-frame, for example, which I never expected to work and wasn't upset when it lived up to my low expectations).

I was disappointed when my new M2 needed a CLA and delighted when Youxin turned it around in two days. Having figured the chances were 50/50 that the camera would need work, I wasn't particularly upset and I sure do love it since Youxin worked his magic. So, maybe I'm lucky or maybe I'm overly conservative about taking purchase risks because I'm having trouble finding any disappointments.
 
Yashica T4: A crazy amount of money for what is essentially an average point and shoot. I had 5 of these, all sold for silly money.

The Barnack Leicas: Beautifully made cameras and they look so nice but using them is a pain in the bum. Squinty viewfinders, separate view/range finder, rotating shutter dial and difficult loading procedure. It is possibly the least used camera i have.
 
I don't do hyped or trendy - no money for it. I just satisfy myself with taking pictures that I like with whatever cameras fall into my hands. Some just don't get used that often. Oh - after putting a film through a Paxette 11L, I decided the viewfinder was too squinty...but an accessory viewfinder would fix that.
 
p.giannakis said:
Yashica T4: A crazy amount of money for what is essentially an average point and shoot. I had 5 of these, all sold for silly money.

The Barnack Leicas: Beautifully made cameras and they look so nice but using them is a pain in the bum. Squinty viewfinders, separate view/range finder, rotating shutter dial and difficult loading procedure. It is possibly the least used camera i have.
Click to expand...


The Yashica must have been pretty awesome for you to have bought FIVE of them! :p:p

I agree on the Barnack Leicas, though. The M Leicas are much nicer cameras for actually taking pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom