jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Instead of anguishing over which camera is the best, I just buy one of each (and just one lens for each--to save money).

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Oh no. Juneau, Alaska is in a rain forest. The best pictures are outside in the rain.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The Kodak Brownie series's by far the best ever. Introduced millions to photography for decades.

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

You do have a point and it didn't cost Thousands of bucks!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

With no context provided by "Quote Reply", I have no idea why you posted this.

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

The best camera for me is the one sitting in my camera bag with a charged battery, my favorite lens, and a freshly formatted SD card.

alfengael

My first 35mm was a Nikkormat; after a year or so I sold it and bought a Nikon FM and later added an FE2. Those two cameras served my 35mm needs as a pro for many years, but I also had an F2AS as well as medium format Hasselblad and an Arca-Swiss 4x5. In all three formats the number of models was pretty limited, and that made it easy to choose, and mostly they were all pretty much "best." Nowadays, you not only have the extreme complexity of DSLRs, with various sensor sizes and various sensor qualities, you have many models with many different features.

As Bob has pointed out, any given year of the 35mm film era Nikon only offered perhaps a couple 2-3 models and the differences made some sense: the F2 being a heavy rugged pro camera with interchangeable finders and so on; the FM, a lightweight easy to handle manual camera, and an auto exposure version of the FM, the FE. All used 35mm, no APS (yet), all took the same photographs when mounted with the same lens. If you wanted some different quality you used a different film. I used an Ilford ASA/ISO 1000 color transparency film occasionally, specifically for the graininess of it. Kodachrome 64 for portraiture, fine grain and for red tones; Ektachrome 100 or 200 for some landscapes, for a gain in speed and blue tones, Tri-X 400 for low-light and action black and white. Film made the difference, not the camera.

So why do we need so danged many different models? Sensor/lens combinations lock us into a particular quality, and there are many combinations with many different qualities. If you want low noise you need full-frame and amongst full-frame offerings there can be a lot of difference. My Canon 6D is better than my Nikon D810 at ISO 200, 400, 800 or above. The D810 is sharper than any of them at f/5.6 or below. It's almost as if you have to have a different camera in the same way we used to have different films, to achieve different results or for different shooting situations.

I tend to think that it would be better for the manufacturers to have fewer models and focus (pun intended) strictly on achieving only the highest quality photos. All full-frame, one high resolution model like the D810 for dynamic range and large prints; another model for high-speed action photography; one for high ISO shooting in extreme low light, and so on. Much correction and different effects are now easily achieved in post with all the various applications and plugins now available from folks like NIK Dfine (highly recommended), DxO and ON1. Limited models would bring the manufacturing costs down and make quality cameras and lenses more affordable for more people.

For me, there are three or four best DSLRs: The Nikon D810, The Nikon D750, the Canon 6D, and maybe the Nikon D7200 or Canon 80D for APS-C, but then I haven't tried the many, many different brands and models. I am sure there are many other cameras that would serve the purpose; I agree with the sentiment of others— it's not the camera so much as it's the eye behind it.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You begin to answer your own question here. When I purchased my first SLR, a Pentax ME SE, in 1979, it was sold without a sensor. Every 12-36 exposures I would pick a new sensor package, and the choice I made from time to time could radically change the camera. That camera had no built-in flash; if I wanted to add flash I could. That camera had no motor-drive; if I wanted to add a motor drive I could.

Today, when they build a camera, they are making sensor, flash, fps ... all kinds of decisions for us. In the old days, I would simply buy a camera and add what I wanted. Today, no manufacturer wants me to pass them by because they don't have a camera with the "options" I want - or because unwanted "options" have driven up the drive of a camera that otherwise would be perfect for me.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Oppps... it was meant to go with an earlier post but I hit the wrong button. Ignore it. Out of context it means nothing. I'll try and get it right next time.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Oppps... it was meant to go with an earlier post but I hit the wrong button. Ignore it. Out of context it means nothing. I'll try and get it right next time.

alfengael

Precisely. We don't get to choose, unless we buy a dozen or two different cameras.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

I was going to say that but you beat me to it.

SS319

I challenge you to even define the qualities of the best camera.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

"Perfect" and "best" are not the same: the first is unattainable; the second is a moving target....