f16sunshine
Moderator
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
The Minolta 9xi
Worked fantastically once you had it in Auto, you needed to read the manual each time you needed to switch to another mode. Over-over complicated! (Certain functions where not in the manual either).
Worked fantastically once you had it in Auto, you needed to read the manual each time you needed to switch to another mode. Over-over complicated! (Certain functions where not in the manual either).
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I'll take flack for this, but I don't like using my CL. I like the concept of a compact body that takes M lenses and a meter. But, somehow I always un-mount the lens when I use it. The lens release button is right where I grip the camera during use. I never considered my hand size to be terribly large, but maybe this is why. After nearly dropping (to their death) a couple lenses that had unmounted without my noticing, I stopped using the camera. The meter went wonky on it anyway.
And then I have the Lavec 2000 in the closet. This was a marvel of plastic molding shaped like a camera and given out free to anyone who visited the local car dealer during "Blowout Weekend" My dad went, got the camera, gave it to me as if it were a.....camera. Its not. I keep it as a humorous conversation piece. The "optical lens" is a plastic meniscus that is decentered and asymmetrical. The film plane is actually curved, which you can clearly see when you open the rear door. The pentaprism housing has a simple view-through plastic viewfinder, but you can't make out anything through all the distortion of poorly molded plastic. I keep thinking I should put some film in it and seen what happens, but why waste film. Lomo wouldn't touch this thing with a 100-foot pole. But I don't hate it. I love to laugh at it even though its an unfortunate waste of my planet's resources.
And then I have the Lavec 2000 in the closet. This was a marvel of plastic molding shaped like a camera and given out free to anyone who visited the local car dealer during "Blowout Weekend" My dad went, got the camera, gave it to me as if it were a.....camera. Its not. I keep it as a humorous conversation piece. The "optical lens" is a plastic meniscus that is decentered and asymmetrical. The film plane is actually curved, which you can clearly see when you open the rear door. The pentaprism housing has a simple view-through plastic viewfinder, but you can't make out anything through all the distortion of poorly molded plastic. I keep thinking I should put some film in it and seen what happens, but why waste film. Lomo wouldn't touch this thing with a 100-foot pole. But I don't hate it. I love to laugh at it even though its an unfortunate waste of my planet's resources.
Sounds like one I have, a give-away for subscribing to Time Magazine. Came with zippered vinyl soft case, strap, and lens cap. Thumb wheel for film wind. 50mm f/6 lens. Tapered slot forms diaphragm in conjunction with behind-lens leaf shutter, marked to f 16. Viewfinder is pretty vague about edges of field. Styled to look like an SLR with hot shoe on raised “pentaprism”. Film is guided over sharply curved film plane to match lens’s field curvature. There is a fixed single unmarked shutter speed that may be determined through experiment. Should try it out some day!
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I had one of these when I was 11. Silly judged by adult standards, but understand that an f/6.8 meniscus lens can be as sharp as a multi-element lens of faster aperture.
Dante
Pioneer
Veteran
Cloth shutters on rangefinder cameras.
Monochrom
Well-known
Nice thread 
Konica Hexar RF: too heavy, too noisy.
Leica M7: too heavy, too expensive.
Elmar 50/2.8: 5cm f3.5 elmar far better! & smaller.
Contax T3: too good i regret almost everyday selling it
Summicron 35mm V4: Too much focus shift.
Konica Hexar RF: too heavy, too noisy.
Leica M7: too heavy, too expensive.
Elmar 50/2.8: 5cm f3.5 elmar far better! & smaller.
Contax T3: too good i regret almost everyday selling it
Summicron 35mm V4: Too much focus shift.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I've thought about this, and in truth I've enjoyed every camera I have bought or been given--even the ones that made me feel fidgety and less intelligent than I am--and would have kept them all if that weren't a bit selfish and absurd, given that I have no more hands or time than anyone else.
The cameras I sold or gave away are gone for at least 2 of the following reasons:
*they had become redundant, and in their backup role were no longer being used;
*images I made with them were not as good as images others made with the same kit;
*I didn't adapt comfortably enough to their mechanics, or their finders -- in short, their discipline.
There was nothing wrong with the cameras per se. The flaws were mine. Each camera provided its moments of pleasure, instruction, discovery, serendipity. Even the Argus 44 and the Leica iiic ;-)
The cameras I sold or gave away are gone for at least 2 of the following reasons:
*they had become redundant, and in their backup role were no longer being used;
*images I made with them were not as good as images others made with the same kit;
*I didn't adapt comfortably enough to their mechanics, or their finders -- in short, their discipline.
There was nothing wrong with the cameras per se. The flaws were mine. Each camera provided its moments of pleasure, instruction, discovery, serendipity. Even the Argus 44 and the Leica iiic ;-)
JHutchins
Well-known
Hasselblad 500c.
Had I bought it a decade before I did, it would have become dear to me I suspect. But I bought it as a replacement for the Rolleiflex 2.8e that had for ten years been my only camera. It's odd that the Rolleiflex, which seems like such a kludge of a design -- two cameras stacked on each other really -- should handle with simplicity and grace but a camera with quite a clean design should be so loud and clunky in operation.
It's a great camera, but after the Rolleiflex, it's shortcomings were just too there.
Had I bought it a decade before I did, it would have become dear to me I suspect. But I bought it as a replacement for the Rolleiflex 2.8e that had for ten years been my only camera. It's odd that the Rolleiflex, which seems like such a kludge of a design -- two cameras stacked on each other really -- should handle with simplicity and grace but a camera with quite a clean design should be so loud and clunky in operation.
It's a great camera, but after the Rolleiflex, it's shortcomings were just too there.
Nokton48
Veteran
benlees
Well-known
Any digital camera with buttons on the both sides of the screen. Always end up pressing one by mistake.
telenous
Well-known
You've one-upped me, I've purchased five times a Nikon FM3a and sold it as many. I love the idea of it, yet every time I had one I felt I'd rather be shooting with something else. Ultimately, it's also very similar to an FE I have.
Not a hater usually, but man did I hate this camera:
Olympus Infinity Stylus...
Same here. A few years ago a friend loaned me his Stylus as the perfect take-anywhere, do-anything-with p&s, so I used it little and it drove me up the wall. Actually it was a slightly different Stylus than the one above (the lens was f/2.8 and I think it was splashproof) but it still took an eternity and a day for the darn thing to wake up.
Can't complain for much else. I 've used some pretty inexpensive stuff but I knew what it was. The bigger disappointments were with cameras that, for some reason, I had inflated expectations for.
.
FrankS
Registered User
I've had 3 Hexar AF cameras.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Must not have hated them that much!
FrankS
Registered User
If only, if only, the lens had a focusing ring for its manual focusing option.
GarageBoy
Well-known
I like the idea of film point and shoots, I like the party cam look of point and shoots with the onboard flash
I hate using most of them (never tried a Klasse/T2/T3, though)-
I hate how most of them focus after I fire the shutter (the AF hunt lag)
I hate how most don't give me control over the flash
I hate how I have no idea what shutter speed I'm at (a blinky LED when I'm below 1/30s would be nice)
I hate using most of them (never tried a Klasse/T2/T3, though)-
I hate how most of them focus after I fire the shutter (the AF hunt lag)
I hate how most don't give me control over the flash
I hate how I have no idea what shutter speed I'm at (a blinky LED when I'm below 1/30s would be nice)
Pioneer
Veteran
Any Nikon until the F6. It may be the best film SLR that anyone ever built, then they quit making film cameras. Everything they built after it was a waste of time.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Never had those troubles and I've used and sold on a lot of P&S's. But, funnily enough, not a Klasse/T2/T3 either. And, btw, I can think of several that don't do the things that upset you.
Regards, David
NeeZee
Well-known
- SLR's (except my Contaflex IV)
- everything autofocus
- sticky leaf shutters on nice old cameras
- TLR's (the flipped view drives me insane...)
- everything autofocus
- sticky leaf shutters on nice old cameras
- TLR's (the flipped view drives me insane...)
RedLion
Come to the Faire
Where to begin?
Leica rangefinders: Way too expensive for what they are. Sold my M6, M6TTL, and M8.2
Fuji GW690III A huge piece of noisy plastic. It took sharp photos, but there was not much character to them. Sold mine.
Fuji GF670. A fragile camera that took great photos, but focusing it was awkward. Ultimately I did not trust Fuji's commitment to this fragile camera with its dependency on electronics. Sold mine.
Nikon F2. Too clunky and heavy. Sold mine.
Nikon F3. Still too clunky and heavy and is dependent upon electronics and a hard to see LCD display. I'm about to sell mine.
For film I've gravitated towards super cheap throw-away film cameras from the 1990's (Olympus IS series) and super classic mechanical cameras that will last for generations (Rolleiflex).
Leica rangefinders: Way too expensive for what they are. Sold my M6, M6TTL, and M8.2
Fuji GW690III A huge piece of noisy plastic. It took sharp photos, but there was not much character to them. Sold mine.
Fuji GF670. A fragile camera that took great photos, but focusing it was awkward. Ultimately I did not trust Fuji's commitment to this fragile camera with its dependency on electronics. Sold mine.
Nikon F2. Too clunky and heavy. Sold mine.
Nikon F3. Still too clunky and heavy and is dependent upon electronics and a hard to see LCD display. I'm about to sell mine.
For film I've gravitated towards super cheap throw-away film cameras from the 1990's (Olympus IS series) and super classic mechanical cameras that will last for generations (Rolleiflex).