No best?! What a disappointment. For me, the best is the D750. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

As for the "best" qualities, that was my point. Why couldn't a maker include all the best features into its cameras - Wi-Fi, GPS, HDR, etc. It's not like they would have to add lots of parts to the camera. It's just software. I have no experience with designing and manufacturing, but if I were to start a camera company, I would like to include every feature I could so that reviewers couldn't say, "Too bad it doesn't have this feature." Of course then there's the actual quality of the camera - material, construction, and assembly.

There are hundreds of different high quality cameras available, and many people would like to own the "best" one. The features a camera offers help move it into that "best" category. Why, then, would manufacturers leave out features that they could easily include to make their cameras more appealing? I know they offer more on their high end models to attract buyers who are willing to spend more, but even at the high end, some brands offer features not available in other brands.

Let's say that four top level cameras have identical features, how could a lab determine which one is the absolute best camera. Using that system, they could also determine the best entry level and pro-sumer model. I know personal opinion might play a part, but it shouldn't. The feel of a camera is irrelevant when what you want is quality. I have lots of differently shaped cameras, and my hands adapt to them just fine. Magazines and online sites like to pick the best cameras in different categories, but they never seem to agree.

Another consideration is the weaknesses of cameras. If Camera A has a weakness in a certain area, and Camera B doesn't, why wouldn't the makers of Camera A correct that? They can see what the competition is doing and where they are coming up short. I don't think this is a financial situation, just design and attention to details. So many cameras have so many features and such good quality, that it seems like it would be possible to combine all of that into one brand.

Ideas? Comments?

Jerry, as far as we both know the "perfect" camera has not been built yet. If it will be in the future that I do not know.
Look at dSLR cameras. Since digital went into the old bodies of film cameras there has been a progressive improvement in functions and quality but they lack many features that at least in my case I consider so useful for the photographer. We have to spend good money to get a dSLR camera with live view that will reflect live the actual exposure on the monitor. High shooting rates for this cameras is something like 8 FPS. There are so many functions and parameters that could be incorporated for a better photography and instead they are not there, at least in the most popular models.
Look at mirrorless cameras. No mirror allows for a shooting rate that exceeds 10 FPS. They are smaller, lighter and very competent when it comes to image quality. With my Olympus cameras I can see in the monitor my actual exposure, a godsend of a useful feature. I have no doubts in my mind that mirrorless cameras are technologically speaking far advanced than dSLR cameras. I do not know of a dSLR that has all the useful features a mirrorless has.
It is true as Mr. Ferguson says that there is cost involved but, isn't it the same cost for both types of cameras? Why mirrorless with more features than even professional dSLR bodies?
As I said, the perfect camera has not been built yet but there are plenty of bodies out there that can do what we want in our photography and the majority are full of the features we need.

Right. A lab would have to scientifically determine which camera was the best. The sensor is one part, focusing is another, etc. A lab would have to come up with numbers for each component of each camera. Even then, determining the best would be difficult because one camera might focus better but have weaker exposure control.

I remember the early American poem, "The Wonderful One Horse Shay." A man wanted to make the best shay - wagon - that he could. He found out which was the weakest part of shay, and he made that stronger. He kept going down the list until every part of the shay was very strong. His shay worked fine for years, but one day, every part failed at the same time.

Your points are quite valid. The current manufacturing/marketing strategy is to constantly introduce product obsolescence/upgrades into the market to create churn and ultimately new product sales. If your common sense approach were employed, most enthusiasts would keep their cameras for years without upgrades, and they would actually learn to use them to their potential. A trip back to the 1960s-70s would be refreshing! I am done with the buying cycle. I am keeping what I have and I will wring out all I can out of them. My glass should last me for the next 20 years.

There are hundreds of different high quality cameras available, and many people would like to own the "best" one. The features a camera offers help move it into that "best" category. Why, then, would manufacturers leave out features that they could easily include to make their cameras more appealing? I know they offer more on their high end models to attract buyers who are willing to spend more, but even at the high end, some brands offer features not available in other brands.

Let's say that four top level cameras have identical features, how could a lab determine which one is the absolute best camera. Using that system, they could also determine the best entry level and pro-sumer model. I know personal opinion might play a part, but it shouldn't. The feel of a camera is irrelevant when what you want is quality. I have lots of differently shaped cameras, and my hands adapt to them just fine. Magazines and online sites like to pick the best cameras in different categories, but they never seem to agree.

Another consideration is the weaknesses of cameras. If Camera A has a weakness in a certain area, and Camera B doesn't, why wouldn't the makers of Camera A correct that? They can see what the competition is doing and where they are coming up short. I don't think this is a financial situation, just design and attention to details. So many cameras have so many features and such good quality, that it seems like it would be possible to combine all of that into one brand.

Ideas? Comments?

I think the"best" camera would have a tremendous amount of features most would never use, hence the multitude of different combination of features! It's also a cost thing, not all of us have $2000 bucks for a camera (ir more), now in saying that I have upgraded several times "as I grow and my interests changed! As I get better at photography of course I want a better camera, I would LOVE a D750, but I am not a good enough photographer to warrant that cost, my P100 was good for my skills, then my P600 was even better for me as I grew, my present D5200 with several lenses is perfect for my skills today, but who knows, maybe I'll have the skills someday to handle a D750! I base my equipment on my skill level, as an Anateur, I still have plenty to learn and I am looking forward to that!