Do We Really Only Need Three Cameras? (In Theory)

[lalan45]

I’ve been thinking about camera needs lately, and I feel like, at the most basic level, everything can be broken down into three main cameras.

First is the do-it-all, high-spec work camera. This is the one you use when clients ask for serious specs like 4K/120p or even 8K, or when you just want the best possible image quality. Cameras like the EOS R5 II, Nikon Z8, Sony a1, or Panasonic S1R II fit here. They’re expensive, but they can handle almost anything.

Second is what I’d call an “art camera.” This is for personal use, travel, street photography, and just having fun. Ergonomics, size, and character matter more here, but it still needs to shoot good 4K video and work well in low light. Think Fuji X-Pro3, X100 VI, Sigma fp or fp-L, or even the Sony RX1R if video isn’t important. These are the cameras you actually want to carry around.

Third is the high-end smartphone camera. Like it or not, this one is essential now and fills a lot of gaps.

Of course, three cameras don’t really cover everything for professional work, and budget changes things a lot. You can get very capable work cameras for well under $3k, like the Fuji X-H2S. And if I added a fourth “serious” category, it would be medium format, like the Fuji GFX line or Hasselblad.

But in reality… things get out of control fast. I somehow end up with way more “categories,” like high-spec all-rounders, art cameras, retro digicams, CCD cameras, Foveon cameras, IR-modded cameras, impulse buys, cameras I bought twice, cameras bought to flip, broken cameras I’m fixing, run-and-gun small sensor bodies, weird stuff like Mavicas with CD drives, and compact CCD cameras with flash for that Polaroid look.

I’m sure I’m forgetting a few. What camera “category” am I missing?