The worst cameras I have owned

[brucecahn]

Steven Moseley: I kept getting Wisners because I was at one time addicted to ULF's and they were the only ones I could afford. Despite the frustrations, I did get a lot of very good silver and platinum prints with them. Also, I considered Wisner a friend at one time and was therefore unable to believe that each problem would be followed by many others. The last straw was when I sold my very good 11x14 Tech Field and got a lighter model the P, saving 10 lbs. The P was an 11x14 designed to be used in the field. But the one lens most likely to be used with it by landscape photographers, the 210 XL was unuseable with this camera because of 2 design flaws. That finally made it clear to me that the Wisner situation was hopeless. As far as Mamiya goes, I got their 35mm 1000DTL as a second body for my Pentax in the 60's, but the meter never worked for long. Other than that it wasn't too bad. The other Mamiyas I got were meterless, so I did not expect a problem. The twin lens was ok, but the lenses were not that good so I replaced it with a Hasselblad. The last Mamiya I got was an RZ, about 7-8 years ago. I had seen a show by Andre Serrano called "the history of sex." The photography was unusually well done. It was done with an RZ. But though those color pictures were excellent, I never could get the kind of tonality out of the camera in B&W that I got with a Hass. Also the battery had a tendency to shift in the compartment, disabling the camera. By the time I found out what the problem was with the thing I was so disgusted that I traded it for an 8x10 Deardorff. I have finally learned, and will not get a camera from those two manufacturers again.

[tony bell]

Kodak Instamatic 110. 'nuff said

[dlw]

Bruce

Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate everything you said about the Wisner's. While mine is quite satisfactory, I have read on this forum many negative comments on the're build quality and have first hand experience with Wisner's business practices. Dealing with Wisner was extremely frustrating, but the camera works well as long as I do my part. I have the 4X5 Tech Field so getting assessories like lenses and film holders is no problem. I always wondered about the availability of assessories for Wisner's ULF cameras and if they were as difficult to get as the standard size LF gear. I haven't run any B&W film through my RB yet ( I usually shoot Portra 160 NC in my MF and scan the film ) but I think I'll run a roll of HP5 and process it and see how it looks. I bought the RB instead of the RZ because of the electronics. Heres to Golden Light and happy shooting. Cheers.

[sfcole]

Contax t2. For its price, I never found it to be sharp. Poorly designed.

[carbon_dragon]

Are we talking bad ergonomics or bad images? For bad ergonomics I'd nominate the Contarex Bullseye and the Exactas (even though the Exactas really evolved into our present day ergnomics).

 

For bad pictures, I have a late Rollei 35 with one of the worse lenses that isn't too good

[david_m]

A Codeg. It was a plastic 120 camera. I bought it as a kid and the photos it took were so bad it was like shooting through the bottom of a bottle. They would now be considered 'artistic' but back then I just wanted realistic photos.

[christopher_dold]

Agfa 110 with telephoto. I thought it would be a step up from my Kodak Brownie 127 that cost sixpence from a jumble sale. It wasn't. I'm pleased to say that it has finally broken and I won't feel obliged to feed it on cartridges just to see if I can get a decent shot out of it.

 

I gave up photogrpahy for over twenty years because I thought it took serious money to get a decent camera.

 

Even that Damart 110 I bought recently for a joke has more going for it. At least it didn't raise false expectations by putting decent picutres on the box so that I'd feel inadequate in comparison.

 

If I had known back then what I know now...sigh.