Photo: Time for a Camera Upgrade

It’s quite a time since I wrote anything for this blog’s occasional photo project. But I’m now looking to upgrade the camera, so what are my particular criteria for upgrading?

My trusty Nikon D70 has become a firm favourite. It has seen me move into the digital world with some confidence. These days the D70′s resolution of 6 megapixels is a little on the quaint side but this camera can still produce cracking 10 by 8 enlargements thanks in no small measure to an amazingly sharp kit zoom. But now it is time to upgrade and I thought I’d share my thinking on which upgrade path to take. Which compromises am I prepared to make and which decisions am I prepared to make?

The Megpixel Tyranny

One thing that I won’t be worrying about too much are megapixels. More more megapixels make a difference, right? Well, not necessarily. There are signs that the we are beginning to get a little wise to the megapixel hype. And it maybe that manufacturers are beginning to tone everything down not least because the recession has effected their development timetables.

There’s no doubt that since I bought my D70 sensor technology has come on in leaps and bounds. But a higher pixel count does not always make for a better picture. A smaller number of pixels can be more sensitive to light providing performance in poor light that would have been — literally — unbelievable five or six years ago. And the number of pixels on your camera means nothing when printing a standard sizes. on a 10 by 8 print, or a 12 by 8, more pixels simply cannot be registered by the printers. It is only when printing at far bigger sizes that the pixel count can make a difference. But prints at these sizes need to be very good and that means very expensive. even keen amateurs are likely to only use these services for a few, very special, prints.

Sensors with a high pixel density might make a great deal of sense if you crop you pictures a lot. A crop from a 24 megapixel image will look better than a crop from a 12 megapixel camera. But then why are people wanting to crop so often anyway? One of the skills of the photographer is to make the bets of their equipment. For me, quality means trying to get the best frame for a photograph when the photo is taken. Sometimes cropping is helpful, maybe even necessary. But all too often cropping is the sign of a lazy photographer!

One final thing about megapixel counts. Are they real? Controversial photo blogger Ken Rockwell wages a constant war against what he calls the Megapixel Myth. Also see his review of the Nikon D3x which it is claimed features 24 megapixels. Rockwell may not always be to everyone’s taste but he’s got a point here I feel.

So, if I’m not paying too much attention to pixels what am I looking to value?

Back to Full Frame

The new camera will almost certainly be a step up to full frame. This will be achieved at no little cost but for me its probably going to be worth it.

Full Frame simply means that the sensor gives a similar coverage to the old 35mm cameras. The image is captured over a bigger surface area and the focal length of lenses drops back to what it used to be. Currently Canon, Nikon and Sony are all offering several high end cameras that are full frame equivalents.

For me full frame has two distinct advantages. Firstly, the clarity of the viewfinder is far greater than under a DX format. everything is brighter, crisper and bigger. For those of us who’s eyesight is maybe not as sharp as it was this is a godsend.

Secondly, there is the issue of lens focal lengths. I’ve never really got used to the smaller 1.5 ratio lenses. I guess if you’ve come to photography recently you’ll think in these terms. Me, I like the familiarity of what I grew up with.

Under 55 mil a ‘standard’ lens was reckoned to be around 50mm in focal length. This standard gave you a photograph where perspective was pretty much unaltered. The 50 was an all rounder lens allowing you to shoot portraits and take reasonable landscapes. The equivalent lens for my D70 is a a 35 mm lens, which was a gentle wide angle in the old days.

My problem is that I rarely shoot at 50mm but I use this as a reference point for other lenses. I’m a bit of a wide angle fiend. Back in the days of my OM cameras my ‘standard lens’ was probably a 28mm although by the time I finished with it I was edging towards a 24mm. I think in these numbers. what on earth is the equivalent of a 20, 24 or 28? I have to sit and think to work it out! this may seem not much of an issue but we’ll see why it is more important in a minute.

Finally, compare a full frame camera of 12 megapixels with a DX camera of the same. The 12 mp on the full frame are spread over a wider area, can be better individual performers and that leads to that great ISO speed performance. While I like using a tripod much of my stuff used to be taken in the street, working quickly and in obtrusively. The low light performance of this machines is a real attraction to me.

Back to Primes

The other consideration for me isa move back towards prime lenses. I’ve said before that the most impressive thing for me in coming back to photography after a gap was the performance of zoom lenses; they are simply better than I could have imagined. But these full frame cameras really show up deficiencies in lenses.

The kit lenses that come with cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon 700are simply not rated as being that good. There are far better performers but these come at a hell of a price, probably more than I want to spend. By shopping around carefully I can probably buy 3 cracking prim lenses for the price of one of these zooms. And I’m not a photographer that is always changing lens.

But there’s another thing about zooms. I reckon that relying on zooms has made me take worse photographs!

This is most apparent in street photography. Stroll around the streets with a 35mm lens on your camera and you have the classic focal length used by many of the old greats. The wide angle allows you to effectively place the subject in their setting. But you do have to get close. I find that — using a zoom — I have a tendency to hold back and shoot from a distance. The angles are not as good or dramatic and the pictures simply not so good. They don’t engage the subject as well as that means less ‘life’ to the shots.

It is not easy to get close to your subject, especially when you don’t know them. But the uneasiness is most often in the mind of the snapper rather than in that of the subject. Zooms have encouraged me to stay back and not be so bold and I think the photos look less ambitious as a result.

The same is true, perhaps more subtly, in landscape. with one lens you have to take a little more time framing and getting the angles right. With a zoom you simply cut in. With primes I find myself getting lower and really making the most of angles; again the photos seem to me to be better.

I may well yet invest in a new zoom — I’m certainly not backpacking with a load of prime lenses. But on many day walks I’ll just take one or two primes with me and I reckon I’ll rarely good bored of the fixed length.

My great disappointment is that Olympus were not able to move into the digital world with real confidence and to preserve the use of their excellent Zuiko lenses. So, I’ll be buying new again but with the confidence that the new brand may well last. All Nikons, for example, can use every Nikon lens that has been made in modern times.

My lens choice will probably be a 20mm (which will be a ‘standard’), a 50 or 35 — although probably 35, and an 85mm mini zoo for portraits and people.

Maybe it’s just me but I reckon once I have made these back-in-time choices my photography will take a step forward again.

So, these are my choices. What do you other experienced snappers think?Anyone else thinking along these lines?

Of course, kit is no good without the inspiration to take photographs. I’m off to Brazil over New Year and I’m not getting quite excited about it, knowing that there will be a lot of photography to explore.

That’s the plan — at least it is at the moment!