PDA

View Full Version : Worst View Camera Ever?



Frank Petronio
16-Oct-2008, 06:19
As a counter to all these sentimental camera fetish threads.... Which were the worst large format cameras you've ever used?

Might as well diss other formats as well, since it is so much fun to gossip behind the camera's backs :D

My least favorite big camera was a heavy but loose 8x10 deGolden Busch that looked like it was built with nautical hardware. It had all the rigidity of a hundred year old Korona with none of the elegance -- yet it weighed at least 25 lbs.

The worst ever little one was the ridiculously expensive "state of the art professional" Sony FP-3 digital, an upgrade from the D770: http://www.dpreview.com/news/9906/99063001sonyd770.asp

1999's "state of the art" was 1.5 mp!

I also had a Russian Horizant that would literally "chew" film.

Juergen Sattler
16-Oct-2008, 06:30
I know, many will disagree with me, but as we know, LF cameras are a very personal thing - the worst 4x5 I have owned was the Linhof Technika - we just didn't get along (you'd think a German would love the precision and the quality). I just hated the way it handled wide angle lenses (I had a III and a IV) and it was heavy. After a handful of other 4x5 ventures, I finally settled on the Canham DLC45 and we seem to get along just fine:-)

D. Bryant
16-Oct-2008, 06:30
As a counter to all these sentimental camera fetish threads.... Which were the worst large format cameras you've ever used?

Might as well diss other formats as well, since it is so much fun to gossip behind the camera's backs :D

My least favorite big camera was a heavy but loose 8x10 deGolden Busch that looked like it was built with nautical hardware. It had all the rigidity of a hundred year old Korona with none of the elegance -- yet it weighed at least 25 lbs.

The worst ever little one was the ridiculously expensive "state of the art professional" Sony FP-3 digital, an upgrade from the D770: http://www.dpreview.com/news/9906/99063001sonyd770.asp

1999's "state of the art" was 1.5 mp!

I also had a Russian Horizant that would literally "chew" film.
Any of the Calumet metal view cameras, such as the C1.

Don Bryant

EuGene Smith
16-Oct-2008, 06:34
My worst were:

Leica IIIf - a pain in the butt to use in every respect; even an Argus "brick" would put it to shame.

and

Ricoh 126-Flex - the biggest joke in photography, a "pro SLR" wannabe for that God awful 126 film - gave it away twice and got it back twice. Finally set it on a counter in my Brother's flea market and just left it there.

EuGene

Greg Lockrey
16-Oct-2008, 06:34
One with a big hole in the bellows.... :p

John Kasaian
16-Oct-2008, 06:51
A pinhole camera I made from a frozen turkey--baaaad idea!

Bill_1856
16-Oct-2008, 06:55
LOL! A GREAT post.

EuGene Smith
16-Oct-2008, 06:56
"A pinhole camera I made from a frozen turkey--baaaad idea!"

Wow! And I though a 126 SLR was a bad joke! The Blue Ribbon goes to John . . . nothing can top that "camera"!!

David A. Goldfarb
16-Oct-2008, 07:21
I hope you took the giblets out before putting the film in, John.

My worst was a Pentacon 6. It had some great lenses, and I got some good shots with it, but the touchy film advance was frustrating.

paul08
16-Oct-2008, 07:21
I never warmed up to my Technika IV and sold it after a year. Certainly doesn't belong in any "worst" category, but it wasn't for me. I do think the Calumet Cadets kind of suck when used outside. With such a great design in the N-series cameras -- great for students but still fine for most professinal work -- I'm not sure Calumet needed the Cadet (although they sold plenty to art departments all over the country). Other than that there were some old field cameras that were too rickety to hold their settings, but that was partly due to age and lack of care.

Vaughn
16-Oct-2008, 07:58
A 4x5 Raja. An exact duplicate of a Deardorf Special made in India, all the weight, but none of the quality. I hitchhiked for 3 months in New Zealand with it and it had a massive light leak where the metal of the film back met the wood (discovered after my return).

I put a Deardorf 5x7 back on it and it became a wonderful camera.

Vaughn

eric black
16-Oct-2008, 08:06
Never really liked my Wista DXII- the knobs too small and unmanageable for my meathooks

Oren Grad
16-Oct-2008, 08:14
A 5x7 Burke and James. The front and rear standards had only the most precarious grip on the focusing track, so both were like jello. The folding focusing hood was extremely effective at blocking my view of the focusing screen. The focusing screen had a bold black grid pattern competing with the picture for attention - except here and there where it had rubbed off. The fold-down-to-the-rear rail was ideally positioned to intersect with my neck. And the thing weighed eight pounds.

Although I've never owned one, I agree that the Cadet was not Calumet/Cambo's brightest idea. The controls on the samples I've seen were impossible to adjust smoothly. That's partly why I've never owned one. :)

Apropos of Frank's Horizont, I still have a beat-up Horizon 202. The wind lever periodically falls off. The first time it happened, it took me a while to figure out that the reason I was having so much trouble putting back the fussy little screws that hold it in place was that the handedness of the threading was backward.

My entry in the "highly reputed cameras that just don't work out for me" category is the Hasselblad. I found a great deal on a 501C kit at a local dealer after digital had swept the market, and I was eager to see for myself why Hasselblads were so wonderful. I ended up keeping it for only a few months. Although it was nicely made, I found it hopelessly fussy to use.

Mark Sampson
16-Oct-2008, 08:19
My least favorite was the Camerz SLR. a 70mm long-roll camera for portraits. Huge, heavy, and nearly impossible to focus. I hope no one is still using one of those beasts.

Dave Brown
16-Oct-2008, 08:30
The Super Graphic. Terrible camera; excellent doorstop. It lacks the simple elegance and Art Deco beauty of its fore bearers.

It's kind of amazing that given how simple view cameras are, it's nonetheless possible to design a bad one. Perhaps we're all too fussy.

Turner Reich
16-Oct-2008, 08:46
The Calumet C1 8x10 metal camera that bites back.

Daniel_Buck
16-Oct-2008, 08:51
I've got a grey metal calumet 4x5 (I got it for free!) It may not be the worst camera made, but it's the 'worst' one I've used, it's very clunky to use, though I did kind of like the rotating back that could rotate to any angle! :-) I don't know why I haven't chucked it in the dumpster yet, it's missing alot of parts.

W K Longcor
16-Oct-2008, 09:04
My vote for the all time worst view camera -- the Newton NU- Vue 4X5 -- what a dog!!! The entire design was just plain BAD!

At one time, I owned a B&J Grover 8x10, too. It was as firm and steady as an Aspen Leaf in a wind storm -- but somehow, we got along quite well.

Scott Davis
16-Oct-2008, 10:01
I'll put in another vote for the Nu-Vue. What a godawful design! Gee- let's make a bi-rail camera out of die-cast metal, and give it a handle! So you'll have something to upgrade your wrist workout with after you've gotten used to bench-pressing an RB67.

C. D. Keth
16-Oct-2008, 10:08
I'll put in another vote for the Nu-Vue. What a godawful design! Gee- let's make a bi-rail camera out of die-cast metal, and give it a handle! So you'll have something to upgrade your wrist workout with after you've gotten used to bench-pressing an RB67.

The only good point about that design it that it made me think, for a few seconds, that maybe the rods would be sized and spaced so I could put my arri mattebox on it and use all of my 4x5.6 filters.

Frank Petronio
16-Oct-2008, 10:11
Oh I forgot. Kodak Retinas are pretty ghastly, with the interchangeable front elements and Gyro Gearloose mechanics....

Michael Graves
16-Oct-2008, 10:31
The worst one I ever had is coincidentally, the only brand new one I ever bought, and it was manufactured by my favorite camera maker...Toyo.

Back when the first came out, I jumped all over an Omega View 45D. I worked for Photomark at the time and there was a fairly substantial discount that Toyo offered to camera store employees. The ground glass didn't line up with the film plane and I never got a sharp picture from it. I had it back for service twice and they kept telling me it must be my eyes, there was nothing wrong with the camera. I tried a different camera, using the same film holders and got perfectly sharp negatives. I always used a Schneider loupe for focusing and a rather sturdy Gitzo tripod.

But that wasn't its only problem. The back was so stiff that you almost had to pry the thing open to get a film holder in. It didn't have interchangeable bellows and after only a few months the began to separate from the frame. I made so much noise that Toyo finally agreed to take it back. They gave me full credit toward a Toyo 4x5 which has been a wonderful camera.

Walter Calahan
16-Oct-2008, 10:32
My Gandolfi Variant II (composite, not wood) was terrible. Couldn't get rid of it fast enough, nor could I put it in the oven for Thanksgiving.

That gives me an idea. Anyone make a pinhole camera out of an oven? Ha ha ha ha

John, you're killing me.

Pat Kearns
16-Oct-2008, 10:49
I've never made a pinhole camera out of a turkey or oven, but, I did make one out of the cardboard tube from a roll of toilet paper.

Okay, I'll say it before anyone else does.... it was a crappy little camera. :p

Pete Watkins
16-Oct-2008, 11:46
My 4x5 MPP Press is badly built crap! What is worse I've still got the sodding thing, Really horrid.
Pete.

SAShruby
16-Oct-2008, 11:58
I'm happy no one mentioned Deardorff here. :D

raucousimages
16-Oct-2008, 12:18
Toyo 45E. The plastic parts are so brittle thay shatter if they are damaged.

CG
16-Oct-2008, 13:10
I'll put in another vote for the Nu-Vue. What a godawful design! Gee- let's make a bi-rail camera out of die-cast metal, and give it a handle! So you'll have something to upgrade your wrist workout with after you've gotten used to bench-pressing an RB67.

You don't know nuttin' till you've pressed an RB with the prism on top...

C

Jeffrey Sipress
16-Oct-2008, 14:20
My first 4x5 was a Toyo 45CF. Even though I was new, operating it was very unpleasant. Fortunately, I moved on to real cameras.

I went out with a friend with a 4x5 made by Wisner. I looked at it pretty closely, and didn't like a thing about it. What a crude design in every mechanism. The wood was pretty but the camera was awful.

Paul O
17-Oct-2008, 00:15
A Deardorff V8 - sorry SAShruby :rolleyes: A fine looking camera but a bugger to work with! Mine was an old (but pretty) camera that wobbled continuously in the slightest of breezes and after inserting darkslide?? Tried everything to get it to keep still but nothing seemed to work ... in the end I would have traded it for a turkey :p

Turner Reich
17-Oct-2008, 02:00
You don't know nuttin' till you've pressed an RB with the prism on top...

I opened the prism up one time and found that the open spaces inside were filled with lead.:D

Brian Stein
17-Oct-2008, 02:26
Ook! Have just purchased a B&J 57 so hoping its not as bad as Oren says.... Went through a folder-fetish and just hated the crappy bellows on Isolettes; bought a Tower press camera: overengineered in the worst possible way--everything strong made way stronger and heavier to no benefit, and with a total lack of finesse

Keith Tapscott.
17-Oct-2008, 03:43
The Russian FKD 13 x 18 cm Camera.

Joseph O'Neil
17-Oct-2008, 05:15
A poorly assembled Bender 4x5. I still have the one I built and love it (aka -my avatar), but a few years after I built mine, (and taking a long time and a lot of love to do so), I ran across another one for sale, one that somebody did a horrible job of assembling. More of an abomination than a camera.
:eek: :eek:

Some people should never be allowed near any kind of tools.
:rolleyes:

Tony Lakin
17-Oct-2008, 05:17
You don't know nuttin' till you've pressed an RB with the prism on top...

C

OK:) :) :)
18447

Turner Reich
17-Oct-2008, 19:29
Tony, don't I see a support bar just behind your arm?

Ross Chambers
17-Oct-2008, 23:57
A poorly assembled Bender 4x5. I still have the one I built and love it (aka -my avatar), but a few years after I built mine, (and taking a long time and a lot of love to do so), I ran across another one for sale, one that somebody did a horrible job of assembling. More of an abomination than a camera.
:eek: :eek:

Some people should never be allowed near any kind of tools.
:rolleyes:

Just the reason that I rescinded an early thought of following the Bender path, so the abomination wasn't mine.

Occasionally I wonder whether I should be allowed near any kind of camera, too.

Regards - Ross

Joseph O'Neil
18-Oct-2008, 05:13
Occasionally I wonder whether I should be allowed near any kind of camera, too.

Ah, wouldn't worry much. I forget which photographer first said it, but there's a quote out there to the effect that "the first 10,000 negatives are the worst." So by that standard, you have plenty of leeway. :)

Of course, this refers to film (likely 35mm). I just turned over 10,000 on my DSLR that I bought this past February. :) I suppose to extrapolate, we would say the first million in digital, or perhaps the first 1,000 in 4x5 or the first ten in 20x24. :D

Len Middleton
18-Oct-2008, 09:45
I know, many will disagree with me, but as we know, LF cameras are a very personal thing - the worst 4x5 I have owned was the Linhof Technika - we just didn't get along (you'd think a German would love the precision and the quality). I just hated the way it handled wide angle lenses (I had a III and a IV) and it was heavy. After a handful of other 4x5 ventures, I finally settled on the Canham DLC45 and we seem to get along just fine:-)

Good point. All designs are compromises of some sort (weight, size, rigidity, bellows extension, wide angle capability, cost, etc.), so what is your criteria for a good design. Some do however get it all wrong!!

I on the other hand enjoy both the Technika 45 (model V) and the Deardorff V8. I understand and accept the compromises related to their designs for my use.

I will throw in a vote for the Calumet C1. Even in the green magnesium version it was painfully heavy. It would probably do well in a studio, but it is not where I wanted to use it. I also did not like the lack of front focus.

My thoughts,

Len

Preston
21-Oct-2008, 13:18
"A pinhole camera I made from a frozen turkey--baaaad idea!"

Just curious, John; but, which end of the turkey did you use for the 'pinhole'? :D

-Preston

Jim Noel
21-Oct-2008, 14:15
My vote for the all time worst view camera -- the Newton NU- Vue 4X5 -- what a dog!!! The entire design was just plain BAD!

At one time, I owned a B&J Grover 8x10, too. It was as firm and steady as an Aspen Leaf in a wind storm -- but somehow, we got along quite well.

Another vote for the Nu-Vue in 4x5 and the Grover 8x10. Both are clumsy, extremely heavy and a real PIA.

Anupam
21-Oct-2008, 14:59
A Bender 4x5 would be it for me if it weren't so darn cheap. But generally I dislike all monorails where the rail sticks in your throat.

Worst serious camera (assuming we are leaving out dollar store cams and such) would be a Contax G. Worst of both the SLR and RF worlds!

Lightbender
21-Oct-2008, 15:31
Graflex graphic view... 1 and 2

OK I get the reason they had a triangular rail.. so that tightening the standard onto the rail would not change the position.. but just about everything else i hated.

archivue
21-Oct-2008, 16:40
Canham 8x10 metal and linhof technikardan S 45... they just can't handle any wind !

MIke Sherck
21-Oct-2008, 18:56
Another vote for the Nu-Vue in 4x5 and the Grover 8x10. Both are clumsy, extremely heavy and a real PIA.

I'm curious about your comment re: the Grover 8x10. I use one of those and mine weighs 8.5 lbs. (US) -- not bad at all for an 8x10 camera. Like all monorails it's a PITA away from the car, but it's certainly luggable for a mile or so. And it was dirt cheap. Are there other, more weighty, models?

Mike

Peter De Smidt
21-Oct-2008, 20:05
Calumet Cadet.

john borrelli
23-Oct-2008, 21:07
I owned a Tachihara that broke while it was in the camera bag. To this day, can't figure out how it happened, beautiful camera though.

On that turkey camera ...can you fit the turkey in a drum or just use tray processing?

John Kasaian
23-Oct-2008, 22:01
I owned a Tachihara that broke while it was in the camera bag. To this day, can't figure out how it happened, beautiful camera though.

On that turkey camera ...can you fit the turkey in a drum or just use tray processing?

Polaroid Type 55! :D

Brian Bullen
23-Oct-2008, 22:08
I'm curious about your comment re: the Grover 8x10. I use one of those and mine weighs 8.5 lbs. (US) -- not bad at all for an 8x10 camera. Like all monorails it's a PITA away from the car, but it's certainly luggable for a mile or so. And it was dirt cheap. Are there other, more weighty, models?

Mike

Mike, 8.5 lbs for an 8x10 Grover is pretty light. My grover, with 20 in. rail is ~13.5 lbs. I did make a wide angle focusing bed for it that brought the weight down to around 8.5 lbs. With the rail it's clunky but does well for portraits and heavier old lenses.

I think brush development is the only way to develop a turkey camera in trays, but some swear by the baster.

Gary L. Quay
24-Oct-2008, 00:36
The worst one I used was a Linhof Technica IV. It was very well built, but not very versitile. It also jammed every time I tried to collapse the bellows to put it away.

Unlike many others here, I happen to love my Calumet C-1, though. It had a number of useful modifications done to it in the early 1960s. I just wouldn't want to drop it on my foot.

--Gary

Turner Reich
24-Oct-2008, 01:43
Gary, what modifications did you have done on your C1? Maybe some would improve mine.

Frank Petronio
24-Oct-2008, 04:18
That's funny, I think of the Tech IV as a nearly perfect design... guess that's what makes this an interesting thread.

Joseph O'Neil
24-Oct-2008, 05:20
Gary, what modifications did you have done on your C1? Maybe some would improve mine.

Ditto here too. I just bought a used C1, and almost the day it arrived in the mail this thread started about the worst camera, and i see C1 mentioned all over the place.

Gee, thanks guys, you all do this on purpose or what?
:D

Seriously though, even if it takes a new thread, would love to hear (and see) any potential mods to a C1

joe

cobalt
24-Oct-2008, 05:33
Tachihara 5x7! Beautiful camera... but a royal pain in the ass to use. The only thing I liked about it was the ease with which one could change the orientation from landscape to portrait.
Then there was the Nikon D70. I hated the plasticky images that thing produced.
Oh... and one more.... I hated the Canon 5D. Ergonomics sucked ( I have big hands ), and the dynamic range was too limited for me for such an expensive camera.

Darryl Baird
24-Oct-2008, 05:57
8x10 Kodak Master View -- wobbly beast in the hands of a twenty-something year old, it would probably be fine today, (I blame the photographer:p )

MPP technical - weirdest design ever, heavy, inelegant... F'''ing ugly

Calumet Cadet (for our school program) -- broke on a regular basis, non-standard rail and parts... huge PITA to get ground glass back springs back on after students routinely yank the back out of their spring sockets, yuk.

Badger brand 4x5 -- same problem with the backs as the Cadet, just less frequent

non view -- Bronica 2A, shutter shake/vibration was terrible... camera would literally walk across a table top if you used a cable release and tripped the shutter

John Kasaian
24-Oct-2008, 08:05
"A pinhole camera I made from a frozen turkey--baaaad idea!"

Just curious, John; but, which end of the turkey did you use for the 'pinhole'? :D

-Preston

The shim stock with the pin hole was jammed into the "appropriate" end.;)

Eric James
24-Oct-2008, 08:07
So all that extra neck skin serves as a dark cloth - clever.

Tony Lakin
24-Oct-2008, 09:02
That's funny, I think of the Tech IV as a nearly perfect design... guess that's what makes this an interesting thread.
After using my STIII Mk.IV for more than 30 years I decided to upgrade to a ST.IV which I thought would be more versatile, I had never handled one before and where I live it would be impossible to find one to try, anyway I purchased one for a very good price, I hated it and only kept it for a couple of weeks before selling it on for a profit and used the proceeds towards a Canham DLC45 which is fantastic (I had already been using a JMC810 for a couple of years) so as you say different things suit different people.
PS I still use my STIII under certain circumstances where robustness is a requirement.

Gary L. Quay
24-Oct-2008, 22:40
Gary, what modifications did you have done on your C1? Maybe some would improve mine.


I didn't do the modifications, but you can see the camera in the "Show off your camera" thread. A "new," detachable front standard was added in front of the original one. It has a 4" Packard shutter attached to the rear, and a place for extended lensboards in the front. I can use almost any barrel lens. with it. The shutter has a bi-post flash sync on the standard, instead of on the shutter. The shutter itself was modified to do extended exposures without the pin. Just squeeze the bulb gently and remove remove the wooden plug. No need to touch the camera. The new front standard can be removed to use the original standard. So, I can use shuttered lenses as well. What it lacks in movements it makes up for in sheer creative possibilities.

--Gary

ViewCameraNut
25-Oct-2008, 05:34
An older B&J (Bunk & Junk) 5x7. The only thing that locked down tight on the camera was where the tripod connected to it.

John Kasaian
25-Oct-2008, 19:48
An older B&J (Bunk & Junk) 5x7. The only thing that locked down tight on the camera was where the tripod connected to it.

Cool! My frozen turkey didn't even have a tripod socket!:D

domenico Foschi
25-Oct-2008, 22:32
I assume you are talking about the Bronica S2A.
I used to use one,....for weddings!!
It was the terror of the priests.
At every exposure you could hear the echo of the shutter and mirror:Clu-CLUNG!!in those Majestic Italian churches where the Rolling Stones could play without sound system.
It was terrifying to see those guilt inducing priest eyes.
.

8x10 Kodak Master View -- wobbly beast in the hands of a twenty-something year old, it would probably be fine today, (I blame the photographer:p )

MPP technical - weirdest design ever, heavy, inelegant... F'''ing ugly

Calumet Cadet (for our school program) -- broke on a regular basis, non-standard rail and parts... huge PITA to get ground glass back springs back on after students routinely yank the back out of their spring sockets, yuk.

Badger brand 4x5 -- same problem with the backs as the Cadet, just less frequent

non view -- Bronica 2A, shutter shake/vibration was terrible... camera would literally walk across a table top if you used a cable release and tripped the shutter

roteague
26-Oct-2008, 14:39
Nikon D200.

EuGene Smith
26-Oct-2008, 16:41
Gosh, I like my old Bunk & Junks!

Now, John, I gave up trying to use a frozen turkey . . . just couldn't get the film holder to fit in the hole correctly. But, golly, I newer thought of using Poloroid 55. Man, just grab the hole with one hand, squeeze it shut, and pull out the tab to process the print. Great idea, john! :D

John Kasaian
26-Oct-2008, 20:13
Gosh, I like my old Bunk & Junks!

Now, John, I gave up trying to use a frozen turkey . . . just couldn't get the film holder to fit in the hole correctly. But, golly, I newer thought of using Poloroid 55. Man, just grab the hole with one hand, squeeze it shut, and pull out the tab to process the print. Great idea, john! :D

The slot to insert the film holder is cut into the carcass with a Milwuakee Sawzall. The turkey has to be frozen rock hard and securely strapped down to a board for the operation (having someone hold the slippery bird while you to attempt to cut into it with the Sawzall is way too dangerous!:eek: )

I don't recall the recommended Sawzall blade for frozen turkey carcass, but then I'm in denial of the whole foul mess anyway!

Kevin Convery
27-Oct-2008, 15:35
- Burke and James 8x10 Field camera! Nothing locks down properly, the tripod socket doesn't look stripped but of all the different tripod heads I've tried it never stays put, it weighs a ton, doesn't fold correctly, it's a poor design and it hurts my eyes.
-Toyo 45CX only real problem, but a big one, the back was so stiff you needed two hands to pull the gg frame back to insert a holder and every time it moved the camera significantly.
-RB67, weighed more than most 4x5s and what is up with cocking the shutter THEN having to advance the film back? Dumb idea glad they fixed it with the RZ I guess...
-Nikon D70s, I have never, ever under any circumstances gotten a decent quality image out of it. Throw the most expensive perfect piece of glass on it and the image quality always seems to look like that of a cheap 2mp point and shoot.

Clement Apffel
28-Oct-2008, 09:14
Ha ha, thanks for this great post !
I still want to see some pictures out of that frozen turkey pin-hole camera. :rolleyes:

My personal worst photographic experience was with a East-German 135mm reflex camera :
a Praktica L mid 60's built (not sure of the date though).

it looked like a iron cube, or a hammer without his haft. it used mercury batteries (of course) for the light measure.
the metal lamel shutter looked and sounded like a guillotine and the lens... it was a screw thread 45mm wich was probably more like a 60mm and wich never gave more than a 10% circle area of sharpness in the middle of the frame. no matter what aperture I used from f/2 to f/22.
it was ridiculously heavy and didn't had the tenth of the solidity you would swear it had by seeing its full iron design.

I ended the story by giving it away to a friend of mine saying she should start photography.
I feel a bit ashamed of that "gift" today ha ha.

Here is the toy :

http://63.164.201.182/javier/cameras/praktica-l.jpg

Bill_1856
28-Oct-2008, 09:59
In nearly 60 years of camera "collecting" I don't believe that I've ever had a camera which I didn't like (and I've owned dozens, or maybe hundeds).
My greatest LF disappointment is the SUPER GRAPHIC, which turned out to be a step backwards from the Crown. It was a noble effort, but they needed another generation of development to make it bulletproof (for example, it takes two hands to tilt or swing the front standard).

SAShruby
28-Oct-2008, 10:32
Ha ha, thanks for this great post !
I still want to see some pictures out of that frozen turkey pin-hole camera. :rolleyes:

My personal worst photographic experience was with a East-German 135mm reflex camera :
a Praktica L mid 60's built (not sure of the date though).

it looked like a iron cube, or a hammer without his haft. it used mercury batteries (of course) for the light measure.
the metal lamel shutter looked and sounded like a guillotine and the lens... it was a screw thread 45mm wich was probably more like a 60mm and wich never gave more than a 10% circle area of sharpness in the middle of the frame. no matter what aperture I used from f/2 to f/22.
it was ridiculously heavy and didn't had the tenth of the solidity you would swear it had by seeing its full iron design.

I ended the story by giving it away to a friend of mine saying she should start photography.
I feel a bit ashamed of that "gift" today ha ha.



I'm sorry but,

I must defend Practica. I owned just about 15 Prackticas from fully mechanical to latest ones during my early photography era and those cameras are excellent and very easy to use. Those batteries you're saying... My dad bought UCAR battery 25 years ago and it's still good!!! works flawlessly!!! I agree shutter is noisy, but who cares!!!, works flawlesly all the time. It is some damn good East-German precise manufacturing!!!

On lenses, I'm not sure what you had, but I had Carl Zeiss optics, especially 50mm/F1.4... man, that is some fine lens, I can tell.

From all eastern-european 35mm cameras, Practicas were the best ones!

Frank Petronio
28-Oct-2008, 10:36
I'll defend the Nikon D70s -- I get great photos from the several I've owned and I like that it's menu system and controls are simple compared to the feature-creep of the later models. In fact I still use mine nearly everyday.

Kevin Convery
30-Oct-2008, 00:05
I'll defend the Nikon D70s -- I get great photos from the several I've owned and I like that it's menu system and controls are simple compared to the feature-creep of the later models. In fact I still use mine nearly everyday.

Frank,
I can surely agree with you on the ease of use when it comes to the menus and controls. I don't know, sometimes I think its because when I went to school it was around the time the dSLR became within the $1,200 - $1,500 price range and they still weren't sure of how to do all those nifty PS tricks and I ended up spending all my time in the color darkroom. Then again, I've had friends who are photoshop wizards work on my images from the d70 and they still didn't look THAT great. Perhaps I suck...

Clement Apffel
30-Oct-2008, 06:21
I'm sorry but,

I must defend Practica. I owned just about 15 Prackticas from fully mechanical to latest ones during my early photography era and those cameras are excellent and very easy to use. Those batteries you're saying... My dad bought UCAR battery 25 years ago and it's still good!!! works flawlessly!!! I agree shutter is noisy, but who cares!!!, works flawlesly all the time. It is some damn good East-German precise manufacturing!!!

On lenses, I'm not sure what you had, but I had Carl Zeiss optics, especially 50mm/F1.4... man, that is some fine lens, I can tell.

From all eastern-european 35mm cameras, Practicas were the best ones!

Then I guess I got tricked by the seller. I mean, eventhough the shutter didn't looked rusty at all, the exposure times were quite random : I had to anticipate that the "rust" was causing a +50% coefficient on exposure times.
And even with that, I had quite unstable results.
plus the 1/1000s gave quite the same result than the 1/500s speed.

Oh and, if I mentioned the mercury batteries, it's only cause mine fell out of power after like 6 months and that I never found any other batteries to replace it.

And like someone said above in this post, I too should have specify that I just didn't fit with that camera. taking apart all the technical hazards I encountered, the viewfinder was inadequate for a glasses wearer and the design was bulky and non-ergonomic to me.
Especially if you compare that model to other contemporary reflex cameras.

Once again, that is my opinion. :)

EuGene Smith
30-Oct-2008, 07:46
OMG, here's the penultimate LF camera fabricator! :eek:

Read the write-up that accompanies the vacuum cleaner camera thing (#270277464298 on FleaBay) . . . like, this guy makes cameras out of everything from toys to bowling balls. Just imagine what he could do with a frozen turkey! :D

Smiff

evan clarke
30-Oct-2008, 09:10
OMG, here's the penultimate LF camera fabricator! :eek:

Read the write-up that accompanies the vacuum cleaner camera thing (#270277464298 on FleaBay) . . . like, this guy makes cameras out of everything from toys to bowling balls. Just imagine what he could do with a frozen turkey! :D

Smiff

You might think penultimate, but go take a look at this guy's cameras!!:)

http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html


Evan Clarke

Jim Galli
30-Oct-2008, 09:31
You knew it was coming...........

Hasselblad ELM. When I inherited this shop with it's cameras they were real proud of this Hasselblad. To me it's like a 1958 Mercedes Benz with the 4 speed stick shift on the column. Unnecessary funkiness. The backs were all loosey goosey and half the time the film wouldn't advance. The shutter would jam, it weighed a ton, and the batteries would spin the starter on a Model A Ford. The last time I tried to use it the film didn't advance, the customer was unhappy, and I put it neatly in it's original Hasselblad case with all it's accessories and stored it in a con-ex.

EuGene Smith
30-Oct-2008, 11:09
WoW, Evan, I hadn't seen all those "cameras" (?) . . . guess it's a good thing I said penultimate, as I was trying to leave room for someone even wackier, maybe the devil himself!! After seing those images, maybe the devil has been found. ;)

Could this be the guy who, in a fit of jealousy over Galli's LGM's showering him with all those lenses, decided to punish Jim with the ELM? :D

$8,000 to $26,000 apeice for those pieces of art, eh? :confused:

Smiff

DougD
30-Oct-2008, 12:34
My worst was an old Ansco 8x10. Everything was loose and the tailboard had a tendency to get loose and bang me in the face or head when I mounted it on a tripod.

ImSoNegative
22-Dec-2008, 15:35
another vote for the nuview as the worst camera i have ever used, a friend gave me one, shot one sheet of film with it, after that i was done. not worth wasting film on.

Turner Reich
22-Dec-2008, 16:43
Red Rover, Red Rover, who'd name a camera a Grover?

All the Nu Vu needed was a third rail. :D

I heard about a guy who used his Nu Vu as a car jack. :eek:


Seriously though, even if it takes a new thread, would love to hear (and see) any potential mods to a C1

The only modification I can think of is "Drill Baby Drill", make it so light it will sail in the wind and become useless like a lot of other models. The moral of the story is once a boat anchor always a boat anchor. It is what it it, it's a survivor machine.

One other thought: Wouldn't a nice slick smooth rack and pinion focus be nice? Maybe round off the razor blade stainless steel locks. Why should a guy, or gal, have to make a base plate for them? I did, why didn't it come with one? At least it didn't come made of cast Iron.

Rafael Garcia
22-Dec-2008, 19:33
Gray Calumet monorail, long rail. It sticks you in the ribs, or the rail shows up in the photo. Impossible to take to the field!

Kevin Crisp
22-Dec-2008, 19:48
The Nue-Views do look awful, but I have never actually used one. My least favorite was the B&J "Watson," which is kind of a poor man's crown graphic with a rotating back. The back leaks if you don't tape it up. I only took it out once and happened (and I do mean happened) to get two of my favorite negatives. There's a lesson there.

beemermark
22-Dec-2008, 21:26
I have a Voigtlander Prominent with the 50/1.5 Nokton. Beautiful camera, beautiful lens and just about impossible to take a picture with. Nobody could design a more un-user friendly camera if they tried. In 20 years I doubt if I put 20 rolls thru it. I love the lens and wish I could tape it onto a Leica.

cjbroadbent
23-Dec-2008, 06:25
Any 5x7-sized 4x5.
Any camera that requires assembly and disassembly.

cobalt
23-Dec-2008, 08:24
Any Burke and James flatbed.

Anything made by Mentor.

MIke Sherck
23-Dec-2008, 11:30
Gray Calumet monorail, long rail. It sticks you in the ribs, or the rail shows up in the photo. Impossible to take to the field!

Mine came with a 26" rail, which was too long for me. I cut 10" off, leaving a 16" rail, and it's fine now. Not a bad field camera within a mile or two of the car, providing the terrain isn't rough enough that you need both hands.

Now it's my backup camera, since I got an older Zone VI which folds up and fits in a backpack. Much more convenient to carry, although perhaps not to use. The CC-400's geared rise and rotating back were very convenient.

Mike

Robbie Shymanski
23-Dec-2008, 13:00
I own a C-1 and I love the stupid thing. It was given to me as a package with a heavy tripod, Majestic head, all three backs. It was my "thrown into the deep end" introduction to LF. It's first use was for shooting architecture using the 5x7 back (a HABS documentation FYI). Beggars cannot be choosers and this was a case in point. I had to take the whole thing apart to clean & lube the thing. All the exposed magnesium had a nice coat of grime and corrosion. Once I had cleaned and stoned the contacting parts, I discovered that the front standard could actually shift! The big mod that took place to the camera was to make it useful as a wide shooting architectural camera. Planning to shoot with a Nikkor SW 120 several changes had to be made. First was the addition of a bag bellows. This I made out of faux-ostrich Ultrasuede and pine for the frames. To allow for greater camera movement, I ground down the base of the front standard and the front of the two verticals on the rear (see pics). The only complaint I have is that I couldn't remove 16" of the rails that pushed into my chest as I'd focus, but the it worked as nice little shelf for holding film holders. I was able to get a hell of a lot out of this camera. I like the weight and lack of geared movements. Made me appreciate the purchase of my Toyo G and I have no fear of taking it out into the field.

Michael Kadillak
24-Dec-2008, 14:58
I have been fortunate enought to ferret out the crap LF cameras before I purchased them. All one had to do was set it up, use the adjustments and tighten it down and see how really easy this process is and how rigid it locks down. I defered purchased of several Deardorffs as well as a Kodak 4x5 master to this day for these reasons. Anything from Russia, India or the Eastern Block I do not even bother with for obvious reasons.

For years I chose to believe what people say regularly about what a piece of crap the Calumet C1 is. What a mistake that recommendation was. After finding one cheap enought to give it a go I was surprised to find it absolutely marvelous to use. A real gem that I use regularly. For lenses longer than 14" up to about 30" is is a pleasure to make images with. It is rigid as hell and one can adjust the tripod center position for each photograph. The original ground glass snaps into focus like a big dog and she locks down well. Wind - who cares? Say what you want but the group of individuals that designed this camera were photographers and they knew what they were doing.

Kevin Crisp
24-Dec-2008, 16:04
Yep, those Deardorffs sure are crap. I don't know how anybody makes negatives with them. I hear they don't last very long either.

Michael Kadillak
25-Dec-2008, 08:48
Yep, those Deardorffs sure are crap. I don't know how anybody makes negatives with them. I hear they don't last very long either.

Hard to generically pile all of them into this "crap" category. Michael Smith has a pretty excellent and rare 8x20 Deardorff. The ones that I looked at in my price range at the time in the used market were old, beat to hell and pretty much used up. One would think that taking care of a camera particularly a wooden view camera would be a priority, but that is obviously not always the case.

Personally I like the fact that Canham uses full length through bolts as opposed to high pitch wooden screws as well as American hardwoods in his cameras. I just started saving and even though it took me some time to get my Canham, it was worth it.

Kevin Crisp
25-Dec-2008, 09:09
I was (obviously, I thought) being sarcastic because you did generically do just that. I realize that a last model Deardorff may not be every bit as capable as the very latest, but for a design thought up so long ago and essentially unchanged except for adding front swing, it remains very capable. (I think those two sentences pretty much summarize the official review on this forum.) Any camera, if abused, can become unusable -- there are certainly many Graphlex models now in that category, and you can hardly call them poorly made. I have had 3 Deardorff 5X7's, having twice made the mistake of selling what I had. The current one is a NOS no front swing 5X7. I can live without the front swing. It is a delightful camera.

I was just surprised anyone brought up DD's in a thread about the worst cameras ever made.

Chuck P.
25-Dec-2008, 11:11
Am glad to notice that no one metioned any Horsemans as their worst camera, I have the 4x5 LE monorial and it's quite solid and functions very well in the field.

al olson
25-Dec-2008, 12:01
OMG, here's the penultimate LF camera fabricator! :eek:

Smiff

I don't follow the relevance of this being the next to last (penultimate) LF camera fabricator?

EuGene Smith
25-Dec-2008, 19:25
Golly, al, I figured that would be self explanitory. None of us can identify the very worst view camera of all, so by saying one is the penultimate, or next to last, camera maker when we are trying to identify the worst gave me the chance to identify what I consider the lousiest without my being so unreasonably bold as to attempt to preclude others from finding one even worse.

Yeah, it's a cop-out, as I basically identified the next to last, rendering my waffling position safe while the rest of the folks battled it out over which is the ultimate piece of junk that's even worse than those of the manufacturer that I identified.

When one has 2 pieces of garbage at the bottom of the landfill, their positions relative to each other aren't too important . . . are they? :)

Smiff

tim o'brien
26-Dec-2008, 21:30
I am also amazed the Michael would name the Kadillak of view cameras, but a lot of Deardorffs were beat to hell in catalog shops. A good 'dorf is a joy to use.

Personally, the worse I have ever used was/is my flatbed 5x7 B&J Watson. And it's not that bad, you can set it up and take photos with it, it's just not a Deardorff, a camera I fell in love with the first time I got under the dark cloth.

tim in san jose

Nathan Smith
27-Dec-2008, 08:30
>I am also amazed the Michael would name the Kadillak of view cameras, but a lot of Deardorffs were beat to hell in catalog shops. A good 'dorf is a joy to use.

Yep, from reading through this thread it does sound like a lot of the complaints are due to just plain worn-out cameras: loose, don't hold adjustment, etc. I guess some of these old beasts are just worn past the point of simple repair.

Kuzano
27-Dec-2008, 10:28
But I find it interesting that I have two Graphic Supers, A Badger M1, and a Calumet Cadet in the case, in my possession. I find them all workable.

In the meantime, my very nice Toyo Field 45 AII is currently listed on eBay for sale, closing Monday. I love the Toyo, but I am hankering for another piece of equipment and the Toyo hasn't been out of the original box as much as I would like.

Michael Kadillak
27-Dec-2008, 15:55
As we can tell by the wide diversity of comments, all view cameras can make photographs. The questions comes into play because of personal preferences liking or disliking certain features along the way. Images never convey their camera origination and that is a good thing. If everyone liked the same things in a LF camera there would likely only be very limited number of camera makers. Fortunately, we have realized a highly diverse offering of these products over the years and things are still vibrant.

Part of the issue I have with certain camera makers cameras in the used market (Deardorff in particular) is the fact that re-sellers try to use the brand name to sell heavily used cameras at inflated prices. I ran across this situation at least two times and eventually just gave up and purchased a Kodak Master 8x10 that was in near mint condition for 60% of what the beat up Deardorff was offered to me for. In the end it all worked out for the better.

al olson
27-Dec-2008, 17:18
Gosh, Smiff, I am a little thick. I was under the impression that this fabricator was one of a kind. Didn't understand your intent to have him standing in line second from the end.

Back to the flow of the thread I would nominate my 8x10 Arkay Orbit, step brother to the Calumet C-1 and the B&J Orbit. Mine is a black, late model built in 1978. It has all the aggravations mentioned above, but with the Wollensak 15" tele it makes great negatives and I still love it.

Never far from the SUV it gets a lot of attention when I am setting up. Most folks in these parts have never gone up in one.

Glenn Thoreson
27-Dec-2008, 21:38
You guys got it all wrong. The absolute all time worst was some of my home made contraptions I built years ago. Nothing could come close. They took pictures, though, and that's all that counts. Over the years, I have graduated to making genuinely mediocre cameras. A quantum leap forward. They look better, they're easier to use, but they still take the same kind of pictures. Go figure. I think I'll just stick to my Speed Graphics, though. :D

EuGene Smith
27-Dec-2008, 23:11
Al, had I not provided some space in the queue blow the maker of vacuum cleaner cameras, we might never have had the joy of seeing the Boy of Blue cameras (?) that Evan brought to our attention. Glad I left some wiggle room for Evan to squeeze in, as I could never hope to defend my candidate against his.

Now, along comes Glenn with his choice for the worst . . . when the MAKER nominates his product as the worst, I have been skunked, and need to slink back into my hole and keep a low profile.

Smiff

SamReeves
28-Dec-2008, 00:25
Worst ever…quite easy choice for me. When I learned LF in school, we receieved a new shipment of Toyo 45CX's. I think most of our students destroyed the CX's in about a year. The movements were like having a boa constrictor between the bellows. Suffice to say, I always checked out the Calumet view cameras before getting my Tachi.

butterflydream
28-Dec-2008, 08:08
Hasselblad 1000F

EuGene Smith
28-Dec-2008, 18:11
Hasselblad 1000F :eek:

Is that also known as a Kiev 88? :D

Drew Bedo
29-Dec-2008, 15:20
My guess at the worst view camera ever would be one of the early Daguerreotype cameras. The lenses were not corrected for many of the aberrations. The cameras did not actually have a ground glass. The image was viewed through a trap door on a white ard, then the image plane was moved forward to a reference mark where the blue rays would be sharp. Then the sensitized plate inserted. Lens-cap shutter and expose for…ever. Everything later in photography was an improvement on this!

davidpz
24-Apr-2009, 11:22
A Gandolphi 5x4: I'd ordered up a 10x8 in about 1979 from Fred (Gandolphi) after spending a delightful Saturday morning at his workshop in South London with Terence Donovan. After about 10 years I arrived at the top of the waiting list. In the interim I'd bought a 10x8 Deardorff with reduction back, Gandolphi's had been bought by someone & I changed my request to a 5x4. This duly arrived & was sent back immediately due to a split in the baseboard. Next one arrived & the standards weren't parallel. The third one arrived. Served me quite well for 6 months in the studio. THEN, my first big commission abroad (Miami) shooting for a sun lotion ad campaign. 1 of the shots involved waiting for a 6yr old child to swim into frame while I was up a cherry picker. The Polaroid was fine. The 2 frames I shot off on the art director were fine. The 50 odd sheets taken waiting for the child to get into position - all fogged. Closer inspection revealed the light trap wasn't engaging with the darkslide as it wasn't milled out to the correct dimensions. Reshot the next day using my 10x8 Deardorff. Immediately ordered up a 5x7 special from Jack in Chicago and have never looked back since. Needless to say, the Gandolphi went back for correction & was immediately sold.

Chris Strobel
24-Apr-2009, 16:52
Any of the Calumet metal view cameras, such as the C1.

Don Bryant

Yeah the Calumet C-1 sucks! :p

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/57935879/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/96729599/large.jpg

Katier
24-Apr-2009, 17:15
I'm sorry but,

I must defend Practica. I owned just about 15 Prackticas from fully mechanical to latest ones during my early photography era and those cameras are excellent and very easy to use. Those batteries you're saying... My dad bought UCAR battery 25 years ago and it's still good!!! works flawlessly!!! I agree shutter is noisy, but who cares!!!, works flawlesly all the time. It is some damn good East-German precise manufacturing!!!

On lenses, I'm not sure what you had, but I had Carl Zeiss optics, especially 50mm/F1.4... man, that is some fine lens, I can tell.

From all eastern-european 35mm cameras, Practicas were the best ones!

I have to agree, my dad had one and loved it. Solid reliable cameras. As for the lenses.. the fact DSLR uses ( especially Pentax ones ) use M42 lenses says it all..

Brian Ellis
24-Apr-2009, 17:16
Every 35mm camera I've ever owned. You can't make technically high quality photographs from a negative the size of a postage stamp. My least favorite LF camera (not "bad," just one that didn't agree with me) was a Linhof Technikardan. Funny how some people list my favorite cameras among their least favorite - my Deardorff 8x10 was my all-time favorite wood camera, my Linhof Master Technika was my all-time favorite LF camera period, and my Canon 5D is my favorite small format camera.

DarkroomDan
24-Apr-2009, 17:58
I've still got a "Brand 17" 4x5 I bought 30 years ago for $35 including a lens. This thing is pretty much crap on a crumpet. That corrugated thing between the front and back of the camera, isn't it supposed to be flexible? Do the rest of you guys carry a can of penetrating oil to use before making adjustments? After using this my 5x7 Deardorff feels a little loosey goosey.

Dan

Chris Strobel
24-Apr-2009, 18:24
Do the rest of you guys carry a can of penetrating oil to use before making adjustments? Deardorff feels a little loosey goosey.

Dan

Yes 30wt motor oil :p

Merg Ross
24-Apr-2009, 18:43
[QUOTE=Chris Strobel;461988]Yeah the Calumet C-1 sucks!

It worked for Brett, with a Baco head and a Ries tripod.

Chris Strobel
24-Apr-2009, 23:06
[QUOTE=Chris Strobel;461988]Yeah the Calumet C-1 sucks!

It worked for Brett, with a Baco head and a Ries tripod.

Yeah it also worked for Cole, and up to a couple years ago Kim.I've chatted with Christopher Burkett a few times and he also is using the heavy black one to this day.I don't know why this camera would make it on this thread as one of the worst view cameras ever.I have two myself I use on a big Ries and they are a joy to use.Would never get rid of em.If I'm going to hike into the back country (which I seldom do) I'll take either the 4x5 or a dslr/pano head and stitch in PS.Otherwise working out of my jeep or in my studio the C-1 is very enjoyable.By the way Merg, was thumbing through some old issues of B&W mag the other day and ran into your spread.Lovely images!

Chris

Merg Ross
25-Apr-2009, 13:12
[QUOTE=Merg Ross;462010]

Yeah it also worked for Cole, and up to a couple years ago Kim.I've chatted with Christopher Burkett a few times and he also is using the heavy black one to this day.I don't know why this camera would make it on this thread as one of the worst view cameras ever.I have two myself I use on a big Ries and they are a joy to use.Would never get rid of em.If I'm going to hike into the back country (which I seldom do) I'll take either the 4x5 or a dslr/pano head and stitch in PS.Otherwise working out of my jeep or in my studio the C-1 is very enjoyable.By the way Merg, was thumbing through some old issues of B&W mag the other day and ran into your spread.Lovely images!

Chris

Chris, thanks for the kind words. The B&W mag must have been from six or eight years ago. There is some newer work on my website, in case you missed it.

I weighed my black C-1 on a cheap scale the other day and came up with 16 lbs. Does that sound about right?

Frank Petronio
25-Apr-2009, 14:35
I've owned a C-1 too and while I wouldn't call it the worst ever -- it's a great value -- if you can afford a better 8x10 you will save yourself a lot of pinched fingers, sore shoulders, and shear awkwardness with some of the better, later camera designs.

I rank it with a Wehmann or a 2D lol.

Leonard Metcalf
25-Apr-2009, 15:42
I thought my Toyo 45CF was going to be great for backpacking. But I hated it. Not very precise or positive feeling. And very large, considering its weight.

Chris Strobel
25-Apr-2009, 15:53
[QUOTE=Chris Strobel;462057]

Chris, thanks for the kind words. The B&W mag must have been from six or eight years ago. There is some newer work on my website, in case you missed it.

I weighed my black C-1 on a cheap scale the other day and came up with 16 lbs. Does that sound about right?

Yeah that sounds about right I guess.Mine may be a tad lighter as I chopped the rail down so my chest doesn't hit it with short lenses.And yeah it was an old issue of B&W.

Chris

Merg Ross
25-Apr-2009, 16:06
[QUOTE=Merg Ross;462169]

Yeah that sounds about right I guess.Mine may be a tad lighter as I chopped the rail down so my chest doesn't hit it with short lenses.And yeah it was an old issue of B&W.

Chris

Thanks. I'll figure 16 lbs.

That would be an easy rail to shorten. I did the same to my Calumet 4x5 monorail, chopped off a few inches.

Chris Strobel
25-Apr-2009, 16:11
I've owned a C-1 too and while I wouldn't call it the worst ever -- it's a great value -- if you can afford a better 8x10 you will save yourself a lot of pinched fingers, sore shoulders, and shear awkwardness with some of the better, later camera designs.

I rank it with a Wehmann or a 2D lol.

Hi Frank, well the only other one I've used is a Tachihara 810 wood field.It just felt spindly in comparison, though it was quite a bit lighter.Ignorance is bliss I guess cause I haven't used the Ebony's, Canhams, etc.To me the C1 doesn't feel awkward at all.Mine is in mint as new condition, and operates smooth as silk, however I can see how with a little corrosion here and there one could start pinching fingers.Only time I get sore is when picking the whole tripod/camera/lens package up and slinging it over my shoulder.What 810 are you using these days?

Turner Reich
25-Apr-2009, 16:16
The C1 is a perfect camera for those girls who put brass rings around their necks to stretch them. That way the head can bend over the rail to peek onto the ground glass. Oh and find some knuckle dragger to carry it around.

Chris Strobel
25-Apr-2009, 16:17
[QUOTE=Chris Strobel;462197]

Thanks. I'll figure 16 lbs.

That would be an easy rail to shorten. I did the same to my Calumet 4x5 monorail, chopped off a few inches.

Yeah a few minutes with a sawzall and a spot welder did the trick for me.I have a second C-1 stock rail to use if I ever get a really long lens or shoot close ups.Was that you in the Brett Weston video with a Calumet 4x5 pointed down at the rocks?Are you still using the C-1 these days?

C

Frank Petronio
25-Apr-2009, 16:26
I ain't using no 8x10 unfortunately...

I really enjoyed owning Robert Fisher's near mint Sinar Norma, partially because I was so lucky to get for not much more than a nice C-1. But another good one I owned was the older style Arca-Swiss -- it was very light yet it seemed as sturdy as any of the other metal cameras. And the C-1 I had was a beater -- the bellows was shot, everything was binding -- but the same for the older 2Ds I've had, which were probably fine field cameras when they were in good condition but by the time they crossed my hands they were loosey goosey.

I also had an 8x10 Fatif - that was funky but if it had been in good repair to begin with, it would have challenged the Sinar and Arca as being a nice solid compact monorail.

That reminds me - the WORST 8x10 was a $275 DeGolden Busch 8x10 I found on eBay. It probably weighed 25 lbs, had all heavy brass hardware, and was built with the craftsmanship of a... Prinzdorf from Bombay, India, ca. 1953. Even though it weighed a ton it was still a loose goose, it was just horrible. I explained all that when I sold it too, at a ridiculous loss.

I've never seen a 8x10 Korona that was (still) solid either come to think of it.

Merg Ross
25-Apr-2009, 18:47
[QUOTE=Merg Ross;462202]

Yeah a few minutes with a sawzall and a spot welder did the trick for me.I have a second C-1 stock rail to use if I ever get a really long lens or shoot close ups.Was that you in the Brett Weston video with a Calumet 4x5 pointed down at the rocks?Are you still using the C-1 these days?

C

Yes, that is me with Brett and my Calumet 4x5 at Point Lobos.

I sometimes use the C-1, however this week have dusted off my old Agfa/Ansco and will put it to use again. Shorter draw, but three pounds lighter. I presently have a Luc shutter on it and plan to adapt the Sinar shutter for use; a simple woodworking project.

Photojeep
26-Apr-2009, 19:15
I can't say it was the worst ever made but a former employer had me use an old kodak metal 8x10 camera for copy work. I don't even remember the model but it weighed a ton and would never cooperate by allowing me to move the standards for focusing, that is until I had it in focus then it would spontaneously move itself.

Honest! I actually saw it happen once. I swear it was haunted.

focalplane
29-Apr-2009, 16:44
What a bunch of crap. A camera is only as good as the person using it. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Mark Sampson
29-Apr-2009, 17:50
"Fine tools contribute to fine work."
- Alexander Calder

rdenney
29-Apr-2009, 23:03
What a great way to be introduced to a new forum!

I'm quite satisfied to see that my vote for worst (Newton Nue-Vue) has been repeated by many others, and seems to be in the running for the lead. That was the first view camera I owned, after having had a Linhof available to me while in architecture school. Making any photos with that beast was battle and war. The decades that have passed since then have not dimmed those evil memories.

And I'm rather glad NOT to see a Calumet 45N, which is about 90% of a Cambo SC but at a much lower price. I think I paid $200 for mine with a couple of lens boards, a compendium shade, and both bag and pleated bellows. I just wish I could get the standards close enough to happily focus my 47mm Super Angulon.

And I saw several mentions of the MPP. I have only one bit from that maker--a 6x9 rollfilm back for 4x5--but it does remind me of the V-8 engine in a Triumph Stag: Heavy in the wrong places and too light where it shouldn't be.

I also have the Calumet CC-400, which is not really in the same league as the Cambo, but is saved from attracting too many of my ill thoughts on the basis of my prior experience with the Nue-View.

And to those who complained of Ukrainian junque, I would offer the Ilex Universal shutter in rebuttal, and those work just fine even when 60 years old. They are made the same way--like a cheap alarm clock. I have three Kiev 60's and two of them work pretty well most of the time. But the Pentacon Six (of which I own two, one of them hiding under an expensive Exakta 66 skin)--that camera over-reached and tried to be too precise for its own good. Mine are guaranteed to advance film properly only during testing. But I can adapt the lenses to my Pentax 645 (and to my 5D), so all is not lost.

Rick "who traded that Nue-View for a Solar 5x7 diffusion enlarger and felt good about the deal" Denney

neil poulsen
30-Apr-2009, 06:47
A pinhole camera I made from a frozen turkey--baaaad idea!

Seems like it has possibilities, though. You can grab the legs to point it in the right direction.

rdenney
30-Apr-2009, 09:48
A camera is only as good as the person using it.

Sometimes it's not that good. If a camera leaks light, causes flare because of a shiny interior, positions the ground glass differently than the film, or loses its adjustment when loading film holders, then it can ruin even the best photographer's work.

And if the controls break skin, require tools without notice, refuse to stay in position, or break easily (or because too much force is required to make them work), then the camera can be miserable to use.

And that doesn't even go into the problems that can be caused by faulty shutters or unreliable film advance, but that would be off-topic.

A good photographer can never be made better by a camera, but he can surely be made worse.

As a tuba player, I've heard the same statement made about musical instruments. But if I have to bend the pitch of every note because the instrument doesn't tune to a western diatonic scale, then the music will suffer because of the effort I'm putting into overcoming the instrument's weakness instead of expressing music.

Rick "thinking Nue-Views, if not already in a landfill, can probably be bought pretty cheap" Denney