|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Oct 2, 2006 23:19:06 GMT -5
A couple of functional but UGLY cameras I thought I'd share: Lordox Blitz 5 cm f2.8 Leidolf Wetzlar Triplon Taron Eyemax 45mm Taronar f2.8 Beauty's in the eye of the beholder huh? P.S. the red on the Eyemax is the reflection of the title from the Life Library of Photograhy book "The Camera" I used as a background.
|
|
scott
Senior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by scott on Oct 3, 2006 12:18:15 GMT -5
Yikes! What were they thinking???
Of course it's a matter of taste, but to me, a lot of the cameras made between about 1957 and 1965 (both Japanese and German) were just plain UGLY. Especially when they were trying to make selenium cells power primitive auto-exposure mechanisms.
I've got a few that may be a bit homely, but none I can think of that are out-right ugly. Maybe my Graflex 35A (with the bottom trigger-advance)??
How about an "ugliest camera" contest?
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 3, 2006 15:07:10 GMT -5
Scott - what are you thinking? - There are no ugly cameras, One of my favourite 'lookability' cameras is the Fujifilm Instax. OK it's a fun box, but it reminds me of the Flintstones! Doesn't get mentioned on here very often!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Oct 12, 2006 13:28:45 GMT -5
'Tis all in the eyes of the beholder!!!!! I personally think these cameras have some cosmetic intrigue about them.
There are times I will chose to buy one of those 'beasties' just to have it and to "give it a good, loving home"...!!
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Oct 28, 2006 16:25:44 GMT -5
Some may think that those cameras are "ugly" but I have to say that the two Taron cameras we have in our collection (a Taron VIC and a Taron VR) are well made and give excellent results.
Although the aesthetic appeal of a camera is subject to personal taste there are some rather unusual cameras around though I would not call them "ugly".
In our collection we have the Kodak Motormatic 35 and the Sokol Automat which are a bit "unusual". I would not call the Argus C3 a camera of great beauty but it does have an appeal.
Jenny
|
|
k38
Lifetime Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by k38 on Dec 5, 2006 22:33:15 GMT -5
Nope,
Those babies is ugly!!! I love the one that tries to save the day with Wetzlar on the lens! They probably had a post office box in Wetzlar..... But as the others say, it really is in the eye of the beholder. I have to admit that I am not that fond of cameras with built in selenium meters. There are exceptions (I would like a Contarex Bullseye or a Canon 7) and I am fond of Weston Meters.
Different is Good,
Dwight
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Dec 10, 2006 23:08:38 GMT -5
Hi Brian, Nope there was no cover for the flash. as a matter of fact the battery is inserted just to the right of the flash directly into the front of the camera which in itself is odd.
|
|
|
Post by landsknechte on Jan 2, 2007 1:21:45 GMT -5
Most of the cameras that are truly ugly are so completely dripping with the leitmotif of the period from whence they came that they become attractive for that very reason. Although, If I had to pick, this would be near the top of the list:
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Jan 2, 2007 3:24:09 GMT -5
It looks like the designer was told "Those guys don't look after their gear. I want monster strap lugs, big nuts, lots of bezels, and an unbreakable look. Oh - and don't forget to hang a lens on the front"!
|
|
|
Post by landsknechte on Jan 4, 2007 3:25:11 GMT -5
I had always thought it was inspired by the sighting mechanism of a Soviet tank... ;-)
|
|