What is "enough" in a camera for you?

[abruzzi]

I could live with a manual SLR and a lens.

for something like 18 years all I had was a Nikkormat FTn and a Nikkor-H 50mm ƒ2, and it was pretty awesome. For 35mm, the integrated linked meter with open aperture metering is a real plus, but all the other automation is a step too far for me.

 

[Chess]

for something like 18 years all I had was a Nikkormat FTn and a Nikkor-H 50mm ƒ2, and it was pretty awesome. For 35mm, the integrated linked meter with open aperture metering is a real plus, but all the other automation is a step too far for me.

I think that's awesome! I've also decided to try and limit myself to only one lens for each outing when possible. I'm confident you will achieve more with this method for a number of reasons.
I'll also bet you will have achieved more with that setup than some people ever will with lenses ranging from ultra wide to 600mm or more and a couple of Z9's in their bag.

 

[mehguy]

I think that's awesome! I've also decided to try and limit myself to only one lens for each outing when possible. I'm confident you will achieve more with this method for a number of reasons.
I'll also bet you will have achieved more with that setup than some people ever will with lenses ranging from ultra wide to 600mm or more and a couple of Z9's in their bag.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning for this.

 

[Chess]

I'm curious to hear your reasoning for this.

Ok.

If you only have one lens, you will have to shoot images with only that one focal length in mind.
In the case of a zoom, you'll have limited focal lengths but won't have a bag full of lenses that give you many choices.
Limiting the focal lengths lessens what you can shoot.
It forces you to look only for shots that will work with the focal length you have available.
You are immediately limited as to what you can take but also more focused on what you can take.
You are no longer considering everything around you. Many distractions are eliminated.
You now look at less and consider more.
Let's say you went out with a 50mm lens only.
Imo, you will likely come back with better 50mm images from your 50mm than if you went out with your 50mm and all your other lenses.

Using just a single lens for a period also allows you to really start to learn the lens.
All your images will be from the same lens.
You may start to grasp and see things from that lens you never noticed before.
You never likely viewed enough images together at one time from the same lens to notice certain things.
You may start to see the lens's strengths and weaknesses or the subjects that work really well with the focal length.

Then of course there is also less weight to carry or less messing around with changing lenses.
Either or both I would say will make the photographer happier, more eager to shoot and will keep them shooting longer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ok.

If you only have one lens, you will have to shoot images with only that one focal length in mind.
In the case of a zoom, you'll have limited focal lengths but won't have a bag full of lenses that give you many choices.
Limiting the focal lengths lessens what you can shoot.
It forces you to look only for shots that will work with the focal length you have available.
You are immediately limited as to what you can take but also more focused on what you can take.
You are no longer considering everything around you. Many distractions are eliminated.
You now look at less and consider more.
Let's say you went out with a 50mm lens only.
Imo, you will likely come back with better 50mm images from your 50mm than if you went out with your 50mm and all your other lenses.

Using just a single lens for a period also allows you to really start to learn the lens.
All your images will be from the same lens.
You may start to grasp and see things from that lens you never noticed before.
You never likely viewed enough images together at one time from the same lens to notice certain things.
You may start to see the lens's strengths and weaknesses or the subjects that work really well with the focal length.

Then of course there is also less weight to carry or less messing around with changing lenses.
Either or both I would say will make the photographer happier, more eager to shoot and will keep them shooting longer.

I believe that one camera, one lens, one developer, ... to learn your equipment before adding variables. However I will carry multiple lens and still shoot each lens as though it is my only lens at that site, then I change lenses and repeat the search for compositions.

 

[unityofsaints]

FM2 for me. Even then it has a DoF preview lever, self timer and double exposure mechanism that I never use! Maybe I need even less camera than that

 

[MarkVII88]

But it made me think, what is "enough" camera for you as a daily carry to have fun with, without you feeling limited? As in, you don't want to think 'if only I had my..'
It's making me think as to why I'm keeping my Nikon Fs.. awesome cameras but I really don't use them as they are in the middle - too big for 'fun' - too small for serious (AF, motor drive etc like with the F4 and F6).
I guess its part of the paring down of gear that is being used, not collected.

For me, I suppose it depends on the type of shooting experience I'm after and the reason for wanting to use a camera. If I'm looking for a slow, deliberate, precise photography experience, then a point and shoot would not be the camera for me, but it might be if I want something to keep in my work bag for quick snaps if I'm out and about. If I'm shooting sports and want to get the most keepers as possible, then a fully manual, manual focus camera is probably not the right choice either. If I just want to buy the cheapest camera possible in order to be able to use certain lenses, then maybe the shooting experience itself is not that important, just the price. If I'm hiking up a mountain and want to shoot landscapes, perhaps a heavy and bulky medium format camera is not the best choice. I am not a minimalist when it comes to my photography gear. I want to have a variety of different shooting experiences in both 35mm and medium format. I want to have multiple lenses for different camera bodies and be able to choose which camera I use based on what film format I want to shoot, the type of shooting I'm going out to do, if size or weight is a consideration, if I want to shoot slowly or quickly, and how much of a challenge I want to set for myself. I'd rather have 10 less expensive cameras that give me those opportunities than a single expensive camera that I use for every shot.

 

[cooltouch]

For close to 40 years, my "just enough" camera has been the Original Canon F-1, specifically the Canon F-1n (the 2nd version of the original). I can get by with an FTb, as long as I'm not using slow lenses. The camera itself is of average size and weight for its era, which I have never found objectionable.

The reasons for the Canon F-1 are several. It has a very accurate meter and a metering pattern that I've always preferred. It also has match-needle metering, which I also prefer. It has mirror lock-up, which I actually do use on occasion. It has interchangeable focusing screens, including laser mattes, which are quite bright. I prefer the plain matte screen. With regards to interchangeability, it also has interchangeable finders, a couple of which are quite interesting, if not useful. It also has motor drive capability. The motor drive is not terribly convenient. It is big and heavy and it motors along at a rather leisurely 3.5 fps, but hey, it's still a motor. Last, it is very rugged and just keeps going and going and going. The original Canon F-1 was Canon's first system camera and I think they did a very good job from the git go.

 

[Nitroplait]

I often seem to play this game in my mind; what would be "the most modest/least expensive camera I could be perfectly happy with to the end of my days".
The answer has always been Nikon FE with a 35/2.8 Ai lens.
The price of a Nikon FE is climbing and no longer the $100 is used to be, and should I take the rules of the game literally, I guess a Nikkormat EL with a pre-ai 35/2.8 would work equally well for me.
An Olympus Trip 35 would be acceptable as well - I could live with that, but I think I wouldn't be completely content as I would with the Nikon FE.

 

[George Mann]

The answer has always been Nikon FE with a 35/2.8 Ai lens.

It's funny that you mentioned this as I was just thinking about how my own 35/2.8 Ai would balance on my newly aquired N2000, which may end up being my main shooter.

 

[Nitroplait]

It's funny that you mentioned this as I was just thinking about how my own 35/2.8 Ai would balance on my newly aquired N2000, which may end up being my main shooter.

It is not a spectacular lens by any measure. OOF can be quite messy at times, but if you understand its limitations, it is a perfectly fine reasonably compact lens. It was my first and, for many years, only SLR lens and I feel I know how to get the best out of it.
The N2000 is also a quite capable body that does everything a modern body should, and does it well - without being spectacular. I think they will be a great match - certainly capable of spectacular results in right hands

 

[Javier González]

For many years I have used mainly a ricoh super 5 II with a 50 f2 and a sigma 28 f2.8. This is a cosina made camera, amateruish, very light and basic but I has proven to be very reliable at least for my use. The ricoh 50 f2 is an underrated lens in my opinion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Enough camera" is a state of mine. It varies by the person.

 

[Paul Howell]

"Enough camera" is a state of mine. It varies by the person.

This is true, last year it was my Minolta 7xi, manual mode, a few primes, then I shot with my point and shoots, the one camera that stands out for a good enough walk around, Argus C3, Gossen Pilot, 4 filters, U.V yellow, green light orange, generic bulk loaded 400 speed film, D76 stock. Lens is 50 3.5 triplit, stopped down to F8 to 16, decent, may not resolve Tmax 400 but will resolve, Fineness 400. I like the magnified range finder, always get a spot on focus. Down side is the lens although coated might as well be uncoated, really need the lens hood. If I am feeling lazy then an all auto point and shoot.

 

[Guth]

Had the Minolta XD11 that I bought in the late 70's not developed electrical demons, it would likely still be enough camera for me all these years later.

 

[test_realm]

Exposure triangle and roll film.

 

[Besk]

Horses for courses. I could get by with my miniature Crown Graphic or Leica IIIf or Nikon F2 for everything.
However, 4x5 sheet film is really the best for my hobby of taking images of buildings and streets in my hometown for archival purposes.

 

[Nessunego]

What is enough for me is a film, a shutter mechanism of some kind and a lens of some kind. If there is a chance, I like a manual focusing mechanism like a prism or a rangefinder. A threaded shutter release for remote shutter use is welcome as well as a tripod mount and a flash synch mechanism. I mainly use fully mechanical analog cameras, no lightmeter, manual focus.

 

[AndroclesC]

For me it would be my Minolta XD-11 with the MD 28-85mm on it, a lens I've grown to really like over the years. I would also consider the Canon F-1n, my favorite of the three iterations, to be a solid choice as well.
Andy

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Hasselblad V System camera, lenses, filters, a SWC, 35mm cameras, 4"x5" cameras and a functioning darkroom

 

[mohmad khatab]

Dream about that great masterpiece - I don't want anything else anymore

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Hasselblad V System camera, lenses, filters, a SWC, 35mm cameras, 4"x5" cameras and a functioning darkroom

WideLux F7 and Nikonos V with three lenses.

 

[Guth]

For me it would be my Minolta XD-11 with the MD 28-85mm on it, a lens I've grown to really like over the years.

That was the lens that I too ended up pairing with my XD11. With the intentions of packing as light as I possibly could, I bought that lens before I went backpacking through Europe in 1991. Between the XD11 itself, that lens, and the film I brought with me, my photo gear accounted for about 1/3 of everything I carried with me.

 

[BMbikerider]

My first really decent camera was my Pentax SV which I bought tax free when I was in the Army serving in Cyprus in 1964/5/6. It was very basic, no metering and changing those screw fit lenses could get a bit tedious. But the quality of those lenses, I don't think have ever been really bettered. A rash statement, but that is my personal experience. I much prefer manual cameras, they slow you down and make you think what you are doing.
I use Nikon now and have done for several years but to be truthful but they are getting very heavy especially as I approach my 80th year.

The SV's, Spotmatics and the subsequent Pentax bayonet cameras are getting a bit thin on the ground now for a really good one now, so I would not go back, but for me I got more satisfaction from them than anything else.

When Pentax was changing over to the Spotmatic range, they had an advertising slogan which read 'Just hold a Pentax'. .A simple statement but it got the message across to the buyer.

 

[SomewhereLost]

I hope I don't get branded a hertic here....but I used to think I knew what love for a camera was. And then I put a 5D Mark II in my hands. I'm very sad it no longer works. Yeah, it's an overly complicated digital tool of massive complexity, but that feeling, that was all I ever wanted. That feeling, above all else, was enough.

I recently snagged a Great Wall DF, exact model unsure, and that's enough too. What's funny, to me, is how I've heard both it and the 5D Mark 2 compared in some of the same terms for their context. Both lack many of the bells and whistles that were available in cameras during their time, both are "simple" and basic, for their time, but both have offered me just enough.