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!

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.

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 a*s 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.

Thank's CatShatBrix! :)