reagan
hey, they're only Zorkis
It looks like a red x.
Surprisingly, I don't have a photo of my Holga. I will have to dig her out for a sitting.
Surprisingly, I don't have a photo of my Holga. I will have to dig her out for a sitting.
R
Richard Black
Guest
I once had a Zenit 412dx that look sorta like it came from Star Wars, but I donated to a chap in S.F. for his students. The rest of mine are like my children, to me they are pretty.
reagan
hey, they're only Zorkis
My brother saw the pic of the Kodak.35 above and remarked, "Damn. Is it 4 wheel drive?"
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
?? I don't see anything.
captainslack
Five Goats Hunter
pesphoto
Veteran
sorry, dont see the photo either. MAybe it was too ugly for this forum?
raftman
Established
CVBLZ4 said:WARNING! THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART OR WEAK STOMACH!
Okay, let's drag 'em outta the closet. Time to bare it all. This is the place to give the boys a look-see at the Ugliest Camera You Own.
Me first:
KODAK 35 RF
Sure the image doesn't show up, but my first was also the Kodak 35 RF. It's definitely and odd/ugly looking camera, on top of that using it is a pain and the results were also pretty bad.
here folks:
JimG
dogzen
oscroft
Veteran
You're joking - it's like looking at angels and roses compared to an Argus brick
burninfilm
Well-known
raftman said:
I've always had good luck with Kodak 35 RF's. The Anastar lens is basically a coated, front focusing Tessar design. True, the ergonomics aren't the greatest but they are pretty good compared to its main competitor: the Argus C3.
raftman
Established
burninfilm said:
I thought its main competitor was the C4, which seems like a really fine camera compared to the Kodak 35 RF. The lens on mine is terrible, very foggy, and will not clean from the inside or outside. I did like some of the controls, and the "T" shutter speed is something I don't have on my other cameras. But on the whole, it was a piece of junk. I realize, that a lot of my problems were probably related to the condition the camera came in, but I can imagine even brand new and functioning perfectly, it wouldn't be too impressive.
burninfilm
Well-known
No, Kodak's main competition for the Argus C4 would probably be the Signet 35, as the C4 and the Signet 35 were introduced in the early 1950's. The Kodak 35 RF, on the other hand, was introduced in the early 1940's. This is about the same time as the Argus C3 became available (however, the C2 was available before that). As time passed, Kodak updated the Kodak 35 RF with coated lenses and a flash sync'd shutter. When you compare the differences between the Argus C3, Kodak 35 RF, Argus C4, and Signet 35, it is pretty easy to see which ones were meant to compete with one another.
So if you are comparing the Kodak 35 RF to the Argus C4, you must take into account that the Kodak design is quite a bit older. Try cleaning that Kodak of yours up, as you might be surprised by the results. I've had some surprising results with one when I tested it out, and it had the Anastar lens. Some say the Anastigmat Special is sharper (however, this lens is uncoated as far as I know). Contrary to popular opinion, many Kodak lenses were pretty good. If you need some help on how clean the lens in your Kodak, let me know.
Edit: I just read a previous post you made about your camera, so I understand a little more of your problem. However, as I stated before, I personally have had good results with one of these.
So if you are comparing the Kodak 35 RF to the Argus C4, you must take into account that the Kodak design is quite a bit older. Try cleaning that Kodak of yours up, as you might be surprised by the results. I've had some surprising results with one when I tested it out, and it had the Anastar lens. Some say the Anastigmat Special is sharper (however, this lens is uncoated as far as I know). Contrary to popular opinion, many Kodak lenses were pretty good. If you need some help on how clean the lens in your Kodak, let me know.
Edit: I just read a previous post you made about your camera, so I understand a little more of your problem. However, as I stated before, I personally have had good results with one of these.
Last edited:
VictorM.
Well-known
raftman
Established
My other issue with it is that it has no built in light meter, and the exposure counter wasn't very nice either. I think because people can get good results from it (and I have seen quite good pics taken on the Kodak 35 RF) doesn't really make it a good camera. It probably reflects more on the person using it.
dmr
Registered Abuser
CVBLZ4 said:
Boys??
Oh, I get it, kinda like at work when the "Boys" are all gathered around the monitor pointing and giggling and I walk in and all of a sudden they close the browser and get this hear/see/speak no evil three-monkeys look. Right?
Anyway, this camera of mine has been called "ugly", even by somebody here (I think) who said it looked like a cheap 1960's transistor radio. (I think that was here, may have been on APUG or another board.)
I think it's beautiful, and cool looking. It had that black face finish long before the "black press model" became trendy. It also has that huge eye staring right at you, to let you know it means business.
It's the Mamiya Super Deluxe, my first "real" camera, and one I successfully re-acquired about a year ago. It's not as sleek or as popular as the GIII, but the lens is very sharp and shows much less astigmatism than the GIII does when close to wide open.
Oh, and please excuse the quality of the attached photo. This is a crop from a "family portrait" that was taken with a friend's digital.
Attachments
burninfilm
Well-known
raftman said:
Yes, but it also doesn't make it a bad camera.
Back on topic, here is a camera that isn't the prettiest in the world:
The Contax II and IIa are beautiful, and even the Contax IIIa looks OK. But the Contax III with that large, curious growth on top... not the most flattering camera in the world!
raftman
Established
Everyone says the FED 5 is really ugly, I used to think so too, but I've grown to dig how it looks.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Piss poor
Piss poor
I had an old 3-D, someone, I think me, dropped it in a men's urinal around 1987. I couldn't bare to put my eye up next to it ever again.:bang:
Piss poor
I had an old 3-D, someone, I think me, dropped it in a men's urinal around 1987. I couldn't bare to put my eye up next to it ever again.:bang:
Last edited:
reagan
hey, they're only Zorkis
Sorry guys. Why would the image show up on my computer and not on yours? Anyway, I attached image to first post... sure don't want to miss this beauty.gabrielma said: