What Camera do you REALLY Need?
Inspired by Thomas Dean, Photographer.
Thomas Dean not long ago published a story with this title:
Thomas writes: Don’t you hate it when the answer to a question is, “well that depends”?
Sorry, but this is one of those questions.
“What camera do you really need?”, should read, “what kind of photographs do you take?”
That’s where the “depends” comes in. We all have different motivations for taking photographs. We all desire different outcomes with the photographs we take. So, it means there is no “one size fits all” camera solution to the question.
This is not a rebuttal; Tom’s guidance is good, solid advice, except I haven’t taken it, especially not since going entirely digital in 2007.
So, what kind of photographs do I take? Ummmm…
I am a photovore — a photographic omnivore. I am interested in anything and everything; if it crosses my line of sight, I want to photograph it. It doesn’t matter what or where it is, from architecture to zoos. The light doesn't matter. Color or monochrome doesn’t matter. In analog days I could never have been this wildly liberated. I am Delirious for Digital!
My personal opinion is that (digital) cameras — is cameras. I use one camera at a time. My first P&S was lonesome for a year until I bought a more sophisticated model; the older one went into backup* status. That was my routine thereafter; stage up to a slightly better P&S, put its predecessor into backup, and sell the oldest one. I prefer to use one camera, getting to know it intimately with all its faults, foibles, and facilities.
* Pros know from bitter experience that cameras fail without warning. Backups are not optional.
I’ve only owned six digitals since my first in 2007. One was entry-level. Three were glorified point-and-shoots. One was a 1" sensor bridge camera, and now, for five years and counting, I have used only half-frame (APS-C) compact Sonys. I call myself a one-camera-at-a-time guy. Digital, for me, was/is the paradigm shift.
Anyone familiar with my background knows that, like Thomas, I am a deeply experienced retired professional who has used many different film cameras. Working professionally in analog demanded diverse cameras, mainly for format and physical sizes up to 8x10 inches. Larger formats were needed for higher image quality. We couldn’t do our various jobs with a single analog camera. Imagine trying to shoot a wedding with a view camera in the 1970s.
Digital changed that practically overnight. I came late to the party in 2007 but was instantly astounded at the image quality the itsy-bitsy sensor in my new Nikon ‘Coolpix’ L12 delivered. And in full color! AND in any light, indoors or out. The list goes on.
Today we label 36x24mm “full frame,” the size and aspect ratio of a 35mm film/analog camera, but back in the day, we called 35mm cameras “miniature,” the smallest barely-professional format. Even photojournalists spurned it for years. Unless shooting grainless Kodachrome 25, the biggest issue for pros was grain, what we now call noise. It degraded resolution. A vanishingly few wedding specialists began using 35mm, but it was considered daring; you couldn’t deliver wall-size prints (not that anyone ever bought them).
The Best Camera is the One ye Have With You.
For most people in the developed world, that “best” camera is most likely a smartphone. I don’t like them, and I have a Pixel 4A. My chief objection is holding them, which I find awkward, and I could list many other things, but I am a committed, dedicated camera guy. I am reluctant to make the picture if I have only my phone.
Yet my earliest digitals were point-and-shoots.
There were budgetary constraints. My first shirt-pocket Nikon L12 cost $100 new in 2007. It had only a 3X zoom equivalent to a full-frame 35–105mm f/2.8–4.7, a not-bad WA to a so-so telephoto. I was beyond thrilled with the thing and, most importantly, made it work within its limitations. I credit some fifty years as a photographer, at least half as a full-time professional. I took to digital like the proverbial duck. That’s unlikely to be true for the average person picking up any camera for the first time. Photography is not and never was about cameras, but you must know how to work one. There was little learning curve for me.
My subsequent three compacts were Nikon Coolpix P-for-Performance series. The cameras were capable, but I pushed them far beyond their design parameters, especially using ambient light — “available dark.”
YOU CAN’T DO THAT WITH THAT CAMERA!
I see many op-eds on ergonomics: how does the camera feel in your hands? I am tall with big hands; how do you think that tiny L12 felt in my paws? Not great? That would be a yes. Did I let it bother me? Of course not. For me, the corollary to “the best camera” is “you work with what you got.” I dislike phone cameras, but if given no choice for a once-in-a-lifetime shot, I will reluctantly use one. You may be surprised that my issue with them is — ergonomics. Using a phone camera is like trying to shoot in boxing gloves.
When I was training in the early seventies, we were forced to use massive press cameras, Folmer and Schwing Speed Graphics, because our instructors considered them mandatory for commercial photography. Above, both my cameras with lenses weigh less than Weegee’s monster. Our school was teaching obsolete photography with antique equipment. Who knew?
Which of the above cameras fits the hand better? In my experience, neither. The Speed Graphic is too big, and my Sony A6400s are too small.
My wee compacts, which I prefer by choice, are technically — and actually — too small for my big hands. I occasionally do something unintended because my fat fingers touch a button or a dial on the crowded back. I have even disabled or repurposed some controls because I kept accidentally hitting them. I never use the touch screen.
I use the Sonys because they are small, light, and unobtrusive. They don’t fit my fists, but that’s okay. There are always workarounds.
Many photographers working for agencies and newsgathering organizations check their cameras out of a pool. Recently the AP shifted entirely to Sony full-frame mirrorless. If you are a contract AP photographer, that’s what you use. No one cares if you don’t like it. You use the equipment they give you, sorta like the military. The armorer issues a weapon, and you use it.
When I was learning, our department chair told a funny — probably apocryphal — story about being sent out with a rickety Burke and James 8x10" view camera that he despised because none of the old stripped controls would securely lock. He’d make his swings and tilts, step away to reach for a holder, and turn back to see his rising front — falling. Slowly.
They sent him to photograph a bridge with the doddering old thing. He came back without it; “fell off the bridge,” he said.
They fished it out of the river, dried it, and sent him back with the Camera that Wouldn’t Die.
I am only interested in performance. I'm good to go if a given camera produces fine image quality. I’ll make it work. I’ll bend it to my will. I will make it do stuff well outside its design parameters. That’s just me, and I rely on my experience and skill, but I kid myself that I can make a picture of darn near anything with the camera I have.
Except a phone.
Don’t like ’em. Nope. Nope, nopity nope.
Real cameras don’t make you feel like you're taking pictures with a potato.
📸As always, thank you for looking and reading. I truly appreciate it! 😊👍
