What is "enough" in a camera for you?

[Loose Gravel]

I'm fond of Contax 139q, 159mm with Zeiss optics. I like a coupled meter, A-mode, an electronic shutter. Also have a Minolta CLE with Zeiss glass. A Konica Hexar for a silent oddity. Mamiya 7 for the medium format unless closeup work is involved, then a Pentax 67, but it is a beast. LF is left for another day.

I had an M3, but no meter, clumsy loading, and expense was a dud.

 

[TomR55]

For the last 30 plus years: Any working M2, M4, or M4-P, with at least one 35mm Summicron lens and a pocket full of unexposed film. Of these, the M4 is probably my all-time favorite.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not necessarily a particular brand, but I prefer slrs and a reasonable choice of lenses.

 

[John Bragg]

My Nikon FM2n is the go to for me as my "Zen" camera. No more or less than the perfect balance of essential features in a compact package. As for lens choice, 50 mm f1.4 Ais if limited to just one. Wierdly, as complex as it is, My Nikon F4 feels as simple in hand due to the analog design. I also appreciate the matrix metering with older lenses that you don't get with most other Nikon cameras.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I've been through a lot of manual cameras over the years. I don't need a light meter and am okay with zone focus, I learned how to estimate both when I was a kid in the 60s. I prefer SLRs and direct-view zone focus cameras to rangefinders or TLRs, I've got some but never use them.

I carried a Minox IIIs submini daily for decades. I inherited my parents' non-AI Nikon gear, and had acquired my own Olympus OM gear. I've had good point & shoots (Nikon OneTouch, Stylus Epic), but they don't offer enough challenge for me. Unlike many/most here, I've never personally bought a zoom lens, an autofocus SLR, or a decent digital camera...

From about 2009 to 2020, my standard 35mm carry was a Nikon F2 with plain DE-1 prism and the tiny 45mm/2.8 GN. Pretty much the lightest-weight Nikon kit. I sometimes brought along a 1950s GE PR-1 selenium meter and/or a second lens.

More recently I've been using a dead-meter Nikkormat FTN with my old Nikkor lenses. I always preferred shooting Nikkormats to Nikons: sleeker, lighter, nearly as indesctructible. Besides the GN, my most-used Nikkor lenses - all from the 60s/70s and never CLA'd - are the 105/2.5, 35/2, and 28/3.5.

If I want to carry a camera with a working light meter, I bring out my Olympus OM-2n. A total pleasure to use, and its metering system is so good that I never take it off Auto mode. My most-used OM Zuiko lenses are the 35/2 and 100/2.8.

If I want to carry even less weight - which is much of the time nowadays - it's one of my Olympus Pen half-frames. I've got both a Pen S and a Pen F (with standard 38mm lens), and they're excellent shooters... plus they get 50+ exposures on a 24-load. I moslty shoot Double-X in the Pens (vs. Tri-X in the full-frame cameras.)

So these days I'm mainly carrying either the Pen S, Pen F, Nikkormat, or OM-2n. Sometimes a small light meter, sometimes a second lens. A minimalist old-school approach.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

After all, for me, a camera is enough camera when:
- mediumformat
- good lenses (which are interchangeable)
- confortable to use
- well designed and made
- reliable
- easy to find accessories
- reparabel when needed (electronics?)

 

[4season]

"Enough" is whatever I'm lusting for at the moment, and is also defined by what I'm trying to accomplish.

On some sunny days, a Minolta Hi-Matic F is enough. But for color handheld photos by moonlight, not so much.

 

[RezaLoghme]

"more than enough" for me is when the specs are "better" than those of the "enough" camera, but (for me) do not justify the higher price. I see that in the Megapixel race of digital cameras, but also in things like new M lenses or high-end audio.

Or like the C-CF-CFE cadence when it comes to Hasselblad lenses. CF is "better than C" but "good enough that i dont need CFE".

 

[Pioneer]

the one i have...

never been a camera accumulator... got a new one, and passed on the old one.

(except for the rolleiflex which i still have, but sits on the shelf.)

I was this way for years and years. Around 1979 I bought a used K1000 and that camera was the only one I owned and used until after Y2K. It worked fine and I never even felt the need for anything else, not even a backup. Back then if someone would have told me that they needed a backup for a K1000 I would have looked at them like they were slightly touched upstairs.

But then digital happened and acquiring cameras was not about whether they worked or not, rather it became how many pixels you had. My first digital as a Pentax *ist DL2 but no sooner did I buy it then everyone was telling me that 6 thousand pixels was nowhere near enough to get a decent picture. And I believed them so in 4 years I upgraded my digital camera several times, getting more pixels each time.

Eventually I came to my senses and started using my K1000 again. But by then the digital upgrade path had changed my thinking. Now I need medium format, auto focus, matrix metering. You name it, there was always something that was better than what I had. Meanwhile I had become a camera accumulator, a collector if you will.

Don't get me wrong, it has all been great fun and I have seen and used a lot of cameras along the way. I have learned a lot and some of what I have learned has actually been useful. However, I think that the most important that I learned was that the K1000 with a good lens and good film was all I really needed all along. When I look through all those pictures from all that time I realize that they all look pretty decent. And the ones that don't look so good weren't the result of a bad camera, or the size of the film, or the number of pixels on the sensor.

It was all about the subject, the light and the composition. If you can get those right all the rest is just marketing baloney.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thinking about what I will bring on a trip. Enough will be two cameras. One with manual shutter and a spare body in case the first one stops working.

 

[Pioneer]

I am headed south in a few weeks for my granddaughter's university graduation. I will almost certainly take my Pentax LX. But I am considering taking my Pentax Q7 and my 11x14 instead if I knew that they would let me set up the big camera. I'll have her check on it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"more than enough" for me is when the specs are "better" than those of the "enough" camera, but (for me) do not justify the higher price. I see that in the Megapixel race of digital cameras, but also in things like new M lenses or high-end audio.

Or like the C-CF-CFE cadence when it comes to Hasselblad lenses. CF is "better than C" but "good enough that i dont need CFE".

Ditto. I am happy with my CF lenses. I own two C lenses because the price was so low that I could not walk away plus I do not use those two, the 30mm C Fisheye and the 500mm C lens enough to be all that bothered with the poorer ergonomics. Note that the optical prescription of those two lenses is the same as the CF lenses which does keep me satisfied. Since I have the CF lenses, I have felt no need to upgrade to the CFE or more advanced lenses.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Ditto. I am happy with my CF lenses. I own two C lenses because the price was so low that I could not walk away plus I do not use those two, the 30mm C Fisheye and the 500mm C lens enough to be all that bothered with the poorer ergonomics. Note that the optical prescription of those two lenses is the same as the CF lenses which does keep me satisfied. Since I have the CF lenses, I have felt no need to upgrade to the CFE or more advanced lenses.

Together with a friend, a professional photographer too, who had some CF lenses, which I do not have, only C T*'s, we did a small unscientific comparison (*), and hardly saw any differences.
In my eyes, the only advantage that CF lenses are really offering is a better shutter (Prontor), an easier handling and perhaps no radioactive components (?).

(*) 'Normal' scenes, no brick walls nor Siemens stars, the kind we usually did for a living, on colour slide (FUJI Provia F) and then projecting them at 2m by 2m with a Rollei P11 projector.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Camera manufacturers are businesses. They have to sell products and fuel demand, so "improved" specs and features are used to drive demand.

At the same time, there is decision fatigue - more does automatically mean "better". For one digital model, Leica removed the back screen. Most TLRs have fixed lenses. 120 type MF film capacity is very limited, depending on the camera's format. Uncoated lenses have all the imperfections that "better" lenses successfully removed.

But, just looking at Leica M prices (vintage and new), there seems to be a strong demand for simplicity. "Good enough" actually sounds (and feels) good; a neo-vintage SLR or RF from a good manufacturer, with a few battle scars, in 35mm or 120, minimal electronic support, maybe with a wide angle and a tele lens in addition to the standard lens, some rolls of widely-available "allround" film, a camera bag that does not scream "camera bag", and a day (or weekend) free of obligations, a lightweight vest or coat, weather with a bit of variants, a snack, and a cold beer or hot tea at the end of the session - all that is "enough" for me.

Maybe it's the flip side of a mid-life crisis - when handling one of my V-Series cameras (or my R5), I often say to myself "thank you, world, that I am allowed to own these wonderful toys, thank you, that I am healthy and live in a country where there is peace, thank you, that I have not wiped out my brain completely but am still able to make plans, to see beauty in people and things, to appreciate all this around me."

 

[warden]

Camera manufacturers are businesses. They have to sell products and fuel demand, so "improved" specs and features are used to drive demand.

At the same time, there is decision fatigue - more does automatically mean "better". For one digital model, Leica removed the back screen. Most TLRs have fixed lenses. 120 type MF film capacity is very limited, depending on the camera's format. Uncoated lenses have all the imperfections that "better" lenses successfully removed.

But, just looking at Leica M prices (vintage and new), there seems to be a strong demand for simplicity. "Good enough" actually sounds (and feels) good; a neo-vintage SLR or RF from a good manufacturer, with a few battle scars, in 35mm or 120, minimal electronic support, maybe with a wide angle and a mild tele lens in addition to the standard lens, some rolls of widely-available "allround" film, a camera bag that does not scream "camera bag", and a day (or weekend) free of obligations, a lightweight vest or coat, weather with a bit of variants, a snack, and a cold beer or hot tea at the end of the session - all that is "enough" for me.

Maybe it's the flip side of a mid-life crisis - when handling one of my V-Series cameras (or my R5), I often say to myself "thank you, world, that I am allowed to own these wonderful toys, thank you, that I am healthy and live in a country where there is peace, thank you, that I have not wiped out my brain completely but am still able to make plans, to see beauty in people and things, to appreciate all this around me."

That last paragraph resonates with me. Thank you.

 

[oxcanary]

And with me too! And, I suspect many of us

 

[Philippe-Georges]

And with me too! And, I suspect many of us

I close ranks (with my Silvestri)...

 

[Arthurwg]

Some years ago I had a Contax TVS that was perfect until in stopped working. These days it's probably my Nikon F6 with a 24mm lens.

 

[Dali]

Any camera as long as I can manually focus, select the shutter speed and the aperture.

 

[ant!]

I like aperture priority. I have a few cameras without light meter, but aperture priority makes sense for me and is a great help for getting the shot faster.
I have a bunch of lenses, but in most cases a normal lens is good enough. Of course, changing brings fun as well.
I am mostly a SLR person, in a few cases a rangefinder is fine as well, mostly for a more compact setup. In half-frame I am fine with zone focus, I have a Canon Demi EE17 where I see my rough focus distance at least in the viewfinder, so I can focus without taking the camera from the eye.
For an SLR, auto-aperture and instant return mirrors are nice to have. Coupled film advance & shutter cocking & frame counter are great as well.
Prism-finder over waist level finder in 35mm, for a medium format TLR the waistlevel finder is alright.

Otherwise: From time to time some change, for fun. Auto-everything point & shoot are not my thing.

 

[mshchem]

It's not how much, it's how many.

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

Right now my dream camera is my recently acquired Rolleiflex 3.5e Xenotar — no meter, no interchangeable hood. Simpler and lighter than my 3.5f Planar which I plan to sell. Perfect square format combined with perfect focal length. What more do you need?

 

[RezaLoghme]

How much lighter?

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

How much lighter?

I just weighed them both — about 110 grams lighter. Not a lot but when you combine that with no meter bump the 3.5e just feels a bit more agile. Minor differences but significant for me.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I just weighed them both — about 110 grams lighter. Not a lot but when you combine that with no meter bump the 3.5e just feels a bit more agile. Minor differences but significant for me.

After a daylong walk, 110g magically changes in 1,1kg...

That's why, for a walk, I put the 80mm on the Hasselblad, as the 60 mm or the 50mm are to heavy, and the Gossen Digipro F, the lightest lightmeter I have (95g + one AA battery).