More Can Be Too Much

Honestly, how much camera do you need to take pictures like this? (Assuming you'd want to, of course. As the saying goes, "Horses for courses.")

It all starts innocently enough. You decide it’s time to buy a new digital SLR to replace your old one. Maybe you want a larger LCD, a larger viewfinder, a more sophisticated AF system, HD movie capability—whatever it is, your old camera doesn’t have it, the new camera does and so you buy one.

Once it arrives you discover that your version of Photoshop doesn’t support your new camera’s Raw file format. If you’re lucky you’ll be able to download an update that supports the new format. If not, you have three choices:

1. You can use Adobe’s Raw Converter to convert the new format to DNG, which all versions of Photoshop support. After conversion, however, you won’t be able to open the DNG files in your camera maker’s proprietary Raw converter application. You may also lose any “image style” settings native to your camera. As a result, your Raw images may look more raw than you’d like.
2. You can upgrade Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever program you’re using. This will not only cost you more money and more hard drive space (software upgrades are almost never smaller than their predecessors), it will cost you the time it takes to become familiar with the new features.
3. You can use your camera maker’s proprietary Raw conversion application. That’s fine if you’re already familiar and comfortable with it and you’re willing to live with its limitations. If not, it means learning a whole new workflow.

If your stars are in a particularly bad alignment you may discover that to upgrade your photo editing software you also need to upgrade your computer’s operating system. God help you then. For everything you supposedly fix by upgrading you risk breaking something else when your older applications and drivers aren’t quite compatible with your new OS.

Once you get the software situation sorted out—if you get it sorted out—you discover that because the new camera has twice as many megapixels, your file sizes are now significantly larger. That means larger memory cards, perhaps a larger hard drive, more RAM… you get the idea. Those who glibly state that hard drive storage is cheap these days don’t understand that not everyone delights at the prospect of having to manage multiple terrabytes of image files, backups, and archives.

It doesn’t end there.  You may discover that the lenses that seemed so wonderfully sharp on your lower resolution camera now look a tad soft when mounted in front of a 15MP+ sensor. And why even have such a high-resolution camera if you don’t use it to make larger prints, which in turn require a larger printer, larger sheets of paper, higher ink consumption…

All of these are perfectly acceptable, worthwhile costs to pay if they satisfy a need, solve a problem or get you what you really want. If, on the other hand, you’re simply in love with the idea of owning the latest and greatest DSLR and you haven’t thought through all of the ramifications of your new purchase, you may discover that the happiness you seek is even further away than when you started. All that glitters is not gold. As a matter of fact, those who are too easily distracted by glitter risk undervaluing the gold they already own.

Comments

[Matt C.]

You summarized the litany of proprietary compromises that contemporary digital photographers make, without turning it into a polemic against software/camera makers. How did you do that? I must conclude that you're a magician AND a great writer, Gordon. My attempt to write your post would have descended into diatribe almost immediately. I couldn't even post on Twitter without that outcome. :-)

The digital photography workflow is more labile than it ever was with film. 'Permanence is fleeting' in this medium; that sounds like an appropriate phrase to engrave on every digital camera. Ironically, it could also function as a good marketing phrase.

[T. Siren]

I have not commented in a while but I simply could not resist the urge this time.
Your writing is priceless. It brought a smile to my face. You have addressed the various issues that I was evaluating last autumnn when I made the decision to stay with the film cameras that I have had at my disposal in lieu of spending time to identify the 'perfect' DSLR that would satisfy my requirements.

[Hitendra]

An eye opener post.

[cfw]

I tend to stick to what works for me - which is probably why my computer os, conversion and editing program(s), printer, etc., are always many years out of date. It sometimes takes a conscious effort to get over that feeling of product "inferiority" that comes with not having the latest and greatest widgetizer.

[Tim]

How right you are! So does that mean you've talked yourself out of upgrading to the 7D?
I upgraded from the 20D to the 50D and for what? My Aperture software runs slower and the dust removal system isn't as effective as I hoped. The LCD screen is bigger brighter and clearer, but the image is now hidden behind horrible nose smudges. The 50D's high ISO performance is to my eye a little bit worse than the 20D. Newer cameras boast new must have features that in the end often do not help the photographer make better photographs.
As for video on a DSLR. My advice to anyone is don't go there if it's for casual video of family and friends. The ergonomics and operational features are wrong for this kind of video and therefore require expensive but necessary accessories just to make simple shooting and satisfactory results possible.
Overall I believe money spent on a quality lens is a "happier" investment than a new camera body.

[Lou Doench]

That picture is exactly the kind of thing I've been shooting with my Iphone lately. ;)

[Gianni Galassi]

How difficult it is to understand that the best camera is often the one we already own (and know). I must confess that, after my switch to digital, I have been infected by the the-newer-the-better syndrome for a while. This is partly justified by the indisputable evolution of cameras in the early digital era. But I must admit that I also fell in some marketplace traps.
Luckily my technical knowledge helped me to realize that a line had to be drawn, dividing good from better.
- What resolution is "enough" for my 60x90 cm (23x35 in) exhibition prints?
- Do I need clean ISO 6400 files for my daylight photography?
- What frames-per-second rate do I need for the static subjects I use to shoot?
- Do I really need the potential of a good bokeh for my extended depth-of-field style?
- Is the full potential of RAW capture fundamental for my workflow?
Ironically, this did not help me to keep my camera, as the DSLR I then owned did not really suit my requirements. But, surprisingly, I realized that I simply needed to downgrade.
Now I have a Micro Four Thirds system, a Canon G10 and a pocketable Panasonic TZ65. And I edit my files in a 2005 Windows XP computer with an old version of Photoshop (which I'm very familiar with), as I only shoot jpg. My workflow has never been smoother, my bank account is more prosperous, I use my time for creating instead of learning, my photography have improved and I am a happier man.
Thank you, Gordon, for your clever considerations.

[Karl Storck]

I'm so happy I upgraded from a Nikon D200 to a D700. The quality difference is large, I'm happy, but all softwares ware already upgraded and the workflow intact and the file size increased only by 20% or so. I probably have it coming to me another day then.

[John Krill]

I had a friend that went through exactly what you described. I joked that he should just buy a complete new system: Computer, software, hardware extras, etc. And keep the old one as well.

He didn't think that was required.

It was.

He did.

[Miserere]

Right you are, Gordon! This is why I still shoot a 2006 DSLR.

Unfortunately, LightRoom 3 is looking very good for the postprocessing I do, and I could really use better high ISO performance from my camera. I'm starting to hear a faint double siren call in the wee hours of the morning, when everything is quiet and the air is calm...

Should I be worried?

[Gianni Galassi]

... And, Gordon, I really like your photograph, where lighting, contrast and composition mean and tell more than the subject itself.
No, it doesn't take much camera. It takes "a lot" of photographer with a strong geometric gestalt.

[Lyndon Smith]

I primarily use a Canon 20D, and recently shot a national magazine cover with it. New gear means depreciation and, in some instances, debt. After 24 years in the studio business (sound recording, video, photography) I am no longer seduced by gear.

These days, when cameras are micro-processor driven & are improved on every 6 months, good glass and lighting are by far the best investments for photographers.

Used medium format gear is also a great value for today's photographer: my best purchase in the last year was a medium format mamiya 1000s 645 system, 3 lenses, 3 extension tubes, 3 film inserts, aluminum case, $400. I am now using it on almost every shoot along with my DSLR's, and the image quality is amazing.

The only thing new I am interested in is a decent film scanner.

As a final note, the "gotta have new gear" myth is propagated largely by magazine ads. Let's face it, without the latest gear being promoted, many of the photo magazines we know and love would not exist. That is why blogs and the net are a great way of communicating alternate viewpoints. Well done, Gordon!

[Chris Klug]

Recently I 'upgraded' my DSLR from a 10D to a used 5D. Certainly it was an upgrade for me (especially because it gave me full-frame and much better noise at higher ISOs) but the reason I wanted to mention the story was that the camera has 2004's technology, which was just perfect for what I needed. The upgrade meant something specific, addressed two issues I felt needed addressing, and the camera was 1/2 or more the price of a new 5D Mk II, which was overkill for me. This isn't quite the same as your points, but I think is in the ballpark.

[John Robison]

Wow, by the comments that hit a nerve. But it's not just digital. This weekend I finally gathered my film gear onto our large coffee table, and it would not fit! I keep telling friends I'm NOT a collector.....no really, I'm not. I am finally getting serious about thinning it out. There is just no joy in having too much gear and it looks like my OM setup will wind up with 2 bodies and 5 lenses. That means the other 85% is on the block.

[Gordon Lewis]

"Wow, by the comments that hit a nerve."

Apparently so. We are all susceptible to falling into the countless consumerist traps laid out for us by the photo and computer marketing companies. The only way to avoid them is by being as practical and unemotional about our purchases as possible. By unemotional I don't mean emotionless. I mean we should be careful not to be led by our emotions. As you yourself have observed, periodic reflection to make sure our tools are truly serving our needs rather than the other way around is never a bad idea.

[Lois Elling]

Excellent post and very timely for me as I'm seriously considering upgrading this year. I am aware that if/when I do it will more than double the size of my files. However, I am also looking forward to a larger preview screen, live view, much less noise at higher ISOs, and not having to deal with the annoying little (non-critical) issues my 2005 camera has developed over the past year. Sound like I'm talking myself into it? Could be. Thanks for your always interesting posts and I also enjoyed the comments.

[Gordon Lewis]

"So does that mean you've talked yourself out of upgrading to the 7D?"

Ironically enough, I've been using a Canon EOS 7D for a writing project I'm doing. The 7D is a wonderful camera in more ways than I could mention without writing a brief review. I doubt I will buy one though. It's just too big and heavy for my style of photography. I'd prefer something with similar capabilities but smaller and lighter.

[John Roias]

I read your column and started to ruminate, then pace, then finally bring myself to the computer, the sometimes bane of my existence.

I experienced all you describe, but it may surprise you to learn that I am talking about the old film camera world and not digital. So when digital came along in a big way (never thought it would for many years), I was not exactly smitten or compelled to buy all these new things. I waited and waited and finally made the plunge with my first DSLR, that was in part, still tied to the old heritage through the lenses. I did make the mistake of buying a film scanner which is not usable beyond XP! CS5 is out, but beware, you may have all you need. Great post Gordon.