Not So Common Sense about Interchangeable Lens, Digital Camera Buying — a Handful of Things that No One Tells Beginners, but Should

© 2012 Peter Free

 

01 October 2012

 

 

Introduction — this essay is for beginners and budget-minded photo buffs

 

What follows is obvious to most highly experienced photographers.  But, judging by Internet photo forums, ignorance of the following background observations seems to prevail among substantially everyone else.

 

 

Basic background observations

 

(1) Without photo experience, it is impossible to know what we actually need, as opposed to what we have been led to think we want.

 

(2) Without picture-taking experience, it is usually impossible to even minimally forecast how our photographic interests will develop over the long term.

 

(3) Even with substantial photographic experience, it is not probable that we can fully evaluate a camera body and system against another — and still be certain that our selection was “best” in light of our requirements.

 

(4) In the digital era, it is noticeably more about manufacturers’ profits and seductive (but unnecessary) body and system changes than it was before.

 

(5) For impulsive digital buyers, the ratio of photographic return to financial investment has substantially dropped since the film days.

 

(6) In most cases, our arguably “wrong” system will produce results almost identical to a newer or better ones.

 

(7) Skillful post-processing can make up for a significant number of equipment evils.

 

 

Observation 1 — inexperience is blinding, and that is not really a problem

 

Without experience and/or photographic niche requirements, there is no best choice in cameras or camera systems.

 

Until “you” have immersed yourself into picture-taking, there is no realistic chance that you will have an intelligent idea of how to:

 

(a) get the results that you want

 

(b) with the effort that you are willing to invest.

 

If we think about this, we quickly see that it is not enough to specify what we want to “shoot,” but we also need to figure out how easily and successfully we want to shoot it.

 

In truth, there is no way to know the answers to either question, until we have been doing both for some time.  That’s why salespeople and Internet camera forums are not really that helpful for beginners, or even for people with non-average needs.

 

Given how similar camera systems’ digital capabilities are, ignorance is not worth fussing over.

 

Buy something.  Get your feet wet, and the answers will come.

 

 

Observation 2 — it is usually impossible to forecast how one’s photographic interests will develop over time, and that doesn’t matter, either

 

I mention this rule because so many people think that they have to choose the “right” system now, so as to avoid expensive brand changes in the future.  But it is generally impossible to know how our interests will evolve, until they do.  Life does not stand still.  Neither do we.

 

In my experience, attempting to foresee and rationally plan for all the twists and turns of a photographic passion is impossible.

 

 

Observation 3 — even with substantial photographic experience, it is impossible to fully evaluate photographic systems against one another — and still be certain that one’s selection was “best”

 

Realistically, we cannot fully know a camera body and lens, until we have used it across a wide range of photographic situations for at least two months.

 

Experience brings the ability and willingness to adapt to system quirks.  Which means that, even at upper equipment levels, a system is workable, even if less than perfect.  Every system has weaknesses, when assessed in light of at least some of the things that we are trying to do.

 

Consequently, there is no ultimately “best” system.  There are only more widely workable ones.

 

 

Observation 4 — in the digital era, the manufacturers’ game is about making seductive (often unnecessary) body and system changes

 

Manufacturers and advertisers try to lure us into thinking that we must have their iteration of the latest development.  This is a proposition for wasting money.

 

I smile when reviewers announce that a new sensor is “so much better than” what preceded it.  In most cases, the differences in the picture proofs they provide is near invisible on the computer monitor and certainly so in photographic prints.

 

So too, for most other camera advances.  They sound good, until you use them.  Then you recognize that although they might appeal to lightly committed amateurs, they are inadequate or questionable for some kinds of serious or professional use:

 

Witness Sony’s substitution of in-camera high dynamic range processing for wide range exposure bracketing.  Or its consumer-friendly high frames per second rating, this “advance” being made at the dual expense of:

 

(a) not being able to focus after the first frame

 

and

 

(b) substantially increased noise (due to the light-reducing pellicle mirror used).

 

Alternatively, think about the promise of in–body image stabilization (IBIS) as opposed to its implemented reality.  Sometimes stabilization worked, but until recently — reportedly with the 5-axis mechanism in the Olympus OM-D — it frequently made blur worse.

 

Consider, too, the hype that accompanied mirrorless cameras and the substantial negatives that were revealed after people tried to use them as even partial dSLR substitutes.

 

The digital camera era invites even more advertising puffery than its film predecessors.

 

So, beware manufacturers’ ploys to issue new, insubstantially different models in rapid order.  Olympus and Sony have been especially guilty of this.  Their penchant for excessively trolling the market devalues the used prices of predecessor models, without offering anything of substantial benefit in the new ones.

 

 

Rule 5 — for impulsive digital buyers, the ratio of photographic return to financial investment has substantially dropped since the film days

 

This purportedly “evolving” technology trait gives manufacturers and advertisers room to play games with everyone’s money.  If consumers don’t develop a claims-testing mentality, we are going to be in for an expensive ride.

 

I am not saying that digital photography hasn’t advanced.  I am just pointing out that, for the most part, it doesn’t move into the future as quickly as camera makers and reviewers generally pretend.

 

Buying used, when you can trust your seller’s integrity, is wise budget protection for waste-averse people.

 

 

Rule 6 — within cost categories, digital camera differences are usually trivial, and even obsolete bodies and lenses can produce results almost identical to newer and better ones

 

Camera platforms today, with comparable sensor sizes, are pretty equivalent.  For non-professional uses, it is hard to go wrong, no matter what one buys.

 

The Internet’s un-ending blather differentiating one brand or model from another is mostly useless.  You will eventually notice that much of this disconcertingly fervent talk comes from brand-loyal people who don’t know what they’re talking about, when it comes to inter-brand comparisons.

 

There are, of course, instances when one marque leaps temporarily ahead of its rivals in some meaningful way.  But competitors catch up and surpass.  Changing systems at these times is more often a financial mistake than not.

 

 

Caveat to Rule 6 — for professionals, Canon and Nikon do hold sway

 

A talented person can make money with virtually any camera.  However, some uses are so demanding that professionally focused systems have an advantage.  For example, wildlife, journalism, and fast-moving and poorly lighted sports.

 

As a rule of thumb, a beginner who anticipates turning professional, and who does not yet know in which ultimate direction, will probably be wise to buy either Canon or Nikon to start.  No other manufacturers have demonstrated the longevity and generalist photographic commitment that these two have for decades.  And, if you will eventually need an all-purpose top end camera body, no one else competes.

 

Deciding between Nikon and Canon comes down, in my substantial experience, to randomly throwing darts or flipping coins.

 

 

Observation 7 — post-processing software can make up for some equipment evils

 

Most people spend too little time considering the benefit that they would gain from manipulating their pictures with software like Adobe Photoshop and its plug-ins.

 

Post-processing can help with noise, poor exposure, distorted perspective, and even slightly out-of-focus elements.  Processing often closes the equipment and skill levels gap that often separates photographers.

 

Here, it is also important to recognize that a good picture is usually less about technical perfection than the aesthetic qualities of the moment recorded.

 

As a result, I have spent more money on post-processing software than I have on photo-related hardware.  Software depreciates less quickly and delivers more visible benefit.

 

The drawback is the time and dedication required in learning to use it.

 

 

Action rules — based on the above background observations

 

(1) Plunge in, buy something.

 

Don’t obsess and give up on thinking that there is a fully rational way to sort competing models.

 

In the long run, whatever you buy will turn out to be wrong in some ways.  Like the rest of life.

 

(2) Use and learn the new camera.

 

If whatever you bought doesn’t work for you, build on that experience by choosing a better suited model or settling for pictures taken by your cell phone camera.

 

Learning to sell on eBay (or other forums) would be wise, if you intend to experiment a lot with different camera models.

 

(3) Recognize that most of the “gee whiz” features that come with low and intermediate digital cameras are photographically unnecessary.

 

There is, however, no way to fully grasp this, until after you have had significant photographic experience.

 

(4) If you are cautious with money, wait to buy, until the camera has been out for a year.

 

You will usually notice a more realistic and, therefore, critical tone to experienced users’ Internet feedback after the elation of newness has worn off.

 

(5) If you do read Internet photo forums, find a few people whose opinions you trust.

 

For me, these are almost always professional photographers, who have cross-platform experience.  Pros usually focus on what is actually necessary to successful picture-taking:

 

You can find some good review examples of these on Michael Reichmann’s The Luminous Landscape’s website.

 

For example, see Mark Dubovoy’s comment about and fix for Sony’s continuing foolish placement of the video record button on its NEX cameras.

 

In contrast, professional “reviewers” tend to concentrate on important-sounding trivia that experienced photo takers don’t care about and miss the things that do matter.

 

The difference between professional photographers and professional camera reviewers is that the former actually use their cameras.  When one doesn’t use a camera under realistic conditions, one misses a wide range of otherwise hidden issues.  That is probably why so many of the review sites have such aesthetically and technically terrible test photos.  The reviewers are not really photographers.

 

(6) If you have to ask whether you need a new camera or an upgrade, you probably don’t.

 

This question often comes up in regard to choosing between “full frame” (meaning 35mm sized sensor bodes) and their “cropped sensor” siblings.  People most likely to go full frame are those who:

 

photograph moving objects at low light levels (where the large sensor has a noise advantage),

 

want better optical viewfinders,

 

expect their lenses to “act” the way these focal lengths traditionally did in 35mm days,

 

and/or

 

think that full frame sensors will frequently deliver better tonal values.

 

They gain these situation-specific benefits at the significant expense of price, weight, and bulk.

 

An aside — on isolating focus

 

In my view, going to full frame digital SLR, exclusively for its depth of focus isolating effect, exposes photographic ignorance and lack of technique.

 

I spent most of my film days struggling to get more, rather than less, depth of acceptable sharpness.  That was always true with large and medium formats and often true with 35mm.

 

 

The moral? — Don’t obsess regarding digital camera buys

 

I read a large number of Internet forum postings that indicate how much people obsess over which camera to choose.  I can relate.

 

When I began serious photography more than fifty years ago, I was the same way.  That was at a time when there really were substantial differences between systems and models.  For example, as between Rolleiflex twin lens reflexes, medium format SLRs, and a wide variety of significantly different 35mm systems — Exacta, early Contax, Miranda, Leica R, Leica M, Nikon and Canon SLRs and rangefinders, and so forth.  Not to mention the parallel large format choices.

 

Experience since has demonstrated what a waste of time and emotion that was, even when it was partially justified.

 

A surprising proportion of my best photos have come from my crappiest/cheapest cameras.  Because:

 

I had them with me,

 

wasn’t concerned about trashing them,

 

and

 

knew how to use them — in spite of their flaws.

 

With the evened playground that digital brings with it, it is difficult to go expensively wrong in one’s equipment choices.  Especially so, if one starts moderately and builds on the knowledge gained.

 

Contact me, if you need help.