Yes, but then the question presents itself: what digital cameras from recent past exhibit actual character? And perhaps more importantly: what lenses?
I don't think your question has a positive answer, Oscar, and neither do I think Keith has quite put his finger on it. It is not, IMO, bodies or lenses, but digital capture that is the weak stage in this particular goose chase.
The problem is that many of us still associate "character" with film photography
and film fomat. Digital is another beast entirely, and a wonderful one at that, but it is a different one. A horse, not even Moira - and she's white - can ever be a zebra. Only half a zebra.
And I don't think it's anything much to do with that magical quality, bokeh. I never in my life heard about it when working. Which isn't to say we didn't know about the effects of DOF, OOF areas and how these looked in the highlights, and how wide apertures could add a little magic to some images. We just used the lenses we had, and were happy enough with that without adding layer upon layer of doubt onto ourselves. Bokeh obsession is just another thing that can make people victims of this pixel-peeping society where nothing is ever good enough to be the picture you needed or want. That seems to be the challenge: fight yourself until you drop; much more fun than making photographs to show something that you had in your mind or just stumbled upon. Always find a reason why the thing isn't great, and the
brand that would make it great.
That's partly why I almost always try to eff-up the otherwise clinical look of my photography. But I'm not working to sell anything, so my take today is probably the opposite of what it might have been many years ago when all of us in commercial work tried for reasonably fine grain unless for specific uses.
Rob
