Disappointments

Definitely the Nikon D1X. Lots of hardware for its time, lousy software and too much noise, especially in an SLR that priced at 4899. I was disappointed in the difficulty of using Mamiya 645AFD on a frequent basis due to its weight, and the weight of the associated gear.
Guess I was meant for rangefinders...
 
sanmich said:
ultron 28 1.9.

I apparently got a dog, but the comments were so good everywhere that it took me some time to have the guts to buy an hexanon, and....what a difference!
Click to expand...
I would love to disagree with you about the Ultron. I really would. I've taken a few good shots with that lens (and mine is certainly not a dog). But when push comes to shove (and even when it doesn't) if I want a 28 the M-Hexanon goes on the camera and the Ultron stays at home. Perhaps things shouldn't happen this way but they almost always do.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus.
Click to expand...
That I can agree with. I have a nice-condition GTN which is far from a piece of junk. It is a nice camera with a number of very agreeable features and which can take a very nice photo, courtesy of its excellent lens and, dare I say it, rather wonderful metering. Nonetheless, I don't use it as much as I should. Mostly I expect because of its size (which is not small by RF standards) and its rather cod-ordinary shutter release. But these are things I could and should get used to or work around. I hearby resolve to use this rather nice camera a little more. I suspect I'll end up with photos that prove that isn't a bad idea.

...Mike
 
Mamiya 7II 80/4 lens. Would it have killed them to have the lens focus another foot closer? Jeez. Fabulous optics, but just not suited to how I want the world to look on film.

Ben Marks
 
Pentax 6x7.
No fault of the camera, I think. I just lusted for it for a long time then failed to bond with it.

Sounds a bit like a great many relationships I've had actually.
 
Sonnar2 said:
....
Olympus OM4 - bad visible shutter times in finder
Click to expand...


Built in diopters are to be adjusted, via wheel at the left of pentaprism, for viewing the numbers.

On one of my OM4s the wheel is broken, so it doesn't adjust the diopters.

Another possibility may be that your sight correction goes beyond the OM4 possibilities.

Anyway ALL OM bodies enable outside diopters too.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
35mmdelux said:
Hexar RF -- A big disappointment in its whimpy set of controls.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I found the Konica Hexar RF to be useless, and the controls were a big part of it. And the RF that refused to stay in alignment despite repeated "factory authorized" repairs.

Also the "beloved" Hexar AF. Fabulous lens on another toy camera. Awful, inaccurate finder (even accepting the general inaccuracies of RF finders).

And the Minolta CLE, useless averaging meter, hard to use on manual, plastic battery compartment door would fall off unless held in place by tape.

These have been MY disappointments, no need to argue if you love these cameras, more power to ya'
 
Pablito said:
These have been MY disappointments, no need to argue if you love these cameras, more power to ya'
Click to expand...

Absolutely! We all hear the praise, all the time, and many people are entirely happy with things that don't suit us personally. Your reply (and many others) are exactly what I was looking for: a purely personal difference from the received opinion.

To extend the idea a little, there are also products that are either quite good, or very good for the money, but are so over-praised by some people that NOTHING could live up to the hype that they propagate. The Jupiter 85/2 springs to mind.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
but are so over-praised by some people that NOTHING could live up to the hype that they propagate. The Jupiter 85/2 springs to mind.
Click to expand...

Agree with that one.

Thinking about disappointment in terms of "I will not try/use one of those again", the other things that come to mind are:

- Canon 50/1.2 LTM (under the bottom line there are many, slower 50s that are easier to handle and generate nicer pictures)
- Bessas. I have tried Bessa T, R, R2 and R3a, and was never able to get a truly sharp picture out of them. Sharp in terms of using a great lens on them and being impressed by the resolution when enlarging to more than 8x10.

Just my very personal and emotional opinion 🙂 The disappointment is larger, the more praised I see those things, because then I blame myself for not making them work.

Roland.
 
I guess I'd have to put the M8 on this list. I won't say I haven't enjoyed shooting either of mine. But the glitches and quirks (not to mention months of shooting time lost to repairs in Solms) just didn't live up to my expectations based on my experiences with Leica's film bodies.
 
NickTrop said:
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus. First off, the lens is terrific - that's what takes the pictures. Secondly, it has a wracheted film advance, parallax-corrected viewfinder, and a meter that is far more accurate and more sensitive than any camera in its class. Its indicator lights allow you to pre-meter scenes, and it has an innovative stepless shutter. It also takes modern, still-available batteries. Stellar lens + sensitive light meter + wrachted film advance + parallax-corrected frame lines + stepless electronic shutter (up to 1/30th sec) =/= "a piece of junk". Styling? Very "Brady" - who cares? Look around the Internets and see what talented amatuers can do with this camera...
Click to expand...


Hellow Nick Earth Calling....


You forgot about that outstanding silent shutter. Both relatively to any RF, and more outstandingly relative to a 45mm length RF

Next time you will pay fine🙂

However. this camera has an unfortunate clunky look due to the undue cheap covering, and the even worse cheapy case (puach !)

PS
And that shutter button locker is missed in many of my other cameras (ATTENTION ANTI-SOFTIE SCAMMERS !)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop said:
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus. First off, the lens is terrific - that's what takes the pictures. Secondly, it has a wracheted film advance, parallax-corrected viewfinder, and a meter that is far more accurate and more sensitive than any camera in its class. Its indicator lights allow you to pre-meter scenes, and it has an innovative stepless shutter. It also takes modern, still-available batteries. Stellar lens + sensitive light meter + wrachted film advance + parallax-corrected frame lines + stepless electronic shutter (up to 1/30th sec) =/= "a piece of junk". Styling? Very "Brady" - who cares? Look around the Internets and see what talented amatuers can do with this camera...
Click to expand...

As I said, great lens from what I've seen done with it, but seriously... I went through 4-5 of them 2 years ago. Each one I bought was meant to be working, and was in near mint condition. On each one of them, the RF patch was faded beyond use and not one of them gave me a consistent roll of film. The one that did give me a consistent roll was soft at anything below f4ish, and it wasn't focussing errors either. Even after I replaced the POD in 2 of them, both didn't work properly afterwards, or did for a few frames then died.

The shutter priority is just wack - couldn't get used to the way it works with the under and over lights etc.

Maybe I should rephrase that to " To me, the yashica was a piece of junk. I realised after I went through 4-5 60-100$ cameras that i could have just bought a bessa r2a for the same price - much better camera.
 
A Lomo LC-A in the mid-1980s when they were badged as "Zenit" and, although it's hard to believe now, sold in the UK as "serious" compact cameras by TOE. This was well before all of the "Emperor's new clothes" Lomography hype of course and when they were still regarded as copies of the (quite respectable) Cosina CX-2. I had three, all from a proper camera shop, before I got one that actually worked - for one and a half films... Sadly, it was a pile of junk with a lens incapable of giving a sharp picture. I always wonder if its shutter packed in (as it had in the previous two) as it was embarrassed by what would result on film if it opened...!
 
Screwmount Leica lenses. I hate to admit it, but the image quality isn't as good as the Nikon and Canon counterparts and they cost more.
 
Mark Wood said:
A Lomo LC-A in the mid-1980s when they were badged as "Zenit" and, although it's hard to believe now, sold in the UK as "serious" compact cameras by TOE. This was well before all of the "Emperor's new clothes" Lomography hype of course and when they were still regarded as copies of the (quite respectable) Cosina CX-2. I had three, all from a proper camera shop, before I got one that actually worked - for one and a half films... Sadly, it was a pile of junk with a lens incapable of giving a sharp picture. I always wonder if its shutter packed in (as it had in the previous two) as it was embarrassed by what would result on film if it opened...!
Click to expand...

Just to avoid a war of words, I ought to add that I thought long and hard before calling this camera a pile of junk. Well, not that long actually, it really was...!!
 
1. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who are puzzled over the quality of the famous Canonet QL17 GIII. I had one, CLA'd, tried it, and went... huh? low-contrast, so-so sharpness, and ended up selling it for more than the price I paid for the camera + CLA. Puzzling? indeed.

2. Rollei 35 S. I was prepared to be blown away by the rendering from the legendary Sonnar lens. But... meh. Again, from a serviced sample (and coverted to use modern battery). Now, to show that I'm not utterly clueless, I have a Sonnar 50/1.5 for Contax and a Jupiter-8. The pictures from these are vastly better to the Rollei. Maybe I got a CLA'd lemon, who knows.

3. Yashica Mat 124. Just can't get a wow picture out of this one. Once again, either I got a CLA'd lemon (again), or the lens isn't what it's cracked up to be. For comparison, I'm super happy with the results I got from a Mamiya C330.
 
mfunnell said:
Dave Wilkinson said:
Funny! I have a Mamiya 645 and it never occurred to me to use it in any way except on a tripod. Something I knew before I bought it. I don't know what that proves (and suspect it proves nothing whatsoever) but found the comment vaguely amusing nonetheless.

...Mike
Click to expand...
I'm glad you are happy keeping your camera to a tripod, and finding my post "vaguely amusing" - but, believe it or not, people do actually hand hold them...even Hasselblads!, and we are talking about things that disappoint us personally - even though others may think it's marvelous!
Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...
 
ferider said:
The disappointment is larger, the more praised I see those things, because then I blame myself for not making them work.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Dear Roland,

Yes, that's an important part of the thread, now you mention it. We think, 'Hey, why can't I make it work?'

I'm coming to the conclusion it doesn't matter, as long as there are things that work for us.

But it is irritating when people look at you pityingly and imply that it's your fault you're unimpressed by something.

Tashi delek,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom