Name the best digital camera body you’ve ever owned.

[richiebee]

Nikon D610 - best low light noise performer at pixel level

Nikon D500 - best/favourite AF configuration

Nikon D850 - best overall performer (for what I shoot day to day)

Nikon D500 - best ergonomics/comfort, extremely closely followed by D850.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Who can say the MFT sensor is too small when 99 percent of "photographers" shoot on phone sensors the size of a pea, or "1 inch" sensors that are actually much smaller than 1 inch?

Anyone who

• Wants to isolate a subject on something wider than a 2 degree field of view
• Needs to shoot beyond ISO1600
• Wants more than 20MP

MFT can do great things but larger formats can do the same or more for much less cost and hassle

 

[Big Stick]

Nikon D610 - best low light noise performer at pixel level

Nikon D500 - best/favourite AF configuration

Nikon D850 - best overall performer (for what I shoot day to day)

Nikon D500 - best ergonomics/comfort, extremely closely followed by D850.

By "performance," do you also mean live-view AF performance?

--
Speak loudly and carry a big stick

 

[richiebee]

Nikon D610 - best low light noise performer at pixel level

Nikon D500 - best/favourite AF configuration

Nikon D850 - best overall performer (for what I shoot day to day)

Nikon D500 - best ergonomics/comfort, extremely closely followed by D850.

By "performance," do you also mean live-view AF performance?

I didn't use the word performance, but, I wouldn't really consider live view AF performance to be anything to write home about.

 

[PhilDunn]

Old age and liking small and light so settled on Olympus M4/3 gear.

Been through a few bodies but peace at last for me with the Olympus E-P5. The in-body stabilisation and anti-shock firmware married to the 12-40/2.8 lens (and 35-100/2.8 also) and life is easy and the photography reliable and predictable.

I'm happy and can't see anything else that I'd like to buy.

Regards.... Guy

Guy, I'm a travel photographer and I went all-in on Fuji after leaving Nikon and then Canon, but I recommended Olympus for all of my adult kids who asked me what to get for their family travels. I believe APSC and MFT are really making huge inroads to FF capability-wise, and have far superior ergo. Olympus has a powerful niche - a great system at a great size. Who can say the MFT sensor is too small when 99 percent of "photographers" shoot on phone sensors the size of a pea, or "1 inch" sensors that are actually much smaller than 1 inch?

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Sony's current 1" inch competes very well with MFT, and you get actually pocketable cameras.

 

[PhilDunn]

You ask for "best ever" then mention your "current favorite".

Small number of posts.

Is that a troll I detect?

--
I believe in science, evolution and light. All opinions are my own. I'm not compensated for any of my posts. Can you honestly say that

Suspecting and calling people trolls is the bane of forums. I have a dream where in the future if anyone openly suspects and accuses someone of being a troll lightning comes down from the heavens and wipes them off the face of the earth. The world would be a much better place.

 

[Greg7579]

Who can say the MFT sensor is too small when 99 percent of "photographers" shoot on phone sensors the size of a pea, or "1 inch" sensors that are actually much smaller than 1 inch?

Anyone who

• Wants to isolate a subject on something wider than a 2 degree field of view
• Needs to shoot beyond ISO1600
• Wants more than 20MP

MFT can do great things but larger formats can do the same or more for much less cost and hassle

 

[tbcass]

Who can say the MFT sensor is too small when 99 percent of "photographers" shoot on phone sensors the size of a pea, or "1 inch" sensors that are actually much smaller than 1 inch?

The fact that most people shoot with smartphones is irrelevant. The fact is we are more serious about IQ than 99% of "photographers".

There's no way that MFT is making inroads on FF quality. The gap is still there but for some MFT suits their needs. When I want FF quality I say MFT and APS-C are too small. When I want compact size I say MFT and APS-C are too big. MFT is a nice compromise if you are going to stick with 1 format but my choice is FF for IQ and 1" for compact convenience. Nothing in between interests me anymore.

You might ask how can I be satisfied with 1" if I want FF quality. The answer is it depends on what I'm photographing. Not everything requires FF quality, especially if the light is decent.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 

[Greg7579]

Who can say the MFT sensor is too small when 99 percent of "photographers" shoot on phone sensors the size of a pea, or "1 inch" sensors that are actually much smaller than 1 inch?

The fact that most people shoot with smartphones is irrelevant. The fact is we are more serious about IQ than 99% of "photographers".

There's no way that MFT is making inroads on FF quality. The gap is still there but for some MFT suits their needs. When I want FF quality I say MFT and APS-C are too small. When I want compact size I say MFT and APS-C are too big. MFT is a nice compromise if you are going to stick with 1 format but my choice is FF for IQ and 1" for compact convenience. Nothing in between interests me anymore.

You might ask how can I be satisfied with 1" if I want FF quality. The answer is it depends on what I'm photographing. Not everything requires FF quality, especially if the light is decent.

 

[tbcass]

Tom, I agree with everything you just said. I'm a gear-head, have GAS, love cameras, and spend far too much money on them. I went from FF to APS-C, but what you say is true. I do believe as technology progresses, smaller sensors will be so good that FF won't matter as much. But we aren't there yet.

Except I think we have nearly reached the limits of sensor performance unless there is some presently unforeseen technical breakthrough. MFT and APS-C can't match the high ISO and resolution capabilities of FF. Even if there is some breakthrough that gap will still be there but then it becomes a question of how good does the IQ really have to be. For some people the IQ will never be good enough.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Well, sometimes clipping out a quote takes it out of context. I have never shot a sensor as small as MFT, and I understand all of the technical issues in terms of sensor size comparisons and have for many years.

I was just making a point that we all sit around on these Boards and argue about MFT vs APS-C vs FF vs MF because we are photographers and it interests us. Everybody else on the Planet is shooting on cell phones and quite happy because they are getting pretty good results. I have a Google Pixel 2 and I have yet to take an image with it, but I'm a bit of a camera snob.

Well you are right that context is important. For cell phone shooters, we have to consider the viewing medium- cell phones. In that context, cell phone camera IQ is phenomenal. The thresholds for making a good 3x5 300DPI print are very low. Pull that phone photo up on a 4K monitor or blow it up to print and things change.

I understand what you are saying and I too desire larger than MFT for my work, but I'm not sure I know what you mean by larger formats being less cost or hassle.

How much would one have to spend to match the capabilities of something like an A7II + 28/2 + 50/1.8 + 85 1.8 in MFT?

I was also intimating that as technology improves, cameras and sensors are going to get smaller. We all know that DSLRs are dead meat. I have been arguing on these Boards for the past three years that I believe APS-C is the sweet spot for mirrorless.

Not necessarily. Human hands aren't getting smaller, so why should cameras? Lenses, maybe but even there we haven't seen much shrinkage. As I spoke to before smaller sensors have smaller capability envelopes, and there's no reason why small sensor tech can't be applied to big sensors. That's exactly how it's been playing out. If anything it's been going the other way... where is the BSI M43 sensor? At some point it just makes sense to put money where people are willing to spend it.

I think APS-C is the sweet spot in general but the problem is 35mm has so much legacy momentum that any APS-C system sharing a mount with 35mm is doomed. The weight savings between APS-C and FF is debatable too.

But we all have different needs. All the cameras on the market now are really good.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

This is the most important thing. We are capitalizing on years of rapid development and deep pockets in the camera industry. You are right in that everything is generally pretty good. But sometimes you need some pedantry to get through the day :-D

 

[Greg7579]

Tom, I agree with everything you just said. I'm a gear-head, have GAS, love cameras, and spend far too much money on them. I went from FF to APS-C, but what you say is true. I do believe as technology progresses, smaller sensors will be so good that FF won't matter as much. But we aren't there yet.

Except I think we have nearly reached the limits of sensor performance unless there is some presently unforeseen technical breakthrough. MFT and APS-C can't match the high ISO and resolution capabilities of FF. Even if there is some breakthrough that gap will still be there but then it becomes a question of how good does the IQ really have to be. For some people the IQ will never be good enough.

 

[Dennis]

I do believe as technology progresses, smaller sensors will be so good that FF won't matter as much. But we aren't there yet.

I have a somewhat contrary opinion in this regard. I think we're PAST the point where smaller sensors are so good that FF won't matter as much. As you've said, phones are good enough for most. Step away from the masses and consider just the subset of the population that consider themselves photographers (hobbyist and/or pro). Within that subset, I'd bet that 1" sensors are good enough for most. If you narrow it further, m43 is probably good enough for "most of the rest" and so on. I believe that there's only a small percentage whose IQ needs aren't satisfied by anything smaller than FF.

But here's the thing: it's not like film days where medium format was out of reach (in terms of cost and/or convenience) for most photographers. At the convenience end of the scale, the most capable cameras are $1200 for a pocket model and $1700 for the do-it-all RX10 IV. In the m43 line, the top of the line bodies are in the $1700 range. APS-C is the same. Those smaller sensors let you shoot compact kits, but also offer plenty of good glass that's not terribly small and far from inexpensive. You can get FF bodies in the $1000-$2000 range (though if you need the speed & performance that you get from the top of the line crop bodies, you have to spend more on FF). And while top lenses (that fully exploit FF capabilities) are expensive (and get big/heavy for teles) you don't need them to beat the IQ of a smaller sensor.

In other words, the smaller systems may be convenient, but aren't cheap and the biggest system isn't all that expensive or inconvenient. So even if FF sensors don't matter as much, people will buy and use them, just to feel good about capturing and working with high quality images (even if they never print big enough to require it). (And it doesn't hurt that these systems have the broadest lens lineups). Buyers will go to the extremes - 1" cameras will sell well for their ultimate (i.e. fixed lens) convenience and FF cameras will sell well for their IQ and reasonable cost/convenience, while the formats in the middle (which are arguably the best compromises) don't sell as well as maybe they deserve to.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Mackiesback]

Tom, I agree with everything you just said. I'm a gear-head, have GAS, love cameras, and spend far too much money on them. I went from FF to APS-C, but what you say is true. I do believe as technology progresses, smaller sensors will be so good that FF won't matter as much. But we aren't there yet.

Except I think we have nearly reached the limits of sensor performance unless there is some presently unforeseen technical breakthrough. MFT and APS-C can't match the high ISO and resolution capabilities of FF. Even if there is some breakthrough that gap will still be there but then it becomes a question of how good does the IQ really have to be. For some people the IQ will never be good enough.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Yes, whatever breakthrough occurs (and there will be many), it will benefit FF too. But you are right, there will come a point that it won't matter because IQ is going to be off the charts at even very small sensor sizes.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I wouldn't say IQ is the main driver for people going FF. I'd argue lenses are, which is why FF will always have a market. My first FF body was an A7II, which is not much better IQ wise than APS-C (if at all frankly). But there are no APS-C equivalents to FF 1.4 primes or 2.8 zooms. Hell even a FF 1.8 prime in APS-C is a stretch. Plus manufacturers generally invest more into their FF lenses. So if you want the best you'll get it with bigger sensors. MF sensors are too old and they generally don't have the lens support. Plus $$$$$. FF is kind of a sweet spot for IQ

 

[kiwi2]

Yes, whatever breakthrough occurs (and there will be many), it will benefit FF too. But you are right, there will come a point that it won't matter because IQ is going to be off the charts at even very small sensor sizes.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I wouldn't say IQ is the main driver for people going FF. I'd argue lenses are, which is why FF will always have a market. My first FF body was an A7II, which is not much better IQ wise than APS-C (if at all frankly). But there are no APS-C equivalents to FF 1.4 primes or 2.8 zooms. Hell even a FF 1.8 prime in APS-C is a stretch. Plus manufacturers generally invest more into their FF lenses. So if you want the best you'll get it with bigger sensors. MF sensors are too old and they generally don't have the lens support. Plus $$$$$. FF is kind of a sweet spot for IQ

Fuji make very good lenses for APS-C. That's one of the reasons I went to Fuji.

 

[Arizona Sunset]

Four years later, the Samsung NX1 remains competitive as a prosumer system camera. Everything felt "right", fast, responsive, refined.

 

[Greg7579]

I do believe as technology progresses, smaller sensors will be so good that FF won't matter as much. But we aren't there yet.

I have a somewhat contrary opinion in this regard. I think we're PAST the point where smaller sensors are so good that FF won't matter as much. As you've said, phones are good enough for most. Step away from the masses and consider just the subset of the population that consider themselves photographers (hobbyist and/or pro). Within that subset, I'd bet that 1" sensors are good enough for most. If you narrow it further, m43 is probably good enough for "most of the rest" and so on. I believe that there's only a small percentage whose IQ needs aren't satisfied by anything smaller than FF.

But here's the thing: it's not like film days where medium format was out of reach (in terms of cost and/or convenience) for most photographers. At the convenience end of the scale, the most capable cameras are $1200 for a pocket model and $1700 for the do-it-all RX10 IV. In the m43 line, the top of the line bodies are in the $1700 range. APS-C is the same. Those smaller sensors let you shoot compact kits, but also offer plenty of good glass that's not terribly small and far from inexpensive. You can get FF bodies in the $1000-$2000 range (though if you need the speed & performance that you get from the top of the line crop bodies, you have to spend more on FF). And while top lenses (that fully exploit FF capabilities) are expensive (and get big/heavy for teles) you don't need them to beat the IQ of a smaller sensor.

In other words, the smaller systems may be convenient, but aren't cheap and the biggest system isn't all that expensive or inconvenient. So even if FF sensors don't matter as much, people will buy and use them, just to feel good about capturing and working with high quality images (even if they never print big enough to require it). (And it doesn't hurt that these systems have the broadest lens lineups). Buyers will go to the extremes - 1" cameras will sell well for their ultimate (i.e. fixed lens) convenience and FF cameras will sell well for their IQ and reasonable cost/convenience, while the formats in the middle (which are arguably the best compromises) don't sell as well as maybe they deserve to.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis, I have to say, your post is excellent and in fact quite profound. You are a fine writer and this editorial you just wrote on that simple post on this thread is better than the stuff I read in all my photo publications I get every month.

Hey, I will take FF every time if I can get it. To go smaller on the sensor size there has to be other benefits in the trade-off, and everything in the high-end photo gear decision-making chain is a trade-off. All of the latest model cameras are great from all the big players (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus -- even Leica !) Kidding. (I love Leica and all Leica camera jewelry wearers.)

I switched from FF to APS-C because I loved the ergo (size, weight, mount, dials, style, looks, feel) of the XT-1 several years ago even though I knew damn well that the IQ was not up to Canon FF standards. Then I got the XT-2 and then the XH-1, and I will get whatever comes next. But I am constantly tempted by Sony FF, especially since they released that incredible 7a3 at the same time as the XH-1. But I own 14 awesome Fuji XF lenses that are optimized for the APS-C sensor. They are world-class. Switching back to FF and Sony would not be so easy. Do I miss out on not having FF vs the APS-C? Well, yes in some ways, but not that you would likely notice on the full-size JPEGs I post on Flickr, or that get published in flyers, books, magazines, brochures or web sites. Sure, I might miss a stop of DR in post. Maybe. And yes I would love to have FF if I could get the Fuji ergo.

So, everything is a trade-off and involved some decision-making. But no one really loses because the cameras are all so damn good. The competition is great for us as camera GAS-afflicted gearheads. Can't wait to see what Canon and Nikon come up with when they switch to mirrorless. It is going to be fun.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[Greg7579]

Yes, whatever breakthrough occurs (and there will be many), it will benefit FF too. But you are right, there will come a point that it won't matter because IQ is going to be off the charts at even very small sensor sizes.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I wouldn't say IQ is the main driver for people going FF. I'd argue lenses are, which is why FF will always have a market. My first FF body was an A7II, which is not much better IQ wise than APS-C (if at all frankly). But there are no APS-C equivalents to FF 1.4 primes or 2.8 zooms. Hell even a FF 1.8 prime in APS-C is a stretch. Plus manufacturers generally invest more into their FF lenses. So if you want the best you'll get it with bigger sensors. MF sensors are too old and they generally don't have the lens support. Plus $$$$$. FF is kind of a sweet spot for IQ

 

[Mackiesback]

Yes, whatever breakthrough occurs (and there will be many), it will benefit FF too. But you are right, there will come a point that it won't matter because IQ is going to be off the charts at even very small sensor sizes.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I wouldn't say IQ is the main driver for people going FF. I'd argue lenses are, which is why FF will always have a market. My first FF body was an A7II, which is not much better IQ wise than APS-C (if at all frankly). But there are no APS-C equivalents to FF 1.4 primes or 2.8 zooms. Hell even a FF 1.8 prime in APS-C is a stretch. Plus manufacturers generally invest more into their FF lenses. So if you want the best you'll get it with bigger sensors. MF sensors are too old and they generally don't have the lens support. Plus $$$$$. FF is kind of a sweet spot for IQ