A RETROSPECTIVE ON BAD CAMERAS

[Dali]

How so? In most lenses with central shutters, the shutter is directly in front of/behind the aperture. Some even use one diaphragm for both functions.
From an optical perspective, a lens with and without a central shutter are basically identical.

Examples of this are large-format lenses, whose cells are routinely used in both barrels and shutters without any optical modifications at all.

Great aperture and central shutter don't fit along well. A real world example: Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Lenses for F cameras get larger aperture than those for C cameras. Wonder why?

[Someonenameddavid]

Never liked the Contax II. The design of the camera ignores how the human hand operates. The choice of lenses is limited by the design decision to include the focusing helix in the camera body rather than in the lens. A well made but very poorly designed camera.

Well I can understand your personal preference, but the Contax II/III was designed with engineering a reliable rangefinder so that large aperture lenses could be used accurately. Technology advanced and so your perception is skewed by what came later. The Contax is a better camera than the Leica IIIa/b/c/d, and I consider myself to be a Leicaphile

David

[Yashinoff]

How so? In most lenses with central shutters, the shutter is directly in front of/behind the aperture. Some even use one diaphragm for both functions.
From an optical perspective, a lens with and without a central shutter are basically identical.

Examples of this are large-format lenses, whose cells are routinely used in both barrels and shutters without any optical modifications at all.

I think they mean it limits the max. aperture. Did anybody make an leaf shutter SLR with a faster than f2 lens? The other thing is that many interchangeable lens SLRs of this nature had the rear elements fixed in the body behind the shutter, so really only half of the lens was interchangeable which led to compromises in lens design and ultimately a limited number of focal lengths available to the user of these cameras.

[PDH]

I think they mean it limits the max. aperture. Did anybody make an leaf shutter SLR with a faster than f2 lens? The other thing is that many interchangeable lens SLRs of this nature had the rear elements fixed in the body behind the shutter, so really only half of the lens was interchangeable which led to compromises in lens design and ultimately a limited number of focal lengths available to the user of these cameras.

Kowa for sure 1.9 and 1.8 and I recall a 1.4 but not sure, and I also recall Topcon with 1.8.

[PentaxBronica]

Another way of looking at this topic (as I sit here with my Bronica ETR/speed grip/prism/200mm lens with hood, which resembles some sort of anti-tank weapon):

Could it be said that even a good camera can be bad for certain uses? The Bronica (in this configuration) would be a terrible camera for street photography or hiking, but it handles beautifully and produces superb negatives when I get the exposure right.

[E. von Hoegh]

Another way of looking at this topic (as I sit here with my Bronica ETR/speed grip/prism/200mm lens with hood, which resembles some sort of anti-tank weapon):

Could it be said that even a good camera can be bad for certain uses? The Bronica (in this configuration) would be a terrible camera for street photography or hiking, but it handles beautifully and produces superb negatives when I get the exposure right.

My Deardorff V8 sucks for action photography.

[Yashinoff]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about reliability here more than usefulness.

[desertratt]

In the 1960s I worked for a photography firm that had packages of cameras -- a bag, camera and lens, some accessories -- that a photog could grab in a hurry to go to an assignment. He had wide angle and tele Rolleis and a lot of 35mms. Several were Mirandas and they worked fine. Of course, they were new. I currently have maybe 25 film cameras made between 1940 and 1975 and I think it is amazing how well most stand up after all these years.
I was driving down the Hollywood freeway a while ago and saw a brand new Rolls Royce stopped next to the freeway with the hood up and smoke and fire coming from the engine. I have never, ever seen another disable
Rolls and I travel a lot. The point is that "stuff happens" to any mechanical beast.

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about reliability here more than usefulness.

That was my assumption, too.

[PDH]

Back in the 1960s, Consumer Reports magazine declared that Miranda Sensorex was the “best buy for the money.” Their declaration had a great influence on my decision to select the Sensorex as my first SLR. However, my Sensorex broke three times within the first two years of its three-year warranty. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new aircraft that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a backup twin-lens reflex camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.

The other photographers at the newspaper where I worked used Nikons and convinced me that Nikons had the reliability that I needed. I immediately replaced my broken Sensorex with a used Nikon F. I have been using Nikons ever since because I have been very impressed with the dependability and ruggedness of their bodies and lenses.

My horrible experiences with my brand new Miranda Sensorex convinced me that it was and is a bad camera. I would not recommend it to anyone.

Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.