Choose a camera for it’s shooting experience, not specs.

Every camera shopper has probably done this at some point. We all look at the specifications and are subject to the marketing geniuses at the camera manufacturers. XYZ feature is necessary to capture that image. The marketing of the camera manufacturers is so good. We’re trained to think that we need the latest features to take a good photograph. Somehow we couldn’t live without it before. Suddenly, I need this new, latest feature that I didn’t know existed until it was brought up.

The technical features barely matter. Every camera manufacturer markets the latest features. They do it well. They have tricked all of us consumers into constantly wanting the latest camera.

When I’m looking to purchase a new or different camera, I now consider older cameras. The older cameras provide value. Especially on the used market. However, I’m still drawn to the very latest features of the current generation. These new features have been presented as must haves. How could we possibly create pictures without the latest gear?

The last generation worked just fine to create some amazing photographs for the last 3-6 years, but it won’t work anymore? Why is that? Is it rational? — Probably not. (In reality, we’ve been creating great images for over a hundred years, well before digital cameras and 500+ points of AI assisted autofocus.)

It can seem like the chasm between the very latest camera and the last generation is vast. Especially if we’re later into the lifecycle of the latest generation. But it’s only because every other manufacturer has included and even trickled down the tech specs into consumer cameras over time. The last generation is now common place, and so instead of knowing that it can still be used to create great pictures, we act like just because it’s common for these features, that now they’re somehow not good anymore. But that could not be further from the truth.

These cameras took great pictures when they came out. That hasn’t changed. Our perspective of what a great picture is hasn’t changed because of the technical specifications of the equipment. It’s all a Fugazi.

I always liked the saying, “If someone is looking at your picture noticing the camera equipment wasn’t very good, then your picture is not good enough”. In other words, a good image won’t have anyone pouring over the technical details of the image.

An Experiment

If you want to see your own bias, try this: Any camera you’re currently interested in, think about that and the last generation. Which one do you really want? If you’re being true to yourself and money was no object? Do you want the last gen or the current one? How much more do you want it? If you’re like me, you’re definitely swayed to get the latest. Now of course you would get the latest since money is not involved. This isn’t always true, but that’s for another time. The best for the masses is not always best for you.

Now consider two or three generations back. Choose a camera at least 2 generations back. Now pick the camera it replaced. which one do you want? It’s a harder choice now, isn’t it? Unless there was a ground breaking upgrade between those two generations like dual pixel autofocus in video, you probably don’t care much. The difference between the two older generations is negligible. All cameras, even the cheapest ones have the common features that those two have.

As the cameras get older, the difference between the generations becomes more and more faint. They’re all old, and by today’s standards, inferior. But are they? Were the images captured with these cameras inferior back then? Did we just not know any better? Could I pick out a modern camera’s images between the older generation’s? Does anyone even notice that their favorite portrait and family photographer is using a camera 1 or 2 generations old?

It isn’t about the camera features

Quit reviewing specs. All cameras are good. You should be looking at the experience a camera brings you. Is it manual focus? Do you shoot action? Do you like chimping the picture on every shot? Maybe you do client work and need that? If you’re a hobbyist, which I’m betting most of us are, you probably aren’t in need of many of the fast turn-around, time is money features that keep getting built into modern prosumer and consumer cameras.

I’ll give you some examples.

I shoot a rangefinder now. My workflow is more methodic. I like the process. Expose, focus, compose. Or, if I’m capturing street photography, I’ll pre-expose, set a focus range, then all I need to do is compose. Sometimes I do it from the hip. I have to trust that I’m getting the shot. I barely look at back screen. This is the workflow that I like most of the time. I also like to shoot film, and I really like the process, so I mostly transfer the workflow to my digital shots as well.

I’ve also found myself acquiring new camera equipment and selling off other equipment based on my usage. I was picking up the best f1.2 autofocus lenses I could find. They came at a cost. Not just cash, but weight and size. I no longer wanted to lug it around. It’s not discreet, it’s heavy. I found myself leaving the heavier lenses at home more often than not. These lenses were top-notch, optically superior. But it didn’t matter. I kept choosing between two different, inexpensive Rokinon lenses that were 28mm f2.8 and a 45mm f1.8. Because they were both light and small. They didn’t attract attention to me. Just because they were technically inferior, doesn’t mean they were inferior. There are other factors that I obviously did not account for when I made the purchase. Convenience, portability, and stealth should absolutely be considered in addition to the other obvious attributes such as image quality, low light performance, and cost of lens.

I have been doing this with my cameras too. I definitely have been using my film cameras quite a bit more. The entire process just feels better. It’s more satisfying. It’s a forced slow down. It forces me to get the shot right in camera. I can’t save as much as I can in digital in post. If I underexpose the shadows, they’re gone. I don’t have 15 stops of dynamic range to pull them back. I’m forced to wait to review the photos. It’s nice to see how they turn out when I get the images back a few weeks later. This would be awful for anyone that needs quick turn-around, but I’m not that person. All my images can wait. The point is, even though I know I can get technically better exposures with a different type of camera, I choose the experience. It feels better to me. Since this is a hobby that I do for fun, I want to maximize my joy with the experience, not just the results. Although, I’d argue the results of film are better anyways. We can fight about it if you want. Seriously though, I shoot for the experience.

This is the experience of using the camera. I didn’t buy it because it made my client turnaround quicker, or guaranteed my clients’ would get a wide open shot with the eye perfectly in focus. No, because I don’t have clients. If I miss a shot, it doesn’t matter most of the time. I’m shooting because I enjoy it. Not because I need to capture that image. If I just needed the image, I could just conjure Dall-E from openai to create me one. But where’s the fun in that?