I Got Tired Of People Giving My Camera The Credit For My Photos, So I Bought The Cheapest Camera And Lens I Could Find To Prove Them Wrong
460Kviews
When I began posting my photos online, I started getting comments like ‘wow, you must have a great camera’ or ‘anybody can take photos like these with expensive gear’ or ‘I can’t take photos like these because I can’t afford an expensive camera like yours’. It breaks my heart when I hear people say things like this. Or when they feel like they can’t get any better or they don’t have a chance because they have a cheap camera.
So I had enough of these comments and decided to prove them wrong by finding the cheapest camera and lens I could find and take some photos with them!
I got on eBay and found a used Canon t2i for $183 and a Pentax 50mm 1.7 lens for $15. And that’s it! All of the equipment I needed for just under $200! I took my boys and my camera out and did a photo shoot and these are the photos we took!
I did the editing with Photoshop and Lightroom, so I thought I would put that out there before everyone starts screaming photoshop! I don’t care that everyone thinks that editing is cheating! I have a vision in my head when I shoot, so I get what I need out of the camera and then I literally paint it the way I envisioned it. It’s a crucial put of my art. And before you say you can’t afford Photoshop and Lightroom, I only pay $2.50 a week for mine. That’s literally less than a cappuccino!
I created a free 4-hour photography course called ‘The Photography Secrets Course’. I show you everything I did from how to shot photos like these to how to edit them. You can even use the techniques I teach in the course to take better photos with your smartphone.
You can Sign up for the course or see more of my work on my website.
More info: philliphaumesserphotography.com
460Kviews
Share on Facebook
As nice as these photos are don't get me wrong it still has to do with the camera I'm not saying you're not a good photographer but it still just the camera. a cannon is a very good camera brand that's the only band my father will buy and he's a wonderful photographer. I would like to see these done with the cheapest NEW camera not used. Used still means it was good quality and looks like it still is. Let me see if you can do this with a disposable camera and DIY attachments then I would be impressed feel free to go and down vote me but I don't care the still is not a cheap camera when you make $ 651 a month. It's only cheap if you're a rich person.
Hi, no, I'm not going to downvote you, I'm actually going to upvote you! ;) You have a great point. However, my point in this article wasn't as much to see how cheap you can go, but to show a cheap alternative to the $1,800 + cameras and lenses and still get similar results. I'm all for the DIY's and disposable cameras, that kind of thing makes people very creative and I admire that!
You have a good eye. However "How cheap you can go". You can get as cheap as much as you want, that doesn't make less of you. A disposable camera is a good choice, and you may like to try it. Just meant to say you have a good eye, and it's prove enough and you don't need to be cocky about it here. PsychoPrincess that was a valid questioning. Cheers
U did a great job and it's not about the camera! I have a £389 Nikon ds3300 and a £650 lens on it and I take shit photos lol so it's not the camera it's the photographer that's good!!!
You did great! I myself am a photographer and fortunately I've never had people say such ignorant things.
I Admit powerful gear and creativity combined makes for great pictures. I however own a Canon 350D still with a nice 50mm 1.8 lens (cheap as F...) and I make the nicest pictures compared to some1 I know with a 50D and equipment that could buy you a very nice car. The point I think is, It's not the equipment, it's the mind op the people behind the camera and the setting they want to create. My total worth of camera equipment is something below of 600 euro. That includes a 70-300mm, 50mm, 18-55mm and a small flash.
Disposable anything is pretty much a bad thing. Because waste. Recycled single use is still a waste of materials, shipping, processing... DIY is cool.
played around with settings during a sunset.. IMG_201705...dedc75.jpg
l would love to learn how to edit pic's l take when on holidays but l did discover some interesting effects l was able to do, whilst shooting, with my Huawei 9G phone on a recent holiday to the UK.. IMG_201705...526dfe.jpg
i suggest you go to youyube and search "digital rev pro photographer Cheap camera". its really not the camera its the photographer
I have seen photographers compose fantastic shots and even get excellent quality with drug-store disposable cameras. You just need to be intimately familiar with your equipment and understand its quirks. As an owner of two expensive cameras and a cheap one, the camera really doesn't matter beyond the capabilities of its image sensor. I think my Nikon D40 (2007, 6mp SLR) has better characteristics than my D3200 (2012, 24mp SLR). However, the $3 Sony Cybershot DSC-W5 (2005, 5mp P/S) from Goodwill takes a good picture in its own right, better outdoors, but for the beginner photographer, you can't beat the price of whatever you can get your hands on. Keep the workings clean and pick up a memory card, and make all the mistakes you want.
I completely agree with you there M O'Connell! That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make here. I don't care one bit what camera you use, whatever does the job is the camera to use, even if it's the Sony Cybershot!
Were these taken with a drugstore disposable camera though?
Actually it has more to do with the lens. The camera will make the resolution of the photos better, will make less noise at higher ISO settings, and faster continous boost. But in the photos above, its is the lens with apature at 1.7 that makes the photos special. The depth of field. Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc dosen't really matter anymore, as they all make really good cameras now. Canon is now expensice because it is, as you say, a brand. Just like chanel and gucci is a brand. Source: I work in a camera store, and is a Canon user.
If you have the best tools but no clue, you still have no clue. The best equipment is meant to compliment your work like a beautiful background or dress will compliment a model and not undermine it or hide it under all the fancy layers. It surely has an impact on quality but not on the 'soul' of the picture and sole purpose of taking it.
His point is that a good photographer can take a good photo with almost any camera. Its about composition and balance. I know people with amazingly expensive cameras who still can't take good photos because they lack an eye for composition.
I like that disposable camera challenge, and I might even try that...I'm a total DIY hack photographer.
I am broke as a joke. But my hobby is video games. So every now and then, I save up some paychecks - and I drop a heartbreaking amount of money on games, or even a new console - or maybe a modification to my computer. I will NEVER be able to afford new consoles when they came out (I purchase used stuff years out of the face), or the latest crazy alienware computer people are raving about... BUT... I can afford $200 once in a while. Saying $200 is only cheap if you're a rich person is a bit... Well, let's just say, no. "$2000-$20,000" is cheap when you're a rich person. $200 is a drop of water in a lake. But it's not a bone-breaking amount...just a heartbreaking one. But you make those sortof sacrifices for something you love.
Wow! You must be So jealous of Phillip, I feel sorry for you. By the way-I had a 200 USD camera when I was 14 years old. Earned that money with part time summer work. If you are passionate about something you got a work for it, 200USD is a cheap ass camera, if that`s even too expensive for you(aka you don`t have enough passion)-no need to take photos. Who even uses disposables and DIY? If you take 150 photos per day, it`s a waste of money to buy disposables or build your own if you can use digitals which take infinite amount of pictures. Though there is also nice polaroid pics out there if you want to google it. This article focuses on the traditional digital photography and those pictures Are amazing! And trust me-I know so many people who have +1000USD cameras and cannot take even a decent portrait picture. It`s about having the eye and motivation to learn different tricks and techniques.
I use a Canon Power Shot. I only use canon and though im still young and most definitely not a pro my photos turn out fine. I most definitely agree that her camera was not cheap what so ever
It's NOT the camera: it's the eye & the light. Great light - magic hour or misty - and whatever brighten, darken, or filter you add in Ph'shop. I got images almost this good in 1996 with a $20 disposable Kodak print-camera. You're limited by the lens & the shutter speed, that's all. I got a *free* Ph'shop Elements II with my Dad's Konica miniature when he upgraded - to a $300AuD Olympus. No DSLR or separate lenses. I currently have a 2008 Canon P'shop A570 7.5Mpix - its only special feature is manual shutter & exposure. No separate lenses, no DSLR. Today even phones have 10MPix cameras in them, plus free apps. For $50 or $80 you're set: you don't need to pay for film, processing, or prints, the way we did even 20 years ago. All you need is a vision & take it everywhere with you, & shoot until you get good at it. If you don't have a phone, borrow a friend's. No money needed, just time.
That's not true at all. I've seen fantastic photos taken by phones. Great photography is independent of equipment because it is all in the eye and ones ability to have excellent skill at noting great lighting and framing.
People can make great shots with pinhole camera made of box and film. It depends on photographer. Like in any profession, tools are only tools. Somebody with a pencil can draw better pictures than other with best paints; or someone using only needle can sew and embroider better items than another person with latest embroidery and sewing machine. Having a good tool helps to achieve your goals easier, but does not give you the knowledge or talent to become a professional.
This is a tough one. At what point is "cheap" actually achieved when one is talking about Camera's and equipment. Nothing is really free even if Philip Haumesser built his camera from scratch he would have still had to buy materials, so I think it is fair to say that these are excellent photos from an excellent photographer working on a budget. Even a person who makes $651 a month can save up pretty quickly and afford this camera that the artist used.
Isn't the Canon t2i the Canon 550D in Europe? The 550D body cost about 700€ (in Germany, might be nearly the same price in the US) when it was released in 2010. Don't understand me wrong, your pictures are amazing and I know it's not just because of the camera. But I think you missed the challenge you set to yourself. You have shown that you can get a great camera for less than 200$ and shouldn't mind the age of 7 years. But it was a 700€/$ camera nevertheless and not the cheapest you could get. In my point of view, it would have been more impressive, if you had bought a camera which was never more expensive than 200€/$ to begin with.
Try shooting with any of these circa 1999 to 2002 cameras http://www.digicamhistory.com/1999+.html
I'm seeing a ton of Canon t2i on ebay for $180. And they come with a lense already, so it's even cheaper than he posts here. Sorry, but this photographer was making a good point and he made it well. Not sure why people are trying to argue that it's the photographer that matters, not the camera. And I've shot some good photos on point and shoot cameras that were way better than some of the photos I took on more expensive brands/models. :)
I had a t2i (mine was stolen) and yes when my husband got it for me it was over $600 new. He got a kit that brought things up to around 700. Ah for better times. It did take great pictures! I get nowhere near the quality with my phone or my cheap replacement camera. Things have gotten more difficult since I got that camera and I can't imagine paying more than $200 for a new one. I don't have the knowledge to purchase a used one and know that I am not going to end up with junk. So nice as it is to know that someone who has the knowledge can get a good used one not everyone can afford to take that risk. (And up until a week ago there was no way that I could even come up with that $200 for a new camera.)
This is very nicely done. I have literally no idea on how to photos, but I will repeatedly meow at mai Hooman so that I can show him this post :)
Thank's CatShatBrix! :)
As nice as these photos are don't get me wrong it still has to do with the camera I'm not saying you're not a good photographer but it still just the camera. a cannon is a very good camera brand that's the only band my father will buy and he's a wonderful photographer. I would like to see these done with the cheapest NEW camera not used. Used still means it was good quality and looks like it still is. Let me see if you can do this with a disposable camera and DIY attachments then I would be impressed feel free to go and down vote me but I don't care the still is not a cheap camera when you make $ 651 a month. It's only cheap if you're a rich person.
Hi, no, I'm not going to downvote you, I'm actually going to upvote you! ;) You have a great point. However, my point in this article wasn't as much to see how cheap you can go, but to show a cheap alternative to the $1,800 + cameras and lenses and still get similar results. I'm all for the DIY's and disposable cameras, that kind of thing makes people very creative and I admire that!
You have a good eye. However "How cheap you can go". You can get as cheap as much as you want, that doesn't make less of you. A disposable camera is a good choice, and you may like to try it. Just meant to say you have a good eye, and it's prove enough and you don't need to be cocky about it here. PsychoPrincess that was a valid questioning. Cheers
U did a great job and it's not about the camera! I have a £389 Nikon ds3300 and a £650 lens on it and I take shit photos lol so it's not the camera it's the photographer that's good!!!
You did great! I myself am a photographer and fortunately I've never had people say such ignorant things.
I Admit powerful gear and creativity combined makes for great pictures. I however own a Canon 350D still with a nice 50mm 1.8 lens (cheap as F...) and I make the nicest pictures compared to some1 I know with a 50D and equipment that could buy you a very nice car. The point I think is, It's not the equipment, it's the mind op the people behind the camera and the setting they want to create. My total worth of camera equipment is something below of 600 euro. That includes a 70-300mm, 50mm, 18-55mm and a small flash.
Disposable anything is pretty much a bad thing. Because waste. Recycled single use is still a waste of materials, shipping, processing... DIY is cool.
played around with settings during a sunset.. IMG_201705...dedc75.jpg
l would love to learn how to edit pic's l take when on holidays but l did discover some interesting effects l was able to do, whilst shooting, with my Huawei 9G phone on a recent holiday to the UK.. IMG_201705...526dfe.jpg
i suggest you go to youyube and search "digital rev pro photographer Cheap camera". its really not the camera its the photographer
I have seen photographers compose fantastic shots and even get excellent quality with drug-store disposable cameras. You just need to be intimately familiar with your equipment and understand its quirks. As an owner of two expensive cameras and a cheap one, the camera really doesn't matter beyond the capabilities of its image sensor. I think my Nikon D40 (2007, 6mp SLR) has better characteristics than my D3200 (2012, 24mp SLR). However, the $3 Sony Cybershot DSC-W5 (2005, 5mp P/S) from Goodwill takes a good picture in its own right, better outdoors, but for the beginner photographer, you can't beat the price of whatever you can get your hands on. Keep the workings clean and pick up a memory card, and make all the mistakes you want.
I completely agree with you there M O'Connell! That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make here. I don't care one bit what camera you use, whatever does the job is the camera to use, even if it's the Sony Cybershot!
Were these taken with a drugstore disposable camera though?
Actually it has more to do with the lens. The camera will make the resolution of the photos better, will make less noise at higher ISO settings, and faster continous boost. But in the photos above, its is the lens with apature at 1.7 that makes the photos special. The depth of field. Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc dosen't really matter anymore, as they all make really good cameras now. Canon is now expensice because it is, as you say, a brand. Just like chanel and gucci is a brand. Source: I work in a camera store, and is a Canon user.
If you have the best tools but no clue, you still have no clue. The best equipment is meant to compliment your work like a beautiful background or dress will compliment a model and not undermine it or hide it under all the fancy layers. It surely has an impact on quality but not on the 'soul' of the picture and sole purpose of taking it.
His point is that a good photographer can take a good photo with almost any camera. Its about composition and balance. I know people with amazingly expensive cameras who still can't take good photos because they lack an eye for composition.
I like that disposable camera challenge, and I might even try that...I'm a total DIY hack photographer.
I am broke as a joke. But my hobby is video games. So every now and then, I save up some paychecks - and I drop a heartbreaking amount of money on games, or even a new console - or maybe a modification to my computer. I will NEVER be able to afford new consoles when they came out (I purchase used stuff years out of the face), or the latest crazy alienware computer people are raving about... BUT... I can afford $200 once in a while. Saying $200 is only cheap if you're a rich person is a bit... Well, let's just say, no. "$2000-$20,000" is cheap when you're a rich person. $200 is a drop of water in a lake. But it's not a bone-breaking amount...just a heartbreaking one. But you make those sortof sacrifices for something you love.
Wow! You must be So jealous of Phillip, I feel sorry for you. By the way-I had a 200 USD camera when I was 14 years old. Earned that money with part time summer work. If you are passionate about something you got a work for it, 200USD is a cheap ass camera, if that`s even too expensive for you(aka you don`t have enough passion)-no need to take photos. Who even uses disposables and DIY? If you take 150 photos per day, it`s a waste of money to buy disposables or build your own if you can use digitals which take infinite amount of pictures. Though there is also nice polaroid pics out there if you want to google it. This article focuses on the traditional digital photography and those pictures Are amazing! And trust me-I know so many people who have +1000USD cameras and cannot take even a decent portrait picture. It`s about having the eye and motivation to learn different tricks and techniques.
I use a Canon Power Shot. I only use canon and though im still young and most definitely not a pro my photos turn out fine. I most definitely agree that her camera was not cheap what so ever
It's NOT the camera: it's the eye & the light. Great light - magic hour or misty - and whatever brighten, darken, or filter you add in Ph'shop. I got images almost this good in 1996 with a $20 disposable Kodak print-camera. You're limited by the lens & the shutter speed, that's all. I got a *free* Ph'shop Elements II with my Dad's Konica miniature when he upgraded - to a $300AuD Olympus. No DSLR or separate lenses. I currently have a 2008 Canon P'shop A570 7.5Mpix - its only special feature is manual shutter & exposure. No separate lenses, no DSLR. Today even phones have 10MPix cameras in them, plus free apps. For $50 or $80 you're set: you don't need to pay for film, processing, or prints, the way we did even 20 years ago. All you need is a vision & take it everywhere with you, & shoot until you get good at it. If you don't have a phone, borrow a friend's. No money needed, just time.
That's not true at all. I've seen fantastic photos taken by phones. Great photography is independent of equipment because it is all in the eye and ones ability to have excellent skill at noting great lighting and framing.
People can make great shots with pinhole camera made of box and film. It depends on photographer. Like in any profession, tools are only tools. Somebody with a pencil can draw better pictures than other with best paints; or someone using only needle can sew and embroider better items than another person with latest embroidery and sewing machine. Having a good tool helps to achieve your goals easier, but does not give you the knowledge or talent to become a professional.
This is a tough one. At what point is "cheap" actually achieved when one is talking about Camera's and equipment. Nothing is really free even if Philip Haumesser built his camera from scratch he would have still had to buy materials, so I think it is fair to say that these are excellent photos from an excellent photographer working on a budget. Even a person who makes $651 a month can save up pretty quickly and afford this camera that the artist used.
Isn't the Canon t2i the Canon 550D in Europe? The 550D body cost about 700€ (in Germany, might be nearly the same price in the US) when it was released in 2010. Don't understand me wrong, your pictures are amazing and I know it's not just because of the camera. But I think you missed the challenge you set to yourself. You have shown that you can get a great camera for less than 200$ and shouldn't mind the age of 7 years. But it was a 700€/$ camera nevertheless and not the cheapest you could get. In my point of view, it would have been more impressive, if you had bought a camera which was never more expensive than 200€/$ to begin with.
Try shooting with any of these circa 1999 to 2002 cameras http://www.digicamhistory.com/1999+.html
I'm seeing a ton of Canon t2i on ebay for $180. And they come with a lense already, so it's even cheaper than he posts here. Sorry, but this photographer was making a good point and he made it well. Not sure why people are trying to argue that it's the photographer that matters, not the camera. And I've shot some good photos on point and shoot cameras that were way better than some of the photos I took on more expensive brands/models. :)
I had a t2i (mine was stolen) and yes when my husband got it for me it was over $600 new. He got a kit that brought things up to around 700. Ah for better times. It did take great pictures! I get nowhere near the quality with my phone or my cheap replacement camera. Things have gotten more difficult since I got that camera and I can't imagine paying more than $200 for a new one. I don't have the knowledge to purchase a used one and know that I am not going to end up with junk. So nice as it is to know that someone who has the knowledge can get a good used one not everyone can afford to take that risk. (And up until a week ago there was no way that I could even come up with that $200 for a new camera.)
This is very nicely done. I have literally no idea on how to photos, but I will repeatedly meow at mai Hooman so that I can show him this post :)
Thank's CatShatBrix! :)