(Camera: Ricoh GX200)The title is meant to be an analogy pointing out why an expensive top-notch model doesn't suit photography tyros: they just don't have the skills to put the tool to the best use. That's where the entry-level models come in.
Wait a minute. Don't we all know this platitude full well?
So, how about if we say, these expensive top-notch models don't necessarily make for a sensible choice even for seriously experienced photographers?
The other day when going to work, the author was amazed at the sight of a teenager having an expensive Leica M9 digital hanging around his neck on a strap. Whao, what a dazzling flaunting of wealth! Honestly, that wealth-/ skill-level-flaunting mindset is prominent in a great number of photographers when they buy expensive cameras. But whether they are really skillful in the craft is another matter. A true story goes like this: a rich amateur photographer from Mainland China wanted to spend big on a Leica camera and the optical gear on his visit to Hong Kong only to find that, to his surprise and dismay, the M9 is a manual-only camera!
That person doesn't represent the typical photographer to be sure. But when an old-timer photographer goes into a camera shop and heads to the counter selling top-level, or semi-pro models – photographers with some five-year experience under their belt will likely do the same – what is happening in his head? Surely, his savvy choice is a natural result of being more discerning in the optical, colour and ergonomic performances of a camera. But it is very likely that he is hypnotised by the rave reviews for the "state-of-the-art" cameras promised to give the best for the images, and his ego. Probably, he is also compelled to stick with the big brand names or the top models with the largest group of professional photographer-followers to show that he is good too.
Fact is, as said in the postscript to yesterday's post, an increasing number of professional photographers are picking sub-pro level cameras as the regular working gear or back-ups. That speaks volumes for what the entry to mid-range cameras can do for the stunting results previously only possible (or was it really) with the higher-level machines.
Moreover, with the know-how to work with and around a camera's limitations, such old-timers and five-year photographers know more than they wish to believe that a cheaper model fitted with a better lens can actually make a difference. At the end of the day, it is the photographer's skills that count and a top-notch model is not really necessary to that end. Honestly, how many of us will in our shooting use the 1/8000s shutter speed (why not buy a much less costly ND filter if necessary), ISO 12,800 or the nearly 20 megapixel image for a commercial-poster-size print?
When choosing a camera, a more sensible equation may be:
the real worth of a camera (which is the = the benefits the user can reap from
amount of money you should spend) it pragmatically + financially
The more favourably it is titled towards the right side of the equation (i.e. the worth or $ spent < the benefits to be reaped), the smarter the choice you are making. Here, the financial benefit is factored into the equation because we could blindly follow the professionals' choice without seeing the point that their cameras make money, thereby adding weight to the right side of the equation! This factor in the equation can also become an incentive to make the buyers use the camera to make money – by joining competitions or whatever means – which is photography training in disguise.
Wait a minute. Don't we all know this platitude full well?
So, how about if we say, these expensive top-notch models don't necessarily make for a sensible choice even for seriously experienced photographers?
The other day when going to work, the author was amazed at the sight of a teenager having an expensive Leica M9 digital hanging around his neck on a strap. Whao, what a dazzling flaunting of wealth! Honestly, that wealth-/ skill-level-flaunting mindset is prominent in a great number of photographers when they buy expensive cameras. But whether they are really skillful in the craft is another matter. A true story goes like this: a rich amateur photographer from Mainland China wanted to spend big on a Leica camera and the optical gear on his visit to Hong Kong only to find that, to his surprise and dismay, the M9 is a manual-only camera!
That person doesn't represent the typical photographer to be sure. But when an old-timer photographer goes into a camera shop and heads to the counter selling top-level, or semi-pro models – photographers with some five-year experience under their belt will likely do the same – what is happening in his head? Surely, his savvy choice is a natural result of being more discerning in the optical, colour and ergonomic performances of a camera. But it is very likely that he is hypnotised by the rave reviews for the "state-of-the-art" cameras promised to give the best for the images, and his ego. Probably, he is also compelled to stick with the big brand names or the top models with the largest group of professional photographer-followers to show that he is good too.
Fact is, as said in the postscript to yesterday's post, an increasing number of professional photographers are picking sub-pro level cameras as the regular working gear or back-ups. That speaks volumes for what the entry to mid-range cameras can do for the stunting results previously only possible (or was it really) with the higher-level machines.
Moreover, with the know-how to work with and around a camera's limitations, such old-timers and five-year photographers know more than they wish to believe that a cheaper model fitted with a better lens can actually make a difference. At the end of the day, it is the photographer's skills that count and a top-notch model is not really necessary to that end. Honestly, how many of us will in our shooting use the 1/8000s shutter speed (why not buy a much less costly ND filter if necessary), ISO 12,800 or the nearly 20 megapixel image for a commercial-poster-size print?
When choosing a camera, a more sensible equation may be:
the real worth of a camera (which is the = the benefits the user can reap from
amount of money you should spend) it pragmatically + financially
The more favourably it is titled towards the right side of the equation (i.e. the worth or $ spent < the benefits to be reaped), the smarter the choice you are making. Here, the financial benefit is factored into the equation because we could blindly follow the professionals' choice without seeing the point that their cameras make money, thereby adding weight to the right side of the equation! This factor in the equation can also become an incentive to make the buyers use the camera to make money – by joining competitions or whatever means – which is photography training in disguise.
Comments