Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,677   Posts: 1,482,045   Online: 895
      
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 71112131415161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 171
  1. #161
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,425
    Images
    122
    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.


    Steve.

  2. #162

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    527

    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?
    An assortment of F-series Nikons with quite a few Nikkors, a pair of M6s with some Leitz glass, a pair of 500c/ms with a wide range of Zeiss optics and, just to help keep Duracell solvent, a D800.

    Favourite films: (1). KE ("Kodachrome Era"): 35mm: PKM25 and PKR64, HP5/Tri-X; 120: PKR64, PanF, FP4. (2). PKE ("Post-Kodachrome Era"): (a) 35mm: E100G, HP5 Plus/Tri-X and Delta 3200; (b) 120: E100G, PanF Plus, FP4 Plus, TMax 100.

  3. #163

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    32

    2nd Exaktas as worst

    Quote Originally Posted by tony lockerbie View Post
    Zenits may be crude but they are extra cool these days apparently. The Exaktas have to be the very worst to use, ergonomics never entered into their equations at all! Funny thing is that I really like them...oh, and the Zenit too. Thing is I like being whipped as well
    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.
    But God was an EXakta aweful, Jay Drew

  4. #164

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,194
    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.

  5. #165

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    The Nikon F had its share of idiosyncrasies, but the worst was the Photomic finder. The camera and finder were capable of accurately metered and sharp photos, so I used one for years despite its awkward handling. I do still use Nikon F, but with a neat and simple prism finder.
    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.

    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.

  6. #166
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,434
    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.

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,151
    Quote Originally Posted by J Drew View Post
    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.
    But God was an EXakta aweful, Jay Drew
    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".

  8. #168

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,288
    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
    darkcloth!

  9. #169

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    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.
    My friend of mine has a T-70. Not a bad camera.

    Jeff

  10. #170

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,151
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    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
    darkcloth!
    You forgot those execrable layered menues, where it takes you throught three screens to set the self timer.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin