What Are YOUR Camera Buying Priorities?

[BruceSD]

.
I own many cameras - Nikon and those made by most of the other digital camera manufacturers.

When selecting a new or used camera, the following are my priorities (from most important to least important):

1. Image quality (color science and DOF are important to me, resolution and dynamic range not so much).
2. Ergonomics (I have to be comfortable carrying and shooting it, menus/buttons/controls must be simple/easy-to use/intuitive).
3. Value (I prefer cameras that will hold their value over time, resale value is a consideration).
4. Features (I shoot manual everything and prefer simple to use cameras with few modern features, the shorter the operating manual the better).
5. Appearance (I absolutely don't care what my cameras look like or what anyone thinks of them, I usually tape over logos, so folks don't know what I'm shooting).

How would you rank these camera characteristics in terms of importance to you?
.

[David H. Hartman]

I agree on 1,2 and 3 as stated. Number 4, features not important to me will likely be important to others so a rich set of features is a good thing. Attractive appearance is good but "Form Follows Function." A camera needs most of all to check off image quality and ergonomics first then a good appearance is desired.

[pluton]

Ergos are paramount- I'm trying a Nikon Z6ii right now, and it's taking a long time to determine whether I can live with the ergos.
Image quality is important to me, but general pictorial image quality is good even on budget cameras right now.
Features need to be there for intended purpose (certain resolution, video quality, FPS, etc;)  I use a tiny fraction of the available features on modern cameras.
Appearance? Cameras are not made to my personal taste in design.  I am glad, however, that the embarrassing pop-up flash overhang on the front of the Nikon DSLR prism housings disappeared, and seems not to be coming back.
Value:  They're all nearly worthless after 10 years.

[mxbianco]

For me, backward compatibility with my existing gear is essential.
When deciding between the Zfc and Z50, I opted for the Zfc because it has the Non-CPU-lens Menu, which the Z50 is lacking. And I have a real bunch of non-CPU lenses...

Appearance is the thing I care less: if a camera looks like a turd but takes good pics, I'm in all the time!

I don't care about value over time, but then I seldom sell the stuff I buy. On the contrary, I tend to buy stuff that people are dumping. I dindn't buy into the Nikon Series 1 when it came out (2010-11), I started buying in 2020 when people (in COVID lockdown time) had time to look in their drawers for stuff to get rid of,   and I got some pretty good bargains, some stuff barely ever used (Nikon 1AW1: 250 pics shuttercount, 150US$ with its two AW lenses! -and boxes-).

Image quality: depends on what you're doing, sometimes you can get away with a 6MP sensor, sometimes you need more resolution. The same goes for shooting bursts: if you take single shots, reframing carefully every time, you don't need 14fps, and vice versa.

Ciao from Massimo

[John Geerts]

1) Image Quality

2) Good appearance ( I love it to have something beautiful in the hand and not damaged garbage)  -- > Low Shuttercount (minimal chance for technical failures) --> Resale Value
(this applies only for  second hand camera's of course)

The rest is not important, because Image Quality is leading

[Birna Rørslett]

My only criteria as as follows,

1. The lenses I want to use will fit it,
2. The camera works and fits my hands


I have published double-page spreads from 4MPix models, thus any camera on the market today should suffice. A photographer is always essential to make sense of the MPix no matter how many they are.

[Akira]

Agree with ! and 3.  24MP is enough for me at this point.

As for the ergonomics, portability will almost always turn out to be paramount, because it can be "the" deciding factor whether I want to take my camera with me when I go out.

As for the features, less is more.  Decent aperture priority and manual modes as well as the single AF mode are enough.

The same goes with the appearance.

[Fons Baerken]

Great image quality, precise and snappy autofocus when needed, fit all my nikkor lenses, handling and simple menus, mirrorless seems to have opened the way for cluttered menus with too many options. Of course good and attractive looks or appearance, probably 24mp is enough for street and general photography especially when it improves on handling in general! Last but not least pricing!

[Dogman]

Since I believe every camera made is capable of making excellent pictures, I skip image quality as a priority.  Image quality usually comes down to an individual's subjective opinion.  A 40mp camera might not satisfy one person's desire for resolution but the next person might be fine with a 5mp point and shoot.  (My most used Nikons are full frame 12mp models from the paleolithic period

Ergonomics, comfort, handling are a priority for me.  Gotta feel good to use or I won't use it. 

I'm still a durability/reliability fiend.  I started with Nikons because of their reputation as being nearly a hockey puck in use.  They still seem pretty bulletproof even considering the electronics used today.

Features?  Most cameras have too many IMO.  Confusing, bewildering, befuddling.  I would be happy with a simple camera that offered superb AF with only a center sensor, great matrix metering, aperture priority automation and a simple method of locking focus and exposure.

I hold onto gear nearly forever so resale value is not important at all to me.

I like a nice-looking camera but I would pass over a really beautiful one for an ugly duckling if the duck had my preference of features.

[Ian Watson]

Ergonomics are paramount. The physical controls should be comfortable and intuitive. The corollary is that one should not need to dive into the menus much and so I can tolerate a bit of mess there.

Image quality? They are all capable; this one generally falls on the user.

Value? If I can afford it then it is fine 

Appearance? Form follows function.

Features can be tricky but most cameras have plenty. I want a few basics and that the rest do not get in my way. Which brings us back to ergonomics, really.

Let us not forget the system that goes with the camera.

[Kenneth Rich]

In about twelve days, Nikon tells me, Nikon is going to surprise me with I don't know what.  Nikon knows what I want, it's what you guys want, probably, but I doubt that Nikon cares what we want, they will give us what they want, and I can bet that it will no be a digital Z version of the Df.

[Birna Rørslett]

Z8 is the new baby to be launched. A small brother to the Z9. If its presented with 60MPix, perhaps it will hold some interest (to use with the X-ray lenses, for example, which probably isn't on the Nikon tech radar ).

Rumours claim there will be a FX version of Z fc later thus year. I believe the rumours when I see the product.

[Ian Watson]

Rumour, for what it is worth, has it that the Z8 will be a Z9 without the grip and priced between the Z7II and the Z9. That would interest me very much. Indeed, it would probably trigger what Thom Hogan calls Last Camera Syndrome.

I might have to institute a swear-jar at the office 

[aerobat]

1. Image quality - 1a. top glass drives system selection; 1b. flexible sensor: good to edit
2. Ergonomics - Nikon has good ergonomics for me
3. Value - not so important to me
4. Features - medium importance to me
5. Appearance - I like good design and also take good care about my gear

6. My skills - friends from NG to learn from, get inspiration and exchange ideas

[Ilkka Nissilä]

1. It should work with the lenses that I want to use.

2. As clear and as lag-free a viewfinder as possible, and one that is easy to use with eyeglasses.

3. Easy to get shots in focus either manually or automatically.

4. It's important to me that the camera fits my hands and doesn't get in my way.