What Camera Do You Use?
What Camera Do You Use?
I've been getting that question a lot lately. I think it's intended in part as a compliment on the quality of the images, but it does also imply that the camera was responsible for their success.
I also see a lot of "It's not the camera" posts, and I'm not completely comfortable with those either, since (I just bought a new camera and) there are often valid reasons for upgrading to a camera with new or improved features.
So I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle. To support the side of "It's not the camera", I've added 6-7 photos to the front of this album from the 2004-2005 timeframe. The large, album cover photo below was shot on an entry level DSLR, the Canon Digital Rebel XT, now 7 year old technology, reselling used these days for about $200. The others were shot on a Canon Powershot G5 point-and-shoot, purchased in 2004.
So if it's not the camera, what is it that results in better photos? Or if it IS partly the camera, when and why? That'll be the subject of a blog post I'm working on.
Of course when my new camera arrives, I'll have to look closely at my first few hundred images to find examples of why it was important that I make that purchase... why it was the camera... at least to some degree.
I've been getting that question a lot lately. I think it's intended in part as a compliment on the quality of the images, but it does also imply that the camera was responsible for their success.
I also see a lot of "It's not the camera" posts, and I'm not completely comfortable with those either, since (I just bought a new camera and) there are often valid reasons for upgrading to a camera with new or improved features.
So I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle. To support the side of "It's not the camera", I've added 6-7 photos to the front of this album from the 2004-2005 timeframe. The large, album cover photo below was shot on an entry level DSLR, the Canon Digital Rebel XT, now 7 year old technology, reselling used these days for about $200. The others were shot on a Canon Powershot G5 point-and-shoot, purchased in 2004.
So if it's not the camera, what is it that results in better photos? Or if it IS partly the camera, when and why? That'll be the subject of a blog post I'm working on.
Of course when my new camera arrives, I'll have to look closely at my first few hundred images to find examples of why it was important that I make that purchase... why it was the camera... at least to some degree.
Looking forward to your post and thoughts. I too have gone through the same evolution with inexpensive point and shoot cameras taking fantastic shots. There's a blend of talent and camera that results in good shots..or pure luck (in some cases).
ReplyDeleteI think it is partly about the camera. A good lens will give better image quality than that piece of plastic on the front of my phone. A small sensor means greater depth of field - great for macro photographers, but not for those of us who like to use focus constructively. And, of course, the more megapixels, the more we can crop into the shot if necessary; and the ability to do that can mean the difference between keeping and deleting a shot.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, the best cameras get heavier and heavier the older you get. Plus, if you're a good photographer, you can find ways of working around all of the above considerations.
When you look back at the images Ansel Adams made with what would be considered crude equipment now, I do think the person behind the lens has a lot to do with great images.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I can't afford the camera or lenses I want, so I have to learn to work within the limitations of my gear and be a bit more inventive.
Having said that, it doesn't hurt to have good equipment :)
Garry Knight I was wondering why my camera was getting heaver. : )
ReplyDeleteSome images benefit from specific equipment, some don't.
ReplyDeletewalter gawronski There is nothing crude about Ansel Adams equipment and technique. The current best digital single-capture imaging device Phase One IQ 180 doesn't even reach the resolution and dynamic range that b&w 8x10 film can provide.
Chase Jarvis said "The best camera is the one that's with you." However, that's not exactly true, is it? For e.g. How would I capture movement if I cannot control my aperture and/or shutter speed?
ReplyDeleteA good camera doesn't make anyone and everyone a good photographer, but it sure can make a good photographer great, no?
Having the best camera doesn't help a bit if you don't have the foundational skills to know how to take advantage of what the camera offers. My pet peeve is when someone sees my camera and says "Wow your camera must take great pictures!" (and they are usually looking at big the lens anyway!)
ReplyDeleteI like carrying low end cameras, iphone and my canon 5D! most of the time I use the simple ones but sometimes I have to reach for the 5D and try to take that "special photo"
ReplyDeleteExactly right Lori Carey... Indeed, that awesome camera yours should produce awesome photographs... you just need to push that shutter release button no? Just like a great Viking cooking range should make us all Iron Chefs!
ReplyDeletewalter gawronski Ansel's equipment's (Large format 8x10s from almost any era can be turned into giant prints and are equivalent to over 100 MP) still miles better than a modern DSLR in terms of resolution, but yeah in terms of built in features like a light meter, self timer, etc. it's fairly crude. But in terms of resolution and results, a lot of professional landscape photographers still use large format view cameras and the process is much the same with an external light meter.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the role of the camera... Some equipment is necessary for some scenarios. But it's more important that you know how to use it and know the limitations of your equipment than having the best equipment. More megapixels means a bigger print, better high ISO noise reduction algorithms mean better night photography, but if you're clueless about how to use this stuff right your photos will not get better even if you have a 5D Mk III or a D800. If someone says to you "Your camera makes nice images," you should say to them, "Your mouth makes nice words" because that implies that the photographer had no role in it (borrowed from my friend Brent Eysler).
I actually advocate for beginning photographers to start with a mechanical film camera, that way screw ups cost money, there's no program mode to save your exposure, and there's no fancy controls to distract. That'll teach you really quickly to work within limitations of equipment. The time to upgrade your camera is when working within its limitations becomes cumbersome to your style. I went from a Rebel XT to a T1i because I felt squeezed on high ISO noise and the view finder was way too dark. I'd love to have a 5D MkII but in all honesty, would it even make me or my photos any better? Most likely not. I already have most of the glass I want (I have primes from 24 to 135mm all f/2.8 or faster).
lol Ramesh Prabhu someone actually said that to me the other day!
ReplyDeleteZach Stein When I'm following in Ansel Adams' footsteps in the Sierra Nevada, the equipment of his I most wish I also had with me is his burro!
ReplyDeleteOri Guttin I sometimes jokingly refer to my iPhone as my "real camera", since it's often by far the most convenient to pull out to document a moment. But ultimately when I get back later and want to use iPhone images for photography things... prints, showing other photographers, etc, I tend to find the quirks and drawbacks too significant to overlook. I still go back and forth... I do want to produce great iPhone images for mobile-centric sites or perhaps mobile-specific contests and it still is the "camera" often closest to my fingertips for something unexpected, and with a tiny sensor it has so much depth of field, but it's hard to put it in even the same category as a DLSR simply because they both produce digital images.
ReplyDeleteOf course I could cover up the drawbacks of the iPhone's image quality issues with filters and effects and call that "artistic", but to me that feels a little disingenuous. It is what it is, and aside from an occasional minor adjustment in Lightroom, with my iPhone images you get what I got.
QT Luong How's the depth of field on an imaging surface that big? I would imagine that you would have to be very mindful of focus, perhaps hyperfocal distance, and perhaps be selective regarding what's included in the composition (but I haven't shot with large format gear, and to some extend f/64 may compensate when the light is bright enough).
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Sullivan Narrow. The equivalent of a 24mm lens on 5x7 is a 115mm lens. However all your lenses become "tilt shift" since the functionality is built into the camera.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Sullivan I wonder how many people after enjoying a great meal (at home, at a friend's, or at a restaurant) ask the chef what brand of pots he uses.
ReplyDeleteIts the person behind the camera (and to some extent in front of the computer) that makes the picture what it is.
I would agree though that some camera features can make a picture easier take/make, but I have seen a lot of really good images from point and shoots.
I would say the camera (i.e. the body) is more important now than it used to be. Before the advent of digital photography, the body was largely unimportant. The film and the lens were what mattered. But now, the imaging surface is integrated with the body. Now the choice of body really matters.
ReplyDeleteI think it's like paint, pencils, and charcoal... in my hands those beautiful colors don't make the artist expression that I am looking for...but someone else can make the most fabulous works of art.
ReplyDeleteLaura Lynne Ellis I have that same experience with paint, but I have to confess to hoping that my new "brush" (Canon 5D mark III) can paint my images with a little less noise and more dynamic range in shadows and highlights.
ReplyDeleteQT Luong , I never mentioned anything about Ansel's technique being crude.
ReplyDeleteI was comparing technological advances in equipment today to assist in obtaining a great image, even though his view camera had great resolution, they didn't have coated optics etc to lift contrast & cut flare.
It is much easier today to produce a good image than it was back then and the photographers of the era had no assistance from the camera.
Jeffrey Sullivan, I believe that it is the photographer who creates better results. The camera also plays a part and with a better camera (I'm also looking for an upgrade :;) one might be able to take better pictures. But still it's the photographer who uses whatever equipment at his/her disposal in creating a better image.
ReplyDeleteLast year I did Zion, Bryce, Arches, Canyonlands, Monument Valley and Grand Canyon on one trip. So many of thee photos are from the exact places I stood.
ReplyDeleteI do love this set!
ReplyDeleteAs for camera... until about 2 months ago, I was using the Nikon D40x. It was working perfectly for me, but I felt like I was at its limitations and needed something better. So I upgraded to the Nikon D300s. I do see a difference in quality - the biggest one being that the 300s takes larger images. For now, I will be looking into and saving for, new lenses because when I upgrade again in a few years, it will be to medium format, or if that has been replaced in technology, whatever it has been replaced with.
It is kind of like the 5-star chef and the stove/tools. That chef has the talent to make a fantastic dinner with whatever tools they have in front of them. However, it is easier to do that dinner with the preferred tools - perhaps gas stove instead of electric or glass top, better cutlery vs blue light special cutlery, etc.
I am looking forward to your post on it!
actually in reply to the actual question. For shots like these its a bit of both. I shot at Bryce Canyon alongside my wife. I used a Canon 5D MkII, she a Canon 500D. We both got good shots for waking up early and getting the golden sunrise across the Hoodoos. Despite similar composition; mine are of an obvious better quality due to the equipment and the ability to use Lightroom later on to process the RAW files.
ReplyDeleteThen again; we both went to Monument Valley and her shots totally destroyed mine. She caught some amazing shadows that I totally missed. The person behind the camera will always be the most important factor; but the camera is still very important.
Stunning image!
ReplyDeleteAlan King You're definitely thinking along the same lines of the blog post I've had half-done for ages now.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tamara Pruessner, I've seen some nice images from the Nikon D40 series, and while the photographer-related elements don't change right away with a body upgrade, there can be incremental improvements in resolution, dynamic range, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to medium format, consider that the D800 (and especially D800E) are close to the resolution recently delivered only by medium format, with sensors delivering more ISO sensitivity, greater dynamic range, and in a body delivering more features (exposure bracketing, etc.), and a much wider selection of much less expensive pro lenses. I've had people carrying $50,000 medium format digital cameras show up for my workshops and I hate to see them struggling with simple things like exposure bracketing, simply because their camera manufacturer didn't have the foresight, responsiveness or resources to adapt to some of the more basic concepts of digital photography such as digital post-processing (layer masking in Photoshop being a good example of when having two different exposures almost identical in time can be very useful).
Camera equipment is expensive enough already... I'd rather have a $3000 body get obsolete in 3 years than a $17,000 digital back, especially if the back is tied to a less functional system. Of course there are applications requiring every last bit of resolution (stitching doesn't always work gracefully), and for people who can charge enough for their time and work to cover churning through tens of thousands in equipment every year or two, I'm sure it's cool to have a little extra resolution.
Sangeeth VS Agreed, the photographer makes the image, and a skilled one can often take advantage of incremental features of better equipment, but only to the extent that their vision and skill allow, and only to the extent that the incremental features are relevant to the subjects they shoot and the settings they shoot in.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't benefit much in most cases from the 14 frames per second which might be critical to a professional sports shooter, and someone who doesn't like getting up for sunrises or shooting at night might rarely benefit from choosing the Canon 5D mark III (about $3400) over the 5D mark II (about $2200 street price), where the advantage seems to be mainly slightly better high ISO noise performance (I'll know more after my mark III arrives and I shoot with it for a week or two).
The D40x is a great little camera. I feel like I really pushed its boundaries and when I have told people in the past that my photos were from it (before I upgraded), to a person, they were shocked that I didn't have a bigger system. And it was definitely a change for me, in resolution, and I wanted to do more long exposures. With my D40x, when I did anything longer than a minute, it took forever to process and I would ALWAYS have to go in and clean up dead pixels.
ReplyDeleteI have started reading more about the D800. Which makes me almost kick myself for not waiting and saving a bit more for it, rather than the 300s. It seems like a great camera!
I figure by the time I am ready for an upgrade again, something will have made the technology available now, obsolete. I used the D40x from 2007 until just a couple of months ago. I think 4.5 years is definitely a great run with it. I don't think I will upgrade this one for at least 2-3 years...if not longer. Just depends on what it can do for me. I also figure if I am shooting for the medium format range in pricing, then I will work extra hard to get everything I can out of this camera system. That way when I think I am ready for an upgrade, I really am ready, KWIM?
Really fantastic pics, Jeffrey!
ReplyDeleteTamara Pruessner The D800 does seem like a nice unit, but I really like the idea of moving up gradually, since by the time you really need the higher end model you could have gotten, it's obsolete and replaced by something even better. So enjoy your300s.
ReplyDeleteI like the specs on the D800, but I have enough file management issues with 22 megapixels, would I really want to have to upgrade my laptop, probably start over with high end desktop as well? Improved access to the Nikon 14-24mm would be nice (I could get a Canon adapter for $200, but lose autofocus). There's so much we could have... better for now I think to get the most use out of what I have.
Jim Robertson I've always liked that analogy. There is a hangout with The White House chef Cris Comerford live in 15 minutes:
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/105479712798762608629/posts/gZbpiYcPcXg
I may drop by to see if he lets slip which pans he uses...