Update: Camera and Lenses Recommendation for this Christmas

Apologies to my followers, I have been way too busy with the part of my life that pays the bills to post as much as I should have. I will start adding more and more content to the site, and probably revamp the format a little bit.

Until then, time to update the gear recommendation section (Christmas is coming)! Many of you told me that what they liked best about this blog is the fact that I filter out marketing junk to recommend the cameras they actually need, at the benefit of their wallet. I'll then make sure this post follows the same principle, that is to say pushing you towards the camera that is best for your need and budget, while explaining you why such and such characteristic is more or less useless for you.

First let's remind everyone of the following: image quality comes strictly from the sensor, the lens and you. Every choice of camera bellow, no matter what is your need, will be based on this. Therefor it is important that you read the following if you are not too savvy about cameras.

The sensor

The bigger the sensor, the better. Noise, blur, 3 dimensional rendering, crispness of the image. All of this improves when the sensor gets bigger. Sensors are never names after their size, that would be too easy for you to figure out stuff. They are called micro four third, APC, APS-C etc. No matter what your budget is, you should look for the comparably priced camera with the biggest sensor. That all. Here is a chart to show you what that means:

Credits to Paul Fox

The lens

The rules with lenses are about as simple as for sensors: the simpler the lens, the better. For example, a prime lens (no zoom), will always perform better (sharpness and low light) simply because it can be optimized for a single focal length. On the other hand, a huge zoom will be average at everything, because compromises needs being made. Concretely, you need to balance functionality with image quality. Keep in mind that a X40 zoom lens on a 300$ camera is very suspicious. It probably is very very crappy. I selected cameras that privilege a decent compromise, or mostly image quality.

You

Yes you ! You probably already have a decent camera, and you might be thinking that a better camera will allow you to take better pictures. You've never been so wrong, probably. Indeed, learn how to use your equipment before buying. Try manual settings, learn the basics, and you might realize it was right there all along.

For the casual shooter with a small / medium budget

Let's be honest, 90% of all cameras sold will be used very casually: big vacation coming up, baby on the way, or desire to make a fancy gift, compact cameras are often the kind of product you buy because you feel like getting a nice gadget, treat yourself with something to play with. Good news everyone: those are perfectly valid reasons to buy things ! Yet, it doesn't mean you should spend your money unwisely. 

If you belong to that category, the "I just want an easy to use camera that does a job" people, keep in mind that you are the main target for marketers trying to sell you bullshit features and fake innovations. On the lower end side of things, let's be honest, image quality is about the same. You should privilege good travel companions, preferably rugged, possibly water & shock proof. Avoid mega zooms, they are useless because you won't be stabilized or have a bright enough lens to shoot sharp most of the time.

• SH-25MR : because Olympus always made reliable cameras and good lenses over decades, because it is cheap, has image stabilization and because it's not pink. It has a touchscreen, a GPS and full HD recording. You can't possibly get more at this price. Many compacts over similar features, but for this christmas,  this one is also among the most recent ones.

Olympus SH 25MR

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5K : in case you party / travel hard. It will resist dives in ocean, swimming pools or beer. All compact waterproof cameras have the same size sensor and type of lens, and to be honest they are pretty close to one another. The overall package on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5K appears to be the best. 

Panasonic Lumix FT5

For the casual shooter with little a decent budget

You are still a vacation shooter, you just have a bit more money. Go for either one of the following pieces.

• Sony NEX-5 (or 3): it has an APS-C sensor (see chart above, second biggest after full frame), and quality interchangeable lenses. It to a large extent the same cameras as the NEX 7 which is a lot more expensive, due to marketers choice to segment the range. Also, as you learn and enjoy shooting, you'll be able to upgrade via new lenses, instead of changing it all.

Sony Nex 5

• Fujifilm X100S : if photography tickles your arty bone, and you want a camera that will allow you to explore photography as a proper hobby, I recommend models that offer manual controls, and with simpler, higher quality lenses. The most obvious product is the Fujifilm X100S , that is essentially an excellent sensor and an excellent prime lens, in a well built body. In other words, a good camera. It only suffers from a autofocus that could be a tad bit faster. Yet it, its quality easily overcome that little flaw. 

Fuji X100S

• Olympus OM-D : the limit of the Fujifilm X100S is the fix lens, 35mm only, which mean no zooming. A good alternative if the constraint of a fix lens is too much for you is still the Olympus OM-D , which a already recommended in the past. The sensor is a bit smaller but still of a decent size, and the camera body is weather sealed. With a vast array of interchangeable lenses, it makes it more versatile than the Fujifilm X100S . For the traveler, it might be an even better choice.

Olympus OM-D

For the advanced amateur who is willing to blow way too much money on cameras (you'll recognize yourself)

First of all, you need to bullshit your wife/husband on why you need a new camera. You are on your own, sorry. Once you've achieve getting away with it without too much blame, you might want to consider those babies:

• Nikon D610 or Nikon Df , they are essentially the same camera. The Nikon Df looks way cooler, and the smaller resolution (i.e bigger pixels) allows better low light performance, as well as easier to process files. It's also a bit lighter. If you don't print large, I'd go with the Nikon Df, but it's 95% the same camera. Although, at 1000$ more than the D610, it's a but a of a joke, you clearly pay for design and marketing, up to you if you can afford it. Why Nikon? It is superior to Canon on built quality, customer service, sensor, metering...well you get the picture. Of course, a talented photographer will always take better pictures with a Canon over a bad Nikon user, and to be honest, who can spot the difference on picture, knowing that lenses do most of the job. Yet, if you are a lab rat, Nikon wins. If you are just a customer who care about 2 important things (durability and customer support), Nikon wins. Last but not least, the basic high quality prime lenses at Nikon are fairly cheap: the 35mm F2 full frame is around 400$.

Nikon D600

Nikon Df

You should not get a D800. It is too big to carry around, files are enormous to process (you probably would need a new computer too), and unless you print A1 format, it is simply useless. 

Those who are scared of the Nikon D610 because of sensor issues, be reassured: the issue doesn't affect the D610, and if you were to get a cheaper D600, nikon replaces the entire defective part for free, even outside the warrantee. I had mine redone, they are really cool about it. Overall they offer the best customer service.

I thought for a second of recommending a Fuji system, such as the XPro1, but I decided not too for the following reasons:

• It isn't even smaller
• Zeiss lenses are brilliant, but so are Nikon premium lenses
• You pay the design and premium positioning

For the advanced amateur who wants to switch to {troll alert} real photography

You came to your senses: 98 megapixels, hybrid sensors with TRX 8000 technology and other geeky things don't make a good camera. Format does ! But what larger format camera to go for? What are you options:

• 645 film: greater portability, often with metering and auto focus, cheaper, 15 shots per roll of film
• 6x6 and 6x7 film : even greater images as the format grows in size, bulkier, often without metering. Avoid when traveling.
• Large format film : stunning images, huge, requires mastery of photography basics, exposure etc. 

I purposely don't mention here medium format digital cameras, for two reasons: 33x44mm is not medium format, and mostly, if you can afford one (roughly the price of a nice BMW 3 series) you can afford every camera mentioned in this post, so choice isn't really a problem for you.

645 film cameras
Go for a Pentax 645 or Contax 645. I like Mamiya too, but in that format, the other two are a tad better both in terms of lenses and built quality. There are many version, AF or no AF, compatible with digital backs etc. Get them used, but check the version, they are mostly called the same yet some can be a decade older.

6x6 or 6x7 cameras
Go for the Pentax 67 II if you do portraits. Go for the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 if you travel and do lanscape. I'd pick the Mamiya 6 for travel since it gives you a couple of extra frame per roll.

Large format cameras
I don't have for a habit to talk on this blog about thing I don't master properly. For good advice on picking a large format camera, I recommend you read this instead, or this.

For the pro

Come on, you're a pro, you should know what you need! Otherwise don't call yourself a pro, you're a phony :p

But you probably want a D800 and a Pentax 67II, just saying.

Antonina, at home.

Shot with a Mamiya 645 + 80mm f2.8 lens, provia 400 film for color, Tri X for B&W. Edited in element 6.

Natalija

Shot with a Mamiya 645 that is turning a little faulty (rrrr...), hence the weird color halos that are  NOT post processing. Luckily they look kinda cool. Film was Velvia 50 (the last shot), and Fuji Pro400h for the rest.

Lens was the 80mm F2.8

A lot more from a 35mm FE + acros then trix next week.

Thank you Natalija I had a great time :) First shot is one of my fav in a long time, told you I had it when I shot it !

The only real question you should ask yourself...

...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?

Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.

Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?

That is pretty clear to me:

• If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR. 
• If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.

Remember, a full frame SLR sensor is 36x24 mm, medium format film is used up to 60x90mm. When we know how crucial sensor / film size is, it makes you think twice about going 35mm. Also keep in mind photography was originally large format, and 35mm was only invented for portability. It's like CD and MP3, no one listens to CDs anymore, but quality remains on the CD side.

Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.

 Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.

Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.


What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !

Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.

On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:

• A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700 or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$. 
• Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
• Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.

On the right corner, weighting 3000$:

• Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
• 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
• A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700 does a great job for 550$.
• Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.

You can also read my more complete post on what you need to start shooting film.

So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.

An other joke by Pentax...

After launching an insulting 645D, Pentax keeps on launching misleading, fake premium products with the Pentax Q. Remember, I called the Pentax 67II my favorite camera of all time. I adore Pentax film cameras. The K-r is a very good entry level SLR, but their new digital line up...

Remember those essential things: in photography, the 2 things you must look for in a camera are:

1. how great the lenses are
2. how big the sensor / film format is. Great cameras are either full frame (36x24mm), medium format (60x70mm) or much bigger. It's like gravity. The bigger the better.

Now the 645D, I'll post about it someday later, was one hell of a disappointment. It costs about 10k, so you'd assume it'd be built for photographers who have a clue about, well...photography. But it seems like they made a 10K medium format (that is also a statement I wouldn't agree with) as if they were marketing a entry level compact for mass market: tons of rubbish feature, and the essential part of it, the sensor, is barely larger than a full frame 35mm camera !

Do you guys at Pentax really thing that the photographer who owns a Pentax 67II will get fooled by that? I mean seriously?

And now, the same stuff happening with the new born segment of "compacts-looking-like-vintage-cameras-to-make-you-feel-like-a-photo-journalist-from-the-60ies-that-cost-the-same-as-a-great-DSLR-but-if-you-truly-wanted-to-do-that-you'd-buy-and-nikon-FE-and-shoot-tri-X-film".

Fuji started it with the X100: Leica M looks, 1200$ price tag (more than the excellent Nikon D7000...), but at least Fuji did not screw up the essential: they put a great lens and a DX SLR size sensor. Many things are annoying on the Fuji, the AF and firmware mostly, but it remains a very good camera. Fuji too rules in the true camera world (690, 680III, brilliant gear), at least they try to remain consistent across the range.

And then Pentax decides to surf the wave, and launches the Pentax Q...similar vintage design, changeable lenses this time (makes people feel more "pro"), and...a midget CMOS sensor, the size of a nail ! What the hell? I am not even looking into anything else about that camera. What a joke. Pilling up a ton of marketing crap and useless features, and the one thing you can't screw up, they screw up big time. You simply can't call anything a camera if the sensor is less than 18x12mm, this is 6x4.5mm...is 

Pentax people, you might get a short term market share win out of this. But these are the days of internet, people talk, exchange, educate themselves and each other. On the longer run, they will realize they have been fooled. It's even dumb business wise.

If you're into that kind of camera, get a Fujifilm X100 .