Jay2G Photography wrote:
Title says it all.  Why is this? I mean really, with the technology they have available today why can't they make a complete and at least NEAR perfect camera?  This manufacturer does this right, but it's focus sucks, this ones ISO quality is great but it's JPEGS and focus suck. Almost every camera has one or some serious shortcomings.   Do they fear nobody would ever buy another new camera? It seems like it's getting to the point where IQ cannot or has not been improved drastically over the years, so better ISO, video features, gimmicks, FPS or smaller is what they sell now. But none of them get it all right. They should though. I've never used the high end $4000 plus camera so maybe those are perfect or close to it.  I'm thinking $2,000 price and under.

It's a pretty simple answer really. What is "perfect" for you is not "pefect" for someone else. The same shortcomings I have with my D800 are advantages to someone else.

Case in point, even though I've been a Nikon shooter for many years (and plan to stay that way) I much prefer the ergonomics of Canons. My friend, a Canon shooter disagrees. He much prefers the ergonomics of a Nikon. How could we EVER agree on the "perfect" camera and we haven't even gotten past the grip and the buttons on the outside of the body?

MMDesign wrote:

Ditto

MMDesign wrote:

I dunno about that one either since I sold them at one time.

Backs had issues (Light leaks and overlapped frames).  Shutter would hang at times on slow speeds if they didn't use the heck out of it.  Some surgeon broke the bayonet too (He sure shook a lot for a surgeon too!), and he managed to break it again shortly after the first fix too.  Didn't know what he did to do that either.

Most who bought them (Docs & lawyers.) put them in the expensive Halliburton cases and slipped them under the bed.  In time, the shutter's timing escapement just gummed or oxidized up and one second took a pounding to get it moving again if it didn't hang totally open.  Focus got tight too as grease dried out.  The "Collector Crowd" seemed to have the most issues with them.

When they worked, they were good though.  But they sure needed to be exercised a lot.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Title says it all.  Why is this? I mean really, with the technology they have available today why can't they make a complete and at least NEAR perfect camera?  This manufacturer does this right, but it's focus sucks, this ones ISO quality is great but it's JPEGS and focus suck. Almost every camera has one or some serious shortcomings.   Do they fear nobody would ever buy another new camera? It seems like it's getting to the point where IQ cannot or has not been improved drastically over the years, so better ISO, video features, gimmicks, FPS or smaller is what they sell now. But none of them get it all right. They should though. I've never used the high end $4000 plus camera so maybe those are perfect or close to it.  I'm thinking $2,000 price and under.

Perfect is in the eye of the beholder.

The perfect camera for what I shoot these days would be a Mamiya RZ67 ProII D with a full 6x7 sensor.  Live view and autofocus would be fine, I suppose, but are not necessary for what I do.  I don't shoot at high ISOs so that's not really a concern of mine either.  While I do video work commercially, I shoot that on Sony Digital Cinema cameras and the Arri Alexa, so I don't need my still camera to have any video capability at all. 

Weather sealing, while important for many, and something I would look for in a small format camera system, is also something that *my* perfect camera doesn't need.  I also don't need to shoot faster than a frame a second.

So that would be my perfect camera.  But I don't shoot sports.  If I did, my requirements would be vastly different.

Having said all of that, yes, I think you will find a difference were you to move up to a professional quality small format system.  Still, I would prefer the build quality of an older SLR camera (pre-digital).

Ken Sanville Photo wrote:
Ditto

I have a newer version of the 500cm, and shoot a huge variety of color negs,  b&w negative, color transparency, b&w transparency, instant color, instant b&w, and 50 MP digital, enabling me to print flawlessly from 4x6" to bill board sizes.

Let me know if there is anything more versatile that I might not be aware of.

Ken Sanville Photo wrote:
Ditto

Fotopia wrote:
I have a newer version of the 500cm, and shoot a huge variety of color negs,  b&w negative, color transparency, b&w transparency, instant color, instant b&w, and 50 meg digital, enabling me to print flawlessly from 4x6" to bill board sizes.

Let me know if there is anything more versatile that I might not be aware of.

I love Hassy, especially for editorial portrait work.  But as far as a "system" goes, I stand behind my belief that the RZ platform was the best full out, all around system ever produced.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Ken Sanville Photo wrote:
Ditto

I love Hassy, especially for editorial portrait work.  But as far as a "system" goes, I stand behind my belief that the RZ platform was the best full out, all around system ever produced.

Well, you can't be right all of the time. 

Gary Melton wrote:
The perfect camera HAS been created...sadly though, it has only been created in our minds!

It's the Nikon D400.

You mean, the perfect camera... for you.

Hugh Alison wrote:
They did..

5D3... or D800 ... or X100s

All so close to perfect it doesn't really matter which you pick.

None of them are perfect for me.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
None of them are perfect for me.

+1

Don't get me wrong, I like the D800 quite a bit, but it is not perfect. It has its shortcomings. And, it's not the best choice for everything that I shoot. It's a definite improvement over my last digital system in many respects though. And, it meets most of my current needs well enough. But, it most certainly not the perfect system for me.

I don't know that one single system would ever be capable of meeting all of my needs. And, that's ok. I'd personally rather own a few different systems that give me a wide variety of options, than to expect one system to do it all for the long term.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I love Hassy, especially for editorial portrait work.  But as far as a "system" goes, I stand behind my belief that the RZ platform was the best full out, all around system ever produced.

MMDesign wrote:
Well, you can't be right all of the time. 

Ha!  I suppose not.  And I do like the method of shooting square with crop lines on the GG to compose for whatever I need.  However...

With the RZ:

* You can shoot square, 645 or 67 and (for the time being at least) instant. 

* You have tilt and shift availability (the Fuji is more sophisticated in this regard). 

* You have a very full compliment of spectacular lenses available to you, from fisheye to 500mm (and a teleconverter to go further if needed) including a zoom lens and a soft focus 180mm that can be very nice for portraits depending on which disc you use.  The lenses are different from those by Zeiss.  For portraits the can be seen as lacking a bit of character or being a bit too sharp, but that is really getting into "feel and vibe" territory. 

* You can use a WLF, a dumb prism finder or a very nice metered prism finder.  For both of the prism finders you can get a great magnifier for precision focusing. 

* You can use an autowinder. 

* You can use a dumb grip or an electronic grip.  And actually I have two, one standard electronic grip and one with an overhead bracket if I wanted to position an on camera flash atop it (while eliminating red eye). 

* If you need to shoot from a moving platform and prefer a two handle grip, you have the aerial grip. 

* While all the lenses take a collapsible rubber hood, you can also get the very nice compendium shade that also takes square 3x3 filters (and I've modified one to take 4x4 filters). 

* You have standard cable release, both mechanical as well as electronic, and you have a mirror lockup mechanical cable release (first it releases the mirror, then it fires the shutter). 

* If you need to fire the camera via wireless remote control, you can get an accessory that allows for that as well.

* Hell, if you shoot in very cold climates, you have an external battery compartment with extension cord that allows you to keep the battery inside your clothes at a regulated temp, while the camera shoots out in the cold... 

* And with the ProIID and the right adapter plate, you can seamlessly integrate a digital back into your workflow (I use a Leaf back).

That's a pretty versatile system.  The only system I know that rivals it is the Fuji, however, I give preference to the RZ platform as it can be used handheld with almost no problem.  For me, the Fuji is really a studio/tripod only camera.  Which is also fine for the way I shoot, but I settled on Mamiya long ago.

If you know of a more versatile, feature-rich system, I'm all ears.  But the Hassy is a very close second... 

I will say this, as far as a mechanical camera goes, the Hassy is the finest machine ever created (IMO).

Backstreet Photography wrote:
The same can be said about lenses though.  How many lenes CAN be shot wide open without distortion, how many can be shot @ the long end w/o softness, distortion, pincushion.  It seems that nearly every lens can only work within certain tolerances w/o sacrificing IQ.  Sadly, some of these exact same lenses cost 1~3 THOUSAND dollars.  Kind of pathetic when you think about it.  We need better glass, NOT more bodies ~~~ m'

If you really want too look at good, distortion free glass, especially with zooms that don't breath, look at cinema lenses and even HD video glass (pro stuff).

$30,000 a lens is not at all uncommon.

My RZ lenses were about $5K a pop, depending on what lens you're talking about. 

$1k - $3K is not pathetic at all if you actually work with them.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Title says it all.  Why is this? I mean really, with the technology they have available today why can't they make a complete and at least NEAR perfect camera?  This manufacturer does this right, but it's focus sucks, this ones ISO quality is great but it's JPEGS and focus suck. Almost every camera has one or some serious shortcomings.   Do they fear nobody would ever buy another new camera? It seems like it's getting to the point where IQ cannot or has not been improved drastically over the years, so better ISO, video features, gimmicks, FPS or smaller is what they sell now. But none of them get it all right. They should though. I've never used the high end $4000 plus camera so maybe those are perfect or close to it.  I'm thinking $2,000 price and under.

Cause the people buying/using them aren't perfect.

Hugh Alison wrote:
They did..

5D3... or D800 ... or X100s

All so close to perfect it doesn't really matter which you pick.

No.  Fail.

My X100S has serious autofocus hunt when shooting in manual.  I'm getting that dreaded red AF! box when shooting in manual with the off camera flash selected.  Every time.

My D800 is a dust magnet.  Change the lens once in the field, and I'll be swabbing my sensor for the next shoot.

I can't speak for the 5D3, but I'm sure it has some issues that people wish it didn't have.


Actually, I think I just figured out the AF! box with those settings.  I want to shoot at f/11 and 1/125 and ISO200 in a very dark lit scene.  Because I'm using strobes.  It seems that the camera IS focusing, but telling me that the shot won't come out because it doesn't know I'm using strobes, even though I told it I am.  So it's a warning that the photo won't come out, not that it's not in focus, which is what a red AF! would imply.

It's just bad nomenclature for the warning.  Maybe the X100S is perfect.  Unless you can't get within 5 feet of your subject.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
with the technology they have available today why can't they make a complete and at least NEAR perfect camera?

Essentially every decision you make in camera design will be inappropriate in some circumstances.  Therefore, all cameras are imperfect for at least something (if not everything).

Rangefinders are imperfect for macro photography.
SLRs are imperfect whenever you want something small and quiet.
View cameras are imperfect underwater.
TLRs are imperfect if you want versatile movements.

So every camera is imperfect once you've decided what type it is.  I suppose it might have been perfect before that...

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I love Hassy, especially for editorial portrait work.  But as far as a "system" goes, I stand behind my belief that the RZ platform was the best full out, all around system ever produced.

Ha!  I suppose not.  And I do like the method of shooting square with crop lines on the GG to compose for whatever I need.  However...

With the RZ:

* You can shoot square, 645 or 67 and (for the time being at least) instant. 

* You have tilt and shift availability (the Fuji is more sophisticated in this regard). 

* You have a very full compliment of spectacular lenses available to you, from fisheye to 500mm (and a teleconverter to go further if needed) including a zoom lens and a soft focus 180mm that can be very nice for portraits depending on which disc you use.  The lenses are different from those by Zeiss.  For portraits the can be seen as lacking a bit of character or being a bit too sharp, but that is really getting into "feel and vibe" territory. 

* You can use a WLF, a dumb prism finder or a very nice metered prism finder.  For both of the prism finders you can get a great magnifier for precision focusing. 

* You can use an autowinder. 

* You can use a dumb grip or an electronic grip.  And actually I have two, one standard electronic grip and one with an overhead bracket if I wanted to position an on camera flash atop it (while eliminating red eye). 

* If you need to shoot from a moving platform and prefer a two handle grip, you have the aerial grip. 

* While all the lenses take a collapsible rubber hood, you can also get the very nice compendium shade that also takes square 3x3 filters (and I've modified one to take 4x4 filters). 

* You have standard cable release, both mechanical as well as electronic, and you have a mirror lockup mechanical cable release (first it releases the mirror, then it fires the shutter). 

* If you need to fire the camera via wireless remote control, you can get an accessory that allows for that as well.

* Hell, if you shoot in very cold climates, you have an external battery compartment with extension cord that allows you to keep the battery inside your clothes at a regulated temp, while the camera shoots out in the cold... 

* And with the ProIID and the right adapter plate, you can seamlessly integrate a digital back into your workflow (I use a Leaf back).

That's a pretty versatile system.  The only system I know that rivals it is the Fuji, however, I give preference to the RZ platform as it can be used handheld with almost no problem.  For me, the Fuji is really a studio/tripod only camera.  Which is also fine for the way I shoot, but I settled on Mamiya long ago.

If you know of a more versatile, feature-rich system, I'm all ears.  But the Hassy is a very close second... 

I will say this, as far as a mechanical camera goes, the Hassy is the finest machine ever created (IMO).

I'll give you some of that, though...

I can hand-hold mine and not look like I'm wrestling with an early particle accelerator.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Title says it all.  Why is this? I mean really, with the technology they have available today why can't they make a complete and at least NEAR perfect camera?  This manufacturer does this right, but it's focus sucks, this ones ISO quality is great but it's JPEGS and focus suck. Almost every camera has one or some serious shortcomings.   Do they fear nobody would ever buy another new camera? It seems like it's getting to the point where IQ cannot or has not been improved drastically over the years, so better ISO, video features, gimmicks, FPS or smaller is what they sell now. But none of them get it all right. They should though. I've never used the high end $4000 plus camera so maybe those are perfect or close to it.  I'm thinking $2,000 price and under.

That's kinda like asking for the perfect standard screwdriver. No moving parts, much less technology. Sounds easy, but you still need a handful if you plan on working on different things.

Are you bothered because you want to buy the perfect camera, for under $2,000?

Can't fit every feature into everything. It's always going to lack something that somebody wants.

RennsportPhotography wrote:
Well how much are you willing to pay for a 75MP 20FPS camera with 100 frame buffer with dead on AF in continuous shooting?

$1,999.00,

..but I also want multiple storage options in maybe RAID5 configuration, clean ISO up to 1,000,000 (see things that aren't even there), predictive model tracking that knows which way the model will move, in body stabilization and shoots both film and digital.

Need my paypal?

JC Stuart Photo wrote:
"it's not the wand it's the magician."  this was a saying I recall from playing Lacrosse.... I think it applies to photography as well.

That's why they have Ollivanders Wand Shop.

And yes, I did have to look that up.

Revenge Photography wrote:
Why can't/don't they make the perfect camera?

They do... they are called Pentax :p

yes!

Jim McSmith wrote:
Sometimes it's style over function. Such as the new G1-X Mk2 which now goes to 24mm at the wide end but no longer has a built in optical viewfinder which makes the G1-X Mk1 more attractive to me considering it's now available for around £300. I would rather make do with the 28mm and have the optical viewfinder, no doubt somebody else would prefer the 24mm instead of the optical viewfinder but why not have both, well Canon wanted to make the body more compact.

I love my G1-X but I don't use the optical viewfinder.