We’ve reviewed 28 full-frame digital cameras so far at Photography Life. Every one of them has gotten at least four stars. In the abstract, that sure seems like too much – but when I look at each camera again, I can’t help but think every single one deserves it.
This is how I see things:
- 1 Star: Unusable
- 2 Star: Bad
- 3 Star: Ok
- 4 Star: Good
- 5 Star: Excellent
Maybe you could argue with some of those categories, but it’s hardly the “4.9 stars is great, 4.5 stars sucks” scale the internet can be known for. Yet almost every modern camera is at least good, and most are closer to excellent.
Let’s take the Panasonic S1R as an example. It’s a mirrorless camera that I reviewed a couple years ago and gave 4.2 stars, which is one of our lowest scores for a full-frame camera. What does it do wrong? It’s heavy (about as heavy as a DSLR) and expensive when bought new ($3700, though these days it’s more like $1700 used). Other than that, it’s an amazing camera, with best-in-class image quality and loads of great features. Surely it at least qualifies as “good.”
That’s the low bar. Almost every other full-frame camera – at least those released after it – matches or beats the S1R overall or in terms of value.
If my argument isn’t clear, let’s consider a different camera instead. Nasim recently published a review of the Nikon Z6 II with basically the one criticism that it isn’t ideal for photographing fast action like birds in flight. And what were half the photos in the review? Birds in flight. Great photos like this:
Does that look like a camera that can’t photograph birds in flight? Well, compared to its rivals, it is a bit behind. The differences could matter if you’re a sports or wildlife photographer. But clearly, they’re not fatal.
If you’re willing to consider buying used or refurbished, today’s abundance of good cameras becomes even more obvious. When I was first starting photography, I paid about $1000 for the Nikon D5100. Today, $1000 on the used market can get you a Nikon D4 in good condition. (See my article on used cameras killing entry-level cameras.)
Part of what inspired me to write this article is a post I saw on Fstoppers a few weeks ago, which compared Fuji medium format against Pentax medium format. Somehow, I had completely forgotten about Pentax medium format! I looked up the Pentax 645D – a 40 megapixel, medium-format DSLR – on Fred Miranda and eBay to see the prices out of curiosity. Less than $2000! Last I knew, that camera cost as much as a car ($9400 when it was first released – more than $11,500 with inflation).
I guess it makes sense that such a heavy camera with “just” 40 megapixels would go down in price considering the competition. But… just take a moment to consider the competition. In about a decade, tons of ordinary cameras on the market got so good that they outpaced an $11,500 medium format DSLR.
I expect this sort of thing in the computer market. A decade-old computer might not be able to run modern software in the first place, and even if it can, it’ll be much slower than something new. But a decade-old camera doesn’t have those issues. It doesn’t get slower or buggier with new updates. If you could photograph a wedding with the Nikon D750 ten years ago, you can photograph a wedding with it today.
I find myself writing a lot of comparison articles like “Nikon D780 vs Nikon Z6 II” or “Nikon Z7 II vs Canon EOS R5” because, well, that’s what people are searching. And in all of those comparison articles, I always think to myself, both of these are incredible. There’s hardly anything you couldn’t photograph with either of them.
I could compare the Nikon D3500 and Nikon Z7 II and come away saying that you’ll be hard-pressed to notice image quality differences between them with good technique and print sizes under 16 x 24 inches. Heck, a few years ago, I took one of my favorite cityscape photos with the D3500, and try as I might, I can’t find any issues with its technical quality. It holds up in a wall-sized print, and I have no regrets about photographing it on the D3500 rather than some other camera.
Some of you are probably yelling at me right now that all of this is fine for amateurs and hobbyists, but professionals need better gear. Ok, that’s fair. How about the Canon 1DX II? (If you’ve forgotten the features, it shoots 20 megapixels, 16 FPS, and 4K video.) It’s selling for about $2200 used these days. The famous workhorse Nikon D4? As I said a moment ago, it routinely goes for less than $1000 used on Fred Miranda.
No matter what genre you shoot or what your budget is, there’s an abundance of good cameras.
That’s not to say there aren’t differences between the cameras. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be spending so much time reviewing gear. But wow, I’m starting to wonder if we’ll ever see a sub-4-star interchangeable lens camera again at Photography Life, unless we start deliberately deflating our ratings. The only differences now seem to be in what areas the camera is best specialized, not whether it’s good or bad in the first place.
All this is to say, go out and take photos! It’s great to see so many amazing cameras today, and there’s no excuse not to use them to their fullest.
Unless you basically win the lottery, good luck finding a d4 in good shape for 1000 bucks. I waited months on mine with almost 400k actuations and a bit of cosmetic wear and it started at 1200 bucks if i remember right
eBay always inflates prices. Just check FredMiranda or similar buy/sell sites with forum members. A D4 sold last week for $825, with 182,000 actuations. It included an RRS L-bracket and two 64 GB memory cards. D4 cameras under 20,000 actuations have sold for $1000.
Thanks Spencer. If ever there was a data point in favor of rigorous practice and perfection of technique, this is it. Having only just turned of the autofocus capabilities on my Nikons, Sonys, and Fujifilms to force myself to learn to use manual focus to get sharper shots of birds in trees, I’ve finally come to appreciate that the sharpness is there in all my cameras, but it has been my skill that has been lacking. Finally starting to get results I like by NOT letting the gear do all the work.
A year and a half ago I purchased a gripped Nikon D500 with 2000 actuations on the shutter in pretty much new condition. It came with the box and all the original items. I am a hobbyist that was using a Nikon D7000 however I wanted a camera with faster and better focusing and a faster frame rate for my style of photography. By selling my D7000 and still using my current lenses I did a very real upgrade at a modest price. Right now I just can’t see myself buying new mirrorless cameras of similar quality for the cash outlay the would be required. The D500 is an amazing camera that is so customizable. I don’t do prints larger the 10 X 12 often so the 21 Megapixels is adequate for my use. I am very content with an APSC sensor and the extra reach it allows. One feature on this DSLR that I love is the pretty much edge to edge focusing points in the viewfinder. I know this is common in mirrorless but less so in DSLR’s. From my viewpoint my present situation is much more than adequate.
You are right Spencer, nearly all modern cameras can produce good images. In the past a was a Nikon fan, esp. for landscape work, because I was sure that the image quality made it easier for me. But nowadays it depends more on ergonomic, lenses available than the camera (in terms of image quality a.s.o.) itself.
Thanks Klaus! I agree. Good lenses will never go out of style.
Lovely refreshing article and perspective. As someone who used to teach photography as well as work in photographic stores, I completely agree that unless you’re specialised in photography and take it very seriously or are relying on your camera for a source of income, most cameras are now very good. And despite their limitations so are many of the newer generations of phones and their smarter software.
Any modern interchangeable lens camera is capable of stunning photos in a variety of situations. Having the right lens is perhaps becoming more important than the camera itself, and if it suits you the time and skill to edit / process your images afterwards.
Having the right lens is still a big deal, I agree. I’m much more likely to need a particular lens and not worry about what camera it’s attached to, compared to the other way around.
If I may make a suggestion, perhaps an improved way to rate cameras would be to rate it among different types of photography. For example, give it a score for sports/wildlife, landscapes, street, studio, all-around, etc. That way readers can really compare scores specifically for how they intend to use the camera rather than just seeing one overall score that rates every camera “good”.
I like that suggestion, thanks, Ben!
Another option would be to regularly make like “Top 10” lists the various types of photography and keep them updated as new cameras come out. So like make an article that says here are the top 10 cameras for street photography. Here are the top 10 cameras for landscape photography, etc. Having those as references would be really handy for readers I think.
I actually did just see you do already have articles for top cameras for landscape and sports/wildlife, so you’re on top of that idea partially already.
Yes! We’re hoping to do more soon. And I’ve been trying to keep those updated as new cameras come out, but it may be time to take another pass through them.
Sorry, I don’t understand :(, where’s the list of rated cameras? :(
Here’s a list of all the cameras we’ve reviewed: photographylife.com/camera-reviews
Similar list for lenses: photographylife.com/lens-reviews
And for accessories: photographylife.com/other…ar-reviews
Hi Spencer, really thank you and sorry for having not seen them.
Kind Regards, Sebastiano
No worries! We’re going to put them in a more obvious place soon.
Perhaps the scale should be changed, making the center position the average of cameras available. Assuming a Gaussian distribution, you could have each whole number be a 1-sigma variation. As ever, though, quantifying these characteristics will be subject to subjective opinion and prejudice. And you’d get nerds like me wanting to see your distribution graphs.
You could also start rating cameras on several scales: BIF, landscape, portraits, low-light, astro, etc. “This camera is great for macro and portraits but for BIF and motorsports I have to say it’s really lame.”
All very good suggestions. If we reach the point where everything seems to be getting 5 stars, we’ll have to implement something like that.
I liked this article. I photograph the same landscape targets every 3 or 4 years and compare current results with cameras from the past. I can see differences with noise & grain with photos captured 10 or more years ago. Same with previous gen lenses vs current gen: I see improved sharpness & reduced CA in later model lenses. Yet, one of my favorite Grand Canyon photos is from 2006 captured with a mid-level Canon APS-C DSLR with a low budget Tokina lens. The photo is framed in a large print hanging in my house.
That’s awesome. Goes to show that the technical quality of the camera setup isn’t what makes a great photo, even though better gear is always nice.
I’m selling a Nikon D4s with only 743 shutter count for $2,300. I already have a buyer and I already turned down $2,200 twice. So although what I have is extremely rare, NO you can’t routinely find D4s bodies for less than $1,000! They are more like $1,700-$2,300. Now the D4 can be found for around a $1,000 but good low shutter count copies are about $1250. Outside of being a photojournalist I buy and sell used gear, I’ve been doing it for years. I wholeheartedly agree with this article and it’s a great article, but some cameras are holding their values quite well. In fact I bought a Nikon 500mm f/4E VR FL for $6,800 and it’s now worth $7,900-$8,300. The D850 for example had kept its value very well, and until recently it really kept its value. I got my D850 around November 2017 and sold it 6 months later and 22,000 shutter releases in for $3,300. I only paid $3,200 but I did include the $400 MB-D18 so basically I got to use a D850 for at least 6 months for basically nothing. At the time I sold it, the D850 was out of stock everywhere and I literally had twenty people call me asking for it before I could delete the ad, a day after already selling it. I could have probably started a biding war. Certainly there are exceptions like the 500PF, but overall we are living in the best of times. This article certainly is correct when it comes to that. A D810 or D4 for only $1,000! That’s amazing!
Lenses especially are still holding their value very well, or occasionally growing more expensive! As someone who tends to buy used in the first place, I’ve often sold lenses that I used for several years with less than a $100 loss. What a cheap rental.
In terms of the D4 versus D4s, I made sure to only refer to the D4 in this article and never the D4s for exactly the reasons you mention. The D4s is definitely selling for more than the D4 on the used market right now. Though the fact that either of them are so low is pretty amazing, especially for new photographers who are interested in wildlife. There was no such thing as an affordable wildlife camera when I was starting out, used or otherwise (at least not remotely at that level; maybe I could have gotten a D200 for about the same price). I’m sure there are some great new photographers out there taking advantage of these affordable prices.