 |
| Devil's Tower National Monument, Wyoming (click to enlarge) |
I read a lot about photography every day. Over and over again, I read comments from individuals who are critical about a certain camera's focusing speed, lack of high ISO, number of focusing points available, no built-in image stabilization, no touch screen, no wireless, no manual focus aids, no rotatable LCD, too few frames per second, lacking the ability to take multiple images at various exposure levels for HDR-type images, poor lens selection, and on and on and on. Someone is always complaining about something lacking in any camera introduced. How in the world did we ever manage to make good photographs in the past with all this crappy gear?
I believe most of us, including your humble blog writer, over-buy and want features that we would rarely or maybe even never use. I think we forget that primarily a camera is a tool for each of us to accomplish a task. I do understand that some also believe a camera is a status symbol or thing, in and of itself, to be admired, put on a shelf and brought down to be shown off as well as to be used only on rare occasion, if ever at all! As you know by reading this blog, I'm not one of those people. My cameras are tools bought because they solve a photographic problem and serve a specific purpose for me.
Think about these:
Do you buy a 4-wheel drive car, SUV or truck because it may snow one day in a future year?
Do you buy a truck because you might want to carry some lumber if ever you decide to take on that future project?
Do cabinetmakers buy pneumatic hammers just in case they decided to build a house or put shingles on a roof one day?
Does the big city apartment dweller buy a .30-.30 rifle because he/she might decide he/she may go hunting sometime in the future?
Does the guy who lives in the desert need to buy those chest-waders (the kind fly fisherman wear) just in case the desert may flood one day?
Does a landscape photographer need the fastest autofocus?
Does the landscape photographer need built-in image stabilization or a fast frames per second rate since he or she will probably have the camera on a tripod for a stationary subject?
Does a portrait photographer need 11 different lenses with a wide variation of focal lengths?
Does a photographer who primarily shoots auto racing or downhill skiing, need focus peaking?
By now, you get my point. The answer for some of you to these questions may be yes. Some people like to be prepared for everything and when buying something, buy with the intention of being able to, or prepared for, any and all potential circumstances. And that is okay! I know I'm a long term planner, obsessive to detail, cover all the bases kind guy and have over bought many things over the years "just in case."
Camera and lenses are tools to get jobs done. These particular tools just happen to make photographs. I think, generally, the wiser thing to do is buy a camera or camera equipment that solves a problem for each of us as individuals depending up what type of photographer we are and what we intend to do with it. A wildlife photographer has much different needs than a street photographer. A sports photographer has much different needs than a nature and landscape photographer. A travel photographer has much different needs than a studio photographer. Tools fill voids and provide us with the solution to problems.
Next time you read comments or a review that says the camera in question can only shoot at 6 frames per second, or it has no rotatable LCD or touchscreen or it has poor image quality at 25,600 ISO, think if those things really mean anything to you and what you normally do with a camera. If it is a meaningful statistic, then consider it fully when making your purchase. If you never photograph at 25,600 ISO, then don't give it a second thought.
Buy your camera gear for the rule, for how you normally use it, not for the exception. If the exception or unusual circumstance arises, rent what you need. You will save a lot of money by renting, rather than buying and not using the lens or more expensive camera.
From what I read on the Internet, we seem to be slowly adopting an attitude that a camera is no good unless it is all things to all people. Balderdash! (when was the last time you saw that word!) Is it greed? Have we come to raise our expectations so high that we can never be pleased with what camera manufacturers produce? Is it wishful thinking that has no basis in reality? I know one thing. If you continue to listen to those who review cameras or who comment on forums rather than thinking for yourself, you may never end up with the right gear for you. You will probably end up paying too much money for features and capabilities that you will never need. Wouldn't you rather be satisfied with a well-researched, thought-out purchase and probably spend less money than have bragging right and less money?
Just something to think about.
Thanks for looking.
Dennis Mook
Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com. Please pay it a visit. I add new images regularly. Thank you.
All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or image.
Good post! On a similar vane - years ago my friend was in the process of buying a Mazda 6 with a V-6 engine. I asked why not get a 4 cylinder? His answer, was of course, the V-6 had more power and it would be better for passing. I then asked "when was the last time you put your foot to the floor in your [low power, 4 cyl] Protege". His answer was "never". He bought the V6 and, over 250,000km, probably spent an extra $4000 in gas.
ReplyDelete