Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Leicas and Hasselblads and all that are unnecessary. I'm merely saying that you don't need them to take good photos. I've seen amazing photos taken with point & shoot digitals that were so good that I wish they had been taken with an 8x10 view camera. However, the fact that they were taken with a digital p&s does not make them any less great!
I use old and cheap cameras. I'm not a great photographer. When I get to a point where I feel that I am taking lots of great photos, I'll buy myself a nice present in the form of a great viewfinder or even a nice large format camera. Until then, I'll stick with the very good quality cheap cameras I have. I'm quite sick of talking to elitist photographers who make snide comments about my junk and tell me that I absolutely need a Leica M to do what I want to do. Nevermind that I'm already doing what I want to do, and doing it with old cheap cameras that were mass produced 20-50 years ago..
While awaiting sunrise on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon with my wife, I observed two snobbish photographers who really thought that they were the cat's pajamas. They spent the whole time fiddling with their Nikon F-series cameras and huge phallic lenses, laughing at tourists like us with our little p&s cameras. I couldn't help but laugh at them for thinking that they were going to get such amazing shots compared to us. Different to be sure, but better? I don't know. Whenever I see such a snobbish and elitist photographer laughing at people like me while taking photos with their 35mm camera, I'm tempted to whip out a medium format folding camera and say, "So, how much can you enlarge that puny frame? Bet my shot looks better on my wall" Somehow, I resist the urge.
It's not the equipment. It's the photographer. A camera is a box that holds a lens and some film. That's it. I've seen amazing pinhole photographs made out of breath mint cannisters. My blueprint view camera's first incarnation was a cardboard box with a lens fastened to the front with tape. Some of the absolute best quality images in the world come from view cameras, and they generally are just extendable boxes with a lens and a film holder. Now, I fully understand and appreciate that a quality lens is a necessity. Absolutely, and without a doubt. I just don't feel that a person needs a $900 lens to take a great photo.
I'm not a huge fan of Bob Atkins of photo.net, but he can be quit insightful at times. He wrote, "We all get caught up in the equipment chase. It's very comforting to believe that the only thing between you and that great image is the lack of an F5 and a bag full of Nikon ED glass. It's just that their belief is false. I suppose you could say that "equipment is the opium of photographers" and not be too far from the truth."
Or, to quote Tom Bryant, also on photo.net, "The most important link in the lens-camera-film chain is the nut behind the lens. Proficiency in photography is acquired by practice, not purchase."
At this time, I have little to suggest in the way of camera equipment. I don't buy expensive equipment because my abilities certainly don't justify the expenditure. While I seem to have a small pile of cameras and related equipment, only a few bits of it get any real use. I'd love to claim that I regularly take photos with my Kodak Brownie Duaflex II or with my Argus C4, but it's simply not true. Here's a list of the equipment I actually use. If I list it here, it means that I really like it. I don't use equipment that's not fun to use.