Today I’m going to muse about equipment, and how to respond to the ongoing and inevitable continuing improvements in the capabilities of photography gear. My primary context is the Canon DSLR gear that I use, though the issue that I’m “musing” about is a more general one.

I shoot mostly with a Canon 5D Mark II camera body, typically using four or fewer lenses. (I also use a Fujifilm X-trans camera for situations where small and light gear is more important than having a full frame sensor.) The 5DII is a 21MP full frame DSLR camera and can produce marvelous photographic results, including quite large high quality prints.

Recently Canon-using photographers have become acutely aware that full frame cameras from Sony (such as the A7r) and Nikon (the D800 and D810 models) incorporate important advances in digital sensor technology. These include greater photo site density (36MP sensors) and increased dynamic range (or “DR” in photospeak), and these cameras have gotten the attention of many serious photographers. (Today the issue came up in the context of a forum discussion of a vague and unsubstantiated rumor of a new Canon camera.)

Since photography relies on the technology of cameras and lenses, photographers are almost always interested in technological improvements. In fact, some folks can become so interested in this that the technology becomes more important to them than the photographs, and it be a challenge to keep things in perspective. If you follow discussions among Canon-using photographers, you may well have seen the recent angst over the question of whether Canon is “falling behind,” and the ensuing discussions of whether it is time to “switch,” “jump ship,” or augment with a body from Sony or Canon.

My choice has been to sit tight for now and to continue shooting with the camera I have, and I’d like to share my reasoning for this. I’ll use a bullet list format to list and explain some of my considerations.

• There is always something new — Once you acquire any piece of technology, including photographic technology, you are mostly locked in at that technological level. Meanwhile, technology marches on and things get bigger, better, faster, and altogether cooler than what was available when you made your purchase. Techno-lust is a powerful thing — and nearly irresistible for some buyers. In most cases there will be a time to move to the “new and improved” thing, but that point is generally further in the future than you might think.
• Differences are real but smaller than you imagine — Marketing language and our own hopes and expectations lead us to over-estimate the magnitude of the improvements in the new thing in too many cases. Yes, the new thing most often is better, but it is not as much better as we might think, especially in the context of how it will affect/improve your work. I know that I have often anticipated the acquisition of a new and improved thing, felt that rush of excitement when I acquired it… and then realized a month or two later that it did not change my life in quite the ways I imagined.
• Over the longer term the “lead” switches frequently — This is related to my “there is always something new” bullet. As soon as one manufacturer comes out with its new thing — which will often be objectively better than the previous competition by some increment — the next manufacturer prepares the release of its next updated product, which will likely be better, too, in both similar and different ways. It helps to take a longer view. While “your” brand might have been “best” when you bought into it, the “other brand” isn’t sitting still, and they will almost certainly best your brand at some point. However, over a time period of a couple of years, your brand will likely respond and introduce its new and improved technology.
• Switching is almost always short-sighted — There are exceptions, but they are rare. Tossing out entire systems of equipment to pursue the latest thing from another manufacturer is not likely to be a very good long-term strategy. If that is your approach, what will you do in a year or two when your old brand once again bests your new brand in some way? Switch back again? (Actually, I’ve read stories of folks doing several of these back-and-forth switches before finally catching on.)
• No gear is perfect — It is all too easy, from what I’ve seen, to see the flaws in the gear you have and to imagine the perfection in the gear you covet. The fact is that there never has been any perfect photographic equipment and there never will be. Some things will always be bit awkward or difficult, and you’ll still have to overcome the limitations of your gear. Every piece of equipment I’ve encountered has both pluses and minuses.
• Anticipating perfection is easier than realizing imperfection — Looking at and reading about that “new thing,” we can focus on our expectations of its Perfect Wonderful Goodness. However, with the thing actually in hand, it becomes impossible to ignore the reality that, good as it is, it has its flaws. Before the purchase, our attention is on the positives. After the purchase, we discover that, inevitably, the thing falls short of perfection.
• Current gear is very good — In fact, equipment from just about any of the current camera manufacturers is as good or (much) better than the gear that photographers worked with in the past. From that perspective, the effect of differences between today’s Brand A and Brand B are often quite trivial and most often insignificant. One can make truly excellent photographs using reasonably current equipment from any of the major manufacturers, and no one will be able to tell which brand was used by looking at photographic prints.
• Eventually the time will (likely) be right — For most people there will  come a time when the improvements are significant enough — and as the old gear begins to deteriorate from heavy usage — to warrant an upgrade/replacement. I can’t tell you precisely when this will be, but I have some general rules of thumb that I apply. For example. in general a doubling of photo site count may be significant to careful and critical photographers, with smaller changes unlikely to produce significant differences for most people. If you can obtain an improvement without switching brands, a smaller improvement may warrant an upgrade.
• Photography is about photographs, not about cameras and lenses.

One tricky thing is that some discussions of these issues devolve into extreme positions — either the notion that any improvement is significant and demands an upgrade or a switch, or the contrary idea that what we have now is plenty good enough and there will never be any reason to get something better.

Oddly, it seems that it is easier for some folks to hold to (or argue against) one or the other of the extreme views than to step back and look at the issue in a more rational way. In my view, there are points at which moving to new and better gear makes sense. The precise point will vary quite a bit depending upon the photographer and his or her needs. To the photographer mostly sharing photographs online, the difference between 22MP and 36MP is irrelevant. To a photographer making his/her living by producing very large “gallery” quality prints who has run into an objective limit that might be pushed a bit with more megapixels, it might be worth the cost and trouble.

In the end, one thing that can help provide some perspective is to resist the temptation to let your focus drift too far away from photography and toward the technology of photography. Be aware of the technology — it is not unimportant — but don’t let it become the primary focus. 

Repeat after me: Photography is not about cameras and lenses. Photography is about photographs.

• “Friday Night, Manhattan” was originally posted here.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.