What's the WORST camera you've had??

[bryank930]

Post up the worst camera you've ever had. Be it digital, film, whatever. Just don't say disposable.:rolleyes: It'd be interesting to see what people have to say.

I'll start it off...

Nikon CoolPix L11

Impossible to get a pic from it that's not blurred or messed up in another way shape or form.

[MattMoore]

I've USED plenty of bad cameras (usually P&Ses handed to me by friends/strangers).

I've never owned a bad camera though (hazaa! for doing my research).

No wait, the camera on my Razer is pretty bad.

[LBaldwin]

I would have to say it was my 10D. I rarely got images worth the quality I expect from Canon. If you jumped through a few hoops you could get decent stuff but I was rarly happy. It would routinely render images that were less than sharp and of a generally lower contrast than what I was used to from my D30.

However myt 1DMKIIn is phenominal to say the least so....

[Perry Ge]

My phone :lol:

[Mum2J&M]

Nikon D80 (noise issues)

guess I should add my Canon Powershot, but it wasn't a dslr

[Nick_b]

I have a Kodak MC3. It's a mp3 player camera. One of the first I think too. I'll see if I can find some pics I've taken with it.

[Riff Raff]

Probably the random red plastic 35mm P&S I had as a kid. I have no idea what brand it even was. I guess the worst one I can actually remember is the Olympus C-3030. I can't complain too much about it as it's what got me started in digital photography. But no hotshoe, SmartMedia cards only (which were small and easily corrupted), a motorized zoom that really only had about four stopping points (it would frequently continue zooming right past what I wanted), shutter response measured in seconds, and of course ISO 400 was only included as a demonstration of what digital noise looks like in practice. I don't know how I put up with it for as long as I did.

[snails]

Other people's HP cameras, or my mother's Sony PnS.

[bryank930]

Other people's HP cameras, or my mother's Sony PnS.


Really? Before I got my A610, my old Sony DSC-P8 was the best non-dslr camera that I've owned.

[Wilt]

disposable film camera (...jus because you asked us not to! ;) )

plastic economy rollfilm camera for kids

[snails]

Really? Before I got my A610, my old Sony DSC-P8 was the best non-dslr camera that I've owned.

Well, I don't remember exactly what it is, but the LCD is too small to use and the viewfinder is the same way.

My old 110-film camera was probably the cheapest thing I ever used.

[LotsToLearn]

Casio S600. It has its uses but it has to be the worst I have out of the cameras I've bought on my own.

[Capt Rick]

I had a Petri film camera back in the early 80's that fell apart in my hand one night while shooting a school fire. What a POS!!!

[Chet]

Any HP or Kodak. They really try and sell those Kodak's as versatile with the printer dock and all but they are bad camera's. Got mine as a hand me down many moons ago, can see why it was handed down.

[ironchef31]

Some Kodak easy share digital point and shoot from Costco.
Battery life was awful.
Returned it pretty quick.

[Mark_Cohran]

Olympus DL620. Sucked down batteries like there was no tomorrow.

[sunbeast]

Camera's have been fine, but the photographer sucked....:o

[cowpix]

My Canon D60. Not that there was anything really wrong with it, but it was my first digital. Prior to that I had Hasselblads, and since then the 5D and MKIII. I pulled it out and used it a few weeks ago, it seemed pretty primitive.

[chilli710]

Nikon D70s

:)

[photoguy6405]

Someone mention the Canon 10D, and I loved mine.

But anyway, I probably disliked my Canon A2E the most. Only because the connection for the cable release was such a PITA that I either wanted to leave it on all the time or never put it on... neither of which is good, obviously. Other than that, though, it was a fine camera.

[smorter]

My 40D has given me a lot of frustration, front focuses with 2.8 or faster lenses, dead pixels on the freaking CMOS, if I didn't need it so much I would have booked it in by now but turnaround times are way too long in Australia, maybe soon...

[DLInspire]

The built in camera from the Motorola Razr...I used it for about 2 years for my picture needs.

[JeffreyG]

My sister had a disk camera at one time. Same format as today's digicams but on film. The format was honestly too small to support good 4x6 prints.

[Nortelbert]

HP Photosmart cameras were always blue tinted and dim. My sister in law has an Olympus that she got suckered into at Costco that's just horrible.

[JeffreyG]

Disc film was 8mm x 11mm format BTW. God that sucked. The more I think back on that camera the more nauseated I get.

[bbqKing]

Sony Mavica

[HuskyKMA]

The camera in my LG VX9400.

[FlyingPhotog]

Olympus 35RC (or was it a RC35?)

Little leaf-shutter, split-prism film camera who's operation made no sense.

I don't think I put much more than maybe 10 total rolls film through it between roughly 1985 and about a year ago when I deep sixed it.

[Bob_A]

In the past 40 years? An Kodak Instamatic X-15. I hate to say it, but my worst camera since then is my new G9. Don't get me wrong, I like the G9 ... it's just that all of the other cameras I've had were better :lol:

[tmonatr]

All the cameras my parents buy. They are the biggest cheapskates in the world when it comes to buying anything. Their current camera's flash must be a spotlight, judging by the pictures. Everything in the center is white, outside of that is almost black. Alright for Oreos, not so much for pictures. "It's a 35mm." my Mom said when I commented on their photos. A few years back, I bought them a decent Canon 35mm P&S for Christmas, which was defective. Instead of telling me it didn't work, they bought another piece of fertilizer. By the time I found out, it was too late to return it to the store. I think I'll get them an Etch--a-Sketch. They could get better images from it than theor current camera.;)

[tonylong]

Heh! I guess I could say that the "worst" camera I've owned was a box camera I had when I was a kid -- but, hey, I had a lot of fun with that camera and felt good about some of the shots I got!

Well, then, there was the Pentax 35m zoom camera...not very sharp and had some nasty CA, but then...I have pics taken from that camera that are hanging on my walls to this day!

Well, then -- my first digital cams were HP, a pocket camera and an early super-zoom camera (I worked at HP at the time so I could get them at a discount), but I researched the available cameras and got two that had a good rep for IQ. But, dang, the high-IO noise sucked! I'd say they were the worst, but then I have 12x16 prints of pics from those cameras hanging on my walls -- I may have to take them down if the cameras were so bad.

Currently, I guess I'd have to say that the 30D is the "WORST"! Why? Well, ummm, because I have cameras that are better...so, that makes it bad, right?

Actually, I have figured it out! I have a camera built into my cell phone! I've never used it, don't have a clue how, but doubtlessly if I did I would decide it was the WORST camera I've ever used!

Aside from those disposeables...

[Windy]

I had a little P&S Vivitar back in the early 80's it was probably the nastiest little camera I have ever had the displeasure of holding in my hands. Never did get a decent picture out of it. I buried it in the back yard, replaced it with a little P&S 35mm.

[embdude]

A vivitar 110

I Took so many photos and never got nice results :mad:

[PEnGUiN188]

Some newer Kodak, it was meant for soccer moms, I found it to be hard to work.

[GilesGuthrie]

I had an HP Photosmart 615 (I think). I think it might have been a whole megapixel. But I only used it to take "web preview" shots, whilst shooting properly with a 35mm SLR. It was the worst camera because of the 2-second lag between pressing the button and it taking the shot. And its "3 sets a day" battery habit, for 150 shots...

[cdifoto]

Worst Real (aka came in a box with accessories) P&S - Samsung Digimax 130.

Worst Wannabe (aka came in a blister pack with nothing) P&S - Argus something-or-other given to me by an ex-gf.

Worst dSLR - Rebel XT.

[LBaldwin]

I have an A2E and love it, but you're right the remote connector left a lot to be desired. But each camera has its own little gotchas.

Each maker has their share of oinkers...

[artyboy]

the EOS 1000F (Film Rebel) - didnt test-drive before buying, just ordered. this aint no camera, its a toy! its feather-light, have that empty hollow feel & just plain cheap and tacky to handle! and the shutter slaps like a block of wood! sold it off in less than a week. my first SLR tho. even my previous Canon Epoca (the "tube") bridge P&S feels much more substantial than it!

[LBaldwin]

the EOS 1000F (Film Rebel) - didnt test-drive before buying, just ordered. this aint no camera, its a toy! its feather-light, have that empty hollow feel & just plain cheap and tacky to handle! and the shutter slaps like a block of wood! sold it off in less than a week. my first SLR tho. even my previous Canon Epoca (the "tube") bridge P&S feels much more substantial than it!

You know it is funny how folks equate weight with quality. In my sales days we often had this discussion at work. Some thought that a nice light camera body would survive a fall better than one made of metal. Of course the other camp insists that the heavier. more substantial the instrument, the more "professional" it is.

But truth be told I would love to shave off two or three lbs on the camera and still manintain the structural integrity of the camera. I think that once the do away with the prism, and mirror system we will see a reduction in weight and a great increase in performance and reliability.

[Wilt]

You know it is funny how folks equate weight with quality. In my sales days we often had this discussion at work. Some thought that a nice light camera body would survive a fall better than one made of metal. Of course the other camp insists that the heavier. more substantial the instrument, the more "professional" it is.

But truth be told I would love to shave off two or three lbs on the camera and still manintain the structural integrity of the camera. I think that once the do away with the prism, and mirror system we will see a reduction in weight and a great increase in performance and reliability.

Yeah, weight = quality...ha! so an aluminum-bodied Shelby Cobra 327 is lower in quality than a Chevy Corvair, according to that theory. History knows otherwise. OTOH, the Corvair would come out of a crash with a Cobra because it is steel bodied, not aluminum, so there is truth in the relative ruggedness of things associated with weight. But then there are very strong very light materials that are more durable, like titanium. Moral of the story is that gross generalization can almost always be proven wrong!

Olympus shaved weight and bulk off cameras and built a dynasty on a very rugged line of cameras that are dwarfed even by Canon Rebel, which is a fat cow in comparison. OM body was a full frame camera with pentaprism and reflex mirror, so you need not get rid of both to save lots of weight!

[Woolburr]

Minolta 16 QT 16mm camera and a Nikon F2

[GRODY]

camera on my iPhone =P

[Dade Designs]

samsung 1.3 mp... i don't even want to know.

[Alexajlex]

My Dirkon.
Pics always came out fuzzy.

Could not figure out why :)

Oh and I read a post as far as the 10D being a bad camera.
I guess I got lucky I got mine 2nd had and it rocks.
I also know someone who is a PJ and took some really nice pics in with the 10D (this was a few years back).
The only real complaint I ever heard was that it writes slow to the CF card. This is true.

[_aravena]

My current camera phone. Freakin' T-mobile didn't replace my phone well.

Aside from that...idk. My 20D when someone else is using it, like my fiancee. :D aside from cameras people have given me to take a picture of them. Used a G5 for awhile at a job but it was nice. So none.

[artyboy]

Yeah, weight = quality...ha! so an aluminum-bodied Shelby Cobra 327 is lower in quality than a Chevy Corvair, according to that theory. History knows otherwise. OTOH, the Corvair would come out of a crash with a Cobra because it is steel bodied, not aluminum, so there is truth in the relative ruggedness of things associated with weight. But then there are very strong very light materials that are more durable, like titanium. Moral of the story is that gross generalization can almost always be proven wrong!

Olympus shaved weight and bulk off cameras and built a dynasty on a very rugged line of cameras that are dwarfed even by Canon Rebel, which is a fat cow in comparison. OM body was a full frame camera with pentaprism and reflex mirror, so you need not get rid of both to save lots of weight!

well we're talking about handling here, if your camera feels like a toy.. you get the idea. even if it makes great pictures, usage wise it just feels off. one of the reasons it feels hollow is becos it was a normal-size SLR during its time, unlike the Digital Rebel which are light but smaller in size. the size and weight just don't tally.

[NZDoug]

Bronica ETR :evil:

[::John::]

My 40D has given me a lot of frustration, front focuses with 2.8 or faster lenses, dead pixels on the freaking CMOS, if I didn't need it so much I would have booked it in by now but turnaround times are way too long in Australia, maybe soon...

My 40D was the worst sDLR I have owned - straight out of the box - it wasn't front or back focusing - it was 'anywhere but the subject' focusing. Canon Australia fixed it in 2 days.

[2Canons]

$100 Samsung P & S (forgot model #) Was a problem out of the box. Customer service & repair was as poor as could be to go along with the POS camera. Threw it out. Bought a 35m Pentex. Moved on to Canons.
I will not buy ANY Samsung products.

[Wilt]

well we're talking about handling here, if your camera feels like a toy.. you get the idea. even if it makes great pictures, usage wise it just feels off. one of the reasons it feels hollow is becos it was a normal-size SLR during its time, unlike the Digital Rebel which are light but smaller in size. the size and weight just don't tally.

Let me illustrate...

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/OMv20Dv2.jpg

A camera need not feel like a toy, or a tank. We see, side by side, an Olympus OM body next to a 20D. At the thickest point of the body, the OM is only 2mm thicker than the thinnest part of the 20D. Body alone, the 20D is 45% heavier than the OM. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta...almost all of the manufacturers...made film bodies that approached the OM in size and weight and the buying public flocked to buy the products, and no one said 'toy'! They were full frame 35mm SLRs, and one would think similar size reductions should be possible without making the camera feel like a toy.

[artyboy]

well said. but one man's meat is another man's poison as they say. and the 1000F DID feel like a toy, comparatively, to other SLRs available at that time. i moved on to the Nikon F801S which was far more substantial in feel and handling. of course, not everyone is against feather-weight 'toy like' cameras, some see it as an asset for mobility & casual shooting needs. but there is an equal number of photographers against such an 'asset'. thats the reason why we're always advised to have a 'hands on' before making camera buying decisions - not only for ease of handling needs/intuitive controls testing, but for feel as well. of course, everyone have their own preferences. Canon could have made the pocket-friendly Ixus range as light-weight as their competitors' compacts but didn't. so clearly, different tastes are catered for by different manufacturers, for different consumers. so, nobody is wrong in having their own preferences, or dislikes.

[Wilt]

artyboy, no arguments from me about what you said...different strokes for different folks. The problem (to me) is that a choice is not offered! In the 80's you could buy an OM-like camera, or you could buy a 1D-like camera in size and weight...you had a choice! Now, you only get to choose huge and 'huger'.

[exile]

The one that I didn't have with me when the once in a lifetime shot materialised in front of me.

[artyboy]

artyboy, no arguments from me about what you said...different strokes for different folks. The problem (to me) is that a choice is not offered! In the 80's you could buy an OM-like camera, or you could buy a 1D-like camera in size and weight...you had a choice! Now, you only get to choose huge and 'huger'.

yup, it sucks when one don't have a choice. hmm.. rangefinders come into mind.. but its not the same as an SLR for most of us. the bottomline is always the final output but feel/handling is also a concern for most. its the hollowy/plasticky feel of the 1000F i was against, more than just the weight itself.

btw, mighty fine comprehensive range of gear u got there!

[LBaldwin]

I agree about the size choices today, but considering the capabilities vs what we used to use I think the trade off is fair. The OM system was great for lots of work, but it did not lend itself to sports or fashion, like the Nikon and Canons of the day. It always seemed to me that the OM was used by the nerd herd for science related stuff, I saw lots of applications for macro, micro and forensic work. That's not to say that it could not be used for other subjects, but the design to worked against it.

Fantastic glass though. Great metering and of course very light compared to the tanks of the day. Today materials are lighter it is just that we stuff more crap in the camera..

[SlowBlink]

My first 124 or 126 Kodak instamatic. The kind with the cube flashes you had to juggle when you popped em off cause they were hot. Other than that my Dad's Speed Graflex which by the time I got to use it had more leaks than a Fiat ragtop.