What camera to buy if you only had $100

[Kevin Kemner]

Okay, this IS a troll but, its a Saturday morning sittin' on the porch kind of question. Lets say life has dealt you a setback and you no longer had those fabulous XL lenses and all the geared movements and the digital spotmeter. Maybe you have some beat up Lunapro that is still dependable. You still have the desire to shoot, to take pictures. You can't just sit around metering the hell out of things can you? If you only had $100 that would you buy to get yourself back into the field?

Personally, I'd go twin lens.

Kevin

[John Kasaian]

A Pinhole. Make it 8x10 since you wouldn't have an enlarger. Paper negatives souped in trays. You'll still have enough cash left over to take your Bride out to dinner!

Cheers!

[Frank Petronio]

A Yashica Mat is a good deal. So are old 2x3 Graphics and Pentax K1000s. But the pinhole gives you big film and a unique look for the money, so long as you don't photograph people.

The Chinese Seagull and some of the Russian 120 cameras are capable of good results, although QC is crapshoot.

[Jim Rhoades]

Well the TLR is a good answer but this is a L/F forum. Sticking with L/F I would look for a Calumet 400 series. I bought a long rail model for $62. a while back. That leaves $38. for a lens. Good thing I already had some film holders. I once got a 1973 Crown Graphic w/135mm Schneider lens, case and 12 holders for $15. This was a government auction. Never see that again.

[Michael Graves]

I have an old Voightlander Bessa with 105 Skopar that does 6x9. I got it for $10.00 at a yard sale and it still makes marvelous pictures. I take it out with me along with my 5x7 to shoot grab shots. For a long time, I shot 4x5 with an old Speed Graphic that set me back $75.00. I still have it, but I rarely (not in six or seven years) shoot 4x5 anymore, and if I did, I have a 4x5 back for the 5x7.

[John_4185]

Let's take a different tact: If we (or I) knew you had fallen into such an unfortunate situation, I think we could put together a 4x5 with lens from our spare parts and that $100 would easily cover postage.

[Kevin Kemner]

Pinhole is always good. 8x10 might be a stretch but if you're a careful shopper it might work.

[George Stewart]

Pinhole 8x10 camera with deconvolution software to make the images razor.

Really, if all I had was $100 for a camera, I'd put the money in the bank, abandon photography and attempt a recovery. Perhaps I'd pick up some paper and find some sticks in the woods which I would burn to make charcoal pencils. Then I'd start drawing on the cheap.

[Frank Petronio]

Kevin,
George is right about recovering your earning power before undertaking photography. And the cost of film will continue to keep you in the poor house for a long time. BUT if you really are hard up and still dedicated to making photos, and you ask the forum members nicely, I bet you'll find a lot of generous people here. Maybe you could send donors prints as a thank you?

[paulr]

well, i'm glad guys like weston and stephen shore put photography first and "earning power" second! not that it's usually a wise choice, but some of the best things have come out of unwise choices.

[Jack Flesher]

I'd go with a Holga and spend the rest on film. The images are enough different than pinhole to be even more unique and set your art apart from the rest.

Market the heck out of them, buy more film and make more images. Market those and repeat.

In no time you'd make enough money to buy back your Arca Swiss and XL lenses and get back to making real images -- or possibly end up so sick of photography that you'd decide to take up golf ;)

[John Kasaian]

Jack,
My experiences with Holgas are they don't hold up very well. My first one "lost it's guts" while doing the Holga routine at The Grizzly Giant in the Mariposa Grove (Yosemite) There is a garbage can not far from the base of The Grizzly Giant and the Holga with a roll of slightly used Arista may still be inside;-) My kid's Holgas are still working, but if they last another year I'd be surprised.
I've been fooling with a Lomo Goldfish lately. The $49 price tag seems a bit high but the images are interesting enough that I keep feeding film to it.
I don't know if you can still get used rolleicords for $79 but that might be an option. I still think a pinhole is the way to go for landscapes and maybe your Bride will be extra nice to you if you take her out for dinner (a good basque restraunt should cost too much!)

Cheers!

[Kevin Kemner]

To Everyone in this forum who has shown generosity and the timely holiday spirit I say Thanks and God Bless.

Rest assured my personal plight is not that dire. Some time ago my wife had an illness that did lead to my divestment of all things photographic. Today, things are better. In the interim I found myself finding in photography solice and reflection that I previously did not have. I also found a perverse (?) love of finding the cheapest camera I could to take the largest negative I could. I've used some pretty aweful pieces of crap and had some amazing surprises. Thankfully, the discipline from using large format was a very useful tool when using lesser (tlr?) media. At one point I was shooting sans meter entirely.

I posted the question not for charity but to simply ask "if you were to photograph when you were poor, what would you use?" By the way. I am going to see if I can find a $38 lf lens. God, what would that be like?

[Bill_1856]

A nice, clean 9x12 Maximar, Recomar, or Voigtlander with a 135 Tessar type lens in Dial-set Compur. A handfull of plate/film holders, a K2 filter, sunshade, and cable release. A box of 9x12 film from J&C, a box of 4x5 Ilford Multigrade paper, three 5x7 plastic trays, a ruby lightbulb, a can of Dektol, a box of fixer. Should leave you with enough for a 6 pack. (Actually, if this weren't the LF forum, I'd agree on a nice Yashicamat).

[Chad Jarvis]

You can buy four or five Holgas for $100. Who cares if they don't hold up? ; )

Otherwise a Burke and James 4x5 press with a Zeiss Tessar can be had for under $100 usually. Great cameras.

[fred arnold]

Treating this as a front-porch kind of question on a lazy day (you'd freeze if you tried that up here at the moment, but so be it...) I'd borrow a copy of "primitive photography" from my local library, then head to home depot for some glue, luan plywood, and a couple of short pieces of PVC pipe. Build an old "box in box" sliding camera (no movements, but will focus), then assemble a two-element lens from a pair of cheap magnifying glasses. Let's allow you to still have a modern film-holder left over (you did say you had the light meter), so that you're not coating glass plates. If not, whack together a basic film-holder, and you're off and running.


That would give you a usable, if rather minimalist, large-format camera capable of using modern emulsions. Armed with that, some short-dated sheet film, and some patience, I think I'd start trying to reinterpret my surroundings that were within walking distance. Possibly portrature, as the movements of a more traditional view camera wouldn't be needed as much.


Of course, on that budget I'd also go for a basic TLR or old 6x??? folder, and a pocket full of film. A Junior 620 or Agfa Isolette, yellow filter, and J&C 100 could be a lot of fun.

[Ed K.]

Often, times of no money occur at the same time as having more time on one's hands. Assuming that there is money for film, processing and the rest, and that large format film is the medium, a 4x5 can be built from about 20 bucks for wood and fasteners, or even less using foamcore. If there isn't enough money for film holders, the most simple box camera could be made as a one-shot point and shoot. You could build-in a shift to it too. If you don't mind skipping the shutter, a simple cap would do, and it would reduce cost. 127-135mm lenses are not too expensive, surely a photo swap meet would have a few around, or someone might give you one.

There is a great joy to be had in shooting a cheap 4x5 if it is a simple one. It is fun to hear people's comments about it too. Most people pay no attention to it, however a few knowing individuals may stop to ask questions.

While all the "real" cameras give good results, the "Luddite Specials" are always fun to dream up, even if not all that original. Have a look at a couple of them I did a while back:

Luddite Cameras ("http://www.egksystems.com/luddite/" target=_blank)

It's true, one of them shows a center filter that would blow your whole budget, however two
of the others use a 135 and 127mm lens respectively. The plywood design was built too, however
it wasn't as fun to use. Even Krazy Glue makes a good quick assembly for prototypes or balsa wood cameras, although for regular wood, Gorilla glue is hard to beat. Try it, you might like it!

The other part about making a cheap, portable and disposable point and shoot, aside from creative possibilities, as the satisfaction of making some gadget, even a crude one, and then using it. Believe me, it give a person something to do for a Saturday!

[Mike Kovacs]

I'll second a 9x12 rig. My Voigtlander AVUS, 10 plate holders, Satin Snow ground glass and 50 sheets of B&W film from J&C came in just a little over $100. Delete the film or more modern ground glass and you are there.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Kevin, I picked up a 210 hexanon GR-2 for 35.00. Leaves you enough for one sheet of 8x10 film.

[John_4185]

Film will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no film.

Quoted from The Fabulous Film Brothers circa 1970

insert smiley here

[Brian Sims]

Use $20 on a good set of small screw drivers. Then watch ebay and craigslist for "give-away" cameras that don't work. Then try your hand at camera repair. I just picked up a Rolliflex for free. The shutter doesn't work, but if I had the time I probably could get it to work.

[Donald Qualls]

Lots of takers on the 9x12 cm plate cameras. I'd like to suggest a Moskva-5 as a viable alternate -- a good one will easily cost less than $100 shipped from one of the reputable sellers in Ukraine. It uses easily available and potentially very cheap 120 film (J&C Pro 100 is $1.39 a roll just now, and there are 4 brands with 6 or 7 emulsions at J&C Photo for under $3/roll) to produce a 6x9 cm negative, the lens is as good as anything from the folder era, it has a nice rangefinder, and it will fit in a coat pocket. It also supports dual format, if you spring for the format mask.

The foamcore pinhole camera is a nice alternative, though if you have access to construction waste it'll probably cheaper to build with actual wood (and Titebond or similar yellow carpenter's glue, aka aliphatic resin, is as good as any glue made for gluing wood -- if the join is stronger than the wood, you gain nothing by using a stronger glue -- and more forgiving than Gorilla Glue as well as cheaper). I've got a design figured out, but not yet built, for a dark slide incorporated interchangeable film holder that can be easily fabricated from foam core, matt board, coroplast, sheet polystyrene, sheet ABS, or even hardboard aka Masonite (the latter available for just over $2 for a 2' x 4' quarter sheet at Home Depot), easily scalable up to 8x10 and easily constructed for a couple bucks a whack, though possibly not precise enough for lens photography (might be, though, if built carefully from dimensionally stable material).

[Kevin Kemner]

I just want to say to Mr Luddite "You Rock!" I've built a couple five dollar wonders but nothing that nice.

Hope you don't mind if I steal your plans.

[Dave Moeller]

Kevin-

If you don't mind living without a shutter, there are plenty of excellent lenses out there for less than $38. In my personal collection I have process lenses of 210mm, 305mm, and 375mm, all of which are modern, in excellent condition, give razor-sharp images, cover 8x10 with bunches movement, and none of which cost more than $25. If you can live without a shutter, and you're willing to take a lens that's hard to put into a shutter, then you can get an awful lot of lens for $38.

I'm happy to hear that you don't need to find a $38 lens, but if you ever do then you know there are answers out there.

Be well.

Dave

[William Mortensen]

Being a high school photo teacher, I've become quite expert at shoestring photo operations. Regarding this particular question, just last week I bought a scruffy old 4x5 Burke and James Press Camera at a local store (Monument Camera, Tucson, AZ) for $20. The bellows is shot, but if I don't have a replacement, I can tape it up. No lens, but I bought a clean 135 Optar in a working shutter for $35 at a recent camera show along with 4 usable holders for $10. Figure $15 for a used tripod and $25 for a Gossen Pilot meter, and the whole outfit comes in at $105. Should be in use in about two more weeks.

Then again, I once traded a nice matted 8x10 contact print for a good Yashica 124G tlr for the school, putting me into that one for maybe $10 plus two hours labor. There are other avenues for the desparate...

[David Van Gosen]

I've picked up an old 5x7 Rapid Rectilinear and a Voigtlander 135 Skopar that were each $35 or so, in shutters, via eBay. No, the speeds aren't great, but they do work. And the glass on both is reasonably clean - not at all the bargain disaster you might expect. Deals are around if you keep your eyes open.