"Sandbox" Cameras

[erikg]

I'm trying hard not to think about the circumstances that would lead one to drop a camera into a toilet... anyway, I keep an F-3 at the bottom of my backback and I usually have an XA in my pocket but I stay away from sandboxes after what the judge said...

 

[aparat]

Smena 8M - not really a toy camera. The lens is nice. It has full manual control. With the auxiliary rangefinder (Blik), it is perfect. This was my first camera at the age of seven.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Rollei Prego 70, actually I call it my truck camera cause I keep it in my truck. Just shot my first roll of film, but haven't developed it yet. Once I process the film I'll know if I have a truck camera or trash can camera. $10 off craigslist with marshals oil pencils and 20 sheets of Ilford 8x10 rc paper thrown in for free after the fact.

Roger

 

[2F/2F]

Unfortunately, most of my cameras are sandbox cameras. The Speed is not, as it is super clean, but pretty much everything else is. Even the Sinar has gone out and about quite often. It rode shotgun in my passenger seat, on a tripod, for a six-month project I recently shot. It took a lot of beating, and kept on ticking.

The cameras that I purposefully take if I seriously fear damage, theft, or loss are my AE-1 Programs, my Electro 35, or my Powershot if a point and shoot will do the job. I also view my 10D as one of these, however, I don't use it as such because my only lens for it now is the 50mm f/1.2.

The camera I take when I need the toughest camera in existence is the Nikonos V. This is my number one hiking and climbing camera...and it shows it now.

 

[walter23]

I don't understand why that photographer is whining. It's not like there aren't thousands of cameras out there on the used market that he could buy. I mean, what's stopping him from buying a camera and some film?

Any plastic P&S falls into this category for me.

Workflow most likely. Once you're working principally in digital, the prospect of scanning, printing, etc, from film is kind of unappealing. (Before the hordes jump on me, this is similar to how digital is unappealing to someone who's invested a lot in a traditional darkroom workflow.)

 

[clayne]

The cameras that I purposefully take if I seriously fear damage, theft, or loss are my AE-1 Programs, my Electro 35, or my Powershot if a point and shoot will do the job. I also view my 10D as one of these, however, I don't use it as such because my only lens for it now is the 50mm f/1.2.

Great time to sell that lens 2F. The kids think it's the bees knees and with the price it runs you could probably get something more useful.

 

[2F/2F]

Great time to sell that lens 2F. The kids think it's the bees knees and with the price it runs you could probably get something more useful.

It is one of the best lenses I have ever used, and it would be one of the last pieces of photo equipment I would ever sell. As I said, of the entire EF line, it is the one lens that I decided on, knowing that it would be my only EOS lens for quite some time. There is not a single lens by Canon, Nikon, etc. that would be "more useful" to me. I needed something like my 55mm 1.2 , but that fits a digital camera.

 

[clayne]

It is one of the best lenses I have ever used, and it would be one of the last pieces of photo equipment I would ever sell. As I said, of the entire EF line, it is the one lens that I decided on, knowing that it would be my only EOS lens for quite some time. There is not a single lens by Canon, Nikon, etc. that would be "more useful" to me. I needed something like my 55mm 1.2 , but that fits a digital camera.

2F, I rented it for a while and was left unimpressed, honestly. I find my traditional manual-focus Nikkors and Pentax 50mm lenses did just fine without the clinical nature that Canon lenses typically exhibit. It's not a bad lens, I'm not saying that - but I would easily spend 1200$ on film before even considering buying it.

 

[2F/2F]

2F, I rented it for a while and was left unimpressed, honestly. I find my traditional manual-focus Nikkors and Pentax 50mm lenses did just fine without the clinical nature that Canon lenses typically exhibit. It's not a bad lens, I'm not saying that - but I would easily spend 1200$ on film before even considering buying it.

Well, I borrowed it for a year, hounding my friend to sell it to me the whole time because it is such a great and indispensable tool. Finally, she gave in: some cash, and the printing of a large series of 16x20 RA prints for her in limited editions of three. It was some of the best money I have ever spent, and I would indeed pay full price and more for the lens. The only lens that gets more use is my FD 55mm 1.2. I prefer the 55mm, but when I need to use digital/autofocus, this thing does just as well. IMO, the plastic retaining ring is the worst part of the lens. I wish it were metal like most L lenses. Yes, I have also used the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. The 1.4 is the best bang for the buck, but I need that extra speed for nearly everything I shoot on digital/AF. I have Nikon, Pentax, and Canon lenses for 35mm, and the pix all look the same to me. There are no clinical lenses; only clinical photographs by clinical photographers.

This post is not about the 50mm 1.2. My comment was simply that it was interesting that in one case, a camera itself is a "sandbox" camera, but not the lens.