Sunday, August 6, 2017

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.






No comments:

Post a Comment