Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Greg7579 said:
Sporty, Canon and Nikon have very fine lenses. Lately Sony does too. (I had way too many L lenses until recently, but have not had Nikon glass in 20 years so can't really opine with authority). But I disagree with you about FF lenses being better. In my opinion, Fuji makes (in my opinion and I can't prove it) the best glass in the world and it is optimized for the APS-C sensor. It was Fuji glass that helped swing my decision away from Canon FF.

So for me it's the opposite. But it is a close battle and the best pro-level glass is really outstanding from Sony, Fuji, Nikon and Canon.

Of course there are size weight considerations too and APS-C has a clear advantage there. But you are right, there are many pro fashion shooters (Like Ben K with Nikon who also uses Fuji) who just have to have that FF F 1.4 for the magical bokeh and separation they get from those ultra-fast FF lenses at a stop better (shallow DOF-wise) than APS-C.

But that said, once you have a lot of pro-level glass of a certain brand, it is hard to switch for obvious reasons. That can drive your thinking. It was hard for me to sell (trade-in actually) all my L lenses when I left Canon. Those lenses were great. But so are the Fuji XF lenses.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Click to expand...
Fuji does make great glass. Especially in the APS-C realm. They definitely have the most complete APS-C lens collection. But the best ever across all systems? We can agree to disagree :-D

I don't even think you have to be a pro to appreciate fast high quality glass on a large sensor. When I'm shooting my family indoors, being able to gulp all the available light and isolate subjects while retaining high IQ is always a benefit. Is the 1 stop from APS-C to FF worth it? Many could argue "not really" and make legitimate cases. But for me, part of the enjoyment of shooting comes from knowing I left nothing on the table equipment wise.
 
Mackiesback said:
Looking at the releases over the last three years, there has been very little improvement in that area, suggesting that perhaps unless there is some sort of revolutionary change in sensor design,
Click to expand...
Yes, what I referred to as an unforeseen technological breakthrough, the key word being unforeseen. Predictions are easy. Making good on them is difficult.
 
sportyaccordy said:
I wouldn't say IQ is the main driver for people going FF.
Click to expand...
The main driver for me was IQ, primarily resolution and high ISO. Claiming to know the motivation for people other than yourself is seldom successful
 
Amazing 28-200mm F2-F4 lens, very sharp across the frame at all focal lengths, fantastic image stabilisation, all the controls you could ever need, evf, full articulating LCD, excellent dynamic range and colour for a small sensor, ability to take filters even when the lens is retracted, built in ND filter, virtually silent shutter, excellent onboard flash and flash command mode, can shoot at base ISO (80) almost all of the time, excellent bokeh, can be pre-focused and maintains focus distance after shut down and power up, with huge dof from 8ft to infinity at F2.8, can produce large prints no problem, af and ael lock, easy manual focusing, brilliant macro mode.....and can fit in a coat pocket. If I could only ever shoot with one digital camera it would be this one.
 
Mackiesback said:
Greg7579 said:
tbcass said:
Greg7579 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tbcass said:
Greg7579 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
Yep, makes sense to me. I tried a Sony a6300. Great camera, but once it had a decent lens on it, I may as well have gone a *small* step further in body size and got a Sony 35mm digital camera (sorry, I refuse to use the full frame/FF monicker).

The reality is, once you have decent lenses mated to a mirrorless 35mm system, the overall size difference to APS is irrelevant. Neither system are what anyone in their right mind would call compact or significantly different in size and weight. That's why I see APS eventually disappearing.

As for compact, my definition of a compact camera is one that you can actually put into a standard pants pocket, NOT cargo pants. The only cameras that can do that while maximizing image quality are the ones with 1" sensors, and only the smallest ones. That means something like the Sony RX100 series, which is exactly what I replaced my a6300 with when I returned it.

Will I ever shoot with a large camera again? Older age and medical issues mean probably not. But, if I ever did, I would simply go with a mirrorless 35mm system from Sony, or Nikon and Canon if they ever come out with one.

For those questioning the quality of a 1" sensor camera, as I've said before I have many years of experience scanning 35mm film on dedicated films scanners and 4000dpi scans of 35mm film is simply inferior to the results I get with my little Sony RX100V. That's how far we have come. If I ever do shoot with a big camera again, it would be mostly for the superior low light and shadow recovery abilities.
 
Last edited:
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
Mackiesback said:
Greg7579 said:
tbcass said:
Greg7579 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think I'm pretty happy with my 1st gen Olympus E-M10. Small, light weight, excellent image quality, a great set of lenses. I've developed the same sort of emotional attachment to it, that I developed to my Yashica Mat 124G, and my Canon FT-QL film cameras.

Now, from a strictly technical perspective, it's probably now on the downhill side of what's possible; but I still like using it.
 
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
Mackiesback said:
Greg7579 said:
tbcass said:
Greg7579 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
And soccer will become our (US) national sport (1994 prediction) and nobody will read books on paper (2005 prediction), and we will soon convert to Metric (1975 prediction) and we will have cars that fly 1960 prediction).

There is no way of knowing. I personally think sensors have gotten about as far as they can get as things are, I am not sure there is much room for improvement there at all. Looking at the releases over the last three years, there has been very little improvement in that area, suggesting that perhaps unless there is some sort of revolutionary change in sensor design, it's not safe to assume what you posted at all.

I am getting a little tired of all those bold proclamations based on pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Well, Soccer is definitely here to stay. Toronto, Canada for FIFA. USA next year.

“Football Christmas for Canada” FIFA World Cup coming to Toronto


And the Coolpix 'A' will win the prize as the best overall camera, ever.
Click to expand...
He said soccer becoming America's national sport. Never happened and never will.
Click to expand...
A lot of strange stuff slips over the border, sometimes.
Click to expand...
One way or another what's currently coming over the border will soon come to a halt.
Member said:
About your previous comments: The advantage of APS-C cameras used to be the smaller lenses that used to be available: example early NEX models and Fuji. This made them more portable. But there's a larger profit margin with the current crop of bigger lenses they are pushing onto APS-C body owners. Bigger means more profit.

The same can be said for most M43 bodies and lenses.
Click to expand...
Except the better lenses for APS are not significantly smaller, or smaller at all.
Click to expand...
What better lenses for APS-C? There have only been a couple of new ones in the last few years. Sony wants A6xxx owners to buy the larger more expensive FE full-frame lenses for their APSC-S bodies.
 
Although I have an extensive Canon system as well as a small Nikon system, my favorite body is the Leica M9. When I use it I feel like a photographer, whereas the Nikon and Canon systems make me simply into a "shooter".
 
sportyaccordy said:
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?
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for anyone who tries to match capabilities rather than matching their needs.
 
In the context of its time, I would nominate my first DSLR, the Pentax *istD, that I bought 15 years ago. It seems very slow now, and 6mp seems rather little, but it still produces very nice files that can print much larger than you would think, and is beautiful to handle. Later cameras are more developed technically, as you would expect, but don't generate the same excitement, for me at any rate. The K10D that came later was pretty good.

Literally the 'best', I would say probably the Panasonic GX8.

The Fuji X30 was the most enjoyable 'grab and go' camera, but the title line says 'body', so I suppose that implies interchangeable lens cameras. So the X30 would be excluded.

--
Tim
'If I were you, I wouldn't start from here ... '
http://timauger.smugmug.com
http://timauger.blogspot.sg/
 
Last edited:
Dennis said:
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.
Click to expand...
In addition how much IQ is desirable depends greatly on the subject matter. Since I own both 1" cameras and a FF one I find 1" is suitable most of the time so I reserve FF for special situations. One good thing about that is because I don't use the FF camera a lot it and the lenses will last a long time because I see no need for better IQ.
 
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
PhilDunn said:
captura said:
Mackiesback said:
Greg7579 said:
tbcass said:
Greg7579 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fullframe or bust said:
I’ve had a lot of digital camera bodies over the last 15 years and I’ve enjoyed using them all, but without doubt my current body the Canon 5D MKIV is my all time favourite. Yes, it cost ten times as much as some of my previous models but its not just that it feels to be somewhat of a luxury considering I’m just an amateur photographer. It’s the usability and image quality that really makes it a camera to cherish. I can see me staying with this body until pension day. Then again I thought that about the Nikon D700 a long while back.

Let me know your thoughts on your favourite body and why and if possible, your all time favourite rig (My fav rig at the moment is the 5D MK1V & Canon 24-70 2.8)

Thanks
Click to expand...
I just unboxed a Roberts refurbished OMD M5 II and from now on it will be my favorite camera body until the next one comes along.

But really, the very first digital camera I ever owned, the Kodak DC3200 one megapixel from 2001, was good enough to record some very good memories.



7a11f8bb83bd4c28bcfb94c584601be7.jpg


I just wish I'd used it more.

The best camera, is the one you have.



--
Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks
 
Greg7579 said:
sportyaccordy said:
Greg7579 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
Click to expand...
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.

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.

I was also intimating that as technology improves, cameras and sensors are going to get smaller.
Click to expand...
As technology improves, the improvements will migrate to other formats too. Depending on any inherent properties of sensor size, some sizes will be more appropriate for some uses than others. Small sensors may be easier to employ IBIS, ultimate IQ may be more aligned with larger sensors.
Greg7579 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Depending on your own requirements, one format or the other will be the "sweet spot" for you.
Greg7579 said:
But we all have different needs.
Click to expand...
Very true.
Greg7579 said:
All the cameras on the market now are really good.
Click to expand...
Greg7579 said:
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Click to expand...
 
kiwi2 said:
PhilDunn said:
kiwi2 said:
PhilDunn said:
The X-Trans sensor produces inherently less detailed images due to Fujifilm's flawed attempt to eliminate color moire. That's what it boils down to. Decent cameras, nice lenses, but crappy X-Trans sensors. Unfortunately even their Bayer sensor cameras produce soft images, probably because of a blur filter and/or noise reduction at the RAW hardware level.
Click to expand...
As I like shooting astro nightscapes, low noise at high ISO is important to me.

That's one of the reasons why I chose theX-T2 over Sony's APS-C.
Click to expand...
Then you should be shooting a 24MP 35mm camera.
Click to expand...
I did say one of the reasons didn't I.

Being half the price of a A7II was another. Plenty of wide angle fast primes. Love the layout of the direct controls. It was the overall package and performance that swayed my decision.

It's been a huge step up in all aspects of image quality and performance over my Canon Rebels.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top