What keeps you using your current camera brand?

Two things for me:

1. Cost of replacing a system of lenses
I am finally happy with my current lens lineup. New total cost around $6K (less than the cost of a FF birding lens:rolleyes:). Been in the system for about 10 years, and finally have all the glass I want (or need....). Unless I drop/break/whatever one of my current lenses I have my kit.

2. Coast of learning the menu system.
I use the same brand now for about 10 years. The menu system works very well for me. Just got a new body and had it setup in less than 30 minutes. At 74 I am just not willing to trade menu system. Out in the field and have to changing or find a setting, easy to do after a menu system that has changed little in 10 year. I use Panasonic and from M43 to FF, well the menu system are same. I shoot a lot of video, the menu systems are the same. The still menus are the same. Me, I am the same. it all works for me.

I think most cameras made today are "good enough" or better. Are you a systems changer or do you love your one and only brand? Why?
Agree with the "good enough" or better comment for general use. Although some gear is significantly better for certain things. Whether or not that difference is enough to justify the expense is a personal choice.

Over the years I've changed brands as needed for better ergos and better viewfinders. Or better performance (AF, buffer size and clearing, etc...) for aviation photos. Sometimes a certain camera/ lens combo is just a joy to use. For me, photography is a hobby as well as a way to record life, family, friends, travels... I enjoy the activity and the ability to make stress go away. Those are more important to me these days with current health issues. So I can sometimes do a change in order to keep shooting.

Overall, from a fit-in-the-hand standpoint I'm very happy with Pentax and am glad I made the switch back. If I keep shooting aviation stuff I'll end up getting additional gear, letting some of the Pentax stuff go due to duplication. Currently looking at all the options, will need to make a decision next spring/ early summer. The Monochrome will likely stay with me until the unlikely event I tire of B&W, or one of us dies.
For me, it is primarily a size thing, being in the M43 encampment since early 2016.

I went into that after a wrong turn down Pentax lane (K7, bought at release, and for its weatherproofing, IBIS and perceived small size) and after getting a rather sizeable Canon system after my father. Started off with a GX7, and got a GX8 within a short timeframe, letting the size difference count less than the weatherproofing. Shot that untill I got a G9 in 2019, after swearing that off due to size, which in hindsight was the proper decision. Bought a second hand GX9 to check it out, sold the GX8 not long after and picked up second hand G90 in the spring of 22. It was rather perfect sized, but I got a semi-functioning EM-10MkII later that summer for basically the price of the 12-50 lens it came with and that em10MkII was a game-changer.

Today I have almost finished transitioning to Olympus bodies, I still have the G9 around, but the pictures for the sales add is shot, but not listed it yet. I am dragging my feet there, but the rational thing is to let the G9 go, I like it, quite a lot, but I dont tend to use it. Its shutter count is just above 3500, with about 1400 of those on a event shoot earlier this year.

It is mostly about size for me, I have found. I need unobtrusiveness to bother carry the gear as I seldom go out to shoot exclusively.

More often than not, getting some shots in is some sort of bonus thing, sneaking half an hour here, finding a motif there and such while carrying whatever things needed to get me through the day, along with the camera gear, hence my "need"/want for the unobtrusiveness in my gear choices.

That said, I have branched out a bit during lock-down, so I have a, if not huge, so a somewhat large collection/hoard of older cameras models across the brands. They are mostly collecting dust, even if I have the intention of using them.

None of the other brands offer up the full feature sets of the M43 system though, at a for me, reasonable price-point, so no swapping of brands. I did have some notions about Fujifilm last year, but that was just a bit of "the gras is greener on the other side" sweat and it was quickly parked. :drinks:
I've been using Sony E-mount cameras since 2012 starting with the NEX-6 and jumping into full-frame with the A7 as soon as it came out in 2013. Sony full-frame E-mount is still my main system, complemented by a full-spectrum Sony A3000 and a Fuji X100V.

There is little temptation for me to switch to an other full-frame system because
  1. Sony up to this day still offers the most extensive native lens line-up, also supported by a lot of third-party lenses. Main frustration is the the lack of a really good and compact 28mm prime lens.
  2. Sony's autofocus is at least as performant, if not class-leading, as their competitors IMHO.
  3. Zeiss Loxia lenses are offered in E-mount only. I know there are adapters for Nikon Z, but I prefer native lenses if possible.
  4. If starting from scratch, I'd seriously consider Nikon Z full-frame, but switching to it wouldn't offer me significant advantages and cost me a fortune. I find the other FF systems less appealing.
1) looking back at old photos that I really like - that were all made with my old cameras
2) looking at the cost of even mid-range gear today (plus buying new batteries, updating my raw-converter, ...)
3) looking at my shelf and accepting that I already have more gear than I can use :D (knowing that I'm really bad at letting things go :) )
I buy used gear. There's more used Canon gear out there than any other brand, so I use Canon. Simple as that, and Canon works fine for me.

I'm switching over to mirrorless. That's costing a fortune. When I put together a DSLR kit, I waded through a bunch of gear before I figured out what I really use. I still have a lot of it. So I'll end up trading like 11 DSLR things plus cash for 2.5 of the 5 mirrorless things I need. But I'll have a good smaller, tighter kit. I would not go through this for anything less than mirrorless. Certainly not just to change brands.
I've waffled back and forth between Fuji X and M43. Ironically, it's the same few cameras I keep sticking with. The G9, E-M1.3, E-M5.3, and X-T3. M43 is really hard to beat for lens size and IBIS. Handholding 6-8s shots is really something. I love lenses like the 25 and 45 1.8s, and I think I'm really going to like this 9mm 1.7. Who knows if/when I'll fall off the wagon again.

The biggest danger for me is window shopping. Like right now, UPP has a mint S5, and are running 10% off. I really like Panasonic's output, but I don't know why they make everything so dang big. I'd love to see a GX9 sequel that brings a usable EVF, as it's got a lot going for it.
To respond to this thread, I probably have to modify the original question, and change the singular expression "camera brand" to a plural form, "camera brands" - as I use and have been using several, for... well, for several years.

I like my Mu-4/3 cameras for their smallish size, and for a handful of wonderful (and generally smallish) lenses. The GX9 deserves special mention for its in-camera l.monochrome.d monochrome setting (to which I am addicted ); the E-M5.iii gets kudos for its surprising (to me) AF capabilities, and general jack-of-all-trades versatility. And my ancient infrared-converted GX1 is still a great little camera. That's two brands already, Lumix & Olympus.

The Fujis have their own addictive qualities, including the best in-camera 'recipes' and color jpeg capabilities of any digital cameras I've ever used (the X-T5), and somehow shrinking everything I could want into one tiny small-sensor package (my X30). Okay, that's three brands now.

Then comes Pentax. My current Pentax DSLR (a relatively compact K-S1) seems to share most of the logical and pleasing-to-use controls of all the old analog film Pentaxes I shot with for centuries, and its generally logical menus never drive me nuts (like those of some other manufacturers). Somehow, Pentaxes always just seem to 'feel right' in my hands. Not to mention that the universe of Pentax lenses, both Pentax-made and 3rd party, is immense and, more often then not, foolishly affordable. And the Q7 has to be the cutest ridiculously-tiny-yet-surprisingly-capable camera I've ever used.

Hmmmm... that makes four 'brands'. I could happily just shoot with them for the foreseeable future.
I'll have to take Miguel's concepts he mentioned above even further. Except for one exception, my gear choices are (or would be, more on that below) pretty much brand-agnostic. I've tried others, but stuck with those that worked for me, regardless of the stickers on them. I'll not list every last item here (there are a few "pockets of resistance" in the gear cupboard that haven't been moved on and will probably stick around for no good reason), but this is why I have and keep what I have:

To tick off three "brand" that haven't been relevant to my decisions, my three fixed-lens cameras are all on-of-a-kind options that occupy their respective niches through their specific assets: Canon G1X III: reasonably good zoom lens, proven weather resitance, very nice handling with a great set of features; Fujifilm X100V: bright lens with great optical performance, RF-like gestalt and handling, reasonable weather resistance; Ricoh GR III: tiny size, stabilised sensor, truely impressive lens. Actually, I've tried to convince myself to let go of the GR III countless times by now due to its lack of something I really want in a camera, a reliable viewfinder of some sort. But the size and the lens (in essence, the results I can get from it) have so far made me keep it. In essence, I wouldn't know what to replace it with (though the Canon G5X II comes close - but ... that lens!).

Next on the list is :mu43: - there are nostalgic reasons involved here because it was :mu43: that made me really enjoy digital photography for the first time (the small and pretty stylish, if frugal Olympus PEN E-PM1; I still miss that camera, but I actually broke it ...). The nostalgia is mostly served by me keeping a Panasonic GF1 around - still a surprisingly capable camera with good, if not perfect handling; the add-on EVF is pretty ridiculous in terms of quality, but at least it's small(ish) and helps with framing. The GX9 is my "auto Leica" - an RF-style camera with all the necessary features to make shooting quick and effortless; that said, it's limited by its less-than-impressive EVF and mediocre I.B.I.S. - but at least it has all those features, and they're certainly adequate. I owned a Fujifilm X-E3 once and enjoyed a lot about that camera, but the GX9 had it beat in terms of operational speed and versatility, and then some. Paired with a small prime (usually, the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7), it's a pleasantly small package that also packs a punch. Miguel has already described the assets of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 III - together with its 12-45mm f/4 PRO stablemate, it's my preferred compact bad-weather combo, but it really works in almost all conditions, and it's also a capable night shooter due to its fantastic (if no longer class-leading) I.B.I.S. All in all, :mu43: is a compelling small system for me - it's no longer state of the art in some respects, but those don't matter because still, great things come in small packages. And familiarity also goes a long way here ... Still, if I should decide to further reduce "system" count, it's :mu43: that'd have to go. No need or reason for that yet, but that may change.

Now for the brand in the game: Nikon. I've been a Nikon shooter pretty much from the day I began to take photography seriously (some time in the mid-80s), I know my way around Nikon cameras, have lots of gear and find it very satisfactory in use and in terms of quality. That's it, really. However, my Z bodies and lenses now also represent the core of my photography gear - they pretty much top everything else I have (and have tried) in terms of handling and results, i.e. as a complete package. That goes for the FX bodies as well as the DX bodies; each of them also brings their unique qualities and technical assets to the table that makes me enjoy using them. At the moment, I think the Z f meets my personal needs best: technically powerful (best I.B.I.S. I've ever used, best 24MP sensor I've ever used, fastest AF system I own), small enough, stylish enough and very sturdy as well as fully weather-sealed - a definitive win. The Z 7 II still handles even better, and its wonderful sensor and confident performance make it a superbly reliable package that really doesn't lack any major quality or asset I could want or need (that said, if a Z 6 III - yep, Z 6 - with the Z f's innards comes out, I'll have to think about replacing the Z 7 II because, in spite of the greatness of the sensor, I rarely need its resolution). The Z 50 is my favourite travel zoom and long lens Z body due to its solid sensor and 1.5 crop factor - but its main strength is its fantastic handling in spite of the small size. The Z fc is light and fun to use with small or even tiny primes - even though it has been kind of superseded by the Z f in term of handling and performance, but: My whole four-lens travel setup for the Z fc isn't much bigger and hardly heavier than the Z f with a single prime ... Finally, the D750 completes the system (and serves my nostalgic needs as well) by being equipped with a focus motor. Even though by now, I'm a bit put of by its bulk (in spite of it being one of the smallest FX DSLR bodies Nikon has ever produced), I still like pairing it with longer lenses/zooms as well as older (screwdriver) AF as well as MF lenses. The pentaprism is still something to behold, and its AF system remains solid and reliable. btw. All my FX bodies also share batteries - very helpful in a pinch, and also one of the reasons I haven't replaced (and won't replace) the D750 by the Df (handling considerations are in play as well) that would otherwise be my choice for its prowess with older lenses. But the D750 gets so many things right that it'd be foolish to exchange it for a body that lacks many of its capabilities. Though what Nikon really needs is an "FTZ" adapter with a built-in AF motor ... (yes, I read about the E-to-F adapter with a built-in motor, too.)

Here's a little oddity: I also keep the Nikon 1 V1 around - because it's the epitome of "enough": It's just small enough to not take up enough space to be in the way, it's big enough to handle just well enough not to be too fiddly; its sensor is just good enough, its small lenses are just good enough (with the exception of the 18.5mm f/1.8 which is really good). It kind of serves as a "lower boundary" for what I could still work with if anything else had to go ...

Finally, there's also the elephant in the room: Why Leica? Because there's nothing else like it - the experience (as well as the results) are unique and, to me, absolutely worth it. To me, this is photography pure and simple; I'm neither a fanboy nor a zealot (I really couldn't care less about the badge), but if I have the time to really immerse myself into photography, there's nothing that suits me as well as one M body and one carefully chosen prime for that purpose. I love every aspect of the experience, down to the many limitations - they're all irrelevant compared to the sheer joy I get out of using that system.

I'm passionate about user experience as well as performance; settling on a clear route took a lot of time (and quite a few futile attempts and much back-tracking). But I've pretty much arrived at a state of affairs I'm truely happy with. I'll remain an experimentalist at heart, but there are no major shifts on the horizon.

1. Above all, its size and weight (including the lenses).
2. The fact that I can still use the good lenses I bought for the OM-4 decades ago.
Apart from image stabilisation and autofocus - which are cute when you have them - everything else works without problems.
And when I think of the Tamron 2.8/105 mm macro that goes up to 1:1 (and is a 1.8/210 on the EM-5) .
Show me any other camera where even the oldest lenses still work fine ... there are very few.
I have always like Olympus right back to the film days, still have an OM-4 around here.

However, I do like cameras and all of them have pros and cons for many reasons but at the moment I am using cameras from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Hasselblad :oops::ROFLMAO:

Its a mix of reasons, usability, sensor size, lens but price is probably the main thing, cameras/lens that I could not afford first time round and now very affordable.
I'll add to my post that I have specific cameras for specific reasons:
1. SW Desert travel kit: Gx85/Pany 14 with GCW1/Oly 75-300II. Every once counts when you hike 2-4 miles and it's 100 degrees. Carry more water and less equipment.
2. Gh6 - Best wildlife/documentary video camera IMHO. In the NW you want a small kit that can with stand moisture but still deliver block buster quality.
3. G9II - my birding camera and the Leica B&W lut:)
4. Both - amazing HHHR landscapes and fine art images.
5. Lenses: Oly 60, PL: 8-18/12-60/100-400. Great still lenses and Great documentary lenses.

Yes, the G9II has some very good video codecs, however don't be fooled the Gh6 has a lot more frame rates and bit rates for professional works. Additionally, Exposure tools and great sound (for back ground and interviews) makes the Gh6 a video beast (you just have to know the camera and how to make it's AF really work). Just as the G9 was for 6 years my goto gear, these cameras (perhaps the Gx85 will be replaced if the 100II has ibis and the 25 mpx sensor) will be that also.

After all in the end it's not about the gear, it's about the story your images/videos tell.....
Last edited: