What Were They Thinking? A compendium of camera design blunders and omissions

You mean between the two halves of it -- between the ring with the speed markings and the ring with the maximum aperture readout? And where on the ring seam (using a clock face) specifically?
 
Jason Schneider said:
Thanks for your thoughts. I've used bottom loading Leicas and Canons for many years and my loading screw-up rate is definitely higher than yours, and I experience more frequent loading problems with bottom loaders than I do with 35s having removable or hinged backs. The problem is inevitably solved by reloading the camera so the only thing lost is time, and maybe a little pride. I agree that the Contax I is a hot mess, though I love its looks. The Contax II also has its peccadilloes, but I think "poorly designed" is a bit harsh. I have shot with my well used example with uncoated 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar for over two decades with satisfaction. Maybe I'm just klutzier than you-:)
Click to expand...


Having just gotten the SVOOP Leica takeup reel for my IIIf, all I can think is WHY DID I WAIT SO LONG???? This is soooo much easier to pull from the body than the stock reel. It effectively works just like an M2 takeup now. Very easy to get out and put back in.

So, way back when, Leica was already trying to correct their design mistakes ...
 
There is a parallel to be drawn between the British motorcycle industry of the '50s and Zeiss product development of the 1930s...

Might also add Citroen to the list...who else would try to produce a Wankel helicopter?!

All beautiful bits of machinery developed for a market that didn't know it needed them.
 
Fun Thread!

My Two Candidates- Both Voigtlander.

Vitessa: Plunger Wind that can jam if the lens is set to a certain distance AND method of calibrating the RF which requires removing the top to set and putting back on to check.

The Prominent. Not as bad as the Vitessa, but a real mess to adjust the RF. Double blades for the shutter, like the Polaroid 180.
 
KoNickon said:
And that's the thing about the FT Nikkormats -- the twitchy meter. Hard to find one of these cameras these days with a meter needle that doesn't jump around. I know; you don't need the meter for the camera to work, but it's really annoying, and I won't buy one if the meter is misbehaving. It's not as if these cameras are hard to find. I see two on Craigslist nearby right now.

And does anyone know how to fix the meter? I understand there's some sort of carbon track (?) that maybe can be cleaned and get the meter in working order, but how to get at it (and where it is, for that matter) I don't know.
Click to expand...
Agree. It's the main reason why almost all XTs are shelf queens now. Many I've seen had been bought (and very little used) by amateurs, so they were As New. But that fluttering needle...

I recall a camera repair man in Melbourne many years ago who told me that when a Nikon or Nikkormat meter goes chunky, it's time to buy a new camera. The repairs were too fiddly and took up endless time, which obviously pushed up the costs. Good advice, I reckon.

The FT2s, at least the two I own, have escaped that affliction. So far. But they are nudging the half-century mark, and like humans, after all that time something in the mechanics is bound to be showing signs of breaking down.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
I'm sure we all have examples to offer; my favorite is the Mamiya TLR system. A medium format camera for professional use, without any sort of depth-of-field scales? Perhaps wedding photographers, the folks who used these cameras the most, didn't feel that this was a major shortcoming. And to be fair, I don't really see how DOF scales could have been implemented, but then, I'm not one of the Mamiya engineers who was being paid the big bucks. Nevertheless, it's still one of my favorite camera systems to use. I just turn to other cameras when I know the DOF issue could present difficulties.
Click to expand...

No, No! One mustn't criticize the brilliant Mamiya TLR system! :mad:

The black 105mm f/3.5 DS lens, which was marketed as a "portrait" or "wedding" lens, had a Heliar formulation, a self-timer, and in the viewing lens, a diaphragm and a DOF scale. I've never seen anything remotely comparable to this on any other TLR.

There may have also been a 105mm f/3.5 D, without the self-timer. (I have the DS.)

Granted, the 105mm was the only lens in the line with these features. If you got the base 105mm f/3.5 lens (not D or DS), it was a Tessar-type (still not a bad thing), without the self-timer and the viewing lens diaphragm and DOF scale.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
No, No! One mustn't criticize the brilliant Mamiya TLR system! :mad:

The black 105mm f/3.5 DS lens, which was marketed as a "portrait" or "wedding" lens, had a Heliar formulation, a self-timer, and in the viewing lens, a diaphragm and a DOF scale. I've never seen anything remotely comparable to this on any other TLR.

There may have also been a 105mm f/3.5 D, without the self-timer. (I have the DS.)

Granted, the 105mm was the only lens in the line with these features. If you got the base 105mm f/3.5 lens (not D or DS), it was a Tessar-type (still not a bad thing), without the self-timer and the viewing lens diaphragm and DOF scale.

- Murray
Click to expand...
Brilliant, yes, but not perfect! That 105mm DS lens is a klugey "solution" that doesn't really work. As you stop it down, the ground glass image becomes so dim that judging sharpness, or its lack, quickly becomes impossible. I will admit that the Heliar formulation is yummy, and makes the DS or D a worthwhile purchase in spite of itself. Don't worry, there's plenty of love in my heart for my C22, C220, and the two C3's!
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Brilliant, yes, but not perfect! That 105mm DS lens is a klugey "solution" that doesn't really work. As you stop it down, the ground glass image becomes so dim that judging sharpness, or its lack, quickly becomes impossible. I will admit that the Heliar formulation is yummy, and makes the DS or D a worthwhile purchase in spite of itself. Don't worry, there's plenty of love in my heart for my C22, C220, and the two C3's!
Click to expand...

Not perfect? Bite your tongue!

I've, personally, never found stop-down diaphragms useful for assessing depth of field, but the lens in question does have a DOF scale on top of the viewing lens. One has to transfer the focusing distance to the DOF scale for it to work, but it does work. I don't see any other way to fulfill this purpose on a TLR with interchangeable lenses that all focus on the same moving lens board. TLRs that I have seen that focus by turning the lens itself (which is in turn geared directly to the viewing lens) and may potentially allow for a DOF scale (though I have never seen such) are even more klugey.

- Murray
 
Sonnar Brian said:
The Prominent. Not as bad as the Vitessa, but a real mess to adjust the RF. Double blades for the shutter, like the Polaroid 180.
Click to expand...
I'm probably going to meet a Prominent shooter later today, last year he showed me his pre-war Prominent, now that really is a peculiar camera!

Yet in between those freaks they came up with the pistol trigger on the first post WW2 Bessas, which is one of the nicest shutter releases I've ever used.
 
splitimageview said:
The Leica III take-up spool can still easily skedaddle off to hang out with the Contax spool.:D
Click to expand...
The only bottom loading spool I've ever had drop out on me was on a Zorki 5; I think it's not got the original spool (a lot of stuff changed during the production of all the various Zorkis, and spools are rarely perfectly interchangeable). Leica, Canon, and Leotax spools usually sit really nice and snug.

chuckroast said:
I understand the need for- and the value of some level of security theater, but TSA does not give me the sense that they actually know what they're looking for.
Click to expand...
Last time I flew back from Berlin, security pulled my bag aside because they thought a flash bracket looked like a gun on the X-ray. I actively burst out laughing. I don't think they were impressed.
 
Coldkennels said:
The only bottom loading spool I've ever had drop out on me was on a Zorki 5; I think it's not got the original spool (a lot of stuff changed during the production of all the various Zorkis, and spools are rarely perfectly interchangeable). Leica, Canon, and Leotax spools usually sit really nice and snug.
Click to expand...

Spools are just prone to be dropped due to the overall juggling act: camera, spool, bottom plate, film. 😀
 
splitimageview said:
Spools are just prone to be dropped due to the overall juggling act: camera, spool, bottom plate, film. 😀
Click to expand...
I've had this one sorted for years now:

Camera: on strap
Baseplate: in mouth
Film: right hand
Spool: left hand

It only really gets a bit weird when using a Leica II or Zorki 1 so you don't have the strap lugs to rely on... I end up cradling the camera in the crook of my arm, which is far from ideal.
 
Coldkennels said:
I've had this one sorted for years now:

Camera: on strap
Baseplate: in mouth
Film: right hand
Spool: left hand

It only really gets a bit weird when using a Leica II or Zorki 1 so you don't have the strap lugs to rely on... I end up cradling the camera in the crook of my arm, which is far from ideal.
Click to expand...
I don't know what is so difficult about this. Find a corner cafe, sit down at a table, order a latte or coffee, change the film while you are waiting. Life was a lot slower when these cameras were manufactured. This is your chance to live life at that pace if only for a few moments. Don't waste it.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
I once had the opportunity to fondle a Robot Royal 36. I can't say what it was like to shoot one of them, but the fit, finish, and aesthetics made my Leicas feel like FSU junk in comparison. There. I said it out loud!
Click to expand...
Presumably you didn't try looking through the extremely dinky eyepiece of the dim, un-framelined range/viewfinder...
 
"...the one advantage of the bottom-loading system is that turning the hinged back lock key on the bottom of the base plate to closed position causes an internal tab to open the “darkroom door” of an installed Leica cassette, allowing the film to move frictionlessly through the camera."

As Mr. Schneider knows perfectly well, Canon deftly incorporated BOTH the advantage of a cassette-operating key AND a convenient hinged backdoor in every interchangeable-lens rangefinder model from the Model V onward... and probably would have done so before the V's 1956 introduction date, if not for the psychological obstacle of bucking not only Leica, but Contax and Nikon as well...
 
I don't know if it's already been mentioned - but the aperture actuator on the early Elmar and Hektor lenses. What were Leitz' engineers thinking?!
You basically have to tilt the camera upwards to see what you are doing at all and even then the danged thing is so tiny (and often stiff) that you will end up with an errant finger on the lens.

The solution? Just buy this hood here which loves to fall off every 200m you walk...
 
TenEleven said:
I don't know if it's already been mentioned - but the aperture actuator on the early Elmar and Hektor lenses. What were Leitz' engineers thinking?!
Click to expand...
My guess: simple compromise of usability in favour of compactness; placing the aperture selector anywhere else increases the bulk of the camera slightly with the lens collapsed. Canon's re-imagining of the 50mm Elmar form factor puts it behind the lens's front face, for instance - stopping the lens from collapsing quite as far in the process.

I was just thinking this might be one thing where the Soviets improved on the designs they were "inspired" by - the SovietCams page on the Industar 22 shows they started with the same little tab before changing to the more common (and more useable) continuous ring. However, that ring means nothing can really grip it like Leitz' weird VOOLA accessory. Is this a trade-off worth making? Possibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top