The Best Camera

MOST OF us who have made a nice image or two over the years have likely heard from an admirer of the image: "Wow. You must have a really good camera." For years, I would patiently explain that there is a lot more to it than a "nice camera." Recently, a friend told me he just agrees and says: "yes, I do." 😁 I am so going to steal that one.

A more useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?

IN KEEPING WITH the notion that it is somehow the camera, or camera system that makes our photography, in addition to the social media pages devoted to an apology for a particular brand or system, I see a lot of "which camera should I buy?"  questions. Maybe not be the best place to get useful, unbiased information. Just sayin'. It's not that you won't get some good information on those pages. It's just that you are equally likely to get inaccurate, or just downright bad information. This is especially true of those pages dedicated to a system, brand or model of camera. While it is true that there should be people on there who are very knowledgeable about a camera you may be considering (and there definitely are a few such folk who are very helpful), my own experience tends to be that many of the responses you get to inquiries come from folks who are inexperienced, or in some cases are even what we used to call brand "fanboys" (do we still say that?). It stands to reason that if you are in the "Red Camera Group," and you ask if you should get a red camera, the majority of answers are probably going to be yes.

That one "best" camera doesn't exist

THERE IS also a line of reasoning (largely driven by advertising and social media hype in my view) that makes people think: "I need the best" camera. I think of cameras as a lot like cars. What would you think about the question: "what is the best car?" We all know there are a lot of good vehicles out there, and that some of them are very good. We also know they have different attributes, which make them good for some things and not so good for others. We also know that there is probably not one "best" car. Likewise, cameras. That one "best" camera doesn't exist.

A MORE useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?" That's really what we want to know, isn't it? The answer to this question is a mix of factors, including intended use, budget, existing compatible gear, and possibly experience and expertise.

LET'S START with intended use. I just recently read a post on one of the M4/3 group pages on Facebook (FB). It asks a kind of difficult to answer question. Not difficult because of the subject matter. Difficult because of the way the question was posed: "Looking at switching from my (mirrorless "full frame" [FF]) to M4/3. I shoot birds, and will do some macro. Are there reasons for me not to switch?" As I alluded to above, there are several factors to consider. The poster didn't really give us much to work with. Birds and Macro. Can be done with either camera. Are you going to be doing serious cropping? How do you plan to display your images. Do you want to make large prints? Will you be submitting the images for advertising or publication? Or will you be content to post the images on FB, Instagram, blogs and the like?. Something to keep in mind is that you may be going along, posting to social media sites, getting lots of "likes," etc. Then suddenly out of the blue you may get contacted by someone who wants to use your image for commercial purposes. If that happens, you just might wish you had made a larger, higher resolution image. For the most part, however, if you are just posting images, you probably do not have a need for lots of megapixels (the poster above's FF camera was 45mp and the M4/3 is a maximum of 20 mp. As well, the sensors and the pixels are physically smaller on the M4/3). Nor is a larger sensor a requirement for prints and commercial use. I know there are plenty of shooters out there using the small sensor cameras and still selling their work.

ANOTHER FACTOR is (unfortunately) budget. There are many of us who just cannot afford the best equipment money can buy. My friend Rich has the 50mp Sony A1. He shoots a lot of birds - often in motion. From his research it appears that the A1 is Sony's best equiped camera body for birds and other animate subjects. It also retails for $6500. The m4/3 OM Systems OM-1ii is probably the closest M4/3 matchup and, at less than $2,500, it is less than half of that. It is important to understand that the specifications are different, given the "FF" sensor vs. the m4/3. How much of a factor is that for you? I know from reading on line that there are 1000's of happy m4/3 bird shooters, for example, that are perfectly satisfied with their choice. It is not just the shear ability to afford it, though. In my own case, I do not shoot birds, sports, or wildlife and do not plan to do so (at least not on a regular basis). My primary emphasis is on landscape, citi-scape and travel subjects. As such, I just don't need the specs that come with those models. Most of my work is done from a tripod or, if handheld, during generally daylight conditions. For my needs, I have been able to make two bodies - two different systems - work very well for me. If I wanted - or felt I "needed" the higher "flighted" bodies, I could do it. But it doesn't make sense for me to do so just because I can. That would not, by any stretch of logic, make them the "best" cameras for me. Your photography style will dictate the specifications you ultimately settle on. Your setup may end up more or less expensive than mine.

Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

IF YOU are a new shooter, (in which case, this information may be doubly important for you), compatible existing equipment will probably not be a factor. For the rest of us (perhaps the majority of readers here), we have already invested in at least one system or brand over the years. This factor is really in lock-step with the above "budget" factor. If money is no object, disregard and invest in the system that fits for other reasons. Again, for the rest of us, it does factor in. If you make a complete system or brand change, you are also going to have to change your lenses, and the bulk of your other peripherals (ironically, if you are going from FF to M4/3, all of that equipment is generally less expensive and may be a factor to consider). Don't forget to consider other things, like specialized brackets, filters, batteries, chargers, remote cables and flash accessories. They will all add into the mix. For that poster above thinking of moving from FF to M4/3, I have to wonder if he mixed that all into the decision matrix?

I ALSO added experience and expertise into the mix. This is a variable factor. If you are just starting out, there are really some fundamentals that you need in a camera. In most cases, an "entry-level" model would probably do just fine. However, it may also make some sense to plan ahead. How confident are you that you will be making this a long-term proposition, putting in the work required to become an accomplished photographer? If you are, it may actually be more cost-effective in the long run to acquire a more advanced model, than to buy 2 or 3 times just to get where you will eventually end up. This is especially a factor if you are buying new equipment. Conversely, there is something to be said for getting a "tryout" model, learning a bit about your photographic interests and then moving up when you are more certain. It brings to mind the historical beginnings of this blog. It started out with a series of e-mail answers to questions from one of my sisters, and turned that into the beginnings of this blog. She had been visiting me and she had a point and shoot camera. At some point she decided she wanted to "up her game." I helped her find and purchase a used DSLR on eBay. It seemed to make sense to do that as an entry into the interchangeable lens world, and see where things went. Turns out it was the right move, as she discovered the DSLR route was not for her. Ultimately, she traded it for a much higher-specced Point & Shoot camera, and made lots of really nice and really memorable photos with that one.

[Buying used] . . . is a calculated risk

THE ANECDOTE also brings to mind another consideration. I have had very good luck in the "used" photography market. It is funny. I once had a pro acquaintance who I corresponded with quite a bit. When I brought up used gear once, he immediately panned the idea. He didn't even want to think about having a shoot on the line using somebody else's hand-me-down gear, not having any idea about what it may or may not have been through, and having no recourse if there was a problem. Understandable. It was how he made his living. For us less dependent hobbyists, however, I have always thought it was worth the risk - at least for certain equipment. Of all the cameras I have owned, several of them were purchased used. My current "workhorse" Sony a7rii was purchased very gently used. It is a discontinued model, and if/when I have to replace it someday, if I stay with the series, I will have to buy an a7riv to get at least equivalent spec if I buy new. Used, I am confident I can find a iii or iv for half of that or less. I may not be something you are comfortable with. I have had good luck. I have also bought a few lenses used. I think it is a calculated risk. If it is a one-time purchase and you don't have the ability to replace it - buy new and insure it.

THE BEST camera? As Sylvester Stallone says in his new series: Tulsa - "there's no sucha (sic) thing." 😃 There is a such thing though, as the best camera for you. My advice, find the one that does the stuff you really need/want, not just because its "cool." Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

[We are off again on travel for the next couple weeks in Switzerland, Germany and the Czech Republic. I know I will have some new images and experiences to share here when we return]