What's the best all-around camera you've used?

[justinwonnacott]

Not counting sheet film stuff......Canon 5ds and fuji xt5, both have issues and problems but were a lot better than most. Using the Fujis for all kinds of pro work now..... Bought the Canons for the performance and the fujis to go with all the lenses I have and save weight.

Absolutely hate the Fuji interface for its needless complexity and the camera feels suspiciously fragile and the controls are too easily moved but so it goes. Canon is kind of tank-like but it needed a shutter box replaced too....

 

[a_c_skinner]

Judged against the cameras of their era I'd say Pentax SP1000 more or less a straight tie with a Nikon FM2n.

Since then (D200, D800, Fuji X-T2, X-H2) have gradually got better and better, probably more or less in that order but never so complete and satisfying as the two film cameras.

 

[klassenl]

My Rebel XS (2007) did everything I asked it to do. I didn't shoot sports ever but I was always happy with the prints I got from it.

 

[dperez]

I was probably confused... I thought the question was "the best all-around camera I've used"...

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I was probably confused... I thought the question was "the best all-around camera I've used"...

I have owned/used over 40 cameras since 1959, (from 9" aerial-reconnaissance & 4X5 through 6x7/9 to 16mm).

And the FZ1000 is indeed the "best all-around I own/use".

Not my first camera, but the first "best all-around" I owned was the Canon QL-17 GIII.

The second ("best all-around") I owned/used was the Nikon 8008.

I do currently own a RX10-III but feel the FZ1000 is a better "all-around" camera, (but think the RX10-IV would be "best all-around" IF it had a Fully-Articulating & reversible LCD).

 

[tbcass]

I suggest the RX10-IV could still win for overall speed & convenience.

And FZ1000-II for overall "value".

I agree 100%. If I had to own one camera it would be my RX10iv. I have never used an FZ1000 but it does seem to be a great value.

 

[Dreamscape Photo]

Canon 20D Still have it.

 

[BackToNature1]

I was probably confused... I thought the question was "the best all-around camera I've used"...

I have owned/used over 40 cameras since 1959, (from 9" aerial-reconnaissance & 4X5 through 6x7/9 to 16mm).

And the FZ1000 is indeed the "best all-around I own/use".

Not my first camera, but the first "best all-around" I owned was the Canon QL-17 GIII.

The second ("best all-around") I owned/used was the Nikon 8008.

I do currently own a RX10-III but feel the FZ1000 is a better "all-around" camera, (but think the RX10-IV would be "best all-around" IF it had a Fully-Articulating & reversible LCD).

If the FZ1000 had the same 24-600mm (35mm Equivalent) as the RX10iv, far more folks would be in love with it. The Pana 400mm equivalent is borderline for most small Wildlife.

 

[Bob A L]

Quite the tough subject. But after thinking about it, for me it would have to be my Nikon P900. Note that the base question does not mention image quality or anything else, just best all-around camera. And my P900 is the nearest thing I ever had to being an all-around camera all in one package.

But based on the OP's list we consider all-around completely different things. The cameras on that list are among the absolute least all around of any cameras I know of.

 

[Mark_A]

The D800 is the best camera I have used, it is my current camera and I enjoy using it.

Mark_A

 

[tony field]

Quite the tough subject. But after thinking about it, for me it would have to be my Nikon P900. Note that the base question does not mention image quality or anything else, just best all-around camera. And my P900 is the nearest thing I ever had to being an all-around camera all in one package.

But based on the OP's list we consider all-around completely different things. The cameras on that list are among the absolute least all around of any cameras I know of.

The list is of cameras that are NOT on his "best all-around" cameras

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I was probably confused... I thought the question was "the best all-around camera I've used"...

I have owned/used over 40 cameras since 1959, (from 9" aerial-reconnaissance & 4X5 through 6x7/9 to 16mm).

And the FZ1000 is indeed the "best all-around I own/use".

Not my first camera, but the first "best all-around" I owned was the Canon QL-17 GIII.

The second ("best all-around") I owned/used was the Nikon 8008.

I do currently own a RX10-III but feel the FZ1000 is a better "all-around" camera, (but think the RX10-IV would be "best all-around" IF it had a Fully-Articulating & reversible LCD).

If the FZ1000 had the same 24-600mm (35mm Equivalent) as the RX10iv, far more folks would be in love with it. The Pana 400mm equivalent is borderline for most small Wildlife.

I totally agree with 600mm-ELF for wildlife (and birding).

But I suggest 400mm-EFL is sufficient for many applications, (and the FZ can do 800mm-EFL w/ CIZ).

Also, 600mm-EFL (@ f/4) does make the lens longer/heavier.

And the cost of the RX10-IV is 2-3X more than FZ-1000.

So cost/value & size/weight vs benefit can be a factor.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Quite the tough subject. But after thinking about it, for me it would have to be my Nikon P900. Note that the base question does not mention image quality or anything else, just best all-around camera. And my P900 is the nearest thing I ever had to being an all-around camera all in one package.

But based on the OP's list we consider all-around completely different things. The cameras on that list are among the absolute least all around of any cameras I know of.

The list is of cameras that are NOT on his "best all-around" cameras

I still would put the FZ1000-II as the "best all-around", but it certainly is not "best"(-for-"everything").

His list may have been best at specific things, but even his choice of A9 should also factor "cost".

The P950/1000 certainly are "unique" with 2000/3000mm-EFL, (thus "best" in that category).

But they also have many other limitations.

The FZ1000-II has speed & convenience and options & features advantages, (inc. Fully-Articulating/reversible LCD, "leaf" shutter, and Post-Stacking Focus and Pre/Pro Capture).

But the RX10-IV must also be considered for its 24fps w/ 9-34ms shutter/AF-lag and 24-600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4.

BUT .. BUT .. BUT ... I also have to acknowledge that if low-light is a priority, the emphasis has to shift to FF, (maybe aka A9).

 

[PeterKB]

That said, my old Sony R1 was a real gem in it's day.

 

[atom14]

The title is pretty much self explanatory, "but just to flesh it out a bit, the following is a list of the cameras that for one reason or other are not the best all-around camera I've used:

The title, which I have cited here again:

What's the best all-around camera you've used?

...is hardly explanatory at all, and neither have you "fleshed it out" even a little, instead, making a list of your impressions based on your own limitations with the equipment (Who knows "how much use" you have put them to, anyway?), and making it sound merely as a justification for what you have now got.

This is arm-waving par excellence, and it may sound hard, but really, what even is "best" supposed to mean here?

atom14.

Hasselblad X1D. Best picture quality I've every had from a camera, but buggy as hell and a fairly limited window in terms of what you can do with it.

Leica M240 (and variants): Probably the single best user experience I've had with a camera, but again, limited to an extent in what you can use it for.

Sigma DP Merrill / Quattro series: basically like the Hasselblad, but even more limited.

Fuji X100 series: Like the Leicas, a lot of fun to use and with excellent image quality, but a fixed 35mm equivalent lens again limits application.

So in my case (and I'm not a specialist: I shoot a little of everything), the best all-around camera I've used is the Sony A9. Easily enough resolution (for what I do), easily good enough autofocus (probably more than I will ever need), decent enough battery life, pretty impressive dynamic range (I don't shoot "midday sun in a coal mine" level stuff which requires a billion stops of DR), a totally silent electronic shutter which doesn't distort moving subjects...It's hard to envision a situation where the A9 couldn't do the job.

Let's hear about yours.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

That said, my old Sony R1 was a real gem in it's day.

A lot of people say that but I am not sure if I feel that way.

I can't see myself limited by only 120mm-EFL.

 

[Shashinka73]

The title is pretty much self explanatory, "but just to flesh it out a bit, the following is a list of the cameras that for one reason or other are not the best all-around camera I've used:

The title, which I have cited here again:

What's the best all-around camera you've used?

...is hardly explanatory at all, and neither have you "fleshed it out" even a little, instead, making a list of your impressions based on your own limitations with the equipment (Who knows "how much use" you have put them to, anyway?), and making it sound merely as a justification for what you have now got.

This is arm-waving par excellence, and it may sound hard, but really, what even is "best" supposed to mean here?

atom14.

Hasselblad X1D. Best picture quality I've every had from a camera, but buggy as hell and a fairly limited window in terms of what you can do with it.

Leica M240 (and variants): Probably the single best user experience I've had with a camera, but again, limited to an extent in what you can use it for.

Sigma DP Merrill / Quattro series: basically like the Hasselblad, but even more limited.

Fuji X100 series: Like the Leicas, a lot of fun to use and with excellent image quality, but a fixed 35mm equivalent lens again limits application.

So in my case (and I'm not a specialist: I shoot a little of everything), the best all-around camera I've used is the Sony A9. Easily enough resolution (for what I do), easily good enough autofocus (probably more than I will ever need), decent enough battery life, pretty impressive dynamic range (I don't shoot "midday sun in a coal mine" level stuff which requires a billion stops of DR), a totally silent electronic shutter which doesn't distort moving subjects...It's hard to envision a situation where the A9 couldn't do the job.

Let's hear about yours.

Hey, not bad. Four pages until the first Mr. Apoplexy wades in, taking everything waaaay too seriously.

All I was aiming to point out is that the X1D, M240, Sigmas and Fuji are all great cameras but if I had to pick a camera to cover as many eventualities as possible (as a deliberately exaggerated example, let's say I had to cover a sports event, a wedding, a landscape shoot, and a photowalk in low light in the same day), I'd pick the A9.

Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[atom14]

The title is pretty much self explanatory, "but just to flesh it out a bit, the following is a list of the cameras that for one reason or other are not the best all-around camera I've used:

The title, which I have cited here again:

What's the best all-around camera you've used?

...is hardly explanatory at all, and neither have you "fleshed it out" even a little, instead, making a list of your impressions based on your own limitations with the equipment (Who knows "how much use" you have put them to, anyway?), and making it sound merely as a justification for what you have now got.

This is arm-waving par excellence, and it may sound hard, but really, what even is "best" supposed to mean here?

atom14.

Hasselblad X1D. Best picture quality I've every had from a camera, but buggy as hell and a fairly limited window in terms of what you can do with it.

Leica M240 (and variants): Probably the single best user experience I've had with a camera, but again, limited to an extent in what you can use it for.

Sigma DP Merrill / Quattro series: basically like the Hasselblad, but even more limited.

Fuji X100 series: Like the Leicas, a lot of fun to use and with excellent image quality, but a fixed 35mm equivalent lens again limits application.

So in my case (and I'm not a specialist: I shoot a little of everything), the best all-around camera I've used is the Sony A9. Easily enough resolution (for what I do), easily good enough autofocus (probably more than I will ever need), decent enough battery life, pretty impressive dynamic range (I don't shoot "midday sun in a coal mine" level stuff which requires a billion stops of DR), a totally silent electronic shutter which doesn't distort moving subjects...It's hard to envision a situation where the A9 couldn't do the job.

Let's hear about yours.

Hey, not bad. Four pages until the first Mr. Apoplexy wades in, taking everything waaaay too seriously.

All I was aiming to point out is that the X1D, M240, Sigmas and Fuji are all great cameras but if I had to pick a camera to cover as many eventualities as possible (as a deliberately exaggerated example, let's say I had to cover a sports event, a wedding, a landscape shoot, and a photowalk in low light in the same day), I'd pick the A9.

Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a cigar.

And so, fairly and reasonably taken to task, I withdraw the vehemence that coloured my previous post. Yours here is a reasonable explanation of your intention.

And I will take your word about cigars... [/a suitable icon not available in the selection here]

atom14.

 

[tonybelding]

I went through a phase of trying several different systems, not just briefly but owning each one for a while before selling them on. I tried Olympus, Fujifilm, Pentax, Sony. It was fun, I learned a lot, but in the end it was all sort of moot. The main thing I learned was that they're all generally good, and any one of those systems could have served me very well if I'd stuck with it.

However. . . Since I got a Sony a7R II, I've been struck several times by how versatile it is. Every time some new photographic fad or challenge comes up, I look to the A7RM2 and say to myself, yeah, I can do that with this camera and the right lens. And the range of lenses (vintage and modern) that it can accept is vast, vast.

 

[tonybelding]

As a travel camera, especially to have near me in the car, my Sony RX10 IV is a hero. It fits neatly in a ONA Bowery bag. It's always ready, no lens swapping. Lots of zoom range. Responsive. Some degree of weather resistance. Uses the same batteries as my A7 and A7RM2.

Compromises. . . Its IQ is generally good but not a match for my system cameras. It's not great for low light. It's huge and conspicuous like a DSLR and steroids, so everybody knows I'm there to take pictures. It cost enough that I feel a need to baby and protect it more than some of my others. And the EVF is. . . not bad, but it just can't be like a bright-and-beautiful OVF on sunny days.