I recently started working for a company called LifeTouch. They operate quality portrait studios in J.C. Penney, Target and as stand alone studios in malls. The company has tens of thousands of employees and over a billion dollars in annual revenue. They are a model of a successful and profitable portrait business. They could afford the latest gear. So what camera is the "standard issue"?
A Nikon D2X.
Why does an industry-leading organization rely on a camera that is nearly 10 years old, one that some would say is mournfully obsolete? In this age when the camera manufacturers want you to upgrade on a 2 year cycle, and lots of enthusiasts claim they know what "pros demand", the reality is for a lot of professionals, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a solid business guideline.
That is what is important to keep in mind: pros are in business. Businesses must make a profit. Part of making a profit is to keep costs to a minimum. If a 10 year old camera can still produce 16 X 20 inch prints that customers will pay upwards of $100 dollars for (depending on the package) then why spends hundreds of thousands of dollars replacing the cameras with something newer?
As a professional photographer, I am regularly asked about my gear. It's interesting that when I tell people on forums of "enthusiasts" what gear I personally own and use for my concert photos, many of them scoff. I then question the scoffers as to how many photos they sell, what client(s) they satisfy, etc. This querie is usually greeted by silence.
By contrast, when I am on forums frequented by genuine working photographers, the prevalent attitude is while it's nice to own the latest gear, there better be a sound business reason for investing in it: unless your business is excessively profitable. A couple of new pro-grade bodies can be an investment approaching $20,000. Sure, that investment ends up being spread out over several years, but coming up with the $20,000 in an age where "pros" are advertising wedding packages for $100 dollars on Craigslist can be problematic.
So what does this have to do with my usual focus of this blog, which is to give (hopefully) helpful bits of advice to the average person using a camera (or smartphone)? It's setting the stage for one of the best bits of advice regarding buying gear I can think of:
Relax. The camera you have right now is probably all the camera you need for the foreseeable future, unless you plan on "upping your game" by delving into enthusiast level photography or going pro.
Yes, the marketing hype-and a lot of gearocentric enthusiasts-will speak volumes about how a camera with more megapixels or faster autofocus or a higher burst rate will improve your photography. Such a purchase may improve the technical aspects of your photography, but not necessarily produce photos that you really like better than what you are producing with your presumably old and outdated camera.
Even the legendary Henri Cartier-Bresson addressed the idea that a camera upgrade will improve photos. He basically mocked those who said "if only I had a better camera, I would take better photos" as the litany of people who in all likelihood hadn't learned to take the best photos possible with the camera they already have.
To improve your photography you may find it's better to invest some funds in books or photography courses first, then see if that results in your current gear limiting your enjoyment of photography or the quality of your results. I know of lots of people who invest hundreds or even thousand of dollars in new gear, only to show up on a forum complaining about or asking why their photos aren't as good as the marketing hype claimed they would be.
I'm a firm believer in pushing current gear to the limit before thinking about buying new gear. Yes, it is nice to purchase new toys, but doing so can also lead to the frustration of always thinking your photos aren't good enough because you don't have the latest gear. Pushing the envelope of your current gear first, to get an idea of what you really need in the way of new gear, is a much less frustrating option than spending a chunk of hard-earned money on new gear only to find out your photos are no better for the expense. That is one way to help expensive camera gear end up spending a lot of time in a closet, because you become frustrated with the lack of enjoyable results you expected when you took the bait and bought the latest and greatest camera.
My own cameras are over five years old. They fall short of the ideal specs for concert photography in many ways. I'm saving up to upgrade for the very reason that I have pushed my cameras as far as they are capable of producing images and functionally. New bodies really will let me produce better images both technically and aesthetically. But I am still producing marketable images with what I have.
There are times when you will reach the limit of what your current camera can do for you. That said, no one else can decide that for you. Some may try, but the reality of it is you are the one operating the camera and producing the photos, so only you can decide with any finality whether the camera you currently have is holding you back, or whether it's actually a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge can be remedied much more cheaply than buying new gear.
This relates back to some of my previous articles about composition and aesthetics. Pros really don't put as much stock on high ISO performance or uber-resolution from the latest high MP count sensor, except when doing work for which such capabilities are specifically required (such as concert photography or commercial work). If that's not the case, we are often content to use 10 year old cameras as long as customers keep paying for the photos we produce. It can actually lead to being less concerned about whether the camera is performing adequately and more able to concentrate on capturing quality, eye catching images. That is what photography at any level is really about.
No comments:
Post a Comment