[ffking]

It's an undeniable fact that there is no camera which does everything better than any other camera - and it's worth thinking about why.

Every answer that I can think of involves the fact that there are always competing priorities.

At the most extreme, a camera that contained all the best tech we can currently produce in s robust body would be prohibitively expensive and very heavy - both factors which stop it being perfect in many people's eyes, and would certainly ensure very low sales that would be highly unlikely to cover the R&D costs - very few people could afford it, and even fewer would need it, given that we tend to become more specialist as we become more expert, and the incremental quality increase would only be valued at the extremes. So it would be a prestige vanity project for anybody who produced it.

There are always trade-offs - all other things being equal, some of these are:

robustness vs weight

Mp vs frame rate and number of exposures to full buffer

features vs size

any electronic function vs battery life

battery size vs weight

everything vs price

I'm sure people can think of others - and I'm equally sure that the makers of cameras are aware of many, many more.

Not to mention the problems caused by patent law - I remember when Honeywell sued Nikon of AF, Nikon produced reams of paper work showing how they had developed the system themselves from first principles - to no avail.

So - there is no perfect camera - people complain about Pentax AF, Canon sensors, Sony ergonomics, Nikon users, etc etc etc.

When we complain about our brand - Pentax in most cases on these forums - it seems to me that there are several different reasons:


That we are tired of other brand users and reviewers beating us with the AF/video stick and we want to be part of a winning team

We want to be sure that Pentax has a future and our investment in glassware is safe

We can't afford to change systems

We like most things about Pentax and don't want to change brand but are frustrated by the weak points

We have unrealistic dreams of affordable perfection in which all of the above conflicts have been resolved.

We are trolls or malcontents or part of a whining team.

Or maybe others


In the end, as has been said so often by so many, everybody is different and there is no camera that would be perfect for everybody.

But then again, none of us is a perfect photographer, and we should just chose what helps us most.


I'd be grateful for any additions to the lists of design conflicts or reasons we complain.

---

Last edited by ffking; 11-05-2017 at 05:19 AM.

[mohb]

We have unrealistic dreams of affordable perfection in which all of the above conflicts have been resolved.

I don't worry about missing the 'shot of a lifetime' or have a desire to shoot black cats in coal mines or the myriad of other subjects that arouse the ire of some because 'Pentax don't have/aren't good enough..' If a camera produces decent images then, no matter how imperfect the process is, it's done its job.

[biz-engineer]

Good answer here:

You Tube

You Tube

[ffking]

I don't worry about missing the 'shot of a lifetime' or have a desire to shoot black cats in coal mines or the myriad of other subjects that that arouse the ire of some because 'Pentax don't have/aren't good enough..' If a camera produces decent images then no matter how imperfect the process is it's done its job.

Yup - the camera can make things easier, but actually having it do too much of our job for us takes a lot of the joy out of photography - for me, at least.

[E-man]

I completely agree with the Carl Taylor video. It's not so much about your gear as it is how you use it. I know that I'm not achieving the full potential that my cameras have to offer, not by a long shot. But I keep shooting, keep experimenting, and most importantly, keep learning as I keep shooting. And that means challenging myself to leave my comfort zone and try turning off the automated features I too complacently rely on so that I can take better control of the shot.

When I got back into photography a few years ago after leaving it alone for the better part of 20 years, one of the greatest challenges I faced was not figuring out how to use this newfangled digital gear with automated this and automated that, but learning again how to see through the viewfinder, how to compose the image in the frame and how to work with the light, be it ambient or artificial (for the record, I much prefer the former). Back in the days when I was working as a newspaper photographer and shooting up gobs of film each week, I was seeing the world as though through the viewfinder, even when I didn't have a camera in my hands. It became instinctual. I'm not back to where I was, not by a long shot, but that part of my brain has been reawakened and is re-learning, much like one has to re-learn very basic things like walking and feeding one's self after suffering a stroke.

[photoptimist]

It's also worth noting that even for a single photographer there may be no perfect camera. For street and travel photography, they may want an unobtrusive compact body with compact lenses. For outdoor/landscape, they may want a robust, weather-sealed, large-sensor camera. For BIF and macro, they may want a smaller sensor body for the reach. For astro, they may want a camera with a huge battery that lasts all night.

Moreover, the "perfect" layout of controls might be different for studio, wedding, sports, astro, etc. And the more features that get added to the camera to make it perfect for everything, the more complex the camera becomes making it imperfect.

[jlstrawman]

IMHO, if people would spend more time learning how to properly set up and use whatever camera they have, they probably
would be surprised at the quality of the resulting pictures

[ffking]

Moreover, the "perfect" layout of controls might be different for studio, wedding, sports, astro, etc. And the more features that get added to the camera to make it perfect for everything, the more complex the camera becomes making it imperfect.

yeah - that's the point I'm after really - why are people always criticising cameras for their shortcomings when all cameras have them and perfection is relative to individual needs.

[Alex645]

In the photo classes that I teach, I've found that for DSLRs, there is a pattern for who thinks Canon, Nikon, or Pentax is the best for them. The students (and their parents) with the Canons (about 70%) generally are the most conservative and are easily influenced by media, marketing, sales people, and go with the crowd. The rebels or more questioning students (and parents) (about 25%) are in the minority and will select the more risky Nikon. The most independent thinkers (5%) who either want to be totally different OR doesn't care about brand name and looks at features, go out of their way to find and buy Pentax.

To most students, the perfect camera is the flagship. To most parents, the perfect camera is the cheapest (and easiest for them to use).

With film, there is much more diversity between (in order of popularity) Nikon, Canon, Pentax (Promaster/Vivitar), Minolta, Olympus, etc.

For me, the perfect camera was always based on what camera supported the best lens or lenses that I could afford and had the durability/build quality to last several generations of cameras.

[GlennG]

Good answer here:

Good and eye-catching video. Thanks for sharing.

I'd be grateful for any additions to the lists of design conflicts or reasons we complain.

I've thought before that there are three parameters that gear-buying balances: cost, IQ, and convenience. These have overlap, of course. Separate from photography in particular, I find there is a particular joy in using tools that are better than they have to be, whether that is a car to drive, stove to cook on, or hand tools to make something. I suspect that some of (a lot of?) the photography gear purchasing is related to just having some really nicely crafted gear to use, regardless of make or model.

[ffking]

Good answer here

not 100% what I was trying to get at but an enjoyable enough rant

[bm75]

We all know that the perfect camera doesn't exist...Let's try to change this assumption.....Let's say that the perfect camera exists and it's the camera that we'll have in our hands when our training and experience will meet a perfect time and a right subject. No matter what brand because in that perfect moment we'll make the picture; if not the foult will be ours.
I think that for many people whining is just a state of mind. For others whining is not an option. The more we whine, the minus we go out to make pictures. For me photography is strictly related to my life experiences and to my personal training to be a better person with the most respect for other people and this world. The perfect camera is the camera I take with me hoping that I will be able to capture the beauty of the people and the nature as those will pass my way. Every modern camera just exceedes my technique so it's perfect for my purposes.

[Lord Lucan]

I watched the YouTube rant and I'm not entirely convinced by his points. He uses the analogy of a a professional photographer with a Canon 5D MkIII as being equivalent to a professional chef having four ovens and six hobs . Er ... no. The chef with four ovens is equivalent to a photographer with four cameras - say a 5x5 monorail, a medium format, and two FF DSLR bodies. No doubt our friend Karl Taylor does have something like that. I found his "excuses" - sorry, "reasons" - for having expensive kit himself were a bit sketchy; "efficiency" he said, but he did not explain why he used a 5D rather than a less expensive Canon (or Pentax). No doubt he had reasons, but did not really offer them. And you cannot do good cooking with a rubbishy oven.

They say a bad workman blames his tools. A good workman does not, but that is because a good workman makes sure he has good tools, so he cannot blame them. But that does not mean you should buy the most expensive tools possible, because there are sellers and advertising people out there who's marketing model is to over-price their wares because they know that a proportion of buyers will assume that if something costs five times as much must be five times as good. Certain other camera brands come to my mind there. Judgement and knowledge are needed.

My policy is to buy good kit and make it last. I have been using a K10D for the last 11 years; I have just got a K-1 which will last for another 11 at least.

[bm75]

My policy is to buy good kit and make it last

+1. Unfortunately being able to fully recognize our needs and equipment requirements is something linked to our consciousness as professionals, if we are, or as skilled hobbyists. Some times as hobbyists we don't have the sense of what is worth and we choose the wrong equipment. So than we whine...

[Alex645]

No doubt he had reasons, but did not really offer them.

I am no longer a pro, and you're right, his 4 ovens analogy didn't make sense. But the main reasons why a pro may need that level vs. a non-pro include:

a) Weather-sealing. As a pro, I'd have to be out in horrible weather from 12-18 hours a day. Yes, I prefer weather sealing even as a non-pro, but as a pro, my livelihood depending on getting the shots without a camera locking up or condensation in the lens.

b) Shutter actuation life expectancy. Back in the film day as a pro, I'd work for agencies that would not accept me not turning in less than 10 rolls of 36-exposure film each day, regardless if there was 360 good shots to take or not. Today, if you shot 'only' 360 digital shots, the client or agency would think you were negligent. Most pros (depending on the subject) can easily shoot 1000 shots per day. So on an entry level camera rated for 100,000 shots, a pro could kill the shutter in 6 months. It's not only a hassle to have a camera go down at work, it's a hassle for tax planning, replacing the down camera, etc.

With entry level cameras, rated at 100,000 shutter life expectancy, you will typically see them fail at less than 100,000. With pro cameras rated at 400,000, you will typically see them exceed that count before failure.

c) Not just FPS, but the buffer for longer continuous bursts. Of course we'd all like to shoot wildlife or sports with longer bursts before the frames per second slows down, but if I'm competing for sales, I'm more likely to succeed and this affects your income.

d) Number, availability, and types of accessories to buy or rent. Also Canon and Nikon pros will get loaners from Canon and Nikon, with the expectation it's compatible with a pro-level camera.

e) This seems totally cosmetic, but there is a perception that a pro must shoot with pro level gear. This expectation comes from models, agents, clients, etc, that are delusioned that because they've always seen a Canon 5D Mark IV or Nikon D5, that you can't possibly be serious showing up with a Pentax K-1 or a 645Z instead of a Hasselblad. When I was a film pro, I struggled with this attitude with my pro-level Minoltas that when they were stolen, I threw in the towel and replaced it with all Nikon gear. The Nikon didn't make me a better photographer, but in everyone's eyes it did. If anyone bothered to compare my Minolta images vs. my Nikon images, they would have seen little or no difference.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but a better comparison would have been a chef outfitting the kitchen with a consumer grade oven you'd find at Sears or Home Depot vs. a pro grade oven intended to be used 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, that if it fails or breaks, shuts down the restaurant affecting many people, not just one family.