In a World of Digital Cameras, Technology Does Matter.
Posted on 12. Sep, 2009 by Thomas in Blog, Gear
There’s a meme going around the internet at the moment that I find particularly annoying. You’ve probably heard it or read it somewhere. It goes something like this: “If you’re interested in new cameras and new technology then you’re not a real photographer” or something similar. I’ve seen it on forums and blogs, where the writer complains about people being interested in new cameras, that they’re only “gear heads” and not really interested in the art at all. It’s as if this is somehow a crime against the true art of photography. Personally I couldn’t disagree more.
Here’s the thing. To take a great picture you don’t need the latest and greatest technology. That’s absolutely true. Let me be clear. I’m not trying to say that technology is a crutch for bad technique or lack of knowledge, but when you eliminate those things as a factor, if you care about the final quality of your image then the technology is important. I know I’m repeating myself a little here but I’m constantly shocked at the ferocity with which people are attacked on forums for comparing cameras or daring to suggest that they should upgrade. If you’re just taking family snapshots then certainly, stick with your D40 or whatever you use. However if you plan to sell that image, then it’s a different story.
While your choice of camera shouldn’t hamper your ability to take good photos, it will have an impact on the image quality of those pictures. This wasn’t always the case though. Back when film was the medium de-jour the camera was probably the least significant element of good technical image quality. Then it was the quality of your lens and the type of film you used (along with knowing what you’re doing of course). Kodakchrome and Velvia were kings. You could change the grain, the contrast, the resolution and the sensitivity of your image by changing the type of film. If your digital camera is lacking in any of those areas you can’t just slide out the sensor and put in a new one. You’ve no choice but to invest in a new camera.
So what makes the ultimate camera? What should you look for if you want the best image quality? Unfortunately there’s no easy answer to that question either. It all depends on what you are doing. If you primarily take landscapes then you want a camera with a high resolution sensor that has good colour reproduction. If you’re a portrait or fashion photographer then you’re probably going to need a medium format camera. If you’re primarily taking news or reportage, then high ISO performance is probably the most important. If you’re taking sports then speed is the key. Of course if you’re starting out, and take all different types of photography then you probably need to strike a balance between all those, and that’s probably the hardest balance to find right now.
I fall into the last category. I don’t really specialise in any one type of photography right now, and lately I’ve become obsessed with finding the best image quality and the best camera for what I want to do. Unfortunately those two things are not always complimentary. I think the best camera currently available with the best image quality is the Nikon D3x. Unfortunately it’s a little out of my price range at the moment. Then we move down to the next price level which is the Canon Eos 5D Mark II, the Nikon D700 and the Sony Alpha A850. At low ISO’s the Sony is probably the best, but I hate the ergonomics of the Sony so that’s out. I love the controls and layout of the Nikon, but compared to the 5D’s sensor it’s starting to look a little antiquated. The D700 is probably a better camera but the 5D undoubtedly has a better sensor. In the film days this wouldn’t have been a problem, as I could just pop a roll of my favourite film (Fuji Velvia 50) into what ever camera body I found most comfortable and the best lens I could afford. Today that choice is far more complex.
This is exactly the kind of quandary that leads to scolding and berating on forums. I’ve even seen it on the blogs of seasoned “professionals” who really should know better. My point in all this is as follows. If you consider yourself a good photographer, professional or amateur, if you’re confident in your technique, then you’ve nothing to apologise for if you show an interest in the latest camera technology. If you quest for the very best in image quality this doesn’t make you a bad photographer, unless you’re already a bad photographer. Being an artist and being interested in technology are not mutually exclusive. Certainly go out and take great pictures with what you have but you shouldn’t feel bad about looking to the future either.
Post Script
The opposite of this argument is also true. You can take great pictures with the crappiest of cameras if the technical quality of the image is not important. I’ve seen some amazing art taken with an iPhone’s camera. The whole lomography and holga movement is a world of wonderful analogue beauty. I’m as much a fan of analogue and grunge as I am of technology. Like I said before, the two should not be mutually exclusive. Just don’t expect to submit your holga shot “businessman at desk” to a stock agency and get it accepted.
Related posts:
Immediately after reading through this particular post i simply got to state this is exactly what makes the net such a wonderful place , the potential to share and appreciate top quality info. Do you have a newsletter i can subscribe to?