petrochemist Loc: UK

I often find I come across beauty when I don't have a camera.
It's a variety of Murphy's Law, I can visit the same location hundreds of times & if I forget my camera I'll see things that wouldn't otherwise be there :(

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A photographer brings their camera.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It happens.....
I was in Maine one fall, got on a beautiful country road, beautiful leaves, including allover the road with tire tracks. I didn't have the camera that outing. Went back the next day and rain had washed all the leaves off of the road.
We live and learn...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Evidently.....

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

It depends on which camera you have. The level in the D300s is a little bit awkward. But the level in the D500 and D850, whether in the viewfinder of the rear display, is simple and easy to use. Very quick and accurate two-axis (pitch & roll) display. I have no idea what the levels in current consumer-level models are like.But it isn't fair to compare them to the mirrorless levels, since the mirrorless cameras are not consumer-level models, except maybe the Z50.

User ID

Sorrrrrry ... didn’t mean to be unfair.

I don’t have any bottom feeder SLRs but mine are all at least 5 years old, and the level is visible only on the rear monitor.

Acoarst all my EVFs can show the level in the eyelevel viewer. If SLRs lately can show it in the eyepiece, thaz cool ... even if a dollar short and a day late ;-)

petrochemist Loc: UK

My old K7 had a level in the viewfinder (using a series of LEDs), IIRC I got it second hand in 2012 so far more than 5 years old now.
FWIW it also had IBIS.

User ID

Pentax has been amazing. Back when it was simple, solid and very basic, it held a very secure spot in the marketplace.

How it descended to virtually unknown while pioneering amazing performance features is a real puzzle :-(

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

I've never really gotten into the "level" included with these cameras. I just put the 2/3's grid on it and shoot away...yah, I might make some minor crop adjustments in post, depending on how fast I'm shooting. <shrug>

blackest Loc: Ireland

Marketing and availability, most common are Canon and Panasonic and these days Sony too, Nikon is generally carried in "Camera Shops" along with Canon and Sony and Panasonic.

I guess the more camera focused a company is the less visible they are in the high street. Canon Panasonic and Sony do a lot more electronic devices ...

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

The mirror-less myth persists when it comes to sharpness and could not be further from the truth. In reality, a tilt-shift lens on a dlsr, especially for corner to corner sharpness is unbeatable.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Big boys (and girls) play with their toys! Cars, guns, fishing tackles, audio equipment, power tools, and of course CAMERAS! HARDWEAR! An ongog contest as to whoo has the best, sharpest, strongest, latest, greatest, most expensive, most prestigious stuff. It's good for sales- keeps the economy going!

In my personal and professional photography work, I have used many different cameras and formats over the years. I have used large format film cameras up to and including 8x10, medium format SLRs and rangefinder models, 35mm SLRs and rangefinder types, and even had a Minox. In all these categories, the manufacturers have improved the designs, introduced new innovations and variations of the old configurations. Then the technologies progressed and changed and some transitions became necessary and some of the old ways became rather obsolete.

At the end of the day, all of this is just a compilation of tools. I would not be presumptuous enough to strongly recommend anyone type of camera or system. My advice to any photograher who is about to invest in new equipment is to simply consider the type of application or category of work that they are doing or aspire to do, consider their budget, compatibility with existing gear, size and weight of the equipment, and most of all the ergonomics, that is if the camera to body and mostly used lenses are compatible with photographers dexterity, muscle memory and capacity for handling the gear. It may be problematic for some photograher to acclimate themselves to an electronic image viewfinder image as opposed to a strictly optical one.

As for the differences between retrofocus wide-angle lenses that are employed in SLR and DSLR wide-angle lenses, truthfully, in actual and practical results I see no big difference. For 3 decades I used the Hasselblad film system. I had both the 40mm lens and the Hasselblad SWC with the fixed 38mm lens. I used them interchangeably and the results were very similar. Frankly, speaking, I never shot resolution charts or subjected any of my glass to optical bench or laboratory-grade test procedures. I just shot pictures, made very large prints and screen images and everyone's concerned was satisfied with the sharpness and acutance of the results. If I listened to all the so-called gurus and reviewers and took them seriously, I would probably scrap all my gear and go nuts! Perhaps the advent of digital photograher has brought about sensors that are more prone to optical aberration and certain shortcomings in lenses. So many photographers are preoccupied with "looking for trouble" worry about distractions and all kinds of negative optical specifications. Fact is, not the lens, regardless of its high quality or cost is 120% perfect. They all have a "sweet spot" and a cert degree of aberrations, some of which are digitally correctable in the camera body or in post-processing. Goo photograher know their glass and how to work around certain shortcomings.

So many of y'all are frequently mention the work of the iconic photographers of the past. So many of them made their images with comparatively simple equipment, rather archaic by today's technological standards. For me, the fewer bells and whistles the better. Sometimes all the technology gets in the way between the photographer and the subject. Someof the automation is quite helpful but some of it requires too much fiddling and presents more potential for malfunction and mistakes.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There is only you and your camera. Could it be the mirror that is the weakest link in the chain?

User ID

IIRC money was not a deciding factor between a 40 distagon and a SWC. They were similar $$.

In principle I wanted the 40, an SLR lens for my SLR. But when comparing the two in-hand, the SWC was my clear choice. It didn’t feel like buying a camera. It felt like buying a lens that fit directly onto my existing film backs but happen to bypass the mirror box.

The SWC doubled as my personal tote around snapper. A complete 500C wearing a 40 and a prism could NEVER serve that role. At today’s prices, I’d recommend a SWC plus two film backs to any film shooter regardless of whether they also use the main Blad system. The SWC stands on its own, just like the Fuji Wide but wider, and with interchangeable film backs :-)

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

It would seem a mirror and a pentaprism introduce an additional six to ~eight or more lens/air interfaces, which may degrade image quality somewhat—but the image that is transferred to the actual Sensor-array is not affected!

I would admit there are some obvious advantages to a mirrorless camera system, but there are potentially some drawbacks as well: restricted view of actuality (view-screen display limitations), and rear-displays that may be difficult to observe in all conditions.

“Ya makes yer choice, matey!” All cameras are not all things to all people.