The Best Camera is NOT the One You Have With You

Someone is wrong on the Internet.

Everyone says it over and over: "The best camera is the one you have with you." Not necessarily, and heavy sigh.

What they mean is, any old camera is better than none.

Maybe so. But I can think of many occasions when the camera I had with me was not the best camera.

It started back in the days of film. I'm weird, and in a minority (turns out), and not typical these days, but I actually honestly prefer B&W to color (even though I shoot in color now). Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything. When I do a Google image search or a Flickr equipment search and get a screen full of image thumbnails, my eye lasers in on the few B&W pictures sprinkled here and there. I used to be a custom B&W printer, working for galleries, pro photographers, museums, et cetera. I have highly evolved (can't say "developed"!) opinions about tone and how B&W pictures should look. Tone moves me; colors don't, as much. Can't say why, that's just the way it is with me. When I shot film, I shot B&W. More than that, I conceived of B&W as my "real" work—how I wanted my pictures to be. And in those days, of course, if you only had one camera body, you couldn't shoot B&W and color at the same time.

So all I had to do to have the wrong camera with me was to put a roll of color film in it.

I hated having the camera "all clogged up" with a roll of color. On those occasions, of course, I couldn't help still seeing in B&W. My eyes would sort the world into the sort of pictures I could take, visualizing the field of view of the lens, translating color reality into the tones of B&W, even before I took the picture. I would occasionally look helplessly at beautiful color scenes and think, nope. Not a picture there. Not for me and my Plus-X or Tri-X, anyway. I often couldn't wait to get past that color roll and get proper film back in the camera again. My camera bags would typically be littered with rolls of color film with the leader sticking out, marked "11 exp" or "15 exp" or some such, meaning I had managed to take 11 or 15 color pictures before giving in and going back to black and white.

I've also had the wrong camera with me many times when I was testing gear. I hated photographing with cameras when the results looked substandard to me, or just discordant to the rest of my work, because what if I happened across a scene that I really wanted to take with my real camera? If I was futzing around with a Disc or 110 camera, or a toy camera, or some sort of oddball lens, or a Canon Xapshot (a very early still video camera), I could have a camera with me and still miss the shot. How many times have you seen an image you really wanted but weren't able to get what you wanted because you didn't have the right camera with you? This is a modernist idea, that the results should be true to the means used to create them. (Andy Grundberg has a nice explanation of that aspect of modernism somewhere, but I can't remember where.)

On a page of thumbnails, my eye tends to find the B&W
first, regardless of the subject

This has gotten better, I think, in the post-modernist era of digital imaging. The look of final results are not nearly so dependent on the qualities and properties of the equipment and materials. You can cheat in various ways to make the results look the way you want them to regardless of what camera you used.

Still, if you are sensitive to the "look" that your preferred equipment gives you, it's very possible to get caught out and about with the wrong dang camera, wishing you had the right one instead. I took this shot on my iPhone, but the technical quality is marginal and I really wish I had taken it with my Fuji.

This isn't a snobby thing, either, necessarily. If you're doing a project with a Holga lens on your Nikon and you're out photographing with nothing but a ratty Nikkor 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 ED, and you see something that would have been perfect for your Holga project but the Holga lens is sitting at home on the shelf, then you've got the wrong lens on the camera and the camera you have with you is not the best camera. Even if it's the same camera as the best camera!

Maybe the expression should be, "The best camera is the one you have with you—as long as you have the right camera with you."

The Internet should stop repeating the first clause of that sentence, before the dash, as if it's a truism. Ain't. Not for everyone, or at all times.

Right is right and not right is wrong. Even if it's all you've got with you.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Art in LA: "Yes!"

Not THAT Ross Cameron: "Couldn't agree more. And I suspect you are in excellent company with your sentiments. I read somewhere—maybe an old photo.net forum—that the 'best camera' quote originated with Sir Ansel. The posters' point was in the same vein as yours—this quote has been misinterpreted, and the original was along the lines of 'the best camera is the one you have with you, so make sure it's the right camera.' Obviously I can't vouch for this, and a quick Google failed to validate whether I'm propagating more garbage or not."

Mike replies: I agree that "always have the right camera with you" might be better advice.

John Krumm: "That expression definitely falls into the 'seems like a truism, but isn't' category. But it kind of fits into what I would call the tradition of optimistic, individualistic American marketing, where slogans like 'Just Do It' are born. It’s also not a statement of truth, so much as an example of Colbert’s genius concept, 'Truthiness.'"

toto: "The best camera is the one you cannot afford."

Jim Bullard: "'Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything.' I like that line. B&W cuts to the essence of a subject in the same way that drawing does with painting. When I first started shooting digital I was often disappointed with the results and recently I have reimagined some of those images in B&W. Now they work. before they were either flat or 'pretty'" but lacking in emotional impact. I find I often prefer the drawings done preparation for paintings over the painting itself. That initial study in B&W gets to the heart of the subject. The rest is just details, often distracting details."

David Littlejohn: "Re 'it's very possible to get caught out and about with the wrong dang camera, wishing you had the right one instead': I agree. I really would like a pocketable, short zoom camera to carry around with me everywhere. I've tried a few. They're great for social occasions and other documentation. But then a 'real' photo appears, you capture it, and you're disappointed when you get home."

Mike replies: It's happened to me too many times to count. You'd think I'd learn.

Rodney Yardley: "If you are like me (which is probably where this misguided quote came from to begin with), the best camera is most assuredly the one you left at home."

marcin wuu: "It was Chase Jarvis I think, the fella who came up with 'the best camera is the one you have with you.' I don't buy it either, by the way. Even though I think Chase Jarvis is a great guy and a very proficient photographer."

Mike replies: The saying predates the book, although cdembrey says Chase did originate the saying way back in the days of usenet newsgroups. Can I give him credit for it without disagreeing with him? :-)

Actually, I would argue that Chase's book (he wrote a book called The Best Camera Is The One That's With You: iPhone Photography by Chase Jarvis, part of Scott Kelby's Voices That Matter series, for those who aren't aware of it) was one of the best applications of the phrase, because you do always have your phone with you (well, I don't, but most people do) and he was advocating making a conscious commitment to creative work with the smartphone, which is fine. It's never a bad thing to have the right camera with you, including when it's your phone.

cdembrey: "Here you go."

Mike replies: So Batman reads TOP! Tell him I liked him better than Superman when I was eight.

Comments

[Paul De Zan]

After sunset, if the camera you have with you is a smartphone, it's almost certainly worse than nothing. So far.

[John Camp]

You said,

"Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything."

So what? You're not interested in pictures that work hard?

[Wolfgang Lonien]

Black & white, and 6x6. Nothing beats the look when 80mm is your "normal" lens.

[andreas]

I never took that quote to mean "any camera is better than nothing." I always took it to mean that whichever camera had the right combination of size/performance/enjoyment/etc. that made it the most likely to be the one with you was the best one.

[Richard Man]

I am learning to like and use colors, but B&W is definitely my love.

I don't photograph too much "random stuff" anymore, so the iPhone 7+ is pretty ideal that it is available and good enough for random stuff.

[Andrew]

How about "The best camera you have with you is the best camera you have with you"?

[Frank]

I like printed, on paper, from a darkroom (not in books) b&w photography. Printed b&w photos in photobooks give up a large portion of their tonality. You will be amazed how little variety in tonality can be achieved in screen.
I don't like to look at b&w images on a computer screen. That is a huge difference from looking at color images. A computer screen is build for color.
Also I cannot print b&w photos on my Epson, the images have always a color cast. So I gave up on b&w, too difficult. I could buy special grey inks, but then I have to maintain 2 printers ....

[Speed]

If you own only one camera can it ever be the wrong one? It's nice to have choices.

[Arg]

Does the fact that you know what they mean, mean that they wrote well enough? ;)

[JK]

Something about these facile truisms must appeal to a lot of photo hobbyists. Maybe because they suggest some ultimate wisdom, with no further thought necessary?

The one that never failed to annoy me was "There's no substitute for square inches." True on the most basic and trivial level, beyond which it begs all kinds of questions about the real nature of "image quality".

[Robert Newcomb]

Bravo on both counts !!!

[Benjamin Marks]

Man, do I agree with everything in Mike's post. Just to make things interesting though, I'd put a slightly different spin on it. You hear this phrase used often in the telescope world. But what it means there is: "the scope you actually use is the 'best' to have." This means, in that context, that if you purchase a Leica-like Questar telescope, but are afraid to take it into the field because of its price, that its "best-ness" is called into question.

Or "Ben's corollary" -- the best camera is the one you actually use.

[Steve Biro]

I like the image of Butters beneath the window that you took with your iPhone. I even like the grain/noise. Have you tried coverting it to black & white? I realize you wish you had taken the shot wih your Fuji but you should give it a try.

[Rob de Loe]

That truism only makes sense if making any photograph at that moment matters more than making an excellent photograph.

Unless I forgot it, I always have my phone with me, but these days it's never the right camera. I just can't be bothered anymore to make images that I wouldn't want to print.

This isn't just a phone thing. I used to always have a Ricoh GR on me "just in case". It was an excellent little camera, but it too was rarely the right camera for me, so I sold it.

[Vince]

What they mean is a camera that isn't with you is irrelevant, and wishing for it is like wishing for champagne to come out of the water faucet; you can wait for it to happen and die of thirst, or you can drink what's available.

[Hans Muus]

This is to Frank: assuming you print with at least an Epson R2400, it is possible to print without any colour cast at all. Printing from Lightroom (but this must be easy in PS as well), instead of choosing a specific profile, choose 'Managed by Printer', and a 100% Epson menu pops up that completely bypasses LR. Take it from there, inform yourself on the Internet if necessary, or by reading (Martin Evening is a good author here). Additional advantage: almost no colour pigments are used, and an image that consists of almost only carbon never eve fades).

[Rob de Loe]

People sometimes ask my why I only shoot for black and white. I find it really difficult to explain. I say all the usual things (simplicity, stripping things down to their elements, tone, etc.) But they always sound forced. I like colour for movies and TV shows, but photographs that matter to me are almost always black and white. The rare exceptions are colour photographs that echo black and white because their palettes are simple.

An overwhelming preference for black and white versus colour seems to be something that is almost hard-wired in some people. Jay Maisel, in his terrific book Light, Gesture, and Color, explains that he tried black and white but didn't like it at all! I wonder if this is something we could detect on an MRI scan of the brain...

[Dave Riedel]

The chances you will capture a great image while walking around with whatever camera and lens you have are remote at best. Really great photos are usually planned in advance. You've scouted the location for the subject, best shooting angle, time of day, distance to subject, etc. etc, and as a result of that planning, you selected the best camera and lens for that situation.

[Michael Perini]

Of course, you are correct, because NO Camera, is the best camera for every scene you encounter.
"The Best Camera......" is also a way of saying always carry a camera, which, if photography is important to you, is very good advice.

But Who among us doesn't have a bunch of smartphone or pocket camera photos that they sorely wish were taken with a different, 'better' camera.
So yes, that leads to 'Always carry the Right camera' (one where the results satisfy you)
My practice during the film days was to always carry a camera with Tri-X in it (either a Leica M3/ 50 or a Nikon F/35mm. If I was going to shoot color, I put the color in the Nikon.
Now, most digital cameras of 1" sensor and larger are flexible and quite good, so we really don't have a lot of reasons to complain.
Having said that, personally I most often carry a FF camera, because its results satisfy me most.
Does it feel heavy sometimes? Increasingly so. But I look at it as paying it forward--doing the work to be ready---- but also it strips me of excuses---I can't complain "I had the wrong camera"

[JohnMFlores]

1. The best camera is the rumored one.
2. Do you set your EVFs to B&W?
3. On that page of thumbmails, my eye went immediately to New Camera News!

[Herman Krieger]

Mike, like you I started off printing black and white photos. I still prefer B&W, but now with a
medium format roll film camera, that allows decent quality scanned negatives. When I need prints for an exhibition, I go to Costco.

[Mark Jennings]

Ansel was an artist, but he was also a pro. And you might say that his approach to photography more often than not was purposeful. So if he knew that he was headed to a particular spot in the Sierras, for example, probably he knew roughly what he'd be after there and would equip accordingly. After a while you know yourself, know the places you go, know why they appeal to you and know what you need to get at that.

As for the random and unexpected miracles that happen along the way and that will never, ever happen again and for which you are completely unprepared: that's life. You can't do everything, and besides a little narrowness helps progress by preparing you for the greater number of miracles you see that you can work with.

Probably most of us usually do have the best camera along. Consciously or unconsciously, possibly we tend to carry what over time has given us the best returns in our accustomed personal niches, which after all, are unlikely to be without pattern or habit.

[Bill Poole]

Yes! It's much easier to make a "beautiful" image in black and white. The world is overfull of simply "pretty"color photos.

[Daniel]

How many cameras can you carry or take with you?

[Patrick J Dodds]

Happened to me yesterday. Kew Gardens, powerful clouds, early evening sun breaking through low on the horizon, scullers in silhouette and... meh. I blame the camera.

[Manuel]

Having always found the 'best camera is the one with you' cliché particularly irritating, and having often wished I could sever its author's head with a blunt, rusty axe, I can't agree with you more. It's OK for people to shoot whatever they want, taking as many photos as they will, but ultimately one wonders what they're for. The other day I took my 5 year-old niece to a park; aware I had my smartphone with me - a rarity on weekends -, she asked me to take some pictures. I took several of them. When I came home, she looked at the pictures for 15 seconds and said, with her precocious sentence construction, 'I don't want to see any more photos.' How many keepers I got? Zero. Maybe the ratio of keepers would have been higher if I had a real camera with me, but ultimately that would be pointless: I find no use in making pictures of trivial events. Snaps will do. At least for 15 seconds.
However, the true pearl of wisdom in this entry is, "Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything." Yes they do. I'll go farther and say I find it more difficult - or at least more challenging - to shoot colour. Black and white and colour are like two different languages. The aesthetics are not interchangeable, and I have to be extra careful in order for the photographs not to get too much lifelike when I shoot colour, otherwise they will be just too textual for my likings. I look at pictures by Harry Gruyaert, Fred Herzog, Saul Leiter, and William Albert Allard, with envy and despair: they surely can do colour. I can't.

[Jonathan]

"The Internet should stop repeating..."

This statement is true and applies to a lot of things.

[psu]

"After sunset, if the camera you have with you is a smartphone, it's almost certainly worse than nothing. So far."

Not really true at all.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/15122336129/in/album-72157648787417202/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/32724238716/in/album-72157648787417202/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/8247307582/in/album-72157632073948865/

I have always interpreted the original statement to mean "The world often presents you with something that you'd like to take a picture of, but for whatever reason you were too tired or lazy to bring all of your best equipment with you. In these times, having a backup device around is better than nothing. In particular carrying a smaller camera that you know you will bring with you and you also know that you can use to cover many common subjects is a nice fallback."

But that's a lot to say all the time, so the shorter sentence is a nice summary, if you interpret it correctly.

It also seems to be that writing off a whole range of photographic activity just because it is unlikely to result in a picture worthy of an 11x14 on your wall also seems to me to miss the point of this whole endeavor. You are usually taking pictures to have fun, or to record some other way in which you are having fun.

Anyway, over the last 10-15 years or so of shooting digital I have trained myself to shoot color pictures which I know will be pretty good when I make them black and white later. It took some brain reprogramming to be sure, but it's been worth it for my overall anxiety levels.

The other thing that's happened over the last five or so years, since I took that night shot in Hong Kong above, is that the camera in the iPhone, at least for me, is almost always good enough to get a good picture of something happening unexpectedly as long as that something can be captured with a wide to normal lens. I guess I just don't print, or I don't see the problems other people here who do print see. As they say on the Internet:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Stan B.]

It comes down to- what is the minimum technical quality you're willing to accept? If you're fine with a smart phone- no worries! If not, look elsewhere- or do without.

I'm good with a GR most days, tack sharp 16in prints. The perfect camera? Hell no! But when the stars align (as with any other camera) it delivers a final product without compromise- fits in your pocket too!

[cdembrey]

Chase Jarvis wrote a book ©2010 The Best Camera Is The One That's With You: iPhone Photography by Chase Jarvis https://www.amazon.com/Best-Camera-One-Thats-You-ebook/dp/B0030DL346 You should blame The Best Camera ... on him 8-)

White Wall in NYCity, USA and Berlin, Germany make LightJet B&W prints on Ilford paper. They can also make Color LightJet prints on Kodak paper. The best of both worlds from color files https://us.whitewall.com/photo-lab/photo-print/ilford-bw-oce#tjn=f&t=produkt-details Who knew that the best B&W negative was a digital color file 8-) BTW Océ LightJet printers are used by some other photo labs, you just have to search.

I have highly evolved (can't say "developed"!) opinions... Sure you can, as long as you don't attach the noxious phrase pun intended.

[Ernie Van Veen]

To make sure I always have a suitable camera I take my Sony RX100II whenever I leave the house. Unless I forget it, then I always have my trusty iPhone SE. The problem is, and I think this may change things with regard to photos in the future, I am contemplating the purchase of an Apple Watch Series 3 with LTE. This means I will no longer need to take my phone with me. But the Apple Watch doesn't have a camera. Once everyone else starts to copy Apple's watch, and we all start talking to our wrists like Dick Tracy, will that be the end of the ubiquitous phone camera?

[Brian Stewart]

My understanding of the "the best camera you have ...." aphorism is different to everyone else's. I'll stick my head out of the trenches and admit that I use it, but only for certain people.

I know people who aren't what I'd term "serious photographers", but who have fallen into the trap of thinking that a big expensive camera will improve their shots. But having bought one, they find it too big and heavy and so never carry it around and so never use it and so it's a waste. To such people I say "The best camera is the one you have with you", by which I mean, if you're going to buy a camera rather than just use your phone to take photos, then don't buy anything bigger than something that you're prepared to carry around with you. A camera that you've left at home is of absolutely no use and you'll end up using your phone most of the time.

I wouldn't say the same thing to someone who cares about their shots. For them the relevant question is how small a camera will still provide acceptable quality. For me, like Mike, that's a Fuji mirrorless. So the best camera I have is the one that I have with me because I've made that choice, and that's my advice to others who care about their shots who say that they're tired of lugging around a dSLR. (I still occasionally get the Nikon D3s out for a shoot, but that's rare and it must feel rather unloved.)

[Terry Moore]

I find that all photos should be B&W unless color is necessary for the image. Color clutters.

[Bill Tyler]

Mike, I've always had a different take on that saying than you and most of the commenters. To me it has meant get your mind off endless fanboy discussions of whether C or N is the right initial letter for a camera brand (or S, F, O, P, or ..., for that matter) and _use_ the camera (or cameras) you have. Taken that way, it's a useful reminder that photography is about photographs, not equipment. Having said that, _of course_ we need cameras to photograph. Of course some cameras are better for some tasks than others. But obsessing over which is the "best" isn't going to improve your photos nearly as much as using the "good enough" you have or have available.

[Stanleyk]

I think people place too much emphasis on the "best camera." It leads down the rabbit hole of I need to constantly upgrade my camera. I notice in the photography I like that the photographers generally shoot a very narrow range of lenses and stick more or less to the same format. How many great photos have been taken with a Leica film camera and a 35 or 50mm lens? How many of them would have been better if the photographer had a modern high end digital camera and a constant aperture zoom? So in a way I agree with the statement provided that the camera you have with you is the one you have learned to use and suits the style of what you shoot. Honestly Mike do you really think the Sony or the Fuji is really that different? What photo could you take with one that you couldn't take with the other one? I happen to use Fuji cameras (X Pro and X100). I don't know maybe it's because I got out of the gear habit when I got the original X Pro. I never have considered another camera because it works for me. For the first time in years i really have no idea what Canon or Nikon or Sony or Olympus are making. It just wouldn't matter because I am completely and utterly happy with the X Pro and the 18/23/35/50 F2 lenses. When I want to go light I just take the X100 because at least 50% if not more of what I want to photograph can be done with a 35mm equivalent lens. It's sort of nice not to worry about cameras anymore. I finally upgraded my camera when the X Pro 2 came out but I still have my original X Pro and X100 you know what they takes great photos! That said I did recently purchase a Pentax Spotmatic and 28/35/50 for a film project I am doing for my Dad in his home town in the Mississippi Delta. I thought it would be nice to shoot the South in B/W film because everyone else does William Eggleston there. I got the whole set up and got the camera CLA'ed for less than $200. :-) I have shot several rolls through it to get back into the film habit. That 50mm lens is very good!

[Steve Jacob]

I interpreted that phrase to mean that there is no point in having the best camera in the world if you don't take it with you.

My Xpro2 goes with me just about everywhere, in my regular satchel - along with a tablet, glasses, folding umbrella, and a newspaper.

I don't feel it sacrifices anything over my D800 quality wise, but it's much easier to carry.

[Bryce Lee]

Colour imagery is what some scientist or similar feels the range of a colour image should be. Kodak interprets colour their way, Fuji, another; and so on. No one producer of either colour film, image recording cards or glass plates and similar, they all "look" at colour with slightly different interpretations.

Black and white is a different result, "we" do not" have to imagine what said B&W images is in colour through our eyes. There is no colour expressed, simply tones (shades?) of grey.

Your experience may vary depending upon your situation.
We are all different, is that not just the way it should be, eh?

[cdembrey]

I've been around a long time. My first web browser was Mac Surf which pre-dates Netscape Navigator. Before there was the W3C, there were usenet newsgroups. News groups were discussion forums for any subject under-the-sun—including photography.

Chase Jarvis was one of the first photographers to do behind-the-scenes videos, and to talk about photo techniques. Because of this he had a huge n00b audience who was eager to learn. Before Chase Jarvis wrote his book ( and flogged it on his site), I didn't see n00bs or anyone else saying The best camera ...

[Steve Higgins]

Hmmm, it strikes me a bit as the photographer’s equivalent of the angler’s ‘you should have seen the one that got away’ story - “I saw this great scene, but I had the wrong camera with me...”

I suppose it could be useful if taken a bit further. Hey, I could tell people my pictures would have been absolutely brilliant, if only I’d had the right camera with me!

Mind you, with the number of different cameras people seem to think they need for different purposes, it seems to me that the odds are you will just about always have the wrong camera with you. In which case, you may as well give up photography and collect picture postcards (deltiology, should you care) instead.

;-)

[Dennis]

A little late to the party. The problem with this "truism that isn't" isn't that it's technically inaccurate (and we know what they mean) ... it's that it's often used to rationalize the wrong camera. I see it used frequently in the context of justifying a deliberate decision to downsize or to not carry a camera because it's just too much bother and "I always have my phone with me". If a person can buy into "the best camera is the one I have with me" then it makes it okay to be lazy; to not make the effort to carry a camera (certainly to not carry a tripod !); to not be ready to take good photographs.
It's part of a disturbing trend I've seen where "serious" photography is frowned, even on fora (forums ?) dedicated to photography. Pixel peeping is a no-no, of course, along with critical evaluation of lenses, upgrading cameras, and heaven forbid, carrying anything that weighs more than 16 ounces and doesn't fit in your pocket.

[Ed]

Every photographer has to develop a style! Then find the camera that suits that style and then stop reading and start shooting. So for some the best camera is an iPhone and for some the best camera is an 8X10 analog Plaubel.

Stephen Shore continously expanded his game. He shot the whole of the USA with a Rollei 35mm and a single street crossing with an 8 x 10. Does that matter in art terms, not at all.....the one is as arty (or artistically valuable) as the other.

Any modern DSLR (made in this decade) can take exelent pictures in comparison to a Nikon F2 of the seventies. The combination of 18 Mpixel sensors with 13 EV headroom and optics that are great and affordable...so these days it's just the imagination of the photographer that creates the picture.

Never buy a camera thinking that it will improve your photography, it might slightly improve your picture quality but never your photographic quality.

Greets, Ed.

[Thomas Paris]

My understanding of this saying is that you can't make pictures with the camera you've left at home, so you better find a way to make do with what you've got with you because this is as good as it will get.

Or in other words: don't bother buying a camera you will leave at home.

[Mus Aziz]

I've been a traditional (film/darkroom) person for a number of years, until I started getting serious about digital capture and processing about 7 years ago. In the early years of my digital photography, I was frustrated with the results of the digital colour to B&W conversion. But of late there seems to be a number of dedicated B&W conversion software that's very good. Like you Mike, when I'm going through images on the internet, it's the B&W images that stand out from the colour ones.

[Geoff Goldberg]

How about this: lets say there are three types of shots - snaps, good decent shots, and then there are really good ones. The last group are the ones to really keep and hold as serious work. There are keepers in the first two groups, but at a more casual level.

You can get a camera to do two of these (maybe even just one sometimes) but not all three. We try to make one for all three, but maybe it's just not possible.

So what do we do? Sometimes we find a decent shot taken with modest gear, and maybe wish it had more to it, more depth or better tones, more DR. There is a school of thought that the capture is more important than the sheer technical quality - think of all those 35mm shots that are grainy, off exposure, maybe not even sharp, but are compelling nonetheless. I'd say that's the middle group, extending into the third group - by design. Its a philosophical approach, Danny Lyons.

Others may try to take a more serious camera and use it more informally. Think medium format, or 4x5 hauled around for more flexible shooting. Explains TLRs.

At one time, you could line up different cameras to here different groupings - but now, the tech lines are blurred, as there are so many very good cameras in all sizes. So the discussion has moved, with difficulty, to technique as being the measure instead. But it's still an issue: IPhone snaps are not going to be the same as shooting with a tripod. The problem still exists: there are different goals, and one technique or camera rarely can fulfill them all. No matter what you have with you.

[Gijs]

The best camera is the one you WISH you had with you.

[Jerry Walsh]

Love the one your with.