# Best camera brand?



## Joanne4 (Mar 14, 2005)

Hi just wondering if there is a camera brand that stands out from the other brands. What is the best camera to buy or does it depend on the type of photos that you like to take?


----------



## steve817 (Mar 14, 2005)

What type of camera are you talking about? 35mm, medium format, digital?


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 14, 2005)

If you're talking 35mm SLR or Digital SLR, then the main brands I would think on would be one of the following:

Pentax
Minolta
Nikon
Canon

Those are the main camera brands that are making the best selling SLRs. If you're talking point & shoot "pocket"-style cameras or strictly digital (SLR or not), then I would also include Olympus in there, they don't do much SLR production these days unless you're talking about their higher-end digitals. 

Now, if you want to narrow it down further, you'll find that more and more people will have specific knowledge particularly between Canon and Nikon, simply because those are the two brands that have the pros hooked, therefore their less-pricier models sell better because they've got a much better reputation with the people who make livings out of photography.

To get narrower than that as far as the brands are concerned, it's really just a matter of looking at the features of the cameras and applying those features to what it is you think you'd use them for, and picking out the usefulness of them all for yourself. At this day and age, the name brand glass is not different enough to really justify going one way or the other, specifically if you're talking digital. Back in the days when they would actually have to _grind_ the glass to get it the way they wanted, it was much more pertinent which brand you chose, but now they're using high-quality polymers and plastics which expand the possibilities for all of us, unless you're willing to fork over the big money for either Nikon's D lenses or Canon's L lenses. It's all a matter of what your application is and how much money you're willing to put into it. Just as with anything else anymore.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 14, 2005)

It all depends on what you are doing.  For me the best brands are Speed Graphic and Rollei.


----------



## Astro (Mar 14, 2005)

For very accurate color and great overall image quality I would recommend Nikon.


----------



## SLOShooter (Mar 14, 2005)

Nikon, duh.  Oh my this is gonna start the first Canon Vs. Nikon thread of the week.


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 14, 2005)

Astro said:
			
		

> For very accurate color and great overall image quality I would recommend Nikon.



Vs. Canon? See, that's where we get into the whole Ford vs Chevy debate. With the way technology is these days, there's not enough of a difference in image quality to one over the other. Use your best judgement based on features, not the testimonials of others.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 14, 2005)

Astro said:
			
		

> For very accurate color and great overall image quality I would recommend Nikon.



For the very best image quality I'd recommend medium or large format.  Nikon doesn't go there.  

The Nikon vs Canon debate gets very silly once you break out of their little marketing box (35mm SLRs, DSLRs, and point-n-shoots), and realize that they are 99% the same as each other when compared to the many other kinds/designs of cameras out there.

EDIT:  Actually, I guess Nikon does make large format lenses, but they don't make any medium or large format camera bodies.


----------



## Artemis (Mar 14, 2005)

Cannon, I mean...you can see from the name...Cannon, they have powerfull, sturdy cameras that will take the picture by the balls (sorry bout that) where as Nikon is a dainty little thing that will ask for permission to take the photo, then will quietly and out of the way 

hehe, naw theres no way of telling, but I vote Cannon anyways...unless you talking about Nikon D70, thats one of Nikons...Cannon like cameras, and the D70 is def a better cam...not better than the Cannon 350D though!


----------



## oriecat (Mar 14, 2005)

except that the name is Canon, artie! They didn't even have the balls to use a second N.


----------



## Artemis (Mar 14, 2005)

oriecat said:
			
		

> except that the name is Canon, artie! They didn't even have the balls to use a second N.



Whoops  Im always doin that.

Im sure...we can deduce...that...its because the name has already got such a kick, that an extra N would just make people faint...cause...it would beat a sharp kick in the face...


----------



## panocho (Mar 14, 2005)

Maybe this will sound stupid, I know, but I would use another criteria (which are the ones I actually use): not the quality of the cameras, but how do you feel them in your hands. I mean, suppose you find a say Nikon that has excellent reviews and seems to be a top quality body and lens, but when you look at it, when you grab it, you don't feel comfortable: weird mechanisms, difficult to operate functions, etc. Then, what use could you really do of that marvel? And now you find a humble and discrete camera that you feel like an extension of your eyes and fingers....

See what I mean? After all, what really matter is the finger that shots. And, as most people say: first, nowadays it would be very difficult to compare (I would really like to see most of the "only Nikons, please!" trying to figure aout what cameras made what pictures in a random selection  ) -see previous posts. Second, it's just a matter of very personal opinions, and, most of all, particular models, not brands in general.

Well, I'm only speaking about SLR film models. By the way, I have Nikon, Canon and Minolta and am happy with the three of them


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 14, 2005)

Hey Artie,

You have an Ultrasound lens?  





> Cannon Ultrasound 75 - 300



Is that for taking photos of babies?


----------



## KevinR (Mar 14, 2005)

Leica for 35mm


----------



## Artemis (Mar 14, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Hey Artie,
> 
> You have an Ultrasound lens?
> 
> Is that for taking photos of babies?



I know what you said was funny...but I dont understand...whats wrong with Ultrasounds?


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 14, 2005)

Artemis said:
			
		

> I know what you said was funny...but I dont understand...whats wrong with Ultrasounds?



There is nothing wrong with  _Ultrasound_...but I think you mean to say Ultrasonic.


----------



## Artemis (Mar 14, 2005)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with  _Ultrasound_...but I think you mean to say Ultrasonic.



....yes...yes....I do.....

Oki...whats the difference between Ultrasonic and not ultrasonic? 
Im so dumb...


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 14, 2005)

USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor, which means that it's virtually silent. Very handy when you're taking pictures of weddings, for example. You won't disturb the ceremony. Oh, and they're mighty quick, too. ;-)


----------



## Artemis (Mar 14, 2005)

Kent Frost said:
			
		

> USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor, which means that it's virtually silent. Very handy when you're taking pictures of weddings, for example. You won't disturb the ceremony. Oh, and they're mighty quick, too. ;-)



Theres two things that worry me then...mine was cheaper than a normal 70 - 300...and...eh..its not that quick, but is quiet


----------



## Nikon Fan (Mar 14, 2005)




----------



## Big Mike (Mar 14, 2005)

Canon USM - Ultrasonic Motor: 





> the motor spins by ultrasonic oscillation energy. In effect, instead of a large, noisy drive-train system, electronic vibrations created by a piezoelectric ceramic element power the mechanical action of the lens



Ultrasound: 





> 1: very high frequency sound; used in ultrasonography
> 
> 2: using the reflections of high-frequency sound waves to construct an image of a body organ (a sonogram); commonly used to observe fetal growth


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 14, 2005)

'My camera is better than yours therefore I must take better pictures' - doesn't really hold up as an argument does it?


----------



## walter23 (Mar 14, 2005)

Zenit and LOMO stand out.  I'd be nothing without my $130 Zenitar 16mm and my $10 Lubitel 166B.


----------



## Mumfandc (Mar 14, 2005)

That question seems too subjective. If you want just the "best" image possible, then you'd probably focus more on lens quality/brands rather than camera bodies.

Take a look at 4x5 view cameras...you can buy an expensive $4,000 Japanese Ebony or a cheaper $600 Chinese Shen-Hao (Shen-Hao is a copy of Ebony)...pair either of these with a Schneider-APO lens and you get the same very high quality resulting image.

I've bought and sold a lot of cameras last year, and I think I've settled with my Mamiya RB67. Just my preference. I don't usually go out and shoot hundreds of pictures a week...but usually spend some time on one still life project and shoot that with medium format. Large format...the film is too expensive and not much variety, and I find 6x7 medium format delivers enough resolution I need for 16x20 prints.

I just went to the Diane Arbus (retrospective?) show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It seems her entire career grew out of her Rolleiflex TLR.


----------



## Rob (Mar 15, 2005)

"Best image quality" is also dependent on your circumstances. I wouldn't rate your chances of successfully smuggling one of those gigapixl type cameras into a "no photography" event! 

I like my Nikons, Pentax and my Contax T2 and T3 (all 35mm) and I'm starting to plan my steps into bigger formats. Even when I'm fully there with something massive like a large format, there are still going to be times when the tiny Contax is brought out for the best possible picture (in the circumstances).

R


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 15, 2005)

robhesketh said:
			
		

> "Best image quality" is also dependent on your circumstances. I wouldn't rate your chances of successfully smuggling one of those gigapixl type cameras into a "no photography" event!



Heck, no one knows what they look like anymore.  They don't even recognize them as cameras    They are busy looking for 20Ds and D-70s.  Besides, a Speed Graphic will still get you across any police line


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 15, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> 'My camera is better than yours therefore I must take better pictures' - doesn't really hold up as an argument does it?



And consider that most of the "masters of photography" never used a camera that was as fancy as the cheapest, entry level gear available today.


----------



## DustinC (Mar 17, 2005)

Choose a camera you are comfortable with in a price range you can afford. If you care just getting started you can make great photos with a wide range of cameras. Once you gain experience you will eventually find your favorite brand. I prefer Nikon because they are durable. 
Dustin
http://www.prophotosource.com
Equipping Emerging Professionals for Photograpy Business


----------



## lathamemmons (Mar 17, 2005)

well ive never had a nikon but i love my canon eos


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Mar 17, 2005)

Nikon is simply behind right now with digital. They've been promising that camera for 3 years and it came out only last month. When canon released 2 sports cameras.

Last month newest from nikon: (Not available yet, and god knows for how long)
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d2hs/index.htm
This one too, some prototypes are beleived to exist, but nobody seems to be able to find one: HAHA
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d2x/index.htm

8 months ago from canon:
http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=589&sgid=23&gid=2&ovr=1
This one will ship same day:
http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=680&sgid=23&gid=2&ovr=1

Canon R&D comes up with a new professional DSLR every 18 months or so. Nikon can only promise you cameras.

No brainer for me.


----------



## steve817 (Mar 17, 2005)

Kent Frost said:
			
		

> USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor, which means that it's virtually silent. Very handy when you're taking pictures of weddings, for example. You won't disturb the ceremony. Oh, and they're mighty quick, too. ;-)


 
Yes they are very quiet, just bought a couple of them last week got home and took the first one out of the box to play and thought it was broken because I couldn't hear it.


----------



## thebeginning (Mar 17, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> 'My camera is better than yours therefore I must take better pictures' - doesn't really hold up as an argument does it?



very true.  its not really fair to ask what type(s) of cameras are the best.


*cough* canon and nikon *cough*


----------



## tamerlin (Mar 18, 2005)

This is a question with a very subjective answer... it depends a lot on what features
matter most to you, and how much you're willing to spend. When you buy one of the
higher-end cameras, you're buying into a system rather than just a camera, so you
need to look into what accessories that system makes available, and take that into
account.

For example, if all you want to do is panoramic landscape photography and you don't
want to carry around a big, honkin' (d)SLR + a big, honkin' wide-angle lens, you might
want to consider a Hasselblad XPanII.  :mrgreen: 

But in the end, the best camera is the one that you have with you when you have a 
photo opportunity.


----------

