Shutterfinger

Is It Worth the Wait?

One of the constant issues on photo forums is whether to wait for an upgrade to whatever DSLR seems close to the end of its product cycle or whether to buy now, when prices are at their lowest. Product cycles these days range from 16-24 months, depending on whether the camera is designed more for amateurs (faster cycles) or enthusiasts (slower cycles).

As always, the answer is "It depends." If you simply must have the latest and greatest, then you might as well wait--but with the understanding that you might be waiting longer than you expected. There's often a lag between when a camera is introduced and when it's actually in stock. Once it's available and the reviews start rolling in, you may discover that it falls short of your expectations. Dreams and reality seldom coincide. Finally, you'll be paying a price premium. Most retailers charge close to list price when a camera has just been introduced. Rebates and discounts appear only after a camera has been on the market for a half-year or so. Still, if you can't stand the thought that you could have had a "much better camera" (though not necessarily better pictures) if you had only waited, then by all means wait.

On the other hand, if you buy now, you'll be getting a proven commodity at a price that's about as low as it's going to get. For examples you need look no further than the Canon EOS 40D, which is now selling in the U.S. with a $200 instant rebate, and the Nikon D80, which is now selling for $200 less than when it was introduced. You can find similar examples among the other brands as well. For many photographers, $200 is the difference between being able to afford a camera and not. For others, it's the difference between having to settle for the kit lens or upgrading to something better.

There is, of course a third option: Keep whatever you've got now. It costs nothing, strengthens your character, and demonstrates that you are an independent thinker, immune to the enticements of the marketeers. Whatever you decide, rest assured that that camera you own today will take much better photographs than the one you hope to own one day.

Tripods: The Ultimate Image Stabilizer

One of the hot features these days is image-stabilization, a.k.a. vibration-reduction, shake-reduction, etc. The idea is that either the optics within a lens or the digital sensor itself will move in such a way that they counteract the movement from hand-holding a camera. I've used both systems and can report that they perform reasonably close to their inflated advertising claims. So is image stabilization (IS) useful? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it indispensable? Well... I wouldn't go that far.

The problem is that IS doesn't eliminate the effects of camera shake, it just reduces them. At some point your shutter speed will be so slow you'll see a noticeable blur from camera motion, subject motion, or both. IS also doesn't help much with macro work, where the slightest motion forward or back can knock the subject out of focus. The fact is that no matter how useful IS is, it's still no substitute for a good, reliable tripod; one that, for all practical purposes, eliminates camera motion from the equation.

Are tripods bulky and inconvenient? Yes. Does a good tripod/head combo cost at least as much as a high-quality lens? Yes, again. But I can tell you this: Once you've seen what even an average camera and lens can do when mounted on a good tripod, you'll understand that while IS can often substitute for a tripod, it can't replace one.

Farewell to the Olympus E-510

I recently bid farewell to an Olympus E-510 DSLR. I had bought it with a 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko, with the idea of using the combo as my "travel kit." The E-510 accompanied me to London and back. It rewarded me with many fine photographs, but in the end we had to go our separate ways. Its design quirks--a small viewfinder, limited dynamic range, high noise at ISOs above 400--had become tiresome, especially with so many more flexible choices available. Apparently, Olympus itself agrees, because just today it introduced the E-510's successor, the E-520. I'm sure it's a better camera. Good enough to gain market share over Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax? I doubt it, but there will always be a soft spot in my heart for Olympus.

Cameras Do Matter (But Not as Much as You Think)

This straightforward street photo could have been taken with practically any camera that has a medium-wide or normal lens. It could also have been taken by practically any photographer. What's most important to most viewers is not who you are or what  you use, but what you shoot.

Ken Rockwell, a photography pundit with a website, has generated some controversy by claiming that your camera doesn't matter. Other pundits and online forum opinionators have felt obliged to argue the opposite: Your camera does matter--a lot.

Arguing strongly for either side is as pointless as arguing about which side of a coin is most important. Your camera does matter to the extent that it needs to be sufficient for your intended purpose. If you want to photograph birds or sports you'll need a camera that accepts telephoto lenses. If you're interested in architectural photography it helps to have a camera that accepts wide angle lenses and that allows you to adjust the lens and focal planes. If you just want a camera that will take acceptable pictures of a variety of subjects in good light, almost any general purpose camera will do.

The point that often gets lost by the "camera matters a lot" crowd is that a camera is just a tool. Owning an excellent tool does not automatically bestow expertise on the owner. At best, with enough automation, it may simply ensure that every photograph you take is in focus and correctly exposed. All things being equal, you'll get better results overall if you improve your skills than if you improve your camera.