It's irrelevant what most people think. The camera is inorganic, not self re-producing and isn't combing it's parts with another camera to make new models. Your analogy doesn't make sense and collapses.
The argument makes perfect sense and by stating that a camera is inorganic is irrelevent - the camera exists because an intelligent being created it - simple really. If the intelligence was not there "first" we would have no camera.
Evolution is by no means random.
To deny the basic fact that the premise of evolution is in fact random processes does not help your argument. If not random - what is it? Controlled? If so - who / what is the controller?
If i pick up pots of paint and just through them at the canvas - THATS random. This will produce a very colourful canvas - but it is not going to be a portrait, or a landscape.
But if someone were to take some time, use brushes and use their talent they could produce beautiful artwork - same canvas, same paint - just not random. The key though is this - to produce the beautiful artwork requires understanding, tools and some talent BEFORE the painting is produced.
Anyway - I am breaking my own rule here - "never engage in a creation / evolution debate" - it is uttely pointless. You believe what you want and I will do the same.