Who else deliberately uses cheap or simple cameras for most everything?

[Frida]

We've got multiple D700s, primes, flashes, etc, that we bought for weddings. We're shutting the biz down after our remaining two weddings. We're having a baby early next year. I'm selling all the DSLR gear and buying something simple and cheap for a few reasons:

1. Having expensive stuff makes me uncomfortable. Our D700s are the most expensive things we own (our cars cost less) besides our house. It also seems silly to buy something expensive when I'm using it personally rather than professionally.

2. I'm more likely to take a cheaper camera everywhere, since it's not such a big deal if I break or misplace it; the lack of a need to protect it is freeing.

3. I only shoot digital, and I don't fancy the idea of buying a camera that loses half of its value in a year or two. Starting from a cheaper or used camera means less money is lost, which makes me happy.

Now that you know where I'm coming from...

Who else enjoys using cheap or simple cameras for most daily photography? And if so, what do you use and why?

 

[peterm1]

I cant say that I use cheap or simple cameras for almost everything. But I can say as I recently have in another thread that I enjoy the idiosyncracities of old lenses (especially Manual Focus) and love using them on more modern bodies. The modern bodies deliver the benefits of automation and technology (aperture priority, matrix metering etc not to mention the benefits of digital imaging itself). The old lenses deliver simplicity and some lovely image aberations that make for interesting images that while not technically superb are artistically good.

The earliest digital camera I own and use more or less regularly is a Nikon D70s. This is an antique in digital years. But while its limited (it will not meter with non chipped lenses) and has a relatively small sensor capacity it still delivers lovely images as long as the shooting conditions are not too extreme.

I msut say like you it annoys me that cmaeras lose so much of their value every 18 months or so when new models come out and try to (a) buy "last years model" and (b) keep it for longer than many otherwise do.

 

[Classique]

I also sold my D700 few months back because I was no longer shooting events as much as before.

Now I am using Myriad of cameras from digital to film and I think all combined cost less than the D700 and 80-200 I sold.

For me, biggest factor was portability rather than price. I see cameras as tools so price doesn't influence my decision to carry it as long as it does the job. However, I grew to not like large and heavy gear due to weight during prolonged carry and awkwardness in non professional setting.

 

[lynnb]

digital cameras may depreciate quickly but they improve with each generation. Given the number of pictures you're likely to take with a new baby in the household, I don't think the depreciation is as big a factor as you think - particularly if the latest generation cameras like X100s, Ricoh GR digital V and OM-D offer faster and more accurate AF and good high ISO. Also think about how wide a lens you may need.

 

[mgermana]

I'm still shooting with my D200 and a 35/2 AF-D lens for this very reason.

My other camera is a user M4 with a user v.3 50mm Summicron that is currently in Sherry Krauter's hands.

Neither camera is so precious that I don't feel I can take it with me wherever I go.

 

[ChrisN]

We've got multiple D700s, primes, flashes, etc, that we bought for weddings. We're shutting the biz down after our remaining two weddings. We're having a baby early next year. I'm selling all the DSLR gear and buying something simple and cheap for a few reasons:

1. Having expensive stuff makes me uncomfortable. Our D700s are the most expensive things we own (our cars cost less) besides our house. It also seems silly to buy something expensive when I'm using it personally rather than professionally.

2. I'm more likely to take a cheaper camera everywhere, since it's not such a big deal if I break or misplace it; the lack of a need to protect it is freeing.

3. I only shoot digital, and I don't fancy the idea of buying a camera that loses half of its value in a year or two. Starting from a cheaper or used camera means less money is lost, which makes me happy.

Now that you know where I'm coming from...

Who else enjoys using cheap or simple cameras for most daily photography? And if so, what do you use and why?

Almost every sentence in your post contains a comment about money. It sounds like you are in that life stage where money is always a problem. With luck and some work that will change. Hang in there.

I do enjoy simple cameras, like the Hasselblad SWC. The lens quality is outstanding, and I love the square format. I enjoy the high-quality negatives and the fact that the camera demands good technique from me as the photographer. The M9 is also a simple camera in use, and it's simplicity liberates my creativity.

Horses for courses. 🙂

 

[GaryLH]

The is nothing wrong w/ getting something cheaper to shoot w/. These days there are a lot of good cameras at a reasonable price.

Gary

 

[mdarnton]

My reentry to film from a D300 was via Nikon FGs, and I haven't felt any need to upgrade. They're the functional equal to a Leica M6ttl, and that seems adequate. I have several and they were only $45 each, but I still favor carrying the rattiest one. I imagine there's some digital Nikon equivalent. . .Maybe you should get a used D300, since they're quite cheap now.

 

[Keith]

I think I'd have to be in fairly dire financial straights to sell my D700 ... it really is my only do all camera and the instant I sold it I know someone will ask me to shoot something that only the Nikon would be capable of ... sports, low light etc.

For pure pleasure a cheap beater can be the ultimate camera. Some of the most enjoyable and rewarding shots I've taken have been with a $35 Voigtlander Brilliant I bought from eBay one night many years ago after a few too many glasses of Shiraz! 😀

 

[furbs]

A small digital point and shoot would be very handy for you. I've considered getting something like a Trip 35 for a different shooting experience.

Are you prone to breaking and misplacing cameras, or are you just being cautious? I wouldn't worry too much about getting a camera stolen, either. I know plenty of people who have had their iPhones, iPads and Galaxy S3s stolen, but no one who has had their camera stolen. I used my DSLR all the time in high-crime areas of the inner city and never felt I was in danger of losing my gear.

As has already been said, the real value of point and shoots is not that they're cheap, but that they're portable. My D600 sure did get heavier the longer I owned it. I'm much more apt to have my M4 with me, even though it cost (with lens) roughly the same price as the D600. My daily camera may not be cheap, but it is definitely simple! Use the camera you enjoy, and the enjoyment - not the money made with it - is its own reward.

 

[Rogier]

A holga does does the job very well 🙂


Holga@9 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr

 

[msbarnes]

Yes, sort of. With film, my most used 35mm camera is my Rollei 35 despite owning Leica gear.

 

[Ranchu]

I find myself gravitating towards light weight, and buying things cheap out of curiosity. I haven't found a correlation between what I like and how much it cost. Currently in my bag is a Pentax ZX-10 I paid 6 dollars for (with batteries, ha) with a kalimar/vivitar/centon/Horusbennu/phenix 50mm f1.7 I I paid 4 dollars for in a separate purchase. First roll on the lens, I'm curious what it looks like... Not everyone wants more money if they don't have a lot of it. But if I did I'd probably be the new owner of that Canon VI-T and 35mm Serenar in the classifieds, ha.

 

[rwintle]

For most things, I use two DSLRs, neither of which were expensive as these things go. But for film, I use cheap cameras because I am a cheapskate, basically. My rangefinders cost about $10 each on average (plus the inevitable ebay shipping) and my TLR was similar.

That they are all simple to use is kind of a side effect, but one I enjoy.

 

[Argenticien]

I carry a Canonet QL17 in place of 5x-10x more expensive Canon P kit fairly often. It's easily replaced at low cost if lost, stolen, or confiscated. Many classic cameras that are pricey can be 80-90% duplicated in functionality by much cheaper, more common ones (e. g. Nikkormat FT instead of that minty plain prism Nikon F; Yashicamat in place of Rolleiflex, etc.). I'm not poor, but I'm not rich either. That peace of mind is worth the functionality sacrifice if I'm going out somewhere dodgy.
--Dave

 

[Rodchenko]

I don't deliberately use cheap cameras - I only have one which cost more than GBP100 (my Canon) - but am compelled by lack of funds. I might love an M240 with an array of lenses, and a fancy medium format, and maybe a plate camera. But it ain't gonna happen, so I've put a lot of time into researching which cheaper cameras will best suit the photography I do, and wish to do.

I'm happy with my little selection. A couple of the items are there because they were very cheap, but, quite frankly, I could probably manage very well with just one, though I'd think my minimum would je the 35SP, OM-2SP and a digital. Not sure the Canon is quite the right digital, though I've just spent two hours in the middle of the night using the manual to experiment with some of the creative options I'm less familiar with. I think an EP5 is going to complete my collection, and make for more of a consistent set.

It's possible to have fun whatever camera you have, but it will always be better if you know what you want to do and what you need to achieve it (and, I suppose, what you don't want to do).

 

[stompyq]

I use a olympus epm-1 for this specific reason. You can get one with kit lens refurbished for under $200. The lens is VERY decent. Frankly I've seen this combo go for a little over $100 used sometimes. Really the last gen m43 cameras represent the best value for money at the moment and fits what you want to do perfectly without any compromise.

 

[Greyscale]

About 60% of the time, I use 35mm point and shoot cameras that I find at thrift shops or garage sales. The other time is split between (mostly fully manual) "classic" SLR cameras, and fixed-lens rangefinders. I think that the most that I have ever paid for a camera was $60 (Canon IVF, withe Serenar 50/1.8). It is probably my "best" camera, but I need to get a CLA on it. Maybe with the farm rent next fall, I can fix all of my project cameras.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

You'll get $1200 maybe for the d700. Keep it and a lens for the new baby. You'll regret all the shots you miss using cheap cameras. Right now the d700 is the cheapest camera you can buy because it won't cost you anything (one way of looking at it!).

 

[timor]

I shoot film only, so every camera I have could be put in "cheap and simple" category. 🙂)