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?

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?

There is no "Best Camera" just as there is no "Best Hammer." In my tool box I have a framing hammer , a brick hammer and a ball-peen hammer. If I going some framing, I will use the framing hammer. If I am cleaning bricks, the brick hammer. And if I have given up on convincing someone of an obvious point that they do not want to understand, I grab the ball-peen hammer and hit my own head with it.

The only best hammer is one that is available and is best for the job at hand.