Seeking (Hiking) Camera Recommendations [Archive]

rafe

10-04-2014, 21:47

If you take your hiking photography fairly seriously, I'd like your opinion. (OTOH if you carry a DSLR you're probably too serious ;).)

Here's what I know:
* My newest digicam (aside from my smartphone) is a 7.1 MP Canon A620, circa 2005. I really like the tilt/swivel display. But it's kinda heavy (11 oz.)
* I'm quite impressed with the image quality and features of my smartphone (Galaxy S4). But I suspect a dedicated camera can beat it. Right?

Priorities (all over the map):
* not a DSLR
* image quality, big sensor, some manual controls
* small, lightweight, etc. I like having camera on shoulder strap, instantly accessible while hiking.
* say, $350 or so (max) street price (used/good condition is OK)

I'm all over the map. I'm kinda liking the Canon G15 or G16, Nikon P7800, but also like the compactness and lightness of the Sony DSC-RX100 or maybe even Canon Powershot S120. Mainly I'm thinking, all my cameras (except for my smartphone) are OLD. Technology has surely improved. I used to know cameras upside down and inside out but I haven't been paying attention to the market for a long, long time. I'm getting to be an old phart and less willing to lug big, heavy cameras on backpacking trips.

Rolex

10-04-2014, 23:03

I got a gopro for my birthday and plan on using it. Still looking at the whole battery thing though as its a rechargeable type. Another reason to get a usb battery stick or solar charger I guess.

If you take your hiking photography fairly seriously, I'd like your opinion. (OTOH if you carry a DSLR you're probably too serious ;).)

Here's what I know:
* My newest digicam (aside from my smartphone) is a 7.1 MP Canon A620, circa 2005. I really like the tilt/swivel display. But it's kinda heavy (11 oz.)
* I'm quite impressed with the image quality and features of my smartphone (Galaxy S4). But I suspect a dedicated camera can beat it. Right?

Priorities (all over the map):
* not a DSLR
* image quality, big sensor, some manual controls
* small, lightweight, etc. I like having camera on shoulder strap, instantly accessible while hiking.
* say, $350 or so (max) street price (used/good condition is OK)

I'm all over the map. I'm kinda liking the Canon G15 or G16, Nikon P7800, but also like the compactness and lightness of the Sony DSC-RX100 or maybe even Canon Powershot S120. Mainly I'm thinking, all my cameras (except for my smartphone) are OLD. Technology has surely improved. I used to know cameras upside down and inside out but I haven't been paying attention to the market for a long, long time. I'm getting to be an old phart and less willing to lug big, heavy cameras on backpacking trips.

BuckeyeBill

10-04-2014, 23:28

bigcranky

10-05-2014, 08:47

You are in luck -- there are a number of new cameras with a large sensor, some manual controls, very high quality files, and fast lenses. The bad news is that they are freakin' expensive. The camera manufacturers have figured out that there is a demand for very high quality small cameras.

If I were buying a new camera right now, it would be the Panasonic LX100 (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100). Built in electronic viewfinder, 4/3 sensor, fast zoom. Yeah, it's $900, but Panny sells a 12-35/2.8 zoom for $1200 at it doesn't come with a camera. This zoom is *faster* and comes with a nice little camera attached. :)

The Sony RX100 series (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m3) has a large sensor. The first version can be found for around $350 online, but the latest is probably closer to $800 or more. I find the Sony much fussier to use, but that's probably because I have much more experience with Panasonic and Fuji.

The Canon G1X series (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/), with two models, has a large sensor and a decent zoom. The older model is about $550 and the new one is $800.

The biggest thing with your wish list is the large sensor -- that gets the price up pretty quickly. You could find a used Olympus or Panasonic Micro 4/3 kit with a camera and the 18-55 kit zoom lens (like this (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-G5KK-Compact-System-14-42mm/dp/B008MB71IS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412513014&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+g5)). These can be found for around $400 pretty easily. But they are larger than the p+s style -- though not as big as a DSLR.

All that said, I have been carrying a tiny Canon S100 on recent hikes. It's a small sensor P+S camera, and it's really tiny. It has a metal body, so it's not really light, but it's rugged and the files look okay for a p+s. Best part is that it was $175. :) It fits in the front padded pocket of my waist pack, so I always have it with me, accessible for easy shooting.

Good luck and happy shooting!

colorado_rob

10-05-2014, 08:54

... All that said, I have been carrying a tiny Canon S100 on recent hikes. It's a small sensor P+S camera, and it's really tiny. It has a metal body, so it's not really light, but it's rugged and the files look okay for a p+s. Best part is that it was $175. :) I'm one of those too-serious DSLR guys most of the time, but on a long hike where carried weight is paramount, I carry this little gem (the Canon s100), bets bang for the weight-buck out there IMHO, outstanding image quality for a smaller sensor camera. Ken Rockwell calls this series the "best pocket cameras", check this out:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm#pocket

rafe

10-05-2014, 09:09

Thanks all so far, esp. BigCranky for the up-to-date market survey. Sony RX-100 may be best (affordable) choice from above. I have the original Canon G2, 10D (DSLR) and A120, the latter was my main hiking camera 'till this year when I leaned heavily on my smartphone. Tons of film cameras that I need to unload on eB-y some day. Ha. :rolleyes:

rafe

10-05-2014, 09:24

Traveler

10-05-2014, 09:47

I use a light fanny pack around the pack as a deep pocket to keep my camera in. It isn't able to bounce out and it is turned so its just like having a large pocket on the side of the pack.

colorado_rob

10-05-2014, 09:54

Has anyone compared a camera in the S100/S120/RX100 class to a late-model smartphone?

Doing that over here (DL'ed images vs. my own from smartphone) -- dang, but the smartphone looks to be in the same league. Maybe my eyes are so shot it doesn't matter any more.Smart phone cameras are pretty dang good these days and I do take some shots with mine on the trail, but the S100 shots are superior, at least vs. my smart phone which is a 1-year old HTC one. Much bigger sensor in the S100 than my phone. this is really only important however if you make any larger prints of your images. For viewing on computers/tablets and emailing, it really doesn't matter that much. Still, I like the manual controls afforded by the S100.

Nooga

10-05-2014, 10:08

bigcranky

10-05-2014, 10:23

Has anyone compared a camera in the S100/S120/RX100 class to a late-model smartphone?

Doing that over here (DL'ed images vs. my own from smartphone) -- dang, but the smartphone looks to be in the same league. Maybe my eyes are so shot it doesn't matter any more.

Yes. In good light the smartphone images are pretty good - certainly comparable to a small sensor compact. In bad light the phone sensors don't do as well, while the small-sensor compacts are a little better.

Neither of them does as well as a large sensor camera, especially in bad light. But for many, many uses, it won't matter. If you're looking at photos on a web site, the phone pix are just fine. 5x7 inch prints? Doesn't matter. Larger prints are where you'll see the difference pretty clearly.

rafe

10-05-2014, 10:26

Rob: back in the day I made 8x10 prints routinely from the 10D, and even sold one 24x36" print from a 10D image. It's a standard APS-C sensor but only 6.3 MP. The 10D print was displayed along with others made from scanned film (35 mm and 645 mostly) and nobody could tell which prints came from which camera. Freaking camera body cost $1200 and is currently worth maybe $35, if that. I held out with film for as long as I could, but I sold my fancy Nikon film scanner years ago.

I'm torn and ambivalent and just kinda looking for opinions at the moment. I put aside photography as a hobby partly because it was an endless money sink. I suspect that part hasn't changed... I could almost cry looking at the $$$ worth of useless (or at best, unused) camera gear in my closet. (Or the 9 year old Epson R1800 printer next to me, which keeps threatening to croak unless I feed it $$$ worth of ink.)

bigcranky

10-05-2014, 10:57

Rafe,

I think the ten year transition to digital imaging was, in fact, an endless money sink as the cameras improved so much in each iteration. Much of that is now over -- one can purchase a digital camera and some lenses that will make very high quality images pretty much indefinitely. Of course the manufacturers will keep endlessly hyping the "next big thing" but almost all of it is just very minor improvements.

That transition period left a lot of very expensive gear basically worthless. I think I got fifty bucks each for the Canon EOS 1-D bodies I bought in 2001, at $5500 apeice back then. Let's see, that's a "loss' of $10,900, though of course that's not really true -- I got far more value out of them than their initial cost, or I would not have purchased them. (I was spending more than $30K per year on film and processing, so an $11K investment which cuts those costs to zero looks pretty good.) And those were 4.1 megapixel cameras, and I have lots of big prints in the 24x36-inch range that just look terrific, especially compared to same-size prints from 35mm film.

Your 10D was an impressive camera at the time. Previous versions were $3000 for "prosumer" digital SLR cameras -- which was dirt cheap compared to the $15,000-45,000 price of the "pro" bodies. So $1200 was a drop in comparison, especially if you shot enough film over a two or three year period (not to mention all the time we spent scanning film. Ugh.)

The improvements in imaging sensors and lenses are just amazing -- my little Fuji kit has prime lenses that are just leaps and bounds better than anything I shot on film twenty years ago, and the Canon professonal zooms are simply fantastic.

If you wanted to get back into it seriously, you could also look at an Epson 3880 printer. Printer tech has improved rather dramatically, too, and the 3880 has much lower ink costs per-milliliter, and can sit unused for months without clogging. Compared to my Epson 1200 it's night and day.

I guess I have something of a Pollyana-ish view of all this. I generally don't regret the piles of unused gear sitting in my locker, but then I was using it all to make a living and it's much easier to justify that way.

rafe

10-05-2014, 11:25

Ken: I bought a lot of my best (film) camera gear on eB-y from pros like you who were ditching the stuff. I never made a living off my photography, but I did earn some decent change from it, and plowed most of my "profits" back into more gear.

The 10D convinced me that 35 mm film was dead. The 5D (never owned, but lusted after one) killed medium format. I still have a beautiful Shen-Hao 4x5 view camera and nice lenses I'm wondering what to do with.

I look at David Muench's gorgeous landscape photos (including many on the AT) and feel humbled. But I was sifting through many old prints yesterday and was reminded of my affection (& maybe a bit of talent) for this hobby.

colorado_rob

10-05-2014, 11:41

I still have a beautiful Shen-Hao 4x5 view camera and nice lenses I'm wondering what to do with. I have a gorgeous rosewood 4x5 "alba" camera (very much like a Tachihara and actually very lightweight) and 3 excellent lenses as well (heavy!) What to do with them? Keep them! One of these days a relatively inexpensive 4x5 digital sensor/back will come out and we'll be golden! There are some "multi stitch" schemes out there right now:

http://www.multistitch.com/get-yours/

swjohnsey

10-05-2014, 12:29

The camera is gonna take a beating. I really like the G15/16 and also the S95/100/105. I took a S95 but it finally developed lens error in Maine. I've been getting the little Canon S100's off ebay slightly used cheap. I kill about one a year.

Theosus

10-05-2014, 12:55

I loved my 620! Yes, it was heavy and went through those four AA batteries like Whitney Huston went through Cocaine, but with the aftermarket free software it got the advantage of taking RAW files. I don't know why cameras today have to cost over $300 before they'll give you the raw data. They all process it and SD cards now are HUGE and cheap. I guess it helps the camera companies sell the more expensive cameras. I dropped the 620 once at the house, and got the dreaded E15 error (which pretty much means "hey your lens slipped off the gears, your camera is dead now"). I use my wife's nikon coolpix s3100. It NOT weatherproof but I have a little neoprene case for it. I just don't take it out in pouring rain. It's light, the case is aluminum, and the battery pack is TINY and lasts forever. Carrying a second one would be a non issue (seriously, stack two SD cards on top of each other, thats the size of the battery pack). Its also pink, so if I drop it in the leaves it shows up really well. It clips to the shoulder straps and I can pull it out and be ready to take a picture really quickly. But - if I was looking to buy a dedicated hiking camera, I would probably start by looking at one of the Olympus Tough series, and move up from there. I have seen a few hikers using those DLSR look-alikes. You know, the ones that look like mini DSLRs but the lens doesn't change out. Those are still a little large for me, I like the convenience of something in the hip belt pocket or on a shoulder strap, and the lighter the better. I'm not ansel adams. I have a canon t1i and a few lenses, but the thing is too big for hiking (for me). MY old camera was my father's canon ftB and some of those lenses (with an adapter) still work in manual mode on my rebel. It's hard to believe 40 year old lenses can still take good pictures (although the 50mm canon lens by itself outweighs my t1i body. The 500mm lens needs it's own tripod. You could beat a bear to death with it, if needed).

Pendragon

10-05-2014, 13:08

IMG_0527.jpg

This was taken with an iPhone five encased in a Lifeproof case.

Pendragon

10-05-2014, 13:10

file:///Users/michaelwilliams/Desktop/IMG_0527.jpg

Pendragon

10-05-2014, 13:14

ignore this, obviously....I screwed up

Sarcasm the elf

10-05-2014, 13:44

I am going to use this Fujifilm XP75 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Fujifilm-16.4-MP-FUJIFILMXP75/35511646) from Wally World. Has a 16.4 Mega pixels with 5x optical zoom. It is waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof, dustproof. You will need to by a memory card as it only has 99MB internal memory. Right now i is $200.00.

I bought a very similar fujifilm camera a few years ago but ended up returning it simply because I was concerned that the permanent glass lens cover would get scratched up while living in the hipbelt pocket of my pack. I ended up getting an Olympis stylus tough (not sure if they still make it) which had a metal cover that automatically shut over the lens when the camera was off, that camera has served me well for several years.

If you do use the Fujifilm for a long hike I'd be interested to know afterwards whether the lack of a separate lens cover causes any problem or if I was just being paranoid about it.

swjohnsey

10-05-2014, 13:48

rafe

10-05-2014, 13:57

I have a gorgeous rosewood 4x5 "alba" camera (very much like a Tachihara and actually very lightweight) and 3 excellent lenses as well (heavy!) What to do with them? Keep them! One of these days a relatively inexpensive 4x5 digital sensor/back will come out and we'll be golden! There are some "multi stitch" schemes out there right now:

http://www.multistitch.com/get-yours/

For a while I was checking up on Better Light scanning backs on eB-y. There was some photographer, whose name I forget, who documented many of the US National parks with a view camera fitted with a scanning back. Gorgeous images. The problem with scanning backs is that the longest CCD chips are stilll not that long, so they still don't even use half the imaging area of a 4x5. Scanned 4x5 film gives massive files -- 6.25 million pixels per square inch times 20 square inches is 125 megapixels.

But all that is old hat; it's done now with fancy pano heads on tripods and stitching together dozens if not hundreds of digital images.

Andy P

10-05-2014, 16:33

I used a Ricoh wg-4 rugged camera this summer and I was very happy with it. Water proof and held up great getting banged around in the White's and Maine. It has a nice wide-angle and the shots came out great.

slbirdnerd

10-05-2014, 19:07

I LOVE my Nikon A100 (current model A120) shockproof, waterproof, full HD point and shoot. It lives on an S-biner on my pack strap and has taken a beating but performs like new. Around $250-$300, bought mine at a Meijer (similar to super Walmart) here in Ohio. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/COOLPIX-AW120.html

jjozgrunt

10-05-2014, 20:42

I bought the Olympus TG3 camera as my weapon of choice for bushwalking. Light, takes a good photo, has manual controls, tough and water/dust proof. But the biggest consideration for me was the fact you can recharge the battery, in camera, from a portable battery via a usb cable. Nothing worse than getting a great photo op and no power. Just under your budget on Amazon. https://www.olympus.com.au/Products/Stylus-Compact-Cameras/Tough/TG-3.aspx http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-TG-3-Waterproof-Digital-Camera/dp/B00IZDKTMI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1412555767&sr=8-2&keywords=tg3+olympus

Bob55

10-06-2014, 18:47

Currently use Nikon's AW100, and if I go will be upgrading to the AW120. I used Sony's TX waterproof model before the AW100, but first time I used it underwater, it failed. (screen blacked out with in 6 inches under). Sony was great sending me a new one, but I look at it as being highly water resistance instead of water proof. MY AW 100 has been in loads of weather, Down 15 feet, dropped in mud, etc. and never gave me any issues. Trouble with these is battery power. Not nearly enough power for the amount of photos and Videos I believe I'll be doing. Even with the AW120's higher battery rating, I'd will be carrying few extra batteries.

rafe

10-06-2014, 19:16

I recently switched to a Sony RX100 and the images are really good and the battery life is excellent. I carry a spare battery, but as yet have not had to use it, even on a seven day stretch between resupply on the Colorado Trail. The only down side for me is that it is not weather resistant.

I'll risk the weather/impact resistance (or lack thereof) for all the other goodies the RX-100 has. At a street price below $400, I haven't seen any contenders that can beat it for image quality. I've carried cameras on almost all my hikes and managed to keep them dry and intact.

Ray C

10-06-2014, 23:02

I was going to go with the GoPro Hero4, after using my nephews GoPro Hero3 I thought a good point and shoot would be better. No doubt the GoPro is a great camera.
I have decided to go with the Nikon AW120 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IA9LR9Q/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=H10IVU9IA54G&coliid=I1K6O29QULHDHQ&psc=1

Another Kevin

10-15-2014, 23:28

My current camera is a Canon SX120IS. I got it at Target on closeout. It performs better than my phone. It has a macro setting, and can go full-manual or do things like aperture or shutter priority. It's compatible with a tripod. My main complaint is that the autofocus is painfully slow, particularly in low light.

R1ma

10-19-2014, 16:16

If image quality is job #1, look at a Sony NEX or Samsung NX camera - mirrorless, APS-C bodies with small, light lenses. A Samsung NX2000 is 228g without battery or lens and a 30mm f/2 pancake lens is 85g. Amazon sells it for less than $300.
Sony NEXs are a bit more expensive and a bit nicer.

gollwoods

10-19-2014, 17:39

I have had good results with this fuji but the shutter speed will only go as long as 8 sec. the new 50 will go as long as 30 sec
http://bridge-cameras-review.toptenreviews.com/fujifilm-finepix-s-details.html

rafe

10-31-2014, 16:26

Ordered a Sony RX100 on Wednesday from Abe's of Maine. The original (2012) Mk-I version. It arrived a couple of hours ago. It's a gloomy dark day, but as soon as the battery was charged I took it outside and snapped a couple dozen shots around the yard.

I must say the image quality is incredible. I'm seriously blown away. And as a special plus the thing weighs 8.5 oz. and fits in my shirt pocket.

I used to argue over "film vs. digital" back in the USENET days but it's all over. Way over. I'm looking at a closet full of Nikon 35 mm. gear, Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7 (medium format) gear that hasn't been used in years. Thousands of dollars worth. All junk.

I think I'll keep the 4x5 view camera for old time's sake.

Lyle

10-31-2014, 16:38

I used to argue over "film vs. digital" back in the USENET days but it's all over. Way over. I'm looking at a closet full of Nikon 35 mm. gear, Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7 (medium format) gear that hasn't been used in years. Thousands of dollars worth. All junk.

I think I'll keep the 4x5 view camera for old time's sake.

Rafe, plenty of folks (myself included) still buy/sell/use film cameras. For easy sale, not the highest dollar amount, check out KEH.com They are a great company, 100% trustworthy, been around in the used camera business for a long time with a great reputation. Or take your chances on ebay. B&H and Adorama are also very reputable businesses that deal often in old film cameras.

People still pay hundreds of dollars for some of this gear. No where near what it was worth new, but hardly "junk".

Lyle

10-31-2014, 16:42

Meant to add, you could sell it on APUG once you establish yourself there. Good bunch of folks, all have been honest in my dealings with them.

rafe

10-31-2014, 23:05

Thanks for the pointer to APUG, Lyle. In truth, I haven't shot film of any kind for several years now. We had a great little photo shop here in town that did a fine job of processing, but they've closed down as well. I sold my LS-8000 film scanner soon after that. Even when I shot film, in recent years, the back end was all digital. Haven't worked in a proper wet darkroom since maybe 1975 or so.

I could process my own BW film but I'm concerned about the toxicity and disposal issues with C41 processing.

The only film camera I own that can still beat digital is the 4x5. So I might keep that one for a while.

I'm really looking forward to a walk in the woods with the RX100! But maybe not tomorrow, serious cold rain (maybe snow?) is predicted.

bigcranky

10-31-2014, 23:44

I gave almost all my film gear to the art department here on campus. They get a lot of use out of it, which makes me happy.

I kept the better 4x5 and the lenses, but I haven't shot with it in years. I also kept my old Canon F1N and my original breech-mount FD lenses, and my X-pan. Again, though, no film has gone through any of them in years. I just can't give those away for some reason, but I guess I'll have to eventually.

Glad you like the RX100.

Traveler

11-01-2014, 07:42

Rafe, plenty of folks (myself included) still buy/sell/use film cameras. For easy sale, not the highest dollar amount, check out KEH.com They are a great company, 100% trustworthy, been around in the used camera business for a long time with a great reputation. Or take your chances on ebay. B&H and Adorama are also very reputable businesses that deal often in old film cameras.

People still pay hundreds of dollars for some of this gear. No where near what it was worth new, but hardly "junk".

There are a lot of purists who will not abandon film, even though DSLR is coming close to the same level of image quality. Positive imaging (as opposed to negative) in slide film is a pretty good example, though I suspect digital will reach that level eventually. You have to get into DSLR equipment at the $2,500.00 and up level to get close to this, along with the extras like filters and lens options. There is room for both digital and film, though I do see film moving to the artistic niche than it will be in the mainstream as it once was. For me, I find digital to work very well for most of the stuff I shoot, but I still haul the 35mm SLR around when I want to get a very specific photograph.

Lyle

11-01-2014, 09:12

Yeah, to my eyes (not to everyone though) digital is equal to 35 mm unless you want to do your own processing, which I do not do. I can still see huge differences with medium or large format, however. when compared to the normal DSLR suspects. For that quality, digital would be WAY out of my price range especially considering how inexpensive these film cameras are today.

For shooting day to day, the costs of digital, plus the convenience have trumped film, no doubt. Most folks just use out of camera jpegs and do very little post processing, thus the great time savings.

Most of my film 35 mm cameras are for fun and because I just really enjoy shooting film still. Slow, much more methodical, forces you to think about what you are doing instead of just shooting "trial and error" style. Unfortunately, I hear MANY professional photographers espousing the idea that that is what makes a good photographer, or at least a professional, they just shoot thousands of photos in the hope that one or two will be great. To my thinking, this is NOT a good way to approach photography, even in the digital age, but it is becoming accepted. I'm not saying that one will not shoot thousands of photos, but that should not be your "method". Ok, rant over...backpacking cameras - again, my new choice is the Ricoh GR.

rafe

11-01-2014, 09:14

I see folks still have strong feelings about film vs. digital. For what it's worth, it seems KEH thinks some of my gear may be worth more than I thought. I need to box up and ship some stuff to them. We'll see!

Lyle

11-01-2014, 09:25

rafe

11-01-2014, 09:58

Rafe, I know KEH comes to Detroit once or twice a year and sets up shop to buy gear at a local camera shop. Maybe they do the same in your area. Would save you from having to ship it to them, then deciding you didn't like their price. Might be worth it to give them a call and see.

Well, it seems the shipping to KEH is free. They supply a prepaid FedEx label. Is KEH physically located in NYC? If that's the case it might even be worth a trip... we have other connections in the area, will probably be there around Thanksgiving anyway.

Lyle

11-01-2014, 10:17

I believe they're in Atlanta. Good to know about their free shipping.

rafe

11-01-2014, 11:10

I believe they're in Atlanta. Good to know about their free shipping.

OK, that's consistent with the shipping label. I'm used to thinking of NYC as world headquarters for camera gear. :)

bigcranky

11-01-2014, 12:55

rafe

11-01-2014, 13:09

KEH has been around for many years. I've been buying and selling gear with them since the early '80s, when their catalog was a monthly newsprint job. I've always been happy in my dealings with them.

On the subject of film vs digital quality, all I can say is that I've been scanning some old 35mm and 6x6 transparencies, and they just suck in comparison with a modern digital camera file. These were high quality trannies, too, on slow speed film and scanned with a very high quality scanner (and I do know how to make good scans.) Of course by modern digital camera file, I mean a raw file from a professional camera, but pretty much every DSLR is capable of making excellent files.

+1 on all of that. I made quite a study of film scanners, owned several of them, and even compared them to then-current DSLRs. That included some pretty fancy drum scanners. The Canon 10D matched (or beat) 35 mm, and the 1ds nearly matched MF, and that was in 2003. It would be amusing to fill in that last table with samples from current digital cameras, especially the newest full-frame DSLRs.

See http://terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis