PDA

View Full Version : Disappointments


Roger Hicks
05-13-2009, 20:24
What have you bought on the strength of its reputation, and then been disappointed by? For example, Tessars seem to me to be wildly overrated: with the exception of a 150/6.3 (which yes, foolishly, I sold many years ago) I've never seen the appeal. To me, most Tessars are perfectly OK lenses but I can't see any reason to rave about them.

I'm not trying to create a hate thread; I'm just intrigued to hear from those who can't get on with things that are widely praised. For another example, I've never been able to get on with Rolleiflex TLRs, because the handling -- throwing 'em from hand to hand to work the controls -- is totally counter-intuitive to me.

Tashi delek,

Roger

Keith
05-13-2009, 20:33
Leica M7 followed closely by Leica M8!

Dave Wilkinson
05-13-2009, 20:33
[quote=Roger Hicks;1053345] .

For another example, I've never been able to get on with Rolleiflex TLRs, because the handling -- throwing 'em from hand to hand to work the controls -- is totally counter-intuitive to me. ] same here....but in my opinion preferable to the handling of a Mamiya 645! - ok on a tripod...otherwise....:bang:
Cheers, Dave.

gavinlg
05-13-2009, 20:39
Yashica GSN. What a clunky piece of junk with a nice lens.

Industar 61. Another clunky peice of Junk

Jupiter 12. Worst handling lens I've ever used and average optical quality.

Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4. When it was on, it was really on - sharpest lens i've ever used at f5.6 but close to useless anything under f2. Unpredictable bokeh.

kully
05-13-2009, 20:45
I must be very easily pleased, I've never been disappointed by any camera or lens I have bought.

pvdhaar
05-13-2009, 21:00
Nikon 24-120/3.5-5.6 AFD. Every one was raving about it. With its 5x zoom it would be the ultimate one-lens solution on the go, and touted to be super sharp. Well, it was only sort of sharp when closed down to f11. Flared and ghosted all over the place. Worst thing about it though was that it had severe (inward) bends at 35mm. Completely useless, worthless piece of cr*p..

Harry S.
05-13-2009, 21:25
EF 85mm f/1.2 L II.

Not a bad lens, but in my experience with it, it isnt particularly exceptional either.

gavinlg
05-13-2009, 21:30
EF 85mm f/1.2 L II.

Not a bad lens, but in my experience with it, it isnt particularly exceptional either.

Thats the first time I've ever heard anyone ever say anything that wasn't raving about that lens. The one I played with for a few hours was stunning....

Keith
05-13-2009, 21:31
It would be interesting to go the other way Roger and have a thread asking what people have bought that's gone well beyond their expectations!

notturtle
05-13-2009, 21:34
Wollensak 159 f12.5 Nowhere near the coverage many claimed. OK for contacts prints but corners useless for enlargement.

Nothing else has been a let down to be honest. Many have lived up to or exceeded the hype. These include:

Mamiya 7 lenses
90mm f8 SW Nikkor
Ebony LF cameras
Walker LF cameras (superb...)
Zeiss ZMs
Canon 135 f2

notturtle
05-13-2009, 21:36
QC can be an issue with the 85 1.2 lenses esp with used one. I heard one reviewer say the ones he tested new were all OK (a handful), but he had never had a used one that did not need to go back to get sorted. Maybe things need to be so spot on that a few clonks later and its all over.

Harry S.
05-13-2009, 21:37
fdigital:

I swapped my 50 1.2 for the 85 for a weekend I was going to do portraits with a 5D and a 1DMkIII. I was instructed by the owner of the lens to shoot wide open as much as possible.

I did and the Bokeh was more pleasing with my 50 at the same aperture and there was less fall-off and CA. Add to the fact the slow AF (particularly in poor light!) and the actual distance one needs to be away from the model for anything other than a tight head and shoulders shot. I was happy to get my 50 L back at the end of the weekend.

Not a bad lens, technically a very good one. But disappointed? Very.

gavinlg
05-13-2009, 21:39
It sounds like the 85mm focal length doesn't suit you so well? if thats the case, i'm the same, and it's the only reason why I own an 85mm f1.8 over a 1.2L. I prefer a 50 or a 35.

35mmdelux
05-13-2009, 21:39
Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4. -- I found the OOF of the Zeiss ZF 50mm/1.4 as if looking at life thru a coke bottle. Not pleasant.

Hexar RF -- A big disappointment in its whimpy set of controls.

gavinlg
05-13-2009, 21:40
Thought of another - nikkor 18-200mm superzoom. Lets just say I hate complex distortion and lens creep, which this lens had in *****s.

Teus
05-13-2009, 22:02
90mm f/2 jupiter in LTM, bought from another forum member. extremely scratched front lens, very flary and lowcontrast. same for the olympus RC I liked, but also had a scratched lens causing massive flare and uselessness

Rayt
05-13-2009, 22:06
Rollei film. Not worth the premium over the tried and true.

Brian Sweeney
05-13-2009, 22:09
Most Olympus cameras. Great optics, the mechanical build quality was a disappointment.

Rayt
05-13-2009, 22:13
Most Olympus cameras. Great optics, the mechanical build quality was a disappointment.

All down hill after the OM1 that's for sure!

martin s
05-13-2009, 22:27
Rollei film. Not worth the premium over the tried and true.

Wait what? Why? I just love the relabeled APX stuff, so much nicer than e.g. FP4+.

martin

Sonnar2
05-13-2009, 22:33
Give the Pen FT/FV a try, Brian, they are mechanically great.

Leica Summitar - sharp, but bad contrast and colors, mechanically poor.

C/V Ultron 35/1.7 - quite sharp wide open, but bad colors and low contrast. No big improvements when stopped down. Bad ghost pictures when the sun is anywhere in front of the lens.

C/V 21/4 - not as sharp as the 25/4 and 15/4.5, needs to stopped down to f/8 in landscape pictures.

Jupiter 9 - never in focus.

Olympus OM4 - bad visible shutter times in finder

Pentax MX - focussing screen darker than with an Exakta Varex 25 years older (Pentax invited the fresnel screen 20 years earlier and should have build it in)

Voigtlaender Ultramatic and Zeiss Ikon SL7096 - horrible cameras, heavy as plunk. factories who build these stuff do not deserve to stay in the market, and exactly this happened

Rui Morais de Sousa
05-13-2009, 22:36
Some Nikkor optics could never please me:
1,2/55mm
2,8/55 micro-Nikkor
2/85mm
4/200mm...
I am meaning the non-AF models. I have never tryied AF Nikkors...
Canon EF 1,4/50mm: I can't understand the hype about this lens, people comparing it with Leica glass, etc.
I can't stand the "plastic-crap-feel" of most modern lenses.
Some zooms can be awful with distorsions and bad performance.
Hate lenses that need programs to correct them: I think that we are beeing fooled about such things. People should stop buying such products.
We should not allow that quality suffers in the name of convenience (both for photographer and manufacturer) and/or profit.
Cheers,
Rui

AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY (http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

OurManInTangier
05-13-2009, 22:37
Canon 50mm 1.2 for me. I know people can get good results with it but it doesn't work for me. It's just too soft wide open and makes me only look for bokeh shots. My fault rather than the lenses though.

Also the 35mm f1.8G Nikon lens, a cheap alternative to the 35mm f2 but a waste of money on my D3 bodies. Totally unpredictable vignetting and a waste of my money...again my own stupid fault, seems like a pattern may be forming!

David Hughes
05-13-2009, 22:40
Canon Ixus or Elph. A great disappointment and put me off APS until people started giving them to charity shops and I bought a Kodak T550 for 40p (that's US 40 cents - using the software and camera exchange rate).

Nothing else except the VF's on cameras that show the lens, or worse the hood, as if it couldn't be avoided. And those silly little VF's on a well know German camera. And modern, mainly compact, cameras designed so that you can't fit a lens hood.

Regards, David

Keith
05-13-2009, 22:42
Canon 50mm 1.2 for me. I know people can get good results with it but it doesn't work for me. It's just too soft wide open and makes me only look for bokeh shots. My fault rather than the lenses though.

Also the 35mm f1.8G Nikon lens, a cheap alternative to the 35mm f2 but a waste of money on my D3 bodies. Totally unpredictable vignetting and a waste of my money...again my own stupid fault, seems like a pattern may be forming!


I'm glad someone else feels this way about the Canon 1.2 wide open ... it's very soft IMO. Perhaps we both got duds because others seem to think it's ok! :p

sanmich
05-13-2009, 22:45
ultron 28 1.9.

I apparently got a dog, but the comments were so good everywhere that it took me some time to have the guts to buy an hexanon, and....what a difference!

Dave Wilkinson
05-13-2009, 22:58
I'm glad someone else feels this way about the Canon 1.2 wide open ... it's very soft IMO. Perhaps we both got duds because others seem to think it's ok! :p ditto!...I spotted one on a '7' body, in a London shop - a couple of years ago....fell under the spell of that BIG front glass!, and paid big bucks :(.....the '7' was fine, but that lens soon went on more travels! :)
Dave.

Ronald_H
05-13-2009, 23:04
Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X Pro
Draws beautifully but incurable back focus. Unforgivable.

Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X Pro
Had two samples of this lens in different mounts. The first was stellar in all aspects. The second has had a long list of mechanical problems and under certain conditions is very soft.

Nikon 18-135 DX
On paper a nice lens to use my D200 as an all singing all dancing P&S. But it distorts horribly, the control layout is stupid and it is not all that sharp

Yashica T5
According to many the best P&S film camera out there. But mine wouldn't focus correctly even when you threatened it with a big hammer. I sold it and bought an Olympus Mju-II (Stylus Epic). Immeasurably better.

Minolta Dimage 2300
A rebadged OEM digital P&S in the non zoom 2Mp days. Non standard color space, very noisy at anything over 100ISO and not sharp.

Spider67
05-13-2009, 23:13
The Industar 61 L/D did not buy it especially but what a disappointment. Bad sample maybe.
Also could not believe the hype about the Canon QL 17III as it had a very average release button and was not so much smaller than my Bessa.
.....I was very pleasantly surprised by the 35 RC, which of course made me praise it ...so that someone may be disappointed by because of me

bobbyrab
05-13-2009, 23:18
EF 85mm f/1.2 L II.

Not a bad lens, but in my experience with it, it isnt particularly exceptional either.

You should maybe get it checked, mine is stunning and is the only Canon lens I have that is close to what I like about good rf lenses.

bobbyrab
05-13-2009, 23:26
I also do a huge amount of very low light level work, and it's slower to focus than other lenses, but once there it locks on better than any of my other Canon lenses, I've been so delighted with it, it exceeded my expectations in every regard.

wlewisiii
05-13-2009, 23:50
Most Olympus cameras. Great optics, the mechanical build quality was a disappointment.

This is probably it for me as well; the SLR's are especially disappointing given how people rave about them. But what do I know? I love Tessars ... :angel:

William

NickTrop
05-14-2009, 00:02
Yashica GSN. What a clunky piece of junk with a nice lens.

Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus. First off, the lens is terrific - that's what takes the pictures. Secondly, it has a wracheted film advance, parallax-corrected viewfinder, and a meter that is far more accurate and more sensitive than any camera in its class. Its indicator lights allow you to pre-meter scenes, and it has an innovative stepless shutter. It also takes modern, still-available batteries. Stellar lens + sensitive light meter + wrachted film advance + parallax-corrected frame lines + stepless electronic shutter (up to 1/30th sec) =/= "a piece of junk". Styling? Very "Brady" - who cares? Look around the Internets and see what talented amatuers can do with this camera...

FPjohn
05-14-2009, 00:17
43-86 mm Nikkor.

yours
FPJ

Soeren
05-14-2009, 00:24
Leica MP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding:D
Not really a disappointment but close is the Canon QL 17 GIII I never got familiar with. Thats the one that made me feel limited. Kind of funny since I like shooting with the Ikonta 531/16 and don't feel limited by that.

Ronald_H
05-14-2009, 00:40
The Industar 61 L/D did not buy it especially but what a disappointment. Bad sample maybe.
Also could not believe the hype about the Canon QL 17III as it had a very average release button and was not so much smaller than my Bessa.
.....I was very pleasantly surprised by the 35 RC, which of course made me praise it ...so that someone may be disappointed by because of me

Opinions, opinions... The Canonet was to me one of THE surprises. Dirt cheap and capable of stunning results.

mfunnell
05-14-2009, 00:53
[quote=Roger Hicks;1053345][..]the handling of a Mamiya 645! - ok on a tripod...otherwise....:bang:Funny! I have a Mamiya 645 and it never occurred to me to use it in any way except on a tripod. Something I knew before I bought it. I don't know what that proves (and suspect it proves nothing whatsoever) but found the comment vaguely amusing nonetheless.

...Mike

dee
05-14-2009, 00:55
Contax 193 and Olympus OM 1 - fine cameras but just not me ... stick with Minolta SRT and later , XD7 ...

D.O'K.
05-14-2009, 01:00
(a) the supposedly wonderful Ross Xpres 105mm lens (used 2 examples, both on Ensign Selfices): in fact soft until f11-16, and with miserable contrast at all apertures;
(b) all lenses of 35mm focal length (the view's too wide to be standard and too narrow to be wide);
(c) Olympus SP: could have been a perfect fixed lens RF but for the super-clunky shutter release and the lack of depth of field scale...

Regards,
D.

mfunnell
05-14-2009, 01:05
Hexar RF -- A big disappointment in its whimpy set of controls.Hmm.. I'm not trying to pick an argument, though I like my Hexar RFs, but I am wondering exactly what you mean by "whimpy set of controls" in comparison to other M-mount cameras. I'd understand if you didn't like the low-magnification finder, or the (slightly) lower contrast RF patch or it's shape or form, or didn't like the control layout or the whole "motorised M" thing.

But you seem to have some other objection, which I probably don't share but which I'd be interested to hear of. Not to argue but just to know.

...Mike

oldoc
05-14-2009, 01:06
Definitely the Nikon D1X. Lots of hardware for its time, lousy software and too much noise, especially in an SLR that priced at 4899. I was disappointed in the difficulty of using Mamiya 645AFD on a frequent basis due to its weight, and the weight of the associated gear.
Guess I was meant for rangefinders...

mfunnell
05-14-2009, 01:17
ultron 28 1.9.

I apparently got a dog, but the comments were so good everywhere that it took me some time to have the guts to buy an hexanon, and....what a difference!I would love to disagree with you about the Ultron. I really would. I've taken a few good shots with that lens (and mine is certainly not a dog). But when push comes to shove (and even when it doesn't) if I want a 28 the M-Hexanon goes on the camera and the Ultron stays at home. Perhaps things shouldn't happen this way but they almost always do.

...Mike

mfunnell
05-14-2009, 01:32
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus.That I can agree with. I have a nice-condition GTN which is far from a piece of junk. It is a nice camera with a number of very agreeable features and which can take a very nice photo, courtesy of its excellent lens and, dare I say it, rather wonderful metering. Nonetheless, I don't use it as much as I should. Mostly I expect because of its size (which is not small by RF standards) and its rather cod-ordinary shutter release. But these are things I could and should get used to or work around. I hearby resolve to use this rather nice camera a little more. I suspect I'll end up with photos that prove that isn't a bad idea.

...Mike

Benjamin Marks
05-14-2009, 01:38
Mamiya 7II 80/4 lens. Would it have killed them to have the lens focus another foot closer? Jeez. Fabulous optics, but just not suited to how I want the world to look on film.

Ben Marks

dazedgonebye
05-14-2009, 01:48
Pentax 6x7.
No fault of the camera, I think. I just lusted for it for a long time then failed to bond with it.

Sounds a bit like a great many relationships I've had actually.

jaykuhlmann
05-14-2009, 01:56
CV 28mm Ultron f2.0 (it pains me to admit). My previous 28 was a Zeiss Biogon for Contax G -- much sharper lens.

ruben
05-14-2009, 02:01
....
Olympus OM4 - bad visible shutter times in finder




Built in diopters are to be adjusted, via wheel at the left of pentaprism, for viewing the numbers.

On one of my OM4s the wheel is broken, so it doesn't adjust the diopters.

Another possibility may be that your sight correction goes beyond the OM4 possibilities.

Anyway ALL OM bodies enable outside diopters too.

Cheers,
Ruben

Pablito
05-14-2009, 02:02
Hexar RF -- A big disappointment in its whimpy set of controls.

Couldn't agree more. I found the Konica Hexar RF to be useless, and the controls were a big part of it. And the RF that refused to stay in alignment despite repeated "factory authorized" repairs.

Also the "beloved" Hexar AF. Fabulous lens on another toy camera. Awful, inaccurate finder (even accepting the general inaccuracies of RF finders).

And the Minolta CLE, useless averaging meter, hard to use on manual, plastic battery compartment door would fall off unless held in place by tape.

These have been MY disappointments, no need to argue if you love these cameras, more power to ya'

Roger Hicks
05-14-2009, 02:16
These have been MY disappointments, no need to argue if you love these cameras, more power to ya'

Absolutely! We all hear the praise, all the time, and many people are entirely happy with things that don't suit us personally. Your reply (and many others) are exactly what I was looking for: a purely personal difference from the received opinion.

To extend the idea a little, there are also products that are either quite good, or very good for the money, but are so over-praised by some people that NOTHING could live up to the hype that they propagate. The Jupiter 85/2 springs to mind.

Cheers,

R.

ferider
05-14-2009, 02:26
but are so over-praised by some people that NOTHING could live up to the hype that they propagate. The Jupiter 85/2 springs to mind.

Agree with that one.

Thinking about disappointment in terms of "I will not try/use one of those again", the other things that come to mind are:

- Canon 50/1.2 LTM (under the bottom line there are many, slower 50s that are easier to handle and generate nicer pictures)
- Bessas. I have tried Bessa T, R, R2 and R3a, and was never able to get a truly sharp picture out of them. Sharp in terms of using a great lens on them and being impressed by the resolution when enlarging to more than 8x10.

Just my very personal and emotional opinion :) The disappointment is larger, the more praised I see those things, because then I blame myself for not making them work.

Roland.

gavinlg
05-14-2009, 02:30
ultron 28 1.9.

I apparently got a dog, but the comments were so good everywhere that it took me some time to have the guts to buy an hexanon, and....what a difference!

I really disliked my ultron 28mm 1.9 as well - really overrated optic.

tbarker13
05-14-2009, 02:34
I guess I'd have to put the M8 on this list. I won't say I haven't enjoyed shooting either of mine. But the glitches and quirks (not to mention months of shooting time lost to repairs in Solms) just didn't live up to my expectations based on my experiences with Leica's film bodies.

ruben
05-14-2009, 02:38
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus. First off, the lens is terrific - that's what takes the pictures. Secondly, it has a wracheted film advance, parallax-corrected viewfinder, and a meter that is far more accurate and more sensitive than any camera in its class. Its indicator lights allow you to pre-meter scenes, and it has an innovative stepless shutter. It also takes modern, still-available batteries. Stellar lens + sensitive light meter + wrachted film advance + parallax-corrected frame lines + stepless electronic shutter (up to 1/30th sec) =/= "a piece of junk". Styling? Very "Brady" - who cares? Look around the Internets and see what talented amatuers can do with this camera...


Hellow Nick Earth Calling....


You forgot about that outstanding silent shutter. Both relatively to any RF, and more outstandingly relative to a 45mm length RF

Next time you will pay fine:)

However. this camera has an unfortunate clunky look due to the undue cheap covering, and the even worse cheapy case (puach !)

PS
And that shutter button locker is missed in many of my other cameras (ATTENTION ANTI-SOFTIE SCAMMERS !)

gavinlg
05-14-2009, 02:43
Not starting a war of words over a camera... but "a piece of junk" is harsh and far from consensus. First off, the lens is terrific - that's what takes the pictures. Secondly, it has a wracheted film advance, parallax-corrected viewfinder, and a meter that is far more accurate and more sensitive than any camera in its class. Its indicator lights allow you to pre-meter scenes, and it has an innovative stepless shutter. It also takes modern, still-available batteries. Stellar lens + sensitive light meter + wrachted film advance + parallax-corrected frame lines + stepless electronic shutter (up to 1/30th sec) =/= "a piece of junk". Styling? Very "Brady" - who cares? Look around the Internets and see what talented amatuers can do with this camera...

As I said, great lens from what I've seen done with it, but seriously... I went through 4-5 of them 2 years ago. Each one I bought was meant to be working, and was in near mint condition. On each one of them, the RF patch was faded beyond use and not one of them gave me a consistent roll of film. The one that did give me a consistent roll was soft at anything below f4ish, and it wasn't focussing errors either. Even after I replaced the POD in 2 of them, both didn't work properly afterwards, or did for a few frames then died.

The shutter priority is just wack - couldn't get used to the way it works with the under and over lights etc.

Maybe I should rephrase that to " To me, the yashica was a piece of junk. I realised after I went through 4-5 60-100$ cameras that i could have just bought a bessa r2a for the same price - much better camera.

Mark Wood
05-14-2009, 02:46
A Lomo LC-A in the mid-1980s when they were badged as "Zenit" and, although it's hard to believe now, sold in the UK as "serious" compact cameras by TOE. This was well before all of the "Emperor's new clothes" Lomography hype of course and when they were still regarded as copies of the (quite respectable) Cosina CX-2. I had three, all from a proper camera shop, before I got one that actually worked - for one and a half films... Sadly, it was a pile of junk with a lens incapable of giving a sharp picture. I always wonder if its shutter packed in (as it had in the previous two) as it was embarrassed by what would result on film if it opened...!

chris00nj
05-14-2009, 02:50
Screwmount Leica lenses. I hate to admit it, but the image quality isn't as good as the Nikon and Canon counterparts and they cost more.

Mark Wood
05-14-2009, 02:53
A Lomo LC-A in the mid-1980s when they were badged as "Zenit" and, although it's hard to believe now, sold in the UK as "serious" compact cameras by TOE. This was well before all of the "Emperor's new clothes" Lomography hype of course and when they were still regarded as copies of the (quite respectable) Cosina CX-2. I had three, all from a proper camera shop, before I got one that actually worked - for one and a half films... Sadly, it was a pile of junk with a lens incapable of giving a sharp picture. I always wonder if its shutter packed in (as it had in the previous two) as it was embarrassed by what would result on film if it opened...!

Just to avoid a war of words, I ought to add that I thought long and hard before calling this camera a pile of junk. Well, not that long actually, it really was...!!

shadowfox
05-14-2009, 03:33
1. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who are puzzled over the quality of the famous Canonet QL17 GIII. I had one, CLA'd, tried it, and went... huh? low-contrast, so-so sharpness, and ended up selling it for more than the price I paid for the camera + CLA. Puzzling? indeed.

2. Rollei 35 S. I was prepared to be blown away by the rendering from the legendary Sonnar lens. But... meh. Again, from a serviced sample (and coverted to use modern battery). Now, to show that I'm not utterly clueless, I have a Sonnar 50/1.5 for Contax and a Jupiter-8. The pictures from these are vastly better to the Rollei. Maybe I got a CLA'd lemon, who knows.

3. Yashica Mat 124. Just can't get a wow picture out of this one. Once again, either I got a CLA'd lemon (again), or the lens isn't what it's cracked up to be. For comparison, I'm super happy with the results I got from a Mamiya C330.

Dave Wilkinson
05-14-2009, 03:38
[quote=Dave Wilkinson;1053350]Funny! I have a Mamiya 645 and it never occurred to me to use it in any way except on a tripod. Something I knew before I bought it. I don't know what that proves (and suspect it proves nothing whatsoever) but found the comment vaguely amusing nonetheless.

...Mike I'm glad you are happy keeping your camera to a tripod, and finding my post "vaguely amusing" - but, believe it or not, people do actually hand hold them...even Hasselblads!, and we are talking about things that disappoint us personally - even though others may think it's marvelous!
Cheers, Dave.

Roger Hicks
05-14-2009, 04:17
The disappointment is larger, the more praised I see those things, because then I blame myself for not making them work.

Roland.

Dear Roland,

Yes, that's an important part of the thread, now you mention it. We think, 'Hey, why can't I make it work?'

I'm coming to the conclusion it doesn't matter, as long as there are things that work for us.

But it is irritating when people look at you pityingly and imply that it's your fault you're unimpressed by something.

Tashi delek,

Roger

rbiemer
05-14-2009, 04:47
For me, there have really only been two cameras like this: the Canon P and the Olympus XA. Not sure "disappointed" would be my word choice, but neither worked well for me. The P was/is a good camera but with my particular eyesight and glasses, I found the 35mm frame lines effectively un-usable. No fault of the camera. Passed that one along fairly quickly.
With the XA, even though I am not a large person, the camera was too small for me to use well. Absolutely as it was designed and I did work with it for a while in hopes of getting used to it.
I will not "second guess" anyone elses' choices but I will note that, thankfully, some of the gear I like is NOT universally appreciated!
Rob

CK Dexter Haven
05-14-2009, 05:26
Biggest disappointments:
Canon 50mm 1.2L - three samples. Only one focused properly, and it still wasn't as sharp as my old EF50/1.4.
Hasselblad 110/2 FE - everyone loves the bokeh. Except me.
Leica 50mm DR Summicron - probably didn't use it enough, but my initial results were not good.
Leica M7 / .85, but only because i should have stayed with a .72 finder.
Olympus XA - my sample was just soft, and i also didn't love the teensy focus arm.

Best surprises:
Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series E - my new favorite lens. At f2.8, it's perfect.
Nikon FE2.

navilluspm
05-14-2009, 05:34
Contax 167MT. A great camera when it works, but the eletronics on it are so unpredictable. It will jam on me at the worst possible times. It's too bad. The view finder was nice and the meter was decent. The "porsche" motor drive is as annoying as mesquitos in Saskatchewan.

RichC
05-14-2009, 05:50
Any Soviet camera or lens ...

After all, how bad could they be? And people wax lyrical about certain classics. So, I bought a Jupiter 8 and Iskra...

Junk! Imagine a camera designed and built by a blacksmith who'd rather be doing something else! Crude, uncomfortable, carelessly built and fly-blown with faults...! :eek:

nikon_sam
05-14-2009, 05:58
[quote=Dave Wilkinson;1053350]Funny! I have a Mamiya 645 and it never occurred to me to use it in any way except on a tripod. Something I knew before I bought it. I don't know what that proves (and suspect it proves nothing whatsoever) but found the comment vaguely amusing nonetheless.

...Mike


I also have the Mamiya 645 and rarely use it on a tripod...my beef with it is the second shutter release on top...I have hit it too many times...I lock the shutter when I'm done shooting or else I might lose another frame...

I also own the Nikon 85mm 1.4 AF lens...I'm not really complaining about it...it is a sharp lens and a nice hunk of glass...I just don't use it as much as I thought I would...

Spider67
05-14-2009, 08:16
"but are so over-praised by some people that NOTHING could live up to the hype that they propagate. The Jupiter 85/2 springs to mind."

Very very valid point! Interestingly I see that only with those in LTM. After reading eulogies how well it worked with the Bessas stopped down and/or the backfocussing compensated I tried it and found it to produce average results and that it was prone to flare so that it was not a user lens for me. Whereas the chrome version of my Kiev/Contax mount J 9 is very good.
But when it comes to praising I saw an analogous phenomenon in Bulgaria:
If a company starts selling a brand of grape brandy that turns out to gain a big market share because of its good quality, the following year the quality drops as then the company thinks that the brand alone is enough to keep sales high.....well it is'nt so one of Bulgarias favourite pastimes is finding the best brand of grape brandy for the year....
Maybe many years ago J 9's in ltm were of decent quality but the hype pressed so many worn out or badly built J9's back into service that it simply had to happen...especially given the fact that the number of screwmount cameras wasmuch higher that cameras with the Kiev/Contax mount (definitely leaving Nikon out of the picture.)

NickTrop
05-14-2009, 08:24
To me...
Eh - if I had your bad luck on these things, I might agree but you can't rate a 30+ year old camera as a "piece of junk" based on the condition of your sample(s). I've only owned two Electros, a "CC" and a GSN. Both in great condition in all aspects and both were very inexpensive (got lucky with the "CC)... so, YMMV as the expression goes. The thread does say "dissappointments", and I'm sure you were, but the camera itself - for the price, is far from "a piece of junk" in light of its features/capabilities... The ones you bought were pieces of junk, the camera itself - however, isn't junk at all. I've had 3 Fujica Compact Deluxes - first two died, 3 was the charm (donated by a very generous RF member to whom I am grateful...) but I don't consider this camera "junk" based on my experience of the first two samples... which had all kinds of problems, desilvering, dodgey meter, messed up film counter. To the contrary... They whet my appetite to get one that works.

Incidently, I gave my GSN away to a budding young photographer and never replaced it (have others - too many) but I still think it's a great camera.
|

Here's my disappointment: M42 Zeiss Jena f1.8/50mm Pancolar. Sought-after lens, had to have it... got it and - "eh" run of the mill "great" 50mm imo - VG but nothing distinguishing it over the other 50s - all of which perfrom well. Like my 1.4 radioactive Tak better in 50mm M42, actually...

rpsawin
05-14-2009, 10:20
Nikon D200...sold it after 3 months. I'm sure it was just me but I did not enjoy using it at all.

BOB

Steve Bellayr
05-14-2009, 10:31
Nikon D1. Extremely heavy. Batteries were always dead when I picked it up. I found that I had to charge the batteries the night before if I intended to use the camera. I am not sure if I had a bad battery but I had two batteries and it was the same with both. Often when I needed the camera the batteries did not have a full charge. Carrying a spare batteries was unnecessary weight.

Now to go back why, Keith did you not like the M7? And, why is the MP on this list. Please elucidate as I would think (though I never used either) these two would be good cameras.

Bob Michaels
05-14-2009, 11:07
I must be very easily pleased, I've never been disappointed by any camera or lens I have bought.

Yep, I have never had a piece of hardware yet that was so good or so bad that it really broke that old ratio of the quality of my photos being 2% equipment and 98% my eye, heart, and soul.

Melvin
05-14-2009, 11:15
Every time I think the gear is disappointing I realize it's just me. I can take a lousy picture with anything (or a good one).

johannielscom
05-14-2009, 11:33
Epson 3200 scanner. Bought to scan the negatives from my Exakta 66 with Schneider Xenotar 80mm f2.8.

The scanner software insisted on cropping the shots from the film holder itself. I shot low light and the software never got it right. Vuescan just gave the whole scanner image including the film holder, so I had to crop the shot out by hand myself.

Sold the scanner, and eventually the Exakta with lens as well. Which was a stupid move, it was the first edition Xenotar, that lens was unbelievable.

tjh
05-14-2009, 11:35
18-200 VR Nikkor was and remains a disappointment. Both of my old, now sold, 24mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/2.0 Nikkors were both soft with low contrast.

Thardy
05-14-2009, 11:44
That MF folder was a big disappointment for me. I wanted to like it so badly.

Tom A
05-14-2009, 12:42
Leica Summilux 35f1.4 Asph, The first one flared so badly that it would "opaque" out the image. Sent it to Solms, they replaced some stuff - it still flared wildly, they exchanged it for another one. Less flare, but somehow I never trusted it after that and got rid of it.
The M7, nice enough camera (loved the 32 sec. slow count down) but the exposure compensation was way too fiddly. It also had a tendency to produce black frames when i shot fast!
The 90 mm Summicron F2 Apo-Asph. I expected much more from it. Kind of lack lustre performance at f2.0 and really did not come into its own until 5.6.
First version of the Zeiss 40mm for the Hasselblad. Second version was good, 1 st version was a textbook of optical failures.

literiter
05-14-2009, 13:30
I don't want anyone to assume that I'm suggesting that because I disliked these cameras that I believe that they are categorically, junk. They are in all likelihood great cameras to others but not to me.......at least at the time.

-Yashica 124G, sounded like a coffee grinder, did not like the finder or the switching hands. The guy who bought it, loves the thing has and done some really nice work with it. (OK, yep, it is an operator issue, after all.)

-Rollei 35SE. No room in my heart for such a camera, far prefer my Olympus XA.

-Rolleiflex Automat. Not wild about switching hands and not being able to switch lenses. But what a beautiful instrument and so quiet.

-Canonet QL19. The big one and the small one. The Wife's father had the big one and I bought the small one at a junk store. Both work well. What in heaven's name is the big deal with these things?

-Olympus OM-1. Too small for me but really nicely made. Took a while before I got rid of it. New owner has OM2 as well. Thinks I'm nuts.

mhv
05-14-2009, 13:30
Everything Nine Inch Nails did after "The Downward Spiral"

Oh wait, you meant CAMERAS... ;)

dof
05-14-2009, 13:42
The latest version of the 50mm Summicron is one for me. After reading so many great things about it, including Erwin Puts' declaration that it "is a better lens than most people are photographers." I thought it would be f2.0's great gift to photographers everywhere. Now, Mr. Puts may well be correct, but I found the results with it uninspiring. While its optical performance cannot be faulted, it's probably just a little too well corrected for my taste.

You know, come to think of it - the latest 50mm Summicron is a kit lens!

Oh and while we're at it, Echo and the Bunnymen's Porcupine was a huge dissapointment!

Livesteamer
05-14-2009, 14:44
Nikkor 28mm f2.0 in original Nikon F mount. I just never liked the images I got from it. The Nikkor 24mm f2.8 is an all time favorite. Joe

jonmanjiro
05-14-2009, 14:56
Nikkor 28mm f2.0 in original Nikon F mount. I just never liked the images I got from it. The Nikkor 24mm f2.8 is an all time favorite. Joe

Ditto - for both lenses.

After having read all the praise on the net about the Nikkor Ai-S 28mm f2, I was very disappointed in the results.

amateriat
05-14-2009, 15:12
The one true disappointment for me, equipment-wise, was the Pentax LX. This is something of a "situational disappointment", rather than an outright slam of the camera, because (1) I had bought two early-production samples of the camera, and (2) the early-production run of this camera had a fatal engineering error, where the shutter/mirror mechanism would randomly lock up, and couldn't be remedied in the field for love or money. Both my LX bodies exhibited the same behavior, and numerous trips to Pentax' service center (then on Long Island, where I enjoyed pro-level priority rush service) couldn't lick the problem. Didn't matter whether I used the cameras alone or with motors/winders attached. After two months of this, I bailed, desperately trading the whole lot in at Ken Hansen for a Nikon F3-based system. (At a subsequent Camera Show at the New York Colliseum, I discussed my horror story with a Nikon rep at their booth; he just grimaced wanly and said, "Surprise!")

This sucked, because I really loved everything else about the LX. Were it not for that major-league glitch, I could have stuck with that camera for a hell of a long time.

The only other big disappointment was my time with a Canon EOS 1D. In that case, the camera performed like it was supposed to. I still hated it. That convinced me that my days with SLRs, film or digital, were essentially over.


- Barrett

Pablito
05-14-2009, 15:29
Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AI
Worst lens I ever used. Probably something wrong with it but VERY soft in the corners.

reala_fan
05-14-2009, 15:44
I had an Canon EOS RT once, that I really 'wanted to love'. But - it had a tendancy to underexpose when the shots were critical. If I was just playing around, it always exposed perfectly. Always felt like the images were not quite as sharp as they could have been too, passing the light through the Pelicle mirror.

reala_fan
05-14-2009, 15:50
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.

Someone else said they had a bad 55mm f2.8 - I had one that was really steller!!

And so it went with the Nikkor's - you had to try 'em first - I stopped buying them new from NYC, and only bought used and only after 'trying it out for a week'.

John Robertson
05-14-2009, 16:28
Leica Minilux, great lens, crap camera, now landfill minus lens now used as a magnifier!!
Fuji 645 "Professional" folder, don't get me started on this one!!!!:bang::bang:
Thats why I'm blowing rather cool about the new Bessa 111!!:(

f16sunshine
05-14-2009, 16:44
Zuiko 3.5/24 shift. tried 2 copies both had poor borders. Likely suffered an injury somewhere as they where both used in mint condition cosmetically. An impressive "looking" optic at least but, I'm soured to them now. Also most anything Canon FD. Could never get in the flow of that system.

MJFerron
05-14-2009, 17:15
Digital cameras. Yes I own them and yes color digital still looks like a cartoon compared to B&W film.

pvdhaar
05-14-2009, 17:59
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.
.
Same experience here.. had two samples of the 24/2.8 AFD, and they just were not sharp despite all the hoopla about CRC. Finally (it's great to shop in stores with a 2 weeks return policy) settled for the 28/2.8 AFD, which lacked CRC, but also lacked the fuzziness. Great little lens!

Perhaps the added complexity of CRC causes a lot of sample variation..

Soeren
05-14-2009, 18:01
Nikkor 28mm f2.0 in original Nikon F mount. I just never liked the images I got from it. The Nikkor 24mm f2.8 is an all time favorite. Joe

Almost the same thing for me (AIS 28/2,8 vs ZF 25/2,8) but to me its more an angle of view issue. Though its minor it has a big impact.
Best regards

maddoc
05-14-2009, 18:31
Everything Nine Inch Nails did after "The Downward Spiral"

^^ I second that !

Speaking of cameras / lenses: Leica MP. My copy spent more time being serviced (Leica, warranty) than for taking photos. 35mm Summicron-M IV. I still don't get what the hype is about this lens, I sold it after a while and kept my 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH.

Roger Hicks
05-14-2009, 19:59
Yep, I have never had a piece of hardware yet that was so good or so bad that it really broke that old ratio of the quality of my photos being 2% equipment and 98% my eye, heart, and soul.

Dear Bob,

I have. The difference between a great shot and one that's so-so can be down to choosing the kit that you're happiest with. Yes, I can get good shots with the Biotar on my Exakta Vx -- but they're different from the shots I get with (say) the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar on my MP, which gives me far more good shots across a wider range of cirumstances. This is partly the look of the lens, and partly the hassle of using the Exakta.

Or to look at it from another direction, the handling of Rollei TLRs is so bad for me that I get hardly any pictures at all, because I can't be arsed to use the things.

Or from yet a third direction, a lot of disappointment comes from artificially inflated expectations. Sure, I can use a Tessar. I just don't like 'em very much (except the f/6.3) and I can't see why people rave about 'em.

Tashi delek,

R.

Soeren
05-14-2009, 23:30
Dear Bob,

I have. The difference between a great shot and one that's so-so can be down to choosing the kit that you're happiest with. Yes, I can get good shots with the Biotar on my Exakta Vx -- but they're different from the shots I get with (say) the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar on my MP, which gives me far more good shots across a wider range of cirumstances. This is partly the look of the lens, and partly the hassle of using the Exakta.

Or to look at it from another direction, the handling of Rollei TLRs is so bad for me that I get hardly any pictures at all, because I can't be arsed to use the things.

Or from yet a third direction, a lot of disappointment comes from artificially inflated expectations. Sure, I can use a Tessar. I just don't like 'em very much (except the f/6.3) and I can't see why people rave about 'em.

Tashi delek,

R.

Maybe it comes down to what you regard good image quality, what you wanna do with the gear and what you want to put into your pics?
I really like the results from the 135mm f/4,5 Heliar on my Voigtländer Bergheil
or the 45mm f/3,5 Novar on my Ikonta 544/24. Though both are a hazle to use I'll happily press them into service when I feel for the look they give.
Best regards

Brian Sweeney
05-14-2009, 23:44
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.

Someone else said they had a bad 55mm f2.8 - I had one that was really steller!!

And so it went with the Nikkor's - you had to try 'em first - I stopped buying them new from NYC, and only bought used and only after 'trying it out for a week'.

I've owned three: The 24/2.8 Nikkor NC, 24/2.8 Nikkor-N, and 24/2.8 AiS series. I prefer the original versions, just do not like the look and feel of the newer one. I'm wondering if the lighter mechanics mess with the alignment of the floating element. That would cause problems.

My Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 is so sharp that after seeing pictures with it, my Mom asked why I bother with other lenses.

Livesteamer
05-14-2009, 23:55
Nikkor 24mm f2.8 mine is an early version. It has always produced wonderful images.
It seems we all have different criteria and it has been illuminating to hear others criticisms. Thanks to All. Joe

kram
05-17-2009, 11:49
Yes. Nikon Lens. The 50mm F1.4 AFn I thought would be 'better' than my Pentax 50mm f1.7, it was not (OK Maybe at f8, but at no wider apertures). Same goes for the 28mm f2.8AF and the pentax 28mm f2.8, Pentax better at every aperture up to f8. I latter found out the first Nikkor AF 28mm was the 'E' optics - to keep the price down.

However, the 60mm is fine and supprisingly, I and getting on with the 35mm f1.4 OK.

Jay Decker
05-17-2009, 13:06
Disappointments:
Mamiya 7II 80/4 lens. Would it have killed them to have the lens focus another foot closer? Jeez. Fabulous optics, but just not suited to how I want the world to look on film. Have the same issue with the 150mm lens for the Mamiya 7II... if the 150mm lens focused closer, I would have set the MF SLR aside forever.Satisfaction Exceeding Expectations:
Recently purchased a Contax G2 system that exceeds my expectations in mechanical quality, handling, and resulting image quality.
Same with the Bronica RF645, excellent mechanical quality, handling, and resulting image quality that is simply superb with more negative area than 35mm... and, isn't that noticeably heavier or larger than the Contax G2.
The Minolta 7s Hi-matic. Simplicity at it's best - a good lens, metering that was good enough, and a reliable mechanical body. Wish I would not have sold it... let alone sold it for next to nothing.

varjag
05-18-2009, 08:13
Off the top:

- Anything by Olympus, and unlike Brian I don't see what's so great in Zuikos
- Contax SLR system, unreliable and inflexible controls even on high end boides
- Leicaflex: no, it ain't an M in SLR disguise

ljosha
05-18-2009, 09:01
Mamiya C330, didn't notice what's so great about the lens and the camera. Sold it, bought Rolleiflex, never looked back.

Contax ST. Shutter died, got it replaced. New one died after a little drop. Ok, my fault, but you don't except such fragility from next-to-the-top-of-the-line camera.

Contax 167MT. Impossible to operate in manual mode. Ended up borrowing Leica from varjag for a week. Sold all Contax gear (with lenses), bought M6, again never looked back.

charjohncarter
05-18-2009, 09:49
Most Olympus cameras. Great optics, the mechanical build quality was a disappointment.


I'll narrow this to the Olympus 35RC, which I still have but just can't get behind it (sharp lens though).

Fred R.
05-18-2009, 10:58
35mm Summicron, version 4. What a dog! Breathtakingly mushy wide open: great bokeh from 2" to infinity. The Emperor's New Clothes.

wupdigoj
05-26-2009, 02:44
The heliar 75/3.5 lens in a bessa 66. Softer than a triplet. Much softer than my recently bought 80/3.5 color skopar

Quercus
05-28-2009, 12:17
The only disappointments are those bits of kit I have never had the chance to use properly - a canon dial 35 hf what a wonderful thing but never had a real need to keep one I got from a car boot sale, a kiev 60 sitting in the garage right now but again with a mamiya 645 it has no place. Possibly the biggest disappointment is having a pentax km (the original) for a month only and only getting one role through it.

Those are the only reasons to be disappointed in the miraculous mechanical and even electronic wonders of optical thought that any camera is.

I bet Jacques-Henri Lartigue had so few disappointments

John Robertson
05-28-2009, 12:26
QUOTE Possibly the biggest disappointment is having a pentax km (the original) for a month only and only getting one role through it.QUOTE



Role??? which was that then, photographer??

Quercus
05-29-2009, 09:01
it was a late night role of the roll that finally rolled away

Robin P
06-08-2009, 02:07
All the various Kyocera Contaxes that I tried (loved the Yashica lenses I used on them).
Every 50mm lens I've had (wrong focal length for me), except the VC 50/1.5 which really did have that "magic".
Oh yes, put me down as old enough to have been snagged by that Zenit CX2 copy in the 80's - horrible lens!
Mamiya 645 upset me by curling the film if I didn't shoot the whole roll in one day but I enjoyed using it handheld with the WLF.

Cheers, Robin

Benjamin
06-08-2009, 03:12
Maybe it's because I'm young, but I don't think that I have ever parted with my money for any equipment that has left me disappointed. I would guess that it has slightly more to do with doing proper research and trying things out instead of just trying my luck with a current trend. That seems to happen a lot in the world of the enthusiast photographer.

I have bought bad records that way, on the strength of recommendation, but never any cameras or lenses.

It's also pretty hard to go wrong with manual Nikons and Leicas I guess, the Nikons in particular.

awilder
06-08-2009, 03:37
Tom A., regarding your lack lustre performance with the 90/2 AA, I suspect it might have been a focusing callibration issue. I've found the lens exhibits a slight focus shift from f2 to f/4 despite the AA designation. Surprisingly, Leica chose to apply a thin coat of black paint or laquer to it's rf cam's bearing surface against the roller. As as it wore off with use, the lens became a hair short of exact rf coincidence at infinity but as a result is extremely sharp at f/2 and f/2.8 due to the focus change in rf focus with paint loss on the cam. By f/4 and beyond sharpness is still quite high. The bottom line is that the rf callibration is extremely critical on this lens for optimal performance at f/2 and should be adjusted as such by running some bracket focus test shots.

palec
06-08-2009, 03:58
1. Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH. - I loved the size, 39mm filter thread and handling, but... the drawing was so "plastic" and oversharpened. Probably very good for digital, but not for film.

2. Soft Leica lens coatings (even now). It's unbeliavable how some very heavy used lens from other manufacturers have their coatings intact while some carefully used Leica lens always show pack of coating/cleaning marks. I don't understand this.

Robin Harrison
06-08-2009, 04:19
Leica Minilux, great lens, crap camera, now landfill minus lens now used as a magnifier!!
Fuji 645 "Professional" folder, don't get me started on this one!!!!:bang::bang:
Thats why I'm blowing rather cool about the new Bessa 111!!:(


Yeah...same headbanging with the Fuji folder for me. Took it on a once-in-a-lifetime trip. The frame counter broke. The frame advance broke. And the bellows developed holes. Sold it on to a guy who had another spares/repairs model, and he sent the two to a repair guy who created a nice working copy. I wouldn't trust them again, though.

Other disapointments (more circumstantial than relevant to the gear itself):
-Canon f/0.95 - the focus was out on the copy I bought, and there was an undeclared fungal growth
- Bessa T/Heliar 50mm 101 set - seller calimed 'as new' condition. Shutter dial was tarnished, wind crack scratched, lens filthy.
- Nikon F100 - great camera on paper, but not for me. By the time I bought it (last Sep), the idea of a fast, well speced SLR for film use seemed silly! Something like that seems made for a silicon sensor. A manual Leica seems made for film. Have only used it for two or three roles and will sell shortly.
- Kiev 88 - focus screen or focus mechanism was out. Couldn't get a thing in focus on film.

And nice surprises:
- Voigtlander 75mm f2.5 - what a corker at that price. Magical on the M8.
- Jupiter-8 50mm f2 - £10 for a look that good? Bargain.
- Zeiss Tevidon 25mm f1.4 - wide open and close up on the G1, this thing is a thimble-sized gem. Can't wait to stick it on that new E-P1.
- Yashica 24mm f2.8 - Why pay for the Zeiss 25 when the yashica is this good?

flip
06-08-2009, 04:20
The subject of the thread is disapppointments, not regrets.

Don't regret not sleeping with Sherry. The latest RFF poll clearly indicates that she was a disappointment.

As is my Finepix F30. I understand it's got a fine low light sensor (and I can video concert snippets- whee!), but aside from those situations, it's useless to me.

rumbliegeos
06-11-2009, 16:11
Two lenses that get millions of raves: the LTM coated 50mm Elmar 3.5, and the Nikon AF 35-70mm 2.8. The Elmar just never seemed that sharp, and the 35-70 was a flare factory. Maybe they were both out of spec lemons.

I also sold a Voigtlander 21mm 4 because it had quite significant light fall-off on the sides of the frames: that could have also been an interaction with the shutter on the Leica IIIf that it was used on. No matter, that's the only LTM camera I own.

Dunk
07-19-2009, 15:49
A Leitz 100mm Apo-Macro 100mm Macro R lens in 1989 which had a great propensity for ghost images when used with B&W and Leica filters. So I p/x'd it for an M6 with 35mm Summicron :-) .

Cheers

dunk

elude
07-19-2009, 16:10
The 2/50 ZM Planar. Perfect for color, awful in black & white (compared to Leitz lenses) because of its higher contrast I guess.

jackbaty
07-19-2009, 16:50
2 things...

1. The Olympus XA. Liked almost nothing about it. Go figure.

2. The M8 I recently purchased. I just don't love it, and for that kind of money, love should be included. Thinking of trading it for an MP. I'm quite surprised by this.

clicker
07-19-2009, 17:13
Sleeping with Sherry G in college and my M7 .

mackigator
07-19-2009, 17:54
All digital point and shoots, most recently the Lumix Lx3 (I know its good - Just not good enough). Some button lag, fidly to hold, no memory of the lens position, and a tendency to make me shoot everything wide with boring results. I still own it.

Pentax K10D. Noisy sensor. Auto focus that never made up its mind and missed focus when it did. Big package, average images.

CV 50mm Heliar f/2.0. The collapsing thing was a joke. And like a lot of lenses it pales next to my 50mm Hexanon which I paid less for. The Heliar's "character" lost out.

aizan
07-19-2009, 18:01
leitz pradovit ca2500 - i don't get the hoopla, probably because i haven't compared it to other projectors.
50mm f1.4 nikkor ltm - optimized for wide open, minimum focus performance? not even! still, it has a nice look to it. actually, i like it a lot, even though it's a disappointment.
hexar rf - mine's been rock solid, but it just doesn't have that "little something". i'll finish paying for a leica mp in a few months, which will be good with 50mm lenses and longer.
35mm summicron asph: bokeh at f2...not so great.
rolleicord vb: didn't like the controls. replaced it with a 2.8e2, much better!
medium format in general: visible grain in areas that are out of focus, even on prints smaller than 8x10, when using iso 400 film. i must be doing something wrong...

eli griggs
07-19-2009, 19:17
Any Nikon SLR other than the F and F2 - build quality was just not as good as it should have been, especially when compared to Canon pre-'T' series SLRs.

Hasselblad metered prism - too much money and weight on an already perfect camera (500CM).

Hasselblad EL - too noisy and pointlessly slow winder.

FEDs, 2 through 5 - mildly let down - just not as much fun as a Leica Barnack. Same for the Zorki 4.

I do like the FSU glass even though I want to eventually 'trade-up' for Canon, Leica, Zeiss LTM.

On the Canon 85mm 1.2L, my FD lens was excellent and rarely let me down but I can't speak to the AF version.

JohnnyT
07-19-2009, 20:53
For me... I could say...

1. My SLR Minolta stuff... I had a great XD-11 that the handling was lovely and after 3 months of fun the shutter exploded... All my Minolta lens was crap and the only thing I loved was a Sigma 28-70 2.8 zoom...very sharp and great boheh at 70 2.8... surprisingly... I've hated all my other lens; no character and the handling was just a pain.

2. The Contax 137 quartz. The Carl Zeiss 1.7 is a fantastic lens... One of the best I've played with...BUT.... the camera is really hard to use. No manual mode... I had to find a spot with the F-stop I've wanted to use and to literally lock to camera on it and after using the +1 - 1 EV.... my god.... But the lens... I'm in love :)

3. The industar 61 LD... The piece I've received from E-bay....was just a piece of junk... The focus was really loose when I've received it...so I've tried to help with my little screwdriver... When I've verify the aperture it had the lovely shape of a potatoe in a really bad mood.... The blades was oily...very oily.. After 3 weeks of non-using, the focus handle just wanted to die I guess so it just pop off the lens... really great... The focus was so hard... and on my M6.... my finger was to close to the finder.... god...

4. The Jupiter 8-1 .... It's a really great lens optically ... Very snappy and sharp pictures... BUT... A real pain to use. First, the apperture... NO STOP-CLICK... It means... you focus, change the apperture... you've moved the focus ring...focus again...my god... The focus ring is has to much range. I understand that a lot of precision is important... when you work in studio. My medium format stuff has this caracteristic. But this is a 50mm lens for a 35mm rangerfinder... No need to be that loose. On my 40 summicron, I only need to turn half the lens to focus from infinity to the closest range... Really easy... But on the Jupiter, I had to first look at my subject, guess a distance, put the correct range on the lens, look in the finder, finish the focus... Pain... but still a great lens.

5. The Hasselblad 501C... Am I going to say something again this beauty... Oh...yeah baby. I must say that I hate the plain ground glass... I need a microprism with a diagonal line to focus on those beast... And the one on the hassy are very pricey ...

6. Panasonic DMC-G1... Ok... I must say that I really hate full automatic and menu based complicated machine... This one is in that range... Even the seller was unable to answer my questions to do manual stuff. I've opened the menu...ok...right... right... This is really complicated to simply take a picture with that consumer camera! The magnificient finder... The one I've tried... Really really noisy... I've ask the seller : Is it possible to buy the camera without the piece of junk of lens? He said : No... I've heard this was a good entry to use Leica and of 39mm type lens on digital and nobody told me I had to take a degree before using it...

7. Every prosumer Digital camera... I'm sorry but I was disapointed with all the model I've tried... Sony Alpha...Nikon D50... Canon Rebel... Those camera have the look of a pro without the muscles. A camera, for me, must be easy to set; a menu for the quality of the file... and fairly intuitive... When you shoot, you don't need to search in the sub sub sub menu all the time... Also, the quality did not meet my standard... I am maybe a quality freak... but when you're used to Medium format and quality lens and film... you need to have minimum in digital photography. Almost all those camera had a very noisy shutter, even for SLR... I don't care if they can shoot 1k photo in 3 seconds... Too much plastic... And I also need to press 6 buttons at the same time to change the shutter speed... Am I an angry customer? Yes :D

My favors goes more for the Canon 5D Mark II... Not a perfect one... but... a really great camera.

Wes Medlin
07-21-2009, 11:26
Olympus XA series. The electronic shutter release button seems to have a sweet spot, and you have to press it just right. Of course, when I really need to take a shot, I miss the sweet spot. And trying to focus the rangefinder on the XA is joke.

That said, I'm carrying an XA2 with me today. Nice cameras, just that they could have been so much more.

Oh, and the other disappointment? Digital.

Wes

novum
07-21-2009, 11:43
visible grain in areas that are out of focus, even on prints smaller than 8x10, when using iso 400 film. i must be doing something wrong...

What are you doing? I like grain, but that sounds like something's wrong. Film, developer, process?

novum
07-21-2009, 11:57
[quote=mfunnell;1053482]I also have the Mamiya 645 and rarely use it on a tripod...my beef with it is the second shutter release on top...I have hit it too many times...I lock the shutter when I'm done shooting or else I might lose another frame...

Reminds me of how annoying my Rollei 6006's (v.1) shutter release buttons were. One non-recessed button on each side of the lens, with a hair-trigger motorized film advance guaranteed to waste film now and then.