Full Frame Furor? Look Smart(phone).

Nikon Z7 MILC, Photo by Nikon

Nikon and Canon recently announce their “Full Frame” mirrorless interchangeable lens (MILC) cameras, along with a few lenses. Reactions are mixed, from unrealistically enthusiastic to ludicrously negative. In the Micro Four Thirds camp (of which I'm a part) there was a near panic on some of the forums. 

 A lot of Micro Four Thirds users suffer from a gear angst and feelings of image inferiority already, especially at the hands of Canon and Nikon fanboys. For these folks, their one “ace in the hole” was certain advantages mirrorless has over DSLRs. For these people, having the two leading DSLR manufacturers enter the MILC race with Full Frame offerings is a direct threat to their gear of choice (more on why later). This angst was aggravated further by the rumor that Panasonic will be announcing a Full Frame camera on September 25^th.

Interestingly, while a panic-stricken contingent of Micro Four Thirds users are squawking like “Chicken Little” about how their preferred camera format is doomed, a number of Canon and Nikon owners are just as incensed about problems they see with the Nikon Z series and Canon R series. You'd think these cameras were abject failures to read some of the comments from disappointed camera owners.

It's all really a tempest in a tea pot, and something average people wanting to take the best photos possible don't have to take seriously. The vast majority of photos being produced and shared right now are taken with smartphones, and that number is increasing. So too is the quality of smartphone photography, both in overall capability and the resultant images. (Incidentally, the growth of smartphone photographic capability has fueled the angst felt by people using dedicated cameras, and common push back is to belittle smartphones and the photos taken with them. Don't listen to those folks.)

In the midst of this, “serious” photographers, or people who want to get serious about photography, may swear they must have a Full Frame camera. They must also have the best, fastest lenses to make the most of the Full Frame sensor. It's easy to drop $10K on a basic Full Frame kit, and still find yourself wishing for more.

Yet many of these Full Frame aficionados are producing essentially the same images they could get with the better smartphones. It's true, because much of the genuine need for certain capabilities of a camera depend on subject matter and shooting conditions, then another big aspect is “end use” (how the photos are displayed and why).

With some variation, about 70% of photos people make and share are taken of subjects that can easily be handled by any recent smartphone. The flagship models can handle even more situations.. One reason for this is because something like 90% of the photos shared nowadays are shared online, and most of those on social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram etc. Without going too deeply into the technical aspects of sharing photos online, especially through social media, suffice it to say that you don't need a Full Frame camera when it comes to image quality.

In fact, you really don't need any dedicated camera with a sensor larger than the better smartphones offer. Internet browsers simply don't offer the resolution and color space produced by even 1” or Micro Four Thirds sensors, much less Full Frame. The majority of people view said photos on smartphones and tablets, so high resolution isn't a factor when viewing on such small screens.

For the great majority of people, Full Frame is overkill when it comes to image quality. So, why do certain people clamor about it (in both positive and negative terms) in nearly obsessive ways? Various reasons.

They claim they need the lower noise and wider dynamic range that Full Frame offers, even though neither are really a factor in how other people may enjoy their images. For pros, this may be a bigger factor than amateurs, but not nearly as much as some Full Frame enthusiasts claim.

They claim they need the higher resolution to produce the sharpest images. See what I said about about browsers and how most people view images.

They talk about shallow depth of field and “creamy bokeh”. This is a complex subject and despite the talk of certain pundits, Full Frame is not a cure all for those desiring shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh. Knowledge of photography, specifically the variables that affect depth of field and bokeh, is as much a solution to the issue as gear.

They cite how “real pros” use Full Frame cameras. OK...so how does that justify spending thousands of dollars to take photos of pets and petunias that end up online in galleries only a few people visit? 'Nuff said on that one.

These are the biggest reasons people give as to why they “need” Full Frame. Really, it comes down to that they want it, not need it, and often it has more to do with ego and bragging rights than actually producing the best possible images. In my experience, only a small percentage of Full Frame owners are able to take full advantage of the format.

In fact, I'd say that in terms of IQ, most ILC owners I have seen could get by with one of the latest smartphones. There is some real justification in situations where smartphones still fall short, such as fast action, very low light, or the need for very wide angle or longer telephoto lenses. Even the bokeh argument is becoming moot as smartphones have come out that use computational photography, and even multiple lenses, to reproduce the depth of field and bokeh effects that Full Frame offers.

Why is it some people have to justify their desire for Full Frame by citing technical advantages, and why the angst involving whether or not a Full Frame camera makes the grade? Because a lot the most vocal camera owners invest much of their sense of worth and accomplishment as photographers in the gear they own. They bought into the marketing hype that they must have a given camera to produce professional level images, and that is what they fancy themselves doing.

I've found, however, that many of these people haven't taken the time to learn how a pro actually produces those marvelous images Full Frame fanboys say they need their cameras to produce. So they subject the world to an assortment of high resolution, low noise photos of pets, flowers and their kids, as though we all are going to look as closely at the technical aspects as they do.

We don't.

Sure, they have the right to own whatever gear they want. Buying Full Frame gear helps the manufacturers' bottom line, which can go toward making lower tier, smaller format cameras more affordable. You know, the ones that most people haul out for birthday parties or soccer games when they know their smartphones aren't quite up to the task. The cameras that make up 85% or more of total ILC sales. The cameras that many owners find they are using less and less as smartphones become more capable.

What's the bottom line I'm getting to? Don't buy into the current furor about Full Frame cameras, whether positive or negative. At least don't let anyone convince you you need a Full Frame camera. They probably don't need one: they just tell themselves that because saying it's just that they want one seems less impressive to those who don't know any better.

The fact is, that if you want longer lenses, or better capabilities when it comes to capturing fast moving subjects or low light events, any ILC or MILC made within that past 5 years will be a huge advantage over a smartphone. If you find yourself wanting a Full Frame camera, however, right now is a great time, because the choices are expanding greatly. This means that not only are there more choices, but also that older Full Frame cameras are going to drop in price, and that more used models are going to start showing eBay and Craigslist.

The Moment In Between

The Ronstadt Brothers. CSPS Hall, copyright Eyeguess Photography 2017 

Most people who are serious about photography have at least heard of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He was a master photojournalist who popularized the concept of “The Decisive Moment'. That's an instant in time where the elements of a photograph-the positions and action of the subjects, the lighting, all the other factors-are captured in a way that makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. It's an ideal behind journalistic and spontaneous photography that most aspire to and on occasion achieve just right.

In sports it may be the moment a bat strikes a ball or a receiver snags a pass with his fingertips. In wildlife photography it may be the moment a bee alights on a flower or a grizzly bear snatches a leaping salmon in mid air. In photojournalism it may be the moment a soldier is truck by a bullet or a flaming building explodes. Whatever the case, we see such photos and are duly impressed by the image. They encapsulate nearly everything we expect from photography: capturing an instant in time in a way that can impress it upon memory indelibly and eternally.

I'm not going to talk about “Decisive Moment” photos because that's been done. A lot. By photographers and critics more experienced, knowledgeable and skilled than I am. Instead, I'm going to talk about “The Moments in Between”. That is, photos that fall into place before or after what people would consider “The Decisive Moment”. Sometimes these photos actually work better than the ones that show the expected result of a “Decisive Moment” capture.

As I mentioned, most people seek “The Decisive Moment” because it's what they are looking for. It's what they think the viewer wants to see. For working photographers, it's certainly what an editor or client is willing to pay for. They are “money shots” because most of the time they capture the essence of an event.

Sometimes, however, it's what happens between the peak of action that can help a viewer better connect with the subject of a photo or the event captured. Sometimes what happens before or after “The Decisive Moment” can be more visually intriguing than the moment itself. I remember a photo I saw years ago of a lion that had just missed catching an antelope and was trying to regain her balance as she slide in the dust.

Or it may be something that happened in a different spot than the peak of action. On a regular basis we see photos of a defender who slipped and missed coverage, laying on the field in disgust, watching the completed pass result in a touchdown or a goal being scored.

This is part of my own approach to performance photography. Some of my better photos are of moments in a show that are not peak moments. Sure, everyone loves to see the leaping guitarist or the singer at the height of emotion. That's not all there is to a concert though. I've been on stage many times, and can tell you that there are times when a performer drops into a certain zone. There may be a band, or entire orchestra on stage, but the musician is lost in the music, and there's only his/her self and the music that exists at the instant in time.

It's these “Moments in Between” peaks of action that I actively seek to capture whether I'm shooting musicians, dance or theater. To me, such images can say much more about the human beings on stage than peak action photos. They can give an insight into the art of performing as well. By freezing seldom considered, transitory moments from a performance, people get a chance to study that moment, and consider, perhaps all that goes into bringing music, dance or theater together into the shows people love to see.

Take the above photo of The Ronstadt Brothers in concert at CSPS Hall in Cedar Rapids, IA. A second before, and a second after, this instant, the musicians were each either looking at another band member or the audience. Yet in this image, they are all absorbed by the music, by their performance. To me, it evokes the feeling I often felt on stage of having the world just fall away and all that existed was the music I was making, and how it was meshing with the music others were making that I heard in the background.

These are sublime moments which every musician recognizes are the key to making beautiful music on stage. Yes, it's important to remain cognizant of what other players are doing, and work together to ensure everything comes together as seamlessly as possible. However, the reality is that ultimately, playing music is about self. No matter how much cooperation there is on stage, each musician is still ultimately trying to fill his own world with the best music he can create.

To me, a photo like this one captures that feeling almost perfectly. A juxtaposition of people both isolated and working in close concert to produce beautiful music. It's a feeling that's hard to describe for those who've never performed music on stage.

So, while pursuing ideals of “The Decisive Moment” is a worthy (and to some extent vital) goal photographically, it's important to also think about the “Moments in Between”. I'll readily admit that the “hit rate” of such images can be lower. Often such captures do indeed look like “missed it by that much” photos that should be mercilessly subjected to the DEL key.

Mercilessly, but not too quickly. Take enough time to study the elements of such photos to see if they tell a story that a “Decisive Moment” photo doesn't tell. That's often the measure of true success of a photo, telling an effective story, a unique story. Sometimes that story is best told by an image that might otherwise be overlooked in the rush to produce eye candy that everyone expects to see.

The "Secret" to Better Photographs?

If left to the marketing people from various camera manufacturers, the key to making great photographs is to buy the latest cameras they have to offer. Sure, you may have done that a couple of years ago, but that camera no longer produces photos as good as its replacement. They even have lab test data and professional endorsements to back up that claim.

The situation isn't helped any by the thousands of “experts” on various photography websites who claim they must have certain camera features to produce the best photos they can. Certainly better high ISO performance can help produce clearer low light photos. There's no doubt that better auto focus speed and accuracy can help with sports or wildlife photos. The question is whether these make for better images.

By that I mean: does the image you are viewing strike a chord with you? Does it resonate in some way that evokes certain emotions or thoughts? Does it leave you thinking about what you viewed even after you have stopped viewing it?

These are important questions to ask yourself when considering what a “good” photograph is. Granted, for most situations, what people are really looking for is an in-focus, pleasantly-composed image that captures the moment for future viewing. The fact is that today, smartphones can do that for about 75% of situations. For those times when things like long lenses or high frame rate or high ISO performance are needed, even 5 year old dslrs and milcs can do more than most people really need.

A visit to any photography websites with public forums (such as dpreview.com) will demonstrate that many of the expert hobbiests and enthusiasts who take great pride in the quality of their bleeding edge gear are taking photos that could be done just as well with cameras 5 or even 10 years old. For that matter, when it comes down to showing on the internet or average sized prints, smartphones from the past couple of years have more than enough output.

There are a lot of average, even mediocre photos being taken with the latest, top quality camera gear. So why aren't these photos really good, or even great, given the cameras used are supposed to give that level of result?

Because the people using the cameras are looking to the wrong source of real “goodness” of their photos.

“It's not the camera, it's the photographer” is a common phrase, and fundamentally it is the great truth behind producing the best photos. Laying aside certain obvious technical limitations or requirements, it's the mind behind the making of an image that counts the most. This involves both the technical understanding of how cameras work in conjunction with light and shadow, color and form, but also the creative spark that drives a person to produce photos to begin with.

There's no secret to learning to produce good, or even great photos. Having suitable gear and learning to use it well is the easy part. The thousands of technically great, but aesthetically uninspiring photos out there prove this. What is often overlooked is inspiration. By that I mean having a sort of photographic muse, a reference point from which you assess your own efforts at achieving the best, most-satisfying photos you can.

That inspiration comes from other photographers (or even painters). Any photography instructor worth his/her salt will tell you to look at the work of as many notable photographers as you can. Study their images. Pick the ones you find most inspiring, those images that make you think “I wish I could take a photo like that” and find out how it was done. Pick a few favorite photographers and learn about them: their lives, their techniques, why they produced the sort of images they did.

I say this because in a recent discussion on photography, I cited two well known sports photographers. Someone replied that he had no idea who they were as though they must not be that good if he didn't know about them. Granted, he may simply not have enough of an interest in sports photography to know of any famous sports photographers, but his ignorance is only one of many examples.

This ignorance of past masters a problem I see a lot among photographers today. I see people talking about how they can't produce certain images because their gear doesn't focus fast enough, or doesn't have a high enough burst frame rate, or the high ISO performance isn't clean enough, etc. The fact is that in the past none of these technical limitations prevented photographers from producing classic, iconic images.

That's why I say the “secret” to producing the best photos is to study past masters. Immerse yourself in their images. Let the thoughts and emotions you experience looking at them dominate your thinking. Bask in the emotional, aesthetic aspect of the photos for a while. After you gain some understanding of what the photograph makes you think and feel and why it does, then start considering the technical aspects of the photo.

The average person relates to an image based on the emotional impact it has on them. Most people don't look at an image and immediately think about what lens was used or whether it's suitably sharp or how bad the high ISO noise level is. They judge a photo by an emotional response that occurs within about 3 seconds of viewing it. It's mostly the gear-oriented enthusiasts who first think in terms of technical qualities of a photo.

My own “first inspiration” came from W. Eugene Smith. Since then I've added many photographers to the list of those I study, but he was the first whose photos made me really stop and think about how, and why, I wanted to produce images similar to his.

I can guarantee that if you spend more time studying the photos of great photographers than you do visiting “how to” websites or forums populated by self-proclaimed experts, your photos will improve. This is because you have to know what great photos look like in order to try to accomplish the same thing. Here's a good website to get you started:

Digital Photo Mentor

(Normally I would recommend the Masters of Photography website, but it appears that no one is maintaining it lately and so a lot of the images don't even load).

They May Not Be Professional Photographers.

“Professional Photographer” is an amorphous term. To some, it means a person with an above-average ability to produce photos. You know, Cover of Vogue, 2 page spread in National Geographic, Antonio Brown leaping for a TD pass kind of pics. "Professional Photographers" are the ones who know how to consistently produce images that leave the average person in awe of the skill required to do so.

However, some people who already produce above-average photos-but don't make a living or even get paid for doing so-insist that a “professional photographer” be defined only as those who earn more than 50% of their income from photography. Some of these folks seem to insist on this definition as a way of making sure people realize that they produce “professional quality photos” but they just don't get paid enough to be called professional.

In my experience, most of this type of person use their preferred definition to put down others (“He's not really a professional, so he's no more an expert on photography than I am”). The result is that this income-based definition shows up a lot on photography forums as a method of trying to win arguments rather than be helpful when the subject requires it.

Myself? I learned not to poke the hornets' nest. I let those who insist on that definition have their way. I use “working photographer” to refer to people who are earning some sort of income from their photos, but not making a living from photography (such as myself).

The problem with talking about "professional photographers" is that the average person doesn't think in terms of income percentage when it comes to deeming someone a “professional photographer”. Most people are going to assume that if a person puts up a website and/or has a Craigslist ad, and charges for their work, they must be a “professional photographer”. Reality demonstrates that a number of people charging for their work may be making decent money at it, but don't really have the skills associated with being a “professional grade photographer”.

Think in terms of a local garage band versus a Grammy-winning group. The guys in a local band may be making ends meet from their gigs and CD sales, but that doesn't mean they are on the same level as U2. Most people understand that distinction when it comes to music, but not necessarily when it comes to photography.

I think that's because most people have an easier time telling great music apart from good music, but less so when it comes to photography. While an out of tune singer can literally cause people pain, the photographic equivalent (flawed composition or technique) in a photo often isn't noticed by the average viewer. Those flaws are, however, noticed by experienced photographers. That's what contributes to the arguments about what constitutes a “professional photographer”.

A person will represent himself on a forum as a “professional photographer”, all the while admitting he has only just recently “gotten serious” about photography. I've even seen posts such as “I just started in photography and want to know how much I should charge for a wedding?”. These are often from people who only recently upgraded from a smartphone or point and shoot camera by purchasing a entry level dslr and a couple of kit lenses. Sometimes they been able to buy “pro grade gear” such as a full frame dslr and a higher tier lens or two, but usually they are really out there trying to do “professional photography” when they really are still in the stage of learning the craft.

NOTE: I have nothing against beginners who buy gear with the goal of eventually becoming pros, as long as they realize there is a process that can take years to reach that point of competency, depending on the genre. Yes, there are people who pick up a camera and have a natural talent for photography. That's a rare situation, not a standard by which to decide to start charging people money for photos.

To me it's inordinately selfish to put at risk the memories of a once in a lifetime event because the person trying to be hired for the job lacks the skills and experience to do a truly “professional” job of it. I don't care if that person's friends all told him that he takes “really good” photos and “should be a professional”. That's like telling the guy who is good at scoring touchdowns in a community flag football league that he should turn pro. Yet that is essentially how some people decide to “go pro” as photographers.

My point, (and I do have one), is that not every “professional photographer” is truly a professional. The people hiring some of them are at risk for having weddings, portraits and events poorly documented as a result of the lack of experience, knowledge, and even equipment, on the part of the “professional photographer” they hired.

When I mention gear I'm not necessarily saying that a “pro” must have top of the line cameras and lenses (in fact having better quality lenses is often more important than the camera body). I'm talking about things such as strobes and/or lighting equipment, reflectors, stands for all these lighting items and numerous other accessories that contribute to those “wow” type photos that people see on the websites of the best photographers.

Sure, the best pros may “fix it in post (processing)” but that's only if there was a problem during the shoot. They know how to get everything right before they even capture the image.

Remember, my definition of “professional photographer” includes a level of skill and experience that helps ensure they are providing photos that really stand out compared to the efforts by non-professionals.

So, without further ado (and with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) here is my “They may not be a professional photographer” list for your consideration:

• If he offers to give you all the photos they take on a CD without editing or limiting the selection to the best photos, he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she charges drastically less than other photographers for the same job, yet offers more photos, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he thinks a “keeper rate” of 10% is good, he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she says he's a “natural light photographer” and really means that she doesn't know enough about strobes or reflectors to use them, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he takes over 100 photos during a simple portrait session, and lets the client sort through all of them to choose favorites, he may not be a professional photographer (hint, posing someone can take as much as 50% of the time during a session, so rapid-fire captures is not a good thing. A 15 to 20 solid photos from a 30 minute session is “standard”).
• If she doesn't have clients sign a contract, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If he has only been “doing photography” for a short time (like only a year or two) he may not be a professional photographer.
• If she has prints done by any place other than a lab that offers professional grade services, she may not be a professional photographer.
• If his website has a lot of photos from only a couple of jobs, rather than a variety of shoots and subjects, he may not be a professional photographer.

Anyone is free to charge for their photography. Anyone is free to pay people whatever they want to pay (or can afford) for photography. Some people simply can't afford $800 for senior portraits of $2000 for a wedding. I get that. However, photography is one of those “you get what you pay for” industries. Photographers who charge premium prices are producing results that warrant those prices. People who advertise on Craigslist at rock bottom prices would be charging the higher prices if their skills and results warranted it.

My point here is that if you can afford a $2000 photographer but decide to go with a $200 photographer to save money, you will not get the results you really want. On the other hand, if you can only afford $200, then be careful about who you hire.

On forums I frequent I am constantly seeing posts of photos by people wanting critique. A lot of people respond with “Oh, nice shot” or “great lighting”. Then there are those of us who will say things like “That pose is bad, her head should be tilted back a bit more” or “you cut their legs of right at the ankles: that's unnerving to viewers”, or “the lack of catch-lights make her look like she has shark eyes”. Even something elementary such as “her left eye is out of focus because you used to large an aperture”. These are all things that a truly professional-grade photographer knows about, looks for and addresses before even releasing the shutter.

I'm a teacher at heart, so I love offering feedback. What I don't love is finding out that some pretty mediocre photos are from a paid session, and someone is actually accepting money for photos that I would send to the trash bin. As a working photographer, I have a responsibility to give clients the very best.

If you're looking to hire a photographer, or some “professional photographer” is trying to offer you advice, consider some of what I've said here. I hope that if you do, it might avoid some headaches.

Photography "Experts" Listen to Them, But Don't Listen to Them.

Deciding on which camera to buy can be tough. Between website reviews, youtube videos and the comments by “experts” on various photography forums, it's easy for a person to become baffled by the plethora of factors cited as reasons for buying any given camera. Even the reasons for buying the exact same camera model can vary widely, depending on the “expert” expressing the opinion.

These “experts” range from gearhead fanboys who vociferously promote and defend their favorite brand, to aloof, elitist artistes who sniff at the very idea of discussing specifications because “it's the photographer, not the camera”. Then you will find that 80% of people offering opinions fall somewhere between these 2 extremes. You'll also find that about 80% of these “experts” really don't know as much about photography as they want people to think they do.

You know what I think?

All these people are wrong.

All these people are right.

How can that be?

Because people are wonderfully diverse in how we approach life, view the world and what makes us happy or sad. What puts smile on one person's face causes another to frown. Why else do we have hundreds of different flavors of ice cream?

Photography is a lot like ice cream. Some people like it basic vanilla or chocolate. Others want pralines and cream or even more exotic flavors. And some want to mix scoops for even more variety. I don't hear someone who likes Ben & Jerry's “Truffle Kerfuffle” being told that her choice of ice cream is wrong because Vanilla Fudge Swirl is better. (Then again, I don't visit ice cream websites and forums, so maybe arguments about which ice cream is best are just as heated as arguments about cameras?)

The wonderful variation in human preferences is why both the gearhead fanboys and the elitist artistes are wrong, and right, in their assessments as to what is, or isn't, the best camera to buy. The thing is, that if you like camera gear for it's own sake, and you get enjoyment from knowing the specs and owning a camera that you feel is the best thing going, enjoy that. You deserve to. Don't let anyone tell you you are wrong for being a gearhead, or even a fanboy. Just don't think you can tell others they are wrong for not agreeing with your reasons for and love of the gear you choose.

Are you an artiste who really doesn't care that much about gear, as long as it allows you to take the photos you want? I genuinely salute you for that. You know what you like or love about photography and that is a good place to be. Don't let people put you down because you are more concerned with the photos than the gear that produces them, but don't put others down for their love of the gear itself.

Everyone loves photography for different reasons. Photography is a hobby that allows that. I know people who take outstanding photos with old, antiquated cameras. I know people who own the same cameras who never use them for photos, because they love them as collectibles. I've seen mediocre photos taken with top of the line cameras and lenses, and I've seen breathtaking images produced by smartphones. And vice versa.

The reality is that despite the pontificating of gearhead fanboys and elitist artistes, most people really just want a camera they can pick up and take the best photos they want to take. Best doesn't just mean technical quality: it includes photos that were easy to produce and share with others under a wide variety of conditions. The esoteric minutiae of sensor performance, high ISO noise levels or lens resolution really aren't a big deal for people wanting to capture memories of their kids' activities or a vacation.

Most people will be happy with a basic camera with a zoom lens that covers moderate wide angle to telephoto range. Such a camera doesn't even have to be an interchangeable lens camera (ILC). The “superzoom” or “bridge” cameras can more than handle about 99% of the situations the average person encounters when taking photos. In fact, for a lot of people a bridge camera is a better choice than an ILC because it offers one lens that covers a much wider zoom range without having to fiddle with changing lenses (although you can buy “superzooms” for ILC cameras.)

Statistics show that even among those with ILCs, most photos of general subjects are taken between the 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 24mm and 200mm, which just happens to be around the common zoom range of kit lenses. Some would argue that is because people just use the kit lenses that came with the cameras, but a counter-argument is that kit lenses cover that range because long term statistics show that is the range most general subject photos are taken in.

Even among those who upgrade to premium lenses and/or buy addition wider angle or longer telephoto lenses, most general subject photos they take still fall within a certain range. There are certain genres which require focal lengths that fall outside this “average range of course. In my concert work, about 40% of my photos are taken in the 200mm to 400mm EFL range. That's because a tight close up of a singer whose 20 feet away requires the longer focal length.

What I'm saying is that most people who buy an ILC will be happy with the standard and telephoto zooms that come with the basic kit. Or, a bridge camera (currently these cameras have EFL ranges from about 24mm to 400mm or more.)

You need to remember that the people who present themselves as “experts” on their blogs and on forums are not the type who just want good pictures of the events they record in their lives. They've even gone beyond the idea of a “casual hobbyist” who likes to stroll around with a camera taking photos of what interests her. They are people who consider themselves “serious photographers”, meaning that things like pixel peeping for sharpness or noise, and wanting premium quality lenses, is of utmost importance for their enjoyment of photography.

That's important for them, and they can't be faulted for that. But it may not be as important for you, and you can't be faulted for that either.

The guy who wants the best equipment to take razor sharp, low noise photos of his cat to make 20x30 inch enlargements for his living room is no more of an authority on what other people should buy than the lady who is fine with slightly blurry photos of her cat taken with her phone. He's only an “expert” to other people who want to take razor sharp, low noise photos of their cats and have big enlargements made from them.

One problem with some of these “experts” is they crave the satisfaction of seeing others follow their advice (even if it doesn't really apply) and so have their own decisions and sense of self-importance validated. That is, in fact, how they end up gaining reputations as gearhead fanboys or elitist artistes: they like to tell others what to do, rather than listen and just offer their opinion in a friendly manner.

My advice is to only heed people like that if they are in fact talking about some aspect of photography that you are going to pursue yourself. If you want high quality images of your cat, by all means listen to the guy who uses pro quality gear for his cat photos. Otherwise, feel free to pay no attention to what he's insisting the the best camera, period, because he's only speaking from his own limited milieu. If you start asking him about what's the best set up for taking photos of your child playing soccer that are just going to be shared via Instagram and Facebook, he's probably out of his element.

Even talking to someone of common interest, they should also be discussing how you are going to use the photos. A sports photography who is paid for work that's published in magazines and websites must offer images of a higher technical standard than someone shooting personal sports photos for his Flickr site or Facebook. While an amateur should feel free to buy top of the line gear the pro uses if he wants (and can afford) it, he should also realize that it's not necessary for his end use. What's necessary for him is what gives him satisfaction with his photography, from using the gear he enjoys using, to how the photos look

When it comes down to it, the decision on gear is yours, and should be based on what you feel happy about doing. Ask advice and compare opinions, but don't let anyone tell you what you must buy. It should just be a matter of people telling you the advantages and disadvantages of a given piece of gear for what you want to do and what gives you enjoyment, not what the “expert” prefers. That's because when it comes down to your enjoyment of photography, no one is a better “expert” about that than you are.

Get Yourself a "Nifty Fifty".

“Nifty Fifty” is the pet term photographers have for what is often called a “standard lens”. That term resulted from 50mm lenses being the lens that usually came along with 35mm rangefinders and especially 35mm slrs. The term “standard” also refers to the idea that a lens in that focal length range closely approximates the angle of human vision. In other words, a photo taken with a standard lens is going to look most like what you remember the scene looking like when you viewed it with your naked eyes.

“Nifty Fifty” came about because the lens is, well, nifty. It can be the most inexpensive lens you can buy that still offers top optical quality. It's often small in comparison to other focal lengths, relatively fast so it can be used in a wide range of lighting conditions, and is free of some of the idiosyncrasies found in other focal lengths.

It can also be the best lens to use if you want to really work on your skills when it comes to composition and “photographic seeing”. It's almost counter-intuitive that a lens which gives photographs a “normal” look can force you to look beyond the normal into what makes for an effective photograph.

An added benefit is that unless you buy a fast, premium grade “Nifty Fifty” the lens can also be very lightweight and compact, lending to an easier walk-around kit to carry with you more often.

Keep in mind that 50mm is the “Equivalent Focal Length” of a variety of lens types. That 50mm is “standard for Full Frame cameras such as the newly announced Nikon D850 and other cameras that have sensors the same size as a 35mm film frame. If you are using APS-C, then a 35mm lens is going to be closer to the “Nifty Fifty” range due to the crop factor. For Micro Four Thirds it would be a 25mm lens.

At this point you may be asking why bother with a fixed focal length (prime) lens in an age were zoom lenses offer outstanding quality and versatility. Why deal with having to walk back and forth to get the right framing when a twist of a zoom ring can do the same thing more quickly and easily?

Technically, there is the fact that a typical standard prime is at least 1 stop faster than a zoom lens covering the same range. If you're using a kit zoom, which typically has a maximum aperture of f3.5 to f4, your talking about 2 stops, maybe more. That is enough to make the difference between a messy, blurry shot in low light and one that is clear and lower in noise.

Also, that larger aperture is going to lend itself to the shallower depth of field and out of focus background that is a popular aspect of portraits. So if you want to achieve that look without paying a lot of money for fast zoom lenses, a 50mm EFL lens is a good way to get started.

Remember I said the “Nifty Fifty” is a good lens to use if you are wanting to hone your skills? Those few seconds it may take you to get the right framing may also lead you to think a bit more about how to make sure the photo turns out best. We live in a fast-paced world and our cameras are designed for that. However, there are times where the best photographs result from taking some time to previsualize the final result, and even whether or not the photo is worth taking.

That's one of my main reasons for recently buying a small, fully manual 25mm f1.8 lens (50mm EFL on my Micro Four Thirds cameras). I've started a personal project that is intended to expand how I “see photographically” and explore new territory when it comes to the sort of images I want to produce and sell. It's a gem of a lens made by a newer company called “7 Artisans”. Right now they only offer 4 lenses, but it looks like they tapped right into the recent trend of offering small, manual prime lenses with solid performance. (The 7 Artisan lenses are only available for certain mirrorless systems right now, so if you own a dslr you will need to take advantage of the many good lenses available from other companies.)

As I walk around with this lens, I take more time to really look at things I am about to capture with my camera. The very act of taking the extra time to focus and make exposure adjustments also gives me time to look at what is in the viewfinder and consider how it's going to look as a photograph. This has led to me being more thoughtful in choosing and composing photos. I'm finding myself deciding not to capture some scenes that I would have just grabbed in the past and then decided in post processing whether the image worked or not.

It's taken me back to the old days when I could only afford so many rolls of film a month and so had to make sure every shot counted.

The lens also has its own “look” that is subtly different from my premium grade zooms. Part of this is the 12 bladed aperture which gives almost perfectly round out of focus highlights and introduces a star effect on light sources even at large apertures. A lens like that promotes a particular style, and that's actually what I'm looking to do.

Whether you own Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji or any brand of camera (whether digital or film) you should invest in a “Nifty Fifty” if you haven't already. If you have one and haven't been using it, dust it off and try going on photo forays with just that 1 lens. It may be a bit frustrating at first, but eventually you'll find yourself doing a lot more “photographic seeing” than simply trying to capture a nice photo.

Do You Really Need a "Pro Level" Camera?

For as long as I've been seriously involved in photography (40 years), manufacturers have evoked the idea of professionals and “professional results” for their cameras. This applies even to lower tier and even entry level models. For instance, when I was shopping for my first 35mm SLR back in 1977, Canon had ads touting the AE-1 as being used by professionals. Did that mean the AE-1, a camera with decidedly beginner-oriented features and price, was a “professional camera”? It was used by professionals.

What is a “professional camera” anyway? Perhaps a more relevant question is “Who really needs a professional camera, and why?”

During the film era, when both entry level and flagship cameras alike used the same film and lenses, the pro cameras were the ones with the most features, greatest durability and highest price tag. They came with features such as motor drives, interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens, a wider range of shutter speeds and in some cases, better metering systems and a plethora of accessories. They were designed to help professional photographers produce images under as wide a variety of conditions and situations as possible, and provide reliable functioning despite physical abuse and hundreds of thousands of shutter actuations.

They didn't actually take better pictures though. A $200 SLR used the same film and lenses as a $1000 flagship model. Often, amateurs bought pro cameras because of the allure of the camera itself, not necessarily because their photos would turn out better. Marketing people were very aware of this and worked the angle as much as possible.

Things changed-a bit-as photography progressed from film to digital. For years, a pro level camera body could indeed have a sensor system which produced better overall image quality under a greater range of lighting conditions than lower tier cameras did. It could legitimately be argued that a Nikon D2 would give better results than a Nikon D60, because of a much better sensor.

That performance gap has narrowed over the years, even to the point where “full frame” sensors are now available in cameras that have a price point that was unheard of 10 years ago. Apart from that, sensor technology has improved so much that the differences between tiers within a system, and even between m4/3, APS-C and FF have become marginal in most shooting situations. As a result, the idea that a pro level camera will produce better-looking photos no longer applies to most situations.

The fact is that right now, a $400 entry level camera can produce images that are good enough that most people can't tell them apart from those taken with a $5000 flagship model.

So why do pros still invest in pro level cameras, if the photos look so much alike. The answer is the same reasons why pros bought flagship models during the film era. Durability/reliability and features.

Here are my own reasons for choosing the top of the line (at the time) Olympus OMD EM-1 over less expensive Olympus models, even though the sensors were essentially the same.

• Shutter construction. The shutter is rated (unofficially) at 200,000 actuations. While for most people, this represents years, or even decades of use, for me it's more like 3 to 4 years, and that because I use 2 bodies for my work. Will the camera suddenly fail at actuation number 200,001? Of course not. But this spec tells me the camera is built to last a longer time than a camera rated at only 100,000 actuations, or not rated at all. (My lower tier 4/3 bodies were showing their age at less than 100K actuations.)

• Overall construction. The EM-1 is machined from metal and weather-sealed overall. It feels very solid in my hands, giving me confidence that it's meant to take a beating that lesser cameras may not survive. What does the weather-sealing do for me? I was shooting an outdoor concert when it began to rain, hard. The performance continued, and I kept shooting, because both the camera and my lenses were designed to keep function in just this sort of situation.

• Control options. The EM-1 has a dial around the shutter, a thumb dial, and about half a dozen levers and buttons I can customize to perform various functions. Instead of having to dive into a menu to perform functions such as switching auto focus or exposure modes, I just toggle a lever or push a button.

• Legacy-friendly features. My go-to lens for about 80% of my concert work is the Olympus 50-200 f2.8 to 3.5 zoom lens. It's made for the older 4/3 system. Used on lower tier m4/3 cameras, if focuses pretty slowly. Because the EM-1 was designed with pros in mind who would want to still use 4/3 lenses, I actually get faster AF now than when I used the lens on the lower tier 4/3 cameras I used to use.

• “What If” features. There are some capabilities of the EM-1 that I don't currently have much need for, but it's nice to know they are there. It has a PC socket, so if I ever find myself using older strobes which require a PC cord, I can do so. It also has burst rate up to 11 fps. I don't shoot sports, but every once in a while I do find that high a burst rate useful for a dance show or with highly animated performers.

This isn't my EM-1, but I have gotten mine this wet before. 

All these features considered, could I produce equally good images with the entry level EM-10 Mk2? Absolutely. In fact, some aspects of the IQ from that camera might be a bit better, because it has a newer sensor. The thing is, the features of the EM-1 flagship model make for a better workflow and shooting experience, as well as the confidence that I'm going to be able to use my cameras for years to come.

Now, what does all this have to do with the title of this article?

Simple: if a $400 camera can give you essentially the same image quality as a $1500 or even a $5000 camera, why spend the extra money?

The answer is that you don't really need to. With many manufacturers, things like weather-sealing, more than adequate burst rate and a plethora of features can be found on lower tier and even entry-level cameras. As far as my bullet points are concerned, consider these factors:

• Most people will find themselves wanting a newer camera with the latest features and best sensor performance long before their current camera is ready to retire due to usage.

• Weather-sealing is also more common now on lower tier cameras, and few people really need the level of durability that flagship cameras offer.

• Likewise, few people need the extended shooting capability that top tier pro models offer when it comes to low light capabilities.

• Unless you are an enthusiast or plan on getting that serious about photography, the basic level of control any camera offers is more than enough for most picture taking situations.

• Unique or rarely used features apply to unique or rarely encountered situations. Don't pay extra for a camera with a PC socket or ultra high burst rate if you are only going to ever use on camera or built in flash and 5 or 6 fps is more than enough for kids' soccer games.

The bottom line is that in about 95% of situations, those awe-inspiring professional cameras don't produce photos that look any better than the entry level cameras occupying the shelves at Best Buy or the “most popular” ranking on Amazon.com. In fact, I have some photos taken with my smartphone that I would have to “pixel peep” or look at the EXIF data to verify that they weren't taken with my pro grade EM-1.

Here's a “secret” to better photographs that seems to elude a lot of “experts” on which camera models to own for the best image quality. It's the lenses. For the most part, you're better off buying a lower tier camera and investing in better lenses than buying a higher tier body (as long as you don't need the sort of features discussed above).

Another “secret” is this: save some money on gear and instead spend it on classes or books about photography. That's how pros get to be pros. We learn how to make the most out of any cameras we have due to knowledge and experience, then buy the cameras we need to get the job done.