POLL - useless equipment

[Damien_Demolder]

Photography is a great hobby for accessories and bits of equipment that claim to improve your pictures and that really do not. The problem is that taking good pictures is so hard we'll grasp at anything that might possibly help us.

Apart from the endless special effects 'filters', the most useless photo accessory I own is a device for shooting 360 degree panoramas in a bowl mirror. It just doesn't work!

Head to the home page to take part in our poll - Have you ever bought anything you thought would improve your photography that really didn’t?

And don't forget to tell us about them in this thread.

Thanks for taking part.

Damien

[beejaybee]

'Fraid so ... technical quality can be bought but enthusiasm & talent are harder to come by. So the answer is, just about everything I've ever bought has failed to improve my photography, though some of it has made technical improvements possible.

The most useless accessory I ever bought is a cheap UV / protection filter for a 300mm tele lens, the optical quality of the filter was so poor it made the lens more or less useless. Learned never to buy unbranded filters off eBay...

Damian, get a chrome hubcap off a Morris Minor, camera pointing straight down on tripod located diectly above centre of hubcab, which is standing on a level surface - this gives an "all sky camera" effect (apart from the bits blocked by the camera & tripod legs) with a fisheye type view of the horizon towards the edge of the "mirror".

[fabs]

Head to the home page to take part in our poll - Have you ever bought anything you thought would improve your photography that really didn’t?

Um, still got the old poll on the homepage!

[Monobod]

I thought that owning a 'compact camera' would help me to take more photos, simply because of the convenience. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 5400 and found that in amything other than good light, the autofocus was slow, the shutter lag so extended as to make any form of action shot useless and the night time flash failed dismally because of no autofocus assistance light.

In good daylight it takes very nice photos, but it has not lived up to expectations and I doubt if I will venture down this road again.

[daft_biker]

For the last fortnight I think everything apart from the pocket digi has been a useless accesory

Normally it's just the UV filters that are useless. I can't remember the last time I used a clear filter....my grads get used more as I used them at least once last year!

[Damien_Demolder]

Head to the home page to take part in our poll - Have you ever bought anything you thought would improve your photography that really didn’t?

Um, still got the old poll on the homepage!

Yes, we seem to have some kind of technical itch. I'll set my Dr Who screw driver onto it on Monday morning. I suspect the home page has been filled with unleaded - still runs on 4 star you know!

doma

[fabs]

Head to the home page to take part in our poll - Have you ever bought anything you thought would improve your photography that really didn’t?

Um, still got the old poll on the homepage!

Yes, we seem to have some kind of technical itch. I'll set my Dr Who screw driver onto it on Monday morning. I suspect the home page has been filled with unleaded - still runs on 4 star you know!

doma

Thanks Damien. Shall wait with baited breath!

[Wheelu]

A 200mm lens. Just what do you take with a 200m lens? It's too short for wildlife and too long for just about anything else that I want to shoot. I must have used it less than five times. The real problem is that I bought two of them, for comparative purposes (Pentax and Tamron)! Crackers...

[beejaybee]

Just what do you take with a 200m lens?

Superb for bright comets.

[Still_Togging_Along]

Also guilty M'Laud ... Due to a classic case of not RTFM ....

I have a lovely Dynax 9 with 24-85mm zoom and the Minolta HS-5400 flashgun, which I thought only covered 28mm, so went out and bought a 28mm prime. A few weeks later, I was using the flashgun and noticed it had a slide-out diffuser ... which in bounce mode gives excellent coverage when the zoom is set to 24mm!

[Roger_Provins]

Not so much "useless" but over the years I've wasted a lot of cash on cheaper stuff, particularly lenses, when I'd have been a lot better off waiting and saving up for the better ones I eventually bought.

[Malcolm_Stewart]

Useless equipment:
-----------------------
That I've bought:

"Covert" 45deg mirror for shooting at 90deg to lens axis.
Very difficult to use with a tele, and quickly gives feelings of sea-sickness.

Rollei 6006 kit. Thought it would be a cheap way to get my hands on a CZ 80 f2.8 T* Planar. It did, but the film drive mechanism is far too temperamental to get more than 2 pics /film.

Pentaprism telescope adapter for my Minolta MD lenses. Beautifully made, but with an equivalent focal length of ~10mm, produces far too powerful a telescope (typical 200mm lens = 20x telescope), and there's no tripod socket on the lens.

New Bresser 10x50 Binos from Lidl for £10ea. Bought two pairs - in store, must have checked the good pair twice!! Partner's pair is fine, mine are so out of alignment they're unusable.

CD label applicator. What a fuss. I now print onto printable CDs and DVDS - a far more professional result.


-----------------------
That I've NOT bought:

Sigma 15-30 zoom. Checked a well priced sample in Jessops using the LCD on my 5D, and rejected it. Got home, and my rejection was well vindicated by the poor results. It's not often I stop purchasing a lens once I've got one in my lensophile hands!

Leica V35 enlarger.
I've still got a darkroom and plenty of kit, but space is now very short as I'm a dreadful hoarder (WWII child with one decent toy - German made toy racing car with Ackerman steering!), so it was sensible that I didn't buy an affordable V35 a few months ago, even though 20-25 years ago, I really wanted one.

[Bettina]

A 200mm lens. Just what do you take with a 200m lens? It's too short for wildlife and too long for just about anything else that I want to shoot. I must have used it less than five times. The real problem is that I bought two of them, for comparative purposes (Pentax and Tamron)! Crackers...

Exactly. Two weeks after I bought the 200mm/F2.8, I bought the 70-200mm/F2.8 ...

[Benchista]

Useless? I bought a Nikon...

I've bought all sorts of tat over the years that's proved to be a white elephant. Prime example is probably the Centon 500mm mirror lens that was never really what I needed. I've lots of items that don't get a lot of use, but that I wouldn't put into the same category - they're unnecessary, perhaps, but they do have a use - my 200mm f2.8 being an excellent case; I don't use it that often, but it's smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f2.8, and sharper, too, so it goes nicely with the camera plus 24-105 for a little extra reach.

[daft_biker]

Just what do you take with a 200m lens?

Superb for bright comets.

There are some rather nice 200mm macro lenses around too.

....not that I've used one but 180mm is close enough to be useless most of the time yet great for available light macro.

[OneTen]

...but 180mm is close enough to be useless most of the time yet great for available light macro.

In what way Andy?

[Barney]

A 200mm lens. Just what do you take with a 200m lens?

200mm is a cracking focal length for most comedy clubs, and for the larger clubs, just adding a 1.4x or 1.7x telecon gives you all the extra reach you need. Of course it helps if your 200m is an f:2

[RichardSibley]

Hmmm... how about a M42 screw fit Tele-Astranar 500mm f/8 lens that I had on a Zenit E. Can honestly say I have never ever used it in anger and must have had it 13 years. Cost £40 I believe.

Maybe I should put it on my D300 for a convenient 750mm equivalent lens... with a minimum focus distance of around half a mile.

[daft_biker]

...but 180mm is close enough to be useless most of the time yet great for available light macro.

In what way Andy?

Bear in mind a long lens for me is 50mm on APS-C!

Outside of macro I don't have much use for anything as long as 100mm never mind the 180mm. For macro the longer lens has nicer bokeh due to more aperture blades so pics look nicer and most of the time the increased working distance means you are less likely to shade the subject and that's also nice. It's also much easier to photograph easily spooked subjects on the longer lens.

I used the Canon 180mm macro at the BWC for the big beasties they had in cages and I found the focal length useful. Might be ok at a zoo too but shooting captive wildlife isn't something I'm likely to spend a grand on a lens to photograph.....think I'd rather have a 400mm and see if I can find some birds of prey in the woods

[OneTen]

Cheers Andy, I'm saving for one you see. I prefer using available light and the oof areas on this lens look incredible. The extra working distance would be a bonus, as would using converters.