Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
For me, that lesson was learned with a Kodak 35, a cheap basic 35 that was capable of far better results than I at first realised. Coupled with an income derived from mowing the neighbors' lawns, it taught me to be miserly with frames and use a meter if I didn't want to waste what to me was very expensive film.

Edit - I didn't learn properly to "see" until I started using an 8x10, one lens, film, developer, and contact printing the results.
Film is pretty inexpensive, but I too remember a time where I had to look for deals to afford photography.

Sheet film was a huge disappointment to me; 4x5 and 5x7 was a total waste of time and money. I had to go back to medium format to save myself from being too technical and thinking too much. Funny how different we all are!

To counter the question of poor camera design, I think that the camera that allows presents the least amount of barriers between subject matter and the photographer's senses is the best one, and the worst one is a camera that completely clutters the work flow with considerations. The more intuitive it is to use, the better it is, and the more you have to think, the more it sucks.
But then again, practice makes perfect, so maybe with enough use any camera can be easy enough to shoot with... I think consistency matters, and something that seemed counter-intuitive to begin with can be a very good solution. For example, I love shooting my Hasselblad hand held. I would not have thought it when I got it, but now it's as obvious as day that we get along very well working together.