The Fujis are super competent and the line of lenses is pretty superb. The Nikons work great, have great color and can be tough as nails. The Canons are great in the hand and some of their 2.8 zooms are best in class. The Leicas are....Leicas. The Panasonics are a traveler/user's delight. The Sony A7 series has lots of resolution... Olympus cameras pack a lot of punch for their size (excepting the newest one....). But the camera that I personally used that was good at more stuff than any other camera, the one that I could press into service for 4K video, for long range telephoto work, for decent theater work and even portraits is the ....
....Sony RX10iii. I played with a Sony RX10IV a few weeks back and it's even better. If this were not the age of mass hypnosis about full frame cameras I think most rational photographers would chuck that closet full of mismatched lenses, unknown battery chargers, horrible owner's manuals, weirdly configured old camera bodies, and just get themselves an RX10XX and be deliriously happy that they were able to get great photographs, great video and even great audio with their video, without ever having to think about what lenses to select and carry or what accessories to buy (beyond a backpack full of batteries....). I've used the RX10iii for so many projects of so many different kinds (most in exchange for hard currency) that I've lost track. In a moment of madness, in concert with my retreat from Sony's deeply flawed (haptics, tsk, tsk) A7 series cameras, I sold the "golden baby" along with the bath water. I have no doubt that in the next month of so I'll pick up the new RX10IV and pick up where I left off. It's just too good of a camera NOT to own. There. I've said it.
Now, what camera would you say is the best all arounder you've ever used?
26 comments:
+1 for the RX10 series. And no sensor to clean.
++1, my mk2 so often wins over all my "pro" gear. motion, stills, it's just the "no fuss" choice.
The Oly EM5MII with the superb Zuiko12-100/4 follows me around almost everywhere nowadays. But I must admit I have recently developed a soft spot for the "monster" Nikon Coolpix P1000: one lens, one camera, range 24-3000mm equivalent, raw images. Sure, it cannot be used at 12800 ISO. Nor is it a "pro" video camera. But neither am I a "pro"! ;)
I have been reviewing some old files and would have to say that in good light the Canon 10D I had was as good or better than anything I have owned since.
I could almost see this coming as I read your intro. I'm still a big fan of my Panasonic FZ1000 -- much the same sort of beast as the RX 10 series.
I don't know how long the full-frame craze will last (I give it 2 to 3 years) but I'm still thinking a 1-inch sensor could be the sweet spot in the long run.
Yeah, I got that one right from just reading the title. Still, I’d be very interested in why the Sony RX10 is your preference over the Panasonic FZ2500. I keep thinking of some of the actor/interview features made for Zach Theater - specifically The Million Dollar Quartet series - and just can’t imagine anything topping the quality of those.
I don't know if these count as the "best" cameras I have ever owned, but I would say my Nikon V1 bodies have gotten more use than any of the other cameras I have used. They are decent photo and video cameras (if not pushed too hard), and they can be fun to use. I also very much like the V2 camera body I picked up, especially as a stills camera. I use these cameras with lenses that range from a native 1 Nikkor super-wide zoom to an F-mount Sigma 100-400mm, which turns into a true super telephoto on Nikon 1 bodies. I think that Mike Johnston hit the nail on the head in a recent post on his TOP site, where he put forth the idea that "fun" is a missing feature that cameras need in a big way. The Nikon 1 cameras had a "fun" aspect to them that Nikon DSLRs don't - all the more reason to be disappointed by the cancellation of the Nikon 1 system.
The best "all around" camera I ever used was the Canon 7D, especially when paired with the Canon 70-200 f/4 zoom. Yes the Canon f/2.8 zooms are great, but honestly, the f/4's are even better, and a pleasure to use. The 7D was the best "no fuss, no muss" camera I've ever used by far. A close second would be the original Panasonic GH1, which I still own. I've not bought a new camera in years, but if I were to get one, it would most like be the Panasonic GH5 or the G9. The micro4/3 line of optics is second to NONE, and the Panasonic camera bodies are just a pleasure to use.
First I had to get rid of my Panasonic G85 because its not full frame and now I have to get rid of it because the sensor is too big! This is so confusing. I guess I will have to keep it until I figure this whole thing out :-).
I have a minority view of the Oly M1X. Given its capabilities, I don't understand why nearly every sports pro shooter on earth doesn't sell off all that heavy Canon/Nikon gear and switch to m4/3s. There can't be that many pro sports shooters who produce (and sell) 4 foot wide prints. If the outlets for that work is sports magazines and web sites, there are fewer and fewer reasons to carry the weight, it seems to me. The complaints that the M1X missed the mark as Oly's flagship body missed the point, imo. But the E-M1 Mk 2 if that's what you want. The M1X should be making inroads in the pro sports world, I'd say it was not intended for anything else. But these things happen all the time. The world went VHS instead of Beta. People are buying big honking pick-up trucks instead of comfortable cars to go buy groceries. I'm obviously missing something.
Going by number of images taken, my little Lumix LX7 wins for me. Not strictly "pocketable," but it fits nicely into a little Quantaray belt-mounted pouch. LX100 is my runner-up; belt pouch also for it. Makes me wonder why I even HAVE a GX7, or D700.
I just checked on the LX10, and decided that I don't need to upgrade. Same with the LX100. On the fence about upping the GX7 to a GX9. (The D700 is reserved for special projects, or when I can use my car as a camera bag. Too heavy to lug around.)
Just got back from Africa and bought my wife the Sony RX10iii to use. She is not a lens changer. I used two E-M1ii bodies and took 5 lenses (mainly used 3) - the Leica 100-400 and the Olympus 12-100 and 40-150 pro lenses. That said, my wife carried 2.5lbs, I carried an 18lb bag.
I don't do video, so cannot comment on that, but my still shots in low light with the Oly gear seemed a little better. If I were starting over, I might look at the Sony RX10 pretty closely. The Zeiss lens is amazing.
Best camera I've ever used is the Hasselblad 500CM. Second best iw the xPan.
OK, I'm old, so sue me.
Bill Pearce, who again asks the quesion, why do I need a Google account to comment? I feel no need to hide behind anon.
Your right about the Sony, and the mismatched lenses, and batteries. I do not like Sony so I won't be buying one. Maybe an Olympus or Panasonic? For now I continue to use my Sigma's with the Art lens 24-105. My SD1M or SDQ-H has the best of the best IQ for digital and my Yashica 124 G works for film along with the Sigma SA9 and Art lenses. Not the best film camera, but it holds the film and works.
That being said your spot on having one digital camera with one lens. Wish I could do it. It would make life a lot simpler. One digital camera one film. I'm leaving on a 14 day road trip, and trying to decide what to take????? 3 bodies? 4 lenses??? 3 flashes?? 3 film bodies?? For what? I wish Nikon had a high end all one. I love my P7100.
Have fun
Roger
I picked up a like-new RX10iii awhile back for about 1/2 of what they sell for new. This camera can do a lot of things quite well and it's the camera I first grab to go everywhere with me.
The Canon 6D for digital
Film era: rented Hasselblad when being paid, own Leica when somewhere dodgy.
I love my current X-T3 with 35mm/F2. Still, I have warm spot for my old Samsung NX10 with the 30mm/F2 pancake. Loved that little package and many of the photos I took with it.
I still have an R1 with a Zeiss 24-120mm fixed zoom kicking around and the sensor lens combination is still one of the best ever. I would dearly love to chuck all the Fuji DSLR gear (which I dearly love) and buy an RX10; but the haptics SUCK!!! It simply feels WRONG in my hand. Yesterday I played with a friends RX100 with the 24-200mm lens and that is a sweet little camera with the same sensor as the RX10 .... I feel a bout of Sony lust coming on ....
"mass hypnosis about full frame cameras". Sounds like the doodoo that you read from the "experts" and "photographers" who comment in Dpreview. I interpret it as a bunch of guys trying to justify to themselves or wives why they spent a bunch of money on new cameras and lenses when their older equipment was just fine for their online accounts. And don't forget that larger than "full-frame" is totally unnecessary, is an affectation, is only for pretentious show-offs, can be equalled by more megapixels. the equivalence is wrong, etc. Sigh.....
The camera that lives with me and takes the majority of my photos is a Sony RX100. Currently a IV, but this is the 4th one I've owned. Cameras that get tossed in a pocket or backpack take a beating and it's easier to replace it with a newer model than have it repaired.
I have an RX10ii and think it's great, especially for video. I had the RX10IV briefly, but found it too bulky. That's the price you pay for such a long zoom. For a pocket camera I prefer the Canon G9X to Sony's Rx100 models.
As I get older, I have reached for the Sony RX100vi more than I ever thought I would. I put the thinner, Peak Design Anchors through the little eyelets on the camera by pulling them through with some dental floss. I now can use an old thin camera strap that I converted to the Anchor System with the Peak Design's Conversion Gizmos that slide on to the thin camera strap in the traditional way. I find the 24-200mm zoom lens covers all of my needs.
Sony R1 of course.
I have the RX10 IV. It is like the ultimate vacation camera. I love it despite what it cost.
Hi Kirk,
First of all, sorry to hear about your Dad - however we do or don't react at the time, it's one of those "life moments" that impact on our lives in myriads of ways.
To answer this question, I have mulled this over and I think my answer is possibly none of my digital cameras yet. Each of them has / had features that I wished were better. Generally, they've also had features I liked. The Nikon D40 irritated me and I haven't & won't buy another DSLR. I don't want backache plus - the bulk takes the fun out of photography plus smaller cameras are more discreet in urban photography. I have used compact cameras both Pansonic and Fuji and they have been fun - just getting to grips with an X100F. The "might have been" was the Nikon V2, great body, good to use, let down by the sensor in lower light...if only they'd made a V4 with integrated viewfinder. Oh and whilst getting to grips with the X100F, the change of focus point "knob" is an absolute joy to use - other camera manufacturers who require at least 2 button pushes before I can start moving the cursor, please take note.
Thank you for that dental floss tip!! I’d given up trying to get my PD anchors through the eyelet holes on my camera, but that sounds perfect. Why didn’t I think of that?!
Post a Comment
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.