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

[msbarnes]

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.

I would go this route for sure! I did with an E-PM1 + 20mm. It is the only digital camera I own. I shoot primarily film but I've tinkered with some FF DSLRs (D800, 5d MK II) and I don't care for those things, at all.

 

[L Collins]

I shoot mostly a Nikon f5. Picked it up for $300. That's crazy, given its probably the most robust camera, film or digital, ever made. Wasn't ten years ago they were selling for $3000 new. IMHO, the best film camera ever produced.

 

[tunalegs]

Here's a thread about my year with an Edixa Prismaflex.

I used to have a Petri 7s that I kept in my backback when I was in college. Just to always have a camera on me. I wouldn't have dreamed up leaving my DSLR or any of my pricier stuff in the backback. I paid $19 for the Petri and served me well for many years, the image quality was outstanding - it just lacked interchangeable lenses.

 

[Ronald_H]

Although I have a Nikon D600 with bells and whistles, for when the light gets really low, I tend to use cheap cameras a lot... because I shoot a lot of film.

I have tons and tons of film gear, and the main reason is this:

All of my analogue gear put together still cost me less than the D600 + a decent lens + a decent flash.

See a short list below. The Leica and Hasselblad kit make up most of the value too, obviously. The rest, all extremely capable gear, was bought for peanuts,

Leica M2 + 25mm CV, 35mm CV and 50mm Summicron DR
Hasselblad 500 C/M + 50, 80 and 150mm Zeiss lenses
Yashica Mat 124
Nikon FM, FE, FM2, F80, F90x
Olympus XA
Olympus Mju-II
Polaroid BigShot
Yashica T4 D

And besides, I do get a great kick out of people 'ooh-ing and aah-ing' a picture I made and telling them: 'That? That was made with a camera I bought for 2 Euros at a flea market'. Especially if they bought a too expensive dSLR they keep on auto all day long.

 

[sanmich]

shooting film today is very cheap (at least BW film, assuming you soup your own)
tons of decent SLRs around...

Unfortunately, I prefer RFs 😀

 

[Kanamit]

I do a fair amount of middle of the night photography, so I definitely feel more comfortable using an FSU or an old Pentax. The risk probably isn't that big, but last time I went out shooting there was a poor schizophrenic homeless man shouting things in the bushes so it's definitely worth the peace of mind IMO.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Most everything, eh? Hadn't occurred to me to use the Kiev as a grinder.

 

[btgc]

Cheap, yes. Simple? Those late automated, motorized film SLRs sporting optical film spacing (most accurate I've ever seen) with electronic brain, providing automatic BLC and doing TTL flash, packed into a rugged frame. I can't call them simple as much as I would like. On other hand, today's cameras are even more wonderful. We live in interesting times.

 

[henri klein]

expensive cameras are mostly a waste of money. photography is easy. let it be also simple.

 

[Ronald M]

Unless you buy something really cheap, keep at least one D700.

Nikon D3200 and kit zoom or keep a 35.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The word cheap is throwing us.

Cheap means, or refers to, what you paid for it and I've cameras that cost hundreds when new but cost me next to nothing or were free. Most film cameras but I've both fully auto and state of the art then digital and film SLR's that cost me less than a cup of coffee. There's no way I see them as cheap or simple. And the instruction books were anything but cheap and simple...

To me cheap and simple means disposable ones as they were about 15 to 20 years ago.

Regards, David

 

[matt_mcg2]

For most of my daily photography I use an iPhone. That might be not what I reach for when I want to take a photography, in the active sense, but when I'm just snapping, it's often the first thing to hand. My digital camera was a premium compact 3 years ago, but now it's worth about $150 used.

Most of my film cameras didn't cost a huge amount of money to me at the time I got them. I've tended to wait until I can pick things up below their usual 2nd hand market price, and sometimes I've bought broken and had repaired. All of them, however, were premium pieces of kit when new, though. So I can get the best of both worlds. I don't have a huge amount of money sunk into them, but I get to use good/fun things.

I'm not sure what the specific worry is supposed to be with more expensive gear, though? That you'll drop or damage it? Or that it'll be stolen? Life is too short to worry about these for me. I don't have a huge amount of free cash [new baby], so I'm not blasé about the cost of replacement. But in the past 15 years I've broken exactly zero camera equipment. And I deal with the risk of theft by not being stupid in particularly risky places.* That said, I live in a normal British city, and I largely travel in western Europe, so I'm not really at risk of serious crime anyway.

Matt

* I'm also a 200lb bloke, so I'm also not an obvious target.

 

[thegman]

I tend to prefer using cheaper cameras sometimes, my Rollei 35, or My Zeiss Super Ikonta III. I also quite enjoyed using my Lomo LC-A+ when I had it.

First of all, it's nice not to worry too much about damage or theft, you just relax and use it.

Second of all, maybe it's the fact that I'm Scottish, but sometimes it's about being uncomfortable spending the money, rather than actually not being able to afford it. I know some people are OK with spending a significant portion of their savings to get a M240 + Summilux or whatever, but I'm not. The idea of spending so much on a hobby item would make me feel a bit ill.

 

[haempe]

Feeling uncomfortable with pricey gear? Oh, yes!
I may not count, how much gear I've wrecked in professional use... 🙄

When I go out to shoot I carry mostly my little Bessa. Not really cheap, but replaceable if something happens.

I'm owning also one or two Leicas which escort me on my vacation trips or sunday strolls - so all can see I'm a serious photographer... 😀

 

[jsrockit]

I used to photograph with a M9 and a few zeiss / CV / Leica lenses. Now, my 4 cameras combined are worth less than that one M9 body was brand new. Now, based on that experience, I feel I'm using cheaper cameras, but I would not call cameras that cost $800-2000 cheap.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I suppose cheap is relative, for most images I use a Nikkormat EL (£50) Nikon F2 (£90) A Rolleiflex (£100) sometimes an M4P (free to me, £200 if you include the lens)
Sold most of my digital but still keep a D2x
I think of all those as expensive cameras even if they didn't cost me much....

 

[leicapixie]

i use inexpensive simple point and shoot digital compacts.
i still own a lot of film cameras. selling or trading never been a high point.i have "short fingers-deep pockets syndrome".
i hate losing and that's what happens.. sure my Leica M3 can fetch about $800, once recovered..What can i buy for that? a basic entry level DSLR, that can make cappuccinos but has a viewfinder that is tiny and really dark.

:bang:
It cannot be used for 'manual" focusing.Wonderful.
So for almost everyday, it's the P/S group.
Film days(today is the day), it's a Nikon F (the only SLR with exact 100% view). Before you all pound your keyboards, check Nikon's data..all the F2,F3 are slightly less. The D3,D4 are 23.9 x 36..😀
My Film collection,many are gifts, is fun! The many cameras probably worth at most a few hundred dollars.. So i enjoy the odd use of film, the tragedy of scanning, not using darkroom.
but i never leave home without my travel pass, health card, spray(nitro) and Canon P/S digitals or Pentax Optio...

 

[Bill Clark]

My Leica M3 is simple.

If you keep it a long time it is a low cost item per unit of time (like per month) to own. For me, it's not obsolete in a short amount of time like some other cameras.

If you desire digital capture just use a smart phone. It can travel with you most of the time and you can send pics and messages immediately.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Cost is a very subjective thing. Over the years, I've probably spent £30,000 (say, $50,000) on cameras. However, I've sold pretty much the same value. Some cameras, I lose money on, some I've made a profit on. Some I've made seriously big profits on. Overall, I think my cameras have cost me no more than a couple of thousand pounds in forty five years. On top of this, I made a very good living for fifteen years or so from photography and journalism.

I don't mean to sound like I'm boasting. I just want to point out that photography can be a very cheap hobby, if you always buy used, only buy what you really want and always sell privately. In recent years, I've changed the second rule to "if you always buy used OR only buy heavily discounted end of line digital cameras".

Plus, the thing that seems to be forgotten is that digital cameras cost a few pennies of electricity for a thousand pictures, making them a lot cheaper than film cameras in terms of total cost of ownership.

It really depends on how you see things.

 

[jsrockit]

If you desire digital capture just use a smart phone. It can travel with you most of the time and you can send pics and messages immediately.

No thanks... I'll use a dedicated digital camera since digital is not a dirty word for me.