Actually I think the Leningrad Space FAS-1 no. YA61108 (1968) must now be a close second.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
At least that has the saving grace of having been a special purpose camera.
Originally Posted by cliveh
I have just spent the last few hours doing CAD drawings of my latest field camera (despite the last two being not finished yet!) trying to get the folding front support mechanism to fit when the camera is folded up.
I have about 27 versions in the same drawing. I think at least 26 of those are the worst designs ever.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Reconsidering the F4?
As I remarked in an earlier post in this thread, the Nikon F4 (actually the F4s, to be more specific) was the one offering from Nikon that really left me disappointed - ergonomically unfriendly, etc. was my assessment of the camera. I may now, however, be about to change my mind. Several weeks ago, I picked up, by sheer luck (a quick look-see on KEH's site), the MB-23 battery pack and replaced the MB-21 pack that came factory-installed with the camera. While my impression is still tentative - since I have only been using the camera for few weeks - I find the F4e an entirely different camera to shoot with. It would seem that simply relocating the entire power source to the bottom of the drive (as opposed to the two on side, four on bottom set-up on the F4s) provides the camera with a much improved balance and handling. Certainly the "chunkiness" of the F4 remains...but the handling and feel are much improved. Anyone else out there done the same modification? If so, what are your impressions?
2nd Exaktas as worst
As an adolesent I wanted an Exakta. Then I got to shoot a few rolls w/ a Contax II. I was hooked. 3 lenses, EZ to focus, EZ to view to 85mm. I had perfect eyesight back then. Never did get a Contax. Shame. My Rollie was OK till a W.A. or Tele lens was needed.
Originally Posted by tony lockerbie
But God was an EXakta aweful, Jay Drew
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
J., one of my late friends was a closeup photography specialist. He started with a Contax in the late 1930s, didn't discover the Exakta until after the war. He told me that for his purposes the Exakta was greatly superior. Moral of story, use the right tool.
Selling a plain prism Nikon F (cheap too!) was probably my single worst photographic mistake, at least so far as equipment goes. A few years ago I bought an F2AS but it only reinforced the difference between the two and I sold it soon after. I liked the hinged back of the F2AS, but the finder destroyed all sense of balance and ergonomics.
Originally Posted by Jim Jones
So far as ugly goes, the T-Series Canons must be a major contender, and sold by the million in spite of their looks. I have a soft spot for my T90, despite the horrible, jelly mould, faux ergo design influencing nearly every SLR and DSLR since. And the logo is probably the worst bit of graphic design ever seen on any camera, never mind one with professional pretensions.
I agree about the look of the T-50/T-70/T-80. But they can be held better that the AE-1.
I do not agree about the general look of the T-90. And it fits my hand perfectly anyway.
Yes, that typography does not fit that camera. But it is true 80s style.
I had an Exakta VX-IIa, with a Schneider Xenon. I thought it a bit quirky (OK a lot quirky), but far from awful. The best thing about it, I traded it to a neighbor - he wanted to use it on a telescope. What he offered in trade turned out to be an as-new Leica IIIG with a Summitar. He thought it was a IIIA, and I didn't know the difference at the time. When I apprised him of the error and pointed out that it was worth probably 10 times what the Exakta gear would bring, he just sort of stared at me for a few seconds and said "looks like you got lucky".
Originally Posted by J Drew
I can't think of any film camera ever made which is as idiotically designed, and less realistically ergonomic, and harder to focus and compose
with, than the millions of digi devices that have to be held at arms length while someone is looking at a tiny TV screen on the back. I can't even
see the image without reading glasses, but then I can't see the subject at the same time. Worst of all, I can't figure out where to hang the