In this forum I have been noticing a lot of "what's the best camera" queries. These seem to sprout up every day or so.

Generally speaking, there is no such thing. Without even getting into specific models, different kinds of cameras are better for different types of photography. When picking a type of camera first you need to think about what you will be shooting. A landscape photographer and a street photographer, for instance, will likely be using entirely different equipment. That is why there are those two sticky posts at the top of the forum wherein all those nosey questions are asked about what kind of photography you will be doing.

SLRs are good for all-around-general photography. That is to say that while they CAN do most kinds of photography, there are some of those kinds that they do rather poorly and others that they are very good at. Rangefinders are better for other kinds of photography and can outperform an SLR by a quantum leap at those. The same can be said of TLRs, view cameras, and even the much-disparaged point-and-shoot camera.

I have been collecting cameras for years now and at present have over 80 of them. I have (or have had) one or more of each of the types mentioned in this journal entry. I have had occasion to use all of them and some of them are definitely better than others AT SPECIFIC TASKS. However, NONE of them are good at all types of photography.

In general, 35mm SLRs (single lens reflex cameras) are good for nature photography, action photography, for any situation where you need to shoot quickly, they generally have more of a lens selection, and they are great for macro photography. They are not very good for architectural photography, they are only fair at landscapes, and there are better choices when shooting people. Most of them are very difficult to focus accurately when doing night photography. Below a certain light threshold, autofocus won't work.

SLRs fall into two categories: manual and automatic. In general, manual cameras are more precise and give the user far more artistic control of his images (also, the batteries last longer). Autoexposure is good under certain conditions, but not under others. It is controlled by your camera's meter, and those don't always work well. While in numerous tests even the best autofocus systems were not found to be particularly accurate (and they are easily confused), when you are shooting rapidly moving objects, or if you are trying to shoot 8 frames per second, autofocus is almost a necessity.

Again speaking in general, 35mm rangefinders are better choices for posed studio photos and people photography. They are quieter (and thus less obtrusive) and they are easy to focus in low light, making them ideal for night photography. focusing with them is deadly accurate with lenses that are 135mm or less in focal length. They work better than SLRs with wide angle and normal lenses, but not as well with telephoto lenses over 135mm. Some other cons are that few of them have through the lens metering (there are exceptions to this-- a few of the newer top end professional models) and only a handful of them have interchangeable lens capability. They do not work for macro photography because, while there are auxiliary lenses available for a few models, these don't usually work very well. There is a myth that the main reason they don't work as well for macro photography is because of parallax error. While this was a problem in early rangefinders, nearly all models made after 1970 have built in parallax compensation.

Point and shoot cameras have their place too. They are good for vacation photos, travel photography, backpacking, and any time when you don't want to deal with a lot of gear. They are also unobtrusive and are good for candid photos. The cons mainly involve loss of artistic control and the way autofocus and autoexposure can get confused in many situations.

Now speaking of point and shoot cameras, there is a fairly recent introduction to the world of photography called the APS camera. These are 24mm instead of 35mm and pretty much everyone these days who sells them is discontinuing them like they did the disc cameras. It was an interesting idea, with shutter speed, aperture and such recorded for each shot and exposure correction being automatic during processing for each frame, but these seem to be going the way of the dodo bird. Some APS cameras were SLRs instead of point and shoot, but the smaller film size pretty much ensured that the photos would be grainer and generally of lower quality than you can get with a properly set up 35mm. I don’t believe anyone ever did produce a really good professional quality APS film.

In medium format, you have the TLRs (twin lens reflex cameras), SLRs, toy cameras and rangefinders. There are also a lot of old folding cameras out there. The big advantage of medium format is that the larger negative gives you a much sharper image, particularly in enlargements, and grain is reduced substantially. When comparing the SLRs and rangefinders, you have pretty much the same pros and cons that you will find in their 35mm counterparts.

However, although medium format cameras all use 620, 120 or 220 films (all of which are the same 6 centimer wide film -- just the spool or backing paper is different), there are a number of different negative frame sizes (called formats, and measured in centimeters) that you can choose from. There is the 6x4.5, the 6x6, the 6x7 and the 6x9 (there used to be a 6x12 panoramic camera too, but I don’t think it is being made anymore). The larger frames give you sharper photos, but you get fewer photos per roll.

With a few of the SLRs you also have the option of changing backs. This means you can shoot Polaroid film, switch from color film to B&W in mid-roll, or switch from film to digital at any time. They are very versatile cameras.

In medium format, that leaves the TLRs, toys and the old folding cameras to discuss.

All TLRs are 6x6 cm square medium format (there are two exceptions to this rule - a Yashica TLR that will convert to use 35mm film and a few older models that use 127 film that is not generally available except by special order). TLRs will give you very sharp images, but bear in mind that if you want to make prints in standard sizes you are going to have to either crop them or only use part of the paper (nearly all papers, negative holders and easels come in rectangular formats). They are very good for studio and landscape photography but they are very slow in use and are thus poorly suited for shooting objects in motion. A problem that beginners have a hard time dealing with is that they have waist level viewfinders that display the image upside down and backward. This can make tracking a moving object very confusing (an object moving right to left in the viewfinder is really moving left to right). Also, there is only one model of TLR with interchangeable lenses, there is no parallax compensation, and this rules out telephoto and macro photography.

There are also several makes of toy cameras in medium format that have developed a cult following. These are generally very low quality cameras with plastic lenses and light leaks and some people appreciate the element of chance that they introduce into their photography. Some of the more popular types of toy camera are the Holga, the LOMO or Lubitel, and the Diana and the numerous clones it has spawned.

There are exceptions, but the old folding cameras are not usually very good regarding focusing. This is because most have really tiny prism or mirror viewfinders with no focusing aids. There is nothing to tell you if the camera is in focus or not. All the viewfinder does is tell you where the camera is pointed and aid in framing. Focusing a folding camera usually involves making a guess at the range and using depth of field to compensate for error. This is called zone focusing. It works well at f/8 and smaller apertures, but with larger apertures, unless you plan to use a tape measure, when accurate focusing is critical, they are poor choices. The exceptions are those cameras with rangefinders. With folding cameras these rangefinders are not usually coupled to the lens and they are slow to shoot, since you have to transfer the data from the rangefinder to the lens manually. While this won't be a problem if you are shooting portraits, you may find yourself in difficulty if you are trying to photograph a motocross race.

Large format view cameras are the ultimate in image sharpness and lack of perspective distortion. They are GREAT at landscapes, architecture, statuary and anything else that is big and doesn't move much. The large film size also makes them good for posed studio portraits when you want hyper-sharp photos with lots of detail. However, they are big, cumbersome, clumsy beasts, most can't be used without a tripod, and they require a lot more training to use. They have additional controls (rise, fall, swing, tilt and shift) which are not found on other types of cameras. By adjusting the tilt and shift, for example, you can eliminate the exaggerated perspective that you often get with other cameras. This is what makes them ideal for architectural photos. Some of the 4x5s have the option of using accessory medium format rollfilm backs. With the exception of those capable of using the aforementioned rollfilm backs, large format cameras use film that comes in sheets instead of rolls, and they have to be manually reloaded after every shot. If you want to make life-sized enlargements that will allow you to see the hairs in Cindy Crawford's mole, with no visible grain, or if you are shooting photos of a cathedral, this is what you should get.

Large format cameras generally fall into two main types: Monorail and field cameras. A monorail camera is a bit more cumbersome and it's lens board slides along a tubular rail for focusing. These are more suitable for studio work (Cindy Crawford's mole). Monorails are really too bulky for fieldwork. The field cameras fold up in a fashion somewhat similar to the old medium format folding cameras and the lens board slides along a sort of dual track for focusing. These are more suitable for fieldwork, as the name implies. Focusing is done by looking at a dim upside down and reversed image on a sheet of ground glass, which can make focusing somewhat tricky except in bright light (photographers who use view cameras often use a magnifying glass or a loupe and cover the ground glass and their heads with a dark cloth).

Now for the biggest waste of time ever: the Nikon vs. Canon debate. It's the lenses, people, not the cameras. Both Nikon and Canon make good cameras. So do Pentax, Minolta, and several other companies. The differences between the top grades of Nikon and Canon lenses are so marginal that they can't be seen without a jeweler’s loupe or in extreme enlargements that are beyond the acceptable limits of 35mm. Both are consumer level cameras. If you are that critical, get a Zeiss, a Voigtlander or a Leica; otherwise, you'll never notice the difference. That said, if you are getting an older used camera then Nikon might get the edge simply because they didn't change their lens mounting system for a very long time and there are more lenses available that will fit.

Finally let's discuss another waste of time: the digital vs. film debate. These are entirely different tools and they are designed for different tasks. As much as some people would like to believe it (and in spite of the advertising hype), they are not interchangeable.

Digital photography is a great tool for photojournalism, where it has almost entirely supplanted film photography. If you are going to show your photos on a video monitor, it can't be beat. If your photo is going to be transmitted electronically, this is what you want. In amateur art shows, where enlargements usually only average 11x14, it might or might not work well for you, depending on the camera.

On the other hand, if you are shooting competitively, for pro-level art exhibits, where enlargements can run to 5 feet by 7 feet, a digital camera is not going to be your best choice. If you do a lot of night photography, you are going to be limited as to how long an exposure you can make. After a length of time, which can be as short as ten seconds in some of the low end cameras, the sensors will overheat and start to generate "noise" (the digital equivalent of dirt on a film negative). Taking successive photos, as some people do, and putting them together in Photoshop to get the equivalent of a longer exposure, won’t work if anything is moving. In star trails, for instance, you will see dim spots that represent the time between exposures. Generally speaking, digital cameras appeal more to commercial photographers and film cameras appeal more to fine art photographers.

And that just about covers it. There are a few other types of cameras (pinhole cameras, box cameras, Polaroid cameras and etcetera), but these are the main types used for professional and amateur photography.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.