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

[brian_m.1]

<p>It seems like we drool over just about any vintage camera out there, and I include myself in it. From Argus to Yashica we seem to love them all. Did they never make a bad camera? </p>

[craigd]

<p>There are lots of cameras that are posted about in this forum that I don't drool over. Some I wouldn't particularly want to own, either, and wouldn't use more than once if I had them. However, it's still interesting to see posts about them. It's interesting to see other people's enthusiasm and the pictures they take with these cameras, many of which hardly even qualify as historical footnotes.</p>

[tgh]

<p>What Craig said...<br>

My current herd actually stretches even a bit beyond the Argus to Yashica, running from Adox to Zorki.<br>

I'm not sure they really qualify as manual or classic, but I don't recall ever having read a posting on, nor felt even the feeblest interest in acquiring a "HIT type" camera.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I'm sentimental about my first SLR: a Mamiya Sekor 1000 DTL. But it was virtually, if not literally, made of pot metal. Mine didn't last long. I think there are a LOT of cameras that look cool, but wouldn't last a month in the hands of a pro.</p>

[glenn_mabbutt]

<p>"Bad" is relative. As others have said, it's interesting to see some of the more rare examples out there.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm not very interesting in owning anything that requires a custom cassette (potentially too finicky - I have enough trouble with non-fixed 35mm take-up spools) or a spring drive film advance (too much potential for breakage for my liking), and I'm only marginally interested in half-format 35mm.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Here's a bad 'un, the infamous counterfeit Canon Q8 200. I don't like it, at all...</p><div></div>

[glenn_mabbutt]

<p>...but it's an <em>optical</em> lens! LOL!</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>For me, and maybe for a few other folks out there...a Holga. I know, there are a lot of people out there that use them, and you have to love them, because they're shooting 120 and that's what feeds my cameras. Go Holga!<br>

<br /> Maybe we should say there's no such thing as a 'bad' camera, some are just 'better' than others. <br /> Sort of like sex partners.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Zenit, Pratica, Petrie, Miranda, Ricoh, Seagull........</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Well, I think Canon made an SLR with a fixed 50mm. What were they thinking? Mamiya made an SLR like that but with a leaf shutter instead. Honestly, what's the point? Bah to them.</p>

<p>Also, ugly cameras. I love some Practikas but some earlier ones were ugly as.</p>

<p>Anything with crappy build quality and big tolerances. Some Russian cameras were dreadful. There was, about 20 years ago, a Russian MF outfit that looked like a Hasselblad. That thing had awful lenses. Just awful.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>Ah Yes : the Canon Q8 200,and its multiple clones. I have seen these execrable objects sell for serious money on any auction site you can name.<br>

But,rebadged as a HOLGA,it would sell for even more.<br>

Mr Orensteen, I'm afraid I have to ask you outside Sir :Miranda ! My first real lov..ahem ,camera! Retract and apologise sir. Harrumph.<br>

But some of those early Prakticas were real pigs in lipstick..</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Only broken ones. I've got a few boxes of blown shutters, and other basket cases. It always depresses.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I won't name names but I've had a couple I don't like - small rangefinder types that don't feel well made and have controls that don't work well for me, e.g. shutter control as a sliding tab on the base of the lens that's too small for adult fingers to manage well, but it's the only exposure control because it has shutter-priority AE using a selenium cell that's probably way off by now, and nowhere to see the metered exposure except on the top of the camera.</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<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>

[capitalq]

<p>Miranda hardly deserves to be on the 'bad' list. Great build quality, good lenses, removable prisms, excellent metering -- no wonder it was called the poor man's Nikon! Also, Ricoh seems to have made some excellent gear over the years.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<blockquote>

<p>Zenit, Pratica, Petrie, Miranda, Ricoh, Seagull........</p>

<p>Yes, <strong>low quality cameras</strong>, Russian cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah - my 1953 Zenit's such a piece of junk; I'll be so glad when it stops working.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>There are plenty of old cameras I don't like but I know other people who have them, use them and really like them. Most people are not using very old cameras for "mission critical" work. They use the old cameras because they enjoy the experience. On that basis there aren't really any bad cameras. There are just cameras which are not made very well or which don't have very high specifications. If you enjoy using them then they're good for you. </p>

[mfophotos]

<p>My vote is for the Kodak 35. Butt-ugly committee design. </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I started in photography long ago with a really ugly Smena 8 produced in Soviet Union. While it was a really cheap & crappy plastic box... it helped me to get the basic knowledge about photography and I used it to produce many thousands of B&W pictures. I have fond memories from using it and now when I have so nice Nikon gear I wish to have the same passion like in these beginnings when it was normal to spend many hours every day (read 'night' please) in the darkroom (read 'bathroom' please!). So long a camera helps someone to produce pictures we need to show appreciation.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm not crazy about any of the Soviet cameras although I'll say I've never owned one. They just seem to lack the precision feel and grace I like.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For years, following a very negative experience in the field, I really disliked the Kodak Signet 35. However, I did get hold of a Signet 40 and found it less abominable.</p>

<p>Otherwise, no, I never found a camera I didn't like, I'm sorry to say.</p>

[stp]

<p>Miranda a bad camera?? It was my first SLR, and I can remember the experience walking over from Glazer's where I had purchased the camera and sitting inside at the Seattle Center near the "Bubbleator" (a spherical, clear plastic elevator left over from the 1962 World Fair) and realizing, for the first time, that a person could adjust the aperture and shutter speed independently to achieve exposures for different purposes. It was absolutely revolutionary! What a thrill, one that continues today.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>Vintage cameras on my list that fought me for various reasons and that I sold because we frankly did not get along: KowaSet and KowaSer, all Retina reflex cameras, generally any camera with SLR viewing but leaf shutter. The many Contaxes, all prewar both II and III that I had with the horrible roller blind shutter, the tapes usually broke and I never really had one that lasted as long as my Leica and Nikon cameras(my favorites) which I still own and use, both rangefinder S-2, and reflex Nikon F, F2 and F36.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Whether or not you liked the Miranda, you cannot deny that their ads were terrific!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Well, there are some classics I find 'butt ugly'. The Contarex bullseye is one but others like it's looks. So.....I guess it just comes down to very personal perfrences.</p>