Many of you out there are blessed with scientific backgrounds, technical expertise and the concomitant jargon to support your understanding of the heavy and felt. Others, like myself, are sputtering far back in the wake of your considerable knowledge. I made this suggestion thinking limits are sometimes useful in learning. Narrows the focus a bit. I’ll consider the notion that in this process called digital photography a camera is just the camera.
The allusion to fanboyism. A perjorative on this site, isn’t it.
"this process called digital photography"
Take it a step further: in this art form called
photography a camera is just a camera.
I've just watched a BBC 4 tv show on Jeff Beck; where it's relevant to photography is here: as with music, it's what's in the head that counts. One of the speakers in the programme states he's seen Beck pick up a guitar somebody else has just put down, and instantly make it sound totally different.
That's really the thing about photography; you can take any single camera and, in the hands of any number of different, skilled photographers, it will produce something entirely different every time.
If that's not the part that is interesting to you, then all you need is a collection of reviews, and the Internet is sagging under the weight of them. Truth to tell, I think that websites where people toss around opinions about why they think whatever is the best camera in the world can be quite harmful, especially to newer dabblers in photography because they could so easily come to believe that there exists a magic box with even more magical bits of glass in front of it with an absolutely divine part in the back which will make every image a piece of visual history. Not so. Never has been so.
Rob C