WHICH CAMERA?

[BenjaminKanarek]

Which Camera?

I have had the opportunity to be on several photographers forums and one of themes that captures the imagination, visceral reactions and high end emotion is “Which Brand is the Best!”

Back when film was king and in most cases, any 35mm SLR could provide a professional photographer the tools required for doing the job.  Motor drive speed was the one of the most important factors in making a decision and most of the brands offered relatively fast speeds for most applications.

Today the requirements are similar with quite a other considerations thrown in to the works.  How many pixels, sensor quality, speed, in camera editing, synch speed, video provision, noise levels, color rendition etc. etc. etc.

Now if we were having this discussion five or six years ago, the playing field would be quite small and the choices would be quite limited. Today, every major brand from Sony to Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. have some very good tools for those of us looking for a reasonably priced “Disposable Camera!”

Yes I said “Disposable Camera”.  These high technology tools give us quality that we could only have dreamed of a few years ago, out classing most 6×4.5 and 6×6 Medium Format film cameras and easily out classing high iso film.

When we consider that most digital bodies are recycled every 18 months or so, we have to ask ourself, “when should we upgrade or why should we upgrade?”  In the past a 35 mm film body could be used for a minimum of 5 years and the only concern would be would the camera last over 200,000 activations and which lens do I want to add to my arsenal.

Today it is very much the opposite and the element of the the greatest importance in my opinion is the quality of lenses you have in your arsenal.  These lenses will be used on every future upgrade of body, unless the camera manufacturer changes the mount system.  In that case you are shit hot out of luck.

What am I trying to say here is that I would not go out and spend a fortune on the top of the line camera, unless it is very reasonably priced.  Every single mid market camera today can produce excellent professional results.  Determine the maximum output required for what ever medium you are working in and based on those requirements, you can make your purchase.

Spend the money you saved on your kids, your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or mistress.

If the technology that is out there today is insufficient in your estimate to produce a fine image, I strongly suggest that you find another hobby or become a professional pixel peeper!

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/06/29/which-camera/

[fike]

I tend to agree with you on most counts, but I am afraid at LL you are likely to find most folks believe they can reap substantial benefits from the modest quality differences between mid-grade cameras and high-end cameras.  This community is not one that is focused on the most economical cameras.  They concern themselves with getting the very best in every element of their workflow.  

There are noticeable differences between the mid-grade and the high-end cameras, but anyone who claims to be limited by their camera these days (mid-grade or high-end) is lacking for creative inspiration, not technology.  

Recently I was coaching a person who was brand new to photography (didn't know an aperture from an ISO).  She was cross-shopping $3,000 and $4,000 DSLR kits.  I couldn't seem to get through to her that she didn't know what was important to her, and that her investment was very likely to be repeated in a few years because she got a kit that didn't match her needs.  It was to no avail.  The marketing people at the camera companies will convince folks that each new camera is a "must-have" for the broadest audience possible.

Prepare to be vilified.  Preaching photographic moderation here at LL is rarely rewarded.  If you ask my wife, I too, am too obsessed with better, faster, shinier cameras, so I can't really talk.

[uaiomex]

Mostly true. My criteria for not getting into a 1Ds series and getting into the 5D series is because I knew that I was going to replace it with the newer version because of the bigger pixel count and novelty features. I've proved to myself enough already. Four different Canon dslr's in 8 years. In respect for digital medium format, the same applies, only  this time I can't afford one. Probably I will never can and not because of the price, but because I will not save enough if I keep upgrading to new dslr's and finer optics.
Eduardo

[BernardLanguillier]

Spend the money you saved on your kids, your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or mistress.

Or in reaching suitable shooting locales?

The bottom line is well known and still the same, in order of importance [for me]: good eye, good subject, good timing, good technique and good equipment.

Now let's be clear with this, the most significant contributor to equipment purchase these days is the one click 100% zoom feature of imaging softwares. Opening an image and seeing those tones instanciated as sharp pixels without noise/artifacts/painterfly effect provides a sense of satisfaction that is real.  Whether it is relevant is a different question. I have a few panos printing perfect one meter wide that have sickeningly blurred micro detail when looked at 100% on screen...

The piece of equipment that matters most will depend on the photographer's goals/domain/style but the quality of the outcome is often controlled by the least performing item.

This being said, in my view:
- If you shoot PJ: the body is the most important element (AF reliability, high ISO, rugdness,...) followed by the lens,
- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head,
- If you shoot style: the lens,
- If you shoot portrait: the lighting,
- If you want to impress: the medium format digital back (not to say that this is the only valid motivation to use a back of course),
- ...

Cheers,
Bernard

[pcunite]

Opening an image and seeing those tones instanciated as sharp pixels without noise/artifacts/painterfly effect provides a sense of satisfaction that is real.  Whether it is relevant is a different question. I have a few panos printing perfect one meter wide that have sickeningly blurred micro detail when looked at 100% on screen...

...SKIP...

In my view:
- If you shoot PJ: the body is the most important element (AF reliability, high ISO, rugdness,...) followed by the lens,
- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head,
- If you shoot style: the lens,
- If you shoot portrait: the lighting,
- If you want to impress: the medium format digital back,

Excellent.

[Greg Campbell]

There are noticeable differences between the mid-grade and the high-end cameras, but anyone who claims to be limited by their camera these days (mid-grade or high-end) is lacking for creative inspiration, not technology.

Bravo!

Recently I was coaching a person who was brand new to photography (didn't know an aperture from an ISO).  She was cross-shopping $3,000 and $4,000 DSLR kits.  I couldn't seem to get through to her that she didn't know what was important to her, and that her investment was very likely to be repeated in a few years because she got a kit that didn't match her needs.  It was to no avail.

That's a shame.  Tell her she'd be infinitely better off buying a ~$130 digital P/S (one with Av, Tv, and assorted manual override options).  Only when she can make 'wow!' images on a regular basis should she start thinking of buying a more capable camera.

The marketing people at the camera companies will convince folks that each new camera is a "must-have" for the broadest audience possible.

Yup, those people have managed to warp and distort the very meaning of the word 'photography.'    

Prepare to be vilified.  Preaching photographic moderation here at LL is rarely rewarded.  If you ask my wife, I too, am too obsessed with better, faster, shinier cameras, so I can't really talk.

Naw!  This bunch is downright tame compared to the DpReview crowd, or the Dweebs on the FredMiranda gear forums.      

[geesbert]

I am so tiered of people complaining about the prices of high end gear. as a professional spending a few thousands on cameras every 18 months is not a big deal. how much does it really cost to get the latest let's say 1ds camera? it's about 8000, if you trade in your former model you get 3-4000 back, if you treated your stuff well. that means spending less than 250 a month for having the latest gear, if you can't make this, you should change profession.

8000 is a lot for a toy, but very affordable as a tool for making money. why should I use a lesser model, other than a back-up?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Apart from professional reasons like speed, convenience and such which seem to be important for certain professional situations which I can't judge due to my being an amateur, I believe a tool should be a little bit better to a certain degree, than the photographer actually is.

Its like pants which are bought a bit too big to grow in when we were children.

The difference must be reasonable and is surely a delicate decision, but too simple or underpowered equipment is as bad as too good/expensive/overpowered equipment.

Its similar with music instruments. For a beginner it is good not too have a too cheap instrument, but it doesn't have to be the Stradivari Violin or Bechstein Piano from the first day on ...

Just my $ 0.02.

~Chris

[dwdallam]

Yup, those people have managed to warp and distort the very meaning of the word 'photography.'  

"Those people" have warped the very meaning of what it is to be human.

Agree with 99% here.

One way to convince that gal she doesn't need a 4K kit is to get your point and shoot with manual options, set up some lights or get out where you do whatever type of photography it is, and take pictures with the point and shoot. Then use your best camera. Make prints. Tell her to choose which is the point and shoot.

When I bought my 1DS MKIII, the 5D MKII wasn't available. If it had been, I would have been the owner of a 5D II right now, not a 1DS MKIII. Of course I don't shoot sports. You get the idea.

I've said before, once I get the next iteration of the 1DS series, I'm done. I'll have that and my 1DS MKIII for a back up. Anymore spending on cameras would be purely ego and nothing to do with my ability or needs. And let's say something does come out with revolutionary, say, night capabilities. Good. I'll by the Dxx when it comes out with the same capability for 1500US and use it when I need, rarely, that type of technology.

It's getting to the point now that any good 1500-2000 camera will get you professional results, just like 20 years ago any 800US 35mm camera would capture images as good as any 3000US 35mm camera.

[jzzmusician]

Or in reaching suitable shooting locales?

The bottom line is well known and still the same, in order of importance [for me]: good eye, good subject, good timing, good technique and good equipment.

Now let's be clear with this, the most significant contributor to equipment purchase these days is the one click 100% zoom feature of imaging softwares. Opening an image and seeing those tones instanciated as sharp pixels without noise/artifacts/painterfly effect provides a sense of satisfaction that is real.  Whether it is relevant is a different question. I have a few panos printing perfect one meter wide that have sickeningly blurred micro detail when looked at 100% on screen...

The piece of equipment that matters most will depend on the photographer's goals/domain/style but the quality of the outcome is often controlled by the least performing item.

This being said, in my view:
- If you shoot PJ: the body is the most important element (AF reliability, high ISO, rugdness,...) followed by the lens,
- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head,
- If you shoot style: the lens,
- If you shoot portrait: the lighting,
- If you want to impress: the medium format digital back (not to say that this is the only valid motivation to use a back of course),
- ...

Cheers,
Bernard

Beautifully stated.

[archivue]

all i can say, is that coming from 5D and 5DII, i'm now using a leaf back for artwork reproduction and architecture photography... this tool makes me spend less time for post-production, because the files are much cleaner (color, distortion...).
I will probably keep my back for more times than my canon gear !

And i don't see a reason to upgrade my back...

So, for me (and my use) a canon cost more than a digital back (times, upgrade... TSE lenses...)

[fredjeang]

I agree with 99 % of what's been said.
The tool, of course is not THE condition for the hability, experience and talent, but it is very important to work with the best possible tool ones can buy at one time.
No question that if my budget would allow me right now, I' ll get the best MF kit that would fit my needs, the very high-end FF, the best tripod etc...
There are many reasons: time gain, usability, reliability, satisfaction at 100% etc...
Also, how much is a new car that will be obsolete in 3 years? A new fancy sofa? etc...as a professional investment, photography is not specialy expensive.
It just depend on your priorities.
Sometimes, making "reasonable" calculations, ones end paying twice the price later.
That happened to me, and I think to a lot of people.
Now, I'm always trying to purchase the very best according to my real needs. Then you're satisfied, no doubts, no hassles but pleasure.

Fred.

[vandevanterSH]

- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head,
*********
- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head***and USING IT**  After being a hobbyist for ~ eight years, I have sorta figured that out.  8,6,4,2, years ago..Spend $800-1000+ on a tripod system.."Are you nuts?"..I am now convinced.  It may be a misplaced priority but seeing a landscape with near perfect pixels at 100% does provide satisfaction.

Steve

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head,
*********
- If you shoot landscape: the tripod and the pano head***and USING IT**  After being a hobbyist for ~ eight years, I have sorta figured that out.  8,6,4,2, years ago..Spend $800-1000+ on a tripod system.."Are you nuts?"..I am now convinced.  It may be a misplaced priority but seeing a landscape with near perfect pixels at 100% does provide satisfaction.

Steve

Carbon fibre rocks ...

[KevinA]

Which Camera?

I have had the opportunity to be on several photographers forums and one of themes that captures the imagination, visceral reactions and high end emotion is “Which Brand is the Best!”

Back when film was king and in most cases, any 35mm SLR could provide a professional photographer the tools required for doing the job.  Motor drive speed was the one of the most important factors in making a decision and most of the brands offered relatively fast speeds for most applications.

Today the requirements are similar with quite a other considerations thrown in to the works.  How many pixels, sensor quality, speed, in camera editing, synch speed, video provision, noise levels, color rendition etc. etc. etc.

Now if we were having this discussion five or six years ago, the playing field would be quite small and the choices would be quite limited. Today, every major brand from Sony to Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. have some very good tools for those of us looking for a reasonably priced “Disposable Camera!”

Yes I said “Disposable Camera”.  These high technology tools give us quality that we could only have dreamed of a few years ago, out classing most 6×4.5 and 6×6 Medium Format film cameras and easily out classing high iso film.

When we consider that most digital bodies are recycled every 18 months or so, we have to ask ourself, “when should we upgrade or why should we upgrade?”  In the past a 35 mm film body could be used for a minimum of 5 years and the only concern would be would the camera last over 200,000 activations and which lens do I want to add to my arsenal.

Today it is very much the opposite and the element of the the greatest importance in my opinion is the quality of lenses you have in your arsenal.  These lenses will be used on every future upgrade of body, unless the camera manufacturer changes the mount system.  In that case you are shit hot out of luck.

What am I trying to say here is that I would not go out and spend a fortune on the top of the line camera, unless it is very reasonably priced.  Every single mid market camera today can produce excellent professional results.  Determine the maximum output required for what ever medium you are working in and based on those requirements, you can make your purchase.

Spend the money you saved on your kids, your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or mistress.

If the technology that is out there today is insufficient in your estimate to produce a fine image, I strongly suggest that you find another hobby or become a professional pixel peeper!

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/06/29/which-camera/

Mostly true, but I need a camera that can take a bit of banging around, I tightly screw a very heavy gyro to the base, I'm not sure some of the mid range would not fall to bits, I also like to shoot with 2 cards mirroring each shot. Plus I bill a few hundred thousand pounds over the lifetime of a camera so it's not my biggest expense.

Kevin.