There is of course, no such thing as the ideal camera. There are different types of cameras, with different advantages. Large format designs produce indisputably better quality, followed by medium format, 35 mm or its digital equivalent, then point and shoot models and finally phone cams. Within that further variations are possible notably the choice of an SLR or rangefinder, and there are some fine fixed lens digital models not as flexible as SLRs but of comparable quality. Film vs. digital is a further issue and a big one, but I’ll confine myself mostly to a consideration of digital.
Nikon have just released their full frame D3, and what I’ve read so far has been very positive. First, someone said it’s good at noise i.e. there’s not much of it. That was one of the main reasons why I chose Canon, first the 10D and then the 5D. They led the way, and for several years I found Canon clearly superior. Nikon had faster cameras, and one with a dual crop option by using the full size of the 1.6 sensor or smaller, to get a longer focal length, but I found that gimmicky and unnecessary. A friend said he liked the 5D because it was simple. Indeed it is, and indeed it’s a reason to like it, though this is more applicable in relation to Nikon or similar. Compared to a Leica M6, or more old school film SLRs, the 5D is like…well, like a computer, which of course it is, with a lens attached. But I understood what he meant: in some respects, the 5D is pleasingly simple. While I don’t subscribe to the old school preference for manual cameras to get maximum ‘contact’ with the subject unmediated by technology, I do find there’s a cut off point beyond which not only am I uninterested in flashing lights and complex menus, but I don’t really want them.
The Canon 1DS models also led the way in terms of pixels, resolution, and low noise: though I couldn’t afford one, and they don’t suit my photography anyway because they’re like the size and weight of a brick. The D3 is another similar sized camera, much larger and heavier than traditional 35 mm models and digital equivalents, but it seems Nikon have suddenly changed the consumer scenery. Not only is it full frame, but I’ve just read another enthusiastic report by Photography Monthly’s Will Cheung saying he might sell all his Canon gear on Ebay and buy into Nikon. I met Will last year, at his office in Surrey. I don’t know if he’ll do that or not, and it seems a bit gear-obsessive, but I can partially understand why he’s saying it. He says according to his tests, the D3 is marginally superior to the 1DS Mk III in terms of optical reproduction and particularly with noise levels. It is, he says in the current PM magazine, a camera that makes noise tests worthless because it surpasses the more expected results. And the D3 is much less expensive than the 1DS Mk III.
But, it’s still more expensive than a 5D, which is not too far away from a 1DS Mk II at least, in quality terms, and it’s another brick camera suitable for very high quality indeed, surpassing the needs of most people, but big and heavy. The D3 does not especially interest me because a) it’s like a brick and b) it’s still more expensive than a 5D, but it has certainly changed things. The noise levels reported are a major advance especially at high ISO, slightly superior to Canon’s best according to Will, but the Nikon is much less expensive than the latter. That’s interesting. I imagine press photographers will soon be given D3s, when newspapers previously handed out Canons without even thinking about it.
The 5D does however, suit me very well. Full frame, which means I can use wide angle lenses in particular the way they were intended. It’s at the lower end of the highest quality band which suits me again (with the right lenses it achieves exhibition and publication quality very well), and while not a rangefinder or point and shoot it’s reasonably convenient in terms of size and weight.
I’m not an equipment geek; I rarely discuss it unless the subject arises with my students. The notion of an ideal camera though is quite interesting i.e. one which you simply buy and then forget about because it just does the job, comfortably and efficiently, and that’s all that matters. I will probably upgrade some time but I don’t actually like this consumerist desire that’s constantly titillated.
I discussed equipment with a student recently, and mentioned Alex Majoli
who’s an interesting exception to the norm. Unless he’s recently changed this, he uses relatively modest Olympus fixed lens cams in favour of big, maximum quality DSLRs. He finds them more convenient for photojournalism, and their quality perfectly adequate. I myself wonder why photographic reporters nearly always use big high quality cameras when their pictures appear in low-grade newspapers, not as large gallery prints. And about three years ago the editor of Luminous Landscape, Michael Reichman, stated that digital cameras had reached the point beyond which extensive quality testing was getting redundant. Obviously there are differences between cameras, but at pro and semi pro levels they’re all good, differences often not very marked and multi faceted anyway, thus get interpreted differently according to need.
Noise, for me, was and still is a major factor for basic quality and its link to low light capability. When the 5D was released it was a big improvement on the 10D in that respect and nudging at 1DS performance, because of similar technology. But, both the 1DS Mk III and now the D3 are brick-like cameras and significantly more expensive. The other point Reichman made is getting the shot you want because you have your camera with you, and you find it fast and convenient to use. In both those respects, those other two cameras are less good because of their size and weight. So while the consumer landscape has now changed slightly with the new Nikon for me the 5D is still, kind of, my ideal camera.