The ugliest cameras

[steve salmons]

<p>I love this thread! I think the ugliest camera I have ever actually owned was the Argus C33. Beautifully made case, badly built and designed camera.See:<br>

http://www.cameraquest.com/argc33.htm<br>

Like many other posters here, I also hate those plastic '80s and '90s cameras that look like they were designed with Health and Safety legislation in mind.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[SteveH]

<p>Yep, Agree. Here it is.....</p><div></div>

[yefei_he1]

<p>The cyclops cameras all look ugly to me, the original Contarex, but especially Petri Flex 7!</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

There's plenty of ugly to go around and of course history repeats itself. As there was a plethora of poor taste in the 80s and 90s, the same could be said of earlier periods like the many 50s/60 period as the camera moved into the mainstream with large Light sensors stuck on and wacky fashionable viewers.

[johnw436]

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3881853">Paul Goutiere</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Aug 27, 2009; 07:26 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Hands down...the Kodak Medalist.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/medalist_ii.htm" target="_blank">http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/medalist_ii.htm</a><br />Proof the US can produce a camera at least as ugly as Russia. I'm not suggesting it's a bad camera, just a really ugly camera.</p>

<p>-----------------------------</p>

<p>I have to agree. That contraption looks like a WWI gunsight.</p>

 

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Why are we looking for the "Chevy Caprice" of cameras? Why not go all the way and find the "early '70's Ford Pinto" of cameras, the one that blows up as soon as you bump into the film gate? :-)</p>

[Richard Williams]

This page does a pretty good job of collecting together some of the 'homely' designs of late 80s AF SLRs:

 

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/35mmslrauto.html

 

In this era, the Yashica 230-AF wins the contest, I think. The Contax/Yashica designers managed some excellent designs over the years, from the T4 and FX-D all the way up to the RTS models. But the 230-AF really wasn't one of them, angular to the point of looking like it was designed to be held by robots, and with a big ugly flash that fitted over the prism. A later model, the 300-AF, was a significant improvement, but by then the system was doomed.

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Some cameras are like Dachshunds, very homely, but oh so lovable!</p>

[silverscape]

<p>nooo....why are you guys picking on the Argus? :(</p>

<p>And Steve, that's the Argus C3 Matchmatic...I thought it was a very cool looking camera! </p>

<p>hey Rob....a camera that blows up if you hit the film gate? LOL...well I've got something similar to that. I have a Graflex 22, and I wouldn't consider it an ugly camera at all. In fact, I think it looks nice. But mine does seem to have this weird problem where if you hit it in just the right spot, the film compartment door will pop open! I just have to be careful not to drop it! (Well, I shouldn't be dropping cameras anyway). </p>

[steve salmons]

<p><strong>Richard:</strong> Mr Martin's webpage truly is a chamber of horrors. If that link gives me nightmares I will blame you!<br>

<strong>Chris:</strong> I can accept that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I had the top off the C33 and the build quality was just rubbish. Gears were completely stripped rendering the wind on useless. That probably added to to my prejudice. There is no doubt the Argus is a classic but so is the Purma Special and I wouldn't buy one of those either. However therein lies the fascination with old cameras; there is a sweetheart for us all.<br>

Steve</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Dudes...you are all off base. The truly ugly cameras are the fun ones you make yourself (craftsmen like Cilff notwithstanding). Behold, the Polaroid 4x5 Pumpkam. Sharp Tominon lens, black-baffled interior, reflex finder and bi-lateral strobes. It worked! The prints in front were made with this monster.</p><div></div>

[Richard Williams]

'Richard: Mr Martin's webpage truly is a chamber of horrors. If that link gives me nightmares I will blame you!'

 

 

 

Then I should warn you not to look at one of his other pages!:

 

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/35mmother.html

 

which includes the Canon Sure Shot Tele, a great example of Andrew's 'misguided use of curves' - looks like someone put it in the microwave for 5 minutes. I actually thought the photo might be distorted, but here it is on Canon's site:

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1986_ab-tele.html

 

Also satisfies the 'give the user a pain in the neck' criterion ("I must have looked for 1/2 hour trying to find the battery compartment before looking on the Internet to find a picture of a replacement door. The battery compartment is on the right side and is accessed by removing two small Phillips screws - surprising for a point and shoot camera."). On reflection, the weirdly unbalanced look of this thing tops the Yashica.

[Andy Collins]

<p>I'm also going to have to go with the Kodak 35RF. It's <em>really</em> an ugly camera and a pain to use, especially the tiny RF window that was designed for hobbits to use. I used to think the Argus C3 family of cameras were ridiculous looking until I used one and saw the amazing results. I have a Matchmatic like the one Steve posted above and I happen to think it's a very cool camera. Never took it apart and I'm sure it's pretty crude looking in there--my C-4 and C-44 were pretty crudely built as well--but the whole contraption just seems to work well. The 80s and 90s p&s cameras had some ugly designs as everyone has pointed out. There were some definite gems, like the Canon MC and the Minolta AF-C from the 80s as well as the whole Stylus/Stylus Epic family and numerous Sure Shots from the 90s but the ones I absolutely hate are those pointless, stupid 'focus-free' POS cameras that make me want to stomp them into plastic splinters...I've had too much coffee apparently, but you know which ones I'm talking about. Thrift stores seem to have more of those cameras than anything else.</p>

[leon_b1]

<p>Those '80s autofocus cameras make me feel slightly queasy. The Yashica is particularly nightmarish.</p>

<p>I have to admit to being someone else who finds the Argus just too, well, bricklike, but for the sake of balance I'm going to state that the British <a href=" Ful-Vue </a>is probably the worst-looking thing I've ever seen. Other than that Yashica, anyway.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Louis, that Pumpkam is in a class of its own. It's Vegetagrafica. It's like the dog shoot I did last night with a co-workers's Bull Mastiff, beautiful in its own ugly kind of way.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Ziess bulls-eye Contarex. Wonderful machine work, butt ugly!</p>

<p>Best looking? There were so many!</p>

<p>Oh yeah, did anyone mention the Fotron(sp?)</p>

[silverscape]

<p>LOL...Louis, I remember you posting that before! I still can't believe you made a camera out of a freaking <em>pumpkin</em>! What, was that like the early version of a disposable camera? First you take pictures with it, then you make pumpkin pie? hehehe</p>

<p>And just because you guys are picking on it, I'm going to load my Argus C3 and get some pictures with it right now. ooh...I have a few rolls of Kodachrome left... </p>

[sw12dz]

<p>I'm going to have to give it to the "Pumpkam"!</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Chris, it may not have been an early version of a disposable camera, but it sure was an early biodegradable camera. Now you've got me thinking about my C3!!!</p>

 

[tgh]

<p>Probably no definitive answer to "ugliest", but a contender would have to be the Argus Autronic 35. It had the boxy brick-like shape of the C3, but it replaced the 1930s charm with 1960s gaudiness. Topped off with a bubble-fronted light meter on top that makes the Nikon F Photomic head look almost streamlined.</p>

[gatorgums]

<p>Some of the ugliest cameras ever produced, irrespective of<br>

any other qualifications , would include the following.<br>

1. Argus "Brick" - boring and hard to hold<br>

2. kodak 35RF -very, very ugly -awkward to use<br>

3. King Regula<br>

4.Rollei 35<br>

<img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Owner/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" /></p>

 

[richard_]

Well the Argus C3 may be ugly, but it can also double as a lunch box, door stop, etc. And i doubt anyone would ever steal one from you...

[jon_goodman1]

<p>I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Revere Eye-Matic. It is a really good example of what happens when designers can't step away from the bong long enough. But it was a medium format camera and you got about $50 worth of scrap metal in it.<br>

Jon</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Good question, as I have them both....Argus C3 (sorry Andy) and the original Nikkorex, oh, and most things made in the eighties.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>Exactas, Polaroid Swinger, and the Olympus O Product. </p>