Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What Was the Worst Piece of Photographic Junk You Ever Bought
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
Dec 20, 2016 16:03:08   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
How about an anti-static ozone generator for darkroom work. I still have it. Dangerous?

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 17:46:26   #
sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD
 
A bundle that included a cheap lousy tripod, a fuzzy lens, and some other essentials such a cleaning clothes etc. My advice, Never buy a bundle of anything!

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 18:04:25   #
mr. u. n. owen
 
A digital camera.

Reply
 
 
Dec 20, 2016 18:51:08   #
texaseve Loc: TX, NC and NH
 
Walmart tripod and then a tripod that was free with a camera, a bag that was free with another camera. Gave tripods away to school and the bag I can't even get rid of for postage!

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 19:32:34   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
Gene51 wrote:
A Canon. As they say, C.A.N.O.N! stands for Can't Afford Nikon, Oh, NO!


And you buy Nikon when you can't afford Pentax!

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 20:00:27   #
James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)
 
One of the worst items that I have bought for photography - EVER - was a "large capacity" Ink system for a Canon 9000 printer. It looked like a good idea... However... When I got it there were no instructions. I did find a Vid on YouTube that showed how to set it up. I followed it To The Letter. Not only did it not work, I got dye ink all over the table and onto the floor. Good thing that I set it up in the basement. What a piece of crap.... Nearly destroyed my printer. After about two days of cleaning everything inside the printer and the flushing out of the print-head, I saved the printer and it still works good.

Advice to ANYONE who is thinking of getting this = I say NO.. Do NOT waste your bucks on this. Biggest mistake I ever made.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 20:03:50   #
PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place
 
A crappy tripod & head.

Don

Reply
 
 
Dec 20, 2016 20:09:19   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
JimH123 wrote:
A wide angle adapter that screws into the filter ring. Terrible idea! Can't use it on a moderately wide angle to make it wider, unless you love vignetting. And if you use it on a longer lens, the results are much worse than just using a wide angle lens.

Anyone interested in buying a cheap wide angle adapter?

Would like a couple to keep yours' company?

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 20:34:21   #
birdmann Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA
 
Fujifilm Finepix S1000fd.
It isn't all that bad a camera of you are shooting still life. But it is dog slow processing each image. And when I was at a dog show taking pictures, I missed too many.
I replaced the Finepix with a Nikon D90 and haven't looked back.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 21:12:53   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Buying cheap garbage regardless of the fact that I knew better. Tripods and heads are a case-in-point and where I wasted the most.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 21:42:47   #
Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA
 
The Nikon Wi-FI plug in a piece of crap and my first DSLR, an Olympus E620, Worked pretty good for awhile then stopped working just after warranty ran out. Sent it in for repair and Olympus said it could not be fixed. Like a dummy I let them talk me into buying a refurbished body and the same thing happened!! Anybody need Olympus lenses?

Reply
 
 
Dec 20, 2016 21:46:34   #
Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA
 
Yea, Steve I had one too for my 7100 a piece of crap. I threw it away.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 21:58:45   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
This has reminded me of another of my forays into bad gadget ideas. The third party ink system that I had once for one of my old Epson 2200 printers. Sure if you print a lot the ink is cheaper than OEM. But if you don't the heads clog up and you spend more time in the cleaning cycle flushing the cheaper ink through. It's a wash for $, but if you count your time spent cleaning, it's a loser.

Always buy the OEM ink for your high-end large format printer. It's not worth trying to save a few dollars.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 22:21:20   #
Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI
 
At 19, I knew that I wanted a Nikon for my first "real" camera. The guy at the photography store talked me into a Kodak camera. I hated it from the first day I had it. In 1971, for my 21st birthday, I purchased my first Nikon FTN with a bunch of wonderful lenses. Never happier. I took the Kodak camera, sans battery, and flung it from the back of a cruise ship, never to be seen again. Since then, I've never allowed someone to talk me into something that I don't want. Might regret my choice once in awhile, but it is my "informed" choice. Lesson learned.

Reply
Dec 20, 2016 22:28:06   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
bwana wrote:
Would like a couple to keep yours' company?


It does get lonely! I can't think of any use for this thing whatsoever. And it is even manufactured by the well known company Raynox. I have their DCR-150 close up lens, and that one is perfect. But no use for this wide angle adapter.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.