What is the best ___________?
I see this question posted in the various groups I'm involved in several times per day. As someone that truly wants to help people learn about photography and the gear needed, it has become exhausting.
What's the best camera? What's the best lens? What's the best editing software? What's the best SD card? What's the best camera strap? It goes on and on and on...
Look, I want to help but please stop!
First of all, we need more information to even come close to an appropriate recommendation. After all, what's the best ANYTHING? Food? Sneaker? Car?
The unmistakeable grill and hood ornament of a Rolls Royce has always been associated with the absolute best. The car is hand built for you, to your specifications with astonishing attention to detail. When purchasing a Rolls Royce you're not choosing which package options you'd like. It's a truly handmade car designed with the amenities you desire. Many parts are actually signed by highly skilled artists that have hand crafted that particular piece of the car. Good enough are words simply not associated with the Rolls Royce brand.
So, is the Rolls Royce the best car? Perhaps. For some people. For some applications. Others would argue against its sheer opulence. For many an automobile that is far less expensive to own and service is the best car. As a photographer I certainly cannot afford $650 oil changes. Nor the $500,000 purchase price. Perhaps a Toyota with its low cost of maintenance is better suited someone with more limited resources. If I live in an area with bad winters perhaps I need four wheel drive or maybe I haul cargo and need the room.
You get the point. Well, the same logic applies to camera equipment. There simply is no best. Period. And that's not even factoring opinions into the mix.
When it comes to cameras, if you are interested in the finest craftsmanship, something akin to the Rolls Royce in the camera world, Leica is your choice. Even the packaging is hand crafted. It's a beautiful product. So is the Leica the best camera?
Here is a really cool video about the creation of a Leica for those that might be interested:
Leica is likely the finest, hand crafted camera available. But, like the Rolls Royce automobile, a Leica isn't best at everything nor is it the ideal option for many applications. Plus, I'm guessing that few of my readers will be looking at an $8000 camera any time soon. So its rarely a camera I recommend.
******
Look, I fully understand why people ask what the best of anything is. They are overwhelmed and need help to falling into a pit. I'm equally interested in helping beginners avoid that pit. Any regular reader of by blogs knows that I constantly stress skill over gear. Investing in your skillset vs camera equipment will get you better pictures. Every. Single. Time. You can thank me later.
In this post I'm going to address one of many topics that often come up. As time goes on, I'll add additional topics and link to this post.
What's the best camera?
Cameras are tools. Understanding the tool and how to use it beats out a fancier tool almost every time. While that's really solid advice, it really doesn't help anyone know how to spend their money.
The first thing that needs to be established is that there is absolutely no one size fits all type or brand of camera.
Look at the two cameras in the picture above. Many would immediately assume the much larger, longer lens of the Nikon would provide a significantly greater degree of zoom than the smaller Canon. However, just the opposite is true. The small bridge camera has nearly three times the magnifying power. The Canon costs around $500 and the Nikon around $15,000. There are obviously reasons for the price differences but for the guy that just wants to take pictures at the kid's soccer game which is better?
I am likely going to ruffle a few feathers but Nikon isn't better than Canon. Or vice versa. Sony isn't better than either of those two. Same with other manufacturers. They all have some strengths; all have some weaknesses. At any given time, one manufacturer might produce a camera that has a slight edge in features or tech that makes it more popular than the others. But within a fairly short period of time, another manufacturer will release the newest, coolest product. Its the way most manufacturing, especially tech manufacturing works.
So, how does one choose? Comparing specs means nothing for someone that doesn't know what those specs even mean. Additionally, specs are important at times and at other times virtually meaningless. When I shop for a car the salesman can rattle foot pounds of torque and horsepower and bluetooth connection specs all day but if I'm an old man with a flip phone why is any of that relevant?
In order to make solid decisions its important to determine what specs are meaningful and which are not. For camera specs, that often begins with sensor size. Full frame, APS-C (crop sensor), Micro 4/3, etc. can be meaningful. Sensor size has an effect on low light performance because the actual pixels can can be larger on a larger sensor. Since pixels are light receptors this can have an impact. However, each generation of sensors gets better so a newer, smaller sensor might perform equally well to an older larger sensor.
The two most common sensor sizes are full frame and APS-C or commonly known as crop sensor. I'm only going to discuss these two sensor sizes in this post.
Is full frame better? Yes, maybe. But not always. Here's what to consider.
Full frame cameras do perform better in low light but at normal ranges the benefit is slight. Sensor for sensor the larger full frame sensor will have a little less noise but again, its fairly marginal when ISOs are low to midrange.
Full frame cameras allow, due to a larger sensor, for greater enlargement. Most of us will never be printing huge images, but for those that do, full frame definitely has an advantage. Many portrait photographers like full frame as it gives us the ability to enlarge to pore level. I'm not entirely certain what the purpose of this is however. Portrait photographers also like the slight advantage the larger sensor provides regarding shallow depth of field.
Full frame sensors give an advantage when using wide angle lenses whereas the APS-C sensor provides for apparent increased focal length of long lenses. Real estate photographers generally used full frame cameras so they can work with wide lenses. APS-C sensors are often used for sports and wildlife where long focal length lenses are a must.
Full frame cameras require lenses that project a larger image area necessary to fill the larger sensor. Keep in mind that most pro-level cameras are full frame. Therefore a majority of lenses available for full frame cameras are built to the higher specs demanded by full frame use. Because of this and the simple fact they require more glass, they will almost always cost more money. On the other hand, far more affordable, consumer grade lenses are available for the APS-C cameras.
Since full frame cameras are generally purchased by advanced level or pro photographers the manufactures tend to build them to a higher spec. Larger sensors and higher expectations mean the internal computer processors are beefier than their consumer grade cousins. They have more buttons and dials allowing quick access to settings frequently changed and have more solid bodies, which are often weather sealed. That stuff all adds cost.
When weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the sensor size its good to truly compare the full frame to APS-C sensor. Many people truly believe there's a huge difference. I have had quite a few debates with photographers deeply invested in their beliefs regarding full frame superiority. For typical photography that difference might be more subtle than the specs might suggest. Here are two images, one shot on a full frame, the other on the APS-C sensor. Can you truly tell the difference?
There are many, many fantastic APS-C cameras on the market, some of which actually cost more than full frame cameras because of particular features they offer. I use them both because I know that I don't always need the largest hammer in my toolbox to drive a nail.
I used one of my APS-C cameras equipped with a Sigma 150-600mm lens (at 600mm) to capture this image of a hummingbird at our feeder. Filling the frame equally would require a 960mm lens on a full frame body. Hummingbirds are tiny so having the extra magnification, perceived or not, is an advantage.
Here's a another "crop sensor" image of a fawn taken with the Tamron 100-400mm lens at 400mm. Achieving the same perceived magnification on full frame would require a 640mm lens. So, again the apparent magnification of the smaller sensor can definitely be a benefit.
I use my crop sensor cameras to capture plenty of subjects other than wildlife where long lens magnification is beneficial. I carry crop sensor cameras on all types of jobs and will continue to do so because I don't consider APS-C to be inferior. I hope you won't either.
If you don't dismiss APS-C, you'll learn there are some fabulous lenses made specifically for the crop sensor cameras. One of my favorites is the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Tamron 18-400 will be on my camera while I'm on vacation next week.
Keep learning and realize your equipment is only as strong as your skill.
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”
- Ansel Adams
If you haven't joined my facebook group, please consider doing so ...
Comments
Post a Comment