Are any of the cameras mentioned worthy of the Cheap Camera Challenge?
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Depends how you classify 'first generation', are we talking generally (Minolta 7000, Pentax SFX, Nikon 501, Olympus OM707, Canon EOS) or are we talking really early stuff - Pentax ME-F, Nikon F3AF or the non-TTL-AF Ricoh AF lenses?
Originally Posted by blockend
If the former group, the technology was new and users expectations weren't great - most users would be happy enough with the performance. The press however ignored it until the Nikon F4 arrived - which they then bought in droves.
The really early stuff was ahead of it's time. I have a Pentax ME-F and 35-70/2.8 Kf lens outfit, it has the standard split-image/microprism collar focus aid and the < o > AF indicators in the finder. I found it quite eerie to see the AF drive the focus to a perfect split-image/Microprism collar focus - especially considering that today 'AF calibration' occupies so many forum discussions. Then again, every AF system since then has promised that 'you'll never take an out-of-focus shot ever again' and that it is better than any previous AF system.
Excellent thread. There are certain genetic flaws that are rarely discussed, and other cameras that are simply hard to use.
I will dump on my Leica M3 a bit. Over $1000 into it (CLA included), yet the film counter does not work. Mr Ye says that it is a known problem with early M3's. Meh.
I tried to love Zeiss folders, but they are so hard to use and results for me were never better than mediocre.
Most other cameras (I have over 100) I find quite magical and wonderful.
What's with the Land Rover bashing? I've used my LR3 as a field geologist and it is outstanding in the field (western Montana), IMO. Reliable, comfortable, durable and sturdy. It is a 5800 lb tank, so of course maintenance is important, but with the weight you get fantastic performance in the mountains, snow, mud, etc.
Don't compare it to an peek squeak little urban runabout: 1991 Acura Integra RS Coupe MT 2560 lbs
A light little Honda simply can't do the same things. Don't even take it off paved roads...
Apples and Eggs of a comparison = not useful.
All of them.
Whatever I buy, my photographs never seem to get any better
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i know what you mean pdeeh
every camera i own disappoints me
it is too much effort to even bother to
take photographs anymore ..
at this point, i wish i had an asimo to do it all for me
The camera in which you will be most disappointed is the camera for which you have the least realistic expectations.
I'll buy that one!
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Everyone kept telling me how great DSLR's were so I finally caved in and bought a brand new Nikon D200. There was nothing wrong with the camera and I later upgraded to a used Nikon D300. It's just my expectations were unrealistic due to what I had read and heard from others.
Digital is a nice companion to film but in no way replaces film for me.
I learned that hard lesson a very long time ago.
Originally Posted by Alan Gales
I recently bought a Kiev 4a, made in 1959. I'd decided I wanted a high quality rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, and had become interested in the FSU stuff. Along the way, I lucked into a cosmetically beautiful Canon IIb body and needed a cheap lens - so I got a mid 70s Jupiter 8. Bingo!! A nice little coated version of the f:2 Sonnar I had years ago on a Contax II. An FSU lens that works!! Who'd a thunk it?
Months go by, and I get more and more intrigued with the Kievs. I finally buy one... it comes in the mail... I open the box... and it's just like having my Contax back. It has none of the problems I read about on the internet - frame spacing is even; no lightleaks; rangefinder is spot-on; the lens is great (albeit neither of my J-8s behave like a modern lens until somewhere around f:5.6-f:8... they aren't modern lenses though being designed in 1931 when the option was darkness); the camera feels works and sounds like a Contax. Just about everything I read was rubbish, I'd got to the point that I realized that the only way I would actually know was by having one in my hands.
It seems that some very common wisdom is "buy one, try it, if it's not for you, sell it". Whatever happened to doing one's homework? I don't mean reading some ignorant bloviation on a computer screen - I mean actually researching and thinking. I bought my first, only, and last 4x5 in 1987. Still have it and use it. An 8x10 came along in '89, ditto.
Possibly the only disappointing camera I've ever had was an OM-4 - which was a gift. It ate batteries and was a nice paperweight without electricity - I sold it and got a Nikon F which I still have and use.
Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 08-21-2014 at 02:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
You may not believe this but in 62 years that I've owned cameras I can't say that I have ever owned one that I have been disappointed with, but having said that I'm not an compulsive camera buyer, in all the time I've been interested in photography have probably not owned a total of more that 18 cameras in all that time ( 8 of which I still own ). I don't buy cameras from auction sites or anywhere else I haven't had in my hands and tested them first.
Last edited by benjiboy; 08-21-2014 at 03:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.