Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,059   Posts: 1,561,578   Online: 671
      
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 107
  1. #61
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,087
    Images
    4
    The worst cameras that I have ever owned or used are the Tower 50 and Tower 51. I have also owned a few of the Ansco/Agfa 35mm SLR folders that have defied all attempts to make them work properly though my problems have involved the film transport mechanisms or light leaks far more frequently than shutter problems.

    Although completely anecdotal, the best camera I have ever owned is my Pentax K1000 SE. I bought it at a Reno pawn shop in 1984 or 1985, and it spent the next 20 years of its life bouncing around in the glove compartment, or behind the seat, of several pickup trucks in the dusty outback of Nevada, with not one single CLA. And it never missed a beat or missed a picture. For twenty years if there was a family picture or a hunting picture, it was taken with that camera. Only in the last 4 or 5 years have I begun to semi appreciate it and try to take care of it. The only saving grace of those 20 some years of total abuse is that it stayed inside its leather case unless it was taking pictures. That old case looks like hell but at least the camera body is still in decent shape. But God only knows what the inside looks like. I am almost afraid to send it off for a CLA for fear that Eric will tell me it is not salvageable. I would hate to lose it as it is truly the one camera that I own that I can operate whether I am sober or falling down drunk!

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Maybe cameras just aren't supposed to have people names.
    +1
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    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?
    Because an f/1.4 lens to cover 6x6 would be impractically huge. That's not an optical limitation, that's a design decision that has little to do with the central shutter.
    There are dozens of reasons lenses for the F system are faster than those for the V system.

    Comparing apples to oranges and criticizing one for being less round.
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  4. #64
    SpunkySpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Brunswick, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    I had a Zenit E back in the late 60's to early 70's. Traveling as a passenger in the rear seat of a Ford Pinto with camera stowed under the front seat, was in accident where car rolled several times and once end over end. I was thrown from car (who wore seatbelts back then?) and car was write off... but not the camera.

    Day after accident, I returned to car to try to find anything I could salvage from the wreck. Tow truck operator turned car upright and I found the Zenit ground into the dirt where it had ended up under the roof of the car. I took it to the hotel where we stayed and cleaned it up. Lens focusing was the worst problem but got it going enough that I could use it.

    Next stop was to see the wreck of the Pinto. I took pictures of the wreck with the Zenit camera!

    Camera was retired when I bought a Fujica ST701 that I used for about 20 years.

    ps: I was thrown from car and did compression fracture of my spine that was never properly diagnosed for 25 years. (Diagnosed when I broke my neck in '97). Now you know where I got my user name.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by PDH View Post
    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.
    I doubt there could have been a 1.4, if not for technical reasons than for price reasons. After some research it seems the Kowa produced the fastest leaf shutter SLR lens at F1.8, I had thought Topcon also had a 1.8, but it seems their fastest was F2. Things get worse when the lenses get longer, Topcon's 100mm and 135mm lenses were F4.

  6. #66
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,274
    Pioneer, the 'endurance' value of the K1000 was in its engineering simplicity. I have taken enough cameras apart to attest to that merit. - David Lyga

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by PDH View Post
    Maybe in a parrell universe Miranda and Petri were the winners and Canon and Nikon are bankrupt.
    Where would lomo and Leica be in that universe?

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Where would lomo and Leica be in that universe?
    Leica would make most of their money from point-and-shoots, and Lomo would only offer niche products at outrageous prices.

    Oh wait, that's this universe...
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by okto View Post
    Because an f/1.4 lens to cover 6x6 would be impractically huge. That's not an optical limitation, that's a design decision that has little to do with the central shutter.
    There are dozens of reasons lenses for the F system are faster than those for the V system.

    Comparing apples to oranges and criticizing one for being less round.
    I would be interesting to know why comparing lenses for C and F Hasselblad cameras is meaningless? Is a 500C so different from a 1000F so their respective lenses can't be compared? Please elaborate.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    I would be interesting to know why comparing lenses for C and F Hasselblad cameras is meaningless? Is a 500C so different from a 1000F so their respective lenses can't be compared? Please elaborate.
    Haha, I misunderstood you. When someone says "F System", I think Nikon.

    The lenses are approximately the same size, yes? That makes it a mechanical issue, not an optical one. That was my main point. The central shutter takes up space, and the physical size of a fast MF lens with a central shutter would be unwieldy. It's got nothing to do with the optics.
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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