literiter
Well-known
Yes. Making a camera with a shorter best before date and building in a bit of planned obsolescence wasn't part of the Hasselblad mandate, bless 'em. I have the best MF system I've ever owned, now, because of this.
sem
Registered User
What about rollei franke heideke?
Rolleiflex simply the best for the moment.
regards
sem
Rolleiflex simply the best for the moment.
regards
sem
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Rollei/F&H is out, dead companies don't count.
Last edited:
Mephiloco
Well-known
So none of the Japanese makers are great by virtue of not being German?
Hell, the Japanese even make some of the best Scotch in the world. Cameras are a cinch.
literiter
Well-known
I had to laugh at this. This is so right. If the Japanese were to manufacture the M2 today It might even be better.
And then you have the Leica CL, made by Minolta.
And then the Leica R4, made by Minolta.
Scotch is different, has to be made in Scotland.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Someone in an earlier post listed just about every large format manufacturer that he could think of!...well - l/f cameras are basically simple machines - anyone with some skill in wood and metal work, and machining facilities could make one!.....mine - in mahogany and brass, is coming along nicely!
Dave.
Dave.
Gumby
Veteran
That's a bit "if" Dave. Good for you... I can't wait to see your homebrew!
Gumby
Veteran
Ha, could be... but does it matter? Schneider optics are just as good.
fbf
Well-known
No offense, but it seems like people are picking the "personal favorite". I thought op is asking the BEST camera company in current market.
Gumby
Veteran
Most people have both limited exposure and experience across the brands, and a fairly closed mind... so "best" often is "personal favorite".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How do you define 'best'?
Best build quality and durability? Best image quality? Best track record of not abandoning buyers of previous models? Best for landscape, best for low-light or best for portraiture? Best value for money? For that matter, what's 'value for money'?
Children love to ask what's 'best', but as they get older, they generally realize that there's rarely a single answer. If there were, that single 'best' would displace everything else. But there's always someone who wants something cheaper, or lighter, or stronger, or better-finished, and is willing to put up with deficiencies in another area in return for more of the quality they want.
Then there's the question of whether you can afford the best. I don't know if Lobb boots are the best but I do know that I can't afford £3394, plus VAT, for a pair, made to measure though they are. Likewise I think I'd rather have a Bristol than a Rolls Royce, but as I can't afford either, I am in no position to judge.
By the same token, although I've owned or used a lot of cameras, I've a great deal more experience of some brands than others: I've used hardly any Canons, for example, no more than half a dozen models, rangefinder and SLR together. This is a self-reinforcing situation: I'm likelier to use cameras I like or am familiar with, and have lenses for, in preference to cameras where I've had bad experiences or no experence. I certainly can't judge current Nikon pro DSLRs against current Canon pro DSLRs, and some of the cameras I'd rather have than either are not, shall we say, exactly mass-market: Alpa, Gandolfi, Linhof.
So yes, there's not a lot more anyone can do than to list their personal favourites, based on their own experience, which may span decades and cover numerous brands or may be a few years principally with one brand. The whole poll has to be fairly light-hearted and subjective: there is no alternative (TINA strikes again).
Cheers,
R.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
My thread 'DIY view cameras' - in the repair/care section has a picture of the body in early stages of construction, a few more bits and pieces have since been machined, but jobs like this - I usually save for the winter months, when I don't go out so much!
Dave.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Outside of Leica, which is outside of everybody's price, they are really all the same. So pick a camera (new) for ergonomics only.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
For what I understand Japanese could make essentially everything but they make products with the market as first priority, not some sort of company pride...except for some special series which is on the contrary just to should what they could do.
Everybody who has seen a Grand Seiko knows Seiko could easily match essentially any Swiss company of quality watches but (unfortunately for us) they never come to the Western market with that kind of product probably because they feel it would not be worth the investment (here I am of course just guessing).
GLF
aizan
Veteran
cosina voigtlander, because it's the only company guided by the vision of one man. can't say that about any of the others!
Mephiloco
Well-known
You could argue that Leica continues to make rangefinders due to the market. Canon, Nikon, etc all left the RF behind because of the advent of the SLR and the benefits it brought, as well as the market it opened. The shift left Leica being essentially the only RF maker, allowing them to corner the market. Leica also made SLR's (obviously) but weren't able to compete against the big boys, despite them being fine cameras in some regards.
And as far as the Grand Seiko. Americans/Westerners are notoriously bad about brand loyalty/image. They would never pay that much for a watch if it said Seiko, for their money they'd get something that is more of a status symbol, like a Rolex, Omega, Cartier, etc, hence why the Japanese car makers had to create new brands for their luxury cars when marketing in America--The is no 'Acura' in Asia, it's simply Honda.
gavinlg
Veteran
Let me just say something about Nikon - I like their DSLRs, but they don't make their own sensors, and just a few years ago they were known for saying that a full frame 35mm digital was a) impossible and b) pointless, and that users should invest in their dx/aps-c gear. Canon had, and was developing full frame sensor technology for years while nikon was dodging it, and after all the excuses nikon ended up bringing it out anyway.
I find it strange how people can still be sore about canons switch from their old mount to the EOS electronic mount, but this doesn't bother them.
I find it strange how people can still be sore about canons switch from their old mount to the EOS electronic mount, but this doesn't bother them.
No, but they design and manufacture the machines that are used to make the sensors.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Why should it bother anyone? All digital camera manufacturers have been doing similar things when trying to sell cameras with smaller sensors. Leica told lots of stories about the infeasibility of full frame, and even Canon has started to put APS-C sensors on one-digit cameras with the 7D and is telling you to use EF-S lenses on it, so it seems like they remain more committed to it than ever.
gavinlg
Veteran
the 7d is just an aps-c camera designed to beat the d300s in sales... there's nothing wrong with crop sensors, they're just not as good as full frame ones. Nikon had the nerve to maintain for a good amount of years that they weren't going to go full-frame in their flagship, with plenty of bogus reasons why they couldn't and didn't want to, and then without warning they just brought one out. Personally, that would piss me off. If it doesn't piss you off, thats cool :angel:
In the same light as your reply, I don't see why so many people are sore over Canon changing from FD to EOS mount - the fd mount was severely outdated and they new they needed to do something to maintain their technological advances. Then again, I wasn't old enough to have thousands of dollars invested in fd mount lenses.