Is there any manual camera that we don't like?

<p>

<p>“Is there any manual camera that we don't like?”<br>

　<br>

I bought a Miranda Sensorex because it was highly rated by <em>Consumer Reports</em>.<br>

　<br>

However, I learned to dislike that highly rated manual camera because it broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.<br>

,</p>

</p>

<p>The thing I find interesting is that there's <em>someone </em>who loves <em>any</em> camera. There's probably someone fondling a pseudo Canon at this very moment, loving it for all its ghastly kitch.</p>

<p>The thing I find interesting is that there's <em>someone </em>who loves <em>any</em> camera. There's probably someone fondling a pseudo Canon at this very moment, loving it for all its ghastly kitch.</p>

<p>I must comment on some I have not owed but herd bad things about. any leaf shutter slr.too intricate<br>

I amost bought a de jur dekon but later heard it had a very poor lens. I later read it was a Topcon product. and they made good machines. The contarexes with the pantar? lens. Modern said it would only make sharp wallet sized prints. The nice looking Voightlander and Zeiss 35's sold in jewelry sores in the 1960s Likely will last forever but are pretty featureless and very good looking.<br>

The Voightmander and retina slr . and the kodak rf that took the same lenses.<br>

it is reputed to have gear / winder problems. Any of use don't need a CLA / repair on a seldom used classic.<br>

the tiny rollei 35,. that should all have been gold plated so collectors could keep tham under glass. not a practical thing to use-- sorry guys. I heard they take good photos.<br>

I still have my old 1960 Niranda D and the Sensorexes they still work well.<br>

One flaw, the oil on the 50mm lens gunmes up.<br>

A tech at Spiratone described the bodies as " robust"<br>

I am unsure who made my ricoh K mount. but some may have been by a outside company.<br>

but the camera works well. some other 1960's slrs were "made to a price" and were not excpected<br>

to last 25-45 years. some did.<br>

Some thing I do not fully understand, as far as the "plastic fantastic" cameras go - good that keeps 120 film production alive. what america needs is a "plastic fantastic" 127 ior 116 camera. This made in bright colors would be a boon to those who have real cameras using this size film.<br>

I have a real 1909 primitive 120 camera if I want to do that.<br>

and a collection of "nice looking" all plastic 35's.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Any Instamatic camera is woeful, and I dislike any medium format camera that lacks a coupled rangefinder. I've always found Exakta cameras boring and awkward, and I also fail to see the charm of a Holga or any other machine with a bad lens. </p>

<p>Well...lets see if I understand the question: Is there a bad camera that we don't like.<br>

There are certainly some homely ones - the Fed5, Kodak Signet and Argus brick come to mind, but they redeem themselves as decent picture makers. The 126 Instamatic cameras certainly were popular and they filled a niche. And many of us got our start on those simple plastic boxes. <br>

The disc camera and the little 110's (Pentax SLR, etc) were well-intentioned but ended up being a solution looking for a problem to solve. Those two would be my choices of the poorest designs when considered through a perfectly focused hindsight lens.</p>

 

<p>I'd second the motion on the Mamiya Sekor; especially the 500 TL.<br>

I'm surprised to see Anthony panning the Miranda. I loved my Sensorex.</p>

<p>Anything by Kershaw or Coronet, and 90% of Kodak's line. I've never gotten the Leica bug either, I mean I don't actively dislike any of them but I really don't see the point. Yes, if I find one for $25 I'll buy it and try it out with a roll of film.</p>

<p>But for truly butt-ugly and dangerous, I vote for the Fairchild Aerial cameras. I've had a chance to pick up a couple and I said 'no'.</p><div></div>

<p>There is certainly a manual camera that <em>I don't like</em> - Canon A1: to me it's an unlikeable heap of 'blackness' dripping with grotesque gadgety fuss-pot twiddly bits useable only people with extra fingers. If it had properly coupled full manual metering and a sensible instantaneous d-o-f preview operation I might tolerate the gadetry. Still, it is a tough, dependable novice's camera and is redeemed (slightly) by accepting some wonderful Canon lenses. I am told that some people love it.</p>

<p>Please don't kill me, but I've owned two Nikon FM's and did not care for either one. They worked fine, but the just didn't have (in my not-so-humble opinion) the quality of the F, F2, or Nikkormat.</p>

Any of the "pretenders" with fake SLR housings such as Olympia, for example or the fake Canon pictured above. Around

my part of the country we call 'em "sucker cameras". Some even have lead weights inside to make them feel solid. And

the ad copy proclaiming "full color viewfinder" is ludicrous. Caveat emptor.

<p>My Ricoh XR-10 is a pretty good little SLR, I would not include all Ricohs on a 'bad camera' list.<br>

I am not crazy about the Argus C3/C4 - although they are capable of taking sharp photos, the weight and very sharp body edges put me off. Not a camera you would want to drop on your foot.</p>

<p>The one's I don't like are the one's I get from the auction site (with the advisory that "I don't know anything about cameras so I am selling this 'as is'." And it turns out to be a doorstop.</p>

<p>While a I am a militaristic liberal, there are some moments when I think that lopping off an appendage is not such a bad idea.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of the 'K-Car' in this discussion. I was in high school when it came out. I remember all the Iaccoca hype. And I even saw the commercial being shot for the car not far from my high school. But the domestic mfg cars of that era were just butt ugly and could have easily come from eastern soviet block countries; they were of miserable, uninspired design. For me, Kodak with obvious few exceptions seemed forever to produce K-Car equivalents with respect to manual cameras. I realize they may have met their immediate financial and marketing goals through the models they produced, but at what price to their overall 'brand' value? </p>

<p>Yes, <strong>low quality cameras</strong>, Russian cameras, especially bad copies of German/Japaneese cameras, plastic toys like Lomo, Diana, Holga, and one from Rick's picture. Also I cannot look at Kodak 35...</p>

<p>What is that?</p>

<p>All fixed lens leaf shutter 35 mm cameras, with and without rangefinders. They were all second- or third-line when new and haven't improved since. Among them, I have a Yashica 35 GSN bought after hearing much praise of it here. None of the people who praised the wretched thing were bothered by the impossibility of using it fully manually. And mine -- sample of one, so the information is suspect but still troublesome -- didn't shoot well. The exposure meter was easily deceived and the lens just wasn't that sharp. Also among them the Argus C-3 that so many people here revere. My father had one, tried to teach me to use it. His fairly new C-3's focus knob had sharp edges that hurt my little fingers and was stiff too boot. Not a user-friendly camera at all.</p>

<p>One exception to this, Kodak Retinas, which were first rate cameras in their day and are still very usable. Maybe Agfa Karat 35s too. These aside, leaf shutter 35 mm cameras from Germany in the '50s and '60s were mainly cheapies.</p>

<p>Among 35 mm SLRs, the Regula Reflex 2000 CTL. The Miranda Sensorex. One of my good friends had two, bought on CR's recommendation while he was in Viet Nam. They were usually in the shop being repaired again. Nice features but not fit for use. Canon FTb. Flimsy. Soviet SLRs. Cute, very variable QC. I understand that when they're good they're good but when they're bad they're horrid and that the odds of getting a good one are poor.</p>

<p>I don't hate them, but I've never seen the point of any of Mamiya's 35 mm SLRs. Too little, too late, and too soon dropped instead of developed into something good.</p>

<p>Among 6x6 cameras, Lubitel SLRs. Got one for my wicked step-daughter, shutter jammed shortly after arrival. More soviet trash. Same goes for P6, Exacta 66, Kiev SLRs (Hasselblad 1000 clone, P6 clone). </p>

<p>Jody, ancient (relatively) aerial cameras are real boat anchors, but <em>some</em> of them contain quite good lenses that can be used on LF cameras. None of the 4.5 x 4.5 hand-held ones, but some of the ones that shot 70 mm film and were intended to be mounted directly to the aircraft or in photo pods, also some of the ones that shot 5x5 or larger roll film and were not made to be hand held. Note that I excluded the Agiflite. Agiflite Zeiss lenses are snares for the unwary; oddly, TTH lenses for the Agiflite's predecessors are fairly easy to use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All fixed lens leaf shutter 35 mm cameras, with and without rangefinders. They were all second- or third-line when new and haven't improved since.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a Konica III (1957), which is a fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder with a very good 48mm f/2 lens and a Seikosha leaf shutter. The fixed prime lens is, of course, a limitation, but I rather like the camera. It's very well built and pleasingly designed. Mine is in superb condition and shoots very nicely. My biggest annoyance with it is the "EV system" interlock between the shutter speed and aperture controls, which is rarely what I want. The top shutter speed of 1/500 sec. is rather restrictive too, though tolerable.</p>

<p>Vivitar 3800N</p>

<p>Kodak Medalist. I love the idea and the quality of the images, but operation is just crazy difficult. I probably could have managed to get used to it, but respooling 620 was more than I was willing to put up with. </p>

<p>After a long night tearing one down and putting it back together, I've got to add the 'Welmy Six' to my list.</p>

<p>My first SLR was a cheapo Praktica, don't recall the model number; it didn't have a meter. Manual everything. It was something to start with, but I never had any warm and fuzzy feelings about it. </p>

<p>My next camera was a Canon Pellix, that one I did care for - built in metering! I moved up through the Canon line after that one - FTb, FX, AE-1(2), AE-1P, A-1(2), T90. Unlike a previous poster who does not like the A-1, I look back on it fondly. I had Motor Drive MA for both of mine, what heavy suckers they were! Liked them so much that I picked up one last year on eBay just for old times' sake. Got a Motor Drive MA too, with the 12 AA battery pack. Don't think I'll ever use it, but it is nice to have around!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, a whole bunch of them that I've used and didn't like for whatever reason, but no reason to whizz all over them here.<br>

I couldn't let the comment pass about the Russian/Soviet cameras. I haven't tried them all, but I do certainly like the Kiev rangefinders, particularly the Kiev-IIa, which I find to be as well-made and reliable as the Contax II from which it is derived.</p><div></div>

<p>Another vote for the Miranda Sensorex, my first SLR around 1970. I didn't like it. I <em>loved</em> it... her. But she didn't love me. Fickle wench.</p>

<p>More on the fake (famous look-alike cameras): Even in the days when my family had a camera shop, people would bring in their inoperative "famous look-alike" cameras to see if they could be repaired. We called those cameras "sucker cameras" because people were often lured into buying them with elaborated ad campaigns. Or as free promotions (remember the Time Camera given away with subscriptions?) We probably sold a dozen or so Sunpak 1400M flashes to those doting "sucker camera" owners who <strong>insisted</strong> on buying a flash. In all fairness, though, if they upgraded to a "real" camera later, they could at least still used the flash.</p>

<p>One camera I really couldn't get on with, was a Pentaflex SL, a kind of cheap version of a Praktica Nova. ('Strewth, can you get your head round that concept?)</p>

<p>The worst thing about it was the rewind. The fold out lever was flimsy and wobbly, so that it was almost impossible to rewind film using the little rewind knob on the end of the lever, as the lever just twisted and your fingers slipped off the knob. You had to rewind by getting a purchase on the whole lever, so that rewinding the film took longer than shooting it. </p>