P3D Mint vs Bargain cameras

[Watters <mdwatters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>George T remarks that beater/cheap stereo cameras can still take good pictures.

I couldn't agree more.  I'm sure it won't suprize anyone that I'd say 
that since I've been using a pair of Argus C3's stuck together and 
confessed that I think it's Ugly.  :)

But the quality of a photo depends on a lot of factors.  The MOST 
important piece of equipment is located between your ears.  Doesn't 
matter how nice of a camera you've got if you just plain don't have an 
eye for photography.  On the other hand, a good photographer can take a 
good picture with any camera.  They'll have to accept and work with the 
limitations of that equipment, but they'll still do well.

Beyond that, the camera has to have a decent lens and a reasonably 
accurate shutter and that's ALL.  The shutter doesn't have to be dead 
on, just close.  The focus of the lens (in terms of accuracy, not 
softness) just has to be close.  The old 50's cameras have relatively 
simple shutters really.  They can almost always be fixed if there's a 
problem.  MOST are just a little slow and will spring back to life with 
a little excercise.  I'd pass on a camera that had obviously bad lenses 
myself.  Yes, the lenses can be replaced, but all in all it'll be 
cheaper for you to find a camera where the lenses are fine than to pay 
to have the bad ones replaced.

If it's just a matter of external cosmetics however, I wouldn't hesitate 
to use a camera that was a little ugly as long as the lenses were clean 
and the shutter accurate.  What's the point of getting a mint camera 
really?  You're gonna use it.  It's not gonna look mint anymore anyway.  
Might was well start off with it looking worn, it's gonna look that way 
by the time you're done with it anyway.  

mike
watters


------------------------------