Three manufacturers companies now produce widely available full-frame digital cameras with features that are attractive to folks who photograph landscape subjects, among other things. Two of them recently released new models that are getting a lot of attention, and plenty of photographers are interested in their relative merits and perhaps in choosing among them.
The three I’m thinking of are:
- Sony A7rII Mirrorless Digital Camera
- Canon EOS 5Ds and EOS 5Ds R DSLRs
- Nikon D810 DSLR
Here is a statement that a thoughtful, experienced, knowledgable photographer who has looked at the options carefully and selected one of them might make:
I chose this camera because it exemplifies the continuing evolution and improvement of digital cameras. It introduces useful and powerful improvements that offer the potential of a range of image quality improvements. The camera has the ability to produce photographs with outstanding image quality in a wide range of conditions and circumstances, and photographers who use it are going to be very pleased with what it can do. It has its pluses and minuses, and other cameras may be a bit stronger or weaker in various areas, but on balance it is a first-class and powerful tool that works extremely well for the most demanding photographers. I recommend that other photographers take a look at it!
The question: To which of the three (and a half?) above-listed cameras does this statement apply?
If you have paid a lot of attention to the passionate and hyperbole-filled discussions and “tests” that inevitably accompany the release of new cameras, you have read proclamations that any one of those is “the best” or even that it will transform your photography. And it is possible that “the answer” is already obvious to you, and you are certain that one surpasses the others in obvious ways. You might even have come to the conclusion that a photographer choosing one of the other options is making a mistake, is probably unaware of the significance of the error, and that his/her photographs are likely to suffer as a consequence of this flawed decision.
With all of that in mind, the answer is…
… all of the above.
Despite the not-unexpected flurry of articles and discussions proclaiming that one or the other of these is miles ahead of the other options, the truth of the matter is that all three of these options, despite their inevitable relative strengths and weaknesses, are truly excellent photograph-making tools.
I personally know excellent photographers (and friends) who have chosen each of these options for their own work. Each of them produces outstanding photographs with one or the other of these brands. If you walked into a gallery in which their work was hung, while you might well be able to distinguish among their expressive photographic styles, you would be utterly unable to identify which camera was used to make which photographs.
“Brand humping” is my indelicate term for the focus of folks who obsess over proving that “their brand” (whichever it is among these or other options) is in every way superior and miles ahead of the others. Too often, their primary photographic focus seems to be pointing out the obvious and critical deficiencies of the alternatives and — all too often — the lack of intelligence or photographic chops on the part of those who come to a different conclusion. It is as if Owning The Shiniest Thing is more important than making photographs. (More genteel terms for this malady include Forumtography or Gear Acquisition Syndrome, also known as suffering from G.A.S. ;-)
Because some of these people have the loudest and most incessant voices, it is easy to mistake their confirmation bias as being far more important and meaningful than it actually is. And, most of all, keep the following firmly in mind.
Photography is not about the camera.
Speaking of which, in addition to writing about stuff you can buy, I like to write about photography, too! If you are getting tired of the Gear Drum Beating, here is a recent article on, of all things, making a photograph: A Photograph Exposed: One Subject, Two Compositions
Finally, although I chose one of the above for my current camera, I really do believe that all three are excellent photographic tools and that we’ll see plenty of smart, skillful, and creative photographers deciding on any from among of the three.
(Links in this article go to site-sponsor B&H photography, where purchases though these links help support this website… and your price is the same whether you use these links or purchase in other ways. Thanks!)
This article is part of my Photographic Myths and Platitudes series.
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — Diffraction Limited Aperture
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I)
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part II)
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — ‘Photographer’ versus “Photoshopper’
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — Primes Make You a Better Photographer
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — New DSLR? Why You Do NOT Need a 50mm Prime
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — No Post-Processing!
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — That Noise is Awful!
- Photographic Myths and Platitudes — The Very Best Camera! (Part 1)
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
Thank you for responding, Dan. You do beautiful work and I admire it very much. But I think even more, I admire your philosophy on photography and I agree with you 100%. I share your views, especially regarding the obsession with gear. Yet the tools we use are interesting, even fascinating, and I think there is a natural curiosity about the tools and methods artists use to help them achieve their vision. I think this curiosity and interest in how we do what we do is natural and okay, as long as it does not become an obsession, or mistaken for the REASON a photographic became the artistic image that ultimately it did. You said it well, “It isn’t about the camera — it is about how one sees with the camera.” I will say this though, I chose my camera after considering and using others, and I chose it for specific reasons. I felt it was the best tool, of all available, for me and what I do. I chose it for ergonomics, ease of use and it’s color palette, which I liked more than that of the other cameras. Of course we can adjust in post, and I often do, but I liked the straight out of camera look of one camera better than all the others. I enjoy your essays very much. Thank you and please continue to share your photographic insights and views. It is a joy to read them. All the best.
Sounds like we think about this in similar ways.
I’ve noted that (outside of photography forums, where gear talk seems to become the point too often) when photographers get together we do “talk gear,” including specifics about brands and models and so forth… but that it essentially never becomes a religious debate (as it can, at times, online).
It really is useful to understand the range of options that are available, and how various factors might affect our choices. For example, I’ve been going back and forth on the pluses and minuses of acquiring a miniMF 33×44 sensor system for several years now. I have friends who do use such gear, and for some of my photography it would have advantages — yet the plus/minus calculation is not yet compelling. But every time I get into discussions with my friends who use such systems… we “go there.” ;-)
I learn a lot from those discussions. Additionally, they help cool the potential “gear lust” element to which it is so easy to succumb!
Dan
Great essay. Still I can’t help but be curious as to which of the three you chose. Would you mind telling us? I am going to guess from the type of work you do that you chose the Canon, but I could be way off. Thank you for these essays, and for your practical, insightful and wise perspective on what matters most in this wonderful world of photography and being a photographer. Good, practical, common-sense, experienced-based knowledge. It is refreshing and so appreciated.
Thanks for your comment, Donna, and for leaving a comment.
Since the point of this particular article — below which these comments will appear — was to try to suggest looking at gear choices and their effects on one’s photography from a non-brand-centric perspective, I’m going to not answer the “which do you use?” question here. Instead, I’ll answer this way. My friends and fellow photographers use just about every one of these brands and others, and they use a range of models from with each of these brands. They use everything from micro-four-thirds to cropped sensor to full frame to medium format (film and digital) and even large format!
Last year I had the opportunity to put together an exhibit of work I created during a winter artist-in-residency in Yosemite National Park. The curator asked me to use my photography for about half of the exhibit and then to nominate a group of collaborators who were also working with the subject to provide the other half of the work. If you had wandered the exhibit — a pretty nice one, if I do say so myself! — you would almost certainly not have noticed or even thought about the fact that work in the show was done with full-frame, cropped-sensor, and micro-four-thirds cameras from Olympus, Fujifilm, Leica, Canon, Sony, and Nikon. Once in front of the work, the brand and model of camera starts to seem pretty irrelevant.
OK, I won’t leave you completely in the dark about my own choices. But first, I’ve often told people that the reason I ended up with one of the two brands that I currently use is that when I made the switch to digital someone I know happened to use the brand that I ended up with. If that photographer had used another brand, perhaps I would have, too! I also have said for years that if I switched to a different brand that my photographs would still look essentially the same as they look now. It isn’t about the camera — it is about how one sees with the camera.
And, OK, some hints if you still want to know… ;-) You can easily look at the EXIF data of my files posted here to see what cameras they were photographed with. You can also explore the “Articles” page (see the menu bar) and you’ll quickly see lots of references to the gear I’ve been using. :-)
Dan
I thought it was widely recognized that the Holga is the best landscape camera available in the world today.
It was. Widely recognized. By three people. Back in the 1960s, I think. ;-)
But in all — OK, some — seriousness, there is landscape photography from the Holga crowd and some of it is quite interesting.
Dan
Pinhole.Camera. ;)
Can you get one with 80MP and 25 stops of dynamic range? ;-)