Sure,
I'm using the “wrong gear”. It's not “Full Frame”. Not only
that, my main work involves concerts and performances, low light
photography where “FF” is seen as the standard due to the lower
noise levels it offers at a given ISO. Some music togs get by with
lowly APS-C rigs, which in some cases are not too bad compared to FF
kits. Yet, alas, I use Micro Four Thirds gear (m4/3), with a pitiful
sensor only one fourth the surface area of FF, and known to have
“horrible noise” at anything above ISO 400.
Well,
that's what the CW from a lot of “experts” would have us believe.
Of
course, there's another group of “experts” which declare that the
gear matters far less than the skill of the photographer, if at all.
While this group has a point, I think they are erring too far in the
opposite direction from the technocentric views of some of the FF
people.
Personally,
I think both group forget that using a given set of gear involves a
lot of personal, subjective choices involving factors other than
image quality. I know people who rarely use their high IQ FF camera
gear because it's a chore for them to use (size and weight is usually
the reason). I love using my
m4/3 gear, because if fits well in my hands, I like the feature set,
and enjoy the results. My reasons are all about ME,
and that's how it should be.
As
I see it, too many people with cameras are trying to live up to
expectations laid on them by “them”. “Them” being a sort of
self-sustaining consensus of what is the “best camera type” to
use, period. Not the best camera type for a given situation. Not the
best camera type for a given person. Just, “The Best”.
Using
anything is else simply wrong. To prove this, “they” cite “what
pros demand” or some other presumably irrefutable evidence that the
camera they feel is “The Best” really is best. The irony of this
is, pros demand what is the best camera for a given situation, and
for them personally. Their livelihood depends on satisfying clients.
However, the further irony is that the best, most successful pros got
their not because of their gear, but because of their personal style,
and to no small degree, their degree of hustle to gain clients.
The
result is there are pros using all sorts of “wrong” gear.
Photojournalists using smartphones. Fashion photographers using m4/3.
And, if you think about it, street photographers toting large FF kits
is, in essence, doing it wrong. Most of the time, street
photographers want to keep a low profile, which is why Leica
rangefinders were so popular during the “film era”. Essentially,
the “wrong gear” can go both ways.
So,
back to me and my “wrong gear”. The small sensor (in comparison
to FF) in my Olympus EM1s is only 16MP. It does indeed produce more
noise at higher ISO than FF cameras. If I “pixel peep” (view
images at 100% or greater) I can see there is not only more noise,
but less detail than if I were to make the same image with most FF
cameras. Do I care about the “lesser image quality” my camera
gear produces? Sort of.
I
care in that it's taken me a few years to develop a post processing
workflow to minimize noise while preserving detail. I do this so well
that people regularly ask how I get such low noise levels at ISO 3200
and higher with a camera that supposedly provides “unacceptable”
results above ISO 3200. I care because I love using my Olympus m4/3
gear so much that if I could find a FF system that offered the
overall size, weight and features that my current gear does, I'd
switch. Even though FF mirrorless camera bodies from Sony are about
the same size as my EM1, the lenses I would use are considerably
larger and heavier. To get comparable focal length coverage of my
current kit would involve over twice the total weight and a bag about
twice the size of my current main bag.
If
I did make the switch it wouldn't be to make sure my photos looked
like all the other photographers who use FF systems. I like
the way the images I produce with my cameras. So do those who buy and
use my photos. Compared to what most FF cameras produce in the hands
of other photographers, my images are grainier and have less dynamic
range. I'm fine with that because they look a bit more like the
Kodachrome film I adored when I first got started in 35mm
photography.
See,
I'm using the “wrong gear”, but getting the right results for me.
When I first got into digital photography, it was using a simple
Kodak z712is, which while limited in features, resolution, ISO levels
and dynamic range, produced gorgeous colors. That mattered a lot to
me. I want final images that please me,
and if others are pleased by them that's a plus.
As
for paying clients: as I pointed out above, paying clients are
attracted to the “look” a photographer offers, rarely considering
the type of gear they use to get that look. It ends up being more
about how the photographer works with light, posing, how his personal
vision of what he's shooting translates into the final image.
Gear
is the “best gear” if it facilitates fulfilling that vision
effectively and hopefully, in as efficient and enjoyable a manner as
possible. (Don't underestimate the “enjoyable” aspect. Enjoyment
in using gear contributes to the creative flow.) “Wrong gear” is
any gear that hinders photographers' ability to capture and produce
images which fulfill their vision.
Right
now, my gear does that. I am constantly reassessing things, though,
yet always end up deciding to stick with my system of choice. For
now, it's the right gear for me, though it could very well be the
wrong gear for others. Frankly, I don't recommend my gear to anyone
else seeking to do concert photography unless they really want to
save size and weight. That's because most people want to duplicate
the look they see top music photographers who do use FF produce.
Also, I doubt many of them would want to spend the time developing
the PP flow I use.
Bottom
line: the “wrong gear” is only wrong if you're using it for the
wrong reason, which comes from letting someone else decide how you
should pursue photography.
