Does your ideal camera exist?

[Pea-n-Me]

I thought I'd take a stab at addressing this.

As recently brought up in the board restructuring debate...

Questions about "which camera to buy" - where the ideal is that it's

uncomplicated to use
takes fantastic, crisp pictures
great in low light
small and not cumbersome
costs less than $200

come up on the Photography Board a lot.

Sometimes these threads go by with few replies simply because there have been dozens just like them where knowledgable posters attempt to enlighten buyers to concepts of exposure, sensor size, motion, etc. But after a while it becomes very time consuming to keep going over the same points, which can be quite complicated, over and over again (though to give credit where credit's due, many here will keep giving it their best shot ).

I thought maybe it might be helpful to have a discussion in one place that can be referenced to those looking for answers to these common type questions.

So I ask again

Does an ideal camera exist? Why or why not? What is the best way to go about buying a camera? What must one need to know before buying? What resources are best? Does brand or type even matter? (As examples.)

PS I deliberately left this open to include both point and shoot cameras as well as dSLRs (though there are different considerations to each).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't think that there can ever be an "ideal" camera. Too many factors oppose each other. I want a large sensor and fast lenses. The laws of physics mandate that such a camera be large and current technology means that it will be heavy. That is in direct opposition to my also wanting it to be small and light.

You suggested that it should be uncomplicated. That's a great goal, but it conflicts with my desire that it be extremely flexible and powerful. I've seen really simple user interfaces and really powerful user interfaces, but at some point you have to start trading off between simplicity and power.

The ideal camera for me would probably be very different from the ideal camera for you. Of the factors that you list, only taking great pictures and good low light performance matter much to me. I don't mind a complicated, expensive, bulky camera if putting up with those factors means that I have a flexible camera that performs really well.

 

[Zoesmama03]

I like my Nikon a lot. Think about switching to Canon when I upgrade(a 5D) but I was playing with the Pentex K7 in the store last night and loved the dial and button locations.

I don't know if there is a "perfect" camera. I've seen amazing photos from a point and shoot.

 

[zackiedawg]

In the larger picture, no...there cannot be an ideal camera. But the smaller picture is whether there can be an ideal camera for a particular person, and in that regard, I'd say it's possible. Though every camera ever made requires compromising on some things, some folks just may not care about the areas in which the camera is compromised, and so the camera can do a much better job of satisfying every one of their needs.

Either way, the purchase should come down to weighing which cameras have the most features you need and best meet your individual requirements, while compromising on the things that are least important to you.

 

[SplashMo]

The Camera is not that important but the len is important...

My favorite lens is the 85mm f1.8 canon.

 

[Frantasmic]

Of course "ideal" is going to mean different things to many people. I think the majority of people want a good, crisp picture in any setting without thinking too much about it.

If a camera existed that had the following qualities:

12-18x zoom
takes a good, crisp picture of their kids' activities in a variety of settings (whether it be a football/soccer/baseball field, in a gym or swimming pool, or on stage)
fairly simple to use (semi-automatic settings)
under $400

you would reach about 75% of the picture-taking public, I suspect.

It is the aggregation of factors that make the ideal a lofty goal. Most people want a great camera that automatically takes great pictures for under $200. By golly, we've put a man on the moon, why can't we build a camera that I want! is the consensus or something like that.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I believe two things, first it is situational to the individual and it is a moving target. I had been using my DW's camera and I became infected with the disease of photography. I went to a camera store to pick up some minor items and struck up a conversation with the manager. I told him I was thinking about buying my own DSLR and was interested in the newly announced Pentax K7. He asked me if I would like a back-up to my DW's K10. After a short conversation, he offered me a brand new K10 for $250. At that moment, for that money and my skill (some say unskilled) level, it was the "ideal" camera. Fast forward to today, with lots of help from forums like this one and practice, I believe I have advanced my skill level a little bit. The "ideal" camera is no longer the "ideal" camera for me. While I still love the K10 and will continue to shoot with it, I believe I am ready for an upgrade to the K5, hence the moving target of technology.

 

[Experiment_626]

If I could combine the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3s with the resolution of the Nikon D3x -- and I could somehow afford to buy this currently-mythical camera and feed it lenses that could live up to its potential -- then I'd never stop grinning. That would be ideal -- even though even better high ISO performance than what the D3s offers would always be welcome. It would also be nice if there were some sort of softwware development kit for DSLRs so that their functions could be programmed and customized by way of apps.

That said, I remain extremely happy with my D300 and I haven't tapped all its potential by any means. I like the heft of a heavier camera body (within reason, of course) and I have large, somewhat clumsy hands, so light weight and small size aren't as important to me.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Of course "ideal" is going to mean different things to many people. I think the majority of people want a good, crisp picture in any setting without thinking too much about it.

If a camera existed that had the following qualities:

12-18x zoom
takes a good, crisp picture of their kids' activities in a variety of settings (whether it be a football/soccer/baseball field, in a gym or swimming pool, or on stage)
fairly simple to use (semi-automatic settings)
under $400

you would reach about 75% of the picture-taking public, I suspect.

It is the aggregation of factors that make the ideal a lofty goal. Most people want a great camera that automatically takes great pictures for under $200. By golly, we've put a man on the moon, why can't we build a camera that I want! is the consensus or something like that.

How do you think sensor size plays into this?

 

[Groucho]

Obviously, ideal means different things to different people.

I can honestly say that my new K-5 is as ideal as I could want. There's absolutely nothing of consequence that I could ask for to improve it. (The only thing I could think of would be 1920x1080 videos at 30fps instead of 25.) I can't much they could improve about it to make me want to get whatever replaces it. This was never the case before - there's usually something that can be improved. In this case - nope.

Now, the only way to make it more ideal, for my tastes, would be impossible - to get the close sensor distance of a mirrorless camera to allow the adapting of lenses from most any system. I'm not willing to give up the mirror and prism, so that's not possible. Canons are more flexible in this regard but they run into mirror clearance issues. So, I am content with being able to use K-mount, M42-mount, F-mount, Leica R-mount, and medium format lenses.

 

[Frantasmic]

How do you think sensor size plays into this?

To me "ideal" means that you can bend reality. I was trying to describe what I thought about 75 percent of the picture-taking public would consider ideal: a less-expensive bridge-type smart camera with good zoom and excellent low-light and action picture taking (also semi-automatic) capabilities, i.e., the holy grail of cameras. One that people would want, never mind the physics involved in it or the real world. So, ideally, the small sensor would have all the capabilities of the larger ones.

To me personally, "ideal" would mean to have the financial means available to purchase the camera and lenses out there right now that would allow me the potential to take better pictures (my realizing that camera and equipment are only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the equation).