11. The Perfect Camera
Every year, sometime around the holidays, I splurge on one really nice thing for myself. Locked inside during quarantine, there hasn't been much to spend on, but I've had a great time doing landscape photography. We still haven't been to bars and restaurants, but we can drive around in a car, and we've been exploring parks in and around New Jersey.
This year I set my mind on a new camera. Something a little bit nicer than I already had, maybe that I could use to print pictures and big posters.
I bought my first camera in December of 2018. I remember spending ages picking something out, and eventually settling on a Nikon Z6. I really wanted a D850, but along with lenses it was too expensive for consideration. I also looked into the D750, but even though I liked the idea of an optical viewfinder, mirrorless seemed to be the way of the future, and an old DSLR would make me a dinosour. I also looked into some other brands, but Canon didn't have great mirrorless options yet, and I didn't love Sony as a company.
Fast forward two years later, and here I was in the same spot, spending ages to pick out a camera.
In the mean time, I also had the chance to try out an old school DSLR (the D610), and I absolutely loved it. The image quality was better (SOOC at least). The optical viewfinder was a relief to use. Even more than that, the whole camera was just so well thought out and well constructed. Every button was in exactly the right place and there was always a button when I wanted one. Things like white balance, buried in menus on the Z6 were just one tap here. They even had a well functioning assist light that basically solved all my problems with low light focus. It felt like whenever I needed something, I reached out and the D610 had an answer.
This time I had spent so little during the course of the pandemic, I decided it was time to go for a really nice camera. Every brand/style was on the table. I decided that I was going to get the best camera, and then not have to think about upgrading it again, at least not for a really long time.
Of course, I quickly found out that it's not so easy. Even if you had all the money in the world, different cameras have different tradeoffs. The ones with the best image quality are big and bulky. Some cameras technically have lower dynamic range, but beautiful and natural image rendering. Mirrorless cameras have face and eye detect, but miss that great optical and mechanical feeling.
Really each camera gives you a different experience, and different cameras are "the best" in different situations. If you're taking selfies you want a flippy screen. If you're bringing a camera to dinner, you want something fashionable and lightweight. If you're shooting an event, you need the very best in reliability and focus tracking.
I definitely wanted something small that I could take to game night with my friends, but I also wanted something (potentially big and heavy) that could shoot landscapes with the very best image quality. I very quickly realized that I wanted different setups for different situations I was in, and that no camera was going to be perfect for everything for me.
Between everything, I kind of narrowed it down to three situations I usually shoot in:
Photo walks. I set out specifically to take nice landscape photos. I want an enjoyable shooting experience and the ultimate image quality. Less weight is nice, but I don't really mind heavier cameras or slower autofocus too much. Friends and Family memories. This is the camera that I'm taking to hang out and play minigolf. I don't need the ultimate image quality, but I want something unobtrusive and super reliable. I care that I'm going to get a usable image in any and every situation. If the family photo in front of the Eiffel tower comes out blurry, we're not making another trip, and we're not spending 2 hours readjusting to get the perfect shot. It's also important here that if someone else is taking the picture, it still comes out nice. Portraits/selfies – this is somewhere in between the two above. You have more time to set up your environment/carry the right lenses, but you still want fairly reliable face/eye detect. 4.1 The Contenders
4.1.1 Canon
Canon makes professional dslr and mirrorless cameras.
Their most recent professional mirrorless, the R5 is a solid all-arounder that, from what I can tell, preforms very well in almost all situations. It's fast enough to capture sports and wildlife, has very good face/eye detect for ease of use in capturing friends/family memories, and has very good (although expensive) glass for ultimate image quality. As a very big plus, it even has a flippy screen, which is maybe not so useful to professional photographers, but very useful for including everyone in the family portrait.
The only real downsides of the R5 is that it's very expensive, and that it overheats when taking video (although I don't take 8k video it still makes me kind of nervous to have a camera which can overheat). Part of the challenge is there isn't much third party RF glass, so you're stuck with Canon's very good, but very expensive lenses. Canon's colors are known to be good, but I've also heard that the R5/R6 have a flatter profile than earlier Canon DSLRs, meaning it can take some more work in post to get very good images.
They also make a professional DSLR, which is popular, and produces solid SOOC results, although it has worse dynamic range and few meaningful performance improvements over its Nikon counterparts.
Canon also makes the RP which is a much smaller, and lower performing version of the R5
4.1.2 Sony
Sony's A7R4 has the highest resolution, and the best face tracking of any mirrorless camera. It's thought to be a technically very precise camera, although considered lacking in some ease of use features like nice SOOC jpegs and nice ergonomics. Now that the face tracking and tech specs of the Canon have mostly caught up, I think it's harder to justify, especially because I don't love Sony anyway. It is much cheaper though, especially when you take cost of glass into consideration.
Sony also makes the A7C which, paired with a Zeiss 35 2.8 is one of the smallest packages you can buy that gets very good image quality. They also make the Rx1R which is higher resolution, but lacks a flippy screen and IBIS, and the RX100, which is much smaller, but along with a 1" sensor, lacks some of the quality you expect from a dedicated camera.
4.1.3 Nikon
I own a Z6, and the face/eye detect is just bad. It's bad enough that I don't feel like I can fully rely on it. I've taken photos that just look bad, and then later realized that my camera just missed focus. I can't even use the single-point af because the joystick moves the focusing point too slowly.
I've also noticed, that compared to the images I took on the D610 the color balance is slightly off, especially when I use the camera with adapted F-mount lenses, in a way that makes the same image with the same lens just look less pleasing. Maybe there's a way to bring it back in post, but I just find the images from the D610 look way nicer and are way easier to deal with.
Maybe Nikon fixed the AF issues in their Mark II. Maybe the colors look right if you use the latest and greatest Z glass and make adjustments. Maybe the autofocus works better without the adapter. But at this point, I just don't trust them. I really like the Z mount glass, I just wish they had a better camera behind it.
In contrast, my experience with the D610 was just great. A 10 year old camera with performance that holds up to today's standards. Buttons and ergonomics just the way I wanted them. Not a new idea but a fully iterated, rugged, professional camera. It felt like everything I needed was thought through and provided for. And most importantly: the image quality, straight out of camera, was near perfect.
The D850, Nikon's newest DSLR is the next iteration of the D610 (well technically, several iterations). It keeps most of the same design and build quality, uses the same F-mount lenses, and, from what I can tell, renders images in the same very nice way. It's actually missing a few features from the very well designed D610 (e.g. more incremental WB adjustments and a built in flash), but for those small sacrifices, you get a much higher resolution sensor, better dynamic range, better AF points, better color retention if you push the image, and much more.
Unlike the Z6, I trusted the D610, and I knew if I got a D850 with basically the same stuff, I would get basically the same very good images (although hopefully a tiny bit better).
I was waiting/hoping for Nikon to release a successor to the D850, but based on the more recent D780, and other recent camera releases, I guessed that:
They probably wouldn't significantly increase the resolution. At least, it wouldn't make sense if they released a DSLR with significantly more resolution than their most recent mirrorless offerings. They would probably port the same bad face and eye detect from their mirrorless cameras into live view mode. I actually prefer the contrast detect on my D610. It might be slow, but at least it's reliable. Adding phase detect also means more stuff on the sensor that can affect image quality. They might add IBIS, and I'd really like IBIS, but it's not a super big deal since a lot of my lenses already have it. 4.1.4 Leica
I feel like leica is one of these brands where people buy into it to figure out if it's actually worth buying a Leica. Is it really a much smoother ride in a Ferrari? You'll never know unless you try one.
Jokes aside, I've thought of a few real reasons why people might want one:
They render nice. This is one that's hard to qualify, especially when the technical charts don't always back up these claims, but some people like the overall image rendering/asthetic feel of leica images. They look nice. Ok, for a photographer it feels like it shouldn't matter, but it does matter, and it matters because it affects whether you take it with you. If you show up to the royal wedding with a D5 you look like the paparrazi, but a leica is stylish and classy. You might even wear one as part of your outfit, just to look a little bit hipster. They're small. Have you seen the enormous Nikkor 0.95 Noct? Have you seen it in comparison to the leica noctilux? The noct is a little bit better, but you're getting what would normally be very big full-frame primes in a very small package. That means something you can casually carry, and something that fits better in casual environments. They're rangefinders. If you want the rangefinder experience, leica is pretty much your only option. I don't think it interests me, but if you need a manual focus rangefinder leica is the place to be. I like that Leica's are super small. It matters to me that I can take them with me, and that they stay out of the way when I'm not using them. It feels more relaxed to go out to dinner without carrying an enormous DSLR.
The challenge is, Leica's don't have great autofocus (if at all), and are entirely lacking in "ease of use for non-professionals". They're a great lightweight vacation camera for fun photowalks, but if I go on a nice family vacation, I want a nice family photo, and Leica cameras just don't get the job done. (The q2 sort of does).
4.1.5 Fujifilm
Their APS-C line of cameras is solid (and nice-looking!) but I felt they weren't small enough to justify the difference in quality to a body like the A7C. They also make the X100V, whose rangefinder style is very appealing, but there are smaller, lighter cameras with better image quality.
The GFX system is an adventure, because it's a little inconvenient, but undeniably a better performer than any other practical system. When other manufacturers announce 100MP the images might look more grainy, but pull that off with a larger image sensor, and you really are getting 50% more space. Not just that, I can tell the just-released GFX 100S is something special. Not only does it fix the ergonomics of the original GFX 100, not only does it fit the performance into a tiny, dslr-sized package, but it's an absolute bargain at 60% the cost of a GFX 100.
I wanted one because I knew cameras that are that kind of performance breakthrough can hold their own for a really long time. It's like they made a substantially better camera than their absolute medium format flagship, and are charging less money than not only their own flagship, but those of full frame competitors. The D850, when it came out, was a big deal 4 years ago, but this is a big deal that's happening right now, and will continue to be significant far into the future.
I can't quite vouch for the Fuji color science, as I haven't quite put them through the paces like I have my Nikon's, but I've heard great things about their color science, and their film simulations look really appealing, at least from the online test images I've sifted through.
The big problem with the GFX system is that there aren't that many available lenses. The lenses they do have are stunning, some even considered significantly better than their DSLR counterparts, but you have to stick with the lenses fuji gives you, and if you need something specific, like a 14-24 2.8 you're out of luck. This is one system where you're really buying into the glass as much as the body, so you can't just think about the camera in isolation, but how it performs with the lenses you're actually going to use.
If I bought into the GFX system, I wanted the 32-64 f/4, and the 45 f/2.8, both very high performing lenses, though I do wish they had a true 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent, and some other options with more range.
4.2 Decision Time
I knew that, due to the pandemic, I was pretty much cut off from normal social events for a few months to a year, so it didn't matter too much if I carried a big heavy DSLR around. I also didn't want to be the guy that had a million different cameras falling out of his pockets for different situations. The key here is it's ok to take your selfies with a cellphone. You can have a nice camera, but every photo doesn't need to be the ultimate in high resolution image quality. If you just want a nice memory of making pancakes for dinner it matters more that you don't interrupt the memory that you're trying to capture. Maybe if I bought a million cameras, I would get one really tiny one, but it's not what I need right now, and phones are a pretty solid replacement for non-photography photos. I'm also a little wary of fixed-length prime cameras, because once you start cropping, you lose all the benefits in image quality.
I wanted to try all the cameras out in person, but also due to the pandemic, I wasn't really able to visit a camera store. I could get sample images online, but it's always hard to tell how much editing has been done, and how much is due to the scene's lighting and the skill of the photographer.
With that in mind, only looking at big, high-performing interchangable lens cameras, I narrowed down my search. The Nikon Z and A7R cameras were out of contention as I considered them surpassed by the Canon R5. The 5DMark4 was also out of contention, considered surpassed by the D850. That left the remaining options as: The Canon R5, The Nikon D850, and the Fujifilm GFX 100s.
The R5 has excellent RF glass, is a well rounded camera, has a flippy screen, and the benefit of very functional face and eye detect. Plus canon are known for making nice, easy-to-use camers. The thing is, in terms of lenses, Tamron's glass is much cheaper, and very high performing (especially the 35/1.4!), and the face-detect in live view on the D610 is actually very accurate and usable, albeit too slow for fast-moving subjects. The colors straight out of camera are also thought to be a little flatter than it's DSLR counterpart. The thing that I'd really miss most from the R5 is actually the flippy screen, but I figure if we need to take a group photo that badly, we can just ask someone to take our picture. Compared to the D850, it's also missing tons of buttons and the optical viewfinder experience.
The GFX 100S is the camera I gave the most thought to. Paired with the 45 f/2.8 or the 110 f/2, it gives the very best image quality of any practical camera, and it feels good to know that you have the very best. If your image doesn't look as good as the stock photo you find online, it feels good to know that it's not because you took the wrong camera. In programming, we think about debugging as "finding the source of error that broke your software", and having the very best makes your system simpler because there's one less source of error that you have to check. You don't have to go back to the same place and try it with a different camera, because you know that it wasn't the camera's fault. It lets you stop thinking about gear and focus on other factors that make something into a good image.
Although competitive with the R5, the D850 is also a 4 year old camera. With the way technology progresses, it's fortunate to have a camera that lasts 10 years before obsolesence, and it's already mid-way through it's lifespan. By comparison the GFX 100s is not just new, but groundbreaking, a big leap forward in technology that seems likely to stand for a long time. You're buying into a system that's big, and new and rapidly growing, compared to one that's slowly being phased out of existence. It's also on it's fourth iteration, and it's really getting the attention to detail that forms it into a full fledged product. It lacks a vertical grip, but for the most part it's very flushed out, and doesn't have anything major that's still clunky or missing.
Between the D850 and the GFX 100s, the decision was the hardest because the GFX 100s is just such a compelling option.
But ultimately….
I went with the D850. The big thing for me is I loved using the D610, and not just that, I trusted it. I didn't know if the GFX 100s would be fun to use, or if it would render images the way I liked, but I knew the D850 would, because it was just the same as the D610. I remember before I bought the Z6 two years ago, some reviewers told me that it rendered nice and had usable autofocus, but in my mind, they couldn't be more wrong.
Lack of available lenses on the GFX system was also a huge deal for me. If you shoot at 35mm, and then crop it down to 85mm, you're not getting any of the image quality of a medium format sensor. If you shoot the GFX system, you're stuck with a paltry 2x zoom range, meaning that you're not going to get the shot unless the composition lines up exactly with the one lens you happen to have.
Some of the fuji lenses are great, don't get me wrong, but not all of the lenses are perfect, and if something I need is missing, I just can't get it. The 45mm, 110mm, and 32-64mm are considered by most reviewers (and tech charts) to be near perfect, but the same isn't true for other focal lengths. What if I want an ultra-high performing 35-150? What if I really need the long end of my 24-70 f/2.8? Not only are you stuck buying expensive fuji glass, but you're unable to make choices about which lenses best suit your use case.
Even for the same focal length, choices matter. Fuji only has one real pancake lens, but it's not what I want it for. I want a 28mm pancake, and a larger/higher performing 50mm, but fuji doesn't offer that. Not only that, some of the lenses might not render the way I like. Tamron and Sigma both make excellent 35 1.4s, but I like the look of the Tamron, and I don't want to give that up to move to the Fuji system.
I know I said at the beginning that I was willing to switch systems (I definitely would have if only the Z6 were available), but it is nice not having to trade in for new lenses, and more importantly, I've already done my research, and I know which lenses I like, and which lenses are good for the things I need them for.
4.3 The Grand Finale
My D850 arrived in the mail a few weeks ago, and it's exactly what I wanted. It's just like the D610, except the focus is snappier and the resolution is higher (the images even look a little crispier too). As a work of engineering, it's just so well thought out, and so well designed. It's also built like a tank and looks like it could survive anything. The only things I really miss from the D610 are more granular temperature adjustments inside of auto-white balance, a dedicated retouch button inside of playback mode, and a built-in flash. I also prefer having the white-balance button on the side of the camera, rather than at the top by the command dial, even though it's placement on the D850 is still very logical. You get a little grain sometimes along with the higher sensor resolution, but I think it still outperforms the D610 when binned down to a fair comparison.
But the thing that really blew me away, and the thing I didn't expect, is how well the D850 files perform when you try to edit them. If you push a D610 file by 2 stops, it looks washed out and you have to bump the exposure and contrast to compensate, but on the D850 I experienced no such thing. They're mostly comprable SOOC, but once you try to edit them, the colors from the D850 just look better, and are so much easier to get right.
In terms of image quality, I feel like I bought the D610, but even better. I'm getting the same look that's both exactly what I wanted, but even nicer looking than it was before. It works perfectly with the lenses I know and am already very happy with. I love shooting through the optical viewfinder.
It's a 4-year-old camera, but, weirdly I don't think it's going away for a really long time. The latest-and-greatest from canon and sony offer almost no improvement in image quality (I actually like the Nikon better), and I don't even find them significantly more easy/enjoyable to shoot with. I don't think Sony will obsolete it's brand new Alpha One any time soon, and the Tamron 35/1.4 is on par with the very best of mirrorless glass. It is a 4 year old camera, but it's my favorite, and I think it will remain competitive for a very long time.