CMC someday #13, Ugly cameras.

[JDMvW]

<p>Winfried, I <em>was</em> referring primarily to the appearance, but there are far more similarities between the Nikkorex and the Pentina than just appearance - see my earlier <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00boE9">linked post</a> -<br>

both are efforts to "compete" with a perceived competition from leaf-shutter cameras such as the western Zeiss Contaflex, especially because of the flash synchronization problem with focal-plane shutters.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Of course the Nikkorex had a porro finder instead of a prism, which adds to it's woes. Ever walked into a mine shaft for about 10 meters, turned and looked at the entrance...that's how the viewfinder looks.<br>

It might be just me JDM,but I find the Pentina quite attractive! Cory, the re designed meter does improve things a little.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, the actual mirror in the Pentina makes it rather nicer, once you can figure out how to re-animate it.<br>

For ugly, it's true that it is hard to beat some of the American cameras - here is a prewar Perfex - the original model, but without the add-on rangefinder. I don't see how this one is ever going to be brought back to life, however</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>sorry, PRISM, of course, not "mirror"</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>Argus Golden Shield based on Argus Matchmatic successors to the Argus C, and C-3. Camera deserves to be along side on the front bench seat with the driver of the 1958 Oldsmobile. The camera is both ugly and handsome according to who is looking at it. Shades of 1950's flamboyant excessive use of chromium! </p><div></div>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>sample photo taken with Argus Golden Shield.</p><div></div>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Not all Nikkorex cameras are the same. I got this from the auction site a long time ago advertised as "having more dents than a '39 Hudson" and an erratic shutter. Yes it has dents but the shutter has always fired and with the correct exposure. It still works. I don't really classify it as ugly but it is a Nikkorex.</p><div></div>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Hmm - Tony, I'm always a bit reluctant these days to get into discussions on the ugliness of certain cameras, after several years ago almost starting WW3 in another Forum when I dared to use the words 'Argus Model C' and 'Plug Ugly' together. It clearly annoyed one Good Old Boy from the Deep South, who viewed 'Bricks' as American Design Icons because his family had used one for umpteen years, for get-together pics no doubt of all his cousins' get-togethers. So we got into an increasingly acidic argument, with nationalities of ugly motor vehicles even becoming involved since he was also a fan of the Ford Edsel. (Sigh!)</p>

<p>After the steam pressure of the angry words seemed to have reduced,<em> </em>I did my best to pour oil over troubled waters pointing out that I was a great admirer of the earlier art-decoish Argus Model A, but that did no good. He even went on to defend the Ford Edsel on the grounds that they're worth a lot of money these days, which of course they are - but only because they're so rare, because nobody bought one way back when because they were so ugly!</p>

<p>Nothing like turning back the hands of time and all that sort of thing, eh? So, in the hope that Yosemite Sam #2 is no longer on line, I'll mention again that the Argus Brick is not high on my list of pretty cameras, as neither is the Kodak 35 RF. Neither is the British-made bakerlite Wembley Sports, one of which I actually bought on a UK holiday several years ago purely to bring back to show the guys at our next Perth Camera Collectors Society meeting as an example of extreme ugliness. Can you believe it, that one of our members offered me more than I'd paid for it, so how could I refuse? <br>

One of the earlier postees has also mentioned the early Perfex (Candid?) as an Example Of Ugliness, but I must go to the defence of US made 35mm cameras stating that the later Perfex 55 is one fine looking camera - maybe because Candid Camera Co designers had now realised that bakerlite and alloy didn't go together all that well? (Pete In a Sticky Perth)<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[james_styles1]

<p>Pete, I've always wanted an Edsel! However the Kodak 35 Rangefinder heads my list of ugly cameras and from the same company that produced the elegant Bantam Special. However one of the early Sony digital cameras was once described as looking like a tube train having hit the side of a garden shed</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Ugly is only skin deep. The bulbous Photomic finders, affixed to the otherwise svelte Nikons, were ugly as sin (in my ever so humble opinion).</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Quite right Steve, but the Nikon can be easily transformed into a swan with the addition of a plain prism.<br>

Pete, of course this thread was meant to be very tongue in cheek and humorous, one does have to be careful though. I, for one, really love that American excess from the fifties and sixties. A friend has a '59 Cadillac, you couldn't call it pretty...but man is it cool!</p>

[User_1577653]

<p>Well this one definitely falls under the battered category, as #2 Folding Autographic Brownies do not normally exude such... um, character. :) This lovely example came to me in a lot of several older cameras, all of which the seller claimed he found in a barn. Somehow, I don't doubt that story!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[steve_levine]

<p>A swan indeed. The Photomic finders seem absurd today, both in appearance and function. In the 1960's they were cutting edge tech.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Jeff, that is a classic...should buff out ok! Steve, which I could transform my looks that easy!</p>