Worst camera I ever used

[Landshark99]

Being forced to use these early"professional digital cameras" was the worst shooting experience of my life. To make it even worse they cost upwards of $20,000 at the time, even though I know they were early in the push to didgital, they were horrible. For the record the Nikon version was just as bad. Sometimes it is better to give technology some time to work things out. I keep it around in my camera collection as a reminder that I survived those shoot days.

• DSC-RX100M4
• 18.7 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[Landshark99]

no these were the first of the Kodak digital cameras on based on a Canon body the other on a Nikon body. the delay in writing an image almost felt as long as shooting a 4X5 or 8x10.
"Kodak's subsequent models integrate the digital module with the camera body more thoroughly, and include LCD preview screens and removable batteries. The DCS 500 series of 1998 is also based on the Canon EOS-1N, and comprises the 2-megapixel DCS 520 and the 6-megapixel DCS 560, which initially had a suggested retail price of $28,500.[7] These models were also sold by Canon, as the Canon D2000 and D6000 respectively, and were the first digital SLRs sold under the Canon name. Kodak used the same electronics package for the DCS 600 series, which is based on the Nikon F5. "

The amazing thing about this was, these cameras were the state of the art just 15 years ago, digital has come so far in a very short span of time.

 

[Clide]

Being forced to use these early"professional digital cameras" was the worst shooting experience of my life. To make it even worse they cost upwards of $20,000 at the time, even though I know they were early in the push to didgital, they were horrible. For the record the Nikon version was just as bad. Sometimes it is better to give technology some time to work things out. I keep it around in my camera collection as a reminder that I survived those shoot days.View attachment 33326

Thanks for the insight. Concerning your technology comment, would you wait for a new and improve Alpha 1 mark ii to come out rather than buying the current model? Thanks

 

[iain clyne]

Nikon did the same and it was rubbish as well.

 

[Landshark99]

If you "Need" (want) and A1, I would buy one now, I do not see an A1II coming out until next year, maybe, There are rumors of a new firmware coming out next month. Great camera.

 

[Landshark99]

Nikon did the same and it was rubbish as well.

yes just as bad, but my client insisted we try and make them work. They were a waste of time and I just shot film to make sure I had something that would work. In fact the first digital camera that was tolerable for work for me was the Contax 6 X 4.5 with some brand of digital back, still not great but usable

 

[Landshark99]

Informative! So did the camera's film back get replaced with a digital?

But was it really the worst camera you ever used?

Yes with the Contax I had both film and digital backs.
For work the DCS was the worst but when it came to P&S cameras there is a small list

 

[Landshark99]

since you posted a 110 here are a few from my collection, including Minoltas. None very good but they all had some cool inovations and were some of the top 110s of their day.

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 1250

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 2500

• DSC-RX100M4
• 18.7 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 1000

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 2500

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 2000

• DSC-RX100M4
• 8.8 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 1600

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 2000

• DSC-RX100M4
• 15.9 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 1000

 

[Landshark99]

I think I have almost all of the Pentax 110 lenses, Funny what we collect, while I have a lot of different cameras in the collection, I seem to be drawn to miniatures like Minox and an assortment of 16mm cameras, old roll film cameras and Leica and Nikon 35mm rangefinders, but the number one of any brand beside my Nikons are my Robots, the first real motorized cameras

• X-Pro1
• XF35mmF1.4 R
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 10/1200 sec
• ISO 1600

• X-Pro1
• XF35mmF1.4 R
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 10/2500 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[Landshark99]

I have these three very important to me cameras in my collection. This Brownie Starfish was my first camera, my first real 35mm camera was a Minolta High Matic 7s, sadly this is not the exact one had, and this black Nikon F along with the 55macro, 105mm and 300m was my first "Pro" camera. The other body and lenses I had acquired later on. Funny thing with that Nikon body, was my father repossessed after I had it for a couple of years, due to some disagreement. I replaced it with a number of bodies over the years, which were always sold off when I upgraded, but I always wanted my first Nikon F back. When my father passed away my mother asked if there was anything of his that I wanted, I told her the only thing I wanted was my Nikon F.

• DSC-RX100M4
• 18.7 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 2000

• X10
• 9.3 mm
• ƒ/3.6
• 10/1000 sec
• ISO 1600

• DSC-RX1RM2
• 35 mm f/2
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 16000

 

[Landshark99]

Yes the Brownie is my original, loved the SRT-101, beautiful camera. If I had not made the jump to Nikon I was going to get one.

 

[iain clyne]

My girlfriend then now my wife had a 110, she took it on the beach in Spain and the lens melted.

 

[MichaelInOr]

I stuck with my 35mm Maxxum 7000 a long time after digital first came out. For my amateur uses I couldn't afford ILC cameras and felt they were a step down from film. I had a couple compact digital cameras before I bought a used Sony A33 for my first digital ICL.

 

[Cαscαdian]

I started with a Brownie then a Sears 126 "electric eye" in late grade school. My first telephoto shot of Mt.Rainier used half a binocular while I sighted thru the other half - worked pretty well for.. 1970?

I've had some weird-looking digital cameras but all decently functional for their time; Kodak dc260, Lumix LC40 and Casio p505 come to mind. And everyone favorite duckling, the K-01!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Thanks for the insight. Concerning your technology comment, would you wait for a new and improve Alpha 1 mark ii to come out rather than buying the current model? Thanks

The situation is not comparable. The Kodak + Canon and Kodak + Nikon efforts were lash ups tying old and new technologies together, and not particularly successfully. The Sony A1 is a very successful evolution of existing technologies, and a polished camera that has a lot of happy users (and some unhappy wallets!)

Why did you ask the question?

I fully expect an A1 mark II with the new AF and new rear screen, and at least one feature I cannot anticipate but there is nothing wrong with the current A1 (except a few people whining about not getting frequent firmware updates ).

 

[iain clyne]

Nikon z6. For BIF it was hopeles. That’s how I ended up here with Sony gear.

 

[iain clyne]

I know several people that tried the Z6, Z7, and the APS-C Zs and all said the same thing. I was really surprised at that with those models being so modern, I would've expected better AF.

I know people with the z6/7 ii that are still complaining about the same thing.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I think the worst camera I ever used was an almost entirely plastic camera I was given as a child. It used 120 film, had a plastic lens, and I think it lasted maybe five rolls of film. Maybe six.

I think a Z6 was better than that

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Easy. One of those throwaway 110 things they give out at weddings

 

[Gaz]

Kodak DC40.

Prior to the Sydney Olympic Games the city of Sydney decided to upgrade some city streetscapes. The camera I had was state of the art and accompanied a solid ink Tektronix printer that I used to prepare dilapidation reports.

It could take an image every 5 seconds, and had a capacity of just shy of 50 shots that were downloaded by direct serial connection to my laptop. 20 minutes later, the images were downloaded in all their glory.

I persisted and saw the project through.

 

[Jesterking]

Still waiting for the digital version to hit the market...